Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 9

Love

What does "love" mean translated from Greek and Hebrew? Veronica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.220.176 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, translated from those languages, it means "love". You may be interested in reading our article Greek words for love, though. We don't seem to have an article Hebrew words for love. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See also wikt:Love, because Wiktionary articles include translations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, see wikt:love, because Wiktionary articles are case-sensitive, even for the first letter (unlike here). —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ATM machine and PIN number

Why do people say ATM machine? That just means automatic teller machine machine. Same with PIN number.03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

People who are aware of the "machine" contained in ATM are likely to say ATM only (as in our ATM article); those who are not are likely to say "ATM machine". It's only natural. For foreign words, we are very likely to be redundant that way, as we're are not aware of the literal meaning of the word. If you're interested in this kind of fault-finding, you can take a look at List of redundant expressions, a typical original research on Wikiepdia.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Redundant Acronym Syndrome syndrome. Foxhill (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

When in Los Angeles, be sure to visit The La Brea Tar Pits, fully translated as The the Tar Tar Pits. --LarryMac | Talk 15:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you like that, you'll love Hillhillhill Hill. Algebraist 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to see the Big River River. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Does it have an ABS system?" is another common one. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The "acronym common-noun" pattern can be legitimate in that the acronym serves as a tag to specify what kind of common-noun is under discussion. A sentence like, "The TCP protocol has various congestion control features" treats TCP as a specifier for what protocol you're talking about, and you could easily change it to "The SMB protocol ..." just by changing the tag. I think fundamentally it's the fault of the namers of the thing for not just calling it the "AB system/TC protocol/AT machine" or whatever since people are going to end up sticking the common noun on the end anyway. --Sean 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do Americans still buy "tunafish"? Matt Deres (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Chicken of the Sea, for example. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

V-words associated with anger

Vicious, vituperative, venomous, virulent, vitriolic, vilification, invective … there are probably others. Is it just a coincidence that all these v-words are associated with anger and aggressiveness, or is there another explanation? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vehement? AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've read (though I can't seem to find the source) that vocal sounds tend to gravitate towards words that match the sound's facial expressions. So when you make a "V" sound, you lift your upper lip into a bit of a sneer. When you make an "M" sound, you have a wider, more contented expression, hence the profusion of Mother/Mama/Madre/Mere/Mutter/etc. Likewise No/nyet/nie/etc. Whether it's a meaningful correlation or just noise isn't clear to me. jeffjon (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument here doesn't work. All of those v- words listed are of Latin origin, where they were pronounced with a /w/ sound. All of the "mother" words you listed are actually etymologically related, so it's not strange at all that they all begin with /m/ (although it is true that many, though by far not all, languages from around the world have a word for "mother" beginning with /m/). And the same is true for your "no" words - they all have the same origin etymologically, although in this case most languages around the world do not use /n/. Macnas (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A similar phenomenon is "gl-" words for shiny things: glisten, gleam, glint, glare, glam, glimmer, glaze, glass, glitz, gloss, glory, glow, glitter, and, er, glockenspiel. :) --Sean 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In German, nouns starting with "kno-" and "knö-" are mostly small and round: Knoblauch "garlic", Knöchel "ankle", Knödel "dumpling", Knolle "tuber", Knopf "button", Knorren "knot (in a tree)", Knospe "bud (of a plant)", Knoten "knot (in string or rope)". Knochen "bone" might count since some bones are small and round (like the ones in the wrist and ankle), and long bones like femurs and humeri are rounded at the ends. Knorpel "cartilage, gristle" is a little harder to fit into the category, but I suppose a lump of cartilage or gristle can be small and ground too. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this article on "Phonological Clusters of Semantically Similar Words". SaundersW (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, what a very interesting read that was. Even more interesting is that not a great deal of study has been done on such things, so three cheers (that's one each) to Messrs Firth, Marchand and Bolinger. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And if that was interesting, how about this comparison of dirty words in Chinese and English? Sometimes I really envy the things people find to study! SaundersW (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And one more reference for you where it is argued that all phonemes have connotative meaning. SaundersW (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no one has mentioned the article sound symbolism, though not a very good one?--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend chapter four, "the spell of the speech sound", from The Sound Shape of Language by Roman Jakobson and Linda Waugh. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> An excellent and very readable little book is Euphonics: A Poet's Dictionary of Enchantments by John Mitchell (ISBN 904263 437). The entry for V begins:

Vital and vigorous but vain and vicious.

Vitality is in words which relate to the Latin vita (life), vis (force) and vigor. In English are vim and vigour, vitality and velocity. The effect of V can be described as very vivacious. Like several other sounds V has a second, opposite meaning. In accordance with its relationship to the sounds W and F it is sometimes weak and flustured (German venwirrt), as in the words vain, vacuous, vapid, vague, vacillate, vagrant, vaporous, vertigo, veer, and vary.

Hope this is of interest. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Thank you all. These intellectual victuals have verily revivified me. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Phonestheme is a technical word for this concept. Steewi (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you call a list of movies, articles, etc. which won a certain award?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GA is an example of such a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.89 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, why is the word 'refrain' such a contradiction?

'Refrain' means to stop doing something. But as a poetic device, it means to repeat something again and again. Why is that so? Anajus (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)anajus

The noun and the verb are really two different words. The noun ultimately comes from a Latin word meaning "break again"; we "break" the song "again" to insert the refrain. The verb stems from the Latin word for "bridle". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For other words of this type you might be interested in Auto-antonym. There are more than I suspected. SaundersW (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

From that page...is the correct spelling "contronym" or "contranym?" The article says "...frequently misspelled as "'contranym,'" but then links to the wiktionary article wikt:contranym! Neither spelling is in Merriam-Webster online, and Google seems to favor "contronym." -01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmer Clark (talk • contribs)

The prefix is contra- before a consonant or contr- before a vowel. The ending is -onym. So "contronym" is the etymologically correct spelling. But in the end, usage determines correctness. --Anonymous, 01:55 UTC, January 10, 2008.

January 10

Names for the parts of a rasher of bacon in Spanish

I'm trying to think up some whimsical alternative names for regions in South America. I'd like to know what the various parts of a rasher of bacon (i.e. the medallion, the rind, (whatever the bottom part is called)) are known as in the Spanish language. Muchas gracias. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the various parts are called (never heard of them until reading this) but a rasher would be torrezno in Spanish. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank 70 for torrezno. I didn't know that word. I suppose in South America we'd just go for lonja, which is less specific. Medallion is easy: medallón. At least that's the term for beef's medallions. In regard to rind, I would say borde, but wait for a contribution by someone used to have bacon for breakfast. Pallida  Mors 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wet room"

This term seems to have gained currency in recent years, to mean a bathroom where the whole floor gets wet from the shower (and the water gets drained away, obviously). Personally, I abhor the term. It strikes me as reeking of snobbishness and one-upmanship. Just call it a bathroom, why don't you. Do I have a question? Not really. Just thought I'd mention it :) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you feel better now you got that off your chest, Richard. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't get all Angr-y about it. :-) --Anon, edited 05:40 UTC, January 10.

