"A number of people" was affected or were affected? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
"A number of people" was affected or were affected? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
== Czech word for "tailor" ==
How do you say "tailor" in Czech? - Aletheia
Revision as of 09:15, 4 January 2009
Welcome to the language section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
I find that very hard to believe; I think it's more likely that the name "avobenzone" is completely arbitrary, like many drug names. They just liked the sound of it and it wasn't too similar to another else. I'm guessing, which isn't helpful, but my reason for posting is to point out that there might not be an answer. --Anonymous, 23:33 UTC, December 28, 2008.
Update: The term is the "Chemical Name" used by the "Cosmetic and Toiletry and Fragance Association" and the FDA. There's a system, but I haven't been able to reach anyone yet to explain the details. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're wondering the syntax, "terms of reference" is a compound word. "reference" is an adjective. "terms" is a noun, and in this case, the plural form. The reason this is so is because this is french description form (in french, the adjective comes after the noun).96.53.149.117 (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple way, used very oten in this kind of document, is to put it as '(hereafter known as 'Terms') when they are mentioned the first time, then just put 'the Terms' (no quotes) for every instance thereafter.--KageTora (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@96: "Terms" is a noun, but "reference" is not an adjective, and French is not relevant. "of reference" is a qualifying phrase which, unlike adjectives, normally follows the head in English. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see "of reference" as a describing compound word. Really, qualifying phrase or adjective, they both describe. So if there was a higher taxon, I woulda used it, but adjective sufficed for the purpose in my context.96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks it to me. It was, after all, only 500 years ago which is chickenfeed compared to Chaucerian English (800 years), or Beowulf (1000 years). And if you've ever read any Shakespeare, that was only 400 years ago.--TammyMoet (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling wasn't too reliable in the 16th century (not that the internet has done spelling any favors). This page has an excerpt from the preface to the First Folio (1623). Conventions like U for V ("haue"), V for U ("vttered"), and I for J ("iniurious") make it appear stranger to our modern eyes. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you heard Henry read it, it might sound more outlandish than it looks. English spelling has changed little since the early 16th century, but pronunciation has changed a fair bit. Modern spelling is closer to the early 16th-century pronunciation than to modern pronunciation. Marco polo (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the top of a doorway to a lecture room in the University of Helsinki Department of Linguistics (previously the site of the Department of Anatomy), there is a Latin phrase:
"… to come to the assistance of life." Appropriate for an anatomy department, where dissections train students to become preservers of life. (Succurrere takes a dative object.) Deor (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese
I'm searching for the meaning and pronunciation of 浮汎. Actually, I'm not completely sure if it's a real modern japanese word. Could someone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.43.69 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fuhan/ふはん. The meaning is superficial or shallow. Oda Mari (talk)
"want" and "need"
British rock band Coldplay's single Fix You has the lyrics --
When you try your best, but you don't succeed
When you get what you want, but not what you need
When you feel so tired, but you can't sleep
Sometimes I feel I know the difference but the more I think about it the more I get confused...well I am not a native English speaker. So can somebody explain the difference between "want" and "need" to me in simple, lucid words. I guess an example or two will certainly help me to comprehend the difference. Regards, --Sanguine learner talk18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a philosophical question than a linguistic one. What you want is what you feel would be nice to have. What you need is what you can't really be without. For example, you may want a shiny, new car and a snazzy MP3 player but what you really need every day is basic things like clothes and food. People generally want everything they need, and more, but it isn't always as simple as that. JIP | Talk19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that a distinction is often drawn to emphasize that what one wants may be incompatible with, not just additional to, what one needs. For example, an alcoholic may want a bottle of hooch but may really need (or so those interested in his welfare would say) to enter a treatment program. In this way, people, who usually are very aware of their wants, may be blind to their needs; and I think something like this notion may lie behind the lyrics quoted by the OP, as it probably lies behind those of the Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Deor (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, it might help the good people on this board to know what your native tongue is - maybe the distinction between the two is blurred in it, leading to your confusion. For instance, in my native Slovene, the verb for "to teach" and "to learn" is almost the same (učiti [se] - "to teach" is učiti, and "to learn" is the reflective učiti se - basically "to teach oneself", even when a teacher is involved), and you often hear native Slovene speakers confuse the two when speaking English. It's not that they don't know what they want to say, it's just that the distinction that is present in English but not in Slovene is sometimes hard to fully grasp for them. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, does that mean "I want money as I need to buy medicine" is incorrect..."I need money as I want to buy medicine" is the correct version. Here both "money" and "medicine" can be basic to survival?! --Sanguine learner talk17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the correct version would be "I need money as I need to buy medicine" or more simply "I need money to buy medicine". It should be pointed out that at least in the US, the distinction between want and need is sometimes ignored and the terms are used interchangeably. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When he was very young, my younger brother used to say he "needed" the new video games. I would correct him, and say, "No, you *want* that new video game, I *need* food to live." It's a slippery slope, though - I don't *need* to live, I *want* to, so I don't *need* food - I only need food to live (although, as above, the distinction is often ignored and the second even more so - continuing to live is sort of viewed as a given, so I do *need* food; in which case, as above, the use of need becomes transitive - if you need medicine, you need the money to buy the medicine, although you would also sound right (if odd) saying, "I want money to buy the medicine I need." - more naturally, "Hey, buddy, I've got the sniffles and I need to buy some cold medicine, can you help me out?" thus dodging the entire mess of transitive need/want altogether - crafty beggars). 98.169.163.20 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it violates the usual spelling-to-pronunciation rules of Spanish, it should be [olˈɣin] (non-IPA approximation ol-GEEN). —Angr22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "nothing helpful in the article", I meant in Holguín. I didn't know then about the one on Spanish orthography. I would have to admit, however, that I am grateful that there are those on the Ref Desks, like you, Tamfung, and Angr, who just know the right answer, and are willling to tell me. I could have spent all afternoon trying to work the matter out, and would still have been unsure. Thank you both. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you thank him for a wrong translation? [olˈɣin] is oelghene in English. -lysdexia 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
