Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:27, 3 June 2009

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

May 27

Is there a more formal term than op-ed?

I authored an op-ed in a software development magazine and want to include it on my resume. Is there a more formal term than op-ed? Op-ed 'feels' right to me, but this is for my résumé, so I'm wondering if I should use a more formal term. I don't like "opinion" because that just doesn't sound very impressive. I don't think I should use "article" as that might be misleading. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the terms "opinion piece", "featured opinion", and even the dubious "freelance editorial" used, but as far as I know, op-ed is the standard term. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Op-ed really probably is the best term. You might consider "guest editorial" or "guest column" if you think they apply. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not "editorial" -- an editorial is written by the newspaper's editorial board. If you don't like "op-ed," you can say "opinion piece." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're just called "Opinion [articles]" in Australian newspapers, I believe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with "op-ed", everyone knows what it means and there is no ambiguity. If you try and find another phrase it is likely to be either unwieldy or ambiguous. --Tango (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't the slightest idea what it meant, even in the context of the question, until I looked at the linked article. Is this a US thing, or am I just ignorant? --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British, and it is a fairly common term here. Perhaps you are just ignorant! --Tango (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually an American term. Tango is just unusually worldly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I like to display my ignorance from time to time. It gives one a certain je ne sais quoi". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the OED seems to agree with you "Chiefly N. Amer.". I've certainly heard it used in the UK, though. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a widely used term here in New Zealand, though I have heard it before (mind you, I work for a newspaper and have written such pieces, so I would be more likely to have heard of it). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing word definitions

I want to change the current "common parlance"-->"idiom" situation here at wikipedia. They are not synonyms. "Common parlance" is really just a fancy equivalent of "ordinary speech" according to a college English professor (retired), and I had wanted to place it as a sense antonym of "jargon", which would not MAKE sense at present. Can anyone help with standards to get this done.Julzes (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the redirect for common parlance try discussing this at Talk:Common parlance or Talk:Idiom and if you come to consensus or receive no objection, be WP:Bold. Bear in mind wikipedia is not a dictionary so you'd need to find an appropriate redirect or create one that is a suitable wikipedia article and not a dictionary entry Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice.Julzes (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventing new verbs with prepositions

Today, someone told me to "kill off" and I know that he meant to go away and scram because there was an altercation there and he didn't want me to be there. This definition isn't in the dictionary {http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/kill+off] [1].

Several months ago one of my commanders in the U.S. Army told me that the consequences of not making it to an appointment would be that I would get "scuffed up." He meant that I would get reprimanded or punished. This definition isn't in the dictionary either. [2]

What the heck? Are these guys just morons making up new terms? Am I wrong? Is there a rule for affixing prepositions to verbs to make up new words? --70.196.101.7 (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard scuffed up used in that sense before, I would understand it more in the sense of a beating or similar 'unofficial' punishment or perhaps some sort of of corporal punishment. E.g [3] Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "scuff up" used to refer to marring the finish on something. (A scuff is a mark left by scraping.) The commander could be using "to be scuffed up" as a metaphor, meaning your disciplinary record will be marred. I've never heard "kill off" used as an imperative. (I've heard it used in contexts like "an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs".) I have heard "fuck off", "piss off", "sod off", "bugger off", etc. The first word in such constructs is invariably a profanity, usually with rude sexual connotations. The person using "kill off" may have bowdlerized the phrase, using a euphemism to make it a little less rude/profane. - 128.104.112.106 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 106 meant to say that kill off is always transitive in normal speech. —Tamfang (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would dispute that people who make up new terms are morons. Perhaps they are bravely leading the way. Tempshill (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries describe the language, they don't prescribe (or at least, modern dictionaries don't attempt to, though some people choose to believe that they do so) - and they always lag behind. The two examples you quoted appear to have been neologisms - maybe the only time they have ever been used, maybe they are already standard among some community. The speakers may have been using phrases already known to them, they may have been creatively inventing new ones, they may have just got their words mixed up: we can't tell. But from what you've told us, there's no reason to conclude they are morons. Since you understood them, they would appear to satisfy one of the primary purposes of language: communication. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't prepositions in that context. In the phrase "scuff up", the word "up" serves as an adverb. It's like many familiar expressions: "stand up", "walk off", "fall down", "freak out". None of "up", "off", "down" or "out" takes an object, so they're not functioning as prepositions. I'm pretty sure about that anyway. This is why Churchill's famous, "This is something up with which we shall not put," is funny, and not correct. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But "up" in that sentence by Churchill was a preposition. However, you are right that in the cases you cite, those words, including "up" are not being used as prepositions.

I have long believed that in the English language, prepositions should be ended sentences with.

English has lots of phrasal verbs like "give up", in which a verb together with a particle that is sometimes in other contexts used as an adverb or a preposition means something altogether different from what it would mean otherwise. And "give" and "up" need not remain next to each other: one can say "Give it up." German also does this a lot, but with German the story is more involved than that. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every word was newly made up once...88.96.226.6 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E Prime

How would you say, "I can't talk right now, I'm eating dinner," in E-Prime? There doesn't seem to be any real "Englishy" way out of that present progressive. Thanks, 84.97.254.68 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be getting on in my years... Remind me, what's E-Prime, again? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently, there's an encyclopedia just around the corner: E-Prime. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't talk and eat dinner at the same time"? "Eating dinner ~~prevents~~ precludes me from talking right now"? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the Alice in Wonderland example in the article: "I can't talk right now; I eat dinner." Although I fail to see how eliminating the present progressive and replacing it with the simple present (if I have that right) makes a better result or leads to greater clarity of thought. [The previous sentence brought to you, with great difficulty, in E-Prime]. 80.41.18.94 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe, "I can't talk right now, eating dinner." I agree with 80.41.18.94; whoever proposed E-Prime, has thrown out the baby with the bath water and eliminated "to be" even where it ~~is used~~ functions as an auxiliary verb. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I played with that version, but it doesn't seem in the spirit of E-Prime. You've just elided the verb 'to be'; ~~it is still assumed to be there, functioning~~ I still assume it exists for the sentence to work. Otherwise we could just say "Can't talk; eating."

What about "When eating dinner, a state in which I currently exist, I cannot talk."? Clarity! :P 80.41.18.94 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't talk right now; eating dinner commands my attention." -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep it simple: "I can't talk whilst eating"? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't actually say that you are eating at the moment, though. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe the big brains here have been outdone by Homer, who already summed it up nicely with: "Can't talk. Eating." Matt Deres (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

80.41.18.94 thought of that already! --Tango (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Version of Word

I would like to know a scientific version of the term: "someone who knows a psychologist". I know it won't be pretty, but any help is appreciated. RefDeskAnon (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean a coinage formed from Greek and Latin roots (some scientific terminology is formed from Greek and Latin roots, but so is a fair amount of non-scientific terminology). If you're satisfied with a mixed Greek and Latin word, it would be easy to toss something rough-and-ready together with cognoscens, but if you insist on an all-Greek word then it would be more difficult... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything at all would be very much appreciated. Thanks, RefDeskAnon (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description of pictures, phrasing problems

Resolved

– Equendil Talk 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uploading a series of pictures on Commons, and since I totally hate the usually sorely lacking descriptions of pictures uploaded there, I was trying to come up with a proper routine to fill in the description field, I was going for "<Name of picture>, <drew/painted/taken> by <author> [in date], representing <subject>, conserved at <museum/whatever>, reproduced by <whoever produced the actual digital copy>.". I'm not quite sure the phrasing is quite right however, in particular I'm thinking "conserved" - while not entirely incorrect - might not be what an English speaking person would naturally say. So right now, I'm wondering if "kept at" or "held at" might be better, possibly "in" instead of "at" ? I'm not entirely sure "reproduced" conveys the right idea either. Could use some advice. Equendil Talk 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"currently in the collection of" or simply "in"; "photographed by..." (if a photo), "scan produced by..." etc. "Reproduction" and "copy" would have a specific meaning in relation to a work of art such as a painting or a sculpture and would not usually include photographing the work. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Made me realise I should change my plan and use more specialised templates with adequate fields. Equendil Talk 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whence came Jessica?

