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

June 6

What language?

Translation please: OMNIS FERET OMNIA TELLUS. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Latin. It is Virgilian, according to Google. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My first guess is "The whole earth will carry everything". +Angr 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It means something like, according to one source, Every land shall bear every thing. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. It's from Virgil's Fourth Eclogue, available here (line 39), if that helps. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

June 7

Latin: Niger vs Ater

Both words mean black (according to searching). In this case where we have two words meaning the same thing, is there any real difference? From doing a translator search on Whittaker's Words, it suggests that ater has undertones of being gloomy, dark, etc, whereas niger simply means the colour black. Am I right? Could you use ater (and its declined values) as a perfect synonym for niger? I'm not fluent in Latin so I can't really tell from classical sources. Peter Greenwell (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE26.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lewis and Short say "black; and specif., coalblack, lustreless-black, sable, dark (opp. albus, lustreless-white, and diff. from niger, glossy black)." It does have sinister undertones, while "niger" is just plain old black. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks guys. Peter Greenwell (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone else uses Whittaker's? There was me thinking I was alone. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody uses Whitaker's Words. It's brilliant! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See William Whitaker's Words. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cassell's New Latin Dictionary says that ater is "black, dark (dead black, opp. abuls, while niger is shining black)". Applied to a sea it means stormy, and it has the transferred meanings dark, gloomy, sad, unfortunate and malicious, poisonous. Niger, on the other hand, is "black, dark-coloured, with the transferred meanings blackening; relating to death; unlucky, unpropitious; and (of character) black, wicked. So one is gloomy and malicious and the other is wicked and to do with death. Sounds like there's not much to choose unless you're actually talking about colors. --Anonymous, 07:20 UTC, June 9, 2009.

Nevertheless, the Battle of Allia was called dies ater (not niger)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins

As far as I know, the name Johns is not a common first name in English. Do you know other examples? Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this page, "Johns Hopkins' unusual first name was a family attribute—Johns was the maiden name of his great-grandmother, and the given name of Hopkins' grandfather, for whom he was named." In general, the use of family surnames as given names isn't all that uncommon, but I can't offhand think of any other Johnses. Deor (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew an Adams Douglas (named, according to a friend, for John Quincy Adams). —Tamfang (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew a Williams Mark. You can imagine how often he had to suffer seeing his "s" get migrated to his last name from his first, or how often he had to explain that he had not, in fact, written his name in last-name-first order. +Angr 08:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also the tenor Rogers Covey-Crump. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Rogers Hornsby. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And Prince Rogers Nelson. —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

English GCSE

Nearly everywhere that requires qualifications in England requires English GCSE at C or above, wheras Science and Maths are only "highly recommended". Why is this? Why is the ability to analyse poetry considered more important than being able to calculate the angles on a triangle, or name the elements in Group II? Vimescarrot (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they can't make them compulsory so as to not completely disadvantage student who might not do those things, but still might just be good for the job. That's sort of the way jobs work now: it's far more 'recommended' based, I am told, although that doesn't mean that they are de facto required. There may well be other reasons.FTR, I believe poetry analysis is in fact, normally in English Literature, which is not in any way compulsory; and naming elements in group two isn't in the Chemistry, let alone Science GCSE (although knowing their properties is, I think). The question in still valid though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A C at GCSE is regarded by our current education system as a baseline in a subject, indicating the minimum level that an "average" person of unimpaired intellect ought to be able to attain, given a degree of application to study and an adequate standard and quantity of tuition. That's why five GCSEs at grades C or above is the benchmark for measuring pupil attainment in relation to other schools, with Cs in Maths and English regarded as the most important components of the five (Science is a core subject and compulsory, but a C is not specifically demanded within the benchmark criteria). For an employer looking to recruit someone up to the job in terms of ability and attitude, a lack of a C or above in English and Maths may well be interpreted as a sign that the applicant has failed or not bothered to achieve something basic that an average person might reasonably be expected to achieve, which may influence his/her choice of candidates. The ability to communicate adequately in verbal and often written English with others is a near-essential skill for the majority of jobs in England, whereas Maths and Science skills are jolly useful but are vital to fewer posts, hence (I would guess) the relative emphasis given to English as the OP describes. (As Jarry says, this is GCSE English, not English Literature, which is indeed where the poetry analysis comes in.)

This, of course, illustrates the dangers of relying on raw data. Yes, applicants without that magic C may perhaps have spent years messing about at school instead of studying, but equally they may have physical or intellectual disabilities that affect their ability to pass exams but not to do the job in question; they may have had their education interrupted for many reasons beyond their control; they may have been educated abroad and not sat the relevant exams; English may not be their first language, and so on. In England we have a Disability discrimination act to help ensure the first type of applicant gets a fair chance, but others must either find a way of achieving the required grades or apply for jobs that don't demand them. In my experience jobs in the civil service and local government and the like, rather than in industry, tend to be the ones still demanding English and/or Maths as an automatic requirement. These are jobs that attract a high number of applications per post and have rigid selection criteria, so the qualifications threshold is just a part of the screening process to reduce the number of candidates to a manageable level for consideration. Demanding certain grades means you may not find the best person for your particular job, but who's to say you ever will, no matter what your criteria are? Karenjc 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"... communicate adequately in verbal and often written English ..." - I'm not sure there is any way of using English that isn't verbal. A way of clearly distinguishing between spoken and written language is to call the former "oral", or indeed "spoken". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

When I did my GCSE's (about 6 years ago), both English and English Literature included poetry. As I understand it, lots of people were choosing not to take Eng Lit and somebody thought it important that everyone study poetry so added to English, which is compulsory. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A C in Maths is a very common requirement. Science is less important, most jobs you can get away without much knowledge of science. English is needed for pretty much any job, since you almost always need to be able to communicate. Maths is needed for most jobs, though, even if it is just for filling out an expenses form and filling in the total at the bottom. The standard required to get a C at GCSE isn't very high, it just indicates a basic working knowledge of the subject. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I still object to the whole thing, though. I feel I can communicate perfectly well but I still got below C for the two English GCSE courses I took. Vimescarrot (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You should retake English GCSE, then. Or, you could take Level 2 Key Skills Communication, that is often considered roughly equivalent to GCSE English (it isn't as broad, but is of the same level). Your writing here seems perfectly good, so I would expect you could get a C in GCSE English if you tried. I suspect it wasn't lack of ability that resulted in your poor grade but either poor teaching, lack of effort on your part, or something else going on in your life at the time that made it difficult to concentrate on your work. Whatever sixth form college you apply to should be able to help you retake English alongside your other courses, especially if you can explain why you did poorly the first time. --Tango (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know how to answer "Describe yourself". Leaving a question blank probably did not help my case, but I did prtty badly at the ones I did answer as well... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start... so you know you had difficulty answering an open-ended description task. That means it is something you would need to ask for help on, and practise, before you retook. Seriously, Tango is absolutely right. It's well worth getting this sorted now, when you can get support more easily. Most sixth form colleges will have a couple of people in your situation, and be able to help you fit the studying and exams into the rest of your timetable. You should ask about it when considering where to go. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your GCSE results are almost always entirely trumped by any future education. If you have 2 years experience in the field you are applying for a job that is likely more 'valuable' than a C in English at GCSE. Similarly if you have a D in English but now have a degree in Psychology (or whatever) then that degree trumps your GCSE result. These things are stepping-stones, and whilst it is beneficial to have them at a good level, their importance diminishes with every 'higher' attribute you attain.

In my jobs/promotions I don't recall ever being asked about my GCSE results even though i'm reasonably vague about them (they are on my CV as 9 above C, including Math and English). My experience and further-education are clearly a higher priority in their assessing my suitability. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But the GCSE is quite important if I want to apply to college (English college, the step below university). Vimescarrot (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The GCSE is only important until you get to college/sixth form. From then on they are irrelevant, I think that you will agree that having a GCSE in a subject really does not imply even the most basic of knowledge in that subject area. I have 12A*s, meaningless as I also have 5 A-levels which actually mean something. To get a C in English does not even require the use of parapgraphs, I remember bullet pointing a mock essay and getting a C.....However it does mean more than a C in maths at GCSE, which is a waste of the paper it is written on IMO, to get a C.....no trig, no simultaneous equations, no quadratics....etc. Employers probably know this.

