Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:34, 10 September 2009

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

September 4

Initial confusion

What does the D in Berta Dominguez D. stand for? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably her maternal surname. According to Spanish naming customs, people have two surnames, the first from their father and the second from their mother. My guess is that the D. stands for her matronymic name. --Jayron32 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why is one only an initial? I've encountered a fair variety of Spanish names and never come across this before. An attempt to partially conform to English standards perhaps? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was first guessing that it stood for a name, but it's odd they would use only an initial. I couldn't find a source in Google that answered the question. Then I wondered if it was a title, i.e. Doña. But I would have thought that would precede the name. We need a Spanish expert here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not being an expert in Spanish nomenclature, I second Jayron's explanation as the most plausible. I have seen the matronymic name often abbreviated in this way, especially after relatively common surnames as Domínguez. It is strange, however, the fact that no relevant web information confirms this matronymic. Pallida Mors 14:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the verb "to be" be followed by a gerund?

The verb "to be" followed by the participle (e.g. "I'm talking"), is a well-known phenonemon. However, how about the verb "to be" followed by the gerund? e.g. "My plan is confusing you". What does it mean? Must it mean that my plan confuses you (of course, provided that we afford to semantically ignore the slight difference beween Present Simple and Present Participle), or it can also mean that I plan to confuse you? HOOTmag (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a gerund there, it's just the present progressive (aka present continuous) verb form. So it means your plan is currently, actively, causing confusion. --Pykk (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about: "My summer plan is traveling around the world"? HOOTmag (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That one's ambiguous. Either it means you plan to travel around the world in the summer, or it means that your summer plan (presumably in some kind of physical form) is in the process of actively traveling around the world. In the latter case it's a participle and I think, it's a gerund in the former. The normal thing for that meaning would really be to use a to-infinitive "is to travel". --Pykk (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So why don't you say the same, regarding: "My plan is confusing you"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it could mean that I intend to confuse you; but if you really meant that, you'd be much more likely to say "My plan is to confuse you", or "I plan on confusing you". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        How about "What I'm trying to avoid is confusing you"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. That would be "What I'm trying to avoid is confuse you". Cf. "What I'm trying to do is confuse you". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow! Sure? So the following must be grammatically wrong: "What I've been trying to avoid is sleeping after midnight". or: "What you're trying to avoid is diving straight down". Are you really sure it's grammatically wrong? HOOTmag (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, Jack didn't say that what you put was grammatically wrong. He meant that you would never say it, because there is another construction which works far better. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Note that Jack said "Nope", rather than a simple "No" :) HOOTmag (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (ec) I never said it was grammatically wrong, just ... unusual. Your latest examples are just variations on the difference between "I want to sleep" and "I want to avoid sleeping", or between "You're trying to dive straight down" and "You're trying to avoid diving straight down". The gerund in these cases follows the verb "to avoid", not the verb "to be". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, unusual. Anyways, the gerund in my examples follows the verb "to be", e.g. "what I'm trying to avoid is sleeping after midnight" (rather than: "I'm trying to avoid sleeping after midnight"). To sum up, as far as I can figure out your opinion: from a purely grammatical point of view (this being what I currently care about), when I say "My plan is confusing you" I may mean - either: "my plan confuses you", or "I plan to confuse you". Right? HOOTmag (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, those needn't be grammatically wrong, because L1 grammaticality judgments (which I think are what you are after, although you haven't asked anyone to say whether or not they're L1 English speakers) are made "intuitively" (according to unconscious rules, constraints or whatever) rather than by following conscious rules of grammar. (And as for conscious grammar, saying that "sleeping" and "diving" are here gerunds is myopic.) ¶ "Confusing" in "What I'm trying to avoid is confusing you" looks very participly to me; however, I can imagine that given the right context and an appropriate intonation it might work as a gerund. Even if it wouldn't work, this would be no reason to claim an incompatibility with a grammatically judgment of OK for "What I've been trying to avoid is sleeping after midnight", etc: "sleeping" is here simply a noun, as it very often is -- we have utterances like "Sleeping is good for you" but we don't have "Confusing is bad for you" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To sum up: the verb "to be" can be followed by a gerund. Consequently, this may cause ambiguity, at least in some rare cases, if not more often. HOOTmag (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, maybe, if you're the old-fashioned sort and like to talk in terms of "gerunds". -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This has been my original aim: knowing whether it may cause some ambiguity. Thank you. HOOTmag (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, ambiguity is not an issue here. As Hoary has helpfully explained, native English speakers know intuitively what to say, and they would never come out with any of your examples. Why are you so interested in making up spurious linguistic constructions and wondering what rules of grammar they may or may not obey? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        e.g. for Machine translations. One of the main tasks for programming such mechanical translations is to avoid ambiguities. This requires clear definitions for the exact situations in which ambiguities may appear. HOOTmag (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the benefit of the non-academics here, Hoary, what is L1? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Native speakers, Jack, I think. See First language. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, sorry about that. ¶ Anyone serious about this kind of thing should consult a good grammar book, by which I mean not the kind of grammar book beloved by "language mavens" and the like but instead one informed by recent and hard thinking. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (pp.80-83) for example, rejects the traditional distinction between "gerund" and "participle", instead using the term "gerund–participle" and explaining this decision; but also distinguishes among what are traditionally regarded as gerunds between gerund–participles and "gerundial nouns". Sorry, I'm too knackered to want to summarize this; why not just buy a copy? -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not the only grammar to do so. See what I wrote about this very subject, on the merger of gerunds and participles that began centuries ago and what can be found in even 20th century grammar texts about it, above at #Gerunds and pronouns: "his being" or "him being". Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This late passerby finds Jack's "What I'm trying to avoid is confuse you" both intuitively and formally impossible. —Tamfang (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not find They are summering in the South of France this year as ungrammatical. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the continuous present of the verb "summer", not "are" plus a gerund. "are" is an auxiliary verb there. Uncle G (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to be" can be followed by a predicate noun. The whole point of gerunds is that they let verbs act as nouns, so I don't see why they can't act as a predicate noun. Besides, I've seen it done before and "Seeing is believing." -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word for giving up of some rights upon joining the military

In a country such as the US, a person can join the military voluntarily, but once they do, it is my understanding that they give up certain rights, such as the right ignore basic orders, or quit the military at will. Is there a word for this giving up or taking away of rights that happens when someone is in the military? ike9898 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You "waive" those rights, though that may not be the term you're looking for. However, don't distort things. You don't have the right to ignore orders anywhere you work. If you ignore or defy what you're told to do, that's called "insubordination". It's true you can't leave by simply resigning like you can in most other jobs. That was a major part of the controversy about the draft. If you volunteer freely, that's a somewhat different story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really true. You do have the right to ignore orders at a normal job. Your employer also has the right to stop paying you if you do. That's called getting fired. In the military, insubordination can be a punishable crime. Members of the US armed forces are subject to a different set of laws from civilians, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Rckrone (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What this comes down to, then, is that, in both situations, refusal to carry out instructions has undesirable consequences. The "rights" of the person doesn't really come into it. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a difference, as can be seen in the history (which I won't claim to know well) of what used to be called Master and Servant Acts (now employment or labo[u]r laws) and the former Black Codes (enacted by some Southern states after the Civil War to return the freed slaves to a condition of near-serfdom or quasi-servitude). The rights of employers and those who contracted the services of others used to be enforceable at law with draconic civil and even criminal penalties, not just by simple discharge; and the balance of powers and rights used to be far more heavily weighted against the working man or woman. Trade unions were at first forbidden as unlawful combinations, and later put under fairly severe disabilities. Military service, even in the absence of conscription, is (often through simple operational necessity) far closer to the former hierarchical and paternalistic system of former centuries than is today's civil employment. Only a very few armies permit unionization, and you can be physically confined for neglect of duty, insubordination (including refusing to be inoculated), failure to mobilize, missing a movement or even simple disrespect. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but all that doesn't alter the fact that a person in an office job cannot wilfully disobey instructions unless they're prepared to be out of a job. Being sacked may not be in the same league as being incarcerated (or being court martialled and even executed in some cases), but in principle, neither the office worker nor the soldier has any more or any less "right" to say "No" than the other. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Whether on the job or in the Army, if refusing to obey orders has negative consequences, then you do not have the "right" to disobey those orders. Obviously you have the "capability" of disobeying, but that's not by any means the same thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of a right. Having the right to do something doesn't imply that there are no negative consequences to it, it implies that it's protected under the law. For example I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean there would be no negative consequences to telling off my girlfriend. Similarly I have the right to tell off my boss. I may loose my job, but I can't be prosecuted for it. On the other hand in the army, I do not have the right to tell off my superior officer. I don't know if it would be prosecuted per se, but it probably could be, and more serious cases of insubordination or disobeying orders certainly are. I would recommend the page rights. Rckrone (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's you that's misunderstanding. If you disobey a superior, you will likely be disciplined. The only difference is the degree of discipline. In the Army you could be court-martialed, jailed and/or dishonorably discharged. In the business world, you could be fired. Either way, you lose. What you have the right to do is speak out against the government. That's what "Freedom of Speech" is actually about. And as long as you don't violate any other laws in the process, such as inciting a riot, then the government legally can't touch you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And ask yourself this: If you can be punished, such as having your pay docked, being suspended, or being fired, just how good is such a so-called "right"? It's pretty hollow. And if you get fired, you might be in kind of an uncomfortable position if an interviewer asks you why you left your last job. What are you going to do, lie? That's not a very good start. And if you tell the truth, they'll figure you're a malcontent and it will hurt your chances of getting hired. Yeh, a lot of good that so-called "right" does you. Because it's not a right. When you join a company, you agree to abide by the company's code of conduct. Violations of the code of conduct can get you fired. You have no "right" to violate the code of conduct. You have the "capability" to do so, certainly - and consequences to bear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to evaluate the question of what is a right in terms of the general consequences you'd face, but that's not relevant. A right is purely a legal matter (unless you're taking about natural rights, but that's not really at issue here). The only consequences that are relevant are the legal consequences. When considering if you have the right to take some action (or to not take it) the only question that matters is this: "Is it a crime according to the law for me to do this (or for me not to do this)?"