This graph shows a rather strange distribution regarding the name Jessica. Until the 1960s, Jessica was a very uncommon name in the US, then surged in popularity in the 1960s, reached a peak (most popular) in the 1980s and then started a sharp decline (though according to our article, it's still quite popular in the UK). The decline probably has much to do with the hugeness of the peak; every class in my elementary school had a Jessica in it; people probably started getting sick of it. But what drove that sharp increase? Was there some famous starlet that inspired everybody? A popular book? Sexy rabbit? Damn, who'd have thought "Jessica Rabbit" would need a DAB page. Matt Deres (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Freakanomics Levitt and Dubner argue that common names often start out as popular in the upper classes and then "trickle down". Might be relevant. Mo-Al (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see what the average GDP (relative to population of the time) of people who named their daughter Jessica looks like. According to Freakonomics it should start high and decline over time. Eiad77 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sister Jessica was born in 1959, just before the surge in popularity. At the time, my parents congratulated themselves on picking such an unusual name, but then just a few years later suddenly everybody and his brother was named Jessica. Who knows, perhaps everyone wanted to name their daughters after my beautiful and talented sister! +An gr 06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Mitford was moderately famous in both countries, and started publishing books in the early 1960's... AnonMoos (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The daughter of Shylock is named Jessica. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allman Brothers Band released "Jessica" (1973), which became famous in the UK as the theme tune to Top Gear.--88.108.222.231 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Tandy was a well-known actress of the time, but I don't know if I'd call her a "starlet". +An gr 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thing happened to "Joshua"; it was nowhere, and then became the third most common boy name. Annoys me some; I was the only Josh anywhere, it seemed, and then all of a sudden there were all these little kids with my name. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things tend to go in cycles. In the 70s, every 2nd girl was Tegan or Tennille. These days, it's the loopy practice of using surnames as given names - Madison, Jackson, Mackenzie, Taylor ........ - and, as always, for no better reason than "everyone else is doing it". It extends to fashion - one bright spark got the idea of deliberately ripping holes in the knees of their jeans, then everyone got on the bandwagon. At one time, virtually nobody wore a shirt with a t-shirt underneath - now, a lot of males would rather eat their own grandmother than be seen in public dressed any other way. It's still very common to see groups of businesswomen all dressed all in black, as if they're off to a funeral (and they say women like to dress individually - sure). Next year, it'll be something different that "everyone's doing". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The baby name graph is completely at odds with your impression regarding the names Tegan and Tenille. Perhaps they were popular only in your area? Matt Deres (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right about Tegan, but it was astonishingly, irritatingly popular in Australia for a while. I thought Tennille had a world-wide run after the initial success of Captain & Tennille, but maybe it was short-lived. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, the practice of using surnames for given names has been around in English for centuries. They generally started out as middle names, got used as the name a person was known as, and then became regular first names. Sometimes they're intended "literally", e.g. a man named (for example) Jack has a son and names him Jackson. What's relatively modern is using surnames as first names for girls, although even then it's long been the case that surnames-used-as-first-names have migrated from being predominantly boys' names to being predominantly girls' names. Some examples that spring to mind are Kimberly, Leslie, Tracy, and Kelly. +An gr 08:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was startled to learn of the success of Madison for girls (being then unaware of its use in Splash (film)); at the time, the only bearer who had come to my attention (on Joe Bob's Drive-In Theater) was, well, not most parents' notion of a role model. —Tamfang (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that, before the sudden burst in popularity, the Shakespearean character cited by Who then was a gentleman? above was probably the direct or indirect inspiration for most namings of Jessicas. As for why there have been such fads for certain names, a few (but not enough) studies of the topic have been undertaken; there's a citation of one—unfortunately, the corresponding bibliography appears to be absent from the Google Books view—in this paper, which itself contains some suggestive analysis of similar fads. I think the reasons are various: "Elizabeth" seems not to have been a very popular name in England before the accession of Elizabeth I, for instance; and, having recently worked on some articles relating to Gavin Douglas, I'm reminded that the popularity of "Gavin" in Scotland went hand in hand with the popularity of French Arthurian romances (and thus of Sir Gawain) in that country. Ultimately, though, many of these increases in popularity probably have to be attributed to nothing more specific than the "madness of crowds." Deor (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of most popular given names. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're up, where the heck did Jayden come from? —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

Indefinite article w/o definite?

Are there any languages with indefinite articles but without definite ones? Mo-Al (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish (and other Turkic languages) fit the bill: elma = the apple; bir elma = an apple. There is a case ending for definite objects (-i, -ı, -ü, -u) however. I believe Kurdish also has a similar property in that there is an indefinite suffix -(y)ek but no definite one. Take the last bit of info under caution though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.107.102 (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Norwegian, there are three indefinite articles (en, ei, et), but no definite articles. Instead, a suffix is appended to the word. "a boat" = en båt, "the boat" = båten. decltype (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffixed definite articles are moderately common (Scandinavian languages, Romanian, Bulgarian), and they still count as definite articles. +An gr 06:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. decltype (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish bir looks like "one", not really an article?--09:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bir is "one" in Turkish, but it also functions as an indefinite article (and there are usage differences: bir büyük elma vs. büyük bir elma). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.63.6 (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to "one" in Chinese - there are no articles per se in Chinese, but "one" often functions like one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The south Indian language Malayalam has no definite article. Instead of the definite article, it uses 'ee' (this) or 'aa' (that) when it has to specify a particular person or thing. It uses the indefinite article 'oru'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.4.198 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the questioner mind whether the article is embedded in the morphology of the nouns (as in the English plural for "a", which some people call "article blank")? And is it a question of whether the grammatical choices conveyed by "the" and "a" are mandatory for every noun, or are merely possible if the speaker/writer wants to highlight those meanings, such as "one of many" or "you know which one I mean". Aside from that, it's my suspicion that Germanic and Romance languages, and Greek, are the ones that do have the mandatory articles, and most other branches around the world don't. It's a big issue for second-language speakers from those languages. Tony (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

En Dashes

I have told someone at work to replace the hyphens in her ranges (1-17 5th-17h etc) with en-rules. She agrees the hyphens are wrong, but maintains that the symbol should in fact be 'a dash' and not an 'en-dash' and she seems sure there is a difference between them, whereas I am just as sure a 'dash' is just a catch-all term for rules longer than a hyphen. Any takers on this? FreeMorpheme (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. A dash is a common name for en-dashes, em-dashes, and several other similar characters. There is no character called just "dash" in Unicode. Ranges are normally written with an en-dash. — Emil J. 13:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Hyphen, Dash#Ranges of values, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes,

and User:Tony1/Know your Manual of Style. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See A List Apart: Articles: The Trouble With EM ’n EN (and Other Shady Characters). - Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology depends somewhat on whether you're talking about form or function. In a sentence like this one -- where dashes are used like parentheses -- where I have written "--", American publishers will typically use an em dash (usually without spaces around it) while British ones will often use an en dash (always with spaces around it). It is convenient to speak of the thing in terms of function as a "dash", but reserve "en dash" and "em dash" for the two alternative printed forms.

For example, in the back of my Random House Unabridged Dictionary from 1979, there is a guide to English punctuation that describes the comma, the period, etc., and one of the punctuation marks it describes is the dash. It's printed as an em dash, but the term "em dash" is not mentioned.

In typewritten text where the only dash-like character available is the hyphen ("-"), it's usual to write two of them ("--") for a dash, while a single hyphen is used both as a minus sign and for numerical ranges ("1-5"). In typesetting, the en dash is normal for ranges, but it really isn't a dash. --Anonymous, 21:21 UTC, May 28, 2009.