You're English, Richard, but you must be aware that our American cousins have long been misappropriating the word "bathroom" to mean what's called "toilet" elsewhere in the English-speaking world. But they also use "bathroom" to mean the place where people take a bath/shower. That might be justified if the toilet happens to be in the same room as the bath/shower, but surely this is not generally the case. Hence, having muddled the word "bathroom" for unnecessarily euphemistic purposes, they've created a need to distinguish the toilet-bathroom from the bathroom-bathroom. Maybe this is why "wetroom" has come about. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I dislike the use of 'bathroom' for any room not containing a bath. A shower's a shower, dammit! Algebraist 08:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard the word used this way before, when I saw it here the first thing that came to mind was a place where spooks would torture or kill someone, as in "wet work".... Vrac (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, if there's a bath/shower, then it's in the same room as the toilet. Thus there's no ambiguity in practice. Also, a wetroom, as you defined, is not merely the room where you go to take baths, it's a room that is a bath. Even if Americans reserved the word bathroom for the place you go to take baths, they would still need a word here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that apparently (in the UK) we now have reception rooms instead of sitting rooms.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Reception rooms also includes a study, ball room, smoking room and dining room. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just waiting until we have a word for the room with Swedish massages, Belgian pancakes, no gravity, and a Van Gogh painting. Also waiting for the room itself... — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing my luck I'd get Belgian massages, Swedish painting, no gravity pancakes and Van Gogh... Lanfear's Bane | t 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To disagree with Jack, in the U.S. a bathroom does include a bath and a toilet. If it had only a toilet it would be a half-bath (at least in real estate terms). And with only a shower and a toilet, a 3/4 bath. Is there a U.S. term for a room with only a bathtub? Rmhermen (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the house where my family lived in Rochester, New York, when I was small, there was a small room below the staircase with only a toilet and sink. We called it the "powder room", since it had neither shower nor bathtub. But it is true Americans refer euphemistically to "going to the bathroom" to mean excreting waste, even if there's no bathtub in the room where we go to perform the relevant bodily functions—and even, for that matter, if we don't perform them in any room at all. If I were the outdoorsy type and were hiking in the woods, I might announce, "I have to go to the bathroom" and then head behind a tree. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am an American, and I have never heard the expression "wet room". I have never seen the kind of room that I think Richard is describing in the United States. I have seen showers that wet the entire floor while traveling, for example in India. The room that I remember best also had what I would call a toilet. As a result, I found the experience of showering vaguely unsanitary. While I am on the subject of toilets, in American English, the word "toilet" refers to the porcelain fixture that receives human waste and that one flushes. The word does not refer to the room that houses that fixture. That would create all kinds of ambiguities. I'm not sure what word Brits and Australians use to refer to the fixture that we know as a "toilet" if they use the word "toilet" to refer to the room that Americans know as the "bathroom." If an American said, "I was in the toilet", people would be alarmed. They would want to know but would be afraid to ask how the speaker ended up in the toilet, whether it had been flushed first, and whether it was traumatic. It is not problematic to Americans to use the expression "bathroom" for the room that houses the toilet, because in American houses, the bath and the toilet are almost universally in the same room. (Typically, Americans refer to a room containing toilets, but not baths, in a public building as a "restroom"—admittedly another euphemism—or else as a "men's room" or "ladies/women's room".) I once lived in an apartment (flat) in San Francisco where the bath and the toilet were in separate rooms. Within the United States, this is an oddity, in my experience only found in some older buildings in San Francisco. For want of a better word, we referred to the room with only a toilet as the "W.C.", even though this is not a common American expression. Marco polo (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, the room is not called "the toilet". There are apocryphal tales of English visitors to America asking "Where's the toilet?" and getting the astonished answer, "In the bathroom, of course; where else would it be?" —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This must be an American peculiarity (I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course). It's certainly not unknown elsewhere for a bathroom to include a toilet; in fact, it's quite common; in fact, I have such an arrangement in my house (but I'm moving next week to a house where this won't be the case); BUT it's much more common in my experience for them to be in separate rooms. However, even if they're in the same room, if I say "I'm going to the bathroom", that means I'm going to either have a shower, or clean my teeth, or look for a Bandaid, or an aspirin, or comb my beard, or whatever. If nature calls, then it's "I'm going to the toilet". Not that I usually broadcast my intentions about such matters, but you know what I mean. There's an expression "the smallest room in the house", which is understood internationally to mean a small room that houses a pedestal/cistern, a toilet roll holder, a toilet brush, a window, and nothing else (except perhaps a picture depicting a pleasant, *relaxing* scene on the back of the door). If it were the international norm for the room to also contain a shower and/or a bath, then the expression not only wouldn't be meaningful to many people, it probably would never have been created in the first place. I'm reminded of the German composer Max Reger, whose letter to a critic of one his works read "I am sitting on the smallest room in the house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do Americans still ask where's the john? For me, The Wet Room sounds like a title for a movie : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Following up on Algebraist's observation: I think the "bath" in bathroom can be understood as from "bathe", the verb which, for the place of waste-disposal, leads back to a Latin word that might serve for the purpose in any English-speaking country: lavatory ( ex lavatorium?). LuckyThracian (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> See discussion of the various terms at toilet, washroom, and bathroom. Also notice that "lavatory" originally meant "place to wash", and "toilet" meant "getting dressed" (as in eau de toilette), so these two words also have euphemistic roots. British English is usually less euphemistic than American English, but not entirely so. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can recall, in my early, poverty-stricken days (unlike my current poverty-stricken days) staying in a hotel in Amsterdam with one of those "toilets down the hall", and the shower was a room, with a wooden door like any room, where you took off your clothes, hung them on a hook, then pulled a shower curtain around the clothes, then turned on the water. The shower got the whole room wet. But this was back in the dark ages ... the 70s. Corvus cornix_talk 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I first heard the term a few years ago at a gym -- the "wet room" is where the showers, sinks, steam room, etc. are. I now also own a wet room -- the toilet and the shower stall are the same place on my 16' Airstream trailer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct wording #2

This is somewhat of a follow-up to my previous question (above) --> Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Correct wording. This is in reference to the following article: List of persons who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards. This article lists all of the people who have won an Academy Award, and an Emmy Award, and a Grammy Award, and a Tony Award --- that is, people who have won all four awards. There are nine people who have done so. Note that some of them have won multiple awards, within the four specific categories. So, for example, Person X might have won 3 Academy, 2 Emmy, 1 Grammy, and 4 Tony Awards. Now, say that we want to place that list of nine people in chronological order in the following manner: who is the first person to win all four of the awards, who is the second person, who is the third person, ... who is the ninth person. What is a good English sentence, grammatically correct, that will communicate that thought? I tried this: "This list is arranged in chronological order by the date on which each artist received all four major awards." --- But that makes it sound like a person won all four awards on the same exact day. I also tried: "This list is arranged in chronological order by the date on which each artist received his or her fourth major award." --- But that doesn't sound right ... and, technically, is not right. A person can win 4 Academy Awards in a row. That fourth Academy Award would be his "fourth major award" ... and would not put him in correct chronology of when he won the fourth within the four categories of Academy, Emmy, Grammy, Tony awards. The best I could come up with is this: "This list is arranged in chronological order by the date on which each artist completed receiving all four of the major awards." --- but I think it could be done better. Any input? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

A guess: Can it be something of the type "This list is arranged in chronological order by the date on which each artist completed receiving four distinct awards."?Drowsydream (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The artists are ordered by the earliest date on which they possessed all four distinct awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"This list is arranged in chronological order by the date on which each artist qualified for it." --Milkbreath (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Does "distinct" really work, grammatically speaking? Isn't Tom Hanks' first Academy Award "distinct" from his second Academy Award ... even though they are both Academy Awards? Or are they not distinct awards? I'm unsure ...? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

"This list is arranged in chronological order by the date on which each artist had attained a set of at least one of each of the major awards" Rfwoolf (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input --- much appreciated! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Latin "v"

I've always been rather skeptical of the accepted pronunciation of the Latin "V" (or "u"). The "w" (double "u") sound is so weak. (I can't imagine Caesar saying "Winki".) Additionally, it seems not to have existed in the lingua franca, since the Romance languages, that I've encountered, have a "v" or "b" sound. Church Latin uses the "v" sound, right? Did a Greek, contemporary with the classical Latin, describe the sound? Have any Latinists challenged this?LShecut2nd (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Examine the classic book Vox Latina by W. Sidney Allen for discussion of the matter. If I remember correctly, it started changing towards [β] (in at least some forms of popular Latin) as early as the second century A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There is an article Latin spelling and pronunciation -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are Greek transcriptions such as Greek ouenetos for Latin venetus -- where the alternative transcription benetos presumably belongs to a later period... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Greek transcription seems to cinch it, at least for Julius Caesar. LShecut2nd (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact that the same letter V was used to represent the vowels /u/ and /uː/ strongly suggests that the pronunciation as a consonant was "soft". Other evidence is the transformation of consonant to vowel as seen in the past participle VOLVTVS of the verb VOLVO. Caesar may not have been a VIMP, but he may have sounded like one.  --Lambiam 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the OP is right to doubt that Caesar said "Winki", since the 1st person singular perfect of vinco is vici, not *vinci. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so now we know who really invented the Wiki! :-) --Anon, 21:18 UTC, January 10, 2008.

The pronunciation is challenged, as can be seen here (about 1/3 of the way down) in Frances E Lord's book "The Roman Pronunciation of Latin". SaundersW (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting read. Pity he undermines himself with the profoundly ignorant claim, "the W sound is not only unfamiliar but nearly, if not quite, impossible, to the lips of any European people except the English". What sound does he think occurs at the beginning of French oui, Italian uomo, Spanish huevo, and Polish Łódź? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• whispers* I think Frances is a she! You are right, Angr, unless by "European" one means "those Europeans who don't use that phoneme". On the one hand one could quibble that the "w"s in those languages (or at least French, Spanish and Italian: Polish is outside my welkin) are subtly different from an English "w". On the other hand many of their consonants are subtly different from their English equivalents so the quibble is pretty meaningless. SaundersW (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also interesting that immediately below the nonconclusive lips argument the author proclaims: "X has the same sound as in English." eXactly the same as in Xylophone? What a XXX seXual luXury to have such a simple rule.  --Lambiam 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And that right after Xmas! —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC):::::::::SaundersW directed the reader to the Frances F. Lord book. In it we find: "But 'provincialisms' do not seem sufficient to account for the use of *[Greek letter: b]} for U consonant in inscriptions and in writers of the first century. For instance, Nerva and Severus in contemporary inscriptions are written both with *[Greek: ou] and with [Greek letter: b]: [Greek transliteration: Neroua, Nerba; Seouaeros, Sebaeros]. And in Plutarch we find numerous instances of [Greek letter: b] taking the place of [Greek transliteration: ou]." Possibly the Spanish "v" is the closest modern equivalent.LShecut2nd (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin Sentence

