Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 23

Explaining Indo-European syllables to Japanese people

How do they teach the concepts of Indo-European syllables to Japanese people? Japanese syllables all end in vowels or "n." When Indo-European names are transcribed into Japanese, their syllables are all Japanified -- thus, Frank Sinatra becomes Furanka Shinatora. It's one thing to explain to an American how to make a French "r" sound. But is it possible to explain, using Japanese words, how to pronounce the syllable "nat?" Can the average Japanese person easily grasp the concept of a syllable ending in a consonant other than "n?" -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Syllable has a link to the corresponding Japanese article [1]. At the bottom of the page of the latter, there is even a link to an article about the Czech and Slovak tongue-twister "Strč prst skrz krk". (Incidentally, if you see a link in a Japanese article, you can go to that linked Japanese article, and then look in the left-hand column for a link to the corresponding English article, to find out the meaning of the link in the Japanese article.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Furanku Shinatora" (not "Furanka") doesn't sound as different from "Frank Sinatra" as the romanization might suggest. The two us and the o are hard to hear. An English speaker listening to the Japanese pronunciation would notice the rolled rs, /a/ instead of /æ/ in Frank, and possibly shi instead of si, but they probably wouldn't notice the extra vowels. A few Japanese people use nonstandard romanizations of their names with vowels omitted to match the pronunciation more closely, e.g. Toshihide Maskawa. -- BenRG (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I only have experience with some sounds, but here goes. Japanese has cases where other consonants end syllables. The /n/ sound can become either [n], [m] or [ŋ] depending on adjacent sounds. Thus you can get words like Namba or manga. The first step is to get the speakers to recognize the differences in the place of articulation. The next step is to try stopping the following sounds before they come out. Also, final "su" might be devoiced so that only [s] may be audible. --Kjoonlee 12:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nat would be pretty easy, since there are words like chatta. The "little tsu" should be familiar to Japanese people. --Kjoonlee 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

formulating a name for a School Paper

I am looking for a word that would best describe our community which is surrounded by canning factories. I am intending to use that word as the name of our school newspaper which will be published this school year. Our school is surrounded by canning factories. The name of it is Talisayan National High School. What do you think is the proper word that would describe such place? Thank you and hope to hear from your website soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amqtan 20 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You could call your newspaper Cannery Row, with a nice literary allusion. —Angr 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But don't call it Canned News. That would mean prepared ahead of time, not fresh, not current. If the name is going to be in English, though, why stick too close to the canning process? The Opening could have many meanings -- not only in relation to cans, but in relation to what you hope your school and your publication will do to young minds. OtherDave (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You could have a movie review section called "In The Can" (with a picture of a film strip so readers don't think it's some kind of bathroom review :-)) Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Can Opener" ? As in opening up stories to the public ? StuRat (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Talis Spin", as in tailspin, "Talis" from the school name, and "Spin" from telling a story from one POV ? StuRat (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tin whistle Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Which Indo-European syllables for Japanese

An earlier question today explained something about the handling of Indo-European syllables in Japanese. I'm curious to find out if there is a rule that dictates which "extra" vowel should be added. For example: Frank Sinatra becomes Furanku Shinatora, but are Faranku Shinatara or Feranku Shinatura also "valid" spellings, or are there is a set of rules saying which is correct? Astronaut (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You can start by looking at Romanization of Japanese. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have misunderstood my question. I was not asking about the Romanization of Japanese, but about the Japanization of English syllables. For example is the English letter "K" always represented by "ku" (ク) in Japanese, or can "ka" (カ), "ke" (ケ), etc also be used? Astronaut (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You may find b:Transwiki:Transcribing English to Japanese#Step 4: Add epenthetic vowels helpful. --Kusunose 17:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

u is added after every consonant (where required to fit into Japanese syllable structure) except for ch, j, t, d. ch, j require i (i.e. chi, ji); t, d require o (i.e. to, do). So, faranku or feranku and shinatara and shinatura are not found. Another thing to mention about English loanword phonology is that the words are borrowed from an r-less dialect of English (like standard British), so the word car is not karu (as an American speaker might expect) but rather kaa with a long aa. And some words are borrowed from what seem to be plurals so peanut butter is not piinatto bataa but rather piinattsu bataa as if the borrowed word was peanuts butter. There are other loanword issues but they have to do with consonants not vowels – ishwar  (speak) 17:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That link reminds of an interesting thing about i and u insertion. After k and sh (and possibly also g?) there is variation between inserting i and u. The older pattern is to add a i, but the new pattern is to add the general u. For some words the i vowel is standardized, so you get cake > keeki (but not keeku). For others, you get variation: ink > iNki (older) ~ iNku (newer), text > tekisuto (older) ~ tekusuto (newer), brush > burashi (older) ~ burashu (newer).

The issue with Truman is that there are again three variant patterns. One older pattern is to insert o after the t as usual, which gives Truman > toruumaN, trunk > toraNku. The other pattern is to use u in which the t turns in to a ts (i.e. tsu), which gives tree > tsurii, cutlet > katsuretsu. However, in more recent loanwords you can get a u without t > ts, which gives turuumaN. So, President Truman (an older borrowing) is toruumaN but the movie name is turuumaN. Another example is two > tsuu (older) ~ tuu (newer). Older Japanese may not be able say tu very easily though.

Since your example only V insertion in English clusters, here are some examples of those:

• fr > fur : friend > fureNdo
• gr > gur : green > guriin
• kl > kur : tackle > takkuru, clean > kuriin
• ks > kus : box > bokkusu
• ld > rud : bulldog > burudokku (or burudoggu),
• pl > pur : couple > kappuru, plan > puraN
• pn > puN : happen > happuN
• ps > pus : chips, chippusu
• sf > suf : sphinx > sufiNkusu
• sl > sur : hustle > hassuru, slacks > surakkusu
• sk > suk : skate > sukeeto, mascot > masukotto
• sn > suN : lesson > ressuN
• st > sut : test > tesuto, step > suteppu
• zn > zun : season > siizuN
• skr > sukur : script > sukuriputo
• spr > supur : sprint > supuriNto
• θr > sur : throw > suroo (= slow > suroo)
• str > sutor : street > sutoriito, stress > sutoresu
• tl > tor : little > rittoru
• tr > tor : trick > torikku, trouble > toraburu
• dr > dor : dry > dorai

– ishwar  (speak) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Welsh and Greek

Are Welsh and Greek the oldest in use languages in Europe? 82.43.88.87 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying one language is older than another is very problematic since all languages evolve over time. Welsh and Greek both grew from different dialects of Proto-Indo-European, as did all the other Indo-European languages, so in one sense they are all exactly the same age. However, sometimes people say one language is older than other to mean that one language has been written down (and is thus attested) earlier than another. We have a list of languages by first written accounts, according to which the oldest-attested European languages that have living descendants are Greek and Latin. The Germanic languages, Irish, Basque, and Georgian (if you want to consider that in Europe) are all also attested from earlier than Welsh. —Angr 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a sense in which Greek is the oldest surviving language in Europe, but it is not a very useful sense. Greek is the only example I can think of in Europe where we use the same name for a language spoken two and a half thousand years ago and its descendant spoken today. The fact that they use the same script, used by no other language in the modern world, encourages this view. But in fact, Modern Greek is no closer to Classical Greek than Italian is to Latin.

Welsh on the other hand has no great antiquity: the earliest writings that we can reasonably call Welsh (as opposed to P-Celtic) are roughly the same age as the earliest writings we can call English. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. "Welsh" as clearly distinct from the common ancestor of Welsh, Breton, and Cornish only begins to emerge around the time as those three groups of Celts were isolated from each other by the westward expansion of the Anglo-Saxons (about the 7th century AD). Strad (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

From what language is Latin derived?

OK, so we all know the Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) derive from Latin, but my question is, what language is Latin derived from? 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See history of Latin. Algebraist 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, but I still can't find a direct, clear-cut answer. 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the forerunner of Latin called 'Proto-Latin', which doesn't seem to be mentioned there. Xn4 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Italic languages (Latin is an Italic language) says 'the Italic languages themselves show minor influence from the Etruscan and somewhat more from the Ancient Greek languages'. So I suppose Greek and Etruscan? She'sGotSpies (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tore Janson's A Natural History of Latin (Oxford University Press, new edition 2007) seems to say nothing on how Latin may relate to Etruscan and/or Proto-Indo-European. I suspect it's still more obscure than you might think. Xn4 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Languages can be influenced by sister languages or neighbour languages as well. I think we can rule those out. --Kjoonlee 18:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On the direct language descent tree, Italian is part of the Italic language group (like Oscan, Umbrian, etc.), and the Italic language group is often claimed to be part of an Italo-Celtic language grouping, and the Italo-Celtic languages are centum branches within Indo-European. Etruscan influenced Latin, but Etruscan was a non-Indo-European language, and so was not a direct ancestor language to Latin, and did not share any known direct ancestor language with Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So to summarise, in case the OP is still confused, Latin descends from Proto-Italic, which descends from Proto-Italo-Celtic, which descends from Proto-Indo-European. (You could say it descends from Italic, which descends from Italo-Celtic, which descends from Indo-European, but some scholars might (will?) point out that these languages are not attested, and no-one can be 100% sure they existed.) Etruscan is just a neighbouring language from which words might have been borrowed by the Latin-speaking people. --Lgriot (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To summarise even further (and to elaborate a bit on the Italic/Proto-Italic distinction mentioned by Lgriot), nobody knows. In the absence of surviving native speakers and any kind of audio recording techniques, we have no audio record to work with, and the written record is extremely sparse even for early Latin, let alone for any possible predecessor languages. Everything we know about what happened before Latin is based on comparisons of known languages and conjectures about possible predecessors. Long established, widely accepted and for the most part very plausible conjectures, yes, but if you want a direct, clear-cut answer, I'm afraid the only one we can give is "we don't know". -- Ferkelparade π 00:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all the help everyone. This definitely has brought much insight to me. :) 74.12.21.169 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Translating a phrase to Latin

Having struggled to translate this and failed, I throw myself on the mercy of the reference desk. I want a phrase that roughly translates as 'Make sure you find time to chill out mentally with a game of draughts occasionally.' or 'Don't forget to occasionally chill out mentally with a game of draughts.' or... you get the idea. Because I want it to be referring to the specific latin quote 'laxare animum lusu calculorum', I want to include these particular words (or at least their stems) as far as possible.