Phrases and places

Chicago typewriter means sub-machinegun. Where can I find a collection of such phrases with place names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.4.198 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of words derived from toponyms. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which strangly enough, does not include Chicago Typewriter. Livewireo (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. Deor (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of cheeses, List of cat breeds, List of dog breeds, and List of horse breeds. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you're really after a list which includes Glasgow kiss (headbutt), Birmingham hammer (spanner) - in other words, descriptive names for items which include the name of a place but which are slightly derogatory to the inhabitants of those places? --88.108.222.231 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am looking for all shades of meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.39.21 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A modern member of the club might be a "Massachusetts marriage," meaning a gay marriage. I heard this from a Vermonter about a year ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional expression was Boston marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different connotations of exclamations

Please think about the different connotations of these exclamations.
1. "Lord!"
2. "Honestly!"
3. "God!"/"My god!"

--Which sounds most "provincial" or "slang-ish", and which the most "classy"/"old-fashioned"/"snobby"?
--Also, is there any difference in the level of religiosity between "Lord!" & "God!" when used as exclamations? Which is "stronger"? 71.174.30.43 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC) LadyCatherine[reply]

If we're talking about Christian religiosity, "(Good) Lord!", "(Good) God!", "Jesus!", "Jesus (H.) Christ!" et al are all anti-religious. There's a commandment that goes "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the Christian god's name is God. So I think that "God!" is stronger than "Lord!" because "God!" is more blasphemous. My very traditionally religious grandmother shuddered at any use of the Lord's name in vain, but the name to be avoided was "God". My grandmother had no problem saying "Lord!". That said, few people (in the United States) below about 50 years old use the exclamations "Lord!" or "Honestly!" any more. They are both a bit old-fashioned. "God!" is alive and well (in speech at least!). I don't think any of these is slang. I think that they are all standard English exclamations. Marco polo (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Double-you Tee Eff" is an example of the modern parlance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Exodus 20:7 at http://mlbible.com/exodus/20-7.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Honestly!" is more limited in its applications. —Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Efficiency" of different languages

I've been wondering about different languages' "efficiency", meaning how long it takes to say an arbitrary thought, or how much space or time it takes to write. Are there any good studies on this someone could direct me to? (I feel like I remember seeing something once about how many syllables per second speakers of different languages have on average.) Mo-Al (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 September 13#Efficiency of languages.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Word for someone who loves nature and being outside?

I was just wondering what a good word is for someone who likes being in nature. I was thinking naturalist but I am not looking for this philosophical definition. I am looking for something like nature-lover but more formal. Eiad77 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario lumberjacks in their usual habitat

Our local Canadian chorus of mounties, led by Bielle and Adam Bishop is just about to break into a rousing rendition of the anthem of nature lovers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoorsman? (Although it is sometimes used with connotations—enjoyment of hunting, fishing, etc.—that may not be what you intend.) Deor (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trains

What does unrebuillt mean?68.148.149.184 (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your question? Our article Golden Arrow (Scouting), to which your link redirects, contains no occurrence of the word unrebuilt (or unrebuillt) and has nothing to do with trains. Deor (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor link error by the OP, Deor, should have been Golden Arrow. Speaking as a former editor of a railway-themed publication, I recall that the term was sometimes used in British railway engineering parlance to indicate that a railway locomotive (usually a steam loco) had not been modified, i.e. "rebuilt", to a more advanced standard.

Particularly in the UK, a given design or "class" of locomotive was often built sequentially as several dozen or more essentially identical machines, even though various improvements might have been been devised, and could have been incorporated into later locos, over the span of years that the building took. This standardisation enabled efficiencies in manufacturing, standardised procedures and interchangeability of components for maintenance and repairs and, not unimportantly, a statistically useful body of performance data against which the results of any experimental modification on one or a few class members could be assessed - fuel efficiency (hence lower running costs) in particular was always a major concern on British railways.

(It was reportedly more common in the USA to incorporate the latest improvements into each new loco as it was built, leading to much greater variability within each nominal "class".)

After a class of loco had been in service for some time, certain major improving modifications (think OS Service Pack upgrade) to the design might have become both possible and cost-effective. When an individual "Something" class loco had been so modified, some railway companies would designate it as a "Rebuilt Something" and as-yet-unmodified class members as "Unrebuilt Somethings". The distinction was important to avoid rostering a less capable unmodified loco on to a duty only a modified one was capable of, and also to avoid confusion in maintenance schedules and so on.

In the article to which the OP refers, The Golden Arrow was a Southern Railway (and later British Railways) express passenger service between London and Dover, linked by a Dover-Calais channel ferry to the corresponding French Flèche d'Or Calais-Paris service. Over its history, the Golden Arrow trains were hauled by various classes of Southern Railway locos. The last picture in the current version of the article is captioned "Ex-SR Battle of Britain Class 34072 257 Squadron, an unrebuilt Bulleid Light Pacific, with the Golden Arrow styling."

The SR's sometime Chief Mechanical Engineer Oliver Bulleid, an enthusiastic technical innovator who sometimes skimped on pre-introductory testing, designed and built the Battle of Britain Class (and other similar designs) with a number of radical new features, such as chain drives in enclosed oil baths and "air smoothed" outer casings, which in service proved problematical: in due course several of these features were modified in a rebuild of the class, but not all class members were rebuilt, and Loco No. 34072 257 Squadron remained in unrebuilt state, in which it is preserved to this day.

There may well have been one or more actual locomotives named Golden Arrow (loco names were sometimes re-used, just as navies do with ships' names) which probably hauled trains of The Golden Arrow service (cf Flying Scotsman and The Flying Scotsman, which most journalists perennially confuse). If so, it might or might not have been rebuilt during its lifetime and thus have been at some stage "unrebuilt", but I regret I don't have sufficiently detailed references to hand. 87.81.230.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Wow, that is amazingly indepth. Good show, 87. Livewireo (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Tampanian English?

In browsing Wikipedia I encountered a list of English dialects. This list page includes a list of American dialects that included an entry that perplexes me. It mentions Tampanian English under Southern English. I have never heard of this dialect nor do I know what makes it distinct from general American usage, although I have lived in the Tampa Bay area all my life. A Google search revealed nothing but mirrors of this page and a few 404 Not Found errors. Any light you can shed would be extremely helpful. What is Tampanian English? SoLowRockerMan (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was added on 30 December 2006. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove it if there's no source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this version of the article (immediately after that addition), the seventh external link is to a website with an index page about English, which includes the keyword "tampa" in two places. Each of those is associated with a link to a page with a recording of speaking by a person from Tampa, Florida. That is the closest thing to a source that I have been able to find from examining the Wikipedia article. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the best reference for the word "Tampanian" is: http://sticksoffire.com/2008/12/23/tampan-or-tampanian/.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name Tony Antony or Anthony

I sometimes have to write letters to people of this name. I'm always puzzled by whether I should include an "H" or not? Which is most likely to be correct? Is the other variation also valid commonly or rarely? Are the H version and the H-less versions prounounced any differently? 84.13.164.142 (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of most popular given names. You don't say where you live, but using the link for the United States' tool, over the past 70 years, "Anthony" is far more common than "Antony". The former is consistently in the top 50 names, while "Antony" is typically about the 800th most popular. But note that "Antonio" is more likely than "Antony". -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name Anthony (with an "h") is often pronounced Antony by British people. We had a Deputy Prime Minister named Doug Anthony, pronounced exactly as it's spelled, but UK media persons tended to refer to him as "Doug Antony". -- JackofOz (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're writing a letter to someone, you need to use the spelling that he uses, whether it's the most common one or not. Otherwise you make quite a bad impression. (And I hope certain relatives of mine who often mispell my name when they send me a Christmas card are reading this! <grin>) --Anonymous, 02:50 UTC, May 30, 2009.