Please translate this sentence: Utrum anima suae naturali perfectioni relicta possit cognoscere Trinitatem personarum in Divinis. Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Whether the soul, having lost its native perfection, can recognize (or perhaps 'comprehend') the Trinity of persons in God." Not quite sure why "Divinis" is plural here, though. Is this the head of a quaestio in Aquinas? Deor (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is from a Quodlibet by John Duns Scotus. By the way, does Quodlibet have a one-word equivalent in English? --Omidinist (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Whatever" or "anything", or "miscellaneous"...it literally means "whatever is pleasing" and in this sense it just means he didn't think of a proper title. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes me think of 'potpourri,' Adam. :P - Dureo (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

looking for the word that means a test or trial

Instead of a trial run, I've heard of a mach, or moc run. Not sure how to spell it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlaros (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mock"? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "DZ" in Chinese/Taiwanese/Asian products

This may seem like a very weird question...
I'm busy looking at various manufacturers of vacuuming machines. Almost all of them are from China, and although all of the machines have different "manufacturers", the model numbers are strikingly similar:
(Here are the model numbers from 7 different manufacturers!!!):

1. DZ600/2S
2. DZD-400/S
3. DZQ-400B
4. DZD-500S VA-500s VAQ-400
5. DZ-300Z DZ-400Z DZ'-500Z
6. HD-DZ-400C
7. DZQ400A

What's also odd is if you do a google search for "DZ series" you will get a whole lot of part numbers across various different industries that all start with "DZ"
But what could it mean? Does it denote a standard? A Manufacturer?
Other examples are screw driver sets beginning with "DZ"
Here is the "Might USA Inc." brands of "Bridge Machines": DZ-3240 DZ-4240 DZ-5240 DZ-6240
Hitachi has a whole series of camcorders that start with "DZ"
There's a "DZ" series of breaks.

Any idea what this could mean?
I hope you don't mind me also posting this question in the Miscellanious Reference section. I will try remove one posting once I have an answer
Rfwoolf (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In Mandarin, dianzi (電子) means "electronic" (also "electrons" and "electronics"). Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that completely explains it, but thanks, it's the best I've got so far! Rfwoolf (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it beheading?

Deheading imo Bellum et Pax (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

be- is a catch-all prefix in Old and Middle English that means completely, away from, causation, etc etc. So it means "away from the head". De- is a Latin prefix meaning "away from", and the English word decapitation means exactly the same thing ("caput" being Latin for head). It would be strange to mix two roots from different languages, so therefore, there is no "deheading". Adam Bishop (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. The only other English word in common use today having that prefix is "bereave", to "rob away". --Milkbreath (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A thing if you are interested. The Dutch word "beroven" still means the same thing as "bereave". Daimanta (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think not mixing roots from two languages is more of a pendant thing than a real issue. Automobile mixes its roots, for example. If they needed a word today that meant beheading, no one would hesitate to use deheading. But the word "beheading" was probably created by people who didn't know Latin, and the word decapitation probably created by scholar-pedants who would have cared about mixing roots and were "improving" English by Latinizing its vocabulary. (I'm curious if what the OED says matches up with those assumptions.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The earliest citation for "behead" (actually "beheafdode") is from c. 1000 AD, and for "decapitate" 1611. These dates are far enough apart to put "behead" first. "Decapitate" does not appear to be one of those Latinesque made-up words, coming as it did from the French décapiter. They seem to be another of the French-English doublets. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Only one? What about betray, become, beget, behold, bestride, bewilder? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The "be-" in question means "away", unlike the other "be-"s. It is dead as a doornail in modern English. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bedazzle"? Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going by the OED. The "be-" in "bedazzle" seems to me to be the productive one we use all the time. (Love the movie, by the way.) --Milkbreath (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That'd be one of the movies. Never saw this one, but it couldn't possibly have been better than the original - Pete and Dud and Raquel Welch to boot, what more could one ask for!. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more of a pedant thing, myself, although there are places where the pedant pendant comes in handy. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 14:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

January 11

Completely unknown language

Say by some incredible coincidence earth recieved a transmission from an alien species- a recording of their language being spoken. What would we be able to tell about the language with no other information? What we would be able to tell if we recieved a written representation but no other information? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If we heard a recording of their language, we could conclude with a reasonable amount of authority that they communicate (at least in part) auditorily like we do. If we saw their writing system, we wouldn't be able to tell much more than that they have a writing system. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If we received a transmission that was purely auditory data, it would be a good indication that they consider an auditory recording to be an acceptable standalone means of communication. That is, they can use spoken language without visual or other clues and are likely do so. (It is interesting that human language is so purely auditory, despite the fact that humans face-to-face will communicate so strong in non-verbal ways. It seems quite possible that we could have evolved where purely auditory communication was purely a hack and real distant communication was done via video or writing.)

Likewise, if we saw their writing system, we know they consider visual media an acceptable means of communication. It would be interesting to see whether or not they use a black and white string of characters like most human languages--if they do, it would be an indicator they might use speech. (SignWriting, notably, is one of the few writing systems to be non-linear.) The number of symbols would give us a guess as to the nature of the writing system; alphabets tend to be small, less than 100 symbols, whereas ideographic systems tend to have thousands, and syllablaries somewhere in the middle. (A guess, but there would be a lot of guesses.) The amount of punctuation would make a huge difference; scriptio continua would be a lot harder to decipher than text with spaces and punctuation. If words could be split, we likely could separate content words from utility words (like conjunctions and articles.) Omnilingual has some interesting ideas on this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Given unlimited time and resources, would any level of deciphering be possible? I suspect not, but have seen movies and such where it happens (rather annoying me) - I have often wondered if my skepticism is valid. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends a lot on what we get. Even as fiction, Omnilingual really should be your starting point here; and it's not a bad story, either. If we get a context-less page of text, odds are we wouldn't be able to decipher anything. If we get enough text with some illustrations, I think given enough time we would be able to pull something out of it, even if most of it would be lost forever. However, if we get a introductory chemistry or math book, once we realize what the graphs are, a lot of stuff will reveal itself--as Piper points out, everywhere in the universe the elements go Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium. Dr. Feynman in one of his books discusses his deciphering of a Mayan math book. If we get a complete collection of Alpha Centuri's Dr. Suess, it should be pretty trivial. One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish alone would offer a good start.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the Voynich Manuscript may be an example of this phenomenon - given the large amount of apparent context given there, if it is indeed written in some language, then the failure to decipher it over the centuries would seem to point to the answer being "no." -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My favorite in the Message from Outer Space genre is His Master's Voice. Haukur (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If the transmission were an attempt at contact, and the beings were of sufficient intelligence to actually be trying to transmit a message that they knew another race would be unable to understand, the message would, more than likely, be something that would be easibly understandable ... a Fibonacci sequence, Pi in some sort of notation, something of that sort, just to establish contact, then they and we might start sending other information back and forth, like some sort of electronic representation of the Pioneer plaque. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already an (easier) example from history. People could not decipher demotic or heiroglyphic script until the Rosetta stone was found, and those were human languages. Deciphering an alien one would be a whole lot tougher. And unless they have faster-than-light communication or are closer than we think, two-way communication would be a tad slow. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Indus script and Linear A are examples of undeciphered scripts/languages. We're not completely in the dark on them, though. Both suffer from the lack of long texts. Hieroglyphs do offer long texts and would, I think, have been easier to decipher, even without the Rosetta stone. Haukur (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It always intrigues me to read that people assume alien civilisations that have the capacity to contact us must be fantastically more advanced than we are, yet would still fail to have the ability to give us a form of writing that we could reasonably quickly comprehend. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the original poster was wondering about an incidental recording of spoken language, not explicit attempts to communicate or make contact. Some people like playing this game with human languages. See this Language Log quiz Haukur (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If we had a video or a cartoon or something where we could have some visual references related to their sounds or writings then some educated guesses could be made, obviously with more possible accuracy depending on sample size, and completely unverifiable until we get a two way channel of communication wherewith to test our assumptions.

With just sounds or writings there's less we could get but that doesn't mean we can't get anything. There's more information in sounds but quite a bit in both. With sounds we can get a phoneme inventory and learn something about their physiology depending on what sounds are made and which ones are used more (many phonological rules are motivated by ease of articulation). With words we can learn a lot more from something that's physically written than something that's transferred electronically. If it's physically written we can see the materials and make inferences about the resources of the planet. We can also learn about the physiology by seeing how the strokes are made and the culture by seeing how the letters are organized and how economical they are in construction. If it's syllabic or alphabetic then we can try and figure out what some of the modifiers are. We can likewise try to pick out modifiers in spoken language and thereby get a sense of the organization of the morphology or even syntax, even though we probably won't have a clue of the meaning of any of it. -LambaJan (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordinata

What does ordinata mean in one word? It's a Latin title for some theological debates. --Omidinist (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally it would come directly from the verb ordino and mean simply set in order; it would be either a feminine singular, or a neuter plural of ordinatum (like my Greek-derived wikiname Noetica: I am, of course, neuter plural). Stelten's Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin gives no special meaning for ordinatum or ordinata. Does it constitute a title by itself, or can you give us a fuller title?