I suck at this. Help? 79.66.124.253 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Chill out" is a highly-colloquial slang phrase, which would almost certainly have to be replaced by a much more general expression (which probably wouldn't make any reference to temperature at all) in order to be very meaningful in Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The English I provided is deliberately very colloquial in hopes of getting a rough Latin translation that preserves the spirit. The 'chilling out mentally' is already in the Latin anyway ('laxare animum') although not in the right form. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Something like: velim animum laxes quandoque lusu calculorum? Maid Marion (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Or: memento animum laxare quandoque lusu calculorum

Or "cura ut animum laxes..." Adam Bishop (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, "cura ut.." meaning "take care that..."? That could work nicely. Thanks for the help so far, both of you. Is quandoque better than aliquando here? Something doesn't feel right about quandoque in here, but that might just be my ignorance shining through :) 86.139.232.189 (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a dictionary by me, but to me aliquando refers to a single occasion ('you should chill out some time'), whereas quandoque refers to repeated occasions ('you should chill out sometimes, or occasionally').Maid Marion (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

July 24

Speech communication speed of various languages

Are there any major differences in how fast information can be vocally communicated in one spoken language versus another? For example, one language may use speech that makes use of delayed sounds consisting of drawl, long words, or phrases while another may use much simpler vocal sounds to communicate the same information or idea. I know that this may depend a lot on the speaker, but on average it may seem that some languages are simply "faster" vocally than others in this way. So which well known language would be considered to have the highest vocal "throughput" and speed of conveying ideas and communicating? 24.193.28.27 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me it'd depend much more on what the speaker was trying to say, and on why he was trying to say it. I recall a tongue-in-cheek statement by a man to his significant other, paraphrased as "Nothing in the vast sweep of interpersonal carnal relationships could ever surpass the thorough going-over which I intend vis-a-vis your good self." In other circumstances, that might be shortened to, "Ready?" You might try browsing the linguistic archives at Language Log blog, which can shake your preconceptions of things like "a word." OtherDave (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that on average, English requires fewer words to convey the same meaning than French (too many of those le, la, les, etc.). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, generally, an Irishman speaking English will have a much higher throughput than a Texan speaking English. Between languages it's much more difficult to measure because, depending on the topic and the grammar of the language, one can take more words to convey the same idea (where one language has a specific word for that idea and the other has a 2 or 3 word phrase for the same idea), or more time to say one word in an agglutinative language but that word takes less time than the several (roughly equivalent) words in a non-agglutinative language. -LambaJan (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Italian "portafoglio"

In particular, do you pronounce the l? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can listen to it here. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation of the gl involves a palatal lateral approximant. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

-que ending

1. How did it form in Latin? 2. What was its significative function? 3. Does it still have it in Latin-based languages? Tough questions, I know. Many thanks for any comment. --Omidinist (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the Latin enclitic -que that means "and". It's inherited from Proto-Indo-European *k^we, which also followed the second word to be connected (i.e. "A and B" was "A B k^we"). It has parallels in Sanskrit ca and Ancient Greek te, which use the same syntax. If by "What was its significative function?" you mean "What did it mean?" the answer is "and". As far as I know it does not survive in any modern Romance language, at least not directly. In Latin, it became permanently attached to some words, and those words may survive in modern languages. For example, dumque became French donc. —Angr 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All right. Thanks so far. But, how about words like burlesque? What is -que doing here? --Omidinist (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the suffix isn't -que, it's -esque, which is a French suffix that was borrowed from Italian -esco (Bergamesco, Tedesco, etc.), which in turn was probably borrowed from Germanic and so is related to English -ish, German -isch, and Scandinavian -sk. It's just a generic suffix for turning a noun into an adjective. —Angr 19:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Such words are not unique.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So, was there ever any distinction in meaning between "A et B" and "A Bque"? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There may have been at one time, but I remember being taught that, for example, Senatus Populusque Romanus is absolutely synonymous with Senatus et Populus Romanus. It's interesting, though, that the abbreviation of the 3-word former former expression was the 4-letter SPQR even though the PQ comes from the single word Populusque. Whereas, the abbreviation of the 4-word latter expression would presumably have been the 3-letter SPR. How curious.-- JackofOz (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to et and -que, Latin has another word for "and", atque (sometimes shortened to ac). The grammar books will tell you there's a difference in meaning between et and atque, but they're always very vague and self-contradictory (or mutually contradictory) about it. —Angr 13:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, at the end, if there is no relation between the Latin enclitic -que and the -que ending in words like burlesque, why are they so similar in form? Is it a mere accident?! --Omidinist (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's just coincidence. But considering that in English and Latin, Q is always followed by U plus another vowel letter (and in French, if Q is followed by U, then the U is followed by another vowel letter), and considering that in all three languages, E is probably the most frequently occurring vowel letter, of all strings of three letters starting with Q, QUE is probably the commonest in all three languages. —Angr 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They aren't really similar in form, they share the three letters -que. In -esque, the heart of the suffix is -esk, not -kwe or -ke. The use of -que in both cases is hardly an accident: French uses 'qu' for our -k- sound, and at the end of a word the -k- sound is spelt -que. Xn4 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Angr, it's not true about Q always being followed by U in English. There are many English words containing Q not followed by U. "But they’re loan words from other languages", I hear you protest. "So are the millions of words we borrowed from Latin, Greek and French", I respond. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Only a singular inadvertence can account for my dear colleagues' failure to mention Greek καὶ, which is cognate with Latin -que and also means "and". It is not, however, enclitic.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What language is this?

I found this written in a stone near my house in what appeared to be Hebrew and I transliterated it (using the Hebrew alphabet provided in a Webster's dictionary (so it may not be 100% accurate)). Although it was written in Hebrew, I don't think this is Hebrew at all (unless I transliterated incorrectly??). I also can't provide the original Hebrew text, because it's not an available script on my computer. I see some similarities--like 'Atonai and Adonai', and 'ory and ori' and 'irel and ira', also some semitic languages use "Al" like 'the', I believe??

"Al-Atonai eloe et-ory ydh et-iashai ; zadh l’irel el ilqu ?

Al-Atonai eloe al-azaiq aka et-ihlafai ; aka zadh l’irel’rra el ilqu ?

Zal al-ashtan’rra ailqu, ev et-shinaiqyn ydh et-shaqvaryn,

ventulum l’et kronch’l et-matar, ai-el um’as io kchsharlum ydh nafchshpirlum."

And another part was also written, but lacked vowels (except for the aleph)-- "shrcharhrt l yhaw shl gvyta slh"

Does anyone know what language this is in, and why Hebrew was used for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It does look temptingly like Hebrew, doesn't it? Could it be Aramaic? Can you take a photo of the stone and upload it? —Angr 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to upload it when I get access to a camera. I'm pretty far away from a place where I can get one, but I'll try. I also don't think it's Aramaic, because I'm pretty sure Aramaic and Hebrew are mutually intelligible to a certain extent, especially when Aramaic is written using Hebrew. And the plethora of 'l' seems to have a function, as it's in almost every other word, which doesn't look very semitic. By looking at it from a strictly semitic meaning, it roughly seems like it says "The-Lord [eloe] together-light [ydh] together-[ia]present; [zadh][l']fear[of God] [ilqu]?" I can't really make out the rest, but I think 'el' and 'lum' and' l' ' associate action, since eloe comes after the subject and before the objects (assuming the meaning and if the order is SVO) and 'ydh' seems to connect the two objects (including et-shinaiqyn et-shaqvaryn and kchsharlum nafchshpirlum), so it may function as 'and'. If it helps, I'm near Neve Ativ, Israel for vacation and 2 native Hebrew speakers said they have no idea what it says, except for what I attempted to translate. I'll search for a camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Neve Ativ. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It means "The-Lord is my-light and my-savior; at whom shall my fear be directed? The-Lord is the-strength of my-life; of whom shall afraidness be directed? When the adverse direct, even my-enemies and my-foes[demons], come[they] to me to devour my-flesh, it-is they that stumble and fall."

I believe that this is an excerpt from the Bible: Psalm 27 it looks like. And the language is a sort of hodgepodge mutation of either an Indo-European (possibly Italic) language that had Hebrew/Aramaic loan words or a North/Western Semitic language that uses Indo-European loan words and form... and it looks like it uses liaison and elision (which is why I'm assuming it is Italic, esp. with the use of ventu[lum] for 'come' as in venare/venir and the different forms of 'l' indicate action, making 'lum' [indicating they] 'el'[indicating I am and to be] 'l [apostrophe]'[indicating to-] all forms of verbs. If you find any more of this language, please share. It's really interesting and mysterious. I was able to find out the meaning by your attempt at translating it and then went on my knowledge of other languages. But then again, I may be wrong, but it all appears to coincide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.248.45 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is really interesting! I agree with all the above sleuthing. I'm going to take a wild guess here; we've got some Italic loan-words, some Indo-European, some Semitic structure... Could it possibly be Maltese? I don't think Maltese was ever written in Hebrew letters... I'm really stumped for now - I'll do some research and see what I can find. Try and upload a picture, if you can! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do a Google search for "language guesser" or "language identifier", then you can choose from a number of programs to identify the language. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How old does that incription look? Could it be that you have discovered the first writing of a Latin-hebrew creole language from Roman times? Or an Italian-Arabic creole from the time of the crusades? Either of those would be really amazing! --Lgriot (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be amazing, but, as far as I am aware, totally unique - the crusaders and Muslims did not interact much, and rarely bothered to learn each other's languages (in fact I can't think of any Muslims at all who learned a western language). Latin was the "official" language and French, not Italian, was the everyday language. There were plenty of Italian merchants but they didn't really interact directly with the Muslims either, and at that point they still used Latin for official purposes. There are a few loan words from French and Latin in Arabic ("funduq" for example, from "fondacium"), and many Arabic loan words in European languages, but there was no creole in the crusader states. But if that thing really were a crusader creole, there are plenty of people who would want to know about it! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with User:98.224.248.45; here's Ps 27:1-2, looks like the right spot: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2627.htm . If it displays on your computer, how does that Hebrew text compare with what you saw, User:Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi? We'd still love to see that photograph, of course. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The link with the hebrew translation next to the passages from Psalm 27 transliterates as "ledhâvidh Adonay 'oriy veyish`iy mimmiy 'iyrâ'Adonay mâ`oz-chayyay mimmiy 'ephchâdh biqrobh `âlay merê`iymle'ekhol 'eth-besâriy tsâray ve'oyebhay liy hêmmâh khâshelu venâphâlu" but the stone looks entirely different and reads left to right and not right to left like in normal Hebrew. The Latin translation of the verse is "David: Dominus lux mea et salutare meum quem timebo Dominus fortitudo vitae meae quem formidabo? cum adpropinquarent mihi maligni ut comederent carnem meam hostes mei et inimici mei ipsi inpigerunt et ceciderunt."

Italian- "Di Davide. di chi avrò paura? Il Signore è difesa della mia vita, di chi avrò timore? Quando mi assalgono i malvagi per straziarmi la carne, sono essi, avversari e nemici, a inciampare e cadere."

