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

May 8

Type of Phobia

I had to, as part of my work, take a 9-year-old Japanese girl to the dentist to get her front teeth fixed, involving lots of 'shaving' of the teeth and me holding her hand and translating for the dentist. A terribly horrific experience for me, as I had my front teeth taken out without anaesthetic when I was a kid, but the child was loving every minute of it (except the part where she nearly drowned in the water from the drill). What is the word for a fear of dentists?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PS - don't say 'dentophobia', because that would be fear of teeth, not what I'm on about.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The dental fear article suggests odontophobia among others. Cycle~ (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! That'll be the one! This happened nearly a year ago, but stuck in my mind as a horrific experience. BUT, I have managed to get my teeth cleaned and get some fillings since. Just the whole thing of watching a little girl having her teeth 'shaven' was really horrific for me. Thanks, you gave me the answer.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Humph. "Odonotophobia" should also mean "fear of teeth". "Fear of dentists" ought to be odontiatrophobia. +Angr 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. And being a man I could only think of one reason why I should fear teeth, but we won't go into that. 'Odontiatrophobia' it is then. That'll be a lovely word to teach. Let's see if she can pronounce this one! She is extremely advanced in her English, but the father asked me to go just in case. Cheers.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that a reference to the vagina dentata? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A phrase I always find myself wanting to sing to the tune of Hakuna Matata. +Angr 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I'll do that next time I'm at karaoke! Watch the bottles flying from the ladies!--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Space or not?

Shall there be a space between the number and the "%"?

For example: 98% or 98 %

Thank you for helping. Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. See percent sign#Spacing. — Emil J. 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally would not put a space in there. I get paid per character, and the space is a character, and I've been told specifically not to put it in, in cases like this. Anyway, I don't think it's necessary, and I am so used to not putting it in that it actually looks silly to me now. I'd go with the 'no space' bit.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

98 % is certainly wrong. If you're going to use a space at all, it should be a non-breaking space: 98 %. Algebraist 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to discuss different kinds of spaces, then it should be a thin space: 98 %. — Emil J. 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Should it? That's not mentioned in the article you linked. Algebraist 14:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure where I got it from, maybe I'm wrong. — Emil J. 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, there should be no space. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Percentages. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hindi and Rajasthani

I was trying to ascertain the relationship and degree of mutual intelligibility between Hindi (a macrolanguage, I recognize) and Rajasthani. Apparently Hindi is a Central Indo-Aryan language and Rajasthani is a Western Indo-Aryan language, yet formerly Rajasthani was classified as a dialect of Hindi. How much mutual intelligibility is there? Are there any rough comparisons that can be made, e.g. like Spanish (Castillian) compared to Portuguese, or to Catalan, or to French or Italian? Thanks for everyone's help --71.111.205.22 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to a Spanish-Portuguese level of intercomprehensibility, since it's somewhat notorious that Portuguese speakers often find it easier to understand Spanish than Spanish-speakers do Portuguese. AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, if it was 'formerly classed as a dialect of Hindi' there must be a reason for that, i.e. that they were mutually intelligible. Your question answers itself.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We need some researcher to come up with some sort of measurement and scale for these language or dialect pair relationships, it would be a brilliant breakthrough in language classification. --Lgriot (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

See Languages similar to French. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether that link is really too helpful; French has a number of structural similarities with Spanish and Italian, but the intercomprehensibility of spoken standard French with spoken standard Spanish or Italian is very low... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My reference to that page was in response to the preceding comment by Lgriot, and not to the original questions. That is why I indented my comment as I did. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting website, thanks Wavelength. I was looking for something more academic, though, with a proper methodology on how to decide those cactuses and percentages (use standard printed dictionaries A and B, use grammar features X, Y and Z etc.). --Lgriot (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a more productive question: to what comparative degree do native / advanced speakers of Hindi (perhaps from Delhi/New Delhi/ Uttar Pradesh) understand Punjabi, Gujarati, Rajasthani, or Marathi (etc.), without having studied them? (the Guj. and Punj. alphabets differ from Hindi Devanagari so perhaps we should focus on oral comprehension) Can any useful comparisons be made with German speakers understanding Dutch, English, etc. or Spanish speakers understanding Portuguese, Italian, etc? BTW, I totally agree with Lgriot and AnonMoos. Thank you. --71.111.205.22 (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language has links to Category:User hi and Category:User raj. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese was never classed as a dialect of Spanish, and Dutch was never classed as a dialect of German. However, Luxembourgish sometimes is classed as a dialect of German, Dutch and even French (and one idiot even claims it to be a dialect of English), and when I speak Luxembourgish to people of any of those areas, they still understand me, even though it's also classed as a separate language - people who class things as such and such tend to have a real knack of making it complicated by disagreeing with each other.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

May 9

Suffix "up"

Why is the suffix “up” on the following words, and how did it come about?

act up; add up; back up; bang-up; belt up; bone up; break up; brush up; buck up; buckle up; bundle up; butter up; button-up; buy up; call up; catch-up; choose up; clam up; clean up; cozy up; crack up; curl up; cut up; dial-up; dig up; do up; doll up; double up; dream up; dress up; drum up; dummy up; face up; fed up; fix up; follow up; foul-up; frame-up; gang up; gear up; give up; gussied up; hard up; jam-up; keep up; lead up; lighten up; loosen up; make up; mark up; measure up; mix-up; mop up; open up; pass up; pay up; pipe up; play up; pony up; power up; ring up; round up; runner-up; scare up; screw up; sew up; shack up; shake up; shape up; shape-up; shoot up; show up; shut up; sign up; sign-up; size up; souped-up; speak up; start-up; stink up; sum up; sum-up; tag up; talk up; tear up; tie up; touch up; trade up; trump up; trumped-up; tune-up; use up; wait up; warm up; warm-up; wash up; wind up; wise-up; work up; write up; write-up

Sirrom1 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there's really a "suffix" up, in the usual meaning of the word suffix. However, there's prepositional up ("up there"), adverbial up ("go up"), and verbal particle up ("give up"). The examples you give are verbal particles, and their origin is the same as that of English verbal particle constructions in general. AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You might find [1] interesting (make sure the book pic displayed says "Phrasal Verbs") 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the word "feedback"

Am I correct in thinking that the word feedback was coined by Norbert Weiner, the founder of cybernetics? And that its first published use was in the 1948 book Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris, France: Librairie Hermann & Cie, and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press? I did read a paperback edition of this book once years ago - it is a non-technical popular account. His Wikipedia article mentions a classified secret monograph written in 1930 and made public in the early 1940s which might predate it, but I've never read it and it seems to have had only a small readership. 84.13.54.183 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The earliest quote in the OED (with the spelling 'feed-back') is from 1920, appearing in Wireless Age, whatever that may once have been. Algebraist 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was a radio communication magazine. Indeterminate (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A patent filed in September 1915 and issued in September 1916 contains the phrase "feed-back circuit" (p. 2 ff.). --Cam (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any information on when it came into wider use please? Our world has been changed a lot by that idea I think, and people who were brought up before it became widespread may see society in a more dictatorial way. 84.13.54.183 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. The OED distinguishes two meanings for 'feedback' (well, three, but the third one - the howling noise you get from a PA system - is not relevant). The older is a technical term in electronics, and it is this that goes back to 1920. The second meaning (which is what our feedback article mostly covers) the OED dates to 1943. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say it is "not relevant"? All three terms are related in meaning (mechanically similar), only differing in the medium of the feedback. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms are related in origin, and if you understand the physics you can see the relationship; but their meaning is different. You can hear feedback³ and cover your ears whether or not you have the least idea what causes it. Feedback ² is more abstract: while it may refer to perceptible entities (eg words, or voltages) they are feedback only in respect of how they are used, not in respect of any intrinsic quality. And feedback¹, while technically an instance of feedback², is so specialised that you need to understand its field (electronics) to know what it is about. Actually I would distinguish a fourth meaning: comments and reactions, whether or not they are to be used to modify or refine a process. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

aneka in Sanskrit

What all meanings aneka can have? Literally, it means that is not one/more than one. However, some online vedic or scriptural interpretations give the meaning of many or even innumerable. When did this word come to have the meaning of many? Can somebody tell? --Sankritya (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right that aneka (अनेक: अन् + एक) literally means "not one". The disctionary meaning follows:

• Monier Williams' dictionary: not one , many , much ; separated.
• Capellar's dictionary: not one; many or much (also pl.), manifold.
• Macdonell dictionary: more than one, various; many, several.