As a side note, freedom of speech is much broader than speaking out against the government. That's why for instance obscenity laws are a freedom of speech concern. Rckrone (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can be punished by the party to whom you direct your so-called "right", then it's not a "right" at all. In the military, you won't necessarily be court-martialed, either. You can be disciplined in various non-judicial ways. But that doesn't mean that you somehow had the "right" to disobey in that circumstance, just because you didn't end up going to jail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only concern is whether an action is a crime under the law. Disobeying an order in the military is a crime under the law. Here it is in the UCMJ [1]. There's no such law for a civilian disobeying his or her employer. Rckrone (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violating the terms of your employment might be breach of contract which has legal implications but breach of contract isn't a criminal offense. Rckrone (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To get back to User:Ike9898's query, I presume he's asking if there's a name for the temporary surrender of certain legal rights upon enlistment. Once upon a time, a master could use physical coercion and the criminal law to enforce attendance, diligence and obedience, corresponding to legal rights that his servant did not then hold. While this is no longer true (even in theory) for civilian employment (for example, your employer can't employ local sheriffs to bring you back to your job by force), it's still true (certainly in theory) for military law and discipline. So a recruit surrenders certain rights upon enlistment or commissioning in the armed services, and the question was whether a name existed for this kind of surrender upon taking the Queen's shilling.

Discussions of whether it's worse in substance to be sacked with a bad reference, sued, denied unemployment benefits, dishonorably discharged, confined to barracks, put on bread and water or put in the stockade are besides the point. So are discussions of purely moral rights to free speech, freedom of movement, etc. Aung San Suu Kyi, in my opinion, has a right to run in the next Burmese elections, but she doesn't yet have the practical right. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the US, freedom of speech is a legal right (First Amendment to the United States Constitution), which is the context I meant. I guess I should've clarified. Rckrone (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My aside about moral rights was probably tilting at a straw man, anyway, since looking more closely at the exchange above, no one was arguing that a soldier's moral right to free speech still exists even if it contradicts military discipline. I was just trying to make the same distinction as you, about legal rights that differ between military and civilian employment. Anyway we've taken up a lot of space without getting any closer to answering the original question. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

Latin names

I'm searching for the Latin translation of some given names: Absalom, Jael, Ruben, Boris, Igor, Bruno, Florestan, Fulk, Geoffrey, Hubert, Hildebrand, Reinhard, William, Adelaide, Bridget, Deborah, Gwendoline, Isolde, Louise. For example: Charles>Carolus, Lawrence>Laurentius, Lewis>Ludovicus, Derek>Theodoricus, Vladimir>Vladimirus. I know that some names like Boris may not have Classical translations, but Latin was an important language for Europe for all Middle Ages and beyond, and it was a normal custom to latinizate given names (for example: Franciscus Patricius, Gerardus Mercator, Carolus Linnaeus). --151.51.9.229 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well William was Guglielmus (I think that's the spelling), and I believe Louise Latinised to Louisa. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or Guglielmo in Italian, or Guillermo in Spanish, or Guillaume in French, and so on, as per the article on William (name). It seems to have been retrofitted from "Wilhelm". The name "William" naturally appears frequently in the Bayeux Tapestry, although it seems they weren't quite sure how to render it in Latin in the late 11th century. Some of these variants I'm sure have to do with "case", but anyway the name appears as "WILLEM", "WILLELM", "WILLELMI", "WILELMI", "WILLELMO", "WILGELMVM", "WILGELM", and "WILEI". These all seem to be attempts at rendering "WILHELM" before "GUGLIELMUS" was invented. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis (given name) is another German-rooted name (Ludwig) that appears to have been retrofitted from the French to Luis (fem. Luisa) in Spanish, Luigi (fem. Luisa) in Italian, and Ludovicus (no fem. given) in Latin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boris (first name) does not give any Romance Language equivalents, so I would guess there are none. I would encourage the OP to read the articles on the given names, as part of his quest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absalom is the same in Latin [2]. Deborah seems to be the same, except no 'h', and 2 'b's Debbora. Ruben is the same [3] Wrad (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jael or Yael (Book of Judges, 4:17-22, 5:6) is "Iahel" (IAHEL) in the Vulgate. See http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=7&c=4 You can also see Deborah, Reuben and Jael in Chapter 5 —— Shakescene (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin version of William usually depends on where the person was from and how they pronounced it in their native non-Latin language; Guglielmus is more Italian, Willelmus is more German, Guillelmus is more French, etc. For Hebrew names they are often left simply transliterated, and not Latinized, so Absalom, Ruben, Deborah, etc remain the same, and even when they do become Latin names, they are still left alone in the Bible (Iacob is the Biblical form although there was a Latinized form Iacobus as well). "Fulk" has two forms, Fulco (third declension) and the longer Fulcherius (which becomes Fulcher or Foucher in French). Geoffrey also has numerous forms, and is sometimes confused with Godfrey, so you might see Goffridus or Godfridus or something similar. "Hubert" comes from "Humbert" I think, so "Humbertus" in Latin (or "Umbertus"); Hildebrand is the same, Hildebrandus; "Reinhard" can be "Reinhardus" or the extended form "Reginhardus" (or both without the H), "Adelaide" has many many forms, as female names often do, but one common form is "Adalaiza". I guess you could feminize "Lodovicus" as "Lodovica" for "Louisa" but there may be another form. I'm not sure about Celtic names like Gewendolin or Isolde, or the Slavic ones. This is a very small list though, there are many different forms for names like these, as they were common for many centuries in many different areas. People sometimes spelled their own names different ways in the same document; they weren't as concerned with "proper" spelling as we are. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a handy list I Googled with "Latin name translation", although it gives the English translations of Latin first (Christian) names in Irish parish records English names in Latin©Dr. Jane Lyons —— Shakescene (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

"Sports events" or "Sporting events"

Which formulation is correct? I thought of this question after running across Category:Sports events and its contents, which use both formulations (see, for example, Category:Current sports events, Category:Future sporting events, Music at sporting events). Thank you, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are "correct", though I would prefer the latter, and I suspect the former is more usual in the US than the UK.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sporting" is used in the U.S. but is kind of an old-fashioned term. One of its more prominent vestiges is the publication called The Sporting News, which dates to the 1880s when the term was much more prominent. It had a rival newspaper in the early years called The Sporting Times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are nuances to the words: "sporting" can suggest wagering or risk, as in "take a sporting chance"; there's a difference between sportsmanship and "a sporting nature". But "sporting event" and "sports event" are equally good, although each is faintly awkward for different reasons. You normally wouldn't say, for example, "we're having a songs event" in preference to "we're having a singing event" or "a race event" in preference to "a racing event", while the common names of many sports already end in "-ing" (whether as gerunds or participles) such as rowing, driving or skating. Don't ask me why footballing is acceptable (perhaps from Continental languages) while baseballing is absurd. [Calm down, you wiseacres, I know how your twisted, excitable minds would answer that question.]—— Shakescene (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Carroll

He once wrote "A stick I found weighed two pound/I sawed it up one day/In pieces of equal weight/How much did each piece weigh? (Everybody says a 'quarter of a pound' which is wrong"

What does this mean please and why does he say that they wrong? --88.109.132.126 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What book is that from? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be a quarter of a pound if there were 8 pieces. But nowhere does it say he sawed it into 8 pieces. It might have been only 2 pieces, in which case each would weigh one pound. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing Lewis Carroll, there's something more going on here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. [4] Opie left out one important word. "In pieces eight / Of equal weight." And the reason a quarter of a pound is wrong is because some of the total weight is lost in sawdust. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I did miss out 'eight'. I too thought about the sawdust, but it seemed to simplistic both to me and for Carroll!

Don't forget that he mainly wrote the puzzles for his young friends! --pma (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous! You would have to use the EXACT same sawing technique on each piece you cut, and each piece would have to have the EXACT same strengths and weaknesses in the EXACT spots you saw in for you to be able to make the EXACT same amount of sawdust for each piece to weigh EXACTLY the same at the end of it all, right down to the molecular level. If you don't want to be that precise, then 'quarter of a pound' is fine. Simple as that. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, that some weight is lost as evaporation of liquid, due to the heat generated by the friction of the saw? --pma (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, that it's risky to jump to a conclusion without considering all the facts. Carroll would certainly be aware that it would be impossible to cut eight exactly identical pieces. But even if you could, you still have to take the sawdust into account. Now if you used a laser... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming the stick was perfectly uniform in its proportions. Has such a stick ever existed? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say that he cut it into "identical" (in shape and size) pieces; he said that he cut it into pieces of equal weight. I don't know why one would want to quibble with the answer that he himself wrote (unless one wants to quibble with Portia, too): "In Shylock’s bargain for the flesh was found / No mention of the blood that flowed around: / So when the stick was sawed in eight, / The sawdust lost diminished from the weight." Deor (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were possible to produce such a stick (as compared with finding it somewhere), and if it were totally uniform in its molecular structure, it would likely be impossible to slice it such that the total mass of each 1/8th was identical. I think if Alice nitpicked Lewis over that point, he would have changed the subject and started to recite a few lines from "Jabberwocky". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a money riddle; comparing, for example, pound sterling with pieces of eight. --Jayron32 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure ol' Lewis would be pleased as punch that a riddle he wrote well over a century ago is still raising questions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am !!--88.109.132.126 (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kyujitai again

Please translate the words "epilogue", "general index" and "obituary" into Chinese or Japanese shinjitai and kyujitai and into Pinyin. Thank you, Doc Taxon (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For many words, you can find the translations by going to the article on English Wikipedia (for example, search for Obituary) and then looking through the interlanguage links on the left-hand column. For example, Obituary links to 讣告 (fùgào) on zh-wiki. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't help finding out the term written in kyujitai and Pinyin, so I asked a question here. Or is it not allowed? Doc Taxon (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those you can often find by pasting the characters into an online dictionary (for Chinese, good ones are nciku.com, dict.cn, and zhongwen.com). There's nothing wrong with asking here, I was just trying to also suggest some ways you can find these on your own if you need to in the future.