French- L'Eternel est ma lumière et mon salut: De qui aurais-je crainte? L'Eternel est le soutien de ma vie: De qui aurais-je peur? Quand des méchants s'avancent contre moi, Pour dévorer ma chair, Ce sont mes persécuteurs et mes ennemis Qui chancellent et tombent.

I don't know the Arabic transliteration to roman letters, but it'd help if this is indeed a creole language of any of these languages combined. Although, it seems closer to French than any of the latin/itialian, but then again none of them are exactly literal translations of one another..so I don't know...

I have a picture now, but how do I upload it?? I try hilighting the file name and attaching the picture mark-up, but it doesn't show up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Use Special:Upload or Commons:Special:Upload. - Jmabel | Talk 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, dear Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi, can you upload the photo? --Lgriot (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

'Billion' in UK and US

Considering 'One Billion' is 1,000,000,000,000 in the UK and merely 1,000,000,000 in the US, how does this affect monetary exchange? $1bn could either be £500mn or £500,000mn (approx., given the exchange rate of $2=£1) depending on the understanding of the user of the word. As a side note, it's really misleading to use the word 'billion' these days, as we have no idea of which number the user is talking about. Is the world's population 6,000,000,000,000+ or is it 6,000,000,000+?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As of the now, almost no-one in the UK uses 'billion' for a million million. The so-called short scale is now standard in the UK, and I believe in most of the English-speaking world. Algebraist 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly in the realm of finance, billion means the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic. Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The UK definition is still being used though increasingly the US one is becoming standard. Oddly, it is the Uk definition that is the original one (grammer wise UK makes more sense because it is bi denoting million²), Apparently the US adopted the French convention rather than the UK convention (oddly the French switch to the UK convention in the 1940s) Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of no circumstances whatsoever where the long scale billion is still in use in Britain. The government decreed the short scale for all financial transactions in 1974. Jooler (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

July 25

To speak the truth....

While looking up the etymology of the word "truth", it came to my attention that there was no verb form of "to speak the truth." This interested me since there is a verb to express the act of being dishonest - "to lie." I noticed the same situation in Spanish, and my friend told me that it was also the same in French and Dutch. Is there any language in which there is a verb form of "to speak the truth" as there is one to express the act of being dishonest? 65.9.238.124 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is exactly what you're looking for, but many languages, like Classical (but not modern) Chinese could use a noun or adjective as a verb. Thus you could say "Person X is truthing". I don't know a modern Chinese word for "speaking the truth", but the existence of one wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps a reason that there isn't a common word for "speaking the truth" is that there is an assumption that one speaks the truth most of the time, and lying is something less common, and requires a more specific phrase.

A side note - English has a sort of word to talk about speaking the truth: soothsaying. Sooth has similar origins to truth. The soo bit comes from the Indo-European root of the verb 'to be' (like Latin sum/es/est/sumus/estis/sunt and so on), and the same -th suffix as truth (and width and length). Steewi (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to finish the thought. The point is, that soothsaying is "speaking what is" (as opposed to "speaking what is not") in an etymological sense, although the meaning these days is more mystical. Steewi (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OED "truth, v. To name or call truly; to describe with truth as" It is an obsolete form of the word but it does exist. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It also exists as "To speak or deal truly" as in "Truthing it in love". Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite obsolete; used in "These Boots are Made for Walking" by Nancy Sinatra: "You've been lyin' when you shoulda been truthin'" --Rodhullandemu 23:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Galore

This has bugged me for a while, and having read some of the excellent responses and discussions on this page, I thought I might pose the question here.

What part of speech is the word "galore"? As in "I have apples galore". The dictionary.com definitions are split between whether it's an adjective or an adverb. To me it makes more sense as an adjective (you're quantifying the apples, a noun, right?). If it is indeed an adjective, then are there any other adjectives which, in English, come after the noun? "Aplenty" may be one. What about adjectives which don't describe quantity? Thanks in advance. Willnz0 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a nice question. There are only a few words which can only occur after the noun ("postmodification" of the noun head) like galore and aplenty. Others are just mostly idiomaticish things like elect in the president elect, designate in the president designate, and public in a notary public. They are usually called adjectives although they are weird adjectives as normal adjectives can be used attributively in pre-modifying positions (i.e. the _____ NOUN) or in predicates (i.e. SUBJECT is _______).

There are adverbial type things that can postmodify as well. Like out in the way out or X-ward in the way southward, the way homeward.

Several postmodifiers can also occur in premodifying position. Like the only decision possible or the only possible decision. Note how only is required in order to get the postmodification, you cant say *the decision possible.

Some of these have distinct meanings when occurring in the different positions. Compare the following: the country proper vs. the proper country, the citizens concerned vs. the concerned citizen, the citizens present vs. the present citizens.

Some adjectives like asleep have a different pattern. They can be used in predicates like The children were asleep but not in attributive premodifying position *the asleep children. They can occur in postmodifying position: the children now asleep, the house currently ablaze.

A special case are constructions with words like somebody, anyone, everything as in somebody new, anyone young, everything big, etc.

You might be able to analyze some of these as ellipted clauses. That is, the only day suitable = the only day (that is) suitable.

I also find this to be a pretty interesting area of English grammar. – ishwar  (speak) 05:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And a very nice reply, Ish ishwar. My only quibble is words like president elect etc. I see this as an example of inappropriate dehyphenisation. To me, president-elect is one word, and a different word from either president or elect. The whole word is a noun, a compound noun admittedly, but still a noun, so there should be no need to consider what part of speech elect is because in this context it's only part of a word. Same for governor-general-designate - although that presents a slightly different case because in some countries governor general is not hyphenated. In Australia it is; as is attorney-general. I guess that means that in Australia governor-general-designate is counted as one (compound) word, but in other countries governor general designate would be counted as three words. Hyphenating the parts makes the job of analysis less burdensome because you have fewer words to analyse. Mind you, my cunning plan falls apart with Prime Minister-elect. There, Prime Minister is conceptualised as a single title to which -elect is appended, rather than a Minister-elect who happens to be primus inter pares. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A good reply indeed. Particularly interesting to me is the words that have different meanings in different positions. I'd encountered this in French. "Ma propre voiture" means "my own car" whereas "ma voiture propre" means "my clean car". In the case of French, the meanings are entirely different - there seems to be no logic to the meanings. Whereas in English they are closely related, usually just with different emphasis. Is that fair?

Secondly, to return to the original question, any ideas why galore is often said to be an adverb? How can it possibly be mistaken for an adverb? Willnz0 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably precisely because it doesn't pattern syntactically as an adjective. Adverbs are often "pro-prepositions" (i.e. single words that stand in for prepositional phrases, the way pronouns are single words that stand in for noun phrases), and "galore" could be seen as standing in for a phrase like "in abundance": "apples galore" = "apples in abundance". —Angr 07:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "galore" a late loanword from Gaelic or Scottish dialect? Perhaps that explains the position? Other examples of postposition in English: the Church Militant; the Siege Perilous; the House Beautiful; Lord Dunsany's fantasy short storyThe Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth; and, from Eric the Viking, the Horn Resounding. Postpositioned adjectives seem to be, ah, rampant in heraldry. Three leopards or, couchant on a field gules, etc... Rhinoracer (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It comes from the Irish "go leór" meaning sufficient or plenty. Fribbler (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It probably sort of comes from both Irish go leor and Scottish Gaelic gu leòr simultaneously. It may be significant that this is a prepositional phrase, not an adjective, in both languages. —Angr 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hijacking the thread but slightly related. Is there a term for the backward construction like Eric the Viking mentioned above (or Eric the Red, Billy the Kid? What parts of speech are the "the" and the qualifier? Rmhermen (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED galore is an adverb meaning "in abundance or plenty" or a noun meaning "Abundance or plenty (of something". It has been in the english language since at least the 17th century and is taken from the Irish word go leór meaning "enough"; however some sources contest the Irish root believing the word to be of Scotish Gaelic decent. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re JackofOz: "this as an example of inappropriate dehyphenisation". So, your analysis is then that words like postmaster general are not syntactic phrases but are compounds like blackboard, bluebird, etc. This is also an interesting issue, and there has been different analyses of these as well. There is not a very clear distinction in English between stem + stem compounds and a phrase consisting of a noun plus a modifying word. Some people have looked at word stress patterns to determine the matter or looked at the degree idiomatic meaning (e.g. blackboards are often green not black). So, although the big grammars of English dont consider postmaster general to be a compound, an argument could be made that they are — just as with clay soil (is it clay-soil, a noun-noun compound, or [clay soil]_{noun phrase}?). On a side note, the hyphenation is orthographic and isnt criterial for determining compound vs. phrase as the hyphenation is rather inconsistent and has much variation in English. And your last part "my cunning plan falls apart with Prime Minister-elect", your analysis doesnt have to stop there because complex words have an internal morphological structure. For instance there are two unlockable words: un-[lockable] "not able to be locked" and [unlock]-able "able to be unlocked" — each has a different internal structure (and different un- prefixes) which account for the different meanings. So, you can analyze thus: [Prime-Minister]-elect.

That's worth exploring a little. I wonder if the hyphen isn't more significant than you say. If I gave you a list of single words to parse, and one of them was "governor-general", would you say "Oh, that's a trick question. This is two words, a noun and an adjective"? Or, if the precise numbers of words of different types in some text was important to know, would it contribute to the count of adjectives as well as the count of nouns, or only to the count of nouns? For my part, I'd count it as one word, a noun, but I'd count the unhyphenated version "governor general" as two words, a noun and an adjective. They both of course refer to the same office, but there are many other examples of alternative titles where one has more/less words than another. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you define word. If you define a word orthographically as being separated by spaces or certain types of punctuation, then you would conclude that governor-general and governor general were different and I suppose also login or log-in as different from log in. I was thinking of a linguistically-oriented definition. (Is linguistically-oriented one word or two?) That is, using grammatical criteria to decide the issue. Then the orthographic conventions would then be irrelevant. Here's a hyphenation question: what do you do with a University of Michigan-Oakland University joint project? Is Michgan-Oakland one word? That is at odds with what our intuitions say — it should be [University-of-Michigan]-[Oakland-University], right? Laurie Bauer (who's closer to part of the world) usually has very interesting things to say about English words, so if you're interested in compounding issues (with a litle about orthography & a lot about stress patterns) take a look at this paper of his: Adjectives, Compounds and Words. – ishwar  (speak) 06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Willnz0: "in English they are closely related, usually just with different emphasis". Well, we need more examples for comparison. The two proper’s are kinda different in meaning. Premodifying proper = "suitable, appropriate", postmodifying proper = "as strictly defined" — perhaps more similar to each than your French example propre. And "any ideas why galore is often said to be an adverb?". I definitely agree with Angr, these type of words dont fit into the traditional grammar scheme so there isnt a set label for them. And that reasoning (equating with adverb-prepositional phrase substitution) could be the dictionaries' reasoning. If you dont know, the term adverb is mostly a wastebasket label for all the words that traditional grammar doesnt know what to do with. To be sure, there is a core group of "adverb" words like quickly, carefully but if you want to have a coherent description of English grammar, you'll need to redefine adverb to apply to only a single syntactic class of word or discard it entirely. So, as galore is different from other adjectives, adverb is a perfectly suitable label for dictionaries.

