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

August 12

(at) home

"I like to be at home" and "I like to be home". Both sentences seem to be correct. Is there a rule that might explain this omission of preposition without making the sentence incorrect? There should be many more examples. Would you please suggest some of them with other prepositions. --Omidinist (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there's a rule for it, it's just that the word home can be either a noun (in which case it can be preceded by a preposition) or an adverb (in which case it can't). +Angr 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Or just the tendency of English speakers to abbreviate when the meaning is clear. As with the well-known midwestern expression and variants on it, "Do you want to take/come with?" Then later someone will say, "Let's go home." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To be "at home" is also a particularity of certains echelons of UK society. One prints up cards with one's name, the phrase "at home" and the address to RSVP then handwrites the time, date and occasion for the invitee [1]. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I think about, it seems like both expressions are simply English shorthand. "I'm at home" vs. "I'm home". Change "home" to "house" and neither sentence makes sense. "I'm at my house" makes sense. But to a native English speaker, leaving out "my" and "at" does not harm the meaning, when "home" is used, as "my" and "at" are implied. It's vaguely like when a Brit says, "I'm going on holiday". Seems like it should read "a/my holiday" = "a/my vacation" as Americans would say. But we don't say "a/my vacation", we just say "vacation". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well from a grammatical perspective "shorthand" is an almost entirely meaningless term. Talking about words like "home" shifting from nominal to adverbial makes it clearer what role they actually play in sentences and why things like this happen in certain contexts but not others. Mo-Al (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A question for US-English speakers of the eastern coast

1. Who (of you) make a full distintion when pronouncing the following three words: far, for, four (I'm referring to the for in sentences like: "What is it for?")
2. The same question with the triple: bum, bomb, balm (only if you don't pronouncce the "l" in balm).
3. If you don't pronounce for like four, then what do you think of the common web abbreviation: 4U, instead of four you?

It would be helpful if you might also point out where you live (or rather: where you got your accent). Thank you in advance

HOOTmag (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I live in central New York, and 'for' and 'four' sound exactly the same. '4U' makes perfect sense to me. 'Far' is pronounced like /fɑr/. 'Bomb' and 'balm' are usually identical, thought sometimes you hear the L a little bit. 'Bum' is pronounced with the short 'u' sound. —Akrabbim^talk 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanx. HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Akrabbim. Ages 0 through 12 outside Philadelphia, 12-18 in Connecticut, 18-21 in Wisconsin 2/3 of the time, 21-35 back in CT and 35+ near Richmond VA. --LarryMac | Talk 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankxs. HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with much of what Akrabbim says. I would say "far" is never pronounced like "for" or "four". The "a" is an "ah" sound, whether you enunciate the "r" as a midwesterner would, or drop the "r" as a northeasterner would. "For" and "four" are not necessarily identical, but they're close enough that "4" suggests "for". To someone who drops the "r", I would say it's "faw" vs. "foe-uh", but obviously some regional accents make them sound very similar. Like he also said, "bum" is short-u, like "drum". "Bomb" and "baum" and "balm" are similar, but not exactly the same. "Bomb" rhymes with "Tom", "baum" is properly said to sound more like "bow" (as in the bow of ship, or to bow; not the bow of a bow and arrow) but is often spoken the same way as "bomb", and the "L" is typically somewhat audible in "balm". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You've forgotten to indicate where you live (or where you got your accent). HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mostly midwest, lived several years on the east coast, and I tend to notice accents. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My answer is similar, although not exactly the same. I was born and grew up in Lancaster, PA, and currently live outside of Philadelphia. "For" and "Four" do sound exactly the same, with "Far" being different, the "a" being an "ah" sound. However, I pronouce "bum", "bomb", and "balm" all differently. "Bum" has a short "u" sound like "dumb". "Bomb" has a short "a" sound similar to the "a" in "father". "Balm" has an "aw" sound, similar to "saw". --Zerozal (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankx. HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I grew up in a suburb of New York City in a mostly nonrhotic environment but was trained to be rhotic. I have lived in and near Boston for most of my adult life, again in a largely nonrhotic environment, although I remain rhotic. I think that in both the nonrhotic and rhotic varieties current in both New York and Boston, "far" is distinct from "four" or "for". In all of the above cases, "four" and "for" have the same pronunciation, but only when the word "for" is stressed. Most often the word "for" is part of a prepositional phrase in which it is not stressed. In these unstressed positions, its vowel ([ə] or [ɚ]) is quite distinct from that of "four", which is invariably pronounced [fɒ:] (nonrhotic Boston), [fɔɚ] (rhotic General American), or something like [fʊɔ:] (nonrhotic New York). As for bomb/balm/bum, I agree that "bum" is always distinct from the other two in all varieties I know. I am afraid I am guilty of the "spelling pronunciation" of [balm], which is pretty common in my environment. I think that for most New Yorkers who don't pronounce the "l", "bomb" and "balm" will be pronounced the same ([ba:m]). For most Bostonians who don't pronounce the "l", however, "bomb" would be [bɒm], whereas "balm" would be [ba:m]. Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanxs. HOOTmag (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone pronounce "for" lazily more like "fur"? I often do that (but then I am kind of far from the US east coast). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fur shur! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the midwest but currently live in Vermont. The following is based on what I hear on a daily basis (although it matches exactly with how I would naturally say it in my own midwest accent). I'd say that four and for are pronounced the same when "for" is stressed. When it is not stressed, as Marco Polo said, it is pronounced much like "fur" or "fir" which are both pronounced the same. So if I were to say "I'm waiting for the bus", the word "for" would be pronounced like "fir/fur". Although, if I were holding a dress and someone thought it was mine (for whatever reason given I'm male) I'd say, "No, the dress is for my wife", it would be pronounced the same as the number "four" since I would be stressing who the dress is for. And I can't say what I hear as far as bum/bomb/balm since I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use those words in conversation. Dismas|^(talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, we posted at the same time, without an edit conflict, and you answered my question without even knowing I was going to ask it! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My usage agrees with Dismas' description. I pronounce "for" and "four" the same in a vacuum, but "for" is more likely to be said quickly, without emphasis, which causes it to lose its distinct vowel sound. "4U" is unambiguous in most contexts, though puerile. I haven't heard 'balm' said much, but I pronounce the 'l' slightly, and the 'ah' sounds similar to the vowel in 'bomb', and not like the vowel in 'saw' (though I wouldn't notice if someone said 'bawlm', it sounds correct, if slightly more 'proper'). I grew up in northern Virginia / southern Maryland, and live in the Midwest now. -Silence (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Grew up in Western Massachusetts, and "far," is completely distinct from "for" and "four" (pronounced like "car). There is the 'slightest of differences in pronunciation between "for" and "four," so slight that I'm not sure whether it's really there, or I just think I hear it. "Four" is pronounced just a little bit like "foor," but it's very, very subtle. "For" would be pronounced "fer" in conversation unless it was being stressed or I was trying to speak especially clearly. Using the numeral 4 in place of for makes perfect sense, but I hate it.

"Bum" is also completely distinct from "bomb" or "balm" (pronounced like rum. "Bomb" and "balm" again very slightly different. It's not so much a matter of different vowel sounds, in this case, or hearing the 'L,' but more that "balm" talks a few milliseconds longer to say. Again, barely perceptible. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In these days of Biblical illiteracy and Mideast terrorism, "a balm in Gilead" will probably suggest the latter if the "a" is not forcibly overstressed. I know this from experience. Srnec (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"A balm?! What are you giving him a balm for?" +Angr 09:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

When I came back to Providence, Rhode Island, from London in 1961, my mathematics teacher (who I think was a Rhode Islander) would pronounce "four" with two syllables: Foe-uh [schwa], or before a vowel, Foe-uhr ("foe-uhr apples"). Although less common, this is still accepted as a normal, though disinctly Yankee, variant among New England accents, and is quite different from one's pronunciation of the monosyllabic "for". Most Rhode Islanders, however, don't distinguish their pronunciations of "four" and "for", unless deliberately (and usually artificially) exaggerating, either for clarity ["No, she said 'I went fo-uh days without sleep.'"] or for humorous effect. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Children's radio story from the late 50s or early 60s