For Chinese, here are the translations with pinyin (someone else will have to do the Japanese):

English	Chinese	Hanyu Pinyin
epilogue	结束部分	jiéshù bùfen
epilogue	结束语*	jiéshùyǔ
index	索引	suóyǐn
obituary	讣告	fùgào

*(this, and 结言 and similar, might be closer to "conclusion" than "epilogue"; 结束部分 is probably best)

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but what about:

epilogue = 結文

general index = 總目錄

obituary = 追記

Doc Taxon (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any given language there are many different ways to say things; this is especially true in Chinese. The words you mention above are all things that translate roughly to those—结文 is literally "tying-up"+"language/writing", 总目录 literally "end"+"catalog", and 追记 "after"+"write down/record". These words would all get your point across to more or less extent; the ones in the table, though, I'm pretty sure are more accurate. (The translations in the table for index and obit are definitely the most accurate ones: 索引 is what you see written at the end of a book, and 讣告 specifically refers to obits published in newspapers/etc. The translation for "epilogue" is less clear, there are a ton of different compounds that are used.) Of course, no one can know for sure without seeing the context you intend to use these words in. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want to check yourself, these are all words you can look up in nciku or another online dictionary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've most often seen the equivalent of epilogue being written as 后记 in Chinese - hòujì - "the record [of what comes] after".

Index, as Rjanag says, is 索引; 目錄, in Chinese at least, usually refers to "Contents".

讣告 (also known as 讣文) is what some dictionaries give as the translation for "Obituary", but the two are quite different. A 讣告 is usually more like what might be called a "death notice" in English - a simple notice that sets out the fact that a person died, and sometimes giving notice of the funeral and the surviving family. Obituary, in the sense of a biography of a recently deceased person, does not have an exactly equivalent genre in Chinese. A 祭文 is similar in form - it is a fairly detailed biography of a person, published shortly after their death. However, in terms of the form of publication, it is more like a eulogy - it is originally read out at the memorial / offering ceremony for the deceased.

A piece of 悼念文章 (dàoniàn wénzhāng; commemoration-of-the-dead composition) is probably the most commonly used term for the genre that is closest to an obituary. However, such a genre is almost always positive and less neutral than the usual obituary. It is also most often written by someone closely connected with the deceased, not by a professional writer or editor. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I came across 后记 when I was first looking at this but all the 结s seemed more appropriate to me.

As for obituary, yeah, I figured 讣告 would be most accurate for things like the obituary section of a regular newspaper, with 20 brief obituaries of random people... perhaps not for something like NYT obituaries of famous people. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - to clarify, when I said obituaries, I meant the long obituaries in the NYT and suchlike. The smaller notices, sometimes called "death notices" or "funeral notices" to distinguish them from long obituaries, can, of course, also be called obituaries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese, epilogue could be 結び/musubi, 終章/shūshū, 終節/shūsetsu, 終曲/shūkyoku 結末/ketsumatsu, or 終局/shūkyoku. General index is 総合指数/總合指數/sōgō shisū(economical term) or 総目録/總目録/sōmokuroku. Obituary is 死亡広告/shibō kōkoku, 死亡記事/shibō kiji or 追悼記事/tsuitō kiji. Oda Mari (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agamid toes

What does this Latin term mean: Digiti inaequales, sublongi, non fimbriati.

I am not really sure about the punctuation (comma) between inaequales and sublongi. How would change the deletion of this comma the meaning of that term? Is inaequales an adjective or an adverb? What do you mean is the correct punctuation in this term, maybe is the one or other not usable? Thanks, Doc Taxon (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the idiosyncratic Latin that biologists use in describing plants and animals. It means "[The} toes [are] of unequal length, somewhat long, [and] not fringed." Inaequales, sublongi, and fimbriati are all adjectives. I'm not sure what you're asking about the punctuation, but the commas are there to separate the adjectives in a series, just as they would be in English. Deor (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user replied when I posted this question on Wiktionary and said that the punctuation was just fine. Ditto Deor (talk · contribs) above. L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymes

I have read all of the relevant Wikipedia articles, I believe, about rhymes and words without rhymes, etc. Can someone please explain the following to me? I just don't seem to get it. Thanks.

Why are fork and pork not considered a perfect rhyme?
Why are love and of not considered a perfect rhyme?

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

I can only speak from the midwestern USA perspective, but I would say that phonetically they are pronounced "faw-rk" and "pour-k"; and "luhv" and "ahv", although we midwesterners probably say "love" and "of" as rhymes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got blocked for trying to place this edit before, I'm going to be brave and see if I can insert it now:

"Fork" and "pork" are perfect rhymes, to me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my ear, "fork" rhymse with "torque", or "Mork" as in "...and Mindy". The "o" is like an "aw" sound. Contrast with "Porky Pig", for example, where the "por" is like "pour". In your part of the English-speaking world, it may be different. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion a couple of weeks ago: "for" vs. "four". "Four", where I come from, rhymes with "pour", and "for" rhymes with "tore". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked? Anyway: "fork/pork" and "love/of" are perfect rhymes to my New York tempered with Middle South tempered with 40 years in California accent. "Pork" and "pour" are different. "Coffee" and "toffee" are also different. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak a decent approximation of Received Pronunciation and fork/pork is pretty much a perfect rhyme when I say them. "Love" and "of" have completely different vowels, though ("love" has a central vowel, "of" has a back vowel). --Tango (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I "received" my pronunciation while growing up in America. :) Regional accents will often vary - like whether the "oo" in "roof" rhymes with the "oo" in "look" or in "smoothe". I've heard it both ways in different parts of the midwest. My old Webster's shows the "o" in "for" and "fork" with a carat mark (circumflex) over it, to rhyme with "orb"; it shows the "o" in "pork" with a horizontal bar over it to rhyme with "old". It shows the "o" of "love" as a "u" with an upward-curvy thing over it, i.e. short u, to rhyme with "up"; it shows the "o" of "of" as either short o, or secondarily as "italic short u", to rhyme with the "u" in "circus". It would take a really trained ear to distinguish that short u sound from the one in "up". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my lexicon, "fork" & "pork" (both with the "pour" vowel) and "love" & "of" are perfect rhymes. Roof has the same vowel sound as "look", "foot", and "hoof". Just my 2¢ ... L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In roughly the upper midwest, "roof" rhymes with "hoof". In roughly the lower midwest, "roof" rhymes with "goof". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting to read about the horse-hoarse merger in this context. People with the merger will rhyme "fork" and "pork"; people without the merger will not rhyme them. "Of" belongs to a class of function words, which includes also "was" and "because", whose stressed form has /ʌ/ (the vowel of strut or but) for most Americans but /ɒ/ (the vowel of lot or pot) for most Brits. +An gr 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I come from, which is nowhere in the areas shown on that map, "horse" and "hoarse" are virtually identical, while "fork" and "pork" do not rhyme. Here's a twist on the latter. I said I hear it as "pour-k". I was almost going to say "poor-k". The right way to say "poor" is "poo-er", and that's what they told us in school. But everyone went right ahead and pronounced "poor" exactly the same way as "pour", as also a homonym for "pore". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my dialect, horse and hoarse don't sound exactly equivalent, but close, but fork and pork rhyme, of and love have similar but slightly different sounds, but because sounds nothing like of and was. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, horse and hoarse are complete homophones; fork and pork are perfect rhymes, of and love are perfect rhymes, and was, because, and fuzz are perfect rhymes. (Of course I mean the strong forms of of, was, and because, as they would be pronounced as the last word of a sentence.) +An gr 07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting. For me, horse and hoarse are complete homophones; and fork and pork are perfect rhymes. But that's where we diverge. Of sounds nothing like love to me - of is pronounced over here like the last syllable in Ustinov (-ovv), and love rhymes with dove (the bird, not the past tense of dive: -uvv). Was, because and fuzz use three different sounds - was rhymes with Oz, fuzz rhymes with buzz, and because can be pronounced as be-cawz, be-caws or be-coz. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little off the track, but perhaps you can explain what I think I hear sometimes in the Australian accent, in which a word with an "o" in the middle somehow gets an "r" in there somewhere. Like saying "home" is if it were spelled "herm". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, don't get me started on the Aussie "o". Well, ok, but briefly. Many older Australians pronounce it "properly", with a rounded mouth. But many others seem to be embarrassed at having to do this, and what comes out is only vaguely related to an "o" sound. "Phone home, Noel" often sounds like "fine hime, Nile" or "fern herm, Nerl". You'll see TV presenters trying to say words with "o" sound, but with their mouths smiling as broadly as possible throughout their monologue, as if they were saying a long succession of "eeeeeee"s, or trying to look like the Queen Mother with her permanent smile. How on earth they think they can make an "o" sound like this beats me. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should watch Fargo (film) for practice on how to say the "o" the opposite way they're used to saying it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "be-coz" is a possible pronunciation of because, then it can potentially rhyme with was for you, can't it? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that using the STRUT vowel in of, was, and because is a purely North American phenomenon (and not universal even there, especially in the case of because). +An gr 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People around here say "worsh" for "wash", with almost the same vowel as horse. I think it's funny, as I am used to saying "wosh" (rhyming with, let's see, "bosh" or "gosh"). L☺g☺maniac chat? 01:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because and was rhyme for me (RP). --Tango (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also get teased by my east-coast acquaintances for saying "wash" as if it has an "r" after the "a". That's especially funny coming from people who pronounce idea as if it were spelled "idear". That leads to my emphasizing it as "wahsh", which sounds funny too. It's not really "worsh", it's more like "wawsh", but an almost-r sound tends to creep in there. "Because" to me is "bee-caws", and "was" is "wuhz". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least my grandma actually says "worsh" all the time. It's not just a almost-r, it's a full-fledged adult one. It is hilarious. I think. L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these comments would benefit bigtime from a passing acquaintance with IPA. "In my dialect, boo rhymes with coo, whereas foo rhymes with goo" is not much help to someone for whom all four are alike!