In English, I can pronounce "ol-GEEN"; I wouldn't be certain what to do with "oelghene". For example, "gh" in English is silent ("nigh", "flight" and "eight") or pronounced in the same way as a hard "g" (ghost). And is "oel" the same as the word "oil" or as in the word "Noël"? My thanks go, as always, to anyone who tries to be helpful. I remain grateful. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[ɣ] is an allophone of /g/, so that's near enough to be understood unambiguously by a Spanish-speaker, and as near as we can get with English phonemes since we don't use a voiced velar fricative. —Tamfang (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I said "non-IPA approximation". "ol-GEEN" isn't as accurate as [olˈɣin], but it's "good enough for government work", as Stephen King characters always say. —Angr11:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many Commonwealts can't read English, nor can they speak something when spelt for them; spelling aloud is a crock. One can't say the e in English or the i in iPod. So, no, it's not in English as English has been dead for 1000 years. The -gh- words are not English but Norman-English muttish. The gh- words, however, and their sounds, are in English, but were first written by yogh. "oel" is the same as neither: l is a vowel, so one is to put the modifier -e after the modified vowel, rather than after the consonand. And one isn't to shift vowels when they're in a row, unless the modifier is there. Another way to write the guide is Olghene. Note the last part is not gheen as that would be a long i, or iː -lysdexia 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The world must be insulted for its own sake; it is rotten, blind, and deaf. No, -and makes a noun, whereas -ant adjectiv—your -ant is a Francish corruption of Latin. -lysdexia 03:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Libel is against Wikipedia's NPA laws. lysdexia was/is not a troll, and I advise you to read the dictionary, which you are sheerly infamiliar with. Also see User talk:68.127.228.70. -lysdexia 03:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sheerly infamiliar" would seem to be if not a corruption, at least a distinct variation of standard English. If we keep beating this dead horse, do we raise common welts? --- OtherDave (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a good reference, but I think it's from punting. If you try to move a punt in mud you don't get anywhere fast. M-W online puts the expression at 1733, at which time they seem to have used punts for cargo transports. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Disconjure' is attested by the OED, for what that's worth. Neither 'deconjuration' nor 'disconjuration' is, and I have never seen either used. Algebraist12:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In occult terminology (from what I can dimly remember), first you conjure something up (or evoke it), and then you "banish" it, if that helps at all. Also, a spell whose purpose is to prevent another spell from having any effects can be called a "counter-charm". Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking... AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my old D&D days, I remember the term abjuration describing the spells which did effectively the opposite of what the conjuration spells did. This may be more or les useful depending on what you're talking about. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As-salaamu alaykum
Can someone help me understand the standard transliteration of السلام عليكم? It all makes sense to me except for the apparent character in "as-salaamu" between the lām and the mīm. Since the vowel between those two consonants is a long ā, I would have expected an alif in that position, but the character looks more like a wāw. Can anyone explain what is going on? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an alif. There's a special ligature for lam-alif where the vertical stroke for the alif goes slanting off to the left. I don't see that it looks even remotely like a waw, though. —Angr15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article (grammar) - acronyms/initialisms tend to be constructed (said without reference) as a new unit, with the locality of the article (and other signifiers) moving out to the abbreviation itself. As above, "United States of America" becomes USA, so that "of USA" and "of the USA" seem to flow more naturally. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say it doesn't matter what the abbreviation is because it's no longer really an abbreviation. It's just a word on it's own. Do most people really know what it means, or even that it is French? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to disagree with that, Adam. Even if anglophones don't know where it comes from or what the letters stand for, they still say it as 4 separate letters and not as a single-word acronym such as radar or laser. True, the expression has taken on a life of its own, divorced from the original French words, but I wouldn't classify it as a word. I see our Words without vowels includes MC and DJ, so I guess some people would be happy to accept RSVP as such a word. Not me, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is more or less what I was trying to get at, although avoiding the specific word "word", since it leads to JackofOz's thicket. "RSVP" has become a "thing" and one uses articles to mark "things" (a/the RSVP; the apple) versus submarking them (RS the VP; app the le). 98.169.163.20 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Adam. As additional evidence of his conclusions, I have heard instances of "please RSVP" and even "I am RSVPing to your invitation".--Thomprod (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought of that, too (to the detriment of my argument). In that sense, it's certainly at least a quasi-verb. However, is RSVP in the sense "We haven't received a single RSVP yet" any more a noun than FBI or CIA are nouns? My assumption here is that for a string of letters to be classified as a noun, it must firstly be considered a word, and abbreviations are not considered words. Or are they? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider many acronyms to be words/nouns. We have already mentioned RSVP used as "a reply", CIA and FBI can be nouns as abbreviations of "the Agency" or "the Bureau". Thomprod (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone translate "Se voulant et se croyant sincèrement démocrate, au point qu’aucune accusation ne l’irrite davantage que celle d’être un dictateur, il n’en a pas moins eu de cesse qu’il n’ait fait voter une constitution lui accordant pratiquement tous les pouvoirs et réduisant le parlement au rôle d’un décor coûteux que l’on escamote même en cas de besoin."
Trying the first passage, with not quite enough coffee:
Seeing himself as and believing himself to be truly democratic, so much so that no accusation annoyed him more than that of being a dictator, he had hardly stopped [doing something in a previous passage?] when he arranged approval of a constitution giving him nearly all power and reducing the parliament to the role of an expensive decoration that you could bypass as needed.
As for the second, it seems to be missing a ni at the beginning ("ni X ni Y" has the sense of "neither X nor Y"). If I'm right (no guarantee), it could be something like:
...(neither) the official legislative, administrative, or judicial versions (or text, or language), nor their official translations...
"Il n'a pas eu de cesse" is an expression that could be translated literally as "he would not let things rest" or more idiomatically as "he wasn't satisfied until" he had arranged for the approval of a new constitution etc, as OtherDave very aptly translated. "Escamoter" is the verb used when a conjurer makes, for example, a rabbit disappear into a hat.
The second sentence could be translated more simply as "laws, regulations and legal requirements, nor their official translations." --Xuxl (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Xuxl -- that idiom seems to fit better in context (even with little context to go on). I'd seen a couple of connotations for escamoter and like yours. The French sentence is wordier than I would be in English, so a more idiomatic version might be:
He regarded himself as a truly democratic leader; nothing irritated him more than being called a dictator. Still, he wasn't happy until he had the constitution rewritten to give him virtually all power, transforming the parliament into high-priced scenery (a theatrical sense of décor) that could be whisked away as needed.
I'm reading the letter that Szilárd and Einstein wrote to Franklin Roosevel urging U.S. development atomic weapons. The second paragraph seems pretty sloppy for a genius. "It has been made probable...that it may become possible...it appears almost certain." Am I reading this incorrectly or is this kind of sloppy? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leo Szilard wrote it, and he was Hungarian, so we have to cut him some slack right there. Also, you try writing a letter of world-shaking import to the president of the United States; I think he did pretty good. But, yes, I don't think it's possible that it could be made probable that something may be possible, especially if it appears almost certain. There is another problem, too: the second part where the port in the parenthetical magically appears outside it. But it got the job done. It would have scared the bejeezus out of me. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following EC:A couple of mitigating circumstances: Einstein's language background is German. Passive voice is considered good style in German. Thus thinking patterns when constructing a sentence goes along the lines of
(likelihood of success) - material required - action - result
rather than the English
actor - action - result - (conditions to be met)
They were also trying to word those phrases emphatically enough that they'd get people acting "now" while not promising any immediate results when entrusted with the task. Given that, I think the phrasing isn't all that bad. When you say "sloppy for a genius" you indicate that you'd expect a genius to be equally proficient at all tasks they encounter. That expectation neither meets with the definition nor the reality. Einstein's ability to see solutions for physics problems that had baffled others came at the price of having an unusual mind that is these days described by some as a form of dyslexia. He flunked school math and is quoted as saying that he refused to memorize things he could just as well look up in a book. Lisa4edit (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things.
On Einstein failing math; total bullshit. It has no basis in historical fact at all, and is simply the kind of lie we tell ourselves to show us that "anyone can do anything". See this article in Time Magazine which clearly debunks the myth. According to Einstein himself, he was doing differential and integral calculus at age 15, and according to his actual school records, he was always at the top of his class in Mathematics from primary school onwards; most of his teachers openly noting in his records that he was far ahead of his classmates.