Good Morning I am hoping that you are able to help me with the title of a children's radio story that was played on the National Programme (usually on Sunday mornings) in the late 50s or early 60s. From memory the story was about the moon racing with, I think, some type of animal. The story could have been either Australian or New Zealand. The animal may have been a koala. I know that this all sounds very vague! Please help me with the title of this story, and where I could possibly obtain a copy. Thank you for your efforts. Kind regards <name and address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.171.59 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to know in which country or city this National Programme was broadcast . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference to Australia/New Zealand gives it away, I think. For those ... of a certain age, the term "the national program" or "the national station" means one and only one thing, the radio broadcasts by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or Commission, as it was back then. It acquired this name because it was, and still is, a truly national broadcaster. It's a lot more diverse now than it was back then, with many regional and local broadcasts, and a lot more channels for different audiences, but it still has many programs that are heard all over the country by anyone who cares to tune in (on Radio National, as well as ABC Classic FM). I remember various serials from those good old days, not all on the ABC - "Blue Hills", "No Holiday for Halliday", "Portia Faces Life", "When a Girl Marries" (which had the inimitable intro: For all those who are in love, and for those who can remember), "Rocky Starr", and others, and of course the Argonauts Club, which wasn't a serial but a daily children's program beloved by many adults as well. But after all that, I'm afraid your question rings no bells at all, sorry. Unless .. you're thinking of The Muddle-Headed Wombat. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a "National Programme" in NZ too. The story you want is "The Foolish Koala". You can play a clip of it here. You can find it on volume 2 of Don Linden's collection of Children's Favourites, along with Mollie Whuppie (And he ran and she ran), Peter and the Wolf, The Little Bull. Buy the boxed set and you can also get Sparky, and the Happy Prince, and Gerald McBoing Boing, and.... You might want to check prices; it's also available from Marbecks. Gwinva (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Plural in Polish language

In the Polish language (and I believe in Russian as well) the plural form for 2,3,4 is different from that of 5,6,... (22,23,24,32,33,34,... are like 2,3,4). For example: 2 złote, 3 złote, 4 złote, 5 złotych, 6 złotych,... Is there a historical reason for this behavior? bamse (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but I'd just point out that at least in Russian, the form used until 4 is actually the genitive singular of the noun ("three comrades/rockets" = lit. "three of a comrade/rocket"), while the form used after 5 is the genitive plural (seven comrades/rockets" = lit. "Seven of comrades/rockets"). In Bulgarian, the Old Church Slavonic dual has become a special "counting form" used after numerals: it often has a similar form as the genitive singular, but I don't know whether there's a connection with the Russian/Polish situation. BTW, that's nothing to the Arabic coutning system, which has a kind of heterosexual gender agreement: female noun takes male number and vice versa.:) --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that there is a connection. I just checked some books and it turns out that Serbo-Croatian, like Bulgarian, has a special counting form stemming from the dual, except that it's used only with the numbers for 2,3,4, like the genitive singular in Russian! This strongly suggests that the genitive singular form used in Russian (and, I presume, Polish) after 2,3,4 is originally the Proto-Slavonic dual. And that's what P. H. Reiff's "English Russian Grammar Or Principles of the Language" (1st ed. 1862, found it on Google Books, p.96) claims.

Essentially, the story goes like this. Old Church Slavonic (and presumably Proto Slavonic) used the dual after "two" (naturally), the plural after "three" and "four" (because they were morphologically adjectives agreeing with their nouns), and the genitive plural after numbers from "five" upwards (because they were morphologically nouns modified by other nouns). That's according to Bernard Comrie's The Slavonic Languages. Next, the dual form, which lost its original meaning, was extended to three and four (at this stage it is aptly renamed to a "paucal" = "few-ish" form). This is the situation still preserved in Serbo-Croatian. Next, Russian and Polish confused this paucal form with the genitive singular and substituted the genitive singular for it, giving rise to the present system in these languages. Bulgarian, on the other hand, ceased to distinguish between 2,3,4 and the higher numbers, and extended the use of the "paucal form" to all numerals, turning it into a general "counting form". Case solved!--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just point out that, while Polish and Russian apparently use the genitive singular (derived from a generalized dual form) for numbers from 2 to 4, Czech uses the plural for numbers from 2 to 4 for most nouns, though dual forms after the number 2 are preserved for a few nouns. So in Czech, the dual was apparently not extended to 3 and 4. Rather the plural was extended to 2 except for the few nouns that preserved the dual. Marco polo (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A small but important correction to what is being said and repeated here, for completeness - unlike Russian, Polish does not use the genitive singular after the numbers 2, 3 and 4; rather it uses the nominative plural. In this regard, it is much more akin to Czech than Russian. This choice of case is also illustrated in the table below, but it is worth pointing out given the misunderstanding above.

The confusion may have arisen from the example in the original post, which perhaps slightly obscured matters by choosing a noun (złoty) which is rather atypically declined as an adjective - but even then, the form after 2, 3 and 4 is złote, the nominative plural and not the genitive singular złotego. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Slovene has the singular, dual, paucal plural for 3 and 4 and "regular" plural for everything from then on (well, until 101, at which point you start over). The form used in paucal (say, "stoli" - "chairs") is also used for a non-counting plural - let's say there's chairs in a room, you'll use the paucal form "stoli" for them as long as there is no counting involved, even if there is clearly over 4 chairs in the room. The "regular" plural form is genitive, "5 stolov", "10 stolov". Basically, other than having a dual, counting in Slovene follows the same principle as counting in Russian described by 91.148.159.4 above. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that it keeps pretty much the original Proto-Slavonic system, judging from the table posted below. So the form used with "paucal" numbers is actually the regular plural (stoli); and with higher numbers you get the genitive plural (stolov).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For further clarification of the differences between different Slavic langages, see the table below. It's a slightly modified version of a table taken from Dual (grammatical number) #The dual in the Slavic languages, which I recommend to read for more details. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

	"a wolf"	"wolves"	"two wolves"	"three wolves"	"five wolves"
noun form	nom. sing.	nom. plur.	varies		gen. plur.
Common Slavic	*vьlkъ	vьlci	dъva vьlka (nom. dual)	tri vьlci (nom. pl.)	pętь vьlkъ
Czech	vlk	vlci	dva/tři vlci (nom. pl.)		pět vlků
Polish	wilk	wilki	dwa/trzy wilki (nom. pl.)		pięć wilków
Ukrainian	вовк	вовки́	два/три во́вки (nom. pl.)		п'ять вовків
Russian	волк	волки	два/три волкa (gen. sg.)		пять волков
Croatian	vuk	vukovi	dva/tri vuka (gen. sg.)		pet vukova
Slovene	volk	volkovi	dva volkova (nom. dual)	trije volkovi (nom. pl.)	pet volkov

It doesn't get easier with bigger numbers. Polish has "21 wilków" (gen. pl.), "22-24 wilki" (nom. pl.), "25-30 wilków" (gen. pl.); but Russian has "21 волк" (nom. sg.), "22-24 волкa" (nom. pl.), "25-30 волков" (gen. pl.). — Kpalion^(talk) 07:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it does get simpler in Slovene, as I said above. I suspect the reason is in the somewhat unorthodox way Slovene forms two-digit numerals from 21 on - starting with the small number first. Basicaly, you don't say "twenty-one", you say "one and twenty" enaindvajset (or six and fifty for "fifty six", or three and seventy for "seventy three"). I believe because of this, the number 21 is not felt as having as strong a relation with the numeral "one", so the numbering just simply follows plural forms. Until 101, as I said above - 101 uses the 1 form and so on.