It is most likely something like ordinance, or statute; or, adjectivally, ordained or ordered.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As Ordinatio, it is the title of a book by John Duns Scotus, the theologian. --Omidinist (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordinatio is Ordination. Would that fit? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not ordination. Please look at this explanation in Britannica: [1]. --Omidinist (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordinatio is the root of our word ordination, but those kinds of words (an abstract noun formed from the past particle) did not really mean the same as their English derivatives, at least classically. "Ordinatio" could mean "an ordaining", or, apparently in this case, based on Britannica's note, "an ordering" or "an organizing" (as opposed to his lecture notes, which were probably less organized). It wouldn't be unusual for Duns Scotus to use ordinatio as simply "ordination" since that is the more likely medieval usage, but I guess Duns Scotus was a better Latinist than most medieval writers. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Omidinist, I asked above: "Does it constitute a title by itself, or can you give us a fuller title?" You have not answered that. Since you want help, please answer such questions. You have given us no context or source, except for another word that you did not enquire about.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry, Noetica. As I found out later, ordinata is an altered form of ordinatio. And ordinatio is the full title of a book by itself. Thanks for your care. --Omidinist (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If ordinatio means "revision", then ordinata could mean "something (feminine singular) that has been revised", or "things (neuter plural) that have been revised". It is the past participle of the verb that gives the noun ordinatio, most likely used as a noun.  --Lambiam 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

French "e" and English "s"

A lot of French and English words are quite similar, but the French starts with an "e" and the English starts with an "s", for example, école and school; état and state; étude and study, Étienne and Stephen etc. Does the English come from the French, or do they share some common etymology? Is there a reason for this pattern? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You have indeed noticed a pattern. Try looking up the Spanish equivalents of Stephen and school and see if that gives you any ideas. Haukur (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another hint: they don't start with an "e", they start with an e accent aigu. See French language#Writing system. (It was hard to find in Wikipedia, that tidbit about the history of French orthography.) --Milkbreath (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The basic reason is that they come from Latin (or Greek through Latin), which had no problem starting a word with the cluster "st-". When these words evolved into French and Spanish, speakers of those languages did not like that cluster, so an extra e- was added to the front to aid pronunciation. In Spanish it just stayed like that, but French evolved so that the middle -s- (formerly of course the initial s-) was no longer preferable, and it was replaced entirely by the e-. This didn't happen in all the Latin-derived languages though, as Italian still retains the st- cluster. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A similar thing happened, by the way, to the "-st" cluster in the middle of words; there the "s" disappeared and the preceding vowel got a circumflex: fête (feast), tempête (tempest), hâte (haste), hôpital (hospital). 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Italian: since there are inscriptions showing that words spelled with st- in Classical Latin were pronounced ist- in Vulgar Latin, it's more likely that Italian lost the initial vowel rather than that it never developed it. Evidence for this comes from the Italian word for "Spain", Spagna, which comes from Latin Hispania, where the initial vowel (the H being silent) was there to begin with, but lost in Italian. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also re Italian: s-impure masculine nouns (beginning with ps or s+consonant) take "lo" as definite article in the singular, and "gli" in the plural. "gli" is also taken by masculine nouns beginning with a vowel, and "lo" provides a vowel sound before the s-cluster. It's as though the language demands a vowel before s-impure. SaundersW (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In the singular, at any rate. The normal plural form of the definite article would have provided a vowel too. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The plural is behaving as though there is already a vowel. SaundersW (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an epenthesis. Pallida  Mors 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't; it's a prosthesis. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I award you an étoile for that. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, fascinating stuff. Thanks everyone! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Angr is right. It's a prosthesis. Loosely speaking, it's also an epenthesis. Indeed the article on epenthesis has an example regarding our discussion. However, Prosthesis is the restricted term to speak of these aditions at the start of a word. Pallida  Mors 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Commas in english

This is really bugging me. I'm not saying my english is perfect - I know it's not - but I see a lot of oddly placed commas around here. A few examples...

"Tachyons are exhibited in many novels of the late science fiction author, Frank Herbert"

"Their song, "Gardens of the Sinner", was featured in the rhythm game, StepMania."

To me, these imply that there is only one late science fiction author, and the band (Gamma Ray (band)) has only ever written one song, Gardens of the Sinner. Are the commas really supposed to be there? Thanks. Aeluwas (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that they seem to imply that there's only one rhythm game. Aeluwas (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Those commas are wrong for the reason you state. So that raises the question of why you haven't fixed them already. You've been around since at least May 2007. Be BOLD. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Fowler's Modern English Usage agrees with you, Aeluwas. It says "Omit the comma in such oppositive phrases as my son Jon." I agree too. --Heron (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the commas around "Gardens of the Sinner." They are just for parenthesis. Recury (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What I find wrong about that is that it begins with "Their song", as opposed to "One of their songs" or such. In any case, I'll be bold in the future, just wanted to make sure that I'm not actually changing perfectly good english! Aeluwas (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Their song, "Gardens of the Sinner", was... is perfectly correct as I was taught. I would not suggest correcting such things unless you want to provoke needless arguments. Rmhermen (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The commas in Their song, "Gardens of the Sinner",... are acceptable (but not obligatory) if they had only one song, or only one song relevant in the context. For example: Their song, "Gardens of the Sinner", came second to Solid Space's song. If they'd entered "Full Moon over Barcelona", they would have won.

Here commas would be unacceptable: Their song "Gardens of the Sinner" is the best they've ever done.

Suppose I have two sons: Albert and Bob. I should write My son Albert is a doctor. But I might write My son, Albert, beat your son at chess. Bob wasn't there, and doesn't even play chess.

[Heron, New Fowler's speaks of appositive phrases, not oppositive phrases. :) ]

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

@ Recury, parenthesis means the parenthetical bit can be safely removed without doing damage to the sense of the sentence. Does "Their song was featured in the rhythm game, StepMania", or even "Their song was featured in the rhythm game" sound OK to you? Sure, they're grammatical but do they tell you anything? Not really. Do they identify the song in question? Certainly not. Hence the words "Gardens of the Sinner" are not parenthetical but essential, and hence they should be written comma-free. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the context. "Their song was featured in the rhythm game" might be all the necessary information in the paragraph, and its title is purely incidental, in which case the commas can and even should be there. But if it's crucial that it was "Gardens of the Sinner" that was featured, and not some other song of theirs, then of course the commas have to go. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but it's not about parenthesis, it's apposition. I can't believe that this is turning into a controversy. The commas are just plain wrong. Some things are wrong, and these commas are an example of wrong things. It's exactly like "Bob's wife, Judy, was a real looker." Without the commas, Bob is a bigamist. There is nothing hard or mysterious here; it only takes a moment's thought. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your faith in the simplicity of the question and of language is touching, MB! (And I mean that in the nicest possible way, as Edna Everage would say.) Context often has a bearing on punctuation, and that includes the stylistic context of the whole sentence. On a point of detail: the commas are optional in Bob's wife, Judy, was a real looker, even if Bob lives his whole life with only one wife. The prevailing style would affect the choice to include or exclude them. Furthermore, recall that many people have more than one spouse in the course of a lifetime, and then the commas would clearly be wrong if it is necessary to distinguish Judy from the others. But to return to your assertion: The commas are just plain wrong. I assume you mean the commas in that original example:

Their song, "Gardens of the Sinner", was featured in the rhythm game, StepMania.

Well, this has been analysed above. Let's take a different angle on it. Set aside the comma after rhythm game, which is a separate matter. Suppose that "they" had produced a song, and a novel, and a play. Suppose that these three works have different names, and that all three are under discussion in the surrounding text. Then the commas would make perfect sense. In fact, it might be better to include them than exclude them. Context! As Aeluwas originally pointed out, there is a certain implication associated with those commas in this example, and when that implication is intended, the commas are indeed correct according to standard modern usage.

This is the problem with rules for punctuation: have too many, and they are unwieldy; have too few, and they will have exceptions.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're cool. I like your style of writing. But the fact remains that any copyeditor worth his salt removes those commas. The context is clear if you look at the page they're on, and if everything is optional, we might as well relax and blank the MoS page. And, by the way, it's unfair to assume ignorance of the importance of context, you know. Change the context to make the other guy wrong, and I'm always right? Nah, I'll stick to the facts. (I don't know Edna Everage, but you put me in mind of Edna Mode, who could say the same thing to good effect.) --Milkbreath (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're cool and clever! I admire your work. Some short remarks in reply:

• See Edna Everage, housewife superstar.
• We were given the examples without context, so we must judge them with respect to various possible contexts, rather than make a single one-size-fits-all ruling. I have supplied some contexts, and made tailored judgements to suit, ja?
• I too "stick to the facts"; but the facts are, regrettably, not simple.
• The world is complex and variegated. Spotty, even.
• Let's adjourn to my talkpage if there's any more to say, so we don't frighten the spectators.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, my New Fowler's (ISBN 0199690367) clearly says oppositive. Your version makes more sense, so perhaps my copy has a misprint. --Heron (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

...and now that I've read up on appositives, I would like to retract the 'perhaps' and say that my copy certainly has a typo. If only I had put in a [sic]! --Heron (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Heron, can you give me the name of the article in Fowler's that has oppositive, and any more narrowing information so I can track it down? (Page number also: but that will vary between editions and the various versions.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll reply on your Talk page. --Heron (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

January 12

definition

I was looking for a definition for mastery, and noted one was not available.