On "dyslexia"; may or may not be true, but dyslexia is commonly misunderstood to be a specific disease or syndrome; it simply means any difficulty in reading or writing. Eloquence and use of language are not really connected with dyslexia in any way, which is more about techinical processing of words on a paper, and not about constructing eloquent language. Also, eloquence has no connection to scientific proficience; they are completely different modes of expression and thinking. Else, Shakespeare would have been a fantastic scientist, no?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lisa4edit hits on a key aspect: the writers wanted to advocate a path without guaranteeing results. The gist of the translation (relevant to the original question) seems to be:
Recent work by Joliet, Fermi, and Szilard has made it seem likely that one could set up a chain reaction in a mass of uranium. ("made it seem probable that it could be possible, though no one's actually done it yet")
Now it looks as though this could be done in the immediate future (rather than years and from now--things are heating up).
We believe, though we're not certain, that this could lead to the construction of a very powerful bomb that could destroy an entire port, though such a bomb might be too heavy to transport by air. (We see military uses, but the challenges are likely to be daunting.)
@Jayron: that goes to show one should not believe everything one hears or reads in a book. I went back and checked and found a source that explained the situation:[2] The grading systems in Germany and Switzerland are reversed. Both use numbers 1-6. So when the Germans read he was graded at "5" to them it meant a failing grade, whereas the Swiss school he went to meant one level beneath excellent. (And there we thought only language could cause confusion ;-) Lisa4edit (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the probable/possible/certain thing: perhaps the intent was to say that over the 4-month period it had become increasibly probable that an artificial nuclear reaction was possible, and "now" it was almost certain. I agree that the passage doesn't clearly say this, though. --Anonymous, 03:34 UTC, December 31, 2008.
"Possible" isn't expressing a likelihood there; it's expressing the distinction between something that could happen and something that never could (possible/impossible). The word that expresses likelihood is "may", as in "may be possible", and it's possible that (as a non-native English speaker) Szilard chose that word because he thought it was grammatically required for something that wasn't certain. --Anonymous, 18:53 UTC, December 31, 2008.
Another Hungarian-German, the conductor Hans Richter, speaking/writing in English, uttered the immortal line: Up with your damned nonsense will I put twice, or perhaps once, but sometimes always, by God, never. There must be something about Hungarian that gives rise to these wonderful linguistic events. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I agree, there is definitely something with native Hungarian speakers, and it's not limited to English. Take for example Ephraim Kishon. Hungarian Jew and Holocaust survivor, he picked up Hebrew in no time after he moved to Israel to avoid Communist prosecution and started writing his satirical column only 2 years after he entered the country. And it's often said that humour tends to be hardest thing to understand when you are learning secondary language. It might be the fact that Hungarian (along with Finnish, Estonian and Basque) doesn't fall into Indo-European language family, and is actually Uralic, Finno-Ugric language (and so are Finnish and Estonian, but not Basque). I remember reading about linguists trying to construct language that would force its users to think in different, new ways, Hungarian might just have similar effect.--Melmann(talk)11:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web language conventions?
A lot of wording for website navbars have become standardized, for example:
About
Blog
Forum(s)
Search
Contact
What short title do you recommend for a link to a web page that collects news clippings and media/TV/radio excerpts that discuss or or praise the website's content? I'm thinking maybe "in the news", or "media coverage" or "news reports" or "mass media" or similar.... --Sonjaaa (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, this usage forms its tenses the same way that the simple verb "go" does. "Went missing", "has gone missing", and "had gone missing" are ecah the correct form in the appropriate circumstances.
I think the original poster is upset about the existence of the expression. Too bad. It forms a useful distinction from "is missing" in that it refers to the moment of the disappearance, just as "they got married" forms a useful distinction from "they were married" in the same way. --Anonymous, 18:57 UTC, December 31, 2008.
Pronoun
Why do some people use "it" instead of the appropriate sexual pronoun? For example, why "A male xyzzy does its work by pulling a foobar" instead of "A male xyzzy does his work by pulling a foobar"? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think for a lot of people, the gendered pronouns "he" and "she" are personalized, and only usable for animals you really know - domesticated animals you live or work with or that friends live or work with. But wild animals aren't like friends and so they're "it", even when happen to know their sex. It's the same with babies - one's own baby, and the babies of close friends and relatives, are always "he" or "she" (as the case may be), but babies you don't know personally are very often "it" (even if you can tell it's a boy or girl because it's dressed in blue or pink or is currently having its diaper changed). —Angr07:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Post E.C.) It depends on the subject. If xyzzy is an animal other than a pet (cats and dogs especially), the word "it" is often used even if the gender is known. For pets some people use gender specific pronouns, others don't. I got into the habit of using "he" and "she" when referring to dogs and cats after people corrected me for using "it". Rarely some people use "it" when referring to newborns. I think this is because the gender is non-obvious. Other than that one, I haven't run across a case where "it" is used in reference to humans where gender was determinable or would be determinable. While no one would look twice if you used the proper pronoun, "he" and "she" and derivatives seemed to be preferred for humans, especially cared for animals, and occasionally suitably respected and anthropomorphized objects like ships. Everything else gets an "it". It's a subtle arrogance on the part of the english language. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we make all sorts of distinctions between human animate beings and non-human animate beings. The latter don't get to vote, receive pensions or fly aircraft, to name just a few. I wouldn't call it arrogance, but a sensible and useful form of discrimination. In some cases we know the sex of an animal, but in the general situation we don't. A passing random human stranger is usually identifiable at sight as either a woman, man, girl or boy, but a passing random cat is just a cat (unless it's clearly a kitten). That some other languages refer to their animals as he/she is nice for them, although how they'd refer to the abovementioned cat without a close examination of its genitals - not usually possible or desirable - is a mystery to me. It may be governed by the grammatical gender of the word for "cat" - it's masculine in some languages, feminine in others, and neuter in still others. But that has nothing to do with the sex of any particular cat, and sex is what usually governs the use of "he" and "she" in English. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and then again: "There she sailed." - "I used to own a Corvette, she was the sleekest ride you'd ever seen." - "Look at that eagle soar. He's a magnificent bird." (Before it lands and feeds its chicks.) Our kitty cat is "she". The cat who keeps beating her up was "he" till we met the neighbors. When ours met a stray cat she gave it a good whacking. If I meet a bull I'll get out of it's way, even if I'm certain. Let's face it we just aren't very consistent. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution of English
I have been told that at some point in 16th century English language was significantly "dumbed down" (thats how that person refered to it). For example, supposedly, English had different words for plural of "you". It also had means of identifying sex of speaker based on way how they used the language (I guess with different word endings) and much longer list of irregular verbs. I have tried to search for it, but I came up with no useful info since I don't know if that language change has specific name (or name of language itself, before it was simplified). If what that person told me is true, why did it happen? If you could provide any info or links to this, I would be very thankful.