If you have 5 A-levels in humanities, but not at least a C at GCSE maths, there are many employers and courses that will want you to brush up on your maths before they take you on. Likewise with 5 A-levels in sciences/maths without a C at GCSE English Language. Or, if they have a choice, they'll pick someone who already has it, as they demonstrate a wider range of basic competence. It's why people who didn't achieve a C at GCSE maths will often continue to try for it while studying for A-levels, or in a college later in their lives. You don't have to be able to do trig, or simultaneous equations, or quadratics (although getting some marks on these questions will give you some slack on the others), but you do have to display a basic competence with a variety of areas of maths to get a C. That's why, for all your scathing, so many people fail to achieve it, and work so hard to do so: so they can demonstrate to an employer (who will never need them to find the angle in a right-angled triangle, or solve simultaneous or quadratic equations) that they are numerate, have some ability to manipulate things in their head, and can use measurements. Getting higher than a C is useful for later study, but the C is enough for most. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation

In spoken Spanish, would there be any perceptible difference between verb forms like lavo and lavó? I know you wouldn't find these on their own anyway, just wondering. 70.162.24.97 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See Spanish phonology#Stress. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lavo has a high-low syllable stress pattern, and lavó has a low-high. It's the same perceptual difference as the English insult (noun) and insult (verb), e.g., "I took it as an insult," versus "Don't insult me."--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Verb: to make two things the same

Is there a verb to describe the making of two things the same/comparable. If I have a website with to versions (Dutch and English) and the two versions have different themes/colour schemes, and I am going to make these the same for both sites, what verb do I use to describe the action? ----Seans Potato Business 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Synchronize" might be good. Wrad (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That means bringing one up to date with respect to the other. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would go with "harmonize," if you mean to make them similar in some ways but not exactly the same. John M Baker (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

'Conform'. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Standardise, normalise? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see "conform" working; it's not transitive. The nearest fitting usage is to "make something conform" to a standard or template. "Standardize" is possible and the mathematical terms "normalize" and "canonicalize" are close. But I think "harmonize" is best. This can refer to bringing different things to a common standard; for example, I have seen it used for making bylaws of differity cities conform after they are amalgamated into one, and for merging two taxes into one. --Anonymous, 23:08 UTC, June 8, 2009.

You've never encountered "conform X to Y"? I have. —Tamfang (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Or "make X conform to Y", but I don't think "conform" works for this. You conform to a set of rules, not to something which follows those rules. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the only relevant rule is "make X match Y". —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the other suggestions, you could try "uniformise". --Tango (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a new one. The usual way is "make X conform to Y". But anything's possible these days, when everyone's "transitioning" to new and better ways of saying things.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, the fact is that there simply is not a separate transitive verb for every single action one could possibly take. I doubt any language has such a felicitous richness of vocabulary. This need to create new words where perfectly fine expressions already exist is a pathological cancer that must be subjected to linguistic chemotherapy. As with all cancers, the patient sometimes dies. That should be the fate of words like "uniformise" and using "conform" as a transitive verb. There, I've said it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, isn't the patient the English language? Seems a bit risky.... 80.41.126.158 (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need a transitive verb at all? "Uniformise X and Y" would be how I would say it (although, the OED tells me it is spelt with a 'z'...). --Tango (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In either case, that verb looks pretty transitive to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Homoginize...Why not? 67.193.179.241 (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Rana sylvatica

The correct spelling is homogenize. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rationalize? Merge? Integrate? Assimilate? Immerge? Meld? Compound? Admix? Combine? Unite? Synthesize? Unify? Blend? Fuse? Join? Couple? Put together? Wed? Correlate? Reconcile? Relate? Incorporate? Meld with? Systematize? Standardize? (a good one, but already suggested above) Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronoun itself

Is it correct to use the word itself to describe a (large-group) entity such as, say, a college or a city? For example: "Yale University itself experienced a steep increase in admission applications that year." ... or ... "The state of Illinois had unprecedented unemployment rates of 20% while Chicago itself experienced even worse." Something like that. On the one hand, it seems OK to me. But, on the other, I am not 100% comfortable that the word itself "fits" in situations like these. I recognize that sentences can be re-written and re-worded. But, what I want to know right now is whether or not itself is applicable in such sentences. To be very specific ... this is the sentence that I have edited into a Wikipedia article ... and this is the sentence that prompted my question: It would be ten full years before any state would carry out another execution and 30 years before Colorado itself would do so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

It sounds completely normal and unobjectionable to me. I can't think of a reason not to use "itself" in such constructions. +Angr 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be a American English/British English difference. As American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement mentions, in American English collective nouns almost always are treated as singular (e.g. referred to as 'it'), whereas in British English singular/plural construction depends on whether the group is being discussed as a single entity or as a collection of members. I think that in context, Colorado would be treated as singular by both variants. Since both variants would use 'it' as the third person singular pronoun referring to Colorado, they would also use 'itself' as the third person singular reflexive pronoun. This is all a long way of saying that I can see no reason why 'itself' would be considered incorrect. -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming always that the sentence appears in the context of a discussion about Colorado (and perhaps in particular about executions in Colorado). Otherwise, it might well be inappropriate. By that, I mean that it's not called a reflexive pronoun for nothing. There are occasions where reflexive pronouns can be used as intensive pronouns. I, myself, sometimes use them in this way. (that was an example of an intensive pronoun, in case you missed it) But in the examples we're discussing, I don't think you're wanting an intensifier but a reflexive pronoun, which demands the pronoun have an antecedent, i.e. a previous mention of Colorado. If that's there, it's fine to use "itself". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of a place or institution is not a collective noun - and regardless of whether it is or not, is treated as singular whether in British or American English. England expects every man to do his duty. The collective noun for its members is "the English". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not true in general. True for countries, but not for teams or other institutions. 'Manchester United' may be singular or plural. Come to that, 'England' may be singular or plural when it refers to an England team in whatever sport. I agree that 'England' meaning the country is always singular; but "England are celebrating victory in the Ashes" would unambiguously refer to the English cricket team. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input ... much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

June 8

Images of runic Rúnatal

I'm trying to find an original-text version of the Rúnatal[1]. There are lots of translations into anglicised text, linked from the Wikipedia pages and available on Google. Needed for an art project.

What I'm after is how the Rúnatal would have originally been written - perhaps scanned pages or photographs of existing archived work? Not sure how to track it down. Thanks in advance! 124.168.225.105 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find an online image specifically showing the Rúnatal portion of the Codex Regius; but if you want to see the look of the hand in which it was written, a portion of the Atlamál text is shown in our article, and this image shows the beginning of Hávamál. The phrasing of the heading above, however, leads me to think that you suppose there to be a text of the poem in the runic alphabet. That isn't the case; the Codex Regius is our only source for Rúnatal, and that manuscript is written in the Latin alphabet. Deor (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've now found an image online, but I can't link to it directly. Go to this page and click on the "Skoða" link for "GKS 2365 4to" (near the bottom of the page). On the page that gets you to, click on 3 at the top of the right-hand box; then click on the link for 006 verso. Rúnatal begins on line 27 of that page—where the large initial letter is—and ends after the first two words in line 8 of the next page (007 recto). Deor (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Meshuy

In reading a book by Elizabeth Gaskett, I came across the French word 'meshuy'. Can anyone help me as to its meaning? The text can be found here: http://shuku.mofcom.gov.cn/book/htmfile/40/s4671_4.htm

Thanks for your help in advance. Wikiwikijimbob (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is reliable, it's an old French word for "today". +Angr 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And there's a longer explanation of it here, in Le Glossaire acadien, under the headword dumeshui. --Heron (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, I would say "from now on". Reference here (Middle French Dictionary). — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ISO amusing phrase to be printed on apron for LGBT BBQ

My LGBT student association will be doing a BBQ in a couple of weeks for our last activity of the year. I'm going to get an apron printed with our logo on it.

I was wondering if anyone could suggest an amusing sentence/phrase to be printed above/around the logo. I don't mind if it's offensive to LGBTs (although that's not a prerequisite!) since I'll be wearing it, so it will just be ironic or whatever. Preference goes to something cooking-related. Maybe something to do with sausage or buns..? "Would you like a sausage between your buns?" I don't know... something like that.. or different. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.39.7 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a comic, but it seems there would be many options using the word "weiner". If you are a male, something like "Hot weiners served here", or "Ask me about my weiner". If you are a female, maybe something like "Weiner-free zone". --Zerozal (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to spell it "wiener", though. Deor (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Will there be watermelon served at the barbecue? If so, perhaps something along the lines of "Nice melons" for the ladies, in addition to something along the lines of "If you got the wienies, I got the buns" for the gentlemen. This may mean printing up two different styles of apron, though. +Angr 16:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OMGWTFLGBTBBQ —Bkell (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I always liked this sign outside a saloon: "Liquor in the front, Poker in the rear." DOR (HK) (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How about an image of Mae West, with the caption "All that meat and no potatoes". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For men I would suggest the slogan "Put meat here". For the ladies, "Eating out is fun" or, if ribs are being served, "Don't be afraid to use your fingers". LANTZY^TALK 04:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-rhyme

Is there a (better) term/article for this tactic used in such songs as "Mr. Brightside" by The Killers?