Lily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.61.150 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried looking it up in Wiktionary (wikt:mastery) ? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First meaning in OED: "1. The state or condition of being master, controller or ruler; authority, sway, dominion; an instance of this."

But this is more fun:

masterly

mastery

master

mater

mate

mat

at

a

(Sorry. Carry on.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you insist!

·

a

ta

tam

etam

retam

retsam

yretsam

ylretsam

(Really they should be right-justified, but I don't know a way to do that in wikitext and also align with the left-justified triangle above.)

--Anonymous and very silly, 05:15 UTC, January 12, 2008.

Finding a Word

Give me a word that means a psychological definition of sighting semblance of the happenings ,characters and many other things. Flakture (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Sighting semblance" might be perception as in the individual's perception of an event, persons or whatever – in connection to their subjective reception and organisation of external data. If not, can you be more specific? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually a specific perception that cause immediately judgement .for example: you're angry and it can be perceived from your face, then you turn and look at me, then I conclude you hate me so much. Flakture (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You might call that a "snap judgement", which often makes for a "false impression". --Milkbreath (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with French pronunciation

I am familiar with the Merriam-Webster phonetic alphabet and will use to ask my question.

Why is \i\ pronounced like \a\ in the French language?

Why is Chopin pronounced \'shō-pan\, not \'shō-pin\ or \'shō-pən\ ?

In other words, why does the vowel in the 2nd syllable of Chopin have the same phonetic sound as the vowel in the word ass?

Is there some pattern here concerning the letter i? Is i always pronounced \a\ in French?--71.107.218.211 (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, since that "a" is actually a nasal open-mid front unrounded vowel. It is pronounced that way whenever it is followed by an n (barring some special circumstances), a consonant that, in French, usually nasalizes the preceding vowel instead of having a sound by itself. There are rules concerning this matter which can help, however I think it's better to just get a French dictionary with proper IPA transcription and learn them through examples. --Taraborn (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To use your phonetic alphabet: pin=pan, pinne=pin, pinacle=pinakl, pince=pans. This is the pattern for i followed by n or m (all of them are real French words).--K.C. Tang (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The combination /oi/ in French is another case where, loosely speaking, 'i' is pronounced like an 'a'; for example in voir or Lavoisier. Haukur (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As Taraborn implied, Chopin in French is pronounced /ʃɔpɛ̃/ so the vowel is of men, not man (unless you live in New Zealand, in which case, man is accurate). A morphological rule in French leads to feminine/masculine alternations between /in/ and /ɛ̃/ as with dauphine/dauphin, argentine/argentin, brigantine/brigantin, etc. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

More generally, vowels in French as nasalized when succeeded in script by m or n. Here's the pattern:

Letter combination	Pronunciation in IPA	Explanation
am, an, em, en	[ɑ̃]	nasal "a" in "arm"
im, in	[ɛ̃]	nasal "e" in "men"
om, on	[ɔ̃]	nasal "o" in "bore"
um, un	[œ̃]	nasal "u" in "uh"

See also French phonology. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice table, though [œ] is not the vowel of "uh"; it has no English equivalant.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard French orthographic "im", "in" as the nasalized counterpart of the [æ] vowel in English "cat"; only French orthographic "ien" as in "bien" really sounds to me like the nasalized counterpart of the [ε] vowel... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I am french and I promiss you that I pronounce the first vowel in "impossible" exactly the same as the vowel in "bien". You might have heard people from the south, who pronounce "bien" as [biεn] or [biεŋ]. --Lgriot (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

All right vs. Alright

I'm a little confused...What's the difference between all right and alright? They seem to mean the same thing. --71.117.43.139 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All right is the only acceptable form in most formal writing, although alright is often seen in informal contexts. However, there is a slight difference in meaning between the two. Alright means "okay", while all right is a combination of the words "all" and "right". Compare the sentences The answers are all right (they are all correct) and The answers are alright (they are acceptable). Many, though not all, speakers (in the US at least) also pronounce alright and all right slightly differently in casual speech. Macnas (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Shittle

I came upon the word shittle a couple of days ago, which a dictionary says is an English variant of shuttle, and it got me wondering: Are there any other words in the English language that contain the spelling and/or pronunciation of a profanity yet mean something completely harmless? I am especially interested in words that contain fuck. Just curious. Thanks!--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fukuoka? Or how about Controversies about the word "niggardly"? --Sean 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Scunthorpe anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Titan? Does that count? --Taraborn (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Niggardly and harassment have profanities in them such that people avoid using the former term and may stress the latter term differently. Uranus has a similar situation though that's technically a naughty part not a naughty word. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Country"? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare was full of dirty words, all most innocently accepted in classrooms now, or glossed over. Hamlet tried to embarrass Ophelia by talking of "country matters". See Filthy Shakespeareby Pauline Kiernan (2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainyBabe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Clitheroe and Penistone may repay a visit. DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if we're allowed proper nouns there is no end to it. I vote for Dildo, Newfoundland. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of that great Henry Purcell opera: Dildo and Any-arse.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) For pronunciation: Suffolk. SaundersW (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

...and similarly, the name of a pub quiz team at my ex-local: "Norfolk 'n' Chance". DuncanHill mentioned Scunthorpe: see here for some relevant hilarity. And I must mention that while searching the Companies House database for something else a few months ago, I (ahem) came across the company name "Dick Seaman Farms Ltd". Hassocks5489 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in the first year of my Economics degree, our lecturer allowed us all "time out" to have a giggle at the Slutsky Equation. Also, I'm sure I've heard of popular-culture references to the similarity of Balzac and ball-sack. The footballer Danny Shittu has played more than 200 games in England. For spelling, does "mishit" count? Hassocks5489 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Compared to Norfolk, which - by definition - is the absence of profane procreative activities - Suffolk does sound a bit vulgar. The region mentioned by SaundersW certainly is not known for zero population growth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cummingtonite is beloved of geologists. DuncanHill (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would refuse to buy any products from Smeg on principle. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And maybe this guy should change his name. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more: some people practise Fukyugata; there was a German composer called Johann Fux; and there’s a Japanese ship called the Fukyu Maru (plenty of Google hits). Also, here’s a link to a forum that had a similar interest to what you’re after – [2]. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a cleaning product which sounds like a popular social disease, which can make asking for it in a shop a touch awkward. DuncanHill (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you allow wandering off to other languages, then there are some popular German lightbulbs whose brand name means "I will shit on (you)" in Polish. Despite this threat many of those lightbulbs do actually hang at the ceiling in many Polish homes. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. -- BenRG (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Another word I have seen fall foul of "de-swearing" software on forums is weightwatching or weightwatchers. Telsa (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A Polish air ace was giving a talk to a girls' school about his battles in the Second World War, and to the girls' delight he kept on saying "zis Fokker", "zat Fokker", "anuzzer of ze Fokkers". So the headmistress jumped in to explain what a Fokker was. But the airman quickly disagreed with her - "Oh, no, madam, all zese Fokkers was Messerschmitts". Xn4 16:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently the two candidates for leadership in Japan were Fukuda and Asoo... Steewi (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Calique?

Sorry if this sounds strange, but I recently recalled a word (somewhat randomly) that I'm pretty sure I've heard before, but for the life of me can't remember the meaning. My best guess at the spelling is "calique" (Cal-leek - as in the first syllable of California and then leek). It's really bugging me that I can't remember what it means, and Google & dictionary searches aren't helping. I think it has something to do with art (painting?) or music, ... or maybe with ancient Arabia/Persia, although I'm not sure. Any thoughts, or am I possibly just hallucinating words now? -- 128.104.112.236 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Calligraphy ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Céilidh (for music) or Caliph (Arabia)? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Calque? Caique? Calico? Calcutta? Oh Calcutta, the play of the play on words, a bilingual pun meaning "what a nice arse you have"? (Scrabble anyone?) BrainyBabe (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, mon dieu! You are, perchance, referring to "garlique", the franciphone onionesque rootiferous allium of pungent flavourescence. Indeed, it was used by Arabic painters of California leeks and peas :-)

I apologise to 128.104 for my occasional attacks of infantile oxymoronity. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Calyx... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind for me is cowlick. --Falconus^{p t c} 04:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Caliche? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Khalique, Kalik, or Kalik?---Sluzzelin talk 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

clique? —Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another wild guess, Cacique. Pfly (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Surname prefixes