Re Rmhermen: The the is a determiner (specifically an article). The construction is apposition.

The R. Quirk grammar notes that "the postpositive adjectives, as in the president elect and vice-chancellor designate, reflects a neoclassical style based on Latin participles and much in vogue in Elizabethan times". – ishwar  (speak) 16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As in the Witchmaster General, or Surgeon General nowadays.

...and what of Alexander the Great? (If you think my remarks trite, spare me the Retort Wounding.) Rhinoracer (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the word "Chancellor-designate" in an edit not 24 hours ago. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a rather large instrument here...

In the context of an auction, what is "the instrument". I'm thinking it may be either the appraised value of the item or the estimated auction sale price. StuRat (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"The instrument" is the title deeds to a property etc. It's often used in auctions as a term but I had a bit of trouble getting a definition until I slapped myself in the face and just looked it up in a dictionary: [2]. Fribbler (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem quite right. I was watching a Cosby Show episode where he went to buy a painting at an auction. He asked his son-in-law what the "instrument" was, and he replied with a price. The bidding then started below that price but soon rose above it. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

cheese-eating surrender monkey

What or who is that?83.52.209.197 (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have an article on cheese-eating surrender monkeys. —Angr 10:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember not to feed 'em Freedom fries. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Specific Tibetan script question

Hi, all... Does anyone know the correct Tibetan spelling of the Om mani padme hum chant? Tibetan script (and its picture) gives the 3rd syllable as ན-based, whereas the chant pages (and the svg thereon) gives it as ཎ-based. From what I can gather, this may reflect the difference between "ni" and "ṇi". Does anyone know the correct version? Thanks for your time, --Storkk (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you try this website. If you can't find the answer there, the guy who runs it is very helpful.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much... I'll fix the corresponding page. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It it, that that, yeah yeah

Is there a word for using the same word in a sentence, one after the other??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.106.5 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Epizeuxis, it would seem. You learn something new everyday! :-) Fribbler (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the anonymous user means it quite like that. That that is not repetition for emphasis but is lexical ambiguity as in That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is. I don't know what the specific term is for using the same word one after another, or if there is one, but I think (but I might be wrong) that lexical ambiguity or polysemy is what the IP is asking about. She'sGotSpies (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cue for an excuse to repeat a linguistic urban legend:

A renowned linguist was delivering a lecture in which, as an aside, he noted that in English two negatives make a positive, but that two positives can't make a negative;

From the audience came, in the tones of a weary New York cabbie:

"Yeah, yeah."

 Rhinoracer (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Epizeuxis is a very, very good word. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The accidental or substandard repetition of a word or of some other written element is called dittography. The accidental omission of some element is called lipography, though our article lipography simply redirects to lipogram (a literary composition systematically avoiding some letter, or similar element). The incorrect suppression of a repeated element (like libry for library) in speech is called haplology (also jokingly and self-referentially called haplogy); in writing it is called haplography.

Dittography and lipography occur very commonly, and they are hard to detect in one's own work. I myself suffer distressingly from lipography. Either may be considered a neuropsychological symptom, and may indicate some more general disorder of language processing. More likely, perpetrators are simply tired, lazy, inattentive, or growing old. (Join the club?) Such terms are also useful in textual criticism.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Rhinoracer, in another, it's an insolent Australian student saying "Yeah, right!" -- Julia Rossi (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

When we are writting about a country exactly which part of the name should be in capital letters?

Hy there, as English is not my first language I have some difficulties with some of its rules. AFAIK only true names begin with capital letters (besides the first word in a sentence), "true names" being either personal names like Christian, Paul, James (and including family names) or national names/labels like Roman, English, German, British. However this seems to be a bit unclear in the case of the names of countries/states. Most of the time all nouns of the name are written in capital letters: (e.g.: Democratic Republic of Congo) but here and there I also found examples of Nabeatean kingdom, Roman empire, etc. So what are the rules, and are there any exceptions? Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear even to those of us who English is a first language. Your two examples are in a grey area; however in both cases the first part is being used as an adjective for the second part (a non-proper noun) rather than the whole thing being used as a proper name. You may also see Roman Empire, in this case the author is using empire as part of the proper name. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Someone more knowledgeable can probably give you a more succinct explanation but just as a starting point I would look to MOS:CAPS. Basically, if it is a proper noun then it should be capitalised. In fact, I would say that Roman Empire should be capitalised as Holy Roman Empire was its name. Words like empire and kingdom are capitalised if they are part of the official name. So you would have Kingdom of Belgium or United Kingdom. However, if the words are used in a more generalised way then they would not be capitalised. For example, 'Belgium is a kingdom' or, er... 'Rome had a large empire' (sorry, I'm not very good at thinking of examples). As I said, someone else can probably give a better explanation but that's a starting point for you. She'sGotSpies (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were two completely different regimes. As my high school history teacher said of the latter, "It wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire." -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(written after Flamarande's message below) I typed 'Holy' when I didn't mean to :P It just rolls off the tongue so nice... Either way it'd be with a capital E. See Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire. She'sGotSpies (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; well I was bold and created Nabatean kingdom with a minor K. I guess it might be moved but what the hell... Flamarande (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say in that usage it might be Nabatean Kingdom but I might be wrong... I haven't heard of it before so I don't know. You're right, someone will come along and move it if it is wrong :) She'sGotSpies (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thus if you were talking about one of these in general you would say a Roman empire. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside: Coneslayer, your high school history teacher stole that line from Voltaire. Search that page for the phrase "Holy Roman Empire". —Angr 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever one chooses on something like this: create the relevant redirect! (I just did.) As a proper noun, I'd write Nabatean Kingdom. "This was during the era of the Nabatean Kingdom". As a common noun, though, I'd use lower case "The Nabatean kingdom was entirely unlike that of Britain." - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, time is of the essence...

What is the origin of the word, "nevertheless?" It does not seem to make any sense literaly, and as a transitional word it seems to make even less sense. My second question is, what is the origin of the expression, "Time is of the Essence?" I am assuming that there was more to this expression at one point, but it was lost over time. By itself the expression makes no sense, time is of "the essence" of what? 65.9.252.237 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, so long as you read "never" more loosely than its modern narrow meaning. A modern equivalent phrase might be "is not lessened" (i.e. "in importance/impact"). Obviously, the phrase you cite is a fragment, and needs to be preceded by something by which "time being of the essence" is not lessened. Just my 2¢ --Storkk (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless has been around since the 14th century. It is similar to the eariler natherless and nautherless. Nonetheless means all the same thus it is nothing less than. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could 'essence' be something to do with 'essential'? She'sGotSpies (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Time is of the essence" appears to be a legal term which has entered the common vernacular. This blog post discusses it a bit, and then gets way too technical for me, perhaps somebody else can summarize it. --LarryMac | Talk 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it. :-) Here is my reading of his text: Ordinarily, in the area of contract law, it's enough to do the thing that you signed a contract to do; doing it late isn't necessarily grounds for the other person to break off the contract and go hire someone else (although it might be, it depends). It's therefore been a tradition to add "Time is of the essence of this agreement" to contracts where the person making the contract wants to hold the other guy to doing his job in time, and they can break off the contract if he doesn't do so, even if he only missed the deadline by a little bit. The blog then goes on to discuss the extent to which the American courts have upheld this type of thing in actual contract cases (summary: not very much), and he suggest some alternate ways of phrasing such a requirement that might be more effective.

Please note that I am not a lawyer, and this is just an attempted translation of a blog post anyway; please do not refer to the above paragraph as legal advice, see a professional instead.

--Grey Knight ⊖ 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To apply that to your question, I suppose the common intent is "Time is of the essence of this situation", with the particular situation being referred to understood from context. That is, the very essence (fundamental ingredient; wikt:essential's second definition) of the situation is timeliness. --Grey Knight ⊖ 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So to answer one of the original questions; 'time is of the essence' has its origins in a legal term meaning 'time is of the essence to this contract' or 'time is essential to this contract'. This was a stipulation added to ensure that the person signing the contract completed their end of the bargain in an allotted time. Is that right? She'sGotSpies (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Grey Knight, I see you've practically answered my question, the edit conflict got me confused! She'sGotSpies (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Defeat

The recent headlines about the crushing defeat of Brown's labour party has made me think about the way defeat is used. Various people are defeated, others defeat, but the outcome for each is very different. It seems a slightly ambiguous verb/noun; Is one or other of the usages incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Od6600 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Eg? You mean the way if I kill you, the news reports are going to say you've been killed by an insane wikipedian? (just to be clear, this is not a threat) Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! It was a little vague. Compare and contrast if you will;

(1) Prime Minister Brown's labour party acknowledged their crushing defeat at the hands of the Scotish national party.

Versus

(2) The SNP's defeat of PM Brown's labour party was a surprise result.

Od6600 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Od6600 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you are asking. The Labour Party is the direct object of the verb "defeat", while the SNP is the subject. The full statement is "The SNP defeated the Labour Party.", or "The Labour Party were defeated by the SNP.". In both cases there are two particpants, the one performing the defeat, and the one to whom the defeat is done; notice that your #1 talks of a defeat by ("at the hands of") the SNP, and your #2 talks of the defeat of the Labour Party. These prepositions indicate which participant is which. I hope that clarifies things for you, please ask if I was still unclear. --Grey Knight ⊖ 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the crux of the matter is that when "defeat" is used as a noun, as in example sentences (1) and (2) above, In (1), "their defeat" is using the possessive pronoun "their" to indicate the direct object of "defeat", while in (2), "the SNP's defeat" is using the possessive phrase "the SNP's" to indicate the subject of "defeat", and then uses the phrase "of the Labour Party" to indicate the "object". Basically, "their defeat" (and "my defeat", "your defeat") etc. is ambiguous between the subject and the direct object readings. —Angr 20:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you defeat, the sentence is in active voice. If you are defeated, the sentence is in passive voice. This applies for most action verbs. Paragon12321 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read, say, "<yadda yadda yadda>. This all changed with Smith's defeat." with no preceding information, merely as a dramatic lead-in to the next paragraph or chapter, you'd assume it was a defeat of Smith by someone/something else (eg. Jones). You'd be unlikely to discover they were really talking about Jones being defeated by Smith. So it can be used unambiguously in a context-free context (hey, I like that). But "Smith's defeat" by itself could refer to Smith defeating someone else just as much as to someone else defeating Smith. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(after ec:):Yes, but the OP was asking about the noun 'defeat', as previous posters have noticed. Angr, 'their defeat' may be formally ambiguous, but pragmatically it certainly is not. Without an expressed object, it can only mean that they suffered the defeat - if you want the possessor as subject, you need an object ('their defeat of the Labour Party'). A more genuinely ambiguous case is 'orders': 'his orders' can be either the orders he gives or those he receives. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe my examples were about the noun defeat. Oh, I see. You were responding to Paragon 12321. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A word meaning "levels of abstraction"

A while ago, I read about an article here about a word that was used to describe varying levels of abstraction. For instance, a sociologist might discuss the impact of the Internet without needing to know the specifics of how it works, or a biologist could study the cell structure in a plant without detailed knowledge of how its constituent atoms interacted. I'm sure it originated as a legal term, but there have been a number of situations recently where it would have come in handy.