To me (Midwest/California), for what little it's worth, fork=pork but love~of is more complicated: love is always central (ʌ) but of can be more back (ɔ,ɒ?). —Tamfang (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question

Thanks to all for the above input. It seems to me, then, that whether or not two words constitute a perfect rhyme depends on their specific pronunciations ... which may vary from one person to another. As such, two words may be a perfect rhyme for Person A, but not for Person B. Is that statement correct? I had assumed that the definition of a rhyme was more concrete and definite ... and not quite so loose, variable, or individualized. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

Because of their ubiquity in nursery rhymes, and the way rhyme is taught to us in primary school by way of poetry etc, we get the idea fixed in our heads very early that rhyme is the concrete thing you refer to. But noooo. It depends absolutely on the dialect, idiolect, or whatever of the speaker/writer. I'm still astonished that some people don't regard "fork" and "pork" as rhyming - but the fact is they (those people) don't, and that's all there is to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical sets allow you to find rhymes that should work in most accents if you are trying to write some kind of universal poetry. --Tango (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary agrees with my midwestern dialect that "fork" and "pork" do not exactly rhyme, but they are close enough that they can still be used poetically. And you can always apply some literary license, like the song the people of The Wizard of Oz sing in which everything that sounds vaguely like "oz" is pronounced to rhyme exactly with "oz". Or you can take the Gilbert and Sullivan approach and deliberately change the pronouncation to make it rhyme:

I often find it comical how nature always does contrive

That every boy and every gal that's born into the world alive

Is either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative

Use the second line as the pronunciation guide for the first and third lines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. Are you saying that -ive in "alive" and "contrive" are pronounced differently? — Emil J. 11:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do some accents put the stress on different syllables in each word (I think I stress the 2nd syllable for each, although it is a pretty weak stress)? That can often change the vowel slightly. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which dictionary? As has been made very clear, rhymes depend on accents. If your dictionary is giving rhymes then it will be based on some accent or other, and really adds nothing to this discussion. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

What language is this in?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-783292470513012671&hl=en# Looks like Uzbek or Uyghur. --03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

~~My first guess would be Uzbek.~~ It's not Uyghur, there are some differences in vocabulary and orthography and the vowel harmony is consistent. But it's clearly a Turkic language from Central Asia. Another possibility is Kazakh or Kyrgyz, but those are generally written as Cyrillic; ~~Uzbek is more likely because that's usually written in Latin script~~. That being said, all those Central Asian Turkic languages are virtually indistinguishable anyway :P rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I bet it's more likely to be Azerbaijani or something closely related to that. I can barely understand a word of it, which means it's probably not Uzbek (I speak some Uyghur, and Uzbek and Uyghur are almost mutually intelligible). The Latin script used in the description is consistent with the script used for Azerbaijani. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a complete blundering ignoramus, and going purely by the most superficial context, I would ignorantly guess Turkmen, Turkish or Uyghur. But paste the text into Google and you'll get 26 hits plus alternate pages, so maybe that's worth a shot to someone who's actually equipped to discern the languages. And if the languages are mutually intelligible, at least in part, then some of the featured videos might be in cognate languages (like the video on Tibet, which might be in Uyghur even if the other videos aren't.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC) ¶ And by a complete blundering ignoramus, I mean someone who doesn't know a single word of any Turkic or Central Asian language and is going purely by the appearance of the YouTube and Google pages. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the video itself, the subject is very clearly the Uyghur struggle for autonomy or independence in East Turkestan (cf. the crescent and star on a sky blue flag), currently the Xinjiang-Uyghur [Sinkiang-Uighur] Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China. I don't know the significance of the moon and wolves, but someone here must. I think the mosque in in Urumqi (Urumchi). But that doesn't tell us what language the video is narrated in. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first message, all I can say for certain is it's not Uyghur. But Turkish and Turkmen are all possibilities, as is Azerbaijani which I suggested above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only judge the written text, not the language that's being sung, but the written text is almost certainly (I'd say 95% certainty) Turkish, not Uyghur, Turkmen, Uzbek, or Azeri. It's not Uyghur because Uyghur is usually written in the Arabic or Cyrillic alphabet, almost never the Latin. It's not Turkmen or Uzbek, because they don't use Ğ, nor do they distinguish İ and I, which the text does. (And to judge by Uyghur alphabet, no Latin version of Uyghur uses Ğ or distinguishes İ and I either.) It's thus either Azeri or Turkish, but Turkish is far more likely because the text never uses the letter Ə, which is one of the most common letters in Azeri (though I suppose it would be possible to compose an Azeri text without it, just as it's possible to compose an English text without the letter E). It also doesn't use Q or X, but I don't know how common those letters are in Azeri. Thus it's either Turkish, or an Azeri text that by accident or design manages to avoid the most common Azeri vowel. Of the two possibilities, Turkish is way more likely. +An gr 07:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(minor aside): Actually, today Uyghur Latin script is becoming pretty common, especially on the internet in forums, comment threads, etc., where a lot of people have difficulty finding the fonts or rendering support for the Arabic-derived script. Of course, it depends a lot where you are—I think Uyghurs in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan use Cyrillic much more, for example. That being said, you're still right that this isn't Uyghur: no Uyghur Latin script I know of uses Ğ or distinguishes front and back I (although some people, myself not included, believe it should do the latter). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish. "íhtílal türküsü" = "songs of revolution". Perhaps worth mentioning that Turks sympathize strongly with the Uyghurs, who they view (not without reason) as distant kin. --Pykk (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map at 02:00 is a clear representation of Turanist discourse. Btw, is the Turkish word ihtilal related to the Arabic احتلال? --Soman (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish "ihtilal" is indeed derived from the Arabic, as are a large number of abstract words in the Turkish language. --Xuxl (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The orthography, is Turkish, for sure. Many of the slides are also in Turkish; I believe doğu is a Turkey-specific neologism. However, the first slide does not appear to distinguish i from ı, just look at the word yillik which would be yıllık in Turkish. My best guess (emphasis on guess) is that this is Turkish spoken (and written) by a Uyghur. I've also just noticing üch bin (three thousand); bin is exclusively Oghuz (western Turkic) I believe; Uyghur would use mang. And in response to Shakescene, the mosque pictured is the Id Kah Mosque in Kashgar, which I would assume is still standing after the demolition of most of Kashgar's Old City. It's not in Urumchi. The wolves, AFAIK, is a symbol for the Uyghur people. 216.195.18.44 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between agglutinative and isolating languages

In spoken language, what's the difference between agglutination (a bunch of morphemes in a row considered one word) and isolation (a bunch of morphemes in a row considered multiple words)?
Couldn't you write the language with spaces and call it an isolating/analytic language, or write it without spaces and call it an agglutinative language?
Obviously I'm misunderstanding one or both of these concepts, but I keep looking at the articles and I still don't get it.
Thanks, 74.105.132.151 (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the confusion, I've definitely heard people refer to English as "isolating" and German as "agglutinating", but one I heard from one linguist that English compounds are actually similar to those in German, but the fact that we use dashes or spaces rather than writing them as one word is an orthographic convention. Can anyone explain this? Mo-Al (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mo-Al: Kind of depends on the compound. It's true that noun-noun compounds like "toilet bowl" or "car seat" (where an English speaker wouldn't necessarily see anything wrong with adding a hyphen) are invariably written as one word in other Germanic languages. English tends to avoid preposition+verb compounds; E.g. In the other Germanic languages you can say either "off-finish" or "finish off" (abschließen/schloss ab), but in English only the latter is used. Yet there are some exceptions, like "tomorrow", "downfall". Note that 'downfall' has a different meaning than 'fall down' - which isn't unique to English either. Since English is a Germanic language, the fundamental 'rules' of forming compounds are still there, they're just infrequently and inconsistently used. (Whereas they're frequently and consistently used elsewhere). It doesn't actually make much sense that you say "workbench" but "operating table", "hen house" but "greenhouse". --Pykk (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agglutination refers more (or at least 50%, let's say), to function morphemes, rather than just content morphemes. So saying a language is "agglutinative" doesn't just mean a word is made of a lot of morphemes (although it certainly can mean that as well); it means that a single content word will have a big bundle of function affixes attached. Mesoamerican languages such as K'iche', Q'anjobal, etc. are good examples of this: a single verb will have person markers, ergativity markers, aspect markers, transitivity markers, tense markers, reflexive pronouns, and more attached to it.