The word misspell is a commonly misspelled word. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, good point! In this case it was only a mistyped word, though. --Anon, 06:57 UTC, May 30.

Now that's a nice distinction. Even if you knew the correct spelling but inadvertently typed the wrong spelling by a slip of the finger, the end result is still a misspelling, isn't it. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag question (such as "isn't it") should be followed by a question mark, even if the intonation is falling, as it usually ~~does~~ is in a question using an interrogative word. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I revised my comment of 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Therefore, shouldn't (such as "isn't it") be (such as "isn't it?")? :) :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If isn't it? is followed by a question mark, the result is isn't it?? If, by definition, the word question includes the question mark, one could rephrase the clause with the verb end: A tag question (such as "isn't it?") should end with a question mark. Alternatively, one could be ambiguous: There should be a question mark at the end of a tag question. Does the word question, by definition, include the question mark? That is the question. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What is your question?" requires a question mark, so I think the answer to your question is No. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly misspelled words#Typing errors says that it is. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the latin name Antonius is of Etruscan origin, and the meaning is unknown. The form Anthonius is later, I think of Medieval time, and it is due to a false etymology, that is, from the ancient Greek ἄνθος (flower). --pma (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it commonly written with 'h' in any language other than English? —Tamfang (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the th-form exists in English only (a quick google search gives: Anthony, Antonius, Anton, Antony, Antonio, Tony, Toni, Tonio, Tonie, Toney, Antonio, Anthony, Antone, Antoine, Αντώνιος) --pma (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What language is this?

Someone added some unusual text to an article (and thankfully removed it quickly), which I definitely can't understand. Any ideas what language it is? I believe that it's an actual language: some words appear multiple times in different sequences, so it's obvious that the poster wasn't simply copy/pasting random strings of text. However, I'd not a clue what language: all those "...it" and "...ik" bits sound Nordic, and all the occurrences of "x" make it look like Chinese, but the rest of the words make it blatantly obvious that it's neither. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The results of a Google search for strings of words in the passage suggest that it's used as meaningless placeholder text, like Lorem ipsum. Deor (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search gave the same result, nevertheless this does not explain the origin of the "language". There are no matches for whole sentences, just words, so the samples are not copies of the same text. On the other hand, the large number of identical words appearing both within one text and across different text means that it is not just a result of random typing. (And for the record, it's not ROT13 either.) I'm puzzled. — Emil J. 13:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly is from some language, not random. I could find the chunks of words used in several blog replies, other descriptions etc. Doing a google translation check also does not give me any match. It doesn't seem to be a European language at all. My bet is that it is the transliteration of some little spoken language. This is proving incredibly hard to find now. I am also puzzled as well as immensely curious. - DSachan (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its MacLorem [4] - X201 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the web page: Going even further, the preferences settings allow you to generate text using vocabulary from fifteen different languages. So, which of them? Is it item #15, "Gibberish (entirely non-language text)"? — Emil J. 13:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't got the software so I can't check. I just knew a likely suspect to point the finger at. - X201 (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the words seem to be from Lorem ipsum Latin, all-uppercase version called LOREM IPSVM, Champagnois Old French (a language many medieval poets used), Old English, Middle High German, Old Dutch, Ancient Greek or Japanese. Not sure about other obscure languages like Swahili, Etruscan or Hawaiian, or for that matter Quenya (it uses quite a lot of diacritical marks, so I am discounting it as well). This seems to be far from being gibberish. Somebody please double check it and tell me what languages the first three word of the text 'Harle groum morvit' are from? - DSachan (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look even remotely similar to Swahili, Quenya, or Hawaiian. I've never seen an Etruscan text, but it doesn't seem likely either; the mere fact that it uses English letters (including funny ones like q, x, w), but no letters with diacritics, is very suspicious, and at odds with the sample words at Etruscan language. — Emil J. 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me more of a cypher than a language - possibly a simple letter-replacement type, with one vowel replacing another and one consonant replacing another. Several words appear more than once, like "Morvit". If anyone wants to try to break the cypher, I'd suggest starting by seeing whether the X can be replaced with T or S. Grutness...wha? 13:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the users talk, they may pop by and solve the mystery. - X201 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are lucky, then yes. Otherwise Mfwills is likely to come next year judging by his contribution history page [5], which already spans 4 years. Although he seems to be more active in 2009, especially in May, so maybe we are really lucky. - DSachan (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography#Participants. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance it seemed to be Maltese, but it probably isn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in fact, placeholder text from MacLorem, what they call Gibberish. Someone was keeping the sandbox busy, so I tested live then deleted it. -- Mfwills (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Maybe that's why Google had its mind boggled when we were searching for your text in there. But it really looked like some kind of language, I don't know why. - DSachan (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this sort of text is designed to look like natural language, because that's what it's a placeholder for. The idea is that you don't notice it's something else until you start looking at the content instead of the layout or whatever. --Anonymous, 02:56 UTC, May 30, 2009.

Your argument that 'Since it is designed to look like a language because that is what the placeholder is for and that's why I thought it is a language' is not a valid argument. I was asking what it is in there which is making it look like a language even though it is complete gibberish. - DSachan (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd said that in the first place, I wouldn't have answered that way. You just said "I don't know why", which is a rather vaguer statement. "Not a valid argument"? You weren't asking for an argument. --Anonymous, 12:06 UTC, May 30, 2009.

What is 'in there' is the letter frequencies and letter-pair frequencies of Latin, or some other Romance language. This makes it look readable. You can write a computer program to turn out this stuff just based on the probabilities of one letter following another in a given language. There's an online program that you can play with here. --Heron (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know the preferences settings selected by Mfwills. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reading

Arab languages go backwards to read. Any languages go from bottom to top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivanda199 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Hanunó'o script. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hanunoo.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian script does. (The Vulcan alphabet on Star Trek also does.) Chinese and Japanese can be written that way, can't they? By the way, Arabic is not "backwards", it goes right-to-left. From their perspective, our alphabet goes backwards. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Chinese and Japanese could be written that way, but they aren't. --ざくら木 16:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Japanese, Mongolian, Chinese, Manchu and the like all go from top to bottom, not from bottom to top, which is what the OP asked for. 173.77.69.117 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

173 beat me to it. I don't know about Chinese, but I was going to say that while Japanese does have it quirks, it never goes bottom to top. It does go left to right and then down in magazines; top to bottom and then left in books; and right to left in shrine name plaques - this last one, I'm told, is an extreme version of the top-to-bottom book style - it is actually top to bottom and then left, with only one character for every downwards line. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, still no down to up. There is a massive amout of visual poetry, concrete poetry,strange musical scores, even paintings with letters, but does any of it go down to up?--Radh (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a twist, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 May 2#Book Titles.-- Wavelength (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never would have thought of that one. Maya steles or pergaments? The ones I can remember were basically top to bottom (and all over the place), but are there not parts in the pergaments that go up? Maps can be read down to up. Chinese oracle signs on turtle shells? P. S.: And then there is hopscotch--Radh (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Posting style#Top-posting. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words can be read in any of eight directions in a word search. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers on measuring cups and on graduated cylinders increase upwards. The same is true of many thermometers.

I recently rode in an elevator car which had two sets of buttons (flanking the door), one set ascending and one set descending. Evidently installed during Be Kind to Short People Week. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See The Straight Dope: Why do telephone keypads count from the top down, while calculators count from the bottom up? for a history lesson. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ĩ love this, but there really is no natural language at all, which is written from bottom to top. Which is a bit strange.--Radh (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above about hopscotch reminded me of words painted on road surfaces and read in a forward ("upward") direction by drivers and cyclists, but I was unsuccessful in my search for a corresponding image. Likewise, I was unsuccessful in my search for a video of a teleprompter with text scrolling downwards and readable upwards. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quotation from Johnathan Swift's Gulliver's travels should be in order... Does anybody have it? --pma (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See SiSU created WordIndex for: Gulliver's Travels. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Here it is (Chapter IV; Gulliver is speaking of customs of Lilliputians)

I shall say but little at present of their learning, which, for many ages, has flourished in all its branches among them: but their manner of writing is very peculiar, being neither from the left to the right, like the Europeans, nor from the right to the left, like the Arabians, nor from up to down, like the Chinese, but aslant, from one corner of the paper to the other, like ladies in England.