Does anybody have any idea what this word might be? hitman012 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The opposite of "greedy reductionism", I guess... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

From an enginering POV, we sometimes call technical items we don't know (or care) about a "black box". That is, we know what the inputs and outputs are, but don't know the details of how it works. In some cases, the reason we don't know is a security issue, and only a select few are privy to the actual workings of the "black box". You'll also note that this term is used for the cockpit voice recorder and similar devices onboard airplanes. This is essentially the same usage, in that the people who normally use the box, the aircraft crash investigators, don't know, or care, how it works, as long as it does. StuRat (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi hitman012, take a look at Reification, Reification (computer science). The term is used in psychology and computer science (among other contexts) in a sense similar to what you seem to be mentioning here. Also, the concept of "High Level Chunking" is relevant [3]. The latter is not a single word, and the former is perhaps not thoroughly explained by the links, but there's a start for your independent research. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

July 26

Remonstrate

I would like an opinion (or more than one) on the use of the word "remonstrate" in the article Brideshead Revisited (film)#Comparison of Movie to Novel. (first paragraph in the section.)

It's a word I never use. I think it is used incorrectly here.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely wrong. Remonstrate is an intransitive verb, so she couldn't remonstrate Charles. Also, we should avoid fairly obscure words if possible. I've replaced it with "rebuke". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(conflict) The first definition of remonstrate doesn't apply but it was not "definitely wrong" as stated by clarityfiend. However, the word is obsolete no matter what way it is being usedOmahapubliclibrary (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To point out (a fault, etc.) to another by way of reproof, disapprobation, or complaint; to protest against (a wrong).

To point out, state, or represent (a grievance, etc.) to some authority

To make a strong request to a person not to do something

To urge strong reasons against a course of action, to protest against; to expostulate with a person, on or upon an action.

Hmmm...I appear to be wrong. Although I've never heard or read it being used that way, it can be transitive. Go ahead, remonstrate me. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you obviously can use it transitively. It's just that no dictionary or style guide I've ever seen would support that usage. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Original

In cases like the original Xbox and the original Mario Party, what would they be called (apart from "the original whatever") to distinguish them from other products with similar names? 58.165.52.72 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

eponymous perhaps?87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

vanilla is an expression that might apply here, as described in the last paragraph of that article. However, from my experience it is more often used to mean versions of games/software without add-ons, expansions or patches, as opposed to original versions of series. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would call them Xbox and Mario Party. It is the later products that need to be given different names. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of retronyms. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what kind of an answer you're looking for here. I mean, The Xbox is the Xbox. The Xbox 360 is the new version of it. I mean, people like to just say "Xbox" a lot of the time even when they're talking about the newer console, but you don't see the official material referring to the current generation version of the console as just "Xbox" (except perhaps when they're referring to the whole brand, not the device itself). It's really pretty straightforward.

As for Mario Party, that's equally uncomplicated. If there are multiple versions of the game for different platforms, then we specify which version of the game we're talking about, if and as required. The later versions of the same product are generally not known by the same name here, either; the sequel to Mario Party, for example, isn't called Mario Party, it's called Mario Party 2. Of course, sometimes someone may actually decide to publish a new version of a product with the exact same name (or another product that has the same name as an earlier product, even). That can get confusing, but even then, it's generally not difficult to distinguish between the two products if people just bother to do so. I mean, certainly you can just talk about Indiana Jones movies and call them all "Indiana Jones", for example, but it's not exactly hard to specify which one you're talking about. But all this seems so obvious to me that I wonder if you meant something else entirely... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Language References

Is the use of Foreign Language References acceptable as several articles are getting into revert battles with a poster who has put up a string of references in Russian to justify additions to the article edits. As 95% + of the English Language Wikipedia will not Read rusian the validity of such refs is questionable. see here for Articles; History_of_steam_road_vehicles Pipeline_transport History_of_the_automobile and associated talk pages, posted by user Special:Contributions/79.176.154.152 Related article also have posts by a user now blocked. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to discuss this. I'd try the Policy village pump. —Angr 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find the right place / help as a language issue , tried looking in refs and various policies sections to no result, ok ill try that then thanks - BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd searched for an answer to this myself once, dealing with a Dutch book. The refs for it were also all in Dutch. The conclusion seemed to be that foreign language refs should only be used if no equivalent English language refs can be found. StuRat (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Vowels

In school I was taught that there are 5 vowels in English (a,e,i,o,u) and now sometimes see that y is also considered a vowel. Then according to the WP English language#Vowels there are quite a few more. I think this may have something to do with whether we are talking about letters which are vowels or vowel sounds which are found in the language. Am I correct? And if so, when considering vowel letters how many are there? 5 or 6? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that it makes a difference whether one is talking about vowel letters or vowel sounds. The usual trope is that the vowel letters of English are A, E, I, O, U and sometimes Y: in a word like "yellow", "y" is standing for a consonant, while in a word like "happy" it's standing for a vowel. So there are six letters that can be used to represent vowels, and five letters that can be used only to represent vowels. (That's the short answer. The long answer is that "e" doesn't always represent a vowel sound either, since silent e in words like "face" doesn't represent any sound at all, and "w" represents a vowel in a tiny number of Welsh loanwords like crwth and cwm as well as helping to represent a vowel in words like "law" and "cow".) —Angr 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The chart you linked to is just the technical way of talking about things like "long o" vs "short o" you usually only see the IPA in dictionaries. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In practice Y represents a vowel sound in English significantly more often than it represents a consonant (and even when it's a consonant it's really a semivowel). Wheel of Fortune does the English-speaking world a significant disservice by treating it as a consonant all the time. For example, in this question and the responses so far (excluding words quoted as examples), we see Y as a consonant in "yes" and "you", but as a vowel in "many", "July", "only", "any", "tiny", "usually", "only", "Omahapubliclibrary", "significantly", "really", and "by". In addition, in the words "may", "always", and "way", the combination "ay" represents a vowel sound and if we have to count Y as a vowel or consonant it only makes sense to call it a vowel there too. --Anonymous, 03:38 UTC, July 27, 2008.

It's not quite right that long & short pairs effectively describe the English vowel system as there're more than 10 vowels in English including the diphthongs. The long-short is mostly an orthographic patterning. The vowel in law doesn't fit in the long-short orthographic pattern. And the long-short pattern is complicated by the fact that there're 2 long-short patterns for the letter u.

Another way to look at the y in ay is to consider it to be neither a "consonant" nor a "vowel" but rather a kind of sound modification marker — like the "silent E" example above. Consider the symbol a as representing two different vowel sounds: the default is "short" a as in plan. In order to get the other vowel value there needs to be a marker which can be a "silent e" (ex: plane) or an immediately-following i or y marker (exs: plain, play). English orthography is more complicated than a simple vowel-consonant dichotomy and scholarly treatments of the system talk about the multifunctionality of the symbols. – ishwar  (speak) 06:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Psammoma body

What would the etymology of this word be? I'm trying to find it for the wiktionary entry. Finnish? Nadando (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article itself says it's from Greek psammos, "sand". —Angr 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OED: German Psammoma (R. Virchow Die krankhaften Geschwülste (1864-5) II. 108; now Psammom) ancient Greek sand. Psammoma first appeared in English text around the 1870s and psammoma body about 20 years later. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So that's why 'It' is called a Psammead... Aw, I love that story. She'sGotSpies (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cree dialect continuum

Is there one standard or dialect within the Cree dialect continuum that is most intelligible by all speakers of the continuum? I want a solution that is understandable from Plains Cree to Innu. Is it possible with just one language or standard? Or would, say, two dialects/standards need to be chosen to cover all speakers from Plains to Innu and everything in between?--Sonjaaa (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like at least two or three.[4] Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet

Can a sentence properly begin with the word 'yet'?

Yes. Strad (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Yet again, a politician gave a speech." 02:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtherDave (talk • contribs)

If word yet is being used as an adjective than yes. However if it is being used as a conjunctive than no. Nice or in evil (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet this sentence begins with a conjunctive "yet". --Anonymous, 07:38 UTC, July 27, 2008.

We have an entire article which begins with Yet... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

July 27

Meaning and use of the word 'accuse'

Can someone be accused of something after they are dead?

Is there a better word or phrase than 'accuse' to use in a case where someone is 'accused' after they are dead?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why "accuse" couldn't be used of a dead person. If necessary, you can clarify by saying "posthumously accused". —Angr 14:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenated homographs

I recently made an edit in which I hyphenated a word that up till then had been spelled "coproduction" - the context was film, and it was about a co-production. I noted (semi-jocularly) in the edit summary that the original spelling could have been mistaken for copro+duction, rather than co+production. (Well, it’s not that bizarre. Copro- forms various words, as does –duction. But I won’t hazard a guess at this meaning, if you don’t mind.).

So, let’s assume some weird circumstance arose which required one to coin a new word, and the best candidate you could think of was copro+duction. I suppose if you really couldn’t come up with anything better, you’d be obliged to hyphenate it copro-duction to avoid the ambiguity with co-production. Given that the hyphens appear in different places in these words that are otherwise identically spelled, would they still be classified as homographs? Are there other examples of word pairs that are distinguished in their spelling only by the placement of a hyphen? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes: unionized/un-ionized. Algebraist 14:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several examples where one word is hyphenated and the other isn't (re-creation vs. recreation, pro-verb vs. proverb), but I'm not thinking of any where both words are hyphenated but in different places like *co-production (which really shouldn't be hyphenated) vs. *copro-duction. —Angr 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Different people are rarely consistent about these things. I would have said that "unionized" rather than "un-ionized", "recreation" rather than "re-creation", "proverb" rather than "pro-verb", and "co-production" rather than "coproduction" were the more common forms -- exactly the opposite of what the previous reply suggests. (In support of the first of these, I'll note that Isaac Asimov once suggested that a test to tell whether someone was a chemist was to ask them how "unionized" is pronounced.) But the real point is just that usage varies.