"Isolating language", on the other hand, refers not just to words being separate, but to words having very little functional morphology (no verb conjucations, noun declensions, etc.). Chinese is the classic example of this. While the vast majority of nouns are formed by compounding, the language is often considered "isolating" because nouns don't have morphological case marking, verbs don't have person/number/whatever agreement, etc. I once read a long rant about Vietnamese and how it was "not an isolating language" because it has "so many" different function morphemes (it was a writer wanting to "prove" that Vietnamese was modern and not primitive, and thus trying to think up excuses to disassociate it as much as possible to Chinese and to compare it as much as possible to German and French).

For a concrete example...take the phrase "i heard that", etc. In one language I study, Uyghur, this is said ئاڭلىشىمچە anglishimche, which can be broken down into angli-shi-m-che (hear - GERUND - 1st.person.POSS - 'according.to' : literally, "according to my hearing", but all in one word). On the other hand, in Chinese, this is 听说 ting shuo (hear say). Clearly, Uyghur is more on the "agglutinative" end of the scale, and Chinese more "isolating".

That being said, there is no bright line that cuts a clear divide between isolating and agglutinating languages. They're on a fuzzy continuum, and a lot of linguists don't even really use these monikers (for that very reason). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that Vietnamese thing would have made too much sense, since standard sources generally say that Vietnamese is the most isolating of all prominent widely-spoken languages in the world today (even more isolating than modern Mandarin Chinese). By the way, German is definitely not "agglutinating" in its case and number inflections! AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as an example of a confusing case, look at Tashelhiyt. According to my understanding, the Arabic orthography conventionally groups lots of functional morphemes together into words, while the Latinate orthography seperates them with spaces. I'd give an example, but I don't have the book with me. Mo-Al (talk)

That's a good point, although we can't blame it all on the Arabic morphology. Central Asian Turkic languages like Uyghur, Uzbek, Khazakh, Kyrgyz, and Azerbaijani are all equally agglutinative (in fact, some of them—particularly Uyghur and Uzbek—are almost mutually intelligible) even though they use a variety of scripts. Uyghur is the only one that mostly uses Arabic script (although Khazakh and Kyrgyz speakers in Xinjiang sometimes use Arabic script as well); Uzbek and Azerbaijani mostly use Latin script, and Khazakh and Kyrgyz mostly Cyrillic, but they're all still agglutinative. One way to tell that functional morphemes are attached to words, regardless of orthography, is the behavior of vowel harmony and other phonological alternations—both alternations that happen in root words but are triggered by suffixes, and alternations that happen in suffixes in order to have [vowel harmony, voicing agreement, etc., take your pick] with the root. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

74.105.132.151 -- Frequently in agglutinating languages, morphemes are composed of sound sequences which can't really stand alone as separate words by themselves; while in isolating languages, the words which indicate grammatical relations are not really arranged in strict paradigms (the way affixes in agglutinating languages often are), and have more freedom of positioning than do affixes in agglutinating languages, etc. So it's not the case that agglutinating languages and isolating languages are just the same thing, with fewer word boundaries recognized vs. more word boundaries recognized.

For a basic introduction to some of the parameters of language typology in the area of morphology, Edward Sapir's 1921 book Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech is still fairly good for beginners (though some of the particular terminology he uses is not generally used by modern linguists), and it's out-of-copyright and available on-line: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12629 . -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sliding scale really, so it's probably impossible to get everyone to agree on a particular definition. That said, I don't think German is considered is considered agglutinative by any common standard. It's more agglutinative than English, in the sense that it has (or rather, retains) more cases, and forms compounds more easily. OTOH, the Scandinavian languages lack cases but use suffixes for the definite article, unlike English, German and Hungarian (which usually is considered agglutinative). --Pykk (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if German has endings in which case, number, and inflectional paradigm are inextricably intertwined, and it's generally impossible to point to any given phonological sub-sequence and say that such phonological material solely and exclusively means "accusative" or whatever, then that's not what's called "agglutinative" in morphological typology... AnonMoos (talk)

I didn't say German was agglutinative, I said it wasn't. I said it was a sliding scale. English, German and Finnish are all 'synthetic', but German is more so than English, and Finnish more so than German. Hungarian is ostensibly agglutinative, but obviously closer to Finnish grammar than Finnish is to German. --Pykk (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An assertion that "German is more agglutinating than English" is quite dubious, since very little of the additional inflectional morphology that German has with respect to English could be accurately called "agglutinating", while much of the difference between English and German in compounding actually has a lot more to do with orthographic conventions (adding more word spaces in writing vs. running words together in writing) than with deep-seated linguistic structure differences. The relatively subtle remaining differences in English vs. German compounding do very little to make German truly "agglutinative"... AnonMoos (talk)

Languages of Austria-Hungary

I'm trying to find the Rusyn and Ladin names of the rulers of Austria-Hungary (Emperors of Austria, Kings of Hungary, ...). Both Rusyn and Ladin where languages spoken in Austria-Hungary, but Rusyn was, with Ukrainian, counted as "Ruthenian" while Ladin was counted as a dialect of "Italian". Now, for example, for Franz Joseph I of Austria you get: German: Franz Joseph; Hungarian: Ferenc József; Ukrainian: Франц Йосиф; Polish: Franciszek Józef; Czech: František Josef; Slovak: František Jozef; Slovene: Franc Jožef; Croatian: Franjo Josip; Bosnian: Faruk Jusuf; Serbian: Фрања Јосиф / Franja Josif; Latin: Franciscus Iosephus; Italian: Francesco Giuseppe; Friulian: Francesc Josef; Romanian: Francisc Iosif. But I'm unable to find his Rusyn and Ladin name. --151.51.50.29 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need English translation of Latin (?) paragraph

For context, the paragraph was written by a Jesuit missionary studying the Kaifeng Jewish Community of China:

On n'a pu encore rien savoir des biens positif sur les Juifs de Hamkeou, de Nimpo, Peking, Ning-hia, etc. Les Juifs de Caifonfou me dirent qu'ils n'en avoient aucunne connoissance. Avez vous, leurs dis je, communication avec les autres Juifs des pays etrangers, ou des Provinces de Chine. Rep. Depuis plus de 100 ans, nous n'avons vus aucun Juif etranger, et il enest tres peu parmi nous, qui sache lire. A peine deux ou trois expliquent passablement quelques passages. Pour les autres Prinvinces de Chine, nous ne savons pas qu'il y ait des Juifs. Ils disent qu'en Chine il n'y a pas d'autres Juifs, et ils n'ont aucune connoissance d ceux des Indes, du Thibet, et de la Tartarie occidentale, etc.

I, of course, recognize many of the place names mentioned. I'm assuming "juifs" means Jews. Thank you in advance for translating this. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's French. --151.51.50.29 (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A rough Google translation:

We could not even know anything about the positive properties of the Jews Hamkeou of Nimpo, Peking, Ning-hsia, etc.. Jews Caifonfou told me they never had any uninsured items acquaintance. Have you, I say their, communication with other Jews from foreign countries, or provinces of China. Rep. For over 100 years we have seen no Jews abroad, and he enest very few among us who can read. Just two or three fairly explain some passages. For other Prinvinces of China, we do not know that there are Jews. They say that in China there are no other Jews, and they have no knowledge of those of India, Tibet, and Western Tartary, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.50.29 (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's French, but the spelling is often not modern and there a few typos that will throw off machine translation. I'm not sure about the first sentence; an expert would be able to give a better translation for "savoir des biens positif". Roughly:

We haven't yet been able to learn anything of the Jews of H, of N, P, N etc. The Jews of K told me that they have no knowledge of them. "Have you", I said to them, "any communication with Jews from other countries, or other provinces of China?". "We haven't seen a foreign Jew for 100 years, and there are very few among us who can read, hardly two or three can read a few passages. We don't know if there are any Jews in other Chinese provinces" they replied. They say that in China there are no other Jews, and they know nothing of the Jews of India, Tibet or Tartary.

Tinfoilcat (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the French are notorious for making up funny spellings and pronunciations of foreign names, and making up totally new and unrelated titles for foreign movies :). (In their defense, though, we English speakers are not much better.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English likes to keep the foreign spelling and change the pronunciation - yet still use one that's not consistent with most English. Witness: "queue", "lingerie". Contrast that to the opposite in Norwegian, which borrowed the former word to "kø" (which is also the IPA way of writing the original pronunciation). Guess the nationality that misspells it more.. :) --Pykk (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, queue... when I was a kid my brother made soooo much fun of me because I thought it was pronounced [kwewe]. English is fun... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, and I always thought yacht was pronounced with the German hard "k" coming out something like the first syllable of "nachtmusik". And I thought quay was pronounced "kway" but then everyone told me it was "kee". And in my dictionary, it says "kar-mul" is a discouraged pronunciation of "caramel" and says "ker-uh-mul" is better. But I've always said it that way! ... :) 20:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logomaniac (talk • contribs)

Golf Course Humor

Golf Course Humor consists of jokes, sarcasm, witticisms, gestures, and pranks that originate on the golf course, are often off-color, and occasionally are repeated elsewhere. Otherwise known as "Coarse course" humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whalenk (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling, trolling, trolling, keep them doggies trolling, rawhide!DOR (HK) (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now I've got Frankie Laine and Dan Aykroyd singing a duet in my head. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive form

Let's say that a business is named Pepsi. If I want the possessive form, I would add an apostrophe and an "s" ... to get Pepsi's. Thus, for example, a sentence might read:

Pepsi's new marketing campaign was so successful that the company earned record high profits this year.