I didn't find any standard dictionary define aneka as innumerable; I guess that would be a justifiable extrapolation, but don't know when that meaning was first applied. Apte gives the following Sanskrit translations for innumerable: asaṃkhya, gaṇanātīta, saṃkhyātīta, agaṇya, asaṃkhyeya . Abecedare (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Abecedare is right. You may add Apte (p. 80) to the list of dictionaries that define "aneka" as "many", "manifold", or "diverse" but not listing "innumerable" or "infinite" as meanings. The noun ekatā means "oneness, unity, union, identity" (Apte p. 314). An-ekatā is the opposite of those things. I do not have a reliable source that discusses why some translators use "infinite". Since Apte provides literature citations for each definition of the term he gives, dating of the works he cites could be done to try to trace a history of use of the word, but that would constitute original research, which is forbidden here. Looking for translations of the word in texts on hand I find Brahma Sutras 1.3.27 with अनेकप्ततिपत्तेः translated by S. Vireswarananda (Brahma-Sūtras, p. 102) as ॰the assumption of many (forms). The context of that passage is explaining how the gods can be in many places in many forms at one time. The word occurs several times in the Bhagavad Gita (6.45, 11.10, 11.13, 11.16, 11.24, 16.16). In 6.45 it must mean "many" and not "infinite" because it promises that eventually the wise person is "attaining perfection through many births" (translation of अनेकजन्मसंसिद्धः by S. Gambhīrānanda, Bhagavad-Gītā, p. 313). Buddhipriya (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Expressing possession

Well, I asked a question on the talk page of American and British English differences. The page writes as I know that the possession is normally expressed by the verb have. But chiefly in Britain (?) you can use the phrase have got and in American slang you can simply use got. That's OK, I know, but I'm confused about their tenses and their time references. I'd like someone to complete (and correct) this table below.

    have             have got             got                              blah-blah
I have a car.    I have got a car.    I got a car.  These sentences refer to the present, I have that car now.
I had a car.          ? ? ?              ? ? ?      This sentence refers to the past, I had that car in the past and don't have it any longer. How would it be said with (have) got?
I've had a car.       - - -              ? ? ?      This refers to a part of the past or present it's not important, it's importance is the experience I've ever owed a car. I think it would not make sense with have got, but what about got?

Thank you, --Ferike333 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is:

(1) The phrase have got as opposed to have is somewhat more common in Britain (especially in negative and interrogative sentences), but it's used in both British and American English. Generally speaking, have got is more colloquial than have.

(2) The phrase have got can only be used in the present tense. So, we can't say I had got a car. We can only say, I had a car and I have had a car (or I've had a car).

(3) I've got a car sounds more natural than I have got a car.

(4) Got for have is nonstandard, and it should not be used in writing.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And while we're at it:

Consider the question, "Have you got a car?"

A British person would answer, "Yes, I have." or "No, I haven't."

An American would answer, "Yes, I do." or "No, I don't.", as if the question were "Do you have a car?", which is the more common form in American English.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In American English, I got a car does not mean I possess a car. It means I acquired a car, generally in the recent past. Tempshill (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I retract that it doesn't mean "I possess a car". It can mean that in the most casual of circumstances. Who's got a car? Oh, I got a car. But it would be regarded as improper even to us provincial loutish Americans. Tempshill (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You can also say "I had gotten". I was thinking you could also say "I have gotten", but that sounds weird to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"I had gotten" and "I have gotten" both sound okay to me. "I have gotten 19 people to sign my petition." No use of the word "got" is appropriate in formal writing at present, though, among my generation, it is a very very common expression. As for, "I had got a car," I think that that's something that some people might say, but it definitely is not correct grammatically. --Falconus^{p t c} 04:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You could say "He had got out of bed and had showered and was half-dressed before he realised it was Sunday morning and he was due for his sleep-in". I never use gotten, so I can't say whether that "word" could replace got here. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The only real differences between British and US usage is that in the U.S. "gotten" is used as the past participle of the verb "to get" in contexts other than indicating simple static possession. So in the sentence "I've gotten five votes over the last hour", the meaning of the verb in context is to obtain or recieve, which is why "gotten" is used in American English. But in "I('ve) got enough money in my pocket", British and American are the same... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Guys--let's keep it simple. As a long-time ESL/EFL teacher, I know how easy it is to confuse learners.

As for got vs. gotten:

Generally speaking, the past participle of get is gotten in North America and got in most of Britain and Australia--when it does not indicate static possession or obligation.

(N. Amer.) I have gotten 19 people to sign my petition. = (Eng., Aus.) I have got 19 people to sign my petition. (= I have made them sign my petition; I caused them to sign my petition.)

In English English and Australian English, this I have got (19 people) looks like I have got (a car), but it's semantically and grammatically different. Quite different.

Also note that, in English English, "I got enough money in my pocket" and "I've got enough money in my pocket" are always different; the latter indicates possession, the former does not.

If you look up the word have in a good learner's dictionary, such as Merriam-Webster's, you will find all of the senses of have for which the phrase have got can be used. In contemporary NAmEng, these are the only possible uses of got as the past participle of get.

I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I got a car is past tense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it? In the meaning "I obtained a car" it's past tense, but as a contraction of I've got a car, with the meaning "I have a car", not really... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard, nor used, that construct in present tense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you ever heard Ray Charles sing "I Got A Woman", or Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders sing "Got Brass in Pocket"? AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but that doesn't mean they're using standard English. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- you may not like it, but it's nonsense to say that you've "never heard" it, then... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In Am.Eng. 'You got a cigarette' can be an acceptable substitution for 'Do you have a cigarette?', which is not only Am.Eng. but also Southern Br.Eng. In the North of England we'd say 'Have you got a cigarette?' (also acceptable in some parts of America). 'You got a cigarette?' (question form, hence the question mark) to me, would be simple past tense referring to having actually obtained a cigarette. This is something I also as an EFL/ESL teacher for many years find trouble explaining to students (most of whom need to learn Am.Eng. to pass exams).--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still not grammatically standard American English. I don't know what you mean by "acceptable substitution". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nonstandard, and I made that clear in my very first post. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please find some proof that it's standard English. [2] says it isn't. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please give me some proof that you can actually read! I said NONSTANDARD time and time again. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, giving us some proof that you understand Wikipedia protocol and can be polite, as we are all trying are best to answer your question, but we are also talking to each other either agreeing/adding information/disagreeing, would also be nice. Calm down and don't shout.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

When I was growing up (in Southern England) "do you have?" was a strange thing that Americans said. It was not normal in English English (except for the frequentative:"Do you have dances in your village?"). My observation (OR) is that when "have" is an auxiliary, it patterns as an auxiliary ("have you seen?" "I haven't seen") in all varieties of English, but when it is a substantive verb North American English tends to use it like an ordinary verb ("do you have any?") but British English has tended to continue pattern it like an auxiliary ("have you any?"). This distinction has been reducing over the last thirty or so years, so "do you have any?" is reasonably common in the UK now - I haven't noticed any difference in Northern and Southern usage there, but there may be. I believe that the prevalence of "Have you got?" in colloquial British English is partly because of the prosodic preference for a stressable element in non-first position: in lects where "do you have? is normal, this can be stressed as "do you HAVE", but where this form is (or was) unavailable "HAVE you?" is weaker than "have you GOT?". The same argument can account for the affirmative construction, with a bit of fiddling: "I have got" (with full 'have') is comparatively unusual except in contrastive use, but in the colloquical register where 'got' is common, so is contraction, so "I've got one" is much more common. Here again the 'got' gives us something stressable in second place. --ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

o.O Thank you very much. Let me please, write a short conclusion so that you can see whether I've understood or not. Have is the most widely used, however it's uncommon in Southern Britain in simple questions like Do you have any apples?. In this case a Southern British person would choose the have got form which is common in whole Britain. Got is nonstandard, only used in American slang. They really do, I know as I've heard people saying that in a film (called: Chicago). The form have gotten cannot be used to express possession, only as the past participle form of get, and this form is chiefly American, in Britain, standardly, got is used for past simple as well as past participle. Had got and gotten can neighter be used for possession, it sounds strange even to me, I just asked because one of my former teacher said it was to express possession in the past, something like the past form of have got but it's not true, and I haven't heard eighter. So have got and got can be used only when referring to the present, even though have got is formally a perfect phrase. Have got is naturally and ususally shortened to 've got (eg: I've got...). Though, I won't always use the short form because on my keyboard it's a bit difficult to put an apostrophe so I usually write the full forms as it takes fewer time than putting apostrophes (or when I don't have to be official I simply omit them). I think that's all we've already mentioned, right? If I skipped something important, please remind me, it's not easy to follow a such long text like this. And now, more questions: Chiefly Americans often use ain't instead of numerous negative short forms (aren't, haven't, am not, etc.). By this way, can I say I ain't got any eggs. or I ain't have any eggs. instead of I haven't got any eggs. (both sense) and I don't have any eggs.? --Ferike333 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"I ain't got any eggs" (or more likely "I ain't got no eggs") is grammatical in the nonstandard dialects where it occurs, but *"I ain't have any eggs" (likewise *"I ain't have no eggs") is (AFAIK) totally ungrammatical in any variety of English, standard or nonstandard. +Angr 15:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much to all! Now I understand. It was interesting to discuss it with you. Really it was. :) --Ferike333 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"had got" (or rather "'d got") for possession the past is certainly possible in British English, but I think less common than in the present. "He'd got a car" is more colloquial than "He had a car", but I think the distribution of these two is different from the distribution of "He's got a car" vs. "He has a car". "Gotten" is not usual in any British variety of English in any sense, AFAIK.