--pma (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is fun and really should be made into an article?--Radh (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Writing system#Directionality and the other articles it links to. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article implies that the right-to-left direction is a fairly localized phenomenon. Is that correct? If not, an article like List of languages by orthographic direction or similar might be in order. Matt Deres (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Omniglot index by writing direction, and, more specifically, Ancient Berber script and Ogham alphabet.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, that seems to be the stuff I was looking for. If you are intersested also in straight righting in strange places, there is a massive real-Kanji photo archive [[6]] For the Maya, see also this essay from Gordon Brotherston of the famous essex school of marxist americanism (I kid you not) [[7]], 5 small illustrations. Some beautiful chinese stuff (traditional) [[8]]. Slightly garish colours, but showing the way of the brush [[9]]. Brion Gysin [[10]]. (Also more Gysin and see also the round paintings of Manny Farber-google pictures). see the Druillet panel and see also the photos from this flickr user[[11]] Primate Poetics and Writing (there are some examples of writing buried there somewhere): [[12]]

(My message begins here.) The direction of reading and writing varies in mathematical notation (for example, with continued fractions, exponentiation, positional notation [see under "Notation"], derivatives, integrals, summations, and product sequences), and also in musical notation, chemical formulas [see under "Isotopes"] and structural formulas). -- Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person adding a column of figures might proceed from the top to the bottom, then check by adding from the bottom to the top. An auditor examining a financial statement might begin by looking at the bottom line. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I do hate sums. There is no greater mistake than to call arithmetic an exact science. There are ... hidden laws of Number which it requires a mind like mine to perceive. For instance, if you add a sum from the bottom up and then again from the top down, the result is always different." Mrs Maria Price La Touche (1878), quoted at the head of chapter 4 of The Art of Computer Programming. —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese books are read from back to front, so the direction of reading the pages of a book follows the direction of reading the lines on the page. Books are read as if they were one huge page. But what about the movement of the eyes on a page (which is more like looking at pictures). Reading mathematical notation requires much more discipline? Are japanese abaci also the "wrong" way?

Is there an significant cultural differences re the places where tattoes are normally placed first on a body?.--Radh (talk)

Sensible of

"I am sensible of my responsibilities in this regard".

I heard that expression in a movie or TV show recently, and I was reminded of this expression "sensible of ...". These days we prefer "aware of ..." or "sensitive to ..." when talking about duties and responsibilities. "Sensible" is pretty much confined to use as an adjective meaning "using or displaying common sense". I think I've only ever heard "sensible of ..." from British speakers, and then, only from a certain class of person, viz. upper crust. Is my perception correct, and is this expression still widely used in the UK, in that crust or any other crust, or anywhere else? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it in books written in the 18th century. In the 20th century, it was used by the king who abdicated in 1936; I think it may have been in some written explanation of why he wanted to abdicate. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't appear in Edward VIII's Instrument of Abdication or in his radio broadcast following his abdication. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker as a lower-crust Brit, I rarely hear sensible used in that way, and I suspect that nowadays the man in the street would not understand it. It would be used only in a historical context or by the sort of person who says "an historical". --Heron (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wracking my brain to remember exactly where I heard this recently. It was only in the last week, on TV, in some show or movie set in the present. The speaker was a well educated British male aged around 50, running some organisation, and the scene was in his office. He was in a suit and tie, and had the obvious demeanour of a managerial type who is well connected, knows a thing or two, gets thing done, and is not the sort to be messed with. It turned out he was the baddie, so his choice of refined language came to nothing in the end. However, I've heard this expression before, and it always seems to come from someone representative of the British public school system, if not the aristocracy. I've never heard an Australian or American say it. It's not a common expression at all, but seems to be well enough known that a character can be made to say it without the listeners wondering what the hell he's talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

Daddy's Gone by Glasvegas

In the song Daddy's Gone by Glasvegas [13], there's a line that all the lyrics sites on the web say is "Sitting on my own and sad", but to me it sounds more like "Sitting on my own inside". I'm no expert at thick Glasgow accents, anyone have an opinion on this? 141.14.246.14 (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I've never listened to the before but heard of them – that sure is a strong accent! The line is at 00:40ish, but the following line finishes "...what I had". Going on this alone, I'd say the lyrics on the web were correct. However, the accent is so strong that the vocalist is able to rhyme both. But my money is on the first one. Cycle~ (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a strong Glaswegian accent - you can make out most of the words! I think it's "and sad" as well. He seems to pronounce his i's more conventionally. --Tango (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First time I heard ‘inside’, second time I heard ‘and sad’. Not much help there then—but we can be sure that one of them is a mondegreen. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want thick accents? Try [14] the British Library's accent site. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must just be a proper suvvuner then! Cycle~ (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "and sad"; it's rhymed with "had" then (internally) with "dad" (and "hide" and "died" would make no sense at all). Also Occam's razor occasionally applies even to song lyrics; "Sitting on my own and sad" makes more sense than "sitting on my own inside". Cracking good track, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

Inanimate Libra

All zodiacal signs except Libra relate to animals. "zodiac" means circle of animals. Why is Libra the exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.34 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Zodiac' means 'circle of life', not 'animals'. I can only assume that the 'scales' of Libra would represent 'balance' in life. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, ancient Greek Zodiakos ζωδιακος meant "of living things" or "containing living things" (in a literal etymological sense), and was used as a kind of abbreviation for the phrase κυκλος ζωδιακος when referring to constellations. However, many words derived from the the Greek zo- root had a fixed meaning of referring to animals (as in Zoology, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected and the article also says more or less the same thing, plus I can't find anything at all to support my original theory that it came from the Greek ~~ζᾤη~~ ζωή (zoë) meaning 'life'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments, you made three mistakes in a three letter word! The accent is not in that position, no aspiration inside a word, no iota subscript! :-) --139.18.116.55 (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I mess up, I like to mess up in style! Anyway, thanks, and duly corrected. (Actually, I didn't have my glasses on and just made the feminine form from ζῶον from what symbols I could 'see'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does ultimately come from the same root as "life", but various derivatives from the root had changed meaning within the Greek language from "living thing" to "animal"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on Libra (constellation), Libra has often been viewed as an appendix of one of its neighbouring constellations. More recently, Libra is sometimes considered to signify the scales of justice held by Virgo, when Virgo is shown as Astraea, the goddess of justice. Yet in ancient times the constellation used to be animate, symbolizing the chelae of its other neighbouring constellation, Scorpio. The article's section also mentions the visual similarity between a scorpion's claws and a weighing scale, even stating that the words zubānā in Arabic and zibanitu in Akkadian both can mean both. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the animals related to Gemini and Virgo? Flamarande (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humans? Isn't Gemini something about Twins and Virgo a girl (the article suggest virgin which makes sense too), at least that's my understanding. I know we don't tend to categorise ourselves as animals but beyond Libra they do appear to be 'animals'. ny156uk (talk)

(Edit Conflict) Virgo, "the Maiden", has a human form, and humans are animals. She may also represent a goddess of fertility in general and cereal crops in particular - her brightest star is Spica, "spike or ear of corn" (in the European sense of corn being barley, wheat or similar plants) - but a humanoid goddess is still close enough to the general concept.

Gemini comprises a pair of human-ish male twins (Castor and Pollux). I say "-ish" because they were fathered on a human woman (Leda) by a male god (Zeus) who had taken the form of a swan, were hatched from a double-yolked egg Leda laid, and one is mortal while the other is immortal - all still falling into the animal category.