--Melmann(talk)14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert, but I think that basically you are correct. Over the course of the past millenium, English has changed quite a bit. Old English had something called the case system, where the word changed it's form depending on whether it was a noun, direct object, etc. This was mostly dropped, and now appears only in some pronouns (though it was dropped long before the 16th century). In Shakespeare's English, they did have multiple "you" forms, though I haven't heard that there were multiple plural ones. You was either the formal way of talking to one person, or was the way of addressing a group of people (like we use "y'all" today, if you live around the area that I live). "Thou" was, in my understanding, used strictly as a singular second person pronoun, and was extremely informal (which is contrary to what a lot of people think today). As for the name, I don't know what you mean. The process is evolution, I believe, and the names are Old, Middle, and Modern English. Old English took place from whenever English started (I can't remember for sure) and had evolved to modern Enlish by the 1200's at the latest. Middle English was the next (again, the dates escape me), and that would be the kind of English that Chaucer used. Modern English starts around Shakespeare's time; Shakespeare's writings are considered Early Modern English. Old English is so different that you will probably not be able to understand it at all, and Middle English is different enough that you will have to struggle, but may be able to get meaning from it. Modern English should be straightforward; it may not be easy to read Shakespeare without practice, but you should be able to understand it fairly readily if you take the time to think it through. Also, I think this is cool. Old English was at one time written in runes, though these were soon dropped. I know that's irrelevant, but it's awesome, so I thought I'd mention it. Oh, I think I realized what your friend might have been thinking was the other plural form of "you" - "ye". That is a myth; "ye" is a modern occurence, and really stems from a way that they wrote the word "the". It has nothing to do with the word "you". I hope this helps. --Falconusptc14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that pronunciations are wildly different. The way that you would read Old English or Middle English, or even probably Early Modern English is vastly different han the way that the authors of those works would have read them. The sounds have evolved quite a bit in addition to the actual syntax of the language, and this is evident in many places, such as the word "knock" for example. That 'k' wasn't always silent. I also forgot to address "why". I don't know for sure, but language has evolved in every single language existing on earth. Latin evolved into all of the Romance Languages for example. There are many theories on why this happens, but I am not sure which ones are more widely accepted. In any rate, English has evolved from its Germanic roots, and English continues to evolve today. --Falconusptc14:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Way that person spoke about it leads me to believe that change was sudden and maybe even organized by some kind of ruler and enforced on its subjects. But it just could have been natural way English evolved, I don't know. What didn't occur to me is to look up Old English or Middle English. For some reason I assumed whole thing has some complicated linguistic name.I'll check out links you provided, thank you.--Melmann(talk)14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how Early Modern English handled second-person pronouns: Speaking to one person informally : Thou shouldst not believe all that others tell thee. ("Thou" nominative; "thee" oblique.) Speaking to several (or to one formally) : Ye should not believe all that others tell you. ("Ye" nominative; "you" oblique).
While the loss of a distinction between second-person singular and plural forms brought a loss of clarity and precision, it isn't fair to say that the differences between Middle English and Modern English or between Old English and Modern English represent a "dumbing down". Semantic work that used to be done by inflectional endings or vowel mutations is now mostly done by word order and the addition of auxiliary verbs and particles. English has simply become more analytic and less synthetic. This does not make it less complex or "dumber", as foreign learners struggling with English verb aspect or articles can attest. Also, as English is the main language of modern science, technology, and business, all of which are immensely more sophisticated and complex than anything in the Middle Ages, it's hard to see how Modern English can be "dumber" than earlier forms of English.
Middle English gradually evolved in a series of stages first into Early Modern English and then into the forms of English current today. Each piece of that evolution probably originated in a specific local and/or social setting and gradually spread through the English-speaking community. These changes were not ordered or imposed by any authority. As Falconus mentions, some of the biggest changes in English had to do with pronunciation rather than grammar. Probably the most important group of changes in pronunciation was the Great Vowel Shift, which began in southern England in the 14th or 15th century and still has not completely spread to all of northern England or Scotland. Vowels have continued to shift since the 18th century, as is clear from the different values of certain vowels in England and in the United States. Most of the significant regional variation in the pronunciation of vowels in the United States has also developed since the 18th century, though some of that variation may result from the settlement of different American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries by settlers from different parts of Great Britain and Ireland. These changes happened gradually, with only subtle differences from one generation to the next, but the cumulative effect over centuries was substantial. Marco polo (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Shakespeare often uses 'thou/thee' and 'ye/you' quite inconsistently. For example, in Hamlet, I1, Bernardo says "'Tis now struck twelve; get thee to bed, Francisco.", but four lines later calls him 'you'. In fact, this is also the case in Everyman some 200 years earlier: in the first scene, Death says to Everyman: "Yea, sir, I will show you;/ In great haste I am sent to thee/From God out of his great majesty." --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the last 550 years or so (since roughly the mid-15th century), while many pronunciations and individual words have changed, there have been almost no losses of inflectional categories or inflectional complexity between the London/"Midlands" dialects of the time vs. modern standard English -- with the ONE prominent single exception of 2nd. person singular pronouns and verb inflections (whose loss was mainly a complex sociological phenomenon connected with the role of the T-V distinction in 16th and 17th century society). Otherwise, the only real changes have been that on the pronoun side the ye/you distinction has been lost and the it/its (or his/its) distinction has been innovated, while on the verb side the original 3rd. person singular present verb inflection "-th" has been replaced by "-s" (this last was a northern dialect form in 1450). The real loss of morphological complexity in English came roughly in the preceding 550-year period (say, ca. 900-1450). AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Model of "broken" English in Hollywood movies
Hollywood movies seem to have their own model of "broken" English spoken by foreigners. Stereotypical mistakes include:
substituting "me" for "I", and
substituting "no" for "not".
These are just the commonest "mistakes", but there are others.
Is this "model" based on real mistakes made by some non-native speakers or is it just a Hollywood invention? If the former, where are these non-native speakers from, or perhaps more relevantly, what language do they speak natively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.19.42 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common to hear native speakers say things like "Me and my partner were very happy with the outcome", so there's no reason why new speakers wouldn't pick up on that. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's equally common to hear native speakers who pride themselves on their knowledge of English saying things like "To my wife and I, our 2 dogs look different, but our children have difficulty in telling them apart" - where "me" is the officially "correct" pronoun. It's probably more likely that a person who says "me" in that sentence learned their grammar from a book, and its use might even raise some eyebrows among many native speakers. Me, I'd congratulate them (but me wouldn't). -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, Chinese has the same word for "I" and "me", for example "I am" (我是), and "don't look at me" (不要看我). ~AH1(TCU)18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my wife and I is of course a hypercorrection. When children begin a sentence with me and Billy they are told to say Billy and I, without context or explanation, and extend the lesson to where it does not belong. —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angr has correctly translated the sign, however it should be noted that such a phrase is not usually seen on such signs."Achtung Rutschgefahr!" is the standard. The symbol underneath is the same though. --Cameron*20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people say a few times that the with + -ing sentence structure is ungrammatical. I think that's shit, as with + -ing can be the best way to phrase something. For example "The recipe called for baking the pasta for one hour, with it being uncovered for the last fifteen minutes." "The party would start at six with the movie starting at seven." Am I really not allowed to use this sentence structure? Thanks, 76.248.244.232 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with that construction. A preposition takes an object (here, it) and objects can be modified by adjectives (being.../starting...). Admittedly, this construction might be too wordy at times or better rephrased (personally, I'd rephrase the 2nd example as "...at six, and the movie would start at seven"). Note that this is quite similar to the nominative absolute in English, which is acceptable and even appears in the US Constitution (and the Constitution writers wouldn't even agree to split infinitives!). Interestingly, both the with constructions above and the nominative absolute mirror a construction of the Latin language (ablative absolute), and English has traditionally been made to conform to Latin rules (eg. no split infinitives, no prepositions at the end of sentences), so a construction like this traditionally could be considered favorable. Do these people you mention say why they think this with construction shouldn't be acceptable?--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of those things that can be dangerous in the wrong hands, like "while": My sister is 28, while I am 23. My sister is 28, with me being 23. Those two sentences are mistakes for "My sister is 28, and I am 23." I'm sure Fowler had something to say about this, but we don't need to dig him up for something this obvious. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"On accident" more than just a malaprop of "by accident"?