By the way, how many other languages are there that form numerals in the described manner? I'm sure there are more, but none of the ones I speak or have a fleeting knowledge of fits the bill... TomorrowTime (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean oher languages where the multiples of one are said before the multiples of ten, as in "two and twenty"? German is one example of this that I know. Unless you mean other Slavic languages. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

German for sure. AFAIK Dutch also. 92.80.0.248 (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I feel stupid now. Of course, I completely forgot German, and I even speak it... TomorrowTime (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It even exists in English in archaic remnants - four and twenty blackbirds, when I was one and twenty, etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thread. Could the "two-and-twenty" counting in Slovene be because it used to be part of a German-speaking country empire? In Norway counting was traditionally done that way, but in the spirit of being "modern" (at least that's my impression) this was changed by reform in the 1950s or 60s. Legislating language is hard; even I, born long after the reform, sometimes resort to the old way of counting. A brief summary of the reform can be found here (nonreliable source, but fits the story I seem to remember) Jørgen (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that is a very likely cause. Slovene lands have been under German/Germanophone cultural (at first, and later and for a good part of the time imperial as well) influence for over a thousand years. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the orginal question is about numbers in Polish, let me write a little more about the compexities here, in addition to the above. First, masculine-personal nouns (i.e., generally nouns referring to men) are an exception and may follow two different patterns in the 2–4 range. One with nominative case and the other with genetive case. Unlike for non-masculine-personal nouns (referring to inanimate objects, animals and women), the number also assumes the genetive case, in agreement with the noun. Here's an example:

Number	English	Polish
singular	one brother	jeden brat (nom. sg.)
plural	brothers	bracia (nom. pl.)
2–4	two, three, four brothers	dwaj, trzej, czterej bracia (nom. pl.)	dwu/dwóch, trzech, czterech braci (gen. pl.)
5+	five, six, seven... brothers	pięciu, sześciu, siedmiu... braci (gen. pl.)

Another interesting case is when you talk about groups people of mixed sexes. Here you use special "group numbers" and a noun in plural genitive: dwoje, troje, czworo, pięcioro... ludzi (2, 3, 4, 5... people). Russian has similar "group numbers" as well. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In Russian, group numbers are not confined to mixed-sex groups. Again I have occasion to refer to Prokofiev's ballet Chout - the Russian long title of which used the genitive of the word семерo, referring to a group of seven. In this case, the seven were definitely all males, because the scenario was about seven male buffoons who all murdered their wives at the instigation of another buffoon who promised them he could bring them back to life with a magic whip. (Yeah, I know it sounds unbelieveable, but it's all cited.) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can also quite often hear people using group numbers to refer to all-male groups in Polish, but that's incorrect. Whenever I hear someone say wy dwoje (you two) to me and another guy, I always want to ask, "which one of us do you think is a woman?" — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the table to include Bulgarian. Concerning (Serbo-)Croatian, Comrie's book distinguishes the paucal (234-form) from the genitive singular, but they almost always seem to be identical. The only exception I've found in the noun declension tables is in the prosody of the a-stems: genitive žene has a long vowel in the second syllable, while the paucal has a short vowel (p.322). Since length is often lost in posttonic syllables nowadays, I guess this means that SC is now becoming like most other Slavonic languages. Obviously, the adjectives and adjective-like words are a completely different story.

	"a wolf"	"wolves"	"two wolves"	"three wolves"	"five wolves"
noun form	nom. sing.	nom. plur.	varies
Common Slavic	*vьlkъ	vьlci	dъva vьlka (nom. dual)	tri vьlci (nom. pl.)	pętь vьlkъ
Czech	vlk	vlci	dva/tři vlci (nom. pl.)		pět vlků
Polish	wilk	wilki	dwa/trzy wilki (nom. pl.)		pięć wilków
Ukrainian	вовк	вовки́	два/три во́вки (nom. pl.)		п'ять вовків
Russian	волк	волки	два/три волкa (gen. sg.)		пять волков
Croatian	vuk	vukovi	dva/tri vuka (gen. sg.)		pet vukova
Slovene	volk	volkovi	dva volkova (nom. dual)	trije volkovi (nom. pl.)	pet volkov
Bulgarian	вълк	вълци	два/три/пет вълка (counting form)

--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully final summary: Proto Slavic and Old Church Slavonic used the nominative dual after "two", the nominative plural after "three" and "four", and the genitive plural after numbers from "five" upwards. Slovene has preserved this system intact. Czech, Polish and Ukrainian have simplified things: they have extended the nominative plural to "two", displacing the nominative dual. Russian and Serbo-Croatian have simplified things in the opposite direction: they have extended the nominative dual to "three" and "four", displacing the nominative singular. Bulgarian has gone still farther in this direction: it has extended the nominative dual to all numbers, displacing both the nominative singular and the genitive plural.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It may also be worth pointing out (or at least interesting) that the form Russian uses after the numbers two/three/four isn't exactly the genitive singular; it just happens to be identical to it 99% of the time. A small set of nouns actually have distinct forms (compare GenSg течение часа "course of an hour" (chása) and "paucal" два часа "two hours" (chasá) - two distinct stress patterns). Even more telling is what happens when you combine an adjective with the "paucal": большого дома "of a large house" vs два больших дома "two large houses". Macnas (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

August 13

can i get hindi edition

hi,

There is a book name is The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

Writer is Stephen R. Covey.

can i buy a Hindi edition of this book or tell me that how can i understand it better in English edition because i have English edition.

Regards, Ashu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.4.82 (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a Hindi edition per this site. This site may show the title in devanagiri. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What word did the Chinese of the Medieval period (particularly the 12th c.) use to refer to Europeans?

That is, Europeans as a collective as opposed to individual nationalities. Were they still using their term for "Romans" to refer to Europeans (much like the Muslims of the time used "Franji" even for those who weren't Franks), had they started using the transliterated term "Ōuluóbā zhōu" by that period (even though Europeans were not refering to themselves as such) or did they use an entirely different word, maybe one meaning "westerner" or something along that line? Krys Tamar (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the Chinese had a concept of Europe as such or of Europeans. Europeans, along with Central Asians, Persians, and Arabs, would have been considered Xirong or Western Barbarians. The Chinese apparently did not have a term for Romans as such. According to this source, the westernmost regions mentioned in Chinese sources from the medieval period were (in Pinyin) Fulin (Byzantium) and Dacin (Syria). There is no evidence that the medieval Chinese had any specific knowledge about the lands or peoples west of Byzantium. Marco polo (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

They also had "Daqin" to refer to the Roman Empire, and possibly Europeans in general after that (or Christians, at least). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I mistransliterated Ta Ts'in from the source I cited as Dacin when it should have been Daqin. According to that source, while Daqin has been identified with the Roman Empire by Western scholars in the past, the evidence seems to indicate that it really refers to the Roman province of Syria. It may have been used to refer by extension to the entire Roman Empire, but what the Chinese knew about Daqin seems to have been true of Syria rather than of Rome or Italy. So I don't think we can say that the Chinese understood the extent of the Roman empire, much less Europe, or that the term Daqin refers unambiguously to the empire as a whole. Also, by the medieval period, some Chinese sources refer to Fulin (the Byzantine empire) as equivalent to the ancient Daqin, whereas others distinguish Daqin from Fulin, in which case Daqin refers to Syria. The source that I have cited gives a good overview. Apparently, the term Daqin was also used to refer to the Assyrian Christian Church in China, but our article Assyrian Church of the East in China indicates that the church no longer had any adherents in China by the 12th century. It had some adherents in Central Asia, but these were not Europeans. In any case, I don't think that 12th-century Chinese would have used the term "Daqin ren" (or Daqinese) to refer to Europeans in general, since 1) names such as Daqin and Fulin would have been known only to specialist scholars and 2) these names came mainly from earlier records and even a Chinese scholar familiar with these names would not have been able to identify a contemporary European as an inhabitant of Daqin or Fulin, nor would Chinese have known enough about Christianity to recognize the religion of Europeans as related to that of Assyrian Christians in Central Asia. Few if any Europeans went to China in the 12th century. If any did, they would probably be seen as akin to the Arabs, a type of Western Barbarian that would have been recognized in some of China's ports or western frontier posts. Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I think I completely missed that you already mentioned Dacin! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what was Marco Polo described as? (the historical figure, not the WP editor)? Is he an Yidali-ren? Steewi (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no Chinese historical record of Marco Polo. We don't know what they called him. Polo's account suggests that he dealt mainly with the Mongol overlords of China at the time rather than with ordinary Chinese. The Mongols employed Central Asians from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds, probably including Tajiks or Persians who may have looked similar to an Italian. Due to their exposure to Central Asia and Eastern Europe, the Mongols were much more familiar than the Chinese with Christians and people of Caucasian appearance. Polo's account suggests that he spoke a Turkic language that served as something of a lingua franca among the Mongols and their Central Asian subjects, though he probably learned some Mongolian. To the Chinese, he would have appeared to be just one of the many Western Barbarians that the Mongols brought into the country. Mongols and Central Asians who got to know him probably learned that he came from a land far to the west, a land that was probably exotic to them. Who knows how he described his homeland? At that time, Italians identified much more strongly with their city than with the rather abstract geographical concept of Italy. We really don't know, but my guess would be that he described his homeland as Venezia or maybe Veneto, or the closest approximation to that name that Turks or Mongols could easily pronounce. To the Chinese around him, though, I think he was probably just another Xirong. Marco polo (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Äöü(ß)