It's unwise to expect complete consistency and logic in astronomical myths, because they combine elements from several different traditions (just as overall Romano-Greek mythology amalgamates many different local traditions, some contradictory). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantry

Infantry, cavalry, artillery, chariotry: what are the elephants called? SpinningSpark 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are correct. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing . . .

. . . what do you call these kinds of nouns? They are not really collective nouns, those would be a company of infantry, a squadron of cavalry, a battery of artillery etc. SpinningSpark 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they are just nouns. I don't think there is a grammatical term for these. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The human equivalent of "terms of venery"? AnonMoos (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no particular term, but it is clear that they do form a group and that '-ry' as a suffix has had a certain productivity. Another such example is '-age' to mean something like 'a quantity of'. I was amused a few years back when I heard one of the set-builders in a theatre I do some work at refer to 'rostrumage', by which he meant the quantity of rostra (that we had, or that a production needed). The meaning was immediately clear, but I hadn't heard it before. --ColinFine (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German memorial translation

I need a translation of this memorial I photographed in the Garrison Cemetery in Gdańsk. It was probably built for the sailors of the SMS Magdeburg. Mieciu K (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hier ruhen vierzehn deutsche Helden vom Kreuzer Magdeburg. Sie starben im Weltkriege 1914 für ihr Vaterland"

"Here rest fourteen German heroes from the cruiser Magdeburg. They died for their fatherland in the World War 1914"

[...list of fallen; doesn't require translation...]

"Mit ihnen zusammen starben" [two more names] "vom Torpedoboot V26 den Heldentod"

"Along with them," [two more names] "from the torpedo boat V26 died a heroic death." (The V26 seems to have been a Großtorpedoboot) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can someone also write the names and dates? I'm having trouble reading blackletter (these photos should help [15] [16]). Mieciu K (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My blackletter reading skills are not the best, but I'll try. From top to bottom:

Kaspar Boisen- 10/12/1888
Fritz Bürger - 17/9/1886
Paul Fröhlich - 12/10/1892
Paul Hoyer - 25/8/1891
Paul Jänner - 24/11/1894
Paul Köhler - 3/8/1890
Johann Kultzen - 26/1/1890
Hermann Cühr - 31/3/1890
Heinrich Hockenberger - 31/7/1891
Gustav Schmidt - 30/9/1893
Friedrich Sudhans 1/1/1892
Albert Wack - 24/8/1895
Michael Magner - 24/3/1891
Emil Wedel - 21/9/1890

Men on the torpedo boat V26:

Dr. Gerhard Walkenbur - 28/7/1887 (name too squished)
Karl Lehmann - 21/7/1886 Xenon54 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the lazy, there is a website, [17] I have changed names according to the transcription on the website, but have not checked those against the photos.--Radh (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd name is Fröhlich with an "h" and the 2nd last name of the SMS Magdeburg should be Michael Wagner. I read the 1st name on the V26 as Wolfenbur, but it is hard to decypher. Maybe his name was "Wolfenburg" (wolve´s castle) which is a quite common surname, and the stone mason may have misjudged the space required. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our SMS Magdeburg article mentions that 15 sailors died on the Magdeburg yet this memorial only mentions 14 bodies. Does anybody know what happened to the 15th body? Was it buried somwhere else or never found? I'm asking here since most detailed internet sources about SMS Magdeburg will probably be in English. Mieciu K 153.19.11.235 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there that many? I could not find that much.--Radh (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Here rest fourteen German heroes..." 87.206.221.156 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

German website help

Hi,

I just cleaned up Schuttberg, and there's a broken link supporting a statement. The site is meant to be in German, could anyone with fluent German have a quick look and see if Schuttberg#cite_note-2 can still be found? Thanks Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They packed it in, funds dried up.--Radh (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another question, what's the standard abbreviation on WP for million? I had a look but couldn't find it written down anywhere official. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the English-language Wikipedia, I would be surprised if any page claimed there was a standard abbreviation here for "million", and if there were such a claim, I'd dispute it. It should just be written as million. Tempshill (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Baker found this Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currencies when I asked a similar question. [18]. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"St", "Sp" in German

They say that "st" and "sp" are pronounced "ʃt" and "ʃp" when at the beginning of a word. But for me it rather sounds like "ʃd" and "ʃb"... is this possible? Or are my ears just fooling me? --88.73.106.137 (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you hearing this German, there are big differences between dialects, I don't know if the St/Sp sounds are different in any, but someone else will. High five for 3 German questions in a row. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're ears aren't fooling you - they're just not used to German phonemes. The distinction between "d" and "t" in German is sometimes difficult to make, at least for native English speakers. It's not as common to see beginning language learners complain about "p" and "b" being similar, but now that you mention it, I would agree that they do sound similar to each other, at least more so than English "p" and "b" do. When learning a foreign language, it takes some time to get accustomed to how things are pronounced, if you ever can. The most (in)famous example is native Japanese speakers learning English. In Japanese there is no distinction between the "r" and "l" sounds (they're the same phoneme). This becomes a problem when Japanese speakers try to learn English, where "r" and "l" are very different sounds. To someone whose brain is set up to lump the two sounds together, it's difficult at first to see how "rice" and "lice" are different. -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably an issue of aspiration. Sometimes English speakers confuse unaspirated consonants with voiced ones, like at the beginning of the English "spot", "stop". Mo-Al (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is more likely a problem of people slurring their sounds, having a local accent or speaking a dialect and very few pronouncing things as IPA would insist they should. There is a region in Germany where st is pronounced as it stop. (Germans crack up by saying the phrase "stolpert übern spitzen stein" with the s pronounced as s.) Then you get people whose dialect lets them pronounce the consonants very softly. Their vowel sounds are also different. People from around the German town of Hannover are said to get closest to "book German" in their pronunciation. Even they leave out quite a few sounds when stringing together words in a sentence. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily an issue of aspiration because in words like spot and stop, are analyzed by native English speakers as /s/+ fortis consonant (that is, we see the t in stop as the same as the t in top). I would imagine that such words from German (a language that has very similar patterns of voicing onset time with English) would be analyzed as /ʃ/ + fortis consonant. I suppose anyone who doesn't take on that analysis would hear an unaspirated [t] as /d/.

As for "slurring their sounds" I'm not sure how that explains anything. For one, "slurring" (which has negative prescriptivist connotations) implies some sort of assimilatory process where articulation overlaps. But the actual difference between [ʃt] and [ʃd] is one of dissimilation: the laryngal setting changes between the consonants which takes more work. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocab Lists

Where can I get a really long list of categorised vocabulary on the web? I mean really long, over 1000 words in any language with the English equvalent. I want to learn a language, any will do, but vocab is so hard to find. 90.216.148.237 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise, is the telephone directory ok for you? --139.18.116.55 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Visual Dictionary Online and Visual dictionary and LOGOS - Multilingual Translation Portal.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See LanguageGuide: Foreign Language Vocabulary, Grammar, and Readings. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Glossaries - Wiktionary (in English) and Categoría:Wikcionario:Apéndices - Wikcionario (in Spanish)

and Catégorie:Thématiques - Wiktionnaire Catégorie:Thématiques - Wiktionnaire (in French)