Do the Romantic de/de ladi/du/, plus the Germanic von and van in front of surnames have a collective term? And 2 - are there any others? And 3 - why do people (especially Americans) not understand capitalisation rules that they shouldn't be capitalised unless starting a sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Fisher-Scott (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch use the term tussenvoegsel. Algebraist 00:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Dutch "van" is concerned, the rule is not as simple as "only capitalise when "van" starts a sentence." It should also be capitalised if the surname is mentioned without the given name (e.g. Van Nistelrooij, Mr. Van Basten). When the given name is mentioned as well, "van" should not be capitalised (e.g. Marco van Basten). These are the rules in the Netherlands. In Belgium, "van" in a surname is either always capitalised, under any circumstances, or never. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say these are all patronym prefixes? As are Mc and O'. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. As tussenvoegsel explains, many are toponyms. Many are noble surnames, as in de Medici and von Bismarck. Algebraist 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the term nobiliary particle is relevant - we have no article on it, but the term crops up in various places ([3]). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobiliary particle has a Wiktionary entry.  --Lambiam 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Would that include the Slavic suffix -ski which served more or less the same purpose in surname formation as de and von? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The French word is just "particule". --Lgriot (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

-ski/ska in Polish serves a similar "nobiliary" use as von in German but not as van and de in Dutch which is merely descriptive (John the young, Peter from Gouda, etc.) De in French may be nobiliary, I think. Rmhermen (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In Sweden, af is used. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As Algebraist indicates, the Dutch word "van" is usually part of a toponym. When there is more than one element in the toponym, however, it usually indicates notability. The surname "Wttewaal van Stoetwegen", for instance, or "Van Voorst tot Voorst". They refer to the lands over which the noble family ruled. For a full list, see the list of Dutch noble families. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

January 13

A request to review Zen

I cannot read Japanese or Chinese. Zen did not mention the Chinese term "Chan" or "Ch'an," so I added it. There are a number of words in other Asian languages that are certainly notable and the wiktionary articles on them seem confusing. I changed Zen to account for this, based on what I have seen. Please review it.

Also, from what I have read, Shin (see Shin Buddhism) is another transliteration of Zen\Ch'an, with Jodo Shinshu just being one form of this. If so, Shin Buddhism should redirect to Zen, with a disambig tag that mentions Jodo Shinshu. Zenwhat (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be best discussed at the talk page of the relevant article. There are some very good editors there, and this is a topic that is not easy to describe. Just because one term is a transliteration of another it doesn't mean the topics are identical. Also it's a good idea to use the preview button to check your edits rather than make lots of edits at the same time. See also Wikipedia:Peer review.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any substantial changes to Zen and have been slowly working on some stuff over at User:Zenwhat/Sandbox before putting it up. My question has nothing to do with content. I just want to know: Are the Asian characters used correct? Zenwhat (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin

Please translate this passage: et ne fiat contentio de nomine univocationis, conceptum univocum dico, qui ita est unus, quod ejus unitas sufficit ad contradictionem, affirmando et negando ipsum de eodem. Sufficit etiam pro medio syllogistico, ut extrema unita in medio sic uno, sine fallacia aequivocationis, concludantur inter se unum (Copleston, Vol. II, p. 502). --Omidinist (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"And lest there be disagreement about the word univocatio: I apply the term univocal to a concept that is one (unus) insofar as its unity allows for contradiction, by affirming or denying it about the same subject. It suffices, moreover, as the middle term in a syllogism, since the extreme terms so united by one middle, without the fallacy of equivocation, are between themselves enclosed as one." Deor (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I can just about struggle through the first sentence in its English form, but the second one has me stumped. I am sure the translation is excellent, but I have no idea what it means. Is anyone out there able to help me? Bielle (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider the syllogism

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The extreme (major and minor) terms—that is, the two concepts to be compared—are "mortal" and "Socrates". The middle term is "man/men", which, used univocally as it is here, suffices to "enclose" or "embrace" the extreme terms and produce a valid conclusion.

Now consider this one:

Man is a word.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is a word.

Because the middle term is a concept used equivocally (in one place as a word and in the other to refer to the thing the word denotes), it fails to unite the extreme terms.

More context would be useful in determining whether I've interpreted the Latin correctly, but that's my best guess. The changes the author rings on unus and uni- words are pretty much untranslatable. Deor (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, Deor. It is as clear as possible. Thanks so much. --Omidinist (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hound of the Baskervilles

In The Hound of the Baskervilles, what is the first name of Stapleton, the naturalist, or does he have none? Spencer^T♦C 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and if you get sucked in and die in a Moorland, would it be called "drowning" in a moor, like being drowned by quicksand? Spencer^T♦C 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For the fake identity, his name seems to be Jack Stapleton:

Stapleton had abandoned the chase and came back to us breathing hard and flushed with his exertions.

"Halloa, Beryl!" said he, and it seemed to me that the tone of his greeting was not altogether a cordial one.

"Well, Jack, you are very hot."

SPOILER WARNING: Of course, his real name was something else, as "He was a son of that Rodger Baskerville, the younger brother of Sir Charles, who fled with a sinister reputation to South America, where he was said to have died unmarried. He did, as a matter of fact, marry, and had one child, this fellow, whose real name is the same as his father's.". Not sure whether this means his first name was "Rodger", or whether "the same as his father's" merely refers to the surname. ---

Thank you, but I have a follow-up question. I'm writing an obituary for him in school, so should I refer to him as Jack Stapleton, Rodger Baskerville, Rodger Stapleton or Jack Baskerville? And I found the answer to my second question. Spencer^T♦C 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For his obituary, I would suggest something like "Jack Stapleton, (born Rodger Baskerville), schoolmaster, antiquarian and murderer, has disappeared and is presumed dead... " DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget to mention that he (and his wife, née Beryl Garcia) had assumed yet another surname, Vandeleur, before becoming the Stapletons. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference, questions like this should be placed on the Humanities reference desk. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"To Be"

Why is the verb "to be" so irregular in a lot of languages? For Instance look at:

Spanish: Ser (Edited) Ancient Greek: Eimi Latin: Sum

Is their some type of social/cultural importance to this irregularity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.52.92 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A similar question was asked a few months ago. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2007_October_9#Why_are_the_most_common_verbs_often_the_most_irregular.3F. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful, but is their any reason why the word "to be" is so irregular. I mean, considering it is one of the most commonly used human words, wouldn't one think it would be the most simple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.52.92 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article Indo-European copula referred to in the earlier discussion? Deor (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know if I can answer why, but it has been commonly observed in languages that the most common words are the ones most likely to be irregular. Perhaps their very commonness makes their irregular forms easier to remember, whereas uncommon forms tend to regularize because you're more likely to have to mentally "build them from scratch" each time you use them. Interestingly, although the verb "to be" is irregular in virtually every modern Indo-European language, it has been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European as a regular verb. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, ir in Spanish is "to go". "To be" is ser and estar. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this generalises to other languages, but in English the forms of 'to be' derive (according to the OED) from three originally separate verbs, meaning something like 'to be', 'to remain' and 'to become'. Algebraist 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, a number of languages pretty much lack verbs for "to be" and "to have" -- or to be more precise, many of the functions which are done with BE and HAVE verbs in Germanic and Romance languages are done in other ways. As far as a present-tense copula meaning goes, it's actually more common among the languages of the word NOT to require a finite verb form to be present to express this meaning. AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is disrespect a word?

I hear it so often, but is disrespect really a word? I found it in some online dictionary, actually quite a few, but I also found words like ain't and ya'll. My english grammer isn't the best, can you please tell me why it is or isn't a word. Thanks 70.49.119.82 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Jeff

All "what constitutes a word?" discussion aside, yes. As a verb, it means to not give respect, and as a noun, it means lack of respect, and it is appropriate to use in formal English. HYENASTE 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a word. Ain't and y'all are also words, they're just nonstandard. Strad (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe in weight of years in these matters, then disrespect has been in the language since at least the 17th century. Algebraist 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to Merriam-Webster, the verb form of the word dates from 1621, while the noun form dates from 1624. I wonder if somebody can provide citations from the OED, or something more detailed than m-w.com --LarryMac | Talk 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And the modern word "diss" means "disrespect" Sandman30s (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Night" and "eight"

My sister's ex-workmate's boyfriend told me that in every Indo-European language, the words for "eight" and "night" are similar.

• English: night - eight
• German: Nacht - acht
• Swedish: natt - åtta
• French: nuit - huit
• Spanish: noche - ocho

This does not extend to non-Indo-European languages:

• Finnish: kahdeksan - yö
• Estonian: kaheksa - öö
• Russian: something - something (right, so I don't know any Russian.)