Now they're going to bed

And my stomach is sick

And it's all in my head

But she's touching his chest now

The anti-rhyme is that the song tricks the listener into thinking the last line will be "But she's touching his dick", but instead completely changes to a word ("chest") that doesn't rhyme with "sick" at all.--Remurmur (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That is something that the late, great British comedian Frankie Howerd was expert in. I wasn't aware of there being a specific name for it, although there should be. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the most famous uses is Shaving Cream (song)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

See also Miss Susie, in which the "rude" words are actually uttered, but with their meaning altered by the change in context. Deor (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Sweet Violets. The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, no answer here but another example: the assuming song [2] Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet another: Polka Dot Undies. —Tamfang (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Me again, had a brain wave: this is irony. You expect something but get something else. Having a look at those links it's also described as "novelty song which uses innuendo". Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And (in the Sweet Violets article) as a "censored rhyme" lyric. Deor (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think irony is an accurate descriptor. (Verbal) irony is when the meaning of something is contradictory to how it is said.--Remurmur (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In music theory this kind of "tricked you" thing is called a deceptive cadence (the Cadence (music) briefly mentions it). A lot of music is like rhyming poetry/lyrics in that it sets up an expectation of where a progression will end. When a musical progression creates an expected final cadence ("rhyme") but instead goes elsewhere there can be a sense of being "tricked". I don't know if the term "deceptive" is used for poetry/lyrics though. And there is the common "avoided lewdness" that doesn't correspond to musical deceptive cadences. The "tricked" feeling is similar though. Pfly (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that I do not think this was intentional in the OP's example, "Mr. Brightside". Offhand, I can't think of a single The Killers song that contains innuendo. decltype (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

O_o You... don't think this is intentional in Mr Brightside? Have I understood you correctly? That seems unlikely. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you have. I am certainly no expert on song structure, but the line

"But she's touching his chest, now"

rhymes with the next line:

"He takes off her dress, now"

making the complete rhyme scheme for that verse something like "abaccd", and the second line may not have been intended to rhyme with anything. decltype (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But the previous verse, which it mirrors, goes:

"Now I'm falling asleep

And she's calling a cab

While he's having a smoke

And she's taking a drag.

With 'drag' almost-rhyming with cab, and certainly displaying assonance. The following verse, which we are discussing, follows the same rhythm and 'tune', musically mirroring this earlier verse which sets us up for a rhyme on the 4th line with the 2nd. On top of this, there is a slight pause/shift on the fourth line into a different tune. "But she's touching his/chest now" with the last two words seeming like a separate line, breaking the mirror with the previous verse. This is a common trick in those children's rhymes mentioned earlier.

Given that the whole song is about the singer's imagination running wild with horrified imaginings of what is going on, while trying to stop himself and reason the worries away, I'd say the shying away from that image fits perfectly. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

June 9

Term for a list of words, all of the same length

I'm trying to coin a word to describe a list of words all having the same length (for example, a list of all seven-letter words). Inspired by such words as isobar, isocheim, isochore, isochron, isocline, isodrosotherm, isogeotherm, isogloss, isogon, isohel, isohyet, isomer, isopach, isopleth, isotach, isothere, isotherm, isotone, isotope, and isozyme (and the mongrels isoquant and isospin), I thought I could combine the iso- prefix with a Greek root that means "length." So I asked Google to translate "length" into Greek, and it answered with μήκος. Does this mean that "isomek" is the word I'm looking for? That really looks strange. —Bkell (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

isomecic, perhaps. —Tamfang (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See this URL: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2351090 -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I was looking through my library's copy of that book earlier, and I found a few words that can apparently mean "length", but I didn't find that. In a different lexicon (Yonge's), I found ὁμοιόχρονος, but it wasn't quite right either. —Bkell (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Inter/trans/pan

I can't quite determine the correct usage of the above prefixes and hope someone could help me. As I understand it, inter- means among/between; trans- across/over; and pan something like throughout. So inter-school sports would be sports between schools (as opposed to intra-school, which would happen within the school) and inter-state is moving between states, transalpine - across the alps; pan-Pacific - throughout the Pacific. Correct? Now, if you wanted to say that something happened across several regions or districts (eg. three states working together, equally, on a project which might involve all or part of their area, or an organisation which works across the three districts), which would you use? Inter-district? Trans-district? My thanks (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, I'd use inter. Trans-district could mean activities of one district authority outside its own district (e.g. the San Francisco Water Department has properties in various other counties, which could be called its 'trans-county' facilities). —Tamfang (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Trans" is usually "across" in the sense of "from one side to the other". "Trans-county" in reference to San Francisco sounds to me as though it ought to refer to something that passes through San Francisco County only for the purpose of connecting Marin County with Alameda County (for example). If I was going to express "facilities outside the county" in a single word with a Latinate prefix, it'd be "extra-county". (That is, "extra-" means "outside of".) In normal English I'd be more likely to say "out-of-county" or just use the phrase.

As to the original query, I agree that "inter-" is the right choice.

--Anonymous, 07:28 UTC, June 9, 2009.

See Interdisciplinarity, Crossdisciplinarity, Multidisciplinarity, and Transdisciplinarity. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And note that the prefix pan is a bit different in that it's from Greek and not from Latin, and it's from an adjective and not a preposition; it means all/whole. Some examples: pandemic, panhellenic, panorama, pantheist... &c. --pma (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornish language

The article Cornish language contains the following passage:

This revival can be traced to the work of Jenner, who in 1904 published his work A Handbook of the Cornish Language. This formed the basis for the language revival and learning. In his work he observed There has never been a time when there has been no person in Cornwall without a knowledge of the Cornish language

The sentence "There has never been a time when there has been no person in Cornwall without a knowledge of the Cornish language" was difficult for me to parse, and I had to read it a couple of times to interpret it. It appears to be equivalent to saying that "At all times, there has been at least one person in Cornwall who did not know the Cornish language". That strikes me as being true, but trivial. Keep in mind that during the century before Jenner's work was published, most people in Cornwall did not speak Cornish. Am I interpreting Jenner's statement correctly? Or is it more significant than I thought it was? (For example, if there were times in most other countries when 100% of the population spoke the local language, but Cornwall had never experienced 100% knowledge of the local language, that might indicate the significance of Jenner's statement.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is "At all times, there has been at least one person in Cornwall who did know the Cornish language". In other words, that the language never ever died out completely. --Pykk (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Pykk is right about what Jenner is trying to say. I doubt Jenner is correct, though, unless having "knowledge of the Cornish language" includes merely being aware that such a language once existed. In 1904, there were people in Cornwall who had "knowledge of the Cornish language" in about the same way that I have "knowledge of the Albanian language" - I'm aware it exists and have even seen it written down with my own eyes, but I've never heard it spoken and don't understand a word of it. +Angr 09:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the article does state:

"There is also, however, evidence that Cornish continued, albeit in limited usage by a handful of speakers, throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th century. In 1875 six speakers all in their sixties were discovered^[22]; some claim that John Davey from St Just who died in 1891 at Boswednack, Zennor should be considered the last traditional speaker.^[23] Others, however, dispute this, saying that Alison Treganning, who died in 1906 was the last traditional speaker^[24] and by this time the revival was well underway."

On a more trivial level, many Cornish place names not surprisingly include Cornish-language elements, and many people probably continued to understand the meaning of those elements, which could be argued to constitute "a knowledge" of the language. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User kw. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant? I don't mean to offend, but I see you doing this a lot, in response to practically every question where a language is mentioned... -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I anticipated that the relevance would be obvious. If people editing this page are unable to answer the question, or even if they are, the questioner can consult a list of Wikipedians with some knowledge of the language to ask the question or even to discuss the language in more depth. Occasionally, my comment of that type is the only answer that anyone has made to the question (see, for example, the recent section "Lithuanian translation"). The first link in the comment provides a means of finding the lists for other languages. What might seem to be repetitious to frequent visitors to this page might not seem to be so for others who visit this page very seldom.