Why can neither *äöü nor *äöüß be a German word? --88.78.235.96 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a homework question? See German phonology. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It can if it wants to be. No law against it, as far as I know. And stop asking these questions, you've been doing it for weeks. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, as the umlaut a modification of the vowel whereby ä = ae. For the ß that is a double s. So in reponse to your question about why *aeoeue or *aeoeuess, I would suggest that is unlikely to have such a combination of vowels running together. The closest I can come up with is the French grenouilles (where the ll are effectively silent), giving the ou-i-e vowel combination. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well phonologically the <ll> there represents /j/, a consonantal phoneme. Mo-Al (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any German words which have two or even three consecutive umlauts? --88.77.252.41 (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think German likes vowel hiatus, see German phonology#Diphthongs. Mo-Al (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your link says nothing on the subject of hiatus, as far as I can see. It occurs in many words like beenden, beobachten. I can't think of any with umlauts, though. — Emil J. 10:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Beenden and beobachten don't have hiatus; there's a glottal stop between those vowels. But there is hiatus in words like Chaos, Museum, and Jenaer. +Angr 10:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from hiatus (linguistics): Hiatus (Latin "yawning") (pronounced /haɪˈeɪtəs/) in linguistics is the separate pronunciation of two adjacent vowels, sometimes with an intervening glottal stop. — Emil J. 12:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and the claim is not attributed to any source that is one. +Angr 12:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well asking people on the reference desk doesn't guarantee an answer backed up by a reliable source. But that definitely is the definition of hiatus. Mo-Al (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Although actually I'm not sure if hiatus is always defined to include vowels separated by a glottal stop. I remember seeing an example of an application of OT where a glottal stop was inserted to avoid a violation of a markedness constraint against hiatus. If that's the case, then beenden and beobachten don't have hiatus, right? Mo-Al (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's my point: the glottal stop eliminate the hiatus. +Angr 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gothic day names

I'm searching for the Gothic form/forms (I don't know if there is only one name for each day or more) of week-day names. --151.51.24.145 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Try this book, which talks about the origins of the Germanic days of the week. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And this one...unfortunately a complete list is unattested, but apparently they were borrowed from Greek, rather than Germanic calques of the Latin names like in the west. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

August 14

Chinese classifier

I'm not sure if the whole "league of copyeditors" for Wiki is still going on, but I feel like although this article obviously took some time and work, a lot of the sentences are too choppy, tricky, or just overdone. Anyone care to help out? Or at least make suggestions on how to improve some sentences? (WARNING: Long article that may need to be split up into several parts as time allows... also requires Unicode/Chinese character sets).

Thanks! ★Dasani★ 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

German pronounciation

How do you pronounce the German word Hessian? Is it Hesh-en or Hes-en? Googlemeister (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Duden says it's three syllables, sounding something like "Hess-e-an". Merriam-Webster agrees with your first pronunciation. Never doubt the Duden when speaking German (but I would go with M-W if speaking English). Xenon54 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hessian is no German word at all (not even a loan), it is de:Hessen (state, the tribe) or Hesse (single aborigine). Or do I just not get the point? Did you talk about the textile? But this German word is unknown outside the trade (?). Or am I wrong again?--Radh (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The instance I know of, the mercenaries the British used in the US revolution were called Hessians because they were from Hesse, so it is probably an Anglicized form of a German word. Googlemeister (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think - looking at the Duden entry - that the German word 'Hessian' means the fabric, which is similar to sackcloth (and may be the same thing as burlap - I can't tell, offhand). On the other hand, Merriam-Webster is at least in part talking about the mercenaries deployed by the British during the revolutionary war, in order to get around the treaty restriction against using royal Hanoverian troops in the New World. In any case, I've never heard anyone, British, American or German, pronounce any derivative of 'Hesse' with anything but a clear sibiliant consonant in the middle. The 'sh' pronunciation is unknown to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The British forces broadcasting people always called Hessen the state of Hesse, like the writer, don't know why.--Radh (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because British people have conventionally used a half-French form to refer to German states and their rulers - hence Saxe-Coburg-Gotha instead of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, for example. Not to mention Cologne, Hanover, and so on. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Americans normally pronounce Hessian (meaning a mercenary soldier from Hessen, as deployed in the American colonies during the War for Independence) HESH en. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. And given the German rules for pluralization, I'm guessing that "Duden" is the plural of "Dude". Fer shur. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean the fabric, or citizens of Hesse ? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of that kind of thing, is it true that "Ein Berliner" is a pastry? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in Berlin. The pastry the rest of Germany calls a "Berliner" is called a "Pfannkuchen" (pancake) in Berlin and Saxony. So they would have understood what JFK meant. (See Ich bin ein Berliner if you're confused) Xenon54 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

But a "Berliner" is not a pancake, it is called a pancake to mask the fact it really is a Krapfen. --Radh (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've spotted an Austro-Bavarian :P 92.80.6.159 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, it should be 'Pronunciation' instead of 'Pronounciation', which is a very common mistake made in English language. I thought OP might be interested. - DSachan (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct spelling is overrated.

Is correct house building overrated? No? Think of spelling as making the bricks the best way, so that your linguistic house doesn't fall down. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is overrated. Spelling is not how you make the bricks, it's more like whether you paint them a colour that your neighbourhood considers suitable. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of past participle

Is it OK to say "I was sat in the garden" as well as "I was sitting in the garden"? I've looked in Fowler but can't find an answer.Airalan09 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"I was sat in the garden" sounds like someone forcefully made you sit there, although it doesn't sound quite correct overall (maybe it would be for humourous purposes). "I was seated in the garden" sounds more correct, like someone ushered you to a chair that had been reserved for you. It could also mean the same as "I was sitting" (which is a normal and correct construction in any circumstance), but the latter sounds more like you were just sitting on the ground, for any reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that "I was seated …" (and the "I was sat …" that Adam refers to in his first sentence above) is a use of the passive voice in the past tense, whereas "I was sitting …" is a use of the imperfect tense. In English, usage of a past participle after a form of "be" is normal in passive constructions but not idiomatic in imperfect constructions. Deor (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The past participle of to sit is sat (Grammaire anglaise ISBN 2-04-730315-X). Therefore "I have sat in the garden" would be the correct usage. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (PS upon reflection it sounds horrible out loud and I would stick to the preterit "I sat in the garden") -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The two sentences have different meanings. The first one sounds wrong, unless you are trying to sound funny, as Adam Bishop says. The more natural way to express this meaning would be something like "They made me sit in the garden." The second is a normal past progressive, or imperfect. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are some dialects in Britain where they do say "I was sat" with the meaning "I was sitting". I don't know specifics. --Anonymous, 21:48 UTC, August 14, 2009.

Yes, that would sound fine to me (as a Kentishman from England): 'I was sat in the living room(,) when the postman knocked on the door.' Probably a bit colloquial though --80.42.47.106 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds fine to me too (also from South East England). It sounds to me like it should be wrong, though. A bit like "lay" as the simple past of "lie". "Lay" should be to "lie" what "raise" is to "rise" (the name of that relationship with mentioned on this desk not long ago, but I can't remember it), but for some reason we also use it in the past tense, I think it is the same with "sat" and "sit". --Tango (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Found it! The causative form. --Tango (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but what the OP is asking about is not causative: as various correspondents have said, in several English dialects 'was sat' is a colloquial variant of 'was sitting' or 'was seated' (those dialects can also have 'was stood' as a variant of 'was standing'). It could just about be given a causative meaning in context (?'I was marched through the gate and sat in a chair') but I would expect 'sat down' in that meaning, not just 'sat'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Argue

(I hope you will pardon this non-native speaker's ignorance of what is probably an obvious answer; it seems that no matter how well one is schooled in a second language, he can never appreciate every nuance.) Am I correct to think that argue can be an auto-antonym, meaning alternately dispute and propone? This occurred to me while I was reading this week's Sports Illustrated, in which "argue" is used both ways over just a few pages. In the absence of context, one might read (this isn't directly from SI, but it approximates the meaning of one of the lines) "that he is a great golfer cannot be argued" to mean either "that he is a great golfer is beyond dispute" or "he isn't a great golfer, and an argument to that effect cannot be made (i.e., is untenable)", yes? Just struck me as odd. 76.229.210.231 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the definition of auto-antonym, I don't think the word "argue" qualifies as one. The definition of "argue" doesn't intrinsically imply a particular side, i.e "for" or "against." In the sentence "Susan argued about abortion," sthe word "argue" doesn't give any insight into whether Susan is for or against abortion. The context of the word (ex. "argue for" or "argue against") is what allows the reader/listener to determine the side being argued.