When I first heard a child (age 7 or so) say something happened "on accident" a few years ago, I figured it was just a cute malaprop - children often do this, they'll hear somtehing is "on purpose" and just presume the opposite is "on accident," instead of "by accident" as I've always heard. (Edit - not actually a malaprop, as I look, as it's not the same sound, I don't think. But, you know what I mean.0
However, lately I've seen more and more of this. Has "on accident" become the new way to say something was done "by accident" - which is the way I always heard it growing up till a couple years ago (and even since then, mostly.)
You are correct. According to Grammar Girl, it's evolution of language. Older people tend to use "by accident" but younger people tend to use "on accident." There is no widespread rule for or against it. Reywas92Talk23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, a "stupidism". Like failing to decline the word "the" for nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative case, and masculine, feminine, and neuter gender in the singular. Or using that neologistic verb ending "-s" on 3rd singular present verbs like "walks" and "eats" instead of the correct ending "-eth". And kids today are so illiterate, they almost never remember to put the "y-" prefix onto past participles, and often leave the "-en" ending off strong past participles, stupidly saying "I have sung" instead of correctly saying "I have ysungen". —Angr00:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a name for the unwritten rules that govern language usage? As an example, the phrases "athletic performance is heavily dependent on fitness" and "athletic performance is largely dependent on fitness" are both acceptable even though a dependence can neither be heavy nor large. Also, "heavily" implies an extreme while "largely" does not, meanings that can't be determined from the literal meanings of the words "heavy" and "large". --99.237.96.81 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say idiom covers that. To greater or lesser degree, all languages employ words in certain contexts that, when removed from those contexts, mean something different. Different languages use different words in such contexts, which is why a word-for-word translation of a text, without regard to the meaning of words within the context of the text (as opposed to their basic dictionary meanings), often produces a ludicrous outcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I help who's next?
A couple of the girls I work with call out to the line of customers (which is usually more of a cluster than a line): "Can I help who's next?" Is this correct? It seems to me like it should be "Can I help whoever's next?" but I'm not sure. It could be correct if you think of it as "Can I help [the person] who's next?" but "the person" is omitted as extraneous sentence bits often are in English. But it still sounds weird to my ears. Then again, now that I look at it, my version doesn't sound quite right either. How should it be worded? Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can break it down to 2 questions: "Who's next?" spoken to the group, followed by "How can I help you?", directed at the person they've just identified as next in line. But if it's concatenated into one question, it would be more usual to say "Can I help whoever's next?", rather than "Can I help who's next?", because "Can I help" should be followed by a pronoun (e.g. "you"), a noun, or a nounal phrase, whereas "who's next" is not such an animal but a question. I suppose you could repunctuate it as: "Can I help? Who's next?". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For all those stumbling across this post: In the US the form "How may I help you?" is considered a lot more useful in terms of job retention. Some stores and take-out places actually have posters hanging by the phone spelling it out in big letters.76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I often hear "can I help the next in line?" (You did say it's more of a cluster than a line, but by saying "line" you're implying an order.) That's commoner in some situations like grocery stores than "can I help the next person in line?" In any case, I wouldn't rush to correct the wording of coworkers, especially if "Can I help who's next?" has the effect of causing the next person to step forward. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How should it be worded? In whatever way it is most clear to the customers. It doesn't really seem like there's any confusion and a (presumably) retail/service environment can probably be a little lax with the grammar. But it would be cool if they said something like "whomsoever is next in line, having been waiting the longest, let him or her step forward so that I may help in an effort to fulfill his or her requests." :-) --LarryMac | Talk14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read a newspaper article a while back that said men generally preferred reading non-fiction rather than fiction. I'm male and that's definitely true for me. I prefer to read newspapers and autobiographies rather than novels. I can't think of any reason why other than non-fiction seems more interesting. By the way, Happy New Year to everyone at the ref desk 165.228.151.7 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That must be one of those "6 of 10 interviewed" things. I could not corroborate those results in doing my own tally of the individuals of male persuasion in my Social circle (not the village in GA). My very own specimen of male bookworm subsists on a diet of Science fiction and Alternate history. Among friends and family many genres of fiction are enjoyed. One of my brothers reads stuff like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, some of our friends read popular fiction by the likes of Michael Crichton whereas others devour Crime fiction. Evidently there are reasons why people prefer reading something besides textbooks and the news. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the journalist was speculating. She observed that most book clubs tend to have females as members. She also noted that book clubs targeted towards males almost always had non-fiction books on the reading list. It's more of a sweeping generalisation than anything based on published studies. Although, I suspect that there's more than an element of truth to her claims. 124.171.130.103 (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from the membership of book clubs. I don't think I know anyone who's a member of a book club, and I wouldn't want join one myself, but most people I know read quite a few books. Off the cuff, I'd say there's not a lot of sex-based difference overall in the ratio of fiction to non-fiction among them. Obviously, what my friends do isn't proof of anything in itself, but my point is that I really don't think book club members represent an average reader very well. (For starters, simply presenting people with a list of books that in itself shows bias like this would skew the results.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The membership of books clubs is not representative of the general reading public. In a book club one must want to meet with other people, and to talk about the book, in addition to actually reading. Another interpretation of the results is that women are more likely than men to want to socialize with others about a book, and the men who do want to discuss a book, are more likely to prefer non-fiction. Perhaps because non-fiction is a harder read or it brings up issues that are better absorbed after discussion. (For example, I'm a male who likes to read fiction, but I actively dislike discussing them afterward. I wouldn't join a book club, not because I don't read fiction, but because analyzing a book ruins it for me.) -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double period
Hi. In English, is it ever appropriate to use two full stops (..) at the end of a sentence? This is not homework. If so, when, and why isn't there are article? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does, because Algebraist's answer was correct and complete as to whether it is ever appropriate. I took the OP's "if so" to apply only to the "when", and I was answering "why isn't there an article?". (Interestingly, in standard American usage, that last sentence would not have the final period.) --Milkbreath (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a sentence can end with an ellipsis to indicate that it is deliberately incomplete. This is normally written as three dots and often is typed by pressing the "." key three times. So in a sense the sentence ends with two dots (the last two of the three). But those dots are not serving as full stops (periods), just as a decimal point is not; they are really just part of the ellipsis. --Anonymous, 09:58 UTC, January 2, 2009.