Now, what if the name of the company is, say, McDonald's? How would we punctuate the sentence above, if the company were named McDonald's instead of Pepsi?

__________ new marketing campaign was so successful that the company earned record high profits this year.

Technically, it would seem that McDonald's's would be correct (by following the "letter of the law"). Or, possibly, McDonald's'. But I have never seen a possessive of a possessive before. Nor have I seen an apostrophe and "s" followed by another apostrophe and "s". Nor have I seen an apostrophe and "s" followed by another final apostrophe.

So, both look odd and don't quite seem correct. At the same time, simply using McDonald's would also appear to be incorrect ... as this would mean "The new marketing campaign of McDonald was so successful that the company earned record high profits this year." And there is no such entity as "McDonald". So, what gives in this situation?

For purposes of this question: (A) Let us assume that the company name is indeed McDonald's ... and not McDonald or McDonalds. And (B) I am not seeking to reword the sentence in a form such as "The new marketing campaign of McDonald's was so successful that the company earned record high profits this year." ... or ... "McDonald's Corporation's new marketing campaign was so successful that the company earned record high profits this year."

My question really boils down to: can you form the possessive of something that is already a possessive? I have never run across this until recently. I was editing the Wikipedia article named McDonald's coffee case ... when this possessive form question hit me. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

In informal speech, some people do say stuff like "McDonald's's" (pronounced roughly "McDonaldz-iz"). In writing, however, I don't think this is ever marked; just "McDonald's CEO) is what would be written. It's along the same lines as not writing an extra s for the possessive of a plural ("all the states'", not *"all the states's"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a "double possessive". But you don't write 's's ever. Either it gets trunkated to 's or you use an 'avoidance strategy' such as using of. The McDonald's phrase could be rephrased as "The new marketing campaign from McDonalds...". Something like "St. John's's skyline" could become "[the] skyline of St. John's". --Pykk (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just as we can say "The Pepsi ad campaign was ...", we could say "The McDonald's ad campaign was ...". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to quibble, but I think "The ____" is fulfilling a different linguistic function there than it did in the OP's original sentence. At least, I don't think we can say "The Pepsi new marketing campaign was so successful..." which sounds very off to my ears. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your inflexibility shall condemn you to linguistic purgatory. Simply adjust the word order and you get "The new Pepsi marketing campaign was so successful..." which sounds delightful to ALL ears. ;-) 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. You make an excellent point--that does resolve things! :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's Corporation itself treats its name like a possessive in an appropriate context: [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some stores will drop the apostrophe and avoid this kind of issue - Popeyes Chicken & Biscuits, for example. Others retain it - Bennigan's, for example. An interesting consideration about McDonald's is that it was started by the McDonald brothers, so it could have been McDonalds' or McDonalds's. That would lead to the amusing prospect of calling the corporation's possessive form "McDonalds's's". However, the corporation chose a name that treats the founding family as a singular, and one way to look at it is that they consider "Ronald McDonald" to be the "owner" or at least the corporate icon. It's like it's "his" corporation, and hence any possessive connected with the corporation is also "his". That all sounds kind of goofy, but it works for understanding their usage of the name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We really shouldn't be assuming that food merchants are experts on the use of the apostrophe. Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but the way they use it themselves appears to be consistent with the way I described it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules on emphasizing punctuation

Are there rules or guidelines on what to do with punctuation that touches a bold or italic word? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bold/italic should end before the punctuation, unless you're bolding an entire sentence. So:

No, I said I ate an apple. (punctuation not bold)

I can't believe what just happened. I ate an apple! Can you believe that? (punctuation bold)

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed the style on Wikipedia. In the world of publishing, however, the predominant style, before the advent of computerized typesetting, used to be that a mark of punctuation (unless it was a closing parenthesis or quotation mark or an em dash) was set in the style of the preceding word. Deor (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to that, before the advent of computerized typesetting, boldface was virtually never used for emphasis in running text, so it was just a question of when punctuation marks were italicized and when they weren't. +An gr 21:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but bf was used for other purposes. For instance, in my copy of Webster's New Biographical Dictionary, in which bf is used for the surnames in lemmas, bf commas and periods are used when they immediately follow such surnames. I've seen a variety of other similar uses, as in textbooks in which words that are included in an appended glossary are bolded in the running text. Deor (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a difference between regular periods and italic periods, or would that rule really only be relevant for commas, question marks, and exclamation marks? -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is usually noticeable; boldface periods are "fatter" (like other boldface characters). Compare "." and "." Deor (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a regular period and an italicized period, in that order: compare "." and "." ----- no discernible difference that I can see. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 9 September 2009)

origin of word

The word Benny is used at the shore in New Jersey to describe people who visit the beaches from Northern cities. It is said the word only describes New Yorkers but I think it has a more sinister meaning. Can you find any info on the origin of this word? 69.141.244.77 (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Benny (slang). Nanonic (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin words please

Need the Latin words for November and December. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November and December. They're direct imports into English. Algebraist 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also rendered as Novembris and Decembris, the ninth and tenth months of the Roman calendar. I'm guessing the alternative spelling has to do with Latin "case" or some such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "-is" ending is the third declension genitive singular suffix: Latin declension... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation help please

Could someone please read this and tell me if Crystal Harris is Italian-American? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 21:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. It says "Il magnate è arrivato con la crème de la crème del suo serraglio da Roma, dove ha soggiornato alcuni giorni prima di accompagnare la Harris in Abruzzo, nel paese d' origine della madre della ragazza", which means "The mogul [Hugh Hefner] has arrived with the crème de la crème of his seraglio from Rome, where he stayed a few days before accompanying Harris to Abruzzo, the home country of the girl's mother." +An gr 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dismas|^(talk) 21:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though both meanings exist, I'd translate paese with "village" here, not "country". ("...before accompanying Harris to Abruzzo, to the home village of the girl's mother"). Hugh & Harris already are in the country Italy, before traveling to Abruzzo. In this sense of "country", paese is usually applied to nations or sovereign states, not to Regions of Italy. (or so I think, and it doesn't change the answer to Dismas's question). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Chinese sentence translation assistance please.

This is from an office document:

1－46题采用5级评分制原则，对所列行为表现在工作中出现的频率或达到的程度给予分级评定

I've managed to tease out the following, but I'm not completely happy with it:

Questions 1 through 46 use a 5 point scale. The scale is based on the frequency with which an employee performs an action / meets the criteria of each question.

Dead-literal translation is not the goal. Meaning needs to be preserved, but the English must read like normal English. Suggestions as to how to improve my version, or completely new renditions most welcome. Thank you! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My stab: "Questions 1 - 46 use a 5 point scale to assess the frequency or level of the employee's demonstration of the listed criteria in the course of employment" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a stab... in the back, with all that accumulated genitives and corporate jargon :). Original poster's version was much more understandable. Sorry for being blunt. No such user (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the original poster was uncertain whether his translation was accurate. PalaceGuard's translation may be more accurate and is perfectly understandable. It may also reflect the embedded clauses and corporate style of the original. If it does, that also makes it a better translation. If you are unhappy with PG's translation, No such user, may I suggest that you offer a better translation or at least confirm whether the original poster's translation was accurate. This assumes that you can read Chinese. If not, potshots aren't very helpful. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware I wasn't helpful (well, since I don't speak Chinese, I obviously couldn't be of much help). But sorry, I can not understand "frequency or level of the employee's demonstration of the listed criteria in the course of employment", even if it's an accurate translation of the original. Either I'm stupid, or it is a typical example of a corporate bullshit sentence. I apologize that I assumed that PG was the one who garbled the translation, rather than that it was the original was garbled. But then, the OP stated that "dead-literal translation is not the goal". No such user (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No such user, at the risk of sounding defensive, the sentence was not garbled, just corporate/bureaucrat-esque. I appreciate that you may not be familiar with this register, but that is the register employed by the original sentence, and the context seems to be a business/corporate one.

I've tried to emulate the OP in slightly simplifying the sentences. A more literal translation of "1－46题采用5级评分制原则，对所列行为表现在工作中出现的频率或达到的程度给予分级评定" might run something like this:

Questions 1-46 employ a five-grade grading standard principle, in order to give a graded assessment of the frequency of appearance or the degree of demonstration of the enumerated behaviour and performance in the course of work. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP returns! Yall did alright. I'm still working on that document. It's a translation nightmare - 46 leadership evaluation criteria that are all written in the Chinese version of corporate shorthand - so seriously lacking in subjects, objects, verbs, etc. Thanks for the help! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets

Is there something in the German language that requires brackets in the section title "«Sonderweg» debate" in History of Germany? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what language this heading was sourced from - they may be French quotation marks -- and by extension, Swiss (including Swiss German) quotation marks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In German (outside Switzerland) the guillemets would face the opposite way: »Sonderweg«. However, this is the English Wikipedia and per WP:MOS we use "typewriter quotes" here, so I've changed them in the article. +An gr 09:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

women, woven

Why does the word women have such a unique pronunciation? (Is it unique?) So different from woven and the likes? --Omidinist (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone will be along soon to clarify better than me, but for starters, the pronounciation stems from the ethymology of the word. I found this: "late O.E. wimman (pl. wimmen), lit. "woman-man," alteration of wifman (pl. wifmen), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in O.E. used in ref. to both sexes; see man)."