On first reading the phrase "that he is a great golfer cannot be argued," my gut reaction was that the positive meaning (his prowess at golfing leaves no room for contrary arguments) is the only correct reading. While trying to determine why that was so, I thought about the reordered phrase: "It cannot be argued that he is a great golfer." In this second case, the meaning becomes much more ambiguous or even slightly negative. (i.e. there are no arguments supporting the position that he is a great golfer) I have concluded that as a standalone phrase "*something* cannot be argued" is an idiom that almost always implies the positive reading. I would like to note that you can imply the opposite meaning with modifiers as in, "his prowess in golfing cannot be argued convincingly". I think the phrase "cannot be argued" is an auto-antonym. 152.16.15.144 (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'll excuse the pedantry (this is the language desk, after all!), "his prowess in golfing" is not a logical statement and cannot be argued for or against, you mean "he has great prowess in golfing" or "he has a lot of prowess in golfing". --Tango (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I think that a sentence like "his skill is unarguable" is grammatical. So from a descriptive perspective whether "skill" or "prowess" is a "logical statement" is irrelevant. Language is a largely instinctive mapping between surface form and meaning in the brain, and as such trying to force rules on it isn't productive if they don't align with what is actually in use, in my opinion. Mo-Al (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Tango was saying that "his skill is unarguable" is ungrammatical, but that it is nonsensical, since an argument requires a logical premise. "his skill" isn't a complete sentence, so it can't be a well-defined proposition. In order to make an argument about "his skill", you have to either explicitly state (or imply) something about his skill. In this case, the sentence "his skill is unarguable" works because it raises an implicature: "(that he has a lot of skill) is unarguable". Indeterminate (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I understand your logic, but I question the statement that it's "nonsensical", as it is something which I believe speakers would say in normal conversation. Mo-Al (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The word argue just means to make an argument, or to engage in a verbal dispute. It doesn't imply an argument in favor of or against any proposition. It is a neutral term describing a behavior rather than a position. As such, I don't think it's an auto-antonym. Marco polo (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "to argue that..." means to make a case in favour of the following statement, so "that he is a great golfer cannot be argued" should mean that nobody could make a case for him being a great golfer, however, I would never actually interpret it that way. I think it is one of those mistakes that is so common you barely notice it and just interpret it as the person meant it. Another example is responses to the question "isn't it?". "Your name is Bob, isn't it?" "Yes", means "Yes, my name is not Bob", but that is never what the person speaking wants to say so you just ignore the mistake. (As a pedant I prefer not to make such mistakes, so I usually say "it is" or "it isn't" rather than "yes" or "no", it sounds pretentious, but I can live with that!) --Tango (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That is, I think, why it seemed strange to me. Thanks, everyone, for the considered replies. 76.229.210.231 (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A lawyer is often admonished to "argue his case", which means to provide the evidence, law and reasoning that supports his position. When, in the passive mode, it's said that "a case was argued at trial", it might mean that a particular position was advanced, or else that both (or all) sides were argued for. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Case" has different meanings in those sentences. In the first it means a collection of arguments in favour of a point. In the second it means an issue before the court (or the police or anyone else doing some kind of investigative work or even more generally). --Tango (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

August 15

Chinese

I know 楚 (Chu) is acceptable as a surname, but would it also be acceptable as part of a girl's given name? 92.80.6.159 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Chinese given names can be any character, but are most commonly two characters long and has a good meaning. 楚 is an old word for "clear" and would be fine in a girls name, especially combined with another character. Chinese surnames however aren't usually associated with meanings. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

French Phonology

I've a question about French pronunciation: are french names like Christian, Fabien, Adrien, Julien homophone (I mean completely indistinguishable) to Christiane, Fabienne, Adrienne/Adriane, Juliane? --151.51.38.184 (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the pronunciation of the masculine names is distinct from the pronunciation of the feminine names. Those masculine names all end with a nasal vowel, whereas their feminine counterparts all end with a pronounced consonant 'n', or, in the most emphatic or formal pronunciations, with the consonant 'n' followed by a very brief schwa vowel, known as the e muet. Have a look at French phonology for more details. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As a followup to the OP's inquiry, would the two phrases petit ami and petite amie be pronounced the same? I imagine they would be both pronounced [p(ə)titami], but perhaps there's something else going on distinguishing them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pending the arrival of an actual French speaker (I passed a French exam some time ago, but have had little subsequent practice): in the first (masculine) version one would not pronounce the second "t" of "petit", hence something like "pe-tee am-ee"; in the second (feminine) version one would pronounce it and also perhaps emphasise that syllable slightly more, hence "pe-TEET am-ee." There might also be a slight additional closing sound on the "Am-ee" akin to the e-muet mentioned above, but I'm less sure about that. In general, subtleties of pronunciation are almost impossible to explain fully without recourse to IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet, not India Pale Ale!) or to sound tapes/files/whatever. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So then liason doesn't apply in petit ami? That doesn't sound right. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, 87.81 is wrong here. Both forms are pronounced the same. In French, neighboring vowel sounds from different syllables are not generally allowed by standard constructions, so there is always liason between two words if one ends with a vowel sound and the next starts with it. "Petit ami" and "Petite amie" would be pronounced identically, however if the second word started with a consonant then "Petit" and "Petite" would be pronounced differently. There are even situations where an extra "t" sounded is added between two words where neither form of the words has a t at all, such as in the construction "Parle-t-il?" (He spoke?). Native french speakers will often create liasons where non exist in other situations; "Moi aussi!" (Me too!) is often pronounced "moi-z-aussi" even though there is no consonant to "liason" with, strictly speaking, in the spelling of either word. Unlike the "parle-t-il" construction, this one is nonstandard and never written out; it may be a common usage, but it is not "official" french. --Jayron32 04:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Liaison (French) --Jayron32 04:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely corrections. Clearly my French is even rustier than I thought. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Jayron32's remark:

French phrases - like "moi aussi" which is pronounced "moi-z-aussi" by native French speakers, remind me parallel English phrases - like "sofa and table" which is pronounced "sofa rand table" by native British-English speakers, and they also remind me other English phrases - like "colonel" which is pronounced "kerlnel" (or even: "kernel"), rhotically, by US-English speakers.

HOOTmag (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've never heard anyone pronounce "colonel" starting with "kerl", rhotically or otherwise. It's always just "ker-nəl". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Both French and British English are my native tongues. Whereas there is indeed 'z' liaison with 'nous aussi' or 'vous aussi' (where the s becomes a z), 'moi aussi' and 'toi aussi' have no such liaison. As for the 'sofa and table' example, I've never added in an 'r' - I pronounce it 'sofa n table' (a a => a). Final point: I'm with Jack on 'colonel'. I'm sure someone can help out with the IPA. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What

What is "bar": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_fund?

What is "Iceberg claim"?174.3.103.39 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For "bar", the passage says:

Under the doctrine of champerty, it was illegal in England and the United States to purchase a debt with the sole intent of litigating it. The distinction was made that if the debt was purchased to effect a recovery or facilitate investment, the doctrine was not a bar.

The meaning is that it's something that prevents something else. That is, if you wanted to purchase a debt, you were barred (prevented) by law if you had "the sole intent of litigating it", but you weren't barred if your intent was "to effect a recovery or facilitate investment".