The only systematic use of two dots I've seen is in OED and SOED, where they are regularly used instead of the usual three-dot ellipsis. In quoting OED I typically replace that custom single-character ellipsis with three dots (such as Anonymous has just mentioned): the only sort of ellipsis I ever like to use, and the only one recommended at WP:MOS. I do not like to use the preformed single-character ellipsis (…). The CD-ROM SOED's two-dot ellipsis, strangely enough, is two separate dots rather than the OED's single-character implementation; but SOED sometimes has such an ellipsis next to a full stop, and then it uses a single-character for the three dots together. (Don't get me started on ellipses with four dots, or spacing between the dots and around the whole ellipsis, or associated kerning, or hard spaces preceding or following, or effects of adjacent punctuation on such spacing, or the general chaos and ignorance concerning ellipses and indeed hard spaces – or waterboarding.)
So, you're saying that every single time I see something in an article written with two dots (eg. "This is an incorrect solution..") that isn't quoting something else, I should correct it to either one period or an ellipsis? ~AH1(TCU)16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such an occurrence in the wild would almost certainly be a mere slip, MB.
Astro, yes. The doublet is either a mistake for a full stop or a mistake for an ellipsis. Determine which is intended, the best way you can, and make it either a single full stop or a proper ellipsis. Now, here's the more important point: even if the mistaken doublet occurs within a quote, it should be corrected to either a standard full stop or an ellipsis. This is quite normal "silent" correction of a sort advocated by both Hart's Rules and Chicago Manual of Style. Only if the doublet is textually important should you retain it and annotate it with "[sic]" – when the topic itself is, say, non-standard or sloppy punctuation. For the general idea I have raised see "allowable changes" in the Wikipedia Manual of Style; for "[sic]", see immediately above that subsection.
By the way, you might like to revisit eg., which is an abbreviation of two words: exempli gratia. The punctuation is therefore normally e.g. or (sometimes nowadays) eg without any dots.
From your "To Do" list, I'm guessing you're American. You folks put the period inside the quotes, whereas others put the full stop outside the quotes (on the basis that a sentence can end only with a full stop/period, question mark or exclamation mark, never with a quote, comma, colon, dash etc etc). If you are an American, I would say it's well punctuated. Some people feel the need to put a comma before a quote (in this case, after "whispered"), but that's unnecessary. Well done. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the people who feel the need to put a comma before a quote, and I do consider it necessary. If I were your English teacher, I'd dock you half a point for not writing:
Without realizing it, I whispered, "Nice job."
And I think even non-Americans would put the period/full stop inside the quotation marks in this case since in context, "Nice job" is a complete sentence, so the period/full stop belongs to it. —Angr22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is "Nice job" a complete sentence? It is just a noun and an adjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.196.156 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 January 2009
"Sentence" has different meanings. In this context it includes a fragment; the point is that if you were writing it down outside of quotation marks, you'd end it with a period. Therefore the period inside the quotation marks is appropriate. --Anonymous, 10:01 UTC, January 2, 2009.
Absolutely right, Anon. As JoO says, it's a complete sentence in the sense relevant to punctuation, just like Absolutely right, Anon. Much confusion is wrought by not attending to the distinction. Much.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who said that. Jack says he'd put the full stop outside the punctuation, and would even do so in the case of a complete sentence with a subject and verb, as shown by his above response of 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC). —Angr12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Angr. Of course you're right. Though JoO did seem to have assumed the same "punctuational" meaning for sentence, he did not make the statement I attributed to him.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was 2009, but let's not quibble over a trifling 366 days. :) Which of the following looks right:
A. "Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job. Really good." He answered "Thanks." Then we had lunch.
B. "Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job. Really good". He answered "Thanks". Then we had lunch.
I'd go with B every time. Having an end quote followed by a space (or 2 spaces) and then the first letter of the next sentence just looks somewhat unfinished to me. I appreciate the rationale for including the period inside the quotes, because it's a part (at least a grammatical part) of the person's utterance. But how does that theory hold when it comes to a comma, which Americans also include inside the quotes, even though it is most definitely NOT a part of the speaker's utterance in cases like:
"Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job," and he answered "Thanks." Then we had lunch. - which I would render as:
I'd put a comma before the quote (though otherwise I don't like commas much) and
put the stop inside the quotes because it belongs to the quoted sentence and stands as a stop for the whole statement. Outside the quotes in this form it looks like a dot rolled away.. .-) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complete book of myriad treasures / wanbao quanshu
There was a household encyclopedia published in Ming dynasty China called The Complete Book of Myriad Treasures. It sounds really interesting, but I don't read Chinese. Has it ever been translated into English or French? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.48.59 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that can be located online. It seems to be transliterated as Wan bao quanshu [3] This one's spelled in two words. They don't have a translation, though. [4]. The German Institute of Chinese Studies at the University of Heidelberg seems to have a copy in Chinese, but no translations either. [www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de] Portuguese might actually be a better bet for a translation than English or French, but I couldn't find anything there either. Good luck. Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the Spanish obesity page [5] under "Cirugía bariátrica" it's called "bypass gástrico" or for the full term "Cirurgia bypass gástrico" (confirmed by googling). Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
polín
what is a polín, i looked it up at rae.es (la real academia española website) but didn't understand most of the words in the definition, what is it? is it like "rafters" or "wood" or "barn"? could someone translate the definition for me? "Rodillo que se coloca debajo de fardos, bultos, etc., de gran peso, para que, girando, los transporte." and "Trozo de madera prismático, que sirve para levantar fardos en los almacenes, y aislarlos del suelo." What i really don't get is what a "fardo" is defined as "Lío grande de ropa u otra cosa, muy apretado, para poder llevarlo de una parte a otra. Se hace regularmente con las mercancías que se han de transportar, cubriéndolas con arpillera o lienzo embreado o encerado, para que no se maltraten." I don't understand lío in this sense, as i thought it meant, issue or problem or polemic. is it pully? anyways, what is polín in english?Troyster87 (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Polín comes from French poulain, which first means "a colt; a young horse", and then has derivative meanings that correspond roughly to those for polín in the DRAE. First, it's a little rodillo, which is a roller. Such rollers you might place under a heavy object to move it along without friction. Second, a similar piece of wood, or other such protective padding, placed under bulky objects to keep them off the ground. There is an exact English word corresponding to this latter meaning, but for the moment it eludes me. There is a third, regional meaning in DRAE: Traviesa de ferrocarril. That's a railway sleeper, which I think helps to elucidate the other meanings.
I can't remember hearing it in Australia. It is not in OED; and since it does appear here in an online dictionary of Indian English, I suspect that it is confined to India.