I am not offended by your question, and I do not mean to offend by saying that it is an exaggeration to say that I do that in response to practically every question where a language is mentioned. I am more likely to make a comment of that type when the language is less prominent globally and therefore less likely to be well-known by people providing answers on this page. I know that some of my comments of that type have been helpful, and some Wikipedians might wish to express their appreciation for them. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A fringe benefit is the publicizing of ISO 639 language codes, which, like anything else on this page, might not be equally appreciated by all readers. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

radio coding

What is old time pilot lingo for "loud and clear"? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Five by five? Deor (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lorry or truck

I had always heard that lorry was British English for what we Americans call a truck. I was surprised to find this article in the Independent ([3]) mention trucks but never used the word lorry. Is it a matter of that paper's style guide, or of using a different register or is it necessary to make the distinction from vans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(OR alert) It's more the case that some people use language that is more American than that used by others. In particular, people in the media tend to use more American language than the average person on the street, and the sort of people writing and reading the Independent and the Guardian (for example) tend to use more American language. These are also people who are likely to have more contact with Americans, view more American media and be more likely to spend more time in America. Sometimes it can be really quite grating (the juxtaposition of language). 80.41.126.158 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Many distinctions between US and UK English terms are pretty blurry these days, as our cultures intermingle and cross-fertilise. I'm English and use lorry, truck and HGV interchangeably without any sense of one term being more "foreign" than another, but would never use any of them for a van. Other terms remain more distinct: I would never opt for "diaper" instead of "nappy", for example. If pressed hard to describe the difference I would probably say that this was a truck and this was more of a lorry, but that's my opinion only. Karenjc 17:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Karenjc, can you explain why you consider one of those vehicles a truck and the other a lorry? I understand that you're not presenting any sort of rigorous definition, but I just don't see what there is about them that would cause someone to categorize them differently. John M Baker (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You only really see that kind of vehicle in the US, so it makes sense to use the US term. The only time I would use "truck" is in the phrase "pick-up truck". --Tango (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand Karnejc's distinction. The first, defined "truck", has a cab which is not seen in the UK, and thus has an exotic American sense to it. The 2nd ("lorry") is absolutely typical. Can you really not see the difference in the cab? Interestingly, and quite randomly, the most common use of the word "truck" I ever found in the UK is "truck and trailer": a maul tactic in rugby union (common enough for Semi-trailer truck to have a hatnote to that effect.Gwinva (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above (I'm also British). I found the Independent articles quite grating, although I wouldn't mind if they were talking solely about Karenjc's definition of a truck. I'm not sure where it comes from, but a truck could also be something much smaller, and pushed, although that is rare here. I've never seen the first 'truck' on British roads (although I did on Ice Road Truckers, a TV programme, set in Canada or Alaska, which I didn't mind). I think they're somewhat bigger as well, and unsuitable for many British roads (imagine trying to get through Cornwall!), hence the second type is used. Just a thought. It's actually quite an easy distinction, since I've never seen anything in the middle. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. The cab with forward-projecting engine compartment, large vertical exhaust chimneys and (often) quite a bit of shiny chrome is not commonly seen on British roads and conforms for more to my idea of a US truck than the less bulky and exotic lorry of my second example. Karenjc 11:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a recent blog post on trucks and lorries. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Truck is a, or to, cart. A lorry is a loadable carriage. The truck word is ambiguous and lorry is usually the word but you will be understood if you say truck. It is far from exotic (sorry). Diapers is a rare word and the measurements are different. Biscuits are cookies not burgers, thats about it. ~ R.T.G 13:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What do biscuits have to do with burgers (anywhere)? -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Most likely, if that person travels to Britian and talks all day, they will understand every word even if he barely catches a sentence himself. Biggest differences are, in America, a biscuit is a kind of burger you get in McDonalds and the word for nappy is diaper. 'Buck' is also a unique word for money but so is every money in the world so doesn't count so good. This guy thinks that because we say lorry that the work truck is alien. The word cookie is a prime example for discussion and biscuit is cookies best buddy, okay? Oh, and chips, chipped potatoes here are french fries and crispy slices of potato here are called Potato Crisps. You would find it very difficult to make crisps with a chipping motion. Lorry (horse-drawn), it is a toungue-twister on the words 'loadable trolly'. ~ R.T.G 17:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A biscuit is not a "type of burger you get at McDonalds." A biscuit is a savory quickbread, somewhat similar to a scone, which generally serves a purpose akin to a dinner roll. McDonalds serves breakfast sandwiches with breakfast meats (such as sausage) on a biscuit. I've never heard of anyone eating a burger on a biscuit. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have had a biscuit in a Carolina McDonalds and I thought it was like a burger, with chips/fries, bun and drink and all. If I went to my local McDonalds and asked for biscuits they might have chocolate chip cookies or something. Bourbon creams for your coffee... not buns and fries. ~ R.T.G 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait! This biscuit was a breakfast thing with eggs and bacon, drink and fries. Maybe it was the bun but definitly not a bourbon cream cookie which is what I would call a biscuit. ~ R.T.G 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect what you had at McDonald's was an Egg McMuffin, which is served on an English muffin, not a biscuit. +Angr 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Most likely it was a bacon, egg & cheese biscuit. As you can tell on this menu, McDonalds has several biscuit items for breakfast, but it does not serve them the rest of the day. John M Baker (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll never forget it. I was taking out as a treat (as a small boy) and the man who lived around there all his life I guess, he said he would buy me a biscuit for breakfast and it was some sort of breakfast burger thing. Check the page biscuit and it is actually covered in detail. An old southern state tradition or something since the 1800s. I was hoping somebody would suggest a page on the wiki where words like biscuit/cookie and nappy/diaper were all listed. ~ R.T.G 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You might find what you want on one or more of these pages.

• American and British English differences
• Differences between American and British English (vocabulary)
• List of British words not widely used in the United States
• List of words having different meanings in British and American English

-- Wavelength (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up Wavelength but I looked through the "a" section of that list and so far all words claimed to have a meaning in America not commonly used seem to be wrong including words such as apartment, attorney, ace etc. "A la mode" as "with ice cream" is an unfamiliar one. Other dubious differences are stuff like "beaver" for vagina and "batty" for homosexual. We have bogey, bonk, boob, box as supposed not to be slang for some sort of beaver in British English, brilliant in the sarcastic, bug as to have 6 meanings in America not in use across the water such as bug off and firebug, buggy supposed not to be the word for a baby carriage, the word bum supposed to mean actual anal buggery in British English, that a carnival wouldn't be a sort of funfair in British English but more likely to be the days before lent, casualty supposed not to mean in British English a person who has died in unfortunate circumstances. If you don't mind my use of some colloquial language I must say the list is full of crap (I'm sorry but ask around, I don't know how well the Americans will understand my use of the word "full" so I suggest they all consult the list, maybe someone here will be interested in fixing some of that list). ~ R.T.G 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of your examples of the list being 'wrong' conflict with my day-to-day experience of the language. So maybe the list just doesn't fit with your personal experiences. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about that on the talk page of the list if you want. ~ R.T.G 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

International Labour Organization

Why is this so called? Labour is the British spelling; Organization is American. The question is, is there a more historical reason for this, or is it that the second sentence is too much of a generalisation - there was a particular nuance, or historical usage (around 1920 it was set up, I'm not sure when the name was settled) of which I'm not aware? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The UN uses Oxford spelling. Algebraist 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have there every been any complaints or that sort of thing over nomenclature? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that UN Delegates, unlike many Wikipedia editors, it would seem, have less trivial matters with which to concern themselves. 217.19.134.11 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In the confines of history, there have been a fair few: the Malvinas/Falklands, the whole Macedonia thing, I was wondering if UN naming conventions have created any others. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The existence of substantive issues doesn't seem to prevent the UN, or any other political body, from perennially declaring a Year of Symbolism. —Tamfang (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Spendthrift

So, according to the wiktionary (and, I'm sure, English dictionaries in general), spendthrift = someone who spends money wastefully or not carefully. However, thrift = "The characteristic of using a minimum of something (especially money)". I'm trying to wrap my mind around the common element of "thrift" in both of these words, because it seems to be used in contradictory ways with these words. The wiktionary entry gives the etymology as coming from Old Norse meaning "thriving condition, prosperity". No etymology is given for "spendthrift". I'm confused how "thrift" can mean both "wasteful" and "using a minimum of something" at the same time? Or is it just some weird coincidence that caused those two words to look alike, and they don't actually share the same root? Dgcopter (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "thrift" in this sense means "wealth". So a spendthrift spends his wealth. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah ... I guess my confusion came from me parsing the "thrift" part of "spendthrift" as an adverb rather than a noun (that is, "one who spends thriftily" vs. "one who spends thrift"). Dgcopter (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting about thrift meaning wealth. We tend to use the word thrift to mean the practice of spending money parsimoniously. All other considerations aside, a thrifty person probably has a better chance of becoming wealthy than a non-thrifty person, but being thrifty per se is not necessarily a guarantee that you will become wealthy (pace my grandmother, who always said "Take care of the pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves". But then, she was Scottish.) Some people who were formerly cashed up but are now not so, are forced by circumstance to watch every cent. They're now thrifty because they have no other choice, but they're certainly not wealthy. And at the other end of the spectrum are the Hetty Greens and the J. Paul Gettys, who were rich beyond the dreams of avarice but maintained their thrifty habits to excessive degrees. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

June 10

Usage of i.e. and e.g.