Just these two words having a similar structure throughout the Indo-European languages, both the Germanic and the Latin branches, is incredibly bizarre. Is this genuinely true for all Indo-European languages, and if so, why? Is it some strange relation or just a coincidence? JIP | Talk 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Most comparative linguists accept that the Indo-European languages are all descended from what is referred to as Proto-Indo-European, and in that case 'coincidence' and 'bizarre' are over-stated. 'Night' and 'eight' started out close together and have retained their similiarities. Xn4 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Russian (ночь - восемь) is an Indo-European language. Old English had niht - eahta, Romanian has noapte - opt, Welsh has nos - wyth, and Slavic languages seem to be exempt. It looks like it's really specific to Germanic languages, Spanish, and maybe Italian. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In our alphabet, those Russian words are 'noch' and 'vosem', so evidently in Russian they have drifted farther apart. Xn4 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Italian: notte, otto, Croatian: noć, osam. It is beginning to look as though the words are further apart in Slavic languages than Romance or Germanic. SaundersW (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Greek: νύχτα, οχτώ (nuchta, ochto, my transcription)SaundersW (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese noite and oito. What is more interesting is that [t] remains in all of them, while [n] phases out of the Romance languages. HYENASTE 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ha, whatchoo mean "[n] phases out"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I guess I was trying to say two things at once. HYENASTE 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, according to Wiktionary, the PIE roots are *H₁oḱtō(u) (eight) and *nekw-t- (night). Algebraist 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to say that the Slavic terms have to do with something other than "drifting" apart. It's possible that the Slavic word for eight is not cognate with other IE words for eight. Consider that the only difference between Russian seven (semj) and eight (vosemj) is the "vo". Could they have lost the word for eight and then had to come up with a new one? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than loss, it could be that the original word for eight became (through regular sound change) too similar to some other common word, perhaps eye. —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. Think about English: won/one, to/too/two, for/four, sicks/six, ate/eight. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, восемь/vosem' is in fact cognate with "eight". In Proto-Slavic it was *осмь/*osmь. The /m/ came by analogy with the word *осмъ/*osmъ "eighth", since the ordinals for several other numbers were identical to the cardinal except for the final vowel (in the nominative singular, that is). Macnas (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

January 14

it can't be helped that there's a lot of it about

English without is the opposite of both with and within; the latter sense is now rare but I gather that it was once the only sense. What was the old opposite of with? —Tamfang (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact both senses had co-existed for a long time before one of them died out, according to the OED. The sans meaning is attested in as early as 1200.--K.C. Tang (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sans is definitely a French loanword. It's possible that some sort of cognate to German ohne was typical before sans came into regular English usage. But I'm just speculating. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My fault: I meant "without" in the sense of sans, not sans, is attested in as early as 1200, according to the OED.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that English is closer to Frisian than to German, it might be better to look for a cognate there. The Frisian word for without is "sûnder" (cf. Dutch "zonder"). Aecis^Brievenbus 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK, Aecis. Cognate with the Frisian is English sunder (verb, and earlier adjective, etc.); cognate also with German sonder[n], and a host of other Germanic cognates. As for ohne, there appear to be no English cognates. OED points out in particular that the prefix un- is not to be associated with ohne.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. Ohne is often ohn in older German texts, and not just ohn' for poetic reasons. Older texts also sometimes use the prefix ohn- where modern Standard German uses un-. Examples: ohngern for ungern (un-gladly or grudgingly), ohnverschämt for unverschämt ("un-coy" or insolent), or Ohnglück for Unglück (un-luck or mishap/disaster). So, if OED as referred to by Noetica is correct, I suppose this might be a coincidence due to German's pluricentral choices of spelling before its orthography was standardized? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Little Key, OED says (at "Un-, prefix¹"): "When un- is prefixed to present or past participles, these are rarely employed in a true participial function, but become adjectival in character. Examples of the present participle, however, occasionally occur with a following object, or with a prepositional construction; and in Scottish use, from at least the 15th century, un- in such cases has acquired the sense of ‘without’. More rarely, in the older language, it has the same sense with passive participles. Both constructions are still retained in north-eastern Scottish dialect, with the prefix in the form on or ohn, frequently written separate from the participle. (The spelling ohn is due to, or has led to, a false association with G. ohne without.)"

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

According to my copy of Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer, (9th Edition, OUP 1953, 1961 printing incorporating corrections from 1955 & 1957, p. 56), "butan" means "without, except", "binnan" means "within", and "med" means "with". I hope this helps. DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And wiþ meant "against". Deor (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And according to OED, bútan is the origin of modern but. One of the original meanings (similar to "without, excluding, apart from") is retained most strongly in phrases like nothing but the best. But has also been used adjectivally in the sense outer or exterior, so without in the spatial sense of that word. OED gives this example: "1862 R. H. Story in Athenæum 30 Aug. 270 He conducted me to the but end of the mansion."

The spatial and the logical overlap in many of our words. Without is just one example. Apart is another: "Apart from us, who'll be at dinner? O, Kylie will be there: but she always sits apart from the others."

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wiþ" meant "against"? So the Bush Doctrine would have been what? "You're either with us or wiþ us?" — Kpalion^(talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Not exactly, more like "You're either med us or wiþ us". No time for a full translation... Steewi (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also outwith, as an alternative antonym of within, though it is only used regionally these days. Rockpocket 07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

An Analytical Dictionary of the English Language (David Booth, 1830) mentions the Saxon butan (be-utan) and with-utan as partially synonymous as well. A choice in number of syllables is important to poets, and the "old English poets had, therefore, three synonymous words": sans (or saunz), without, and withouten. "The Scotch had also three, But, Farowt, and Forowtyn". There's more, including examples from Robert of Gloucester and Chaucer, on the pages I linked to. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

English phrase in telephone conversation

Hi! What do you say instead of "nice to meet you" when you "meet" (that is talk to) someone for the first time in telephone. I need to know this for a telephone interview for a job so the first impression would be very important. Advice on any other formal phrases that sounds polite would also be helpful (I'm not a native speaker of English). Thank you. Funsides (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You could say "Nice talking to you" or "Nice to talk to you" or "It was lovely speaking to you, [name]". If they called you, you could add "..and thanks for the call". At the beginning of the call you could say "Thanks for calling". But please note a lot of this is used 'casually' in English phone conversations, and it might sound weird if you don't do it right. So here is like an example:

Finsides> Hello, Funsides speaking

Interviewer> Hi Funsides, this is Mr Interviewer from XYZ corporation. Would now be a convenient time to do your phone interview?

Funsides> Sure, no problem. Thanks for calling. What would you like to know?

[AT THE END]

Interviewer> Well, that's all for now. Thanks very much for your time.

Funsides> No problem, it was lovely speaking to you.

Interviewr> Good bye

Funsides> Bye

Rfwoolf (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Which version of English does the interviewer use? Because what would sound OK in US Or Jamaican English might sound odd or even stupid in Australian or British English. - X201 (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. The interviewer is Dutch but the interview will be held in English, so British or American English. Perhaps I should say that I'm a guy and the interviewer a women. Funsides (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"It was lovely speaking to you" seems a bit too familiar to me, especially from a man to a woman in a job interview. "Nice talking to you" or "nice to talk to you" are more neutral while still being suitably informal (unless the style of the interview has been very formal, of course, though that is unlikely). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"It was good to finally talk with you" sounds fine to me, and would be parallel to "It was good to finally meet you". It might not be appropriate in an interview situation, unless you've corresponded with the interviewer in the past (by e-mail, say) but never spoken with them on the phone. 75.3.94.226 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you say "what did you say" in a polite way, when you don't hear what the interview said? "Come again?", "excuse me?"? Funsides (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, or better, "I'm sorry, I didn't catch that"; "I'm sorry, could you repeat that?"; "I'm sorry, say again" (note the theme of apology, making it clear you're not blaming the speaker for having marbles in their mouth, rather yourself for having cotton in your ears). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Get Fuzzy

Could someone tell me what it says on Rob's shirt in today's Get Fuzzy? link Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 13:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an alteration of Primum non nocere. Where the "primare" comes from, I have no idea, but the phrase in that form does get four ghits. Deor (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a CSI: Crime Scene Investigation fan site named PNN, so perhaps the shirt indicates that Rob is a devotee of the show. Deor (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rob is a vegetarian, so it could be something like, "Primate, do no harm", referencing the environment. Just a guess. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin Phrase

"mensurata ad mensuram, vel excessa ad excedens." What does it mean? --Omidinist (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for some context, as I see it on Google Books, Copleston says Scotus describes "creatures are to God as mensurata ad mensuram, vel excessa ad excedens". I have no idea about the philosophy behind this so I'll refrain from trying to translate it and adding to the confusion. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mensurata - the things measured - ad mensuram - to the measure - vel excessa - or the things exceeded - ad excedens - to the thing that exceeds. Thus the creatures are to the creator both passive (the things measured or exceeded) to active (the measure or the thing exceeding) and inferior. SaundersW (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More context, in Scotus:

...quia numquam aliqua comparantur, ut mensurata ad mensuram, vel excessa ad excedens, nisi in aliquo uno conveniant: sicut enim comparatio simpliciter est in simpliciter univoco...