The second merger ([æ] and [a]) is pretty common in foreign pronunciations of English, and I think that most English speakers would have no trouble understanding someone who made that merger. The first merger ([ʌ] and [ɒ]) is not one that I am used to hearing in a foreign accent. I think that English speakers could generally understand someone who merged those vowels, but there would certainly be cases of ambiguity, since those are common vowels (at least in American English), and they are phonemic. So I think that listeners might be confused and/or misunderstand some of that person's speech. Marco polo (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just listening to "Non, je ne regrette rien" and noticed that at one point Piaf sings "Je n'ai plus besoin d'eux." Why is this okay? I think my high school French teacher would have marked it wrong if I had written that instead of "Je n'en ai plus besoin." Is it colloquial? Is it poetic license? Is something else going on here that I'm unaware of? —Angr21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally you would have Je n'ai plus besoin d'eux for persons, and Je n'en ai plus besoin for animals or things. In the song, the line preceding is Mes chagrins, mes plaisirs, so en is expected. But Grevisse (Le bon usage, 1959, §498) allows d'eux also, in reference to things personified or "déterminés et individuels", or to avoid an ambiguity. There is a case for considering the chagrins and plaisirs as in a way personified; and anyway poetic licence generally, and the demands of prosody and of rhyme (with J'ai allumé le feu) in particular, justify d'eux.
Reciprocally, Grevisse allows (at §502) that en may be used for persons. The first example he gives is one using peuple – a rather "impersonal" way of referring to people en bloc.
Hi - I mistakenly posted this on the Humanities Desk, but have moved it here, with some amendments. Can anyone tell me what a 'tableau of the dead' would be called in French (as opposed to a tableau vivant)? - and while you're at it, what would the French be for a 'tableau of the half-alive'?
PS - I moved Adam Bishop's answer too, which was responding to a slightly different query.
I guessed "tableau mort" might be the opposite, and Google suggests that that refers to an image created with dead, preserved animals, or a depiction of someone's death. (That seems not to be really the opposite of a tableau vivant but I imagine it would be difficult to use dead people to stage a scene...) Perhaps for "tableau of the half-dead" you could use "tableau mort-vivant" (borrowing from the French title of "Night of the Living Dead"). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Julia - nature morte is great - would tableau semi-vivant work for a tableau of the half-alive? 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I suspect semi-vivant is semi-alive and demi-vivant is half-alive. You might like to google the works of Helen Chadwick who (I think) combined living and dead objects, but not totally sure. The thing about "nature morte" is that things may be living (like food and flowers) or dead (game birds) or just not moving around (inkwells, books and musical instruments) so I'm wondering if there's a demi-life implied in "nature" and "morte"? Much more interesting if you can push it further though, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
January 3
Since the dawn of time
Where did this phrase originate? I'm suspecting that it was coined because it seems awkward to ascribe a dawn to time itself; how can there be a dawn of time if time didn't even exist? Thanks for any input. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Arrow of time for some interesting ideas of how time works. The idea is that time only exists as a means of ordering events. Before there were events, there was no time. So, before the universe was created (see Cosmogony and Big Bang) there were no events, so there was no time. Time began when events began to happen that needed ordering. --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that comes from directly watching hourglasses (some old-timey soap-opera introduction began with the narrator intoning "Like sand in a hourglass...", I believe). AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"… so go the days of our lives." Not all "sands of time" references are related to hourglasses, however. Many derive ultimately from lines in Longfellow's famous "Psalm of Life"—"Lives of great men all remind us / We can make our lives sublime, / And, departing, leave behind us / Footprints on the sands of time"—which some think were inspired by the discovery of fossilized dinosaur footprints in sandstone. (Certainly, Johnny Mercer seems to have had Longfellow's poem in mind when he wrote the lyrics to "I Wanna Be a Dancin' Man" for Fred Astaire: "Gonna leave my footsteps on the sands of time, if I never leave a dime.")
The actual quote is "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives". (I can't believe I've actually watched this show sufficiently often to have memorised it, but there you go, life's rich pageant has enough for all of us.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the "dawn of time" question, I, like Julia Rossi, am drawing a blank. All I can add is that the OED, s.v. dawn, has no quotations illustrating this expression—the closest is "dawn of history" from 1878, but that's not really the same thing. Deor (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; those links are interesting. In case I've been misunderstood, I was asking who first used the phrase "since the dawn of time" in a piece of writing, not whether it makes sense. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I return with google-fu in tatters, having found that the origins you seek are lost also in the mists of time. Send out the next one while I tell you a story, that essay checkers hate the phrase, Shakespeare won't own it and even the writers of Genesis eschew it though ghits show that multitudes use it every time it turns around. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OED records no such figurative senses before 1633:
["Dawn, n."] 2. fig. The beginning, commencement, rise, first gleam or appearance (of something compared to light); an incipient gleam (of anything).
1633 P. Fletcher Purple Isl. xii. xlvi, So spring some dawns of joy, so sets the night of sorrow. 1752 Johnson Rambler No. 196 32 From the dawn of manhood to its decline. 1767 Babler II. 100 If he possesses but a dawn of spirit. 1823 Lamb Elia Ser. 1 Old Actors, You could see the first dawn of an idea stealing slowly over his countenance. 1878 Stewart & Tait Unseen Univ. ii. §50. 69 From the earliest dawn of history to the present day.
OED would record any earlier occurrence it was aware of; so we can conclude that as far as OED is concerned dawn of time is later than 1633.
Here is one from before November 1694, if the author in question is indeed John Tillotson (1630–1694):
Here is one from 1906 that seems to echo Tillotson, with rather more ferocity:
He nodded to her, and she came and sat by him, and they had more drink, and then he went upstairs into a room with her, and the wild beast rose up within him and screamed, as it has screamed in the jungle from the dawn of time. (Upton Sinclair, The Jungle, chapter 22)
"Texas jail closes after recliners found in cells" is the headline of thisAP report. Among the other objectionable items found in the cells, why did recliners make the headline? Perhaps I lack the imagination to use one in a nefarious way, or is this some other device? If the latter, the recliner page could do with a revision.-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow this seems a marginal consideration relative to the other offenses noted in the body of the article. (On the other hand, it certainly attracted my attention the way other headlines don't!) If this were just a matter of "quality-of-life" items, it's certainly less portable, therefore less fungible, than the usual drugs/cigarettes/weapons. I posted this query to the Language RD rather than Miscellaneous , wondering whether this is a Texas regionalism that's escaped me in the decades I've been reading about my native USA from overseas. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up in Texas, and I've never heard "recliner" used to refer to anything other than a recliner. But Texas is a big state, and I can't claim to speak for everyone's lexical competence. —Angr12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the story, though, it seems like more than just that. What I'm thinking is that any upholstered furniture can be used to hide things in. —Angr10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself living in a city that borders on Italy (literaly, see Nova Gorica vs. Gorizia), and it turns out that not being able to speak Italian is often a bother, so I want to learn at least some basic Italian. Could somebody point me to a good online resource for studying Italian? A google search finds some sites, but I can't really make out which are good and which not, hence the question here. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[æ] (the "short a" vowel as in cat) is not too widely distributed as a vowel phoneme among the languages of the world, but slightly mispronouncing it does not usually lead to serious miscomprehension (as long as you don't merge it with [ε], the "short e" vowel as in pet). What I find really kills overall comprehension (more than pronouncing one or two specific vowel qualities slightly off) is not pronouncing English with strong stress and accompanying vowel reductions in unstressed syllables. Getting this wrong is guaranteed to make your attempts at speaking English sound quaint and very very foreign (the linguistic terms are "stress-timed language" vs. "syllable-timed language"). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
minding your "BI" business
I grew up in New York City and in the 1960's-70's we commonly used the phrase "mind your BI business" to say "mind your own business." Problem is none of us knows what the "BI" stood for or what the origin of that phrase is. Alternatively, some think the phrase is "bee eyed."