"Ain't" is not standard in any modern variety of English, but is widely used in non-standard dialects throughout the world. There is some uncertainty how to contract "am not", and "ain't" is a solution which at certain times was regarded as acceptable. My grandfather, I'm told, used to say "amn't I" but I have rarely heard this. In English English it is common to say "aren't I", but in the affirmative "I'm not" is the only common contraction. (I say 'English English' because Scottish English often takes a different tack with these contractions). --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, again. Yeah, but then had got is just colloquical. About amn't I've never heard. (Only on lessons when beginners try to make short negative forms and teachers tell them that's incorrect.) But we learn general English however everyone knows that that does not exist and we are not allowed to use dialectical structures in e.g. language exams. But now I'm learning a little bit of Southwestern British as I will be going to Cornwall. What case can you use aren't I in? Could you plese tell me some examples? --Ferike333 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've previously waxed lyrical about "ain't" vs "amn't", and I'm about to do so again. There was a time when "ain't" was 100% acceptable - but only in a tag question ("... yada yada, ain't I?"). The school ma'ams did their work too well, and when they taught us that it was never to be used in cases like "I ain't read that book", the message they imparted that it was never to be used at all. (Same story with "Me and him" vs. "He and I" - "me and him" is correct in "There's a difference between me and him", but people now regularly think they're speaking correctly when they say "There's a difference between he and I", which they're not.) So "ain't" got banned, and the relatively latter-day "amn't" was created to fill the gap. It was never necessary, and if I had my way, I would decree that the use of "amn't" is punishable by death. Long live "ain't" - in its right place, of course. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks. By the way, I should say Klau and I went to school together today and not Me and Klau... and should say John is elder than me and not John is elder than I - but it's the thing you mentioned that it's used, incorrectly. Sorry for repeating everything but as I'm non-native in English, I repeat it for you to know if I had understood, because I don't want to misunderstand anything, mainly what I asked :) --Ferike333 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "aren't I": this is absolutely standard in conversational English throughout England as far as I know - even in parts where the accent is rhotic, so though it may have arisen originally as a form of "ain't I" it is now a different word. In formal speech, people will fall back on "am I not", but that often sounds stilted.

Re "than I" - the sort of people who insist on "correcting" "it's me" to "it's I" usually also insist on "John is older than I", and ultimately for the same spurious reason: because that's how Latin does it. (By the way 'elder' can only be used attributively, as in 'elder brother': in predicative use, native speakers say 'older'). --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I see, but they should realise English is English and Latin is Latin. If so, then the "me" structures are like French therefor that should also be used in English because it's the same in French. Madness... Thanks for older-elder, too. Cheers, Ferike333 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

classic example

so we don't have a classic example article, but if we did, it would define classic example, and also give some examples. What examples might it give -- what would be a classic example of a classic example? 79.122.9.184 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How about some classic classical examples, such as Oedipus Rex, a classic classical example of tragic irony, or Mozart, a classic classical example of a Wunderkind, or the term "classical music" as a classic example of ambiguous metonymy. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But the most classic classical example, the archetypal of everything, is of course Homer! --pma (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ha ha. very funny guys, but I'm not asking for a classical example. Just a classic example that would illustrate the meaning of the term "classic example"... 94.27.208.52 (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ford Edsel is often considered a classic example of a poor business decision. The McDonald's Coffee Case (where the victim was burned on the legs by spilled coffee) can be considered, alternatively, a classic example of an extreme jury result in a lawsuit (overly high damages) or of a corporation's uncaring endangerment of the public (in reality the plaintiff was not greedy and the jury damages were ultimately not overly disproportionate). --71.111.205.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

Careful on claiming Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is an extreme — as you say, it probably was not extreme. Tempshill (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Magna Carta as an example of restraint on executive power. Wrad (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A classic example of compassion after seeing horrific things done by your own side in a war would be Oskar Schindler.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 10

Commonwealth Essay Competition

I am looking for information about the Commonwealth Essay Competition because I wish to enter the next one. I am from Singapore. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.8.254 (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your local British Council [3] should be able to help with information on the 2010 competition. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese text request

For personal research I require Chorley in Chinese, both symbolic and if possible in Roman script. Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 16:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Transliterating non-Chinese words into Chinese characters is not an exact science at all; if there's not an accepted conventional exonym, then probably different people could do it in different ways. The article Harry_Potter_in_translation used to be accompanied by numerous lists of all the Chinese transliterated/translated versions of Harry Potter names and special words, including explanations as to why the Taiwanese and mainland translators sometimes did things differently (but I guess all that got deleted as "cruft")... AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The standard transliteration seems to be 乔利 (Qiaoli), but also seen as 乔莱 (Qiaolai). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the name means peasants' clearing (according to the article), which ought to be easy to put into Chinese! —Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies. It is interesting to consider how the transliterating process can be less than accurate. doktorb _words^deeds 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you convert from one phonology to another you tend to lose information, because no language (and thus no language's writing system) makes all the possible contrasts among speech sounds. What features are preserved by a given scheme is inevitably somewhat arbitrary. —Tamfang (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 11

How did a Wildebeest come to be called a 'Wildebeest'?

Did someone back in the day look at one and basically say "What should I call this animal? Hmmm... It's wild... It's a beast..."? --84.69.24.212 (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so much 'wild beast' as 'wild cattle'. Beast or cattle beast is still occasionally used to refer to cows. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just like Springbok. It's a male deer (buck) that jumps around when you run after it. Afrikaans is incredibly simple when naming animals.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Websters, it is from the Afrikaans for 'wild ox' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.203.213 (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

spanish translation

how do you say frosting or icing in spanish, the culinary term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not completely sure, but I think you may use the term cobertura. Pallida  Mors 06:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

At least according to this website of a Argentinian cooking channel, it's either glasé fluido or glasé real, depending on the consistency of the icing, glasé real being more viscous.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

how bout in span ir mexico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Genome

Is genome pronounced GEE-nome, or gen-OME? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The stress is on the first syllable[4][5] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For reference, however, when transformed into an adjective -- that is, genomic -- the resulting term is stressed on the second syllable. --71.111.205.22 (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hindi and Tamil Translation

Hi, I want the Hindi and Tamil translation of (Goat's) lever, gall bladder, etc. If there is any translation website/dictionary in these languages, do please let me know. Bye. Kvees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.1.97 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the website but in Hindi, liver is called 'Yakrat' and gall bladder is called 'Pitta'. Goat is 'Bakri'. So Goat's liver will be 'Bakri ka Yakrat'. I hope I am right. Don't know anything about Tamil though. - DSachan (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The entry liver links to ta:கல்லீரல். I don't know how it's pronounced though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be 'kʌlːiɾʌl or something like kull ee rull. Marco polo (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

misplaced comma

i remember i read an article about a misplaced comma in a contract that cost a company thousands of dollars. i am looking for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.8.241 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember that this was discussed before on Wikipedia. (Although the Wikipedia subset of the whole internet is not so small nowadays that it makes that search much easier.) Rmhermen (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Googling "misplaced comma cost" suggests Rogers Communications or Lockheed Martin (and we're apparently talking millions), although neither of those articles mentions the cases in question. Try looking through the many other Ghits.--86.25.194.157 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The two seem to be very different mistakes. In the Rogers case the comma changes the meaning of a sentence, whereas in the lockheed case it is a comma in a monetary amount. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This was also the plot of an episode of Billable Hours, but maybe that was based on the Rogers story. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not the answer, but there's a Roger connection - Roger Casement was said to have lost his life (execution) over a missed comma. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Mariner 1 article says it's an urban legend that the rocket had to be destroyed because of the erroneous placement of a hyphen in some source code or data. Tempshill (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Secede" as transitive verb

Is it grammatically correct to say, for instance, "The rebels seceded Texas from the Union" instead of "The rebels caused Texas to secede from the Union" or just "Texas seceded from the Union"? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

'Secede' is normally intransitive. The OED mentions transitive usages (e.g. 'A plot to secede the whole Mississippi Valley from the United States and join it to Spain' from William Faulkner) but says that such usages are rare. Algebraist 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"PAFE" ... WTF?

My Google-fu has failed me on this one, so I turn to you all in the hope that someone can make sense of this ...

At my job, I recently encountered this acronym (pronounced by coworkers as "PAH-fee"). At least, I assume it's an acronym. I have no idea what it means or what it stands for, and google / wikipedia don't seem to know either. PAFE redirects to an article about some airport because PAFE happens to be the airport code. The only other reliable result I've found on the 'Net is "post antifungual" something or other, which I know isn't the case either.

Context: On a project status report, "Finalize the budget and submit a PAFE for approval". I suspect that this is some kind of "business-ese", but I have no idea what it means. Assuming that it is really business-ese, I'm surprised the Internets couldn't help me figure it out ... Kind of embarassed to ask the coworkers about this, since they all seem to know what it means. Anyway, thanks for the help. Dgcopter (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, as this is budget related it could be requesting a Funding Estimate (FE). As to the PA, I'm stumped - possibly Project A-- ? Or projected amount? Nanonic (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be embarassed; many companies have their own jargon, based probably on the 4 words at the top of a standard budget approval form that they have. At least it isn't a 27B/6. Tempshill (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my sense is that it's internal jargon. The only way you'll find out what it means is to ask a colleague. If you don't know what it means, you can bet others will be in the same boat, so you might be doing them a service by asking the question. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

'Projected Actual Financial Estimate'?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Project Approval Funding Estimate? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Projected Annual Financial [or, Fee] Estimate is my guess. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What are the benefits of using tree structures in linguistic communications?