I am editing a dissertation. What is the proper usage of i.e. and e.g. in American usage? Should each be underlined and followed by a comma?67.150.126.143 (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Followed by a comma—yes. Underscored (or italicized)—no. These are the guidelines of both the MLA Style Manual and the Chicago Manual of Style, which I believe are the guidelines applicable to most dissertations in the United States (though I'm not sure of usage in the sciences). Deor (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't use those abbreviations in an academic dissertation in the first place. They are for informal writing. For "i.e." use "in other words" or "that is to say". For "e.g." use "for example" or "for instance". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would never consider "i.e." and "e.g." "for informal writing", and my dissertation is full of them. An early stage of WP:MOS proscribed their usage at Wikipedia because they were considered too academic for use in a general encyclopedia. +Angr 09:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage (2000)[4] says of e.g. "it is preferably followed by a comma (or, depending on the construction, a colon) and unitalicized". So no underlining. (And I'd be very interested to see any references claiming they are too informal for academic writing; that seems very unlikely to me.) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Word for Candle

What's the word for a candle or torch mounted on a wall?
There was a word for it, or for its holder.
Example (to clarify what I'm trying to describe): The Gothic heroine removed a candle from its holder on the wall and carried it down the ancient stone passageway, determined to explore the castle's forbidden wing. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)MissMorland

Sconce? ÷seresin 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's it! Thank you. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)MissMorland

Girandole is another possibility. Deor (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Plural of media

If you have many sorts of media (like photography, graphics, etc), how do you express the plural? Medias?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "types of media". Etymologically, of course, media is the plural of medium, but even when it's reinterpreted as a singular, I'd say it's still a mass noun, not a count noun. +Angr 11:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I can't think of a single example where media would be considered singular. After all, we do talk of "the medium of television" as opposed to "the media of television", which would be a clumsy way to say "the various news programs on telly". It is plural, simple as that. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you never heard anyone say "the media is..."? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard things you educated people wouldn't believe... ;-) pma (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only in the context of "the media" as a collective term for journalists, reporters, etc. (or in the context of the person speaking just being wrong - that happens too!). --Tango (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For media and for cats, I recommend rearranging the nouns: media of many sorts/kinds/types and cats of many sorts/kinds/types.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is that better than "many sorts/kinds/types of media" and "many sorts/kinds/types of cats"? +Angr 15:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The expressions which I recommended are better because they parallel the expression media of this sort/kind/type and the expression cats of this sort/kind/type, which correspond to awkward expressions in the other sort/kind/type of arrangement.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess because it is definitely different, as "particular" is different from "general". In my garden cats of many varieties are leaving odor signals everywhere; this habit is present in many varieties of cats. I agree with Wavelenght: using indiscriminately the species instead of the individual, makes the speech heavier, if not wrong; if one does it, he should be conscious that he is doing a synecdoche, and hopefully, have a reason to do it. --pma (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In the particular case of kind, I was taught to eschew sentences phrases like kinds of cats and use the formal kinds of cat instead. Pallida  Mors 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"many media" or "many different media" would be alternative phrasings making it clear that the word is being used in its plural sense.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The word medium has several meanings; with some, the plural is media, and, with others, the plural is mediums. In each case, there can be types and subtypes and sub-subtypes. If you are going to say "many types of medium", then you need to be sure that the meaning of medium is clear, and that the level of categorization is clear. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And then there is Eric Nicol's book whose title caused every editor in the publishing firm at the time to do a doubletake and then to concede the use: One Man's Media and How to Write for Them (Holt, Rinehart and Winston) ISBN 0-03-929991-0. // BL \\ (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "one" in that title modifies "man", not "media", which is being used as a plural. --Anonymous, 05:05 UTC, June 12, 2009.

See wikt:en:manifold#Adjective. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Plural2singular

Is there a process of formation of words (in Latin and in Greek) from a (concrete) neutral plural, (especially a substantivized adjective) to an (abstract) feminine singular noun? I think there are some examples, but I wonder if it is recognized as a general linguistic fact. --pma (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In Latin, the neuter plural of participles often becomes a singular feminine noun; anything ending in -antia or -entia, basically. The one that immediately sprang to mind was "concordantia"; this search of Lewis and Short has tons more. This can also be done with gerunds, at least in English borrowings; "agenda" or "memoranda" are singular, from Latin plurals. One possible Latin example is "legenda", as in "legenda aurea", the Golden Legend, but I'm not sure if that was intended to be a plural. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 March 30#What modifiers modify for some English derivatives.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

memoranda is singular?? —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, like "media" :) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I almost came to physical blows with a former work colleague who insisted on changing all my uses of "criterion" (singular) to "criteria" (also, in her little world, singular). We argued for weeks about it. Her position was that people regularly use criteria to refer to a single condition (and, sadly, they do), so the organisation shouldn't be appearing to use toffee-nosed language if it wanted to relate to people. When I asked her "OK, what if there are more than one we're talking about? What's the plural of criteria?" She said "It's criterias, obviously". No amount of argument from me could budge her, but thankfully our legal people finally sided with me when they saw "criterias", and resolved the matter satisfactorily. She had to cop it sweet but she was still convinced she was right. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To celebrate my victory, I should have gone to see two operas.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can sympathize. Although no one where I work would be so gauche as to use criteria as a singular, I have been asked to stop using plural agreement with data (e.g. "these data are..."). But I either ignore that request or use a different word, such as information, if possible. I'd probably break out in hives if I had to use a construction like "this data is...". +Angr 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In my idiolect 'data' takes singular concord, but it isn't singular: it's a mass noun. This is a quite different case from 'criterion', which is singular and has a plural 'criteria' (again, in my idiolect. I try never to impose such choices on others). --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Need an English word

Looking for a word that means it was made from a couple of other words. Just wrote an article on Jayco and the name comes from the founder's middle name, Jay. It therefore is from "Jay" and "compnay" to equal Jayco. What more sophisticated word would have this meaning of combining two words together to get another word? Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Portmanteau? --LarryMac | Talk 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Blend.—msh210℠ 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

...unless you mean concatenation?—msh210℠ 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Compound. Mikenorton (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for ideas.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin Word For 'Volcano'

According to Pompeii: The Last Day, on Discovery Channel, there is no word for volcano in Latin. I thought the Latin word for volcano was, well, volcano. Can anyone verify this? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, "volcano" is the Italian descendant of "Vulcanus", the god Vulcan, who I suppose may have been used as the name for any volcano. Volcanoes had names of course - Vesuviua, Aetna - but "mons ignis" or "mons igneus" might work too. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Latin Wikipedia uses mons ignifer. (Of course, a contemporary effort I guess). Pallida  Mors 04:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The only native Latin words which end in "-o" in the nominative singular are actually N-stems, so I can tell without even looking at the dictionary that if "volcano" were a Latin word, then the genitive singular would be volcaninis or volcanonis (which doesn't seem all that plausible).... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Penguin translation of Pliny the Younger's account of the eruption of Vesuvius. His uncle Pliny the Elder was killed by it (he was such an awesome scientist that he walked right up to it while it was erupting). I'll have to find the Latin, but the translation doesn't ever use the word "volcano". How many volcanoes would they have ever seen, anyway? Were there any other active ones, besides Vesuvius and Etna, in Europe at the time? They probably just didn't have a word for something that was otherwise a normal mountain. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The 19th-century Smith & Hall Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary suggests first mons vulcanius but conceded there is no classical authority for that term. Otherwise you have to make do with explanations like mons eructans flammas/vaporem/fumum, mons arenas flammarum globo eructans, or mons evomens ignes. It seems to the Romans, some mountains erupted in fire and others didn't, but there was no special word for the ones that did. +Angr 05:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Stromboli was very active too, and well known - some say Homer alluded to it in the Odyssey. I guess that what Romans did know about volcans, as usual, was a legacy of the more advanced Hellenistic science; and we do not exactly know what they knew. --pma (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah...so then, what is "volcano" in ancient Greek? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe they didn't have one either. The only word I can find in Liddell & Scott that has the word "volcano" in its definition is φῦσα, which however means "crater of a volcano" rather than the volcano as a whole. +Angr 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The English article en:Volcano has an interlanguage link to the modern Greek article el:Ηφαίστειο

and the English article en:Hephaestus has an interlanguage link to the modern Greek article el:Ήφαιστος.

Those could be clues to the ancient Greek word for volcano. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could be, but aren't. In Ancient Greek, Ἡφαίστειος is an adjective meaning "of or belonging to Hephaestus"; the neuter Ἡφαίστειον (which corresponds to Modern Greek ηφαίστειο) can be used as a noun to mean "temple of Hephaestus", but there's no indication it's ever used to mean "volcano". I suspect that usage is comparatively modern, and may well have started out as a sort of calque of Italian vulcano. +Angr 12:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User grc.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

June 11

GRE ASAP

Could you let me know what is GRE ASAP means? GRE means graduate recorded exam. what is ASAP? Thank you124.43.51.119 (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it normally stands for As Soon As Possible. What's the context? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

References to the idea that language and the physical world are one and the same?

Are there any cultures with the above tradition, or philosophers who have expounded it? I'm hoping for references that aren't too modern - the mid 20th Century or before, if possible - but I'll be grateful for any ideas.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"In the beginning was the word..." -- Q Chris (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some interpretations of the Kabbalah perhaps.Rhinoracer (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hurufism? AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read about Logos? --Omidinist (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice stuff, thanks all - so tempting to interpret these things as a precursor to the modern idea that information is physical. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow vs. permit

I just made a minor edit here. I was re-reading the Medical Advice Guidelines for the first time in eons, and came across the sentence:

• ... it is not allowed to answer this question with ...