...things are never related as the measured to the measure, or as the excess to the excedent unless they have something in common...  . [Partial translation from The Medieval Theologians, Gillian Rosemary Evans, 2001, p.  253]

The exact parsing of mensurata and excessa is problematic. Are they feminine singular or neuter plural? Evans keeps things equivocal for mensurata: nothing seems to hang on this point, though. I'm not sure that I agree about her excess for excessa. Excessus (m), not excessa, would be excess. Furthermore, excessa and excedens appear to have some specific mediaeval philosophical meaning. Something akin to "transcended, surpassed" and "transcending, surpassing"? That would fit with the theological context, perhaps.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

About the ambiguity of mensurata and excessa: I took a cue from Adam's context of creatures (pl) to God. If the context is something different, of course that cue is void. SaundersW (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, SW. I don't think the number is important anyway, as I say. The general point about incommensurability is secured. The entrained scholastic niceties are, of course, another matter.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. --Omidinist (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

English Idiom

What is the proper idiomatic way in English of saying that you have spent a lot of time on something with no result. In Dutch this would be "ergens je tanden op stuk bijten" or even "stuk bijten op een stuk hout", litterally "breaking your teeth on a piece of wood". Bokkeveltkamp (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"A fruitless pursuit". Will try to think of something that is near to your example. - X201 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a particular idiomatic phrase in English to get across this exact meaning. There is "pissing in the wind", but that's a bit vulgar. I would be tempted just to say "wasting my time". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

'bashing my head against a brick wall' seems to be in the spirit of the Dutch. Algebraist 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Algebraist's suggestion is the best equivalent, but I'll add that another expression with a similar meaning is "running around in circles". Deor (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that one as "beating (one's) head against the wall". That's the closest in meaning to the Dutch phrase, I think, but there are several more specific ones. We can "try to get blood from a stone". We can "flog a dead horse". Brits can "carry coals to Newcastle". --Milkbreath (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In the sense of "a fruitless pursuit" we also have "a wild-goose chase" SaundersW (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

'Carrying coals to Newcastle' is in a slightly different category: it refers to a task that is pointless in the first place - because Newcastle has (or used to be supposed to have) plenty of its own coal. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not all synonomous. "Coals to Newcastle": pointless from the beginning; "flog a dead horse": might have been useful at some point, but now it's a bit late as nothing can change (ie you can flog a live horse to make it do something, but a dead one will never move); "head against brick wall": attempting something impossible; "blood from a stone", similarly impossible, but usually relating to getting information from someone; "wild-goose chase": unlikely pursuit (since geese fly too high and fast so hard to shoot); "going round in circles": covering same ground without getting anywhere; "fruitless pursuit": unproductive (but no indication of amount of time being spent). But none of those quite cover the case of a task that should be possible and worthwhile, and still could be, but somehow I've spent lots of time and haven't got there. I'll have to think...Gwinva (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One can (and often does) use "beating one's head against a brick wall" for an activity which should be possible, would be worthwhile, but proves unproductive, eg. trying to get some sort of consensus as to what consensus means in the context of deciding if there is consensus for non-admin rollback (to use a current example). DuncanHill (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ok; I'd go with that. But it implies effort battling against something or someone else, so more militant than "fruitless pursuit". Another mild one is "come away empty-handed"; those place no blame on anyone or anything. Gwinva (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, on reflection, your example still talks of impossibility (even if it shouldn't be)..the point is, those people are as immovable as a brick wall "I bash my head against a brick wall but it doesn't move, or show any impact of my efforts". So it all depends on the picture one want's to portray. If the efforts relating to a person (or persons), who shows no response, then "I was a fool for my pains" would be appropriate. "Fight a losing battle" shows that it started off ok, but problems mounted up until it became obvious it was all going to be ineffective, whatever I threw at it. "gave it up as a bad job" shows that it was too much effort and strife with unliklihood of a result. Gwinva (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's always the old wild goose chase, as in "so-and-so sent me on a wild goose chase", implying that the effort was probably doomed from the start. (Do people even say this anymore?) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Its alive and well in my part of the UK. - X201 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For concreteness, how would one call, using idiom, Einstein's fruitless endeavours to develop a unified field theory? You can't say that he was pissing in the wind, wasting his time, bashing his head against a brick wall, going round in circles, trying to get blood from a stone, flogging a dead horse, carrying coals to Newcastle, sent on a wild goose chase, or fighting a losing battle.  --Lambiam 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too (well, not about Einstein). I don't know the connotations of the Dutch idiom, but a similar one in German, "sich an etwas die Zähne ausbeißen" ("to bite out one's teeth on something"), implies having a tough and rough time in one's efforts, but not necessarily futility. In fact, dict.cc translates it as "to have a tough time with something", but that's not a very colorful idiom. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be fair to say that Einstein had his head in the sand when he pursued a UFT while denying QM. I'm sure there's something better (and more suited to this discussion) though. Algebraist 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

About "wireless"

Hi wikipeoples! I asked this question before over at the Computing desk, and perhaps it fits better here. Am I the only one who thinks the term wireless is really dumb? In my opinion, it's not a word that describes what it is, it's a word that describes what it is not! I guess there is a special explanation of how the suffix -less, like several other affixes, are used in language to describe things by terms of their absence. But is this really the most convenient way to describe the concept of 'wireless'? Isn't it like calling the Internet 'paperless', an optical disc 'tapeless', a (modern) calculator 'abacusless', an mp3 player 'discless', or even a photograph 'paintless', etc. etc. etc.? (I know, these are pretty silly examples of what I mean:). What I know is that the term originated from a need to differentiate EM radio transmission from telegraphic wire communications, and I wondered, why would one need to use that same differentiation again today? Isn't there a better way to describe it? Or did they simply seize the name again out of laziness? Kreachure (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was dumb, but it's history and you can't change history. I am one of the world's great aficionados of radio listening, and to me, radio is King - but whenever anyone refers to "turning on the wireless to catch "Blue Hills", I'm reminded of the almost-forgotten blissful days of my childhood, and I smile. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that wireless when it refers/referred to radio is a noun and when it refers to internet it is an adjective ("wireless internet" "wireless connection, etc). I sometimes wonder if 50 years from now we'll be using a different term for this method of internet connection, but it's not really "dumb" because it's something we simply didn't have a word for and the novelty is that it is without wires. It's no dumber than anionic, undivided attention, unalterable, and non-Catholic. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps when wired connections become a thing of the past, just as the horseless carriage became the car/automobile when horsed carriages disappeared from daily life. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The horseless carriage is a great example. So it seems that for now the term 'wireless' will stick; but I think someday in the (not-so-near) future we might realize in retrospective that calling a connection "wireless" should have been considered as ridiculous as calling a car a horseless carriage. If only! Kreachure (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Palaceguard puts it better, but there is normal internet which relies on you physically having a cable connected to a phone-line, a modem and then your laptop/pc/device (or straight in if integrated modem), the other requires no-cable between the modem and the laptop/pc/device. To me the easiest way to define which is which is to say one is 'wired' and the other is not. I can only think of a few other terms that could perhaps be used but they are hardly perfect... Remote internet (i.e. like tv remote control), mobile internet (but this is growingly used to refer to internet through your mobile phone network), radio-wave internet? I can see that perhaps the naming is a little strange but it's so embedded in culture i'd be surprised if it were to change - the best bet I would expect would be for a brand-name to take over the product name...Kinda like how walkman became the general term for personal audio player, and then iPod is kinda becoming the generic term for mp3 player (regardless of who makes it). So maybe it'll become a 'belkin router' instead of a wireless router? How about 'airport' like Apple use for their wireless router devices? ny156uk (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I find all the retronyms that have had to be created due to technological advances quite interesting. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

January 15

James, Ya'qub

All James's in the Bible have been read as Ya'qub in Arabic, while Ya'qub is also Jacob in the Bible. How can this transformation be explained, historically or linguistically? --Omidinist (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, it is how Hebrew יעקב turned into English James. Our article James (name) gives the following development:

Hebrew יעקב (Yaʻaqov) > New Testament Greek Ἰάκωβος (Iakōbos) > Late Latin Iacomus (a dialect variant of Iacobus) > French Gemmes > English James.

 --Lambiam 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. For whatever reason, the יעקב of the Old Testament is always called "Jacob" in English, while all of the men named Ἰάκωβος in the New Testament are always called "James" in English. But "James" is etymologically derived from Ἰάκωβος, which in turn is derived from יעקב. If anyone cares, I have Bibles in a few dozen languages sitting here on my bookshelf in which I can look to see if any other languages give different names to the OT Jacob and the various NT Jameses. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Jacob and Epistle of James (which has surprisingly few wikilinks on it) German and Esperanto use Jakob and Jakobo, respectively, for both. French, OTOH, uses Jacob and Jacques. Indonesian uses Yakub and Yakobus--possibly just a grammatical change? Hungarian uses Jákób and Jakab.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Periclean Age in German?

The Weimar Republic is often described as being a 'Periclean Age', but what is the translation of this in German? 82.12.214.93 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[Das Perikleische Zeitalter Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)]. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dissolving tiling grout in a toilet bowl

So having completed tiling our bathroom floor the remaining excess grout ended up in the bottom of the porcelain toilet bowl, where it remains. Any ideas what can be put in the bowl to dissolve the grout? 84.70.165.195 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Steve the Flush