The Transhumanist    20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes it easier to visualize the relationship between concepts, as in all diagrams, without going through a long-winded explanation. And please do not post on multiple RefDesks.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the purpose, yes, but what are the benefits of visualizing the relationships between concepts?

By the way, I honestly need the feedback from multiple fields. Trees are used for different things in linguistics than in math, than in humanities, etc.

So in other words, "tree structures depict possessive relationships between entries for ease of understanding?" And "they show what belongs to what, or what is related to what"?

What are the benefits of that, and are there any other benefits that you can think of?

Take the example in the article tree structure for example. What would the benefits be of having an entire encyclopedia rendered into a tree?

The Transhumanist    02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my answer, it makes it easier to visualize the relationships, rather than a whole bunch of text. That's why we have pictures in books, rather than things being explained vividly. Written languages can be very tiring on the eyes. If something is set out in diagram form, it's easier. That is the benefit. That's why they are used so much in seminars and on PowerPoint, for example. It's easier for the listener(s) to see what the speaker is talking about. It sounds like you are asking me what the benefit of something being easier is. That IS the benefit.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This helps a lot. But I need it further reduced. Though I think I've got it: easier to understand = Faster = Saves time. Also, consider that each node of a tree is linkified, say to a Wikipedia article. That makes the tree a faster navigation tool of Wikipedia than links buried in paragraphs. The Transhumanist    02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See A picture is worth a thousand words. -- Wavelength (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That hits the nail right on the head. I see now what KageTora meant by visualize. By the way, the article is in error. Not all tree structures are graphical. But your comment made me realize that the structure of a tree apart from the words contained in it conveys information not in the words. But worth many words. Just like a picture. Beautiful. The Transhumanist    02:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What has this to do with language? —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's...

• Sentence diagram
• Case hierarchy
• Accessibility Hierarchy
• Bracketing (linguistics)
• Parse tree
• Mind map
• Concept map
• Outline

To name a few. The Transhumanist    02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This got asked on all the RefDesks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I skipped a couple. I need feedback from different points of view. Trees are applied to various fields in different ways. The discussion on how trees are used in computers over at the science ref desk was very enlightening with respect to the functional aspects of trees. But I still need to know more about the benefits non-graphical tree structures used directly by humans, such as hierarchical outlines. The Transhumanist    02:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have said this before. You can get differing points of view from all fields just by posting on ONE RefDesk. We all work on all of the RefDesks, so we are all the same people. If you keep doing this and ignoring our requests to stop posting on multiple RefDesks, people will start to ignore you. Please comply with Wikipedia protocol. (Also, please do not post links on talk pages without explaining what the link is. I was on this page a few minutes ago, then got a big yellow bar at the top saying I had a message on my talk page, I clicked on the link you supplied and it brought me back to this page. Actually quite annoying, sorry to say.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And for every rule there's an exception. Posting this general but multi-faceted query on several ref desks keeps the answers in context at each one. Language-related applications and implications of tree structures should be posted here. The mathematics answers should stay on the mathematics refdesk, and not here. Otherwise, you'll get more people asking "what does that have to do with language?" Besides, a lot of refdeskers specialize, and I need as much input as I can get, from every related specialty. The Transhumanist    03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. Maybe I could give some advice, then. If you could pose the question in a different way on each desk, maybe even to make it more relevant to that desk (even if it is relevant wording can work wonders), you will maybe get more answers. People are seeing this exact same question on other desks and thinking, 'oh, well, it was answered over there, so no point in answering it here.' I think you see what I mean.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Thank you. I'll make the changes right away. The Transhumanist    03:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two primary uses of tree structures in linguistics. Tree diagrams (sentence trees) are sometimes useful for determining and showing common and uncommon syntactic relationships, such as those between phrasal units and clauses. They are especially useful for examining analytic and isolating languages. Different tree structures are also used to show the genetic relationship between languages. Thus tree structures are especially useful for both language typology (based on shared grammar alone) and linguistic phylogenetics (based on relatedness through time).Synchronism (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of a grammatical structure

I often see articles with sentences like this:

Born in 1923 and raised in Dry Gulch, he was elected President of the United States of Utopia in 1985.

What's the first part called? And why do editors often connect two quite unrelated things by use of this device? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember what the first part is called, something like 'run-on-[something or other]' (or maybe that's for the second part). In this sentence, though, the purpose of the two dates is to show how old he was when he was elected, and the 'United States of Utopia' presumably has some connection with Dry Gulch.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's called a participial phrase (actually, there are two coordinate ones in your sentence). I'm not sure what your second question means—are you referring to dangling modifier problems? Deor (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we sometimes form sentences like this to imply a connection beyond the fact that we're talking about the same subject. "Born in 1923, he remembered the Great Depression only too well", for example. In Jack's sentence the only connection is the subject. I don't know how to put this linguistically, but I interpreted Jack's observation along these lines. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, if you're right, I don't see why there has to be any syntactic connection other than the subject. Jack's sentence just seems to me a slightly more elegant way of imparting the information "He was born in 1923. He was raised in Dry Gulch. He was elected President of the United States of Utopia in 1985." The construction can certainly be used in such a way that the result is a non sequitur ("Born out of wedlock, he attended Columbia University"); but that's not a grammatical problem, and I don't see Jack's example as being of that sort. Deor (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See also (something different at) § 1. absolute constructions. 1. Grammar. The American Heritage Book of English Usage. 1996.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dangling modifiers are part of the problem, but this is not that. Sometimes it's like "Educated at Dry Gulch University, he was elected President in 1985". That's not a dangling modifier, because both parts of the sentence are talking about the same person. But there's no connection between where someone was educated and the circumstances of their election as head of state. I often see it used in articles that are, frankly, very poorly written, by editors who would not normally have participial phrases as part of their linguistic armoury. I get the impression that the writers have seen this sort of construction elsewhere, and feel that they're somehow supposed to use it whenever they're writing a biography; or that its use lends an air of professional polish it might not otherwise have. That's fine if it's used appropriately; but so often that's not the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be a trick to avoid boring repetition. In biographies you get a lot of sentences in the form "He was...", "He did...", "He <verbed> ...". It can get stilted very quickly. Conjunctions, dependent clauses, and participial phrases can "dress up" the prose, eliminating some of the repetition. You're probably correct in that writers of mediocre talent likely copy such techniques from more talented writers, but then do not give proper thought to the overall meaning of the new sentence which they have constructed. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As Wavelength noted, it can be called a nominative absolute. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A nominative absolute has a subject which is different from the main subject of the sentence. In that respect, it differs from a participial phrase. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence you presented above uses a device called a contrast clause. "Even though he was born in some hick town out in the middle of nowhere called Dry Gulch, he rose from such humble beginnings to prominence as president of the entire nation just 62 years later." Your sentence presents that context (by implication), but in far fewer words. It also leads the reader to draw his own conclusions, pulling him into actively reading the text and thus capturing his interest more completely. "Wow, from Dry Gulch to president. Impressive." Though 42 years would be much more impressive, and would benefit more from this device. The Transhumanist    02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that reading didn't occur to me. One sees it so often in flabby journalistic writing, I can't believe the construction always has that purpose. I suspect it's usually done because the writer has a bunch of fluff items (born here, educated there, jai-alai fan, mother of three) to stick in somewhere – and a deadline to meet – and so hangs them wherever they'll sorta fit, whether or not the result is coherent. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I can see how that might work in some cases. In this particular case, if it's U.S. presidents were talking about, is where someone was born really relevant to anything? Is there some assumption that all presidents were born in large cities? That's certainly not the case, historically speaking. The contrast factor doesn't seem to be relevant in most cases where these kinds of clauses tend to be used. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation of "I have not"

The question "Do you have any apples?" could be answered in the negative a number of ways:

No, I don't have any apples

No, I have no apples

No, I haven't any apples

No, I haven't got any apples

some others.

The question "Have you ever been to Uruguay?" could be answered in the negative a number of ways:

No, I've never been to Uruguay

No, I haven't been to Uruguay

No, I've not been to Uruguay

some others.

It seems to me that the "I've not" form could not be used with the apples question. You couldn't say:

No, I've not any apples.

I've probably heard "No, I've not got any apples", but it sounds non-standard.