Internet searches have yielded nothing so far. Anyone have any ideas?
What is the status of "however" as a conjunction, in a sentence like this?:
The work contains the grand scale of historical painting, however[,] it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama.
Merriam-Webster tells me it's a conjunction, but in the same sense? This usage feels like a run-on sentence to me. I always reword these sentences or insert a semi-colon. Is the above grammatically and stylistically valid? You see it quite often. Thanks, –Outriggr§16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The role of "however" is certainly a matter of opinion. In your sentence, however, it's wrong. You need a comma after it to prevent reading "however it presents" as "in whatever way it presents". This is mandatory. Put the comma in, and we have "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting, however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama." Now there is another problem. "However" wants to attach to the first clause. A band-aid solution is a semicolon: "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama." This at least kind of works, and it is the format that purists object to, I think. Me, I usually leave that the way it is when I run into it. It's clear enough, and enough people do it to make it de facto OK. I don't write that, though. It's awkward, and it lacks in expressiveness what it saves in ink.
Not that it is wrong but I would suggest reducing the comma load by moving around the parts to read "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people reacting to the unfolding drama rather than heros." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftus (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However" is also called an adverb by [2 MW], and I can't say the distinction is clear to me. This is one of those cases where the parts of speech fail us, I think. (Does anyone know how to make a link like that display right?) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "however" can also be used to describe an adjective, for example: "The motorboat cannot overcome the rapids, however fast it may be." ~AH1(TCU)18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MB's analysis well enough, including the requirement for a comma to make clear that in whatever way is not meant. I also agree with AnonMoos (AM) that in cases like this there should be a semicolon, and that this is no mere band-aid solution, pace MB. So AM and I would want this (assuming that the words themselves are not to be altered):
The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama.
I also agree with MB that parts of speech are a slippery matter, and that this is manifest here. OED and SOED classify however only as an adverb. (And note, Astro: it remains an adverb when it modifies an adjective.) The much more subtle and expansive Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999) has it this way: however is an adverbial (and being a single word it is an adverb). Specifically, it is a linking adverbial: it "shows the speaker/writer's perception of the relationship between two units of discourse" (p. 875). Some others in this same category are lastly, for one thing, to conclude, in other words, and therefore. But however belongs to a different subcategory than those. The linking adverbials on the other hand, alternatively, and in contrast are contrastive linking adverbials; and though and anyway are concessive linking adverbials. Longman gives however, along with yet, intermediate status as a contrastive/concessive linking adverbial (pp. 878–9, 881).
NOW: all of that applies to however in one sense. It does not apply to it in sentences like this (inspired by Astro's example, but with fast as an adverb now):
However fast you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.
How are we to classify however in this sentence? The matter is rarely addressed well; but I was surprised to find that even Longman does not, so far as I can see, settle the matter. It puts whenever and wherever in the category circumstance adverbials, with an implied subcategory marking condition and contingency (p. 844). (Note the linking function here too; circumstance and linking functions overlap.) But however in our sentence does not comport itself exactly as those two do.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be a way forward. We could substitute like this:
However fast you drive, you'll still run out of fuel. [Our original]
Whenever you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.
Wherever you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.
But also:
However you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.
However can function by itself to mark condition and contingency, making it parallel to whenever and wherever; but it also enters into the construction of indefinitely many complex adverbials such as however fast, however well, and so on, each of which is itself parallel to whenever and wherever. I intend to continue my search through Longman's minute analyses; but we could wish to see all this set out more lucidly. Longman is corpus-based, and very ambitious; I suppose it can't achieve everything, or make everything equally transparent and retrievable.
Thank you all for the analysis. I certainly agree with the semicolon approach, but had a moment of doubt given how often I see the construction in question (though never, come to think of it, in professional writing). –Outriggr§06:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My own understanding is that it means that the organization went defunct as its leaders went into exile in Canada. Correct? --Soman (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It talks about how its founder and leader was sentenced to exile and went to Canada and died early in his exile. I don't see anything about the organization being defunct, but it would seem to be a natural reaction. Wrad (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
german to english
Can you please tell me what the following says. I was sent this from my nieces husband that doesn't write english.
"ne, aber Jen ist krank und ich musste putzen und kochen, damit alles vorbereitet fuer die Ankunft meier Eltern war"
"Nein, aber Jen ist krank und ich musste putzen und kochen, damit alles vorbereitet fuer die Ankunft meiner Eltern wäre" means "No, but Jen is sick and I had to clean and cook so that everything would be prepared for the arrival of my parents." German "Ne" might be equivalent to English "Naw". (See pronunciation: nein, ne, nö, net - WordReference Forums.)
I think "war" rather than "wäre" is okay too; the implication is that everything was in fact ready for his parents' arrival, but he had to cook and clean to get it that way. I'd have spelled the first word "Nee" with two e's, but it's mostly a spoken word rather than a written one, so spelling can vary. —Angr23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
latin numbers declinability
Hi, I've made some effort to find this one out for myself, and I'm fairly sure I know the answer, I'm just looking for explicit confirmation. Are latin numbers like viginti unus declinable? I know the books say all numbers from 4 to 100 are not, so obviously that includes 21, but I'm wondering if the terminal part, the unus, is considered declinable, on the basis of unus, -a, -um, while viginti is kept indeclinable. I would expect not, since unus is singular, and viginti unus plural, but it's good to get it precisely. I am also interested in general in what happens to numbers like 101, 102, 103, and 1001, 1002, etc. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Gildersleeve and Lodge the indeclinability is only stated with respect to simple number words, while "Compound Numerals" are discussed separately, and the specific example of annos unum et viginti ("twenty one years", accusative case) is given... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wavelength's examples show quite clearly what is also illustrated (but not, damnit, made explicit, as AnonMoos points out) in Gildersleeve and Lodge (see §96; §94 is in fact misleading, since it gives for example ūnus, ūna, ūnum for "one", but only vīgintī ūnus for "twenty-one"). Where they occur in higher compound numbers, ūnus, dūo, and trēs are in fact declined.
I'm not too good with the pronunciation key, so a dictionary isn't much help. How does one pronounce the word "albeit" and "whey" (as in whey protein)?
I relate to the second of all-BEE-it emphasising the second syllable; and of whey, is there a "h" in there? Pop-up: whey – (h)wā (just checking as a non-IPA-er) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether "whey" is pronounced "way" or "hway" depends on your accent of English. If you pronounce "whine" like "wine", "which" like "witch", and "whether" like "weather", then you'll pronounce "whey" like "way". But if you say "hwine", "hwich" and "hwether", you'll also say "hway". See wine-whine merger for details. —Angr07:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a single word that means "uncared about"?
My mental lexicon seems to be out of whack today and I can't find this word I'm looking for, if it even exists. Is there a word that applies to something that isn't cared about? "Neglected" is not right because I don't want the implication of "not attended to". 99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mm... not quite the sense I want. I want to evoke something that has no empathy for it whatsoever, not just something that isn't necessarily liked or enjoyed or understood. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