For "claim", the passage is referring to a piece of land where someone has claimed the mineral rights, and apparently they chose to give it the name Iceberg. --Anonymous, 17:06 UTC, August 16, 2009. (edited for clarity later)

Finnish pronunciation

The discussions about hiatus and glottal stops in the Äöü(ß) question made me realize that I probably am mispronouncing certain names and words of Finnish origin. How is the double ä in e.g. Pääjärvi supposed to be pronounced? I have always thought of it as two distinct äs, sort of similar to how Swedish can (in pronunciation) double the vowels in e.g. Ja! or Nä! to emphasize. In those cases, there is no glottal stop, just a change in tone to make it two identical vowel sounds. Are the Finnish double äs like that, or are they just a long ä? The same question applies to e.g. Maamme as well, though I can't think of any names containing double as that I'd commonly find myself trying to say. Is there a general rule for doubled vowels in Finnish? Thanks. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Doubled vowels are just longer. See Finnish phonology#Length. —JAO • T • C 18:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the term for using something outside its purpose?

Moved from Humanities Desk

There is a term in English for when you use an object for something else than its original purpose, like if you take off your shoe to hammer in a nail. Help? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This may not be exactly it, but I would call that "improvising". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it, but there's a real word for it, -ism or -oscopy or -tude... you get the idea. Mother of invention thing. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvisation? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Surrogacy? Fribbler (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Idiocy? Googlemeister (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jury rig, perhaps? 195.35.160.133 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Martin.

Maybe this should be moved to the language desk where it will get more attention? -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Repurposing? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Makeshift? Also "press into service." Off-label also has the implication that you're looking for. Yes, this should be moved to the Language desk. How do you do it? Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Kludge? --Jayron32 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"February 2009 anti-clerical demonstration in Hong Kong"

Can someone tell me what zh:維護公民社會價值，反對宗教右翼霸權大遊行 is about? I came upon it from Commons:Category:February 2009 anti-clerical demonstration in Hong Kong, but there's nothing that I can find about it here or on Google. I'm curious what happened, but most importantly — is the category name correct? Would this event be considered notable under en:WP policies? Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the number of sources and photos, it's clearly notable. 65.96.130.162 (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It was basically a march to protest the alleged influence of certain socially conservative religious organisations. (The organisations in question are mostly Christian, it seems — the Evangelical Free Church of China and The Society For Truth And Light are mentioned). There seem to be a whole host of social issues which link into this — legal recognition (in some circumstances) for same sex relationships, censorship of pornography on the internet, sex education, the legal status of prostitution, and so forth. I'm not clear on which, if any, particularly stood out — it seems to have been more a general declaration of values than a narrowly-targeted action. I'm not sure whether "anti-clerical" is the best term or not, although there was certainly an anti-religious aspect — the religious right in general are labeled "intolerant", "fanatical", "Taliban", and so forth. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the group which seems to have arranged it has a webpage with a short English section. Might help. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-clerical is clearly wrong; I would more easily classify it as anti-bigotry, anti-prejudice, anti-discrimination or anti-fundamentalism. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Asfashf

What is "hipped-gabled"?174.3.103.39 (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See Hip roof , Gable and compare with Irimoya, also see Gablet roof which are similar.

It might also refer to the variable pitch of that style of roof - specifically the shallow pitched eaves, but I'm not sure.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "Asfashf".83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

August 16

"two cents plain"

Hello ! Please excuse my bad English. How can I translate in French the expression "two cents plain" for waters sold during the Great Depression ? Please, see Carbonated water. Thank you in advance. --Égoïté (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Two cents plain" refers to the price of a glass of plain carbonated water at that time. So whatever would be the French equivalent of that drink and its cost, is probably your answer, unless they had a specific term for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[Moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous] The phrase refers to the price of unflavored seltzer water (2 cents) in New York during the Depression; adding chocolate or vanilla syrup would cost more.

Googling "For two cents plain" will give you good answers, e.g. Urban Dictionary definition and Big Apple blog entry. In 1959, Harry Golden wrote a memoir of the time and place called For Two Cents Plain that is readily available in libraries and from on-line booksellers [ISBN 978-0-84881-015-3]; an explanatory excerpt from that book is in the Big Apple blog entry above. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[additional comment] However, translating the idiom would probably depend on the context. I think, for example, that someone offering you an answer "for two cents plain" might be giving you the most basic information without extra details or history; but it might also imply directness, plain-spokenness or bluntness (the unvarnished truth) as well, as in "for two cents plain, the answer is that you're a failure." If you're just translating the original literal meaning of the phrase (say, in writing the Carbonated water article for French Wikipedia), then you can just follow the historical sources above. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand. --Égoïté (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as another thought, For Two Cents Plain was a successful enough book in the United States that there might already be a French or French-Canadian translation from which you could work. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of Farrell’s Ice Cream Parlour, back in the 1960s and 1970s. Soda water was $0.02 a glass, as seen in this menu: http://www.happyitis.biz/images/Farrells_1963menufountain.jpg. The place had a 1905 theme, but it might well have been a Depression Era price. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

vowel length and gemination in Hebrew dialects

Which dialects of Hebrew (e.g. Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Teimani, etc.), both liturgical and possibly modern, distinguish gemination and/or vowel length? What are good sources which discuss this? Mo-Al (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "dialect" is slightly questionable here. The Tiberian massoretic orthography distinguished consonant gemination contrasts in its written symbols (and partially distinguished vowel length contrasts), but many different Jewish communities using very different liturgical pronunciations all used this same witing system. The most prominent pronunciation in modern times with gemination contrasts is/was the Yemenite. There's a convenient little article "Pronunciations of Hebrew" in the first edition of Encyclopaedia Judaica...

AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gemination in Hebrew is discussed here.

Distinction between long and short vowels is discussed (briefly and roughly, including some mistakes) at the end of the chapter here (below the table and above the new chapter shva).

Genination is a well-known phenonemon in Ancient Hebrew, and is called: Dagesh Hazak. In modern Hebrew, Gemination is preserved in formal speach (mainly publicly) only, e.g. in radio news, or when reciting poetry/bible, or in synagogues, etc. In an informal speach, gemination can appear only in cases parallel to similar cases in English, e.g. in "bad dog", etc.

Distinction between long and short vowels, has existed mainly in the ancient Sephardi dialect (neither in the Yemenite one nor in the Ashkenazi one), but nowadays it's preserved in (some) Sephardi Synagogues only. In an informal speach, such a distinction can appear only in cases parallel to similar cases in English, e.g. in "sofa and" (in US-English accent), etc.

HOOTmag (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

advance organisers

effects of advance organisers on student perception, performance and attitude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.120.206 (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What about them? And btw, if this is a homework question, as it appears to be - sorry, you're out of luck here. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Why can't *abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz be a word in any language? --88.76.229.55 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You must not have heard that song from Sesame Street where they turn the alphabet into a "word". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we even have an article on that song ABC-DEF-GHI, which has the pronunciation /ˈæbkəˈdɛfɡiˈdʒɛkəlməˈnɒpkwərˈstuːvwɨksɪz/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In Spanish, it would probably be pronounced [aθeðefˈgixekelˈnopeˈkɾestuβwekˈsiθ]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a word in any language then why is there a ligature for it? -- BenRG (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is Dr. Seuss, after all; perhaps he wanted the Cat in the Hat to come back a second time to teach handwriting? Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the preferred term, if there's one, for a person who asks a question here?

I've seen the terms "OP", "questioner", "asker" used by various contributors. It may be purely a matter of style or personal preference, but if there's a persuasive reason why one of the above, or some other alternative, is a better choice, I'd like to know. --173.49.16.37 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a fixed rule. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered about that too. I like the term "original questioner." Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Querent". BrainyBabe (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"OP" seems to be the most common, it is borrowed from online forum jargon. --Tango (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer OP because it's short and also implies that it refers to the original question - depending on context, "questioner" and "asker" could refer to a different inquisitor. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks so much for asking this question! I've wanted to ask this for a long time and never gotten around to it. What exactly does "OP" mean? I once thought that it was a typo for "IP", but that idea went out the window when someone used it to refer to me when I asked a question while signed in. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Original poster, or original post (depending on context). Sadly, WP doesn't have an article on everything, but I do believe it lurks somewhere at the bottom of OP. Gwinva (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When the OP is a newcomer, unfamiliar with internet jargon, and speaking English as a second or third language, "original questioner" is the most likely to be understood. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

-ant or -ent?