So, if "I've not" and "I haven't" are both abbreviations of "I have not", why is it that both forms are available for the Uruguay question, but only one of them ("I haven't") is available for the apples question? Is it simply because the verb "have" is denoting possession in the apples case, but past tense in the Uruguay question? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"I've not got any apples" is very common in the North of England.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there are two different verbs here. 'Have (auxiliary)' patterns like an auxiliary (forms questions by inversions, and negates by a suffixed 'not' or 'nt') in all varieties of English. 'Have (substantive verb)' may pattern like an auxiliary or like a substantive verb (negation and question by 'do') depending on the dialect, the construction, and the whim of the speaker. As I've just been discussion on WP:RD/M it is more commonly treated as substantive in North American and more commonly as an auxiliary in UK: I don't know about Oz. It happens that that particular bit of auxiliariness is not common today, though it was more so in the past ("Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not love"). --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, true. But one would never say "I've not (any) love", whereas one could conceivably say "I haven't (any) love". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, in your example, "I've not been to Uruguay", there is a past particple in it, same as mine. Your last examples just now are not the same, and could not be used in "I've not to Uruguay".--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not any" is not a usual construction these days. If one possesses zero apples, the contemporary common usage seems to be "I have no apples" (or, more colloquially, "I haven't got any apples"). The older usage is "I haven't any apples". "I've not any apples" is unusual. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, We Have No Bananas... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'ven't got a problem with "I haven't got any apples".217.18.23.2 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Queensland

Do Australians pronounce the word Queensland more like 'kwiːnz lənd or 'kwiːnz lænd? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See (and hear) http://www.forvo.com/search/queensland/. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the official way to write this, but the vowel in land is almost not pronounced. It sounds like Queenslin.KoolerStill (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You can listen to http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/radio/. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm Australian, and I'm fairly sure if you heard it on the news, it would be 'Queensland,' your second one. Otherwise, it would probably depend on the speaker. I don't know for certain, but I think I would use the second myself. More rapid speakers would almost certainly pronounce the last syllable as "lnd" or "ln" (without much of a vowel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's Been Emotional (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My Australian accents says ['kwiːnzlæn], but my accent's frequently a bit modified towards RP. Steewi (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Both are used. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 12

French "quelle"

Hello, my favorite reference desk! I have a French question for you. Our entry at Wiktionary for "quelle" says that it's sometimes used as an exclamation. Would any (hopefully native speakers) be able to expound on the use of this word in an exclamation? What connotations it might have, any parallels in English, how often it's used, etc. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? )  05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a native speaker, but as far as I know, it isn't used by itself as an exclamation, but rather together with a noun to mean "What a ...!". For example, Quelle surprise! for "What a surprise!" (The masculine quel can of course also be used that way, as in Quel dommage! "What a pity!") +Angr 06:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The form got some currency in English with Breakfast at Tiffany's; at least, I had one friend whose usage I didn't 'get' until I saw the movie! —Tamfang (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, that's my favorite movie of all time, but I don't remember her using "quelle" that way. I do remember "Quelle horrible surprise" being used in Pursuit of Love, Love in a Cold Climate and Don't Tell Alfred, though. We used it in my family as a result of those books, always pronouncing "horrible surprise" as English words rather than French ones. +Angr 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps I'm confused. That's never happened before. —Tamfang (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation of 'non sequitur'

I was wondering what the literal translation of 'non sequitur' is in Spanish?.. The internet yielded little results but did say the 'incongruencia' or incongruity could be it but that doesn't really fit with the definition of non sequitur... Thanks for any help 83.33.73.241 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish WP has: en latín «no se sigue» in the entry for non sequitur (logic). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Non sequitur has a link to es:Non sequitur, which says «no se sigue». -- Wavelength (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me note, in passing, that the Latin deponent verb has been translated into a (striclty) pronominal verb in Spanish. Pallida  Mors 18:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not really the same though...that's the Spanish translation of the literal Latin meaning of non sequitur (does not follow), not its current meaning involving logic. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see your point, Elmer. Both Spanish seguir (see DRAE, definition 13) and Latin sequi (cf. OLD's 7th definition) refer to this logical meaning. That meaning in Latin is at least as old as Cicero! Pallida  Mors 22:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature query for weaponry buffs

Posted on the Bayonet discussion page. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Operetta empire

In this article, the last sentence regarding Napoleon turning Elba into an "operetta empire". Searching through Google, there are very few hits of this word. Out of curiosity, what does this mean and what is it's origin?--Blue387 (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The period equivalent of Freedonia (though that doesn't help with the origin).-- Deborahjay (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC) User:Nunh-huh's response is far more convincing; ignore the above. Deborahjay (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think Freedonia is a great example. - Nunh-huh 09:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall we say Freedonia is a parody of the romance-Ruritania? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, a sort of send-up of something already ridiculous. - Nunh-huh 14:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See Ruritanian romance; essentially, a kingdom (in this case, an empire) of high romance, ornate spectacle, and elaborate ritual, rather than one with actual power and importance. - Nunh-huh 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh-- origins.... this is the type of kingdom featured, at least stereotypically, in many operettas. I'd give examples, but it seems our "List of operettas" has been incorporated into our "Opera corpus", so it's now pretty much useless for this purpose. - Nunh-huh 09:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "royaume d'opérette" is idiomatic in French. It would be the equivalent of the expression Banana republic. That's the likely source of the original article. --Xuxl (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

French Translations:7

I am unsure of the use of "on" in the French language. I am learning French from Heath's Practical French Grammar which was published in 1901. Modern day French language does not use "on" in the same way as I have learnt. In particular, I am unsure on the following translations (please tell me whether each translation is correct or not):

1. "Somebody rings" - "On sonne"

2. "First, the soup is brought" - "On apporte le potage"

3. "There is no fruit on the table now" - "Il n'y a pas de fruit sur la table maintenant"

4. "People take coffee at dessert" - "On prend du café au dessert"

5. "Then they go up stairs" - "Ensuite on va en haut"

6. "Then they go into the library" - "Ensuite on entre dans la bibliothèque"

My main doubts are:

(a) What are exactly the uses of "on" in the French language? Do my translations above reflect the correct usage?

(b) In 3. above, could "maintenant" have started the sentence? Does it matter, the position of such words in the sentence?

(c) "Then they go up the stairs" - "Ensuite on monte l'escalier". "Then they go up stairs" - "Ensuite on va en haut". Are these translations correct (notice the subtle difference).

Thankyou for your help in advance. I would greatly appreciate it if I was told whether my answers to 1. - 6. are correct or not, rather than a link. I always search many websites before asking questions here, so links are in general of no use to me. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence 3 doesn't have an on in it at all. For sentences 1, 2, and 4 your translations are basically right; on is an impersonal pronoun meaning "one/someone/people in general", etc. However, on can also be used personally to mean "we", and that's how I would interpret 5 and 6: Ensuite on va en haut = "Then we're going upstairs"; Ensuite on entre dans la bibliothèque = "Then we're going into the library". Note that the interpretation of on as "we" is robust enough that a following participle has to agree in number and gender with it: for example, if two or more women arrive somewhere and want to say "We've arrived", it's spelled On est arrivées. (Something I noticed in an episode of Absolutely Fabulous with French subtitles.) +Angr 10:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not mandatory to make the past participle agree in number and gender. It is correct to write On est arrivé even though on refers to women. On est arrivées is an optional syllepsis. The (optional) syllepsis may also concern adjectives as in On est des fous et on en est fiers: We are mad and proud of it. In France this kind of optional syllepsis is not taught in primary schools, as you can guess. (My French grammar book: Le bon usage by Grévisse, ed. 1988) – AldoSyrt (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Is 3. right? Also, is "I am returning home now" translated as "Je retourne a la maison, maintenant"? Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe 3 is right. For "I'm returning home now" I'd use Je retourne chez moi maintenant. À la maison is more literally "to the house". +Angr 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In English, up stairs is an adverb phrase which means "by way of stairs" or "via stairs". The expression upstairs (one word) is an adverb which means "on the floor above" or "to the floor above" (that is, the one directly above) (also, to or on any floor above, even five floors above, for example). In this context, the preposition above can refer to the perspective of a person on the lower floor (or on any of a number of lower floors), or to the perspective of someone who is not even in the same building. Also, one can go upstairs by using an elevator or an escalator. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we could translate "Then they go up stairs" by Puis, on monte un escalier or Ensuite, on monte des marches and "Then they go upstairs" by Ensuite, on va en haut or Puis, on monte or (usual phrase but faulty - it's a pleonasm) Puis, on monte en haut. – AldoSyrt (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You could also use "la soupe" for #2...or is that just my debased Quebec patois? Anyway, that one is a good example of "on" being used to translate an English passive. French seems to dislike the passive voice. (You could also say "le potage s'apporte".) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but le potage s'apporte is not correct. (En français, on ne dit pas "le potage s'apporte"). – AldoSyrt (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh...why? Just doesn't work with that verb? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I was too adamant. This sentence cannot be translated as D'abord, la soupe s'apporte, because – I think – the soup cannot make the action itself. At passive voice: Le potage est apporté (by someone). But you are not wrong, you could say le potage s'apporte dans une soupière en faïence or c'est maintenant que s'apporte le potage. – AldoSyrt (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think On monte would be more usual than On va en haut. —Tamfang (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence 2. "First" is not translated: D'abord, on apporte le potage or la soupe. –AldoSyrt (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

About doubt (b)and sentence 3. As a French native speaker I would say Là maintenant, il n'y a pas de fruit sur la table, Là, il n'y a pas de fruit sur la table, Actuellement, il n'y a pas de fruit sur la table or (olde) Présentement, il n'y a pas de fruit sur la table. No problem to say Il n'y a pas de fruit sur la table , là maintenant but the meaning of Il n'y a pas de fruit sur la table là is different (this table). You can say either Maintenant, je retourne chez moi or Je retourne chez moi maintenant. – AldoSyrt (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this link: Internet Archive: Free Download: Key to Heath's new practical French grammar. However, the date mentioned is 1922 instead of 1901. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese word "zhai" in Chinese characters

Can any user please tell me how to write the Chinese word "zhai" meaning "fast-day" in Chinese characters. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

齋--K.C. Tang (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreign translations of It's Morphin Time!