I would say that the answer to Jack's question "do they count as homographs" is simply that the purpose of using the hyphens is precisely to keep them from being homographs. So "resent" (present tense) and "resent" (past tense) are homographs, but if you use the alternate spelling "re-sent" for the second one, then they aren't. --Anonymous, 22:33 UTC, July 27, 2008.

Thanks. I've just thought of another example: "resign", to quit a job, vs. "re-sign", to renew a contract (often in a sporting context), but the latter is sometimes spelled without the hyphen.

Anon's answer is interesting, in the light of Ishwar's comments in a previous thread about alternative spellings such as "governor-general" vs. "governor general".

• If you use the linguistically-oriented definition of “word”, then these are considered the same word. Because one has a hyphen and the other doesn’t, they would not be homographs. But they are still homophones. Or are they? Homophones differ in meaning, whereas these refer to the same general type of office. The only differentiation is that the hyphenated version refers to the office in Australia (and some other countries), whereas the unhyphenated version refers to the office in Canada (and some other countries).
• But if you use the orthographic definition of “word”, “governor-general” is a one-word title and “governor general” is a two-word title. They fit the definition of homograph even less than under the previous definition, mainly because we’re no longer even comparing 2 single words. But they’re still homophones, assuming one can use this term when comparing expressions that are not necessarily restricted to one word each. Is this a valid conclusion? I'm a little confused because we're told that a homophone is "a word that is pronounced the same as another word but differs in meaning". Nothing about multiple-word expressions. Until we read about "oronyms", which are said to be a sub-set of homophones, except that all the examples given use more than one word. So, is the definition of homophone lacking something, or is the word "word" being used in its linguistically-oriented definition rather than its orthographic definition? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the examples listed above count as homophones; I don't pronounce "un-ionized" the same as "unionized", for example. I would say that the hyphenation exists specifically to assist readers in recognizing where the stresses/syllables should go, thereby identifying whether the word used is "re-creation" or "recreation". Matt Deres (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC) D'oh! Never mind; I thought you were still talking about the earlier examples when you're clearly just talking about governor general. Sorry. Matt Deres (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Eugène Ysaÿe"

How is Eugène Ysaÿe's name pronounced? I would guess [yoo-ZHEN] for the first name, but I have no idea for the surname. --bdesham ★ 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In IPA, [øʒɛn iza.i] (the last name is three syllables). A non-IPA approximation is something like "ur-ZHEN ee-zah-EE", using a non-rhotic pronunciation of "ur" as in "nurse". —Angr 16:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank god for non-IPA for the "rest-of-us". -hydnjo talk 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --bdesham ★ 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

selling and definition

My team in a spelling bee misspelled a word that I would like to learn more about. The word is supposed to be in the Webseter's Third New Internationa Dicstionary but I can't find it. I believe the correct spelling is recumbintebous.

Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.91.232 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Recumbentibus? It is to be found in the unabridged Webster. Knocked you out, it seems... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Recumbentibus is the ablative plural of recumbens, which is the present active participle of recumbere, to recline. That´s in Latin, BTW. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

1st Grade Question

I feel really stupid asking this question, but what is the name for two or more words the sound the same but are spelled different with different meanings. Two, to,too. Raze and raise. Also, are their any other of this type of word that (like raze and raise) and opposites. thanks.--Xtothe3rd (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1 is homophone. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Then what do you call a phallus-shaped telephone used by gay men ? :-) StuRat (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• 2 There is the term contronym, but it refers to a single word which - dependending on the context - can have opposite meaning. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• 3 We got a list on -onym, which you may peruse for some delectable linguistic musings. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For the 2nd question, would "cleave" apply? Spelled the same, but with two opposing definitions - to split apart, to stick together. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thats a perfect answer. --Xtothe3rd (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You actually used a homophone in your question - "are their any other uses ...". The spelling in this case is "there". Homophones are often at the root of mistaken spellings. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Better The Devil You Know"

I was thinking about the English phrase, "better the devil you know", meaning, essentially, that its better to stick with a situation that you know about rather than risking a new unknown situation. But in such a situation where you have to chose between the devil you know and the one you don't, the decision, ultimately, is subjective - but in an English speaking culture, such a decision would be completely biased by the presence of this phrase.

However, in another language, the equivilant phrase could be more along the lines of "better the devil you haven't met yet", and in that culture, such a decision would be biased in the completely different direction. So basically, what I'd like to ask is whether people know whether common phrases in other languages favour the devil you know, or the devil you don't, a quick straw-poll if you will.

Thanks. Ninebucks (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised in English doesn't have some sayings that mean the opposite thing. For example, "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" (or my variation, "I'll burn that bridge when I get to it"), could mean you will solve the immediate problem, even though that may lead to more serious problems "down the road". StuRat (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase is based on a common human tendency to prefer the status quo in case of uncertainty, so I would estimate that opposing proverbs are probably few-to-none. I would be interested to see a counterexample if anybody knows one, though. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

answers.com and Google translate offers these, not all terribly close approximations:

language	original	mostly-machine translation
Danish	man ved hvad man har	we know what we have
French	un homme averti en vaut deux (Prov) / mieux vaut un danger que l'on connaît (qu'un danger que l'on ne connaît pas)	forewarned is forearmed / better a danger that we know (than a danger that we don't know)
German	lieber das bekannte Übel	prefer the known evil
Greek	καλύτερα αντιμετωπίζεις τον εχθρό που γνωρίζεις	Selling antimetopizeis the enemy you know better face the danger you know
Italian	mai lasciare il certo per l'incerto	never leave the certain for the uncertain
Portuguese	antes o mal conhecido	before the evil known
Russian	кабы знать где упасть	Cape know where tumbling **
Spanish	más vale malo conocido que bueno por conocer	better known evil than good (that is) yet to know
Chinese	你完蛋了	You finished the

jnestorius^(talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Better the devil you know" isn't just about preserving the status quo, 'though that can be the effect. It's about facing a problem you know more about rather than leaping, without looking, into a something that could be just as bad or worse, but which you are not equipped to deal with. Forewarned is forearmed. If you can't be forewarned, and there's no indication that the devil you don't know is better than the devil you do, you're probably better off staying in a situation you can manipulate. I could draw you a grid of potential outcomes :D Of course, Fortune favours the brave so we should seize the day because the early bird catches the worm. And a change is as good as a rest, so maybe you should just go with that worse devil after all. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

** I don't know the expression кабы знать где упасть, but I can make some comments on the machine translation. кабы does not mean "cape", but it's an old word meaning "if". упасть is the verb "to fall". It's more like "[You'll be better off] if you know where you're falling", or "Watch your step". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

July 28

French accent

Just hearing Piaf's Milord, her accent seems especially fruity on the r's (and not only) compared to some current French films and tv series. Her diction is strong and clear, but I was wondering if her accent is of the time, cultural or regional in some way. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is typical Parisian accent of that time. Today's Parisians do not really have an accent any more, unfortunately, it has been lost in the massive immigration form all over the country. --Lgriot (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It sounds truly rich, feeling and emphatic -- sorry it's lost. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You and I are obviously listening to the same radio station, Julia (ABC Classic FM). You have very good taste .. but I already knew that. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahaha. God Jack, of course! Julia Rossi (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

COULD YOU INCONSIDERATE FOLKS TURN THE RADIO DOWN, it´s 3AM. Btw, is Clive Robertson still around? Like other great men <sounds of sycophantic grovelling in the slime down under>, conceived in Katoomba, I just read... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Many a hangover was made bearable by him and Caroline Jones on ABC. Non, je ne regrette rien...--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You;ll find your man here: Clive Robertson (journalist) but Caroline Jones is begging for an article. Cooky2 you really are an Austr(al)ian. Come home, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I weep daily when I turn the radio on and hear people other than Clive Robertson presenting music. Sure, he upset a lot of people with his style - but that's almost the point, isn't it. There's nothing like a good polariser on radio. As long as I'm in their camp, that is. If I don't see things their way, they're the worst in the world. Sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

JackOz, here[5] you can email him at radio 2UE, : ) I heard a Throsby interview with him sometime last year so you could track that down too if you're keen. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of a fountain in italics?

In this discussion, one user has suggested that the name of Crown Fountain be placed in italics, since it is a type of sculpture. Is this correct? I'm not used to seeing the names of fountains written in italics, and I haven't found anything on Google Books that puts this particular fountain's name in italics. Any help would be great. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's simply a proper noun, capital initials are all that is required. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), italics may be used to indicate the titles of works of visual art. Italics are never used for article titles.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm just asking about the name of the fountain as rendered in the body of the article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither Buckingham Fountain (also in Chicago) or the Trevi Fountain (the most famous one I could think of) use italics so I don't think it is necessary in Wikipedia's style for fountain names. Rmhermen (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Do other style guides (eg, Chicago) say anything specific about fountain names? Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is a fountain is not relevant. The point at issue here is that titles of works of visual art are to be italicized, so although it looks a bit odd, if that is its official title and it's being described as a work of art, italics would seem to be required (though hardly essential).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

EasyJet/easyJet

Can I just confirm that as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Mixed_or_non-capitalization, the trademark EasyJet (which is stylised as easyJet) should be correctly capitalised as EasyJet. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stellette pasta

What's the proper translation from Italian for this type of pasta? Is it star-shaped or star-like or little stars? Or is it none of these, is it just a made-up word? Google translator doesn't translate it. Jooler (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stellette literally means "little stars"; however, I think it's common practice not to translate the names of Italian Pasta dishes (they are proper names after all). We don't usually call Farfalle butterflies or Vermicelli little worms -- Ferkelparade π 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So if you were referring to a pattern on cloth that consisted of little stars, would you be more likely to use 'stellette' or 'po 'di stelle' or 'piccola stelle' which is what Google translator gives for "little stars" and "tiny stars"? These are obviously plural, if you wanted to call a child a "little star" what would you use? Jooler (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to translate the pasta into English, I'd call it stellate pasta, with an a. --Kjoonlee 15:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For the inanimate pattern, you can use "piccole stelle" (plural) or "stellette". "Un po' di stelle" refers to multitude, not size, and would mean "a little bit of stars" (better: "a few stars"). For the animate child, I'd use the feminine singular diminutive suffix "-ina" (instead of "-etta"): "Sei una stellina!" ("stellina" can also mean starlet, even though "la starlet" exists as well, as does "l'attricetta". ---Sluzzelin talk 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Stelline" would work for the pattern too. As the Italian subsection of the article on diminutive correctly states, the rule of animate "-ino/-ina" and inanimate "-etto/etta" is weak, and there are many counterexamples; one is the attricetta given above, although the objectification is intentional in that case. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe pasta shapes are proper names; they're rarely capitalized. And I think "stellate", as an English word, is very technical; I am put in mind of stellation. Ditto "stelline", which puts me in mind of nothing at all. I would use "star-shaped" for stellette in general; for "covered with stellette", you could go with "star-spangled"; for the pasta I think star pasta might do, if translation is needed at all. jnestorius^(talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(By "stelline", I meant the plural of the Italian noun "stellina", not a made-up English adjective. Only mentioning it, because no one else typed "stelline". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the responders have got the wrong end of the stick here. I don't want an english name for the pasta. The reason I asked this question is because my wife was feeding my seven-month old son stellette pasta mixed in with some other baby mush, and while she was doing it she called him her "stellette". I was busy doing something on my laptop at the time and didn't know what she was feeding him or that there was even such a pasta shape in the first place, but when she called him that, I queried it and she said she was calling him a little star in Italian. Being the anal, know-it-all, geek that I am immediately Googled it to prove that what she was saying was did not mean "little star", at least in respect of a name for a little child. Would "Sei una stellina!" still be correct for a baby boy?Jooler (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If he's a sharp kid, you could ditch the mush and just call him stiletto. Might be awkward in the teen years if the name sticks, but it could toughen him up. Matt Deres (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite a "duty"?