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/woman TomorrowTime (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually has a strange spelling, since the spelling of the plural was assimilated to the spelling of the singular, but pronunciation remained distinct... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird enough to merit a spot in the word "fish". --Sean 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be noted that words exist as spoken before the exist as written; that is orthography follows pronounciation, it does not determine it. The letter "o" for example represents several sounds in English, so it is not suprising that two words that share that letter actually have different initial vowels (like women and woven). Consider other examples like food/good or comb/bomb/tomb. Its just that a) there aren't enough vowel letters to represent all of the vowel sounds in English and b) there really cannot be a one-to-one correspondance bewteen vowel sounds and letters, since different dialects of English use different vowels for the same words (consider, for example, all the ways "house" gets pronounced). --Jayron32 20:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All these ol' Germanic words originally had vowels that went towards 'e' in the plural form, which usually means an umlaut. In English we all know "man/men". German has "Mann/Männer" "Apfel/Äpfel" (apple/apples) whereas Swedish is "Äpple/Äpplen" originally "Apel/Äpple" (the plural having become the singular). What's interesting here is that since it was 'wimmen' in late O.E., the pronunciation has stayed almost the same. It seems what's happened here is that the singular "wimman" had a change of vowel to /ʊ/, where the plural didn't. The /ʊ/ got represented as an 'o' which somehow got transfered onto the plural (either then or later, I don't know). Hence: "woman/women". --Pykk (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your useful comments, you Sean for that impressive fish story, and you Jayron for reminding this great fact: words exist as spoken before they exist as written. --Omidinist (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

german names, meanings

What do these German names mean: Schopenhauer, Nietszche, Kierkegaard, Hitler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.39.43 (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... that someone either hates philosophy OR is a neo-nazi? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess: (1) It's time to go shopping (2) I need you (3) Bodyguard to the captain of the Enterprise (4) Adolf Hitler is an anagram of "Heil old fart".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL . . . I once saw a sign that looked like it was written in German but once you started reading it out loud then you realized it was just English words dressed up like German. Sort of like Dog Latin. It was funny. L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hauer means 'cutter' [6]. The origin of Schopen is proving difficult to find.

I think Nietszche comes from Russian. Kierkegaard is Danish, and at first guess, has something to do with "church", from kirke.

On Hitler, In 1876, he took the surname of his stepfather, Johann Georg Hiedler. The name was spelled Hiedler, Huetler, Huettler and Hitler, and was probably regularized to Hitler by a clerk. The origin of the name is either "one who lives in a hut" (Standard German Hütte), "shepherd" (Standard German hüten "to guard", English heed), or is from the Slavic word Hidlar and Hidlarcek. (Regarding the first two theories: some German dialects make little or no distinction between the ü-sound and the i-sound.)

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only one of these names with a transparent meaning is Kierkegaard, which is Danish, not German. It means churchyard. +An gr 09:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schopenhauer comes from Low German "Schopen" ("Schöpfkelle" in modern German, "ladle" in English, though the cognate word is probably "scoop"). Someone who hammers ladles into shape ("der Schopen zuhaut"). The corresponding High German name is Schaffenhauer. (Albert Heintze, Die Deutschen Familiennamen — geschichtlich, geographisch, sprachlich, p 255/256, Adamant Media Corporation, ISBN 1421224070). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Nietzsche, the name is more likely Polish, not Russian. Nietzsche himself was proud of his Polish descent, even wrote that it was the Polish blood in German veins that made Germany such a great nation, and he wrote a text on the origin of the family Nietzsche, stating that they came from a family of Polish nobility named Nietzki. The Polish aristocratic name Nicki has also been suggested. What these names mean in Polish I have no clue, I hope Kpalion or others might have something to say about that. Will still be looking for something more recent, more definitive, and more reliable, but that's what I found so far. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar check

Can someone please tell me if the following is grammatical, and if not, can they fix it :)

Traffic in Samoa now drives on the left side of the road, the first country to make such a switch in nearly 40 years.

Other suggestions have included:

Samoa becomes the first territory for 30 years to switch the side of the road which it drives on.
Samoa switches the side of the road that traffic drives on becoming the first country in nearly 40 years to do so.

But I don't really like them. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is incorrect because grammatically "the first country" refers back to "Traffic" or "road", not "Samoa." I suggest:

Traffic in Samoa now drives on the left side of the road: Samoa is the first country to make such a switch in nearly 40 years. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a colon, huh? That might work. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would use a semicolon instead. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, I just posted it. A semi-colon would work as well, although I can see why a colon was suggested ... what do others think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Traffic in Samoa now drives on the left side of the road, making it the first country to make such a switch in nearly 40 years. The "it" is perhaps technically ambiguous, but avoids the rather inelegant duplication of "Samoa". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this, but didn't like the repetition of the verb "make". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following might also work:

Traffic now drives on the left side of the road in Samoa, the first country to make such a switch in nearly 40 years.

@87: are you sure "the first country" could refer back to "Traffic" in the original example? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think this is the best wording, and it has now been changed to this on the main page. Thanks all. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the original example certainly won't do, for the reason stated by 87. Zain Ebrahim's version is the most elegant so far, but – like most of the versions – it has a fundamental flaw: it assumes that the switch has to be from right to left. Presumably we're just talking about countries which have made the switch, regardless of which way the switch has gone. So "such a switch" in Zain's example refers back to the fact that Samoa has switched from right to left. But Britain, for example, currently drives on the left, so if they had made a switch there, it would have been to the right. I hope I've explained myself properly; the point is that you need to encompass both possibilities. Something like "Samoa has changed the side traffic drives on from right to left, making it the first country to change the driving side in nearly 40 years." --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "traffic drives", period. People drive, traffic doesn't drive. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would replace "traffic drives on" with "traffic keeps to". Marco polo (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing wrong with the original sentence (though I agree that 'traffic drives' is not optimal). The claim that 'the first country' refers back to 'traffic' or 'road' is bogus, because it ignores the crucial part of linguistics called pragmatics. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer "Drivers now use the left side of the road in Samoa, the first country in nearly 40 years to make the switch from right to left hand side driving." Traffic doesn't "drive" as such, although this is not a outright error. And in my construction, Samoa is more closely linked with the second half of the sentence, which deals with the legal change. Someone might quibble that it is not only drivers of cars who now use the left side of the road, but there is no need to have legally watertight definitions in such contexts. My construction makes it clear what kind of change was made. Also, beginning the sentence with "drivers" makes it stronger and neater. Myles325a (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like the "switch from right to left" part of your sentence – maybe you didn't notice my post above? The point being made is presumably that no country had changed the side it drives on in 40 years. So the construction needs to allow for the possibility that a country could have changed from left to right. I would change the second half of your sentence to "the first country in nearly 40 years to switch its driving side." --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cordycepin pronounciation

How do you pronounce cordycepin? It's an antibiotic. Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the pronunciation of the species name of the fungus (Cordyceps) from which it's derived is any indication (not necessarily a valid assumption, I know), /ˌkɔrdəˈsɛpɪn/ might be likely. Deor (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor is exactly right. I checked in my favorite dictionary. Just in case you can't read IPA, it would be something like car-duh-SEP-in. :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I form the female equivalents of each of these French nouns?

I know that some nouns (such as un professeur) remain the same even when referring to a female, but others (such as un chien) have alternate feminine forms. However, I was unable to find the feminine forms of these nouns, so could someone please help me with this?

un cheval
un guide
un témoin
un renard
un cheminot
un coq
un agent de police
un rhinocéros

--76.211.89.20 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that un coq would be une poule and guide, témoin, and agent would stay the same (une guide, etc.). Not sure about the others. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Any good French or French-English dictionary that gives one form will tell you whether there's a variation for the other gender. If there isn't, then it will say something like

Professeur nom masc. et fem. or n.m. & f.

And, having written that, I consulted "Professeur" in my Petit Larousse Illustré 2004, and it only gives n. m. My French idiom isn't strong enough that I can't confidently say whether one could, or would, never write something like "Marie Blanc, le professeur d'histoire". However Larousse does give

RENARDE n.f. Renard femelle. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(aside) Of course, Renard translates "fox", while renarde translates "vixen", since the English animal names differ. But that doesn't explain the transferred use to women; most women would be flattered to be called "a fox" or "foxy" but not pleased by being called "a vixen" or "vixenish". —— Shakescene (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after two edit conflicts)

un cheval = une jument;
un renard = une renarde;
un coq = une poule;
un rhinocéros = une rhinocéros and is not to be translated as une rhinocère (that is either the fabled land of the rhinoceros or someone from the Rhineland) (update after further research).
une guide, une témoin, une cheminot, une agent do not change (but Madame le Ministre is strongly supported by the Académie Française). -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"La professeuse" is a non-standard feminine form, used in a jokey way as far as I understand. I always learned to call female professors "le professeur" or just "le prof". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion as to whether to feminise a form or not in the world of employment stems partly from the distinction between a job (métier) or a function (fonction), especially in the domain of public functions (of which professeur is one), furthermore complicated by the notion of protocol.[7]. Hence "Les différents guides du protocole sont peu diserts sur la question. Ils préconisent d'adopter la forme féminine du substantif, lorsque celle-ci existe, et d'employer, faute de mieux, le masculin lorsqu'un titre ou une fonction ne comporte pas de forme féminine. Ainsi, le bon usage serait d'employer la forme féminine lorsqu'un titre en a une : on écrirait donc l'avocate, la présidente, la conseillère, la secrétaire, l'adjointe, l'inspectrice, la pharmacienne, la députée. On dirait en revanche une femme professeur, une femme médecin, une femme ingénieur, Madame le Maire et Madame le Ministre. En appliquant ce principe à l'exercice par les individus de leur fonction, on aurait ainsi : Colette est un grand écrivain, la pharmacienne est titulaire du diplôme de pharmacien, Mme Loubet est professeur agrégé." . This can be circumvented by using 'enseignant(e)' (someone who teaches) as opposed to 'professeur' (someone holding the title of the public function 'teacher'). Oddly, institutrice, maîtresse, directrice de l'école passed into common use fairly easily, whereas la professeur has not. The debate in France is endless. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French are very protective of their language; unlike English, where most authoritative dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary, attempt to be descriptive (show how people use language" rather than proscriptive (tell people how they SHOULD use language), the French have extablished the Académie française, which is a proscriptive body, and which determines the usage of official French. There is no official English because there is no body to enforce it. While officially the Académie holds no force of law (it cannot force people to follow its rulings) in reality, it weilds great power over usage in France. --Jayron32 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English is said to be the most democratic language. We'll bring any word into the language if we think it fits. Then, of course, we proceed to butcher the pronunciation. Like pronouncing the French word filet as "fill-it". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Chinese translation, please