Can someone give me the foreign translations of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers phrase "It's Morphin Time!"? David Pro (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

These aren't literal translations, but what I found to be the synchronized equivalents on other Wikipedias:

• Bosnian: "Vrijeme je za morfiranje"
• Spanish: "¡Iniciar Morphosis!" (in Spain, "¡A metamorfosearse!")
• French: "Transmutation !"
• Polish "Transformacja!"
• Portuguese: "É Hora de Morfar!

---Sluzzelin talk 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And though German Wikipedia doesn't give the phrase in German, Power Rangers Wiki does! "Zeit zum Verwandeln!". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A rough Arabic translation would probably be something like: هذا هو الوقت للتغيير

"Hathahi huwwa al-waktu liltageyera!"-- Wrad (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And a good Latin translation might be "Mutate!" (Pronounced "mutahtay!") if you just used the imperative. Or "Tempestivitas mutandi est!" Correct me if I'm wrong on that last one. Wrad (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For Latin I kinda like "Mutandum est!" (passive periphrastic) or "Mutemur!" (the first person plural subjunctive passive, quasi middle). I think the active leaves a syntactic hole where a direct object should be, since muto is most commonly used to mean "change" (change what?).--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In Japanese it would be 「変身するぞ！」 ('henshin suru zo')--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

May 13

Atreyu

What does "seven-piece" mean: flogging molly?68.148.149.184 (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It means consisting of seven members.--80.3.133.106 (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For example here. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Slightly related, why is Beethoven's Septet called a 'septet' when it only has 6 movements, rather than 7?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is played by an ensemble consisting of seven instruments. - Nunh-huh 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(... which is a septet. 13:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

What does the question have to do with whatever "Atreyu" is? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Because presumably the band had seven members at one point.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The OP is asking about the article on flogging molly. I am not sure why Atreyu was posted, but they were never a seven member band. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Are traditional British vulgar terms being replaced with Americanisms?

Terms such as 'arse, bloody, wanker, bollocks'... are they dying out? Certainly they seem to be.--Pipelinefine (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not where I'm from (Liverpool) they're not.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And I would say, definitely not, in the south of England. Although I am not from Britain, I have been living in Britain for seven years, and can safely say that these terms are still often used and one of the defining characteristics of British English. They were new to me when I came here, but it was only a very short period of time before I considered a whole range of peculiar British vulgarities as commonplace. Maedin\^talk 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno where you are, but where I am (Midlands) they're alive and well. The only thing I can see is the F word being used more often. The traditional vulgar terms that are dying out are euphemisms, such as bally, bleeding, goot'eck, nincompoop.... --TammyMoet (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Some are even spreading to America - I never heard "wank" in the U.S. when I was a teenager (I remember having no idea what "Falls wanking to the floor" in "Time" meant), but I get the impression it's fairly well known nowadays. +Angr 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you're right. I've said "bloody hell" and "bugger" myself on occasion, and my impression is that most Americans are familiar with those terms as well as "wanker" and "bollocks". I'm not sure about "arse", though. I might not be the best "sample", though, because I talk to British people online a lot. --Miskwito (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and similar characters have had an influence on the spread of such slang to the the United States. Not that there's anything wrong with that; I've always been fond of introducing outmoded and alien slang into conversation. I even like to refer to things as the cat's pajamas on occasion. Deor (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the OP feels that way because it's not heard so much on telly these days, except after 9pm but even then it's not used much. There has been a lot of public backlash to the BBC for celebrities using the F-word, so they are trying to tone down the language a bit, lest they get 'suspended' (but never sacked - they are worth too much). I would have sacked Jonathan Ross and that other feller that was with him for that obscene phone call they made live on radio, but, they bring the company too many listeners for that so they suspended them. Other celebrities are fearing this outcome and so are toning down their language. Americanisms do seem to be more common on telly these days, however, but not among the general public.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in Australia they're not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

True. In Australia 'bloody', at least, is not considered vulgar at all. It's even used on adverts (banned in the UK)--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I had an amusing experience with an American mate I worked with in Japan. I had to do something really tedious, and I turned round and said to him and said, "Oh, I can't be arsed doing this," and he turned to me and said, ever-so emphatically "I wouldn't even be BOTHERED!" He'd thought I'd been using RP English for 'asked'! He totally misunderstood what I said. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Define irony

Hi all. I'm stuck on the definition of irony. I've read irony, and I've searched the ref desk archives but I still haven't got a grasp on what irony is and what it isn't. Does anyone have some good, tight, examples of what is and what isn't irony? Why, for example, is "10000 spoons when all you need is a knife" not irony? Thanks. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• You could start with dictionary definitions (assuming you haven't allready) see wikitionary's entry for example irony. All sarcasm is irony but not all irony is sarcastic. A classic example of irony is :

“ The hunter has become the hunted ”

Hope this helps --Drogonov (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • It's when something occurs which is contrary to what you would expect. The spoons and knife quote isn't irony because it isn't an event occurring which is contrary to what we would expect. Examples:

• • • A King spends all of his vast resources on weapons and troops to defend himself against his hated neighbor, only to see his kingdom fall to a deadly plague. The expectation here is that death will come from an army, but, contrary to expectations, a plague comes. The irony could increase if, say, the plague was brought into his country by infected mercenary troops he had hired. The group he expects to defend his country ends up destroying it.

• • • (This one is more humorous and based on an O. Henry story.) A bum desperate to find a warm place to stay for the winter, robs and steals in front of cops repeatedly, trying to get arrested and sent to jail. However, he is never arrested. Exasperated, he decides to change his ways and goes to a church. He kneels to pray in the courtyard and is arrested for trespassing. One would expect the bum to be arrested for stealing, but, ironically, he is arrested just as he begins to change his lawless ways.

• • Irony, according to wiktionary, can also be when someone says something while meaning the opposite. This is harder to give examples of in print, as it comes across more clearly in speech, but I'll give it a try:

• • • Children say to their dad, ironically, "But dad, we like brussel sprouts! Is there any way we can have more? We just can't get enough of them! We want them sooo bad it's making us ill!"

• • • Another example with children. "Is there any way we can skip Christmas this year? I mean, we don't really want presents or candy canes or stockings or taffy or cookies anyway." Wrad (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

More simply (as the shipwrecked sailor bemoaned), “water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink.” DOR (HK) (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for the replies so far, I'm starting to come to grips with this (surprisingly) subtle concept. I see parallels between “water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink.” and "10k spoons when all you need is a knife". Is the water quote ironic because it's generally expected that water is good for drinking, in contrast to the Alanis quote because spoons are no good for cutting? Your examples, Wrad, sound like reverse psychology to me, how is this ironic? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's saying one thing while meaning the opposite. That's one definition of irony. Wrad (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no irony expert, but my understanding is that most of the criticisms about things not being irony (e.g. the Morissette song) are due to people who hew to the original meaning of "irony", which is referred to as "dramatic irony" in our irony article. That is, the literary situation where the implied meaning of events visible to the characters in a book/play is different from the full meaning of events as known by the audience, due to the audience knowing something the characters don't. This is usually manifested by events that don't play out as the characters expect, but do happen as the omniscient audience expects they would. Over time the meaning has drifted to include more of the "cosmic irony"/"situational irony" meaning, where instead of the knowing audience and unknowing characters, it's a contrast between the expected outcomes of "the Fates" (or the universe in general), and of the ignorant humans. The core of irony is the contrast between the outcome expected by the ignorant party, and the actual outcome, which has deeper meaning to the enlightened party. The argument would be that "It's like rain on your wedding day" is not ironic, because there should not have been any expectation that a particular day would be rain-free. "10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife" is a bit more of an edge case, but would definitely fall under the "not ironic" category unless there was some reasonable expectation that a knife should have been found. Even then, the term "irony" is usually reserved for cases where some sort of moral lessons is involved, or the difference between expected and actual outcomes is "fitting" given the extra knowledge that the omniscient party has. For example, if you're simply not finding a knife in the cutlery drawer, there's no real "twist" to that, so it really isn't irony. However, if, being tired of never finding a knife when you need one, you explicitly buy a box of "10,000 pieces of mixed flatware" so you never have that problem again, only to come home and find the box contains nothing but spoons, that would be "cosmic irony". The fates have toyed with you, so that your naive expectations (that the box would contain ~3,000 knives) would not match up with reality (no knives), in a way that's particularly "fits" your situation (you bought the box explicitly for the knives). -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I should note that the Fates, being greco-roman gods, particularly like punishing humans showing hubris. In my flatware example above, if one were to purchase just a 10-pack that was all spoons, or to purchase the 10,000 pack simply because it was a good deal, it probably wouldn't be irony, just bad luck. It's the hubris of purchasing the 10,000 pack so it never happens again, followed by the comeuppance which follows which makes that example irony. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Voiceless uvular trill