Salutations. I'm trying to write an essay to encourage a certain form of behaviour from editors who share my wiki philosophy. I don't want to say we have a duty to behave like this, I want to intimate that it would be good form of us to do so, being generous in victory. I've tried searching online thesauruses (proper plural anyone?), but couldn't find anything precise enough. So my request, oh skilled linguist is for a word that connotes to one's fellow traveller's that it is something less than a moral obligation, but more necessary for the wellbeing of the project than an admirable virtue. Any suggestions? Skomorokh 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Roget's #894 ("Courtesy") has a bunch of words that might be of use? (For reference I found that by doing a "text query" for "duty".) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of the linked words suffice. My sentence is something analogous to the following "The Communist's X: Although it is not mandatory, Communists who successfully overthrow a country's capitalist regime have an x to try and improve the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants, including the former oppressors." Skomorokh 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. I like wikt:desideratum, but that might be considered too obscure a word by some? Can't think of anything better so far... --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a delicious find! One worry, would "The Communist's Desideratum", referring to any Communist, imply that all Communists consider the thing desirable? Not all of my communists might, but I want to say its desirable for communists to do. Skomorokh 21:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, in the above example sentence, it seems like the x would be the desideratum of the capitalists rather than the communists ("if you're going to overthrow us, we desire you to treat us nicely" rather than "if we overthrow you, we would desire to treat you nicely"). Skomorokh 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some kind of -onym?

The "1st grade question" from yesterday that led to a discussion about contronyms got my girlfriend and me talking about other fun onyms ('cuz we're geeks like that). Is there a word for something like a contronym, but instead of one word having two opposing meanings, involves two words or phrases which mean the same thing but would seem to mean opposing things? I guess this really only works for slang words/phrases. Example: "Knock off" and "Hold up" both mean "to rob" (i.e., "They knocked off/held up that liquor store"). "Bad" (itself a contronym) and "good" can both mean ... well, "good" (if we're still in the 1980's, I guess). I guess this particular phenomenon wouldn't necessarily get a name since it applies to slang words ... can't think of any proper examples. Dgcopter (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ravel and unravel, flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing? ;) --Kjoonlee 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there ya go! The inflammable/flammable thing is a good example of what I mean. I guess it's the concept of "visual antonyms" ... words that look like they'd mean opposite things, but really mean the same thing. Kind of like the concept of false cognates Er, rather, false friends (always thought those were the same thing...thanks for learnin' me something, 'pedia!). Dgcopter (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also "press" and "depress"! Wiktionary seems to list wikt:inflammable as a contranym, are they right? Who knows! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Two of my favorites: "to" and "unto", and "till" and "until". ;-) —Angr 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I guess those are visual antonyms...Well, since there doesn't seem to be a term for this particular phenomenon, I propose either "visual antonym" or -- in the spirit of "false friends" -- "false enemies". Dgcopter (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The dis- of disgruntled, disannul and disembowel is an intensive, not a negation; the words mean the same without it. jnestorius^(talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is quite in the ballpark, but there was a famous British criminal case from the (?) 60s where a young man was convicted of shooting dead a police officer. There's a long story, most of the details of which I don't know, but it came down to an encounter where the police turned up, asked him to hand over his gun, and the man's accomplice said "Let him have it". Somehow the gun went off and the police officer was killed. The man claimed in court that he understood "Let him have it" to mean "hand over the gun", and he was in the process of doing that when somehow it went off accidentally. The prosecution argued that he understood "Let him have it" to mean "Shoot him", and that the firing was intentional.

Oh, here we go - the movie they made about it was called Let Him Have It, and further details are there. It was 1952. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about "-onym". -- Wavelength (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dgcopter, BTW, do you know that there are words that look like synonyms or near-synonyms but actually aren't? Ultimate and penultimate comes to mind. --Kjoonlee 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure ... is there a word for that? Language is funny. Dgcopter (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Ultimate and penultimate are near-synonyms: "last" and "second last". jnestorius^(talk) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How seriously is the linguistic community taking the Saphir-Whorf Hypothesis today?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.186.7 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Sapir–Whorf hypothesis#Influence and reactions, "Today researchers disagree—often intensely—about how strongly language influences thought". -- Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds rather diplomatic to me. In my experience, professional linguists consider the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to be flat-out wrong: thought influences language, not the other way around. It's mostly non-linguists who believe language influences thought. —Angr 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how does it work in this case. In English it's always the idea of I am what I am - I'm angry, for example. I can't remember how it is worded in French, but isn't the literal translation something like "I anger myself about ___..." Rather than "I'm angry about ____"? Why wouldn't that kind of thing influence thought? To me it's a lot different to say "I'm angry" than allowing for the choice of getting angry? Or is it that way just as a result of French culture? Thanks, --Falconus^{p t c} 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to read too much into differences of wording. Think about the sentence "I'd like a beer, please." "Please" is short for "if you please", so what you're saying, literally, is that you would hypothetically enjoy a beer if one happened to be brought to you, provided that be the listener's pleasure. But that's not what you're thinking when you say it, and it's not what you hear when someone says it to you. For practical purposes, at least to a fluent speaker, it might as well be "Idlikeplease a beer", and "Idlikeplease" might as well be short for "give me". The words don't matter nearly as much as what they imply about the speaker, and since it's considered impolite in most circumstances to say "give me a beer", about all you can conclude from "I'd like a beer, please" is that the speaker wants a beer and knows the customary way to ask for it. It doesn't tell you much about how they think. -- BenRG (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I'd consider "I'd like a beer, please." to be quite a rude way to ask for a beer, unless it immediately followed "What would you like to drink?" and even then it's a bit iffy. It carries connotations of expecting people to serve your whims, and feels snotty and presumptuous. The polite, customary way of asking 'round here would be the more circuitous "Could I have a beer, please?", "Could I get a beer please?" or "Do you think you could pass me a beer?", "Do you think I could have a beer?", "Would it be possible to have a beer?", etc etc. Now, you may think this doesn't tell you anything about how people think... 79.66.124.253 (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It tells you what you perceive about people, but I think that's irrelevant. --Kjoonlee 02:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Ooookay. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC) It does occur to me that perhaps it was unclear that I was comparing cultural norms, rather than suggesting that a given phrase was objectively rude. Was that unclear? Or am I misreading curtness in Kjoonlee that was unintended? Or a third option? 79.66.124.253 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that sort of request ("I'd like a beer, please") would be received very differently depending on whether it was spoken gruffly with a scowl, as opposed to to with a cheery tone of voice and a big smile on your face. The essence of the communication would come from the non-verbals. Naturally, discussing such requests in a written forum like this has its limitations, because all we have to go on is the words. It's sometimes tempting to assume a certain affect display on the part of the speaker/writer, but their real affect may be markedly different. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree it comes down to the inflexion and non-verbal cues but I must say I wouldn't consider walking up to a barman and saying 'I'd like a beer please' rude; possibly clumsy but not rude. I've noticed when going out for dinner with friends that some will ask the waiter 'Would it be possible to have the salmon and then the steak please?' (usually with increasing pitch towards the end); I think they go too far to try and avoid the concerns 79.66.124.253 was alluding to, when simply telling him what you want suffices. If you go too far to avoid seeming demanding you can end up seeming apologetic, which is patronising in its own right..I've strayed off topic, sorry.Od6600 (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Which in turn tells us interesting things about the people who use these different forms and perceive them in different ways :) 79.66.124.253 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is even more irrelevant IMHO... --Kjoonlee 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I chose a bad example. Just imagine a situation in which "I'd like a beer please" is a polite thing to say, or a phrase that's polite to say in the situation you were imagining. I was only saying that fluent speakers unconsciously "hear through" the word choice to the underlying intent, and I still think that's true, notwithstanding my bad choice of words. -- BenRG (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All the real linguists I've met and talked to in real life think that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is utter rubbish. --Kjoonlee 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Falconus^{p t c} 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Language in Mind - The MIT Press. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't offer any useful comment on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However, I have to say I'm very puzzled as to how "I'd like a beer please." could be considered rude, assuming it is said to a bartender in a civil tone of voice. Can someone please enlighten me? Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Kabiawu" etymology

Does the name Kabiawu come from a known word in the Yoruba language? NeonMerlin 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

July 29

Need South Indian transcriptions for the word "Gautham"

in
1.) Tamil
2.) Telugu
3.) Malayalam
4.) Kannada

It's really urgent. Please help! --91.130.91.110 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Transliteration#Free online transliteration services. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice hint. If somebody here is a native speaker, please contact me on talk page. --91.130.91.110 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tense or Tensed?