I instantly knew it was not grammatical, so I changed "allowed" to "permitted". Then I wondered just exactly what was wrong with the original version, and I'm slightly stumped for an answer. In many contexts, "allow" is a synonym for "permit", and that's clearly where the writer was coming from. This appearance was in a passive construction, the active version of which might go

• ... <we> do not allow/permit you to answer this question with....

It's clear that either verb could be used in the active version. But after converting it to passive, only "permit" is available. This issue could also apply to "let" - ok in active, but not in passive. Why is this? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, it's not just a question of active vs. passive. We do say "This practice is not allowed/permitted". But we can't say "It is not allowed to <something>", whereas we can say "It is not permitted to <something>". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And we can say "You are not allowed to <something>", but not "It is not allowed to <something>", unless the "it" refers to a dog that's not allowed to come inside the house, for example. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But if you restructure it slightly to

* … answering this question with … is not allowed/permitted …

then both words become equally valid again, odd. Perhaps it's just one of those nuances of word use where a native speaker immediately knows exactly the right one to use, but can't explain why. Mikenorton (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The expression it is not allowed to (with it as a dummy pronoun) sounds acceptable to me, although it can be ambiguous, and Google reported 2,600,000 pages that use it. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of those pages use the expression with it as a personal pronoun. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't say I've ever heard it down here. I've never come across it in the millions of pages I've text edited in various contexts. It really does sound quite unnatural to my ears, but English is so diverse, no one person could hope to be across all the variants. I'd still be surprised if "let" could be used in place of "allowed/permitted" in the original sentence, in any dialect. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Google reported 536 pages where it is used in the TLD ".au". -- Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of those pages use the expression with it as a personal pronoun. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You could say "... it is not allowable to answer this question with ..." or "... it is not permissible to answer this question with ..."
or "... it is impermissible to answer this question with ...". -- Wavelength (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not permissible - yes. Not allowable - I still have my doubts. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've googled "not allowable", and most hits (not all, admittedly) are about fees, charges, expenses, legal costs, tax deductions, actions proscribed in a piece of legislation, that sort of thing. It seems to be mainly confined to these sorts of technical/legal/judicial contexts. Whereas, "not permissible" has a much wider application, but it can't be used in many of the above examples. For example, we talk of tax deductions being "allowed/not allowed" or "allowable/not allowable", not usually "permitted/not permitted". For me, that captures the nuance I was after. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please to be

Hi all, is it grammatical to say: "Please to be [verb]-ing"? E.g. "please to be enjoying this show" or "please to be remembering the date for the meeting".

In such a situation, I would say "Please enjoy this show" or "Please remember..." But is the first-mentioned construction valid at all? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider it an error in American English. To me, it sounds like an Indian construction, or rather a caricature of Indian speech. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a standard caricature of the English spoken in India. Tempshill (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

One could say "She was pleased to be enjoying the show, given that only that morning her whole world had fallen apart".

But "please to be" - I can't think of any context where it might apply.

This talks about "please to <verb>", and if we can stretch our brains, the verb could be "be", I suppose. Highly contrived, though.

This contains the sentence: Those maneuvers only highlight how desperate he and his crew are to please, to be urban-authentic. But that's not the same thing at all.

Something perhaps a little closer is this: Allow me please to be parochial for a moment, and point out that the new New York senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, is a UCLA School of Law. But one could argue the "please" is parenthetical, and should be swathed in commas. And parochial is not a verb anyway.

This gives us an interesting version: And while this versatile collection was too eager to please to be truly wicked, it was a sexy outing nonetheless.

These are just some of the over 17 million hits I found on a google search. I've checked a few pages, but have found no example of what the OP’s asking about that isn’t either a spelling error or a dialectal variant that is not standard in Brit, US or Aus English. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Those examples are a mish-mash of rather irrelevant odds and ends (the first with multiple spelling and punctuation errors, the second with "please" being a mere parenthetical interjection, and the third with "to be" connected with the whole phrase "eager to please", not just the single word "please"). AnonMoos (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this is an in-community joke based, as pointed out above, on caricatures of Indian English. Some context: here: "Unless the fic being discussed involved Civil War canon, please to be taking your CW rant to whatever new comm has replaced scans_daily, where it belongs." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be an archaic construction, there is a UK rhyme that says "Please to remember the fifth of November gunpowder treason and plot" [5] -- Q Chris (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's in the same category as my first link above, where "please to + verb" is reported as being described as archaic, although it's apparently in current use in Jamaica. What the OP's asking about, though, is "please to be + present participle of verb". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[Incidentally, archaic language is a topic at Wikipedia:Use modern language. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)]

Two odd phrases (Americanisms?)

These two phrases seem odd to me, and I've only ever seen/heard them coming from Americans. Are they an American thing?

• "I don't got a problem with..." (where got should clearly be have)
• "I could care less about..." (where could should clearly be couldn't; this is quite egregious, since it is the exact opposite of what is meant)

--Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that both are fairly common in American speech, but I can't comment on whether they are unique to Americans. I consider both to be errors, and I think most prescriptivists would agree. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They sound quite informal to me, even somewhat uneducated, and I'd never use them myself, but I've heard both constructions from other people often enough that they don't surprise me in the least. What does still catch me by surprise is the reanalysis of got as an infinitive and present-tense form (a preterite-present of sorts) to the extent that the 3rd person singular becomes he gots. Obviously it should be no surprise that someone who can say "I don't got a problem" can also say "He gots a problem", but still the second of those seems even odder to me than the first. +Angr 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Could care less" is a standard shibboleth which has received much discussion (including in Steven Pinker's Language Instinct). AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For the first phrase I hear "I ain't got no problem with that" more often (Southern US)71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

World Wide Words, which is usually reliable on linguistic matters, says "could care less" "was coined in the US and is found only there".[6] There is a great deal of discussion of the idiom online, as AnonMoos says, so you should be able to find more information on it easily. "I don't got a problem" sounds like a common American usage, but I'm having difficulty googling for it. Peter Trudgill says it's not standard usage in the USA[7] but no information on how common it is. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with 71 above. Tempshill (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

name of this literary device?

when you keep repeating a phrase for emphasis (and sometimes rhythm), example the poem don't go gentle into that good night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.233 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You might call that Repetition or Repetitio if you want the latin term for it, though its usually just one word or phrase, it could be extended to cover a whole sentence. For more Information see literary device--91.6.60.195 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, I'd call it a refrain, the same device that is used in songs. The article on Do not go gentle into that good night calls it "refrain" too, a formal element of the villanelle. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, we can., Yes, we can., YES, WE CAN, YES WE CAN. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see Stylistic device in rhetoric. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And you may have a look to epistrophe and have a look to anaphora. --pma (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclusive - have I understood this?

From http://www.zavvi.co.uk/zavvi/terms-and-conditions.info

"11. Price and Payment All prices are inclusive of VAT (where applicable) at the current rates and are correct at the time of entering the information onto the system. We reserve the right, however, to change prices at any time without notice to you. If your delivery address is outside of the United Kingdom and the Island of Jersey you may be subject to import duties and taxes..."

The 'inclusive' in the first sentence means 'includes VAT' ie the price has VAT added. Is this right? Thanks77.86.10.194 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny thing is zavvi has informed me that they have not paid VAT on a VAT eligble item I bought,(via email) which is funny because it seems like they are saying that they have breached their own contract, misrepresented it to me, and evaded tax, all in one fell swoop. What a funny old world!77.86.10.194 (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If something is shipped from Jersey to the UK you don't have to pay VAT or duties if the shipment is less than £18.[8][9]. The conditions say that VAT is added if it applies (e.g. if they shipped from within the UK). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the thing I ordered was more than £18, the postal package was marked "import VAT pre-paid" - but no VAT appears on the receipt!77.86.10.194 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Euphemisms for "Crying Jay"

I am looking for other euphemisms for the phrase "crying jay" or "crybaby". Also, does anyone know how this phrase originated? --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Crybaby" doesn't appear to be puzzling: babies cry, hence "crybaby". I have never heard the expression "crying jay" unless you meant "crying jag", which is quite different from "crybaby". Other expressions similar to "crybaby", and from the same type of playground use of many decades ago are "woose", "mama's boy", "wimp" and "snot nose". I am sure there are many, many more. // BL \\ (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

South Africa and naming of nations

Are there any other nations other than South Africa the names of which are also their locations? Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