and Wikizionario (in Italian) (Scroll down to "Lemmi divisi per categoria"). -- Wavelength (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some advice regarding Internet searches for lists of themed items. When I wanted to find a list of collective nouns for different animals, I did not try searching for different possible titles for such a list, because of the variety of possibilities. Instead, I selected some items which I already knew, and I did a Google search for these four words: "bee swarm lion pride" (I do not remember the order). My search was successful. One could also try Google Sets. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See glossaries - Google Directory. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Glossaries and the interlanguage links at the left-hand side of the page. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight word of warning when it comes to learning a language and vocabulary. You use words in your native language within a framework of grammar, syntax, meaning and register that you grew up with. Little to none of that translates in the same way to another language. I've encountered quite a few students whom we called "walking talking dictionaries". They had a vast amount of vocabulary at their disposal and could explain the "rules" of grammar better than I would be able to. Yet they failed at what we call "put five words together to make a sentence". Here's a suggestion if you do go for the word lists above: Google each of your new words with the search engine at a site using your new language as native language (newspaper or news sites usually work well for this.) Take note of the position and form of the word and the intention and feeling each sentence conveys. (A human tutor might be useful for the latter two.) If you need an example the simple German phrase "Sie sitzt auf der Bank." can be translated into English as: - She is sitting on the bench. - She has been benched. - She has a desk job at the bank. - She's in the pew. - The ship has run aground on the sandbank. - She won't let anyone get any money out of the kitty. - She won't tell us the position of the oyster bed. - It always sits on top of the bank building. ... to name but a few. See a tad of a problem here?71.236.26.74 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge of vocabulary and knowledge of grammar are both important for fluency in a language, but, if one has to choose to study only one of the two, then knowledge of vocabulary would be more useful. A person can improvise with vocabulary and be understood, although recognized as not being fluent, but a person who has only studied grammar might sound like someone speaking Jabberwocky. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Schliemann autobiography? Besides other things he succeeded in learning a dozen of languages, by his curious personal method. This was based on reading a book (always a translation of Paul et Virginie in the language he was studying) and learning long pieces of it by hart. But first of all, I recommend this book for the enthusiasm it transmits. --pma (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for comments, etc. - Spanish vs. Mexican Spanish

I'm trying to type some response cards in Spanish, where people can make comments or request more information after a talk. Since some will be Mexican, and more familiar with Spanish than English, I felt it proper to provide them in Spanish. (Although they would probably know English well enough, they might feel more comfortable.)

My question is, looking at the translator in Altavista's website, it goes English to Spanish, but I'm not sure if there's a substantial different in Spanish Spanish versus Latin American Spanish. I'm thinking of the difference between American and British English, and I think there probably won't be, but thought I'd better ask. Thanks.209.244.187.155 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British do have their terms, such as "flat" for "apartment," but I think that the context would be understandable, on a simple comment card. (As an example, if asked "address" and then "apartment number," for instance, a Londoner would probably guess that translates to "flat number," and vice versa.)

Since the sentence structure, etc, are the same, I would suggest that asking for comments, etc. would be the same for both. If you're that worried aboutit, maybe a lighthearted joke at yourself about it would be proper in the speech. However, I have been in situations where I have spoken to non-English speakers. I'm generally very forgiving and just happy they're trying to use my language. I think your Mexican listeners will be, too.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If posible, you should have a native Spanish speaker (of any nationality) review the translation before printing it. Automatic translators are capable of major errors. Will Beback talk 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'd worry a lot more about the problems of automatic translation than about differences between the various national varieties of Spanish. That said, there are some everyday words in European Spanish that are best avoided in Latin-american Spanish, coger being a case in point [19]. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; ouch, that coger one is tricky. Especially if you're talking about catching a baseball , it would be really embarrassing to be an announcer trying to do Latin American games.:-)209.244.187.155 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely say that an Altavista translation is worse than no translation at all. If you can't find a real Spanish speaker to translate for you, don't bother; your result is certain to sound ridiculous and may even be completely nonsensical. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish - imperfect vs. preterite discussing a historical era

Does one use the imperfect or the preterite in Spanish when discussing a characteristic of a historical time period? For example:

El arte español floreció en el Siglo de Oro, or
El arte español florecía en el Siglo de Oro?

Doesn't preterite imply a one-time action (which thisdoes not seem to be), but imperfect implies something that was ongoing during the time frame of a more specific event (which doesn't fit either)? 64.252.193.6 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have it from 'una nativa' that it is the former: El arte español floreció en el Siglo de Oro. Technical explanations are not available "That is how we say it". Richard Avery (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While both are technically possible (though the second sentence may look somewhat incomplete), I believe the poster wants to use the first sentence.
Differences in usage of the indefinite and the imperfect preterite are so subtle that a native has to get a good think before trying to explain them to a non-native speaker!

The main characteristic of the indefinite is the mark of completeness conferred to the action. In the present case, the poster's first sentence implies certain development of the Spaniard Art; to be more precise, florecer in this connotation more or less means "to be in a period of greatest influence"; hence, the sentence gives the idea that the Spanish Arts were at their best during the period. In later times, this influence and development were arrested. Let us not forget that florecer is anyway an inchoative verb; as such, its usage with the indefinite preterite doesn't mean an abrupt end of the action.

The imperfect preterite, on the other hand, highlights the duration of an action, and is frequently used (as the English past continuous) to mark an interval in which another punctual action takes place: For instance:
*El arte español florecía en el año en que nacía/nació Cervantes. Pallida Mors 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When not used in the previous sense of framing the continuated duration of an action, the imperfect usually also marks a longer prolongation than the indefinite, or may also mark a greater frequency: Compare

De chicas, mis hermanas se peleaban (As young, my sisters used to quarrel)
De chicas, mis hermanas se pelearon (At a young age, my sisters had a [one] serious argument , ie maybe they never talked to each other again). Pallida Mors 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for that O pale one. Richard Avery (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

least tense + aspect

What is the smallest number of tense and aspectual distinctions which any natural languages contains? Mo-Al (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese maybe? It only has past and non-past verb tenses, plus the -te iru form that can represent both perfective and progressive aspects depending on the verb. Zedeeyen (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Japanese has complex -sasetta and -raretta forms. --Kjoonlee 10:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'-saseta' (causative + past tense ending) and '-rareta' (passive + past tense ending) are not tenses. What Kjoonlee has just written are merely past tenses of verbs with causative and passive infixes, which, in themselves, are not tenses. They can even be combined as '-saserareta' (keeping with Kjoonlee's addition of the past tense marker '-ta') to mean 'was made to [do]', but they are not tenses, in the strictest sense of the word. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese language has no tense or voice, and verbs are not inflected, though it does have aspect and mood expressed by particles. The article on grammatical aspect says English has 2 aspects, while Chinese has 3 aspects, and classical Arabic has no way of marking aspect. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Arabic is sadly and quickly fading, but isn't it rather that it only marks aspect (past and non-past), and has no tenses? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that may also be true for Biblical Hebrew. Mo-Al (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not Modern Hebrew and Syrian Arabic, as well as Moroccan Arabic, which use tenses very akin to European languages. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin - Nuntius teutonicus

Hi! Any one here know a bit of latin? A friend wants to give a company in a game a latin name along the lines of "Teutonic Messenger". Would that be correctly translated to Nuntius Teutonicus? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation is correct if you take "Teutonic" as in "Germanic". A versoin with cursor-is would also work.--91.6.4.58 (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I" after the time

Please see the second page of the document on File:Instrument of surrender Japan2.jpg.

In this line:

Signed at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0904 I

and this line:

Accepted at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0908 I

What is the meaning of "I" after the time? Wikipedia and Wikisource do not note them as a part of official text, but some sources do. --Sushiya (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time zones can be identified by letters of the alphabet. Time zone I is the same as UTC+9, i.e. Japan Standard Time; see List of time zones#UTC+9, I. +An gr 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quick and clear answer! --Sushiya (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoneme /x/ in English

I wonder which English words contain a /x/. The only examples crossing my mind are "loch" and "ugh". Has anyone got more? --88.73.83.75 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have less. In my English that sound does not exist. --Anonymous, 18:28 UTC, June 2, 2009.