This one stumped me: a request to translate "world's joy" into Chinese, as a name for a panda. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have to be limited to two characters? There isn't an exact one-character term for "world". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably; most are called Ling Ling, or something childish like that. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are pandas; they're meant to be cuddly and not have names like Kwok-kwan. By analogy to Guanshiyin, "seer of the world's sounds", I would use 世 (Shi) for "world". Joy could be something like 喜, 欢, 乐, etc. The first is probably the more literary term for "joy", but I'm not sure that "Shixi" would sound all that nice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can really translate names with literally meaning intact without sounding really weird to native speakers. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an infinite variety in Chinese names. It's not so much about sounding "normal" as sounding nice. There's little choice for "World", so I think DOR could play around with the "Joy" part to get something that sounds pleasant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's infinite variety with names in most languages, but modern English speakers (and others of European descent) primarily use hereditary names from languages they can't even speak anymore. So all unfamiliar names sound strange to native English speakers. :) Indeterminate (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I'm leaning toward "Shi-shi," but haven't come up with a character for the second part. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, shi can be feces, corpse, and shi-shi is homonym to 逝世(passing away). --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention 试试（看） ("give it a try"), also pronounced shìshi.

That being said, trying to come up with a Chinese name that is totally immune to puns would be quite a Sisyphean endeavor. Chinese speakers will always find something... (my favorite right now is 艾滋病 -〉爱资病) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the surname "Seay"

My fiancee's last name is Seay. As an amateur etymologist with a special interest in name origins, I'd love to know exactly what that means - especially since it's going to be hyphenated onto mine after we marry! All we know at present is that it's Scottish, can be pronounced several different ways (no one EVER gets it right on the first try anyway!), and isn't very common. - She Who Works Industriously to Supplant Atavistic Ways in the Name of Renowned Truth (that's what my name means, seriously!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.238.248 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming it was a homonym of "Shay", as in "One-hoss shay", or "Shea" as in Shea Stadium; but I'm not totally sure. Anyway, I went to Google and simply entered, seay origin, and a bunch of links came up, these being the first two: [8] [9] There is, of course, an article on Seay here also, although it raises more questions than it answers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note of caution, take anything you find on a "family crest" site with a pinch of salt. There are no such things as family crests. Heraldry has strict rules; crests are granted to individuals by an officer of arms, and there are various conventions regarding inheritance and differencing; they are never awarded to surnames. It is usurpation to use another's arms. bucket shops make money by selling dubious, imaginary or usurped crests, and are quite happy to spin any family name history yarn to make it seem authentic. Gwinva (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word crest is not actually synonymous with "coat of arms", anyway... AnonMoos (talk)

Well, a 'coat of arms' is literally a garment; but yes, the crest and the shield are different parts of the achievement of arms. Funnily enough, if the person in question does turn out to be a member of an ancient Scottish family, there may be some limited entitlement to use herladic devices relating to the clan, which would not be the case for a typical member of an English family. However, I'm no expert on the fine print of Scottish clan heraldry, and the Court of Lord Lyon, which is responsible for such matters, tends to be a lot more vigorous with those who get it wrong than the equivalent authorities here in England. None of which is to gainsay in any way the general rule against trusting 'family crest' agencies, who are basically scam merchants. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address of the poster tracks to Verizon, an American ISP. I'll note that there are no laws or regulations (that I'm aware of) in the US regulating who can use coats of arms or other heraldry devices, like there are in the UK. Anyone is free to use them as they see fit, without legal consequence. However there may be interpersonal consequences with others who dislike your unofficial use of the heraldry devices, and if you ever cross the pond you have to be cautious that you won't run afoul of the laws there. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But using someone else's would surely be breach of copyright? Anyway, apologies for ambiguous use of "crest" earlier; I was in bucket-shop terminology mode. The point being, "family crest/arms/name history" companies are charlatans, scams or, possibly well-meaning but misguided. They are certainly not reliable sources. Regarding the OP's original question regarding the name origin, by googling I have found any number of family historians purporting to offer the definitive answer. You can take your pick from Norman, English, Scottish, Irish; from a habitation, from the word "sea", corrupted from other names, taken from first names... Among the plausible suggestions are that it came from O'Shea/Shea in Ireland (and thus, according to Oxford, from O Seaghdha, descendent of a man whose name meant "fine" or "fortunate"); and that it is connected to Say/Saye, an English surname, (which Oxford links to an old Norman habitation name "Sai" in Orne or "Say" in Indre, as well as to makers of "say", a type of finely woven cloth). This last is given some credence by the fact some individuals are listed under both Seay and Say/Saye spellings in censuses and other references.Y ou might find this distribution chart interesting. Also, how do you pronounce it? When I first saw it, I would have suggested Shay or Say (which fit with those suggestions, actually). My google search shows that while those pronounciations are found in the UK, it is more commonly "See" in the US. Which is possibly a later corruption, and causes some people to link it to the vocab word "sea", and thus menaing that the original holder lived by the sea. Gwinva (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the copyright question, it would probably depend on when the original crest was issued. If it was before 1923, it's considered in the public domain. See here. Indeterminate (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in traditional European-based heraldry, the authoritative definition of a coat of arms is the textual description or blazon, and many different artistic depictions derived from the blazon can be considered acceptable renderings of the arms. So if you create a new artistic rendering from scratch, based on the blazon, then you own the copyright to your own particular version of the arms (regardless of whether the arms existed before 1923 or not)... It's only when you want to make use of somebody else's artistic rendering that the 1923 rule etc. etc. comes into play. AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original questioner needs to follow the advice in this song. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translations of The Name of the Rose passages?

There are many Latin passages in Umberto Eco’s novel of above name. Too many to list here and ask for translations. There are also passages in other languages. Is there any site that has translations of such passages in books? Myles325a (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book that does so (The Key to "The Name of the Rose"). There doesn't seem to be an online list. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google books - "name+of+the+rose"+deciphered&source=bl&ots=2lK3_Cjqxp&sig=J5ni1g7uESmvW9WTM9hhGparb-Y&hl=en&ei=qO-nSqONAs-fjAfk9M22CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ,not sure how complete it is.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American English dictionary?

Is there an authoritative dictionary of American English used by American media, gov't, academics, etc? I'm especially interested in variant spellings of odd words and which spelling is preferred. --Sonjaaa (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best known is Webster's Dictionary. See also Category:English_dictionaries.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions on variant spelling are the province of a style guide, not a dictionary (a good dictionary should list all variants in use). The US government uses the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, while (according to our article) the Chicago Manual of Style is standard for books and the Associated Press Stylebook is standard for newspapers. Algebraist 10:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "Webster's Dictionary" doesn't actually mean anything, as anyone can call their dictionary "Webster's". The definitive unabridged dictionary of American English is Webster's Third New International Dictionary, published by Merriam-Webster (which does mean something as that name is still a defended trademark). However, some purists reject it as not being ~~authoritarian~~ authoritative enough, and therefore prefer the unabridged edition of the American Heritage Dictionary. There are plenty of other dictionaries, of course, but I'd say those are the big two: Merriam-Webster for descriptive issues, American Heritage for prescriptive issues. +An gr 12:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to Sonjaaa's question is that, no, there is no single authoritative dictionary or standard source of preferred spellings in the United States. For most words, the two leading dictionaries mentioned by Angr agree on a single spelling. However, for words with variant spellings, there is often no universal standard in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's Third New International Dictionary is "definitive" for the copywriters working to maintain its sales, not for anyone else who isn't gullible. As American English is a natural and not a formal language, the notion of a "definitive dictionary" is somewhat absurd; although there does exist Words and Phrases Legally Defined (LexisNexis/Butterworth's), a copy of whose 4th and latest edition (with latest supplement) will put you back quite a bit. Merriam-Webster is a good dictionary, but it's hugely oversized for a single volume and needs careful storage unless you want it to turn into the repulsive object on offer at the average library. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoti

Inspired by the 'woman/women' question above, I would like to ask a question about the word 'ghoti'. In the article, it mentions that the word has been used as is as the name for characters in books, a word in Klingon and in other things. In these cases, how is the word pronounced? This is not mentioned in the article. I would assume, in order to keep the obscurity, the word would not be pronounced 'fish', but in some way that would more readily reflect its spelling (as if it were Latin, for example), but I am unsure as to the pronunciation of the 'gh' (is the 'h' pronounced separately or is it even silent?) and the 'o' (is it long or short?). Any ideas? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon gh is supposed to be ɣ. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the band Ghoti Hook says they said it like "goatee". --Sean 16:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would pronounce this go-dee (where the "d" is the sound of the "tt" in latter). L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How do you differentiate "latter" and "ladder"? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks don't; similar to "water" and "wadder," especially if you're not trying to speak slowly; not uncommon in the American midwest. In context, when you're painting the hallway, you rarely ask someone for help with the latter. Nor would you ask directions to the Ladder-Day