East Timor, Western Samoa (as was), Northern Ireland, North Korea, South Korea. Gwinva (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Northern Ireland might qualify if we consider it a "nation". It's sometimes considered a "country", e.g. it competes against the other "countries" (England, Scotland, Wales, etc) of the United Kingdom in various sporting contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See article Home Nations... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Central African Republic --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea, perhaps? We could even add Ecuador in for the same reason. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Western Sahara, if you consider it a nation. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See List of country name etymologies. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Norway! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually that's the way to the north (taking the most likely derivation of the name). Mikenorton (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Western Australia and South Australia would be similar to South Africa in that the non-directional term is a continent. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Zhongguo, obviously!--Rallette (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Along those lines, Japan comes from Nippon (日本), or "source of the sun", "land of the rising sun", etc. It could easily be paraphrased as "East Land". Indeterminate (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

June 12

Language

I have a very dear friend moving to the Phillippines permanantly. I want to give a farewell party. How would I say hello and goodbye and good luck in their language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.117.4 (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are over 170 languages of the Philippines, so you need to decide first which of them you want to use. +Angr 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have a specific reason to choose another one, Tagalog is the most spoken and the most "high-prestige" and widely understood, so it's probably a good bet. According to Wiktionary, "hello" is "kamusta" or "kumusta" and "goodbye" is "paalam." No Tagalog translation is given for good luck; hopefully a speaker will wander by. If not, you could contact a Tagalog-speaking Wikipedia user directly from Category:User_tl. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[10] for 'good luck'. - DSachan (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

CofE Churches

Would the correct term for the saint after which a church is named eg. Saint Andrew's Church be patron saint? I'm a native speaker, I just can't think if that's appropriate. I could imagine saying a church was dedicated to someone, but firstly that sounds like that's the only person the worship, and secondly I wouldn't really really know what the noun would be for the Saint in question (dedicatee?). I normally associate patron saints with wider bodies, like towns, for example. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In both the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England the correct term is patron saint and this is chosen at the original consecration of the building, when the church is dedicated to the particular saint. Mikenorton (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

French hens

Gallus is the Latin word for a chicken. Gallus is also the Latin word for a Gaul. And the French national emblem is a cockerel. Is the similarity of the two words a coincidence? Which meaning came first? 209.251.196.62 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymologically it is a coincidence, but it is a deliberate play on words. We even have an article, Gallic rooster. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See Turkey (bird)#History and naming. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I could easily be wrong, but I thought the Latin word for Gaul was Gallia—the same as the modern Greek word for France. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Gallia" was the name of the country; "Gallus" was an individual belonging to the tribes for which the country was named. By the way, one famous example of homonymy is that in some dialects in south-western France, the descendants of the two Vulgar Latin words gallus and cattus (meaning "rooster" and "cat") came to have exactly the same pronunciation... AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something? How can gaul and chat have the same pronunciation? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's Parisian French. In Occitan they are "gal" and "gat"...so I suppose they have silent letters at the end, AnonMoos? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in chapter 22 of Leonard Bloomfield's classic textbook Language, based on the work of Gilliéron (who is currently just a redlink in our article Linguistic map) and Albert Dauzat (who is not even a redlink). The reference is to forms of local dialects, which are probably not found even in regional quasi-standard languages like Occitan... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

French accents in English usage

A while ago I used the word paper-mâché in another post. I must admit I had never before seen it with all the diacritical marks in the right places. The most I had seen up until now was the accent on the é. I have also noticed that people no longer put marks on the word "resume". I'm not looking for "should be" book lore. What I'd like to know is common US usage and acceptability of leaving out those marks. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is List of English words with diacritics, but I am not sure how much it conforms to what you are seeking.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the spelling is actually "papier-mâché". --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The spelling for the French pronunciation is "papier-mâché". I grew up with the term "paper-mâché", with the term "papier-mâché" sounding pretentious and ridiculous. So, the spelling will depend on which term you mean, which will probably depend on which term is most common in your dialect. Which, of course, brings us full circle to the original question. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See Burt Bacharach - Paper Mache LYRICS [sic]. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Native" English words are almost uniformly without diacritic marks. Diacritics, therefore, are found almost exclusively in loanwords from other languages. This means that native English speakers (especially US ones) are largely ignorant about diacritics. (For example, I wouldn't begin to know how to type 'é' or 'â' on my keyboard - I'm only able to insert them here because I can copy & paste from above.) The tendency, then, is to Anglicize/Americanize the "foreign" words by trimming the diacritics while retaining the pronunciation - it's not like English has a consistent spelling/pronunciation scheme that has to be followed. This has happened with words such as rôle and élite. You see these forms, but they're largely viewed as anachronistic. A lay audience probably won't care if the diacritics are missing - for most people, they're not even "diacritics", they're "accent marks". To a lay person who speaks English, 'e' and 'é' are not separate letters, they're the same letter, just with a pronunciation hint on the second. (The hint being: "pretend you're French") It's mostly the "formal" or "academic" people who will bluster that "resume" is incorrect, and the actual word is "résumé". The best bet to see which is in common usage is to look in a trusted dictionary and see if the diacritic-less form is listed. Merriam Webster online puts the main entry at "résumé", but lists "resumé" and "resume" as accepted variants. It, however, only lists "papier–mâché", without any alternatives. (The search box there doesn't seem to be able to handle diacritics, though.) -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries do lag behind common usage for quite some time. Since I was a kid he term ice cream has migrated via ice-cream to icecream, which I find more and more commonly used today. Dictionaries still insist on either two separate words or the hyphenated term. Lots of younger users find that "old fashioned". 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd spell it papier-mâché but pronounce it /ˌpeɪpɚ məˈʃeɪ/ (not /papje maʃe/, which would sound affected in English). +Angr 23:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I only ever heard it as papier-mâché when I was at school, and hearing the Anglo-French hybrid 'paper-mâché' makes me feel like I'm scraping my teeth on a cheese grater. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Where at school? (I'm trying to find out if there's a difference in usage e.g. close to the Canadian border, in the north-eastern US, big cities vs, countryside etc.) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Northern England. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree pretty much with what 128 said, which is why it surprises me that people on Wikipedia are still fighting tooth and nail for accented spellings of cafe, premiere and role. They're almost never spelled with diacritics in real world land these days. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen it spelt in an authoritative source as "paper-machier"! It's always "papier-machier" in my experience, even if you read it as "paper masher". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Any source that spells the second part as "machier" is not a source I'd ever consider authoritative. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(rant coming...) Doesn't "in real world land these days" pretty much depend on which land you're talking about? I can well imagine that south of England usage of diacritics varies substantially from land- and French-locked Kansas. And since when did the masses know how to spell things properly? There are all sorts of people who don't know when to put their ' in their its and don't know when to use their and when to use there, but Wikipedia still strives to do it properly. If you go to the Manual of Style for any decent publisher, you will find diacritics properly used on the French words used in English which still deserve to have them. I agree that role has been so well subsumed into English that using a diacritic on it is ridiculous, but café is still widely recognised as a foreign word that we use, too. My rule is that if we try to pronounce it as the French do (even if we do usually do it terribly), then it gets the diacritics. By the way, the Windows operating system has this handy thing called the character map, and there you can find keyboard short-cuts for diacritics. I use some so often that I have them memorised, but even if I didn't, it really isn't difficult. In my opinion, it's all really just a matter of education, and education standards becoming diabolical isn't a good enough reason to stop doing something properly. Maedin\^talk 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, my auto-correct in Word 2007 gives me café but not papier-mâché (leaving me with papier-mache), and it doesn't correct resume to resumé, presumable because we have a word in English that already has that spelling. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Maedin the character map works well enough if you have the occasional character to type and do the typing yourself. If you pay someone by the hour to do it and use a text with lots of foreign words the price difference can be significant. I worked at one company in Europe that had various keyboards with little stickers on the keys and instructions how to change the language setting attached on a little card. The company claimed they had cut typing times for their international correspondence in half. I personally find the cut and paste method 128 mentioned faster when typing the occasional short German or Swedish texts. (and am still grumbling about those darn special characters all the time) I had expected the British version to retain diacritical marks longer than the US usage, given OR experience with spelling changes in other words. I guess with the widespread use of spellcheckers, Microsoft has become the new spelling authority in the US. (Who am I to argue with my mighty computer software :-) Thanks for your help everyone so far. Any additional comments shedding light on US usage still welcome. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Liquor