See Johann Sebastian Bach. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many loanwords with /x/ are in common use in the Jewish community, e.g. Channukah, Chanah, Tanakh, Chabad, chassid, etc. Mo-Al (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Mach number, Don Quixote#Spelling and pronunciation, Mexico, and Guadalajara, Jalisco.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you can call /x/ an English phoneme. It really only appears in foreign words. Many English speakers cannot comfortably pronounce it. Ugh is not part of some English speakers' vocabulary. Certainly /x/ is not a productive phoneme. Marco polo (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

I recently found a packet inside my flour/coating mix for chicken. There is no mention of this in the Engrish instructions and IIRC I've purchased this specific brand/type before without this packet. The packet has no English on it only (I believe) tradional Chinese. What is it? [20] [21] [22] Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's salt and pepper. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German phrase

What does "Geschmuse drumrum" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.226.251 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can mean: (don't) make such a fuss/Mach nicht so nen Geschmuß darum.--Radh (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown, uptown

What do these words mean exactly? I know they refer to parts of a city, but they are not used in British English. Thanks. 78.144.244.22 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Downtown and Uptown seem to cover the matter reasonably well. Downtown is almost always synonymous with central business district, whereas uptown is more vague, referring to different types of regions, having different spatial relationships to "downtown," in different cities. Even small towns in the United States usually have a region the residents refer to as "downtown" (what in Britain would be called the high street), whereas, in my experience, only largish cities—and by no means all even of them—contain a region referred to as "uptown." Deor (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terms originated in Manhattan, a narrow island surrounded by rivers, the largest and most important of which is the Hudson (historically known there as the North River). Downtown is the downstream end of the island, the historic core of New York City, and the commercial and industrial core of New York City until the 20th century. The term downtown became synonymous in the United States with the commercial core of any town, even very small towns, as Deor says. Uptown was and largely remains specific to Manhattan, where it refers to any part of Manhattan upstream from Downtown. The term Uptown is not in general use outside of New York City, and most American cities do not have a district called Uptown. In the few that do, the term is likely to have had its origin in some analogy to Manhattan. For example, during much of the 19th century, Downtown Manhattan was the site not only of the commercial center, but also of much of New York's industry and the most important part of its port. So the term Downtown had associations not only of commercial centrality but also of grimy docks and factories and unsavory working-class characters. By contrast, much of New York's middle and upper class lived Uptown. (To this day, the most prestigious parts of New York are in Upper Manhattan.) So developers sometimes named parts of other cities Uptown because of associations of exclusivity and refinement. Marco polo (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Downtown Brooklyn. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Brooklyn is like the many other downtowns all over the United States named after Downtown New York. At the time Downtown Brooklyn was so named, Brooklyn was still an independent city. Marco polo (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia had an "uptown" and "downtown" by 1833 [23]. New Orleans had (with respect to the flow of the Mississippi) uptown and downtown by 1898 [24]. There "upper" and "lower" (like "Lower Ninth Ward" refer to the river. I strongly question that New Orleans or Philadelphia were imitating New York City. Any river town was apt to use this terminology. Edison (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also assumed for a long time that New York is the origin of the expression, but that's an interesting point about river towns, which does cast doubt on the idea. Some other points:

Some cities develop a "second downtown", for whatever reason. Manhattan has one that starts around 34th Street and extends north to 59th (south end of Central Park), and since this area is between Uptown and the original Downtown, it's called Midtown. I understand that in this case the reason that the city developed this way is that the area between Midtown and Downtown is less suitable geologically for tall buildings.

"Up" and "down" are very often used in North America to mean "north" and "south", in reference to the usual layout of maps. Manhattan is conveniently aligned so that Uptown is north of Downtown. In most cities "downtown" can be used as an adverb meaning "toward downtown". In Manhattan, that would mean south; but in addition, there only, "uptown" is used to mean "north". And this usage extends into the Bronx, which is north of Manhattan. If you board a subway train at 200th Street in the Bronx to go north (away from Uptown Manhattan), it is an "uptown" train.

Toronto grew from the north shore of Lake Ontario, so its downtown is both one of the lowest parts and one of the southernmost parts of the city. But today the area north, and uphill, from downtown Toronto is sometimes called either Midtown or Uptown. Whatever the origins of "downtown", I believe this "Midtown" or "Uptown" usage is copied from New York.

--Anonymous, 04:22 UTC, June 3, 2009.

From the first 500 results from my Google search for "uptown", I selected http://www.uptownminneapolis.com/, http://www.uptowndallas.net/, http://www.uptown-houston.com/, Uptown, Grand Rapids, http://www.uptownmemphis.org/, http://www.uptowncleveland.com/, http://www.uptowngreenville.com/, Uptown Saint John, http://uptowncincinnati.com/, http://www.uptowngreenwood.com/, http://www.uptownwadesboro.com/, http://www.uptownlexington.com/, http://www.uptownankeny.org/, http://www.dallasuptownguide.com/, http://www.uptown-marceline.com/, http://uptowntoledo.org/, and http://maumeeuptown.com/. I tried to select only websites about communities, omitting websites about real estate companies and other businesses. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search for "uptown site:.uk" reported 170,000 results. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting project would be to check large towns in English speaking countries located on rivers flowing North. Likewise East or West. Edison (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Correct word?

Sometimes, we encounter a phrase such as "when it comes to applying your make-up, remember that less is more" ... or ... "the only thing predictable about Jim is that he is unpredictable". Things of that nature. Is there some type of word (a noun) to describe these statements? I am familiar with adjectives such as, say: ironic, absurd, illogical, facetious, oxymoronic, etc. But, I am looking for a noun so that I can fill in a sentence like: "That statement is a truism" (or whatever the correct word is). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I guess that "contradiction" works ... but I'd like a "better" / "fancier" word. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What's wrong with something you've already mentioned - oxymoron? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Inverse relationship. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'The' plus album title

I want to refer to an album called The Mix. In writing a sentence with this title, would it be correct to put "I bought the Mix album", "I bought The Mix album" or even "I bought the The Mix album"? I tend to prefer the first, because it flows like a proper sentence, but then the full title of the album is not being quoted. The second seems wrong because it's missing the definite article, and the third just sounds silly to me. Any thoughts? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem TV stations have grappled with and not come to an ideal solution - probably because none exists. "The all new Two and a Half Men" is OK. But when it comes to "the all new" <name of program that starts with the word "The">, they alternate between "The all new Simpsons" and "All new The Simpsons"", but never "The all new The Simpsons". Sorry if that's not any help. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I bought the album titled The Mix" might help, if you want to put it in writing. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Japanese and African words/names sometimes sound similar?

I don't know if I'm the only person to have noticed this, but there are some African words and names that would not sound out of place in Japanese, and vice versa.--These girls should eat less bisquits... (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because both Japanese and many African languages (especially the Bantu languages) require fairly simple syllable structures, eschewing consonant clusters and favoring words ending in a vowel. +An gr 14:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Greek words can sometimes sound very similar to certain Japanese words too. +An gr 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to call this grammatical construction

Is there a term for the grammatical construction consisting of a wh-word followed by either an infinitive phrase or a statement? Or are there separate terms for the infinitive form and statement form? Other examples, besides the title of my post, would be the book titles Why People Believe Weird Things and How to Win Every Argument. 69.224.113.202 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 303: / Line 303: @@
 :Probably because both Japanese and many African languages (especially the [[Bantu]] languages) require fairly simple syllable structures, eschewing [[consonant cluster]]s and favoring words ending in a vowel. +[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 14:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 :[[Saganaki|Certain Greek words]] can sometimes sound very similar to [[Nagasaki|certain Japanese words]] too. +[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
+== What to call this grammatical construction ==
+Is there a term for the grammatical construction consisting of a [[wh-word]] followed by either an infinitive phrase or a statement? Or are there separate terms for the infinitive form and statement form? Other examples, besides the title of my post, would be the book titles ''Why People Believe Weird Things'' and ''How to Win Every Argument''. [[Special:Contributions/69.224.113.202|69.224.113.202]] ([[User talk:69.224.113.202|talk]]) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)