Is it wrong if I say "I'm tensed." instead of "I'm tense."? (As in, tensed due to an exam that's about to start.) La Alquimista 09:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally, it would be "I'm tense". People sometimes say "I'm all tensed up", but not "I'm tensed". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! La Alquimista 09:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thesaurus request

For some time I've been trying to find/recall a word used to describe the phenomenon of noticing things more often once they've been brought to one's attention. To try and elaborate on the loose and fluffy description; Learning a word for the first time and then reading it in a newspaper article, in your book, on the radio several times over the next few days. Similarly, when I was looking into buying a new car, suddenly the roads seemed full of a particular model that I hadn't, knowingly, ever seen before. I vaguely remember there being a word for this, possibly a German portmanteau. I think I understand the neurology/psychology of it but can't put a name to it. Any ideas (and I hope that others experience this otherwise I may need medical help..)? P.S. I don't think it's serendipity, which seems to be what most people suggest. Thanks, Od6600 (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sensitivity? - X201 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I might describe myself as having a heightened awareness of the thing in question, or that I was more cognizant of it, maybe? I'm afraid I don't know the possibly-German word you are thinking of, though. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The expression I'd use in German would be "selektive Wahrnehmung" - this does probably not exactly roll off the tongue if you're not a native speaker, so I don't think it is what you're looking for. -- Ferkelparade π 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Hmmm, synchronicity? Confirmation bias? Neither of those exactly match... 79.66.124.253 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect psychologists have a term for the phenomenon, but there is no term in general use (AFAIK). You could try the psychology help desk. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Increased sensitivity or sensitization

"Die Sterblichkeit..." (quoted from "Völkischer Beobachter")

In this drawing by Jo Spier, made during his internment in the Theresienstadt concentration camp, there's an inscription in German I can't quite make out, let alone translate in full. The top line is a slogan from the Völkischer Beobachter. The "Cavalier Kaserne" was (if I understand my sources correctly) a barracks for "war invalids" (BE; in AE: "disabled veterans") among the deportees, who had fought for Germany in the First World War and rated preferential living conditions in the camp. I'd appreciate help with a typed rendition of the inscription text, and its translation to English. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd read it as "Die Sterblichkeit in Th (presumably Theresienstadt) ist befriedigend", meaning "Mortality at Th is satisfactory" (or "at a satisfactory level") and "Sterben ist keine Angelegenheit, Leben ist das schwerere", meaning "Dying is no big deal, living is harder". I'm not quite sure about "Sterben", it's almost illegible (looks more like "Steiten", but that's not a word), but from context (with the "Leben" on the next line) I'm pretty sure that's what it reads. -- Ferkelparade π 11:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Ferkelparade has it exactly right. "Sterben" looks a little weird because it uses the shape of handwritten "r" that is still common in America but now obsolete in Germany - but it's the same handwritten "r" as in "Sterblichkeit" in the top line and in "schwerere" in the following line. We're just lucky he didn't use Kurrent! —Angr 11:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Kavalier Kaserne is mentioned in the trial of Adolf Eichmann: Ansbacher: "To the best of my knowledge this drawing shows the Schleuse... The Schleuse was the place to which people were taken after they arrived on the transport. They conveyed them into a closed courtyard where they were classified according to work potential, according to sex and age. Everyone had to pass by a check post of Czech gendarmes who seized any article which had some value, such as thermos flasks, cigarettes, writing paper, and even toilet paper... This place in the picture - where we also arrived - shows the Schleuse in the Kavalier Kaserne which was next to the Hohen Elbe hospital. From there we could see the faces of the people of Theresienstadt, who looked at us in alarm. This was our first welcome into the ghetto." Xn4 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Unless it has been consumed by alcohol"

Can one say in English that ;

"Next time, try to use your *head*, unless what used to be inside it has been CONSUMED by alcohol over the years.”

Is "Consumed" the right word to use in such a sentence, suggesting that this drunkard that are being addressed might have had his intelligence drained by all too many years of drinking?

If "consume" is not a good word to use, then which word(s) are better to use?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.179.83 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 July 2008

"I'm not sure that "consumed" would get the exact sense across of someone who has been addled by drink. I might go with "pickled". - Eron^Talk 13:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But pickled means only drunk there and then, no? I mean like brain-addled as you say after years of drinking, so that the person now comes out as rather dumb, and it is not reverseable... What about simply using ADDLED?

"Next time, try to use your *head*, unless what used to be inside it has been ADDLED by alcohol over the years.”

But if "pickled" is the best word to use, then ok I guess.. I cna only say thank you ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.179.83 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 July 2008

I wouldn't say "pickled" is the best word, it's just the word that I would use to express that thought. You are trying to find a way to express the idea that a person's intellectual ability has been affected by chronic alcohol abuse. Unless you use strictly literal or medical terms, any way you express it will be somehow symbolic. I wouldn't use consumed, myself, because that suggests that the person's head has actually been physically emptied out. But really, this isn't a question that has a single right or best answer. "Addled" would work just as well. - Eron^Talk 13:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

...Compare the phrase "consumed by fire".87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What about 'negatively impacted' or 'affected by' or maybe 'impaired by' I personally would say impaired by, it sounds more encyclopedic IMHO. Landon1980 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My Merriam-Webster has 'fried' as meaning 'intoxicated'. They dated this as first used in 1926.

In this usage, 'fried' means 'currently intoxicated'. However, the use of the word has been extended to refer to longer term effects as well. For example, "He fried his brain cells years ago."

A complication with this usage is that it could refer to use of alcohol or to use of other drugs.

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OO? 00?

The washroom page at present only mentions "WC" to mark a public lavatory. What about the double-zero, or is this a double letter "O"? I don't even know which it is, and the disambiguation pages for both don't mention this usage, or did I miss something? Which symbol is it, what's the derivation, in which countries does its use predominate? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the German article on Toilette, it is "00" (zeros), and stems from 19th century hotels which usually had their hallway toilets near the stairwell or elevator, where the numbering of rooms started as well. Thus the "toilet rooms" carried the number zero, or "00". (no sources given for this claim, unfortunately, but it might be a starting point). here is a putto directing you to the Oktoberfest's WC. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See also "Sokol"'s comments here. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In 11 years in Berlin, I have never seen "00" on a public toilet or a sign pointing the way to one. The photo you linked to is from Munich and Sokol at the forum is talking about Austria; could this be an Austro-Bavarian thing I wouldn't understand? —Angr 14:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall people referring to it as "null-null" in conversations, but I guess I must have seen it somewhere in Austria. Hope the Austros&Bavarians can shed some light here. The Austrian company at www.nullnull.at delivers and rents out toilets, I had known S. C. Johnson & Son's toilet cleaning detergent 00 for many years, but only now understand its profound etymology. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(... and, of course, numbering toilets fits perfectly into the cliché of the compulsive bureaucratic Zeitgeist that was the k.u.k.). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was once in a small Hungarian town (may be Pusztaszabolcs, I cannot remember) at the railway station. I asked for the toilets and I was told it was the door with "00" (nulla nulla) written on it. AldoSyrt (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm... actually the query arose in lunchroom conversation yesterday with French and Dutch colleagues (who left postwar Europe as children), but what reminded me to ask here today was encountering this caricature of the Westerbork camp, in the Jo Spier series of artworks (possibly from his Theresienstadt ghetto period, 1942-1945, though this drawing appears undated). Without delving into the literature, it seems likely (?) that the "00" was posted by the Nazi German staff rather than the local Czechs. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Deborahjay,

• You could have asked another question:

which is better: "My phone number is Oh to...", or: "My phone number is zero two...".

Answer: doesn't matter - in English.

• You're a hebrew speaker. When hebrew speakers give a phone number, they don't say: "Oh...", nor: "Sahmekh...", but rather: "Effes..." (i.e. zero). However, when the israeli soldiers talk in Hebrew about the Second-in-Command, or the Executive Officer, they don't say: "Effes", but rather: "Sahmekh" (being a useful verbal acronym for "Sgahn"). However, the equivalent term for the public lavatory in Hebrew is: "Effes-Effes" (i.e. zero zero), rather than "Sahmekh Sahmekh" (or: "oh oh"). So not only German, but also Hebrew (which you speak), may solve the problem.

Eliko (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Eliko, you're quite right that the numeral "zero" is more international than Latin-alphabetic "O"; my naming them as I did (and in haste) was only to differentiate them in phrasing the query. In fact, I can't recall ever hearing "OO"/"00" pronounced, except as a family in-joke ("Ooooh, Ooooh!" in relief at finding a direly needed public lavatory). For the record: as a native speaker of American English, I'll use either "zero" or "oh" interchangeably when speaking numbers aloud (phone #s, SSN, etc.); in fact, "oh" has the advantage of brevity unless I want to be ultraprecise. As for Hebrew usage, I've never heard a public lav referred to as anything but the all-purpose sherutim (which I roughly translate as "facilities"), which has the advantage of being a full syllable shorter than efes-efes. Then again, I've never served in the military myself, though am presently the proud mother of two IDF soldiers, conscripted a year apart, who rarely speak Hebrew to their immigrant parents except an occasional burst of bewildering acronyms. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right that the more useful term (in Hebrew) for a public lav is: "Sherutim". However, "Effes-Effes" is possible too (as a rare term), while "Sahmekh-Sahmekh" (or "Oh Oh") is never used in Hebrew for a public lav nor for any lav (although "Sahmekh" is used for the Executive Officer in the army, as you can realize by asking your children). Your being an immigrant - explains why you haven't heard the rare term: Effes-Effes, but you can ask other native hebrew speakers (like me) and they will approve that. Eliko (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we don't have a Wikipedia article about toilet symbols in different cultures, but that might be an interesting topic. For me both WC and 00 would be clear, as well as an ideogram of a man and a woman. But I would also recognize a symbol that I haven't seen anywhere outside my home country, that is a triangle (Gentlement) and a circle (Ladies). I wonder if other countries have other such unique toilet symbols. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From Flickr, check out gendersigns group and Restroom signs set and restroom + signs tags jnestorius^(talk) 22:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Kpalion: where are you from? In my experience, the big circle and triangle signs are sufficiently ubiquitous in California as to be mandatory; and I've never seen them anyplace outside of the state. (Maybe I don't get out enough.) After thinking about it -- exactly what purpose could a large unmistakable geometric sign serve? -- I think the most likely explanation is that California (whilst trying to get out in front of the rest of the country again) has legislated a sign that even a guide dog can understand.

I've never, in twenty-plus years, found a Californian who could definitively confirm or absolutely deny that was the case, but everyone I've asked about it (1) thought it made sense, and (2) agreed it was consistent with Things Californian.

--Danh, 67.40.167.150 (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronuncation of letter 'v' in Esperanto

I have been puzzling over this for some time now. Many sources, including our own Esperanto phonology page, claim that the letter 'v' in Esperanto is pronounced /v/. However, I also sometimes hear that it is somewhat like /w/ or /u/, or something similar. That vowel/semivowel pronuncation would appear to fit better with the words the letter tends to be used in - such as "lingvo" (language), in which it would be rather hard to say /lingvo/ (or /liŋgvo/), unless you perhaps aspirated the 'g' or added a schwa after it? The letter 'u' in Esperanto already stands as /u/, while 'ŭ' represents a near /w/ sound, so I also find it hard to believe they would have still yet another "u"-like sound on top of those two already. Anyway, hope you may be able to answer. Cheers. 84.13.198.10 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are audio files of four different persons pronouncing the Esperanto word "lingvo" in the sample paragraph near the bottom of the page at Esperanto Pronounciation : Esperanta Prononco. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)