Does it exist in any language? 88.72.70.47 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if it were a phoneme of any language, but I can imagine it exists as a devoiced allophone of a voiced uvular trill. For example, I can imagine there are varieties of German where tragen is pronounced [tʀ̥aːɡn̩]. +Angr 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I've found this German site ([[6]]) that gives translations of Harry Potter's characters. Among the others, there are references to Sorbian, Scottish Gaelic and Swahili, that aren't listed in this article. I've also found this Spanish site ([[7]]) stating that an Asturian, not listed in that page, does exist. It's also stated in the Asturian Wikipedia (Los seis primeros llibros tienen vendío más de 325 millones de copies en total y traduciéronlos a 64 llingües, incluyendo l'asturianu.). It would be amazing if anyone could verify this and add refernces to Wikipedia. --151.51.41.189 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 14

Latin for 151st

If centennial is 100 years, and sesquicentennial is 150 years, what is the Latin term for 151 years? Thanks, EdwinHJ | Talk Specifically a 151st anniversary. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The basic Latin way of saying "151st year" was annus centesimus quinquagesimus primus. Doubt that there's any accepted way of packing that all together in one convenient word... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this an error? Why has this question and answer been repeated here? Problem with archiving?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It was moved here from the Humanities desk. I thought about moving it back but decided "What the hell; it's only one day old and was deleted there." Deor (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. You know weird things happen to the formatting on the RefDesk from time time. I thought it was one of those. Cheers :)--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez, by the time the Romans finished ordering their Bacardi, it must have been closing time! -- Coneslayer (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

CLI sestertii is a bit steep for a Bacardi :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pontificate

I've recently heard two different co-workers use the word "pontificate" as if it meant "to vacillate" or "to debate (oneself) endlessly about a course of action". Is this a widespread error, or is it more likely that one picked it up from the other? -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard it used like that. Maybe they are confusing it with 'procrastinate'?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking "ponder" (because, in their usage, the "uncertainty" aspect seems more central than the "delay" aspect), but maybe it's some sort of freakish hybrid... -- Coneslayer (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. I doubt anyone would confuse a formal word like 'pontificate' with an everyday word like 'ponder' :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it was just more of a natural semantic drift from "make papal-style proclamations" to "speak with great authority and self-righteousness" to "make a long boring speech (as a commencement speech, presentation, etc.)". At least, the links in that chain make sense to me. I don't see the need to assume contamination from some other word (though the fact that "pontificate" isn't used very often surely could help it to acquire new meanings faster because people won't be as confident about what it means if they only hear it in a few contexts). --Miskwito (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Furthermore, once you've decided that it means something like "talk too long about something boring", you're unlikely to hear a correct usage that's so inconsistent with that definition that you realize the error. -- Coneslayer (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

However, debate does not necessarily involve talking, especially when it is done with 'oneself', as the OP specified. I stick with 'procrastinate'. Cogito ergo est --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll raise my flag of ignorance and say that it never occurred to me that the word still literally meant to act in the manner of a pontiff. I haven't used the word a great deal, but I've always used it in the third sense listed in Wiktionary, "To speak in a patronizing, supercilious or pompous manner, especially at length." even in the sense of speaking in that manner to oneself, as in a stereotypical soliloquy. For example, I (would have) classified Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" speech as an example of pontificating. From there, it's a short step to the usage Coneslayer brought up. Matt Deres (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was virtually impossible to pontificate alone. Unless you're talking to yourself as if you were a different person. It's about laying down the law, stating the rules, telling others what they must and must not do, making things right or wrong, that sort of thing. It's not so much about the type of language used, but about the arrogance and high-handedness employed in deciding for others what's right and wrong for them. If anything, it's the opposite of vacillation. Far being unable to make up one's mind, pontification goes the extra mile and makes up others' minds for them. Or tries to. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Great Balls of Fire

is the title of a rock n roll hit, I know, but also the title of a book by Tulsa/nyc-School poet Ron Padgett. It's very serious german publisher Rowohlt called it Große Feuerbälle, which in german can only mean great fireballs. Can Great Balls of Fire really even have this "meaning" Great Fireballs?--Radh (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what it means. What else could 'balls of fire' mean other than 'fireballs'?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to my mind it is just the opposite: what sense does Große Feuerbälle/Great Fireballs have? To my "mind" Great Balls of Fire can only mean something along the lines of my balls are on fire? But not putonable a rororo/dnb paperback back then.--Radh (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that what the song's title actually means?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Great balls of fire!" is rather old-fashioned exclamation of astonishment (perhaps only in American English?). That's certainly its intended meaning in "Great Balls of Fire", but maybe Padgett was using it to mean something else. Große Feuerbälle can, as far as I know, only be interpreted literally as "large fireballs", with no testicular implications since Bälle doesn't mean that in German. +Angr 12:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely flat in german. But this astonishment thing may be the way out of the hole. It makes sense and is not obscene. But what did Jerry Lee Lewis think? Do you think there was no obscenity there?--Radh (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I really do not believe their was any obscenity meant there. Maybe he meant like the scene in Slumdog Millionaire where the girl puts hot chillies in the boys pants? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be right and guess Angr is all in all simply correct. The german book title is lame, though, "Große Feuerbälle!" is simply no real german joyful or surprised exclamation. --Radh (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Heiliger Sankt Florian!" would probably have been closer to the English meaning. Paperback publishers pay for machine translations and that's what they get. As long as they find enough buyers they won't start paying for localizations anytime soon. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Source in Traditional Chinese

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I am looking for somebody who can understand Chinese to translate a sentence for the Republic of China article. The sentence is "民國十六年，國民政府定為首都" from this article. I've tried Google Translate but the result didn't make much sense to me, so I'd appreciate if somebody could help. Thank you, Laurent (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"In the 16th Year of the Republic [1927], the National Government established it as the capital".

For "Year of the Republic", see Republic of China calendar. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) 'In the 16th Year of the People's CountryRepublic (Taiwan), the Guomindang Government set up a capital'. Does that make sense? Thanks PalaceGuard, I wasn't thinking. Duly changed.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(In the 16th Year, Taiwan wasn't yet part of the Republic. It was still part of the Japanese Empire.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense now, many thanks for your help! Laurent (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

English "legalese" meaning of assign

Party A agrees to indemnify and hold harmless party B and assigns against any breach of any of the foregoing representations.

Is this phrase missing something or what does "assign against" mean here. I know the usage "to assign a claim against a party". If that was the intended use then this sentence seems to be missing a few bits. Or did they mean

Party A agrees to indemnify and hold harmless party B and assigns against (them) any (claims derived from) breach of any of the foregoing representations. - 71.236.24.129 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but don't hear much of a distinction between assigning "claims dreived from breach" against someone and assigning the "breach" against someone. As for the 'assigns' verb, it sounds to me like it's an ellipsis gone wrong. It's trying to say: "Party A agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and assign against party B any breach of the foregoing representations..." It's terrible English but what do you expect from a contract lawyer. They ain't there to make things clear. 79.122.112.53 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Assigns" here is a noun, meaning "assignees." Does that help? John M Baker (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If assign were a noun than I could make even less sense of the sentence. A noun to what verb and object? I can get 79's rewording. The meaning is still odd since if B breaks the contract and A has claims to damages they can then not go after B for those claims (hold harmless etc.), but why and how would they assign the claim i.e. give the rights derived from it to the same party that they have a claim against i.e. that would have to satisfy those rights? If A is in breach then why do they need to assign anything? I realize that's more a question for the humanities desk, but the sentence was so strange that I wasn't sure I got the grammatical sense right in the first place.71.236.24.129 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The verb is "hold (harmless)". Ianal, but I think it's saying something like "Not only is party B safe from any consequences of a breach, but so is any party to which party B has assigned its rights/responsibilities." The object of hold harmless is "party B and assigns". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Question moved to "Humanities" for verification.71.236.24.129 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's essentially as described by JackofOz. A has made certain representations to B. A is agreeing that if any of those representations are breached, then A will (a) indemnify B against B's resulting losses and (b) hold B harmless (i.e., will not sue B for A's losses). The benefit of this agreement to indemnify and hold harmless will run not just to B, but also to B's assignees. B probably can't assign just this one provision, but presumably has some kind of right to assign the contract as a whole; there may be another provision in the contract that describes the extent to which assignments can be made. John M Baker (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As stated on the Humanities desk, the Reference desk does not give legal advice, including interpretations of phrases in contracts. Tempshill (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is giving legal advice. We are simply explaining the meaning of the phrase. He may be using that information in an actual legal case, but we have no reason to assume that, and should be assuming good faith anyway. "No legal advice" doesn't mean "no questions about law." -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Major face saving at the office doesn't qualify as "an actual legal case" anywhere. (Although it does wonders for job security and prevents any possible legal unpleasantness involved in being laid off:-) The contract the phrase was taken from is at least 7 stages of "would you look at that" and "first prize to whoever can explain that one to me" removed from me (5 of which aren't even at our company). I assume the original parties to the contract are going to have their lawyers puzzle over that phrase. Everyone else comes under "might need to know but won't get told". So my boss can now gloat to the other guy during their next golf game and hopefully net a contract for us in the process.71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Rubbing alcohol"