Is there any spelling rule that helps you decide between -ant and -ent word endings correctly please? 78.144.207.41 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No. 87.68.83.205 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Often, it's related to whether the related verb was in the first conjugation (-ant) or the second, third, or fourth conjugation (-ent) in Latin. Unfortunately, however, some of the latter words end in -ant if they happen to have passed through French on their way to English. There's no easy way to know the spellings without memorizing them. Deor (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This site http://wordnavigator.com/ends-with/ant/ gives lists of -ant (794) and -ent (1841) words. The lists are not complete. Inter alia, "cromulent" is missing. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, be generally guided by what you see in novels, biographies and quality newspapers, not what you see in doctoral theses, text messages, blogs or wikis (except for advice given on this page, naturally ... well, usually). There are some words that appear in both forms, such as dependant and dependent, and they're often confused. The -ant version is usually used as a noun (I have three dependants), the -ent version as an adjective (They are all dependent on me), but some use them interchangeably, and have lexicographical support for this. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No doctoral theses? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The standard of writing in theses etc is generally not up to scratch, in my experience. It may be different in papers written by people who are or intending to be language teachers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'm pretty sure mine would be rejected if it were terribly written. Adam Bishop (talk)

Well, I did say "be generally guided", and "the standard of writing in theses etc is generally not up to scratch". There are exceptions to almost any general statement, and I would of course assume your writing would be such an exception, Adam.  :) But I have seen theses and major papers written by graduates that contain grammatical and spelling errors that would be shameful coming from even a primary school student. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You must be referring to engineers and scientists. When they can back up their arguments with lab results and hard data, they don't need to write well. Useless humanities degrees like mine require grammar, spelling, and subtle rhetoric :) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"They don't need to write well" - they may well believe this, but it's like thinking one does not need to breathe well because it's enough not to be dead. Humans have been know to live for many days without food, so why bother eating every day - it's obviously a waste of time, isn't it? If that's their standard, heaven help us. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This can also be one of those countless variants between U.S., British and other Anglophone spellings. "Dependant" is common in British sources, but is so rare in American usage that it looks wrong. For a related topic see WP:ENGVAR. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation to Russian

How would I write "Malkin rules, Ovechkin drools" in Russian (using cyrillic letters)? I know how to write their names but that's about it.209.26.166.162 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try to use an internet translator like Babelfish or Intertran; however the phrase is likely meaningless in Russian, as the rhyming scheme will not hold after translation. If you want to insult Ovechkin, it may pay off more to research traditional Russian jeers rather than to attempt to simply translate an English one, since it will likely make no real sense in Russian. --Jayron32 01:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, and I can't think of a rhyming Russian phrase of this meaning. I do recall some independent slang exclamations such as Малкин жжет! и Овечкин - отстой! (approximately corresponding to "Malkin rules!", "Ovechkin sucks!"), so in principle one can combine the two, if nothing better is available. Another possibility might be Малкин рулит, Овечкин сосет - the two expressions do occur in Russian internet slang, but are obviously calqued from English (quite literally meaning "Malkin rules, Ovechkin sucks") and I don't know when they are appropriate. Овечкин сосет in particular would suggest oral sex to many people, so it's pretty extreme. If one must use it, I think it is considered particularly cool to spell it incorrectly - сасет; likewise отстой could be misspelled as ацтой for an additional coolness effect. But I am, as I said, not a native speaker and not a person who naturally uses such expressions, so I might be parodying the whole thing a little here. Use any of these at your own risk. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

August 17

What does this mean?

"Newton entertained "a passion" for Storer while he lodged at the Clarke house."
What is the meaning of the bold text? What did Newton do to Storer? --174.120.81.194 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on the context. Who or what was Storer? The phrase "entertain a passion for" simply means "to have great enthusiasm for" something or someone. It could conceivably be a romantic or erotic enthusiasm, but it could also be an intellectual enthusiasm. Marco polo (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably Katherine Storer, William Clarke´s stepdaughter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks right. The sentence does not have a clear meaning except to imply that Newton had a (probably erotic) fascination with Storer. He may have done nothing but gaze into her eyes, write love poems to her, or hold her hand. On the other hand, the two of them might have had sex. This sentence alone does not tell us the nature of his passion or what actions the passion did or did not lead to. Marco polo (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "blind"

Why is "blind" pronounced with the vowel of "bite", rather than the vowel of "bit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.97.76 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It used to be, but the Great Vowel Shift took care of that... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that article doesn't deal with this because the difference precedes the GVS. Phonological history of the English language puts this change at around 1000 AD. While it's true that the difference was then between /iː/ and /ɪ/ and the Great Vowel Shift changed the former vowel to /aɪ/, the actual split (and thereby the source of the difference) was several hundred years before the GVS. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course phonetically the vowels aren't the same. Compare the first vowels in the phrases "high school" and "high stool". Mo-Al (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In many American dialects, particularly Northern ones, "bite" has a different vowel than "blind". "Blind" has the same vowel (/aɪ/) as "fine", while "bite" has the same vowel (/ʌɪ/ if I'm not mistaken) as "fight". And I guess this is more evidence that English words have diverged in the way "i" is pronounced. rspεεr (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious to know which northern dialects don't pronounce the "i" the same way in all of these words: "blind", "find", "fine", "nine", "night", "fight", "bite". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This phenomenon is known as Canadian raising, and it is common not only across Canada, but also in the northern parts of the United States, including New England and the upper Midwest (areas bordering the Great Lakes). This raising occurs before unvoiced consonants, so in your list above, it would affect "night", "fight", and "bite". Marco polo (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It also occurs for /aw/, resulting in /ʌw/ in "out", "about", "house", etc. That seems to be the more stereotypical diphthong...Americans seem to hear it as "oot and aboot". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's much more familiar. But that long "i" is something I'll have to listen for now, as it must be rather subtle. Learn something' new ever-day. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's usually hard to notice, but if you get someone with a really thick Canadian accent, the "raised" words are distinctly shorter. (If you ever get to watch Hockey Night in Canada on CBC, I find that Ron MacLean speaks that way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule is very simple: every "ind" ending a word, is pronounced as if it were "ined" (e.g. in "defined"). examples: bind, blind, find, grind, kind, mind, and even: wind (mainly in a poetic style, which reflects the original pronunciation). HOOTmag (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where I come from, all those are pronounced the same way. I wonder if there is a youtube clip or anything else on the internet that would have someone talking that way, i.e. with two different ways of saying the long "i"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not true for rescind and wind (where it is a noun) -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unrelated to being a noun. Wind "an air movement, to expose to air movement" can be a noun or verb, and it is pronounced /wɪnd/. Wind "to wrap around, a turn" can also be a noun or verb, and it is pronounced /waɪnd/. — Emil J. 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In poetic usage, air movement can be pronounced to rhyme with "blind" or "mind" or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed my explanation was a little sloppy; I was referring to wind as in 'an air movement (noun)' being pronounced differently to wind as in 'to wrap around (verb)'. Thank you for the IPA definitions. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In this song [2] from 1905, "winds" as "air movements", is pronounced the poetic way, rhyming with "blinds". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Roofs and rooves, and whom

When I was at school long ago we were taught that rooves was the plural of roof. Recently I saw someone's house named "The Roofs", and I recall other instances of roofs being used. Is roofs now considered correct? Would rooves be thought incorrect, or a forgotten usage? And is it fully acceptable to use who instead of whom? 78.144.246.133 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Depending on your dialect, roofs and rooves could each be correct. See also Toronto Maple Leafs (not Leaves). They are likely fully interchangable forms, as I am not aware of either form having distinctly greater usage among native English speakers. Whom is an object pronoun, and so in proper usage should be used when the object of a sentance; who is the subject form and should be used for the subject of the sentance. "Who went with him?" but "He went with whom?". Use "who" in places you would use "he" or "she" and "whom" in places you would use "him" or "her". However, whom is sort of fading out of common usage, and many native english speakers use "who" for the object form as well. --Jayron32 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Who" is always acceptable in lieu of "whom", except in quotes, where the original usage should be kept. Most instances of "whom" on Wikipedia are misused anyway (I counted over a half-dozen incorrect uses on a single article once); English language speakers, as a rule, aren't familiar enough with the bounds of the oblique case to consistently apply "whom" in contradistinction from "who".