Why do US states and Canadian provinces use the term "liquor license" to refer to alcohol permits? According to every source that I've seen, "liquor" refers only to distilled alcoholic beverages, not to alcoholic beverages in general. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also such a thing as a "beer license" or a "beer and wine license" in many jurisdictions, which allow the licensee to serve beer or wine but not hard liquor. Typically, I think a "liquor license" allows the licensee to sell beer and wine as well as hard liquor, so "liquor license" is the more inclusive term. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol would also more likely be understood to mean something like rubbing alcohol. "Alcoholic beverage license" is probably too much of a mouth full. You also have to consider the fact that the term "liquor license" has been in use for a long time and tastes in language use change. The term beverage was rarely used when I grew up, actually I've only heard it more frequently since about the eighties and started using it myself more frequently from the 90s onward.71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In Canada, or at least in Ontario, you can also get beer at the liquor store, but you can't get liquor at the beer store. With a "liquor license" I would actually expect to get only beer, and perhaps something like hard lemonade or coolers. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The logic escapes me a bit on that one. If you can get both beer and hard liquor at a liquor store, why would you not expect to be able to sell both hard liquor and beer with a liquor license? 71.236.26.74 (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably because beer and liquor stores here are government-run, and therefore inherently illogical :) And it's not that you can't sell liquor with a liquor license, I just meant that I associate "liquor license" with "beer". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Beer Store is an Ontario-only copmpany that is owned by the major breweries and licensed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) to sell beer and beer-derived coolers (yuck!). Back to the OP's question as to why the term "Liquor License" is used rather than "Alcohol Permit", I have no idea, although I suspect it's historical in nature. It is codified, as the Ontario Liquor License Act (1990) defines Liquor as "spirits, wine and beer or any combination thereof and includes any alcohol in a form appropriate for human consumption as a beverage, alone or in combination with any other matter" [11]. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Names

I was not sure where to ask this question ... but here seems as good a place as any. I have always been curious as to why the names of Wikipedia articles about people are, for example, "Abraham Lincoln" ... as opposed to "Lincoln, Abraham". Of course, all printed media (e.g., encyclopedias) would list Abraham Lincoln under the "L" section and not the "A" section. And I am curious why Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, diverges from this convention. Does anyone know? That is, is there any real / actual reason? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

The only reason I can think of for the 'surname, forename' convention is to make it easier to find entries which are sorted alphabetically by surname. Since this isn't a concern online, there's no reason for Wikipedia article titles not to obey the usual conventions of English. Algebraist 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for doing it the way Joseph was suggesting. Did you mean "... there's no reason for Wikipedia article titles not to obey the usual conventions of English"? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, he means there's no reason for Wikipedia articles not to write "Abraham Lincoln" since Wikipedia isn't arranged in such a way that you have to look under either "A" or "L" for the article on Abraham Lincoln. You just type it into the search box. Notice how articles about people are alphabetized by last name in categories, since in categories you do have to browse through an alphabetical list to find what you're looking for, but in article space you don't. Nevertheless, the Russian Wikipedia does use the last-name-first convention for its articles, e.g. ru:Линкольн, Авраам. +Angr 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is rather strange then that Japanese Wikipedia has family name last (eg: ja:エイブラハム・リンカーン = Abraham Lincoln) even though the convention in Japan is for people to put their family name first (but maybe that article is an exception of sorts). Astronaut (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) says the following.

General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:

1. The name that is most generally recognisable
2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia conventions like these are built up over years of discussion between decent, intelligent people who collectively put centuries of brain-work into the discussion. Sometimes the results are silly. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But not in this case. Algebraist 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

June 13

Nothing like good sesh

This movie review refers to a "sophomore sesh jinx". What does that mean? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

'Sesh' tends to (in British English, at least) refer to a 'session'. Best I can do, not knowing the rituals and secret 'fraternities' and 'sororities' that American teenagers like to get themselves involved in. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole article about that meaning of sesh, but it doesn't make sense (or even senshe) here. And the review's not written by a teenager, nor is Variety aimed at that audience. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying it was written by a teenager. The word 'sophomore' gave me the idea, and I believe 'sophomore' means somebody in first second year at university. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but it is written for an audience that is used to Variety's own peculiar phrases and writing style ("Sticks nix hick pix" etc). They're still using as recently as this week, where it appears to mean a movie's second full of week of playing on screen. For Local Hero, as Clarityfiend linked to (the quote also appears in our article), however, it seems to mean the director's second movie. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

@KageTora: For the general concept, see Sophomore slump. I too am bemused by the insertion of sesh in this case, however. Deor (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Flaming June

I see that our article Flaming June is about a painting by Frederic Lord Leighton. But is that the source of the journalistic expression? (For people outside the UK, ‘Flaming June’ is a much used headline in the popuar and not-so-popular British press; the articles will either be undisguised excuses to put bikinis on the front page, or moans about inclement weather.) Perhaps they both have a common source. Something tells me it’s Shakespeare—but I can’t pin it down, and I have been half-heartedly trying to for years. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of evidence that "flaming June" is a stock expression—a Google Books search finds occurrences of it in books on gardening, in poems, in novels, and in other contexts—but it's rather curious that I can't turn up any occurrences that predate Leighton's painting (other than juxapositions like "a flaming June day" in Pudd'nhead Wilson). For what it's worth, the expression is listed in the "Heat" entry in a 1958 edition of Roget's Thesaurus but not in the corresponding entry in the 1911 edition. If Leighton had used a familiar expression as the title of the painting, one would expect to turn up some previous record of it; I'm drawing a blank, though. Deor (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Eris Quod Sum

That's the title of a Heroes (TV series) episode. Please translate it from Latin for me, and be my hero. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"You will be what I am"—see the explanation in the lead of our article on the episode, Eris Quod Sum. Deor (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, we even have an article on each episode now ? Amazing. But how can only 3 words mean all that ? StuRat (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Latin doesn't (normally) use personal pronouns, and the future tense is built in to the verb. "Eris" = "you will be" and "sum" = "I am". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And "quod" = "what" ? StuRat (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, but only as a relative pronoun (so you could also translate it as "that which"). Interrogative "what" is "quid". English is kind of deficient in wh-words, so we use the same ones for relatives and interrogatives. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 June 3#What to call this grammatical construction.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See Nemo dat quod non habet and Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is the end of the Horace epigram "Eram quod es, eris quod sum" (I was what you are, you will be what I am [i.e. alive, then dead]). Similar phrases found on tombstones are memento mori and et in Arcadia ego. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think about it, Stu, you'd already know that Latin often uses fewer words than English. I'm sure you'd have heard of "Cogito (I think) ergo (therefore) sum (I am)". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In an above disacussion about papier mache, I saw someone write "/ˌpeɪpɚ məˈʃeɪ/" to explain how to pronounce it. Where might I find out how to read that? Vimescarrot (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA chart for English dialects may be helpful. Other information is linked in the main IPA article. Deor (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I need to know :) Vimescarrot (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How is a double L pronounced in Spanish ?

I believe it's a pure Y sound, but someone else told me it's an LY sound. The word in question was "tortilla". So, is there any Spanish dialect where the L sound is pronounced to make it "tortilya", instead of how I say it as "tortiya" ? Is there an English dialect where this is done to words borrowed from Spanish ? StuRat (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[ʎ], the LY sound that you friend told you about, is not a native sound of English and most have a difficult time distinguishing it from [j] (a pure Y sound) so I'm pretty sure every English speaker pronounces it as /tɔrˈtiːə/ or /tɔrˈtɪlə/. The standard variety of Castile pronounces tortilla as [t̪orˈt̪iʎa], though other varieties have lost /ʎ/ and merged this phoneme with the consonant spelled with a Y, which itself is not a "pure y" sound because there is often greater articulatory constriction so that it might sound more like [ʒ] or [dʒ] (the sound of garage in American and British pronunciations, respectively). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

see Yeísmo -- Nricardo (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this language/alphabet?

Hello,

I found this on Dave Sieg's Scanimate DVD (see this website); it seems to be from some kind of commercial from the early 80s, but I have no idea what country, language or alphabet this is. It looks like it's derived from some kind of Latin/IPA alphabet, but I am totally clueless as to what country uses/used it.

Can anybody with a greater knowledge of language than myself figure this out? It looks like it says something about wafers, but I don't even recognize some of the symbols here. Here's the image.

Thanks for any help anybody can give.--99.167.195.150 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See List of writing systems. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ThaiAas217 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but those look like Latin/IPA-style symbols. The actual Thai alphabet, as seen on Wikipedia, doesn't look like that. Unless it's Thai in a typeface made to look like Latin/IPA symbols, which I can actually buy if I think about it...--99.167.195.150 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would never have been able to identify that as Thai, but if it is, it's definitely using a typeface designed to resemble a sans-serif Latin face like Helvetica (the face that the "180" is printed in). +Angr 20:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For a translation, see Category:User th. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I can't see a translation of it on that page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a list of users that speak Thai. Ask one. Xenon54 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

see this link for a description of the font (Manoptica), which was developed in the '60's and designed to emulate Helvetica http://www.thailandqa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=728

Aas217 (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to sneezing in English

Our article says that 'Bless you' is commonly used, but in some places 'Gesundheit' is also used. Can somebody tell me the source for it, or the places where this practice is in common of saying 'Gesundheit' as a response to sneeze. This has to be in a English speaking country or community. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See Gesundheit --pma (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(ce) "Gesundheit," I think, would be recognized as a response to sneezing in most areas of the United States. It certainly was the standard response in my family; but the family was of German descent in an area (St. Louis, Missouri) with a large German-American population. Deor (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Sneezes Around The World will help? Personally, since my family is of German descent, we use "Gesundheit", but where I live (northern Virginia), "bless you" is almost universal. Xenon54 (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)