According to Wikipedia rubbing alcohol is the American-english name for Isopropyl alcohol. But what is the nearest equivalent common name in British-english? Is it methylated spirits, which in the UK has a purple dye added to signify its toxicity? And why is it called "rubbing" alcohol - what was the thing it was suppossed to rub? 78.144.253.38 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Skin. It's often used for massages (see www.associatedcontent.com/article/279540/10_uses_for_rubbing_alcohol.html and www.ehow.com/how_4470343_help-sore-muscles-alcohol-massage.html, both of which are blocked from linking due to spamminess). +Angr 11:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This link, however, is not blocked :) -- Ferkelparade π 11:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the redirects or links seem to have been altered, I can see that the British common name would be surgical spirit. 84.13.60.119 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"A" versus "an" when preceding a parenthetical phrase

Let me just give you an example. "A/an (argon or plasma) welding rig". Please ignoe the issue of whether a parenthetical phrase is needed in this sentence at all. I'm here about the rule and just made up the sentence. So, the qustion is, when the article (a/an) directly precedes a vowel sound in a parenthetical phrase, do you use an, or do you ignore the parenthetical phrase and only use an if the first word after the parenthetical phrase starts with a vowel sound? Thanks in advance.--70.19.69.27 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would use "an" because when reading it out loud you can't here the parenthesis anyway so it comes out "An argon or plasma...", perhaps with a parenthetical intonation. But no doubt someone else will come along and tell you to re-cast the sentence to avoid the issue entirely. +Angr 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Angr - particularly the part about the expectation that someone will come along and tell you to re-cast the sentence. :-) The a/an distinction is all about how the words sound when spoken aloud, so that's all you need to keep in mind when constructing your sentence. Now, if your parenthetical (argon or plasma) was so trivial that you wouldn't say it aloud at all, it would probably be tucked away in a footnote and cause you no trouble. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound ungrateful (I know, I know—that type of qualifier usually proceeds the exact thing you are saying you're not trying to be), but I thought I took care of the recasting issue by specifically predicting it and taking the time to address it in the OP! Again, forget the actual example used. That was for illustration purposes only. Occasionally, there are going to be necessary parenthetical phrases started with a vowel sound, preceded by an article, and proceeded by a word starting with a consonant. The question is what is the actual rule when this does come up where the parenthetical phrase is needed. I already suspected that the rule would follow the pronunciation. I was looking for a more formal direction and exactitude: "yes, see ____ style manual, which states that..."--70.19.69.27 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, but I did answer your question without telling you to recast the sentence! The Chicago Manual of Style says to use "an" whenever the next word begins with a vowel sound when read aloud, but it doesn't explicitly address the issue of parentheticals. (I can think of only one possible exception: something like "I think that's a, um, good idea", where "um" is not just parenthetical, it's really outside the speaker's train of thought.) +Angr 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaetano

Can someone write this name in IPA? Thanks. Kurtelacić (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian pronunciation: [ɡaeˈtano]. Not terribly different from the orthography, actually. +Angr 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew it, but had to show it to my professor. Thanks! :) Kurtelacić (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation: Names/Places ending on "-sham"

Hi. As a non-native speaker, I keep wondering how English family names or places ending on "-sham" like e.g. Havisham are pronounced: is it "Havi-sham" [-ʃəm] or "Havis-ham" [-səm]? (which would be consistent with other "hams" like Birmingham etc.) Thanks in advance... -- megA (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[-ʃəm] is the normal pronunciation. There are probably exceptions, but I can't think of any at present. Algebraist 19:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Interesting. Thank you very much! -- megA (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are probably exceptions, but most or all of them will have been levelled so only locals (and likely, only older locals) will use the exceptional pronunciation. Many years ago I was told by a native of Chesham that the locals pronounced it [tʃɛzəm], and our article confirms this, but I've never attempted to verify it myself. --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist is right that [-ʃəm] is the normal pronunciation nowadays, but etymologically, in almost every case that's a spelling pronunciation, as these place names are generally composed of some noun ending in s (often the genitive ending) followed by ham < Old English hām "home". So if Chesham locals use (or used to use) [tʃɛzəm], they're following the etymologically expected pronunciation, while [tʃɛʃəm] is a spelling pronunciation. +Angr 06:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That was my line of reasoning, too. Thanks for elaborating, Angr. -- megA (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Large, big, or...?

What is the right word?:
... provides a large/big flexibility...

Thank you for helping. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would use "high" flexibility, but I am not a native. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "provides great flexibility." Deor (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I second Deor. That is probably the most common form of phrasing. Some alternative phrases that work are "provides considerable flexibility"; "provides a good deal of flexibility" (colloquial); "provides superior flexibility" (slightly different meaning). I would add that both "large" and "big" do not work at all. They're not alternative but inferior phrasing, which you might think if not told; rather, they come off as broken English. I think it's because they are usually attached to concrete noun objects ("a large cat"; "a big dog"), rather than a state or condition such as "flexibility". I am no grammarian though.--70.19.69.27 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Great flexibility" also allows for the next iteration of the product to offer "even greater flexibility" than the current one, or perhaps "more flexibility" -- but definitely not "higher flexibility". OK? --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You could also say, "...a large degree of flexibility" or "...a large amount of flexibility." I can't readily think of a construction where big would be used. Matt Deres (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dream

Is the noun "dream" an abstract or concrete noun? (sorry posted this on misc desk too but should be here) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a countable noun, not a mass noun... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be both an abstract and a concrete noun. If you are refering to the sleeptime hallucinations, that is a concrete noun. If you are refering to a dream as an "aspiration", then it is an abstract noun. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Concrete nouns need to involve physical objects, but not all dreams do that. Even if they did, the things in the dream might be concrete, but the dream itself is abstract. This type of dream is no more concrete than a thought. Perhaps a better example of a concrete dream might be a specific car or house or some other valuable tangible external object that someone longs for and can point to and touch and see. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome in French

how do you welcome somebody in french? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.23.101 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bienvenue.--70.19.69.27 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ça va ?" means "How are you?" Tempshill (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• • "Ça va" may be a bit informal depending on the situation. The more formal "Comment allez-vous" may be more appropriate. Also, in the opposite direction, sometimes "Bienvenue" can be a bit of a formal greeting. If you are familiar with the greetee, a simple "Salut!" may be all that is required. Also, as "Ça va" and "Comment allez-vous" beg a response, you wouldn't say it if addressing a crowd. In that case, I would probably use "Bienvenue" --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bonjour" [8] may be another possibility, particularly when addressing a crowd. May be combined with Jayron's suggestions. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

May 15

"The weak perish first" in Latin

I've been told it's Fragilis primo pereo. Would this be right? Peter Greenwell (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As a rough translation, I suppose. It more literally means "As a fragile person, I perish first". It doesn't seem to be an established Latin phrase, though; the only place I could find it online is here, which I assume is the place you asked first. I'd go for "Imbecilli pereunt primi"; but better yet would be to find a line from Latin literature that expresses roughly the same idea. There must be dozens of quotes from the Aeneid that glorify strength and courage that you can use on your tattoo. +Angr 06:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where it's from, but it's not me getting the tatt. I'm trying to help the OP out. I didn't think Fragilis primo pereo was 100% as my rudimentary Latin skills tell me verbs ending in "o" are "I" verbs, i.e sitio I thirst, volvo I turn, etc. Peter Greenwell (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably whoever answered the question just looked up "weak", "perish", and "first" in an English-Latin dictionary and didn't bother with minor details like inflections. Latin has several words for "weak": imbecillus, debilis, invalidus, infirmus. It's difficult to find the right one; some of them imply temporary weakness due to illness, hunger, etc., others imply weakness due to physical disability. +Angr 07:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Latin phrases might help. You may also be able to find the phrase turned around: Only the strong/brave survive/win. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of good ones from q:Latin proverbs are Fortes fortuna iuvat (Fortune favors the strong) and Fortis cadere, cedere non potest "A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield." +Angr 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Iberian Levant

What is the "Iberian Levant"?68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the east coast, i.e., area near the Mediterranean but not that facing south equivalent to modern Catalonia and Valencia mainly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnewmanqc (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is "at least one of them" singular or plural?

Answers gratefully received. --81.136.143.173 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"One" is the subject and takes a singular verb form: At least one of them is ready for breakfast. I presume you ask because "at least" could mean "more than one". It is the actual construct that determines the verb form, not the possible interpretation, or so I understand. A linguist may be along shortly with a better technical explanation. // BL \\ (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

American Spanish Accents, Learning & Podcasts

For someone attempting to learn to speak Spanish in North America to people from many regions of South America, is there any accent that is preferable?

As a comparison, for (most) English speakers a mid-western accent sounds neutral and clear, while Scottish or some brands of Southern accent can be very difficult to understand.

For the spanish accents that are preferable, are there any language podcasts (news, etc) that you know of that use it?

Thanks for any help,

--Grey1618 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)