"Rooves" is an archaic form, rarely used. "Roofs" (or "rooftops") is preferable, to avoid ambiguity. (Yes, "rooves" is the original plural, but etymology, on its own, doesn't justify usage. Otherwise we'd still pluralize cow as kine.) -Silence (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree that "who" is always an acceptable replacement for "whom". I think a letter, for example, addressed "To Who It May Concern" would sound very odd. Maybe it's just my ears, but a receptionist asking "For who were you waiting?" sounds much worse than "For whom were you waiting?" I know that a restructuring of such sentences generally eliminates the problem ("Who were you waiting for?" sounds just fine, even if it ends the sentence on a preposition.), but I don't think we can reasonably tell someone that it makes no real difference. Here in the dying days of "whom" as a useful word, it still makes a small difference, in my opinion. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant it's always acceptable on Wikipedia. Off of Wikipedia, it may be useful for the same reason "ain't" is sometimes useful: to agree with local dialects (e.g., certain forms of academic writing) or to fit pre-set phrases (like "to whom it may concern" or "say it ain't so!"). But these aren't generally an issue on Wikipedia. "Whom" and avoiding ending sentences with prepositions do make a difference, but the difference is usually a negative one: Most such sentences sound less natural, seem less clear, and are less correct than their less 'formal' counterparts. My point wasn't that "who" and "whom" are interchangeable; it was that "who" is preferable when writing a new article. -Silence (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

House names are sometimes simply telling the world the name of the family inside - like "the Smiths". I've never heard of anyone with the surname Roof, but if that were the case, their family would be "the Roofs", even if they themselves would refer to the plural of "roof" (the top of a house) as "rooves". Same with the surname Man (it does exist) - they would be "the Mans", not "the Men". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian assistance

For the sake of fixing the article Labour Party of Indonesia, I would need some help to dechiffer the entry of Barisan Buruh Indonesia, page 133 in this book. Would "Atas keputusan kongres, BBI dijadikan partai politik dengan nama Partai Buruh Indonesia" mean that BBI transformed itself into Partai Buruh Indonesia, or did BBI decide to set up a political party called PBI? And was the relation to LBI, Gasbi and GBSV? Any input would be appreciated. --Soman (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My translation would be: "on the decision of congress, BBI was made into a political party called PBI (Workers Party of Indonesia)". The phrase dijadikan implies that BBI had something done to it that changed it, rather than it doing itself (i know there are technical words for this grammar). --Merbabu (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - Labour/Workers party are two feasible translations of "partai buruh" - I don't know if there was an official or accepted English translation - the article seems to take "labour" --Merbabu (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But when did BBI cease to exist then? It seems later in the text that BBI was still an entity. And what about LBI, Gasbi and GBSV? --Soman (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Labour Party is the most widely used translation. You can check with books/articles written by George McTurnan Kahin or M. C. Ricklefs as they're some of the most prominent Indonesian scholars. I'll see if I can find some sources in Cornell University's SE Asia collection and get back to you on the rest of your question. Arsonal (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Dijadikan" is the passive voice form of the transitive verb "menjadikan", meaning to make something into something. Perhaps the BBI continued to exist as a component of the Labor Party, in the same way as the constituent parts of the Golkar government party of the New Order era continued in theory to exist. If you could quote the sentences relating to the BBI or direct us to the pages of the book - if they exist online - we might be able to help. Davidelit (talk)

The page is 133, in http://books.google.com/books?id=BJrFsQ0SwzgC . --Soman (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your source indicates that BBI was established on 15 Sep 1945, became a political party (PBI) on 7 Nov 1945, and was re-established on 31 Dec 1945 as a separate organization from PBI. On 11 May 1946, it became Gasbi. GSBV separated from Gasbi in July 1946. Gasbi and GSBV then were reformed into one organization (SOBSI) on 29 Nov 1946. Sorry, histories of Indonesian organizations are complicated like this. Arsonal (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Under or underneath, or beneath, or below?

I really should know this. What is the most suitable, accurate, and correct preposition for the following sentence?

"The Tasmanian Inchman ant can often be found under fallen trees."

where "under" is the preposition I'm having difficulty with. Thanks, I know you guys will know, :-) Maedin\^talk 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All of those work. I like "under", or "beneath". They're slightly more specific than "below", and shorter than "underneath". Depending on what you mean by "under," you might also consider a more specific wording, e.g., "on the underside of fallen trees". -Silence (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine why a word being shorter would have anything to do with it being more correct! The underside of fallen trees wouldn't be very accurate, as they are not the type of insect to be on the logs themselves, but on the ground underneath the log. I'm leaning towards underneath, it seems more specific, to me. Maedin\^talk 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

When two words are near-exact synonyms, and one is twice as long as the other, there's usually no need to use the longer one. RHD lists the first definition of "under" as "beneath and covered by", which sounds like exactly what you're looking for if you mean something like "when you look under a fallen tree, you're likely to find ants there". (For comparison, RHD's first definition of "underneath" is "below the surface or level of; directly or vertically beneath; at or on the bottom of".) -Silence (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would choose "under." I do think that shorter makes it better. I think a longer word gives the implication of it having been chosen more carefully. Expletives tend to be short. We don't say feces! when we drop a hammer on our toe. It takes too many syllables. Of course if the user of the language clearly feels that something needs to be conveyed and it is a longer word that will convey just that, then the longer word is the right choice. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise; I am against the way that English seems to be moving towards a facile, dumbed-down version of itself, and confused the "shorter is better" idea with that. Of course under is just as good as underneath. Your phraseology must have triggered my attack mode, ;-) Sorry! Maedin\^talk 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The impression that "[your favorite language] seems to be moving towards a facile, dumbed-down version of itself" is almost as old as language itself. See The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher for why that is so despite the tremendous overall evolution since then. — Sebastian 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Though part of the reason this impression might be especially prevalent nowadays is because the actual IQ, literacy, and level of education of the average person is rising dramatically—with the side-effect that the "middle class" of literates is hugely expanding, people who are neither aristocratic/academic elites nor illiterate peasants, and who therefore have the literacy to become popular authors (and a large body of literate, but not 'upper-literate', readers), without the training (or inclination, considering their reader base) to employ academic and literary terms of art, e.g., Latinisms. And Wikipedia, incidentally, is a part of this shift, since it's writing primarily for the 'middle class' (and hence does use 'dumbed-down' language at times, or more accurately, doesn't circumlocute to effect a facade of erudite articulacy ;)), but tries to rely on the 'upper class' of literacy for sourcing in most cases. -Silence (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct form

• The first step is to solve a problem is to identify that problem. This is what is reality and this is how I solved my recent problem."
• The first step of solving a problem is to identify that problem. This is what is reality and this is how I solved my recent problem.

Which one is correct?--119.30.36.53 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The second one. Don't overuse "is to". "This is what is reality" is very oddly phrased in both, though. -Silence (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How about: "The first step to solving a problem is identifying it. That is how I solved a recent personal quandary." Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would write something like "The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem. That is reality, and that is how I solved my recent problem." 78.144.249.108 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "That is reality" or its variants "This is what is reality" - aren't there better ways to get the point across? "That is how real problems are solved, including my recent problem" or something to that effect. Nimur (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing 119.30.36.53's intended use for this phrase, we can't really say what the best phrasing would be. Context is needed. If this is a zen manuscript or metaphysical treatise, "This is what reality is" (with just the second "is" swapped) might be entirely appropriate. But in most situations, an idiom or something like "That's how problems are solved in the real world, and it's how I solved my recent problem." would be expected. -Silence (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

sdf

Is "politics organs" a word? What does it mean if so174.3.103.39 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See Identity politics and wikt:organ#Noun definition 3 69.245.227.37 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Political organ, perhaps. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase is "identity politics organs". It isn't the clearest phrase, but it refers to publications catering to identity politics. This phrase is in fact a compound noun composed of the head noun "organs" modified by another compound noun, "identity politics", which functions as a noun adjunct. In the compound noun "identity politics", "politics" is the head noun and "identity" the adjunct. Really, this phrase should have a hyphen: "identity-politics organs". Marco polo (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

August 18

Are You Feeling Hurt Baseball Bugs?

What does "areno" in "Arenosols" mean?174.3.103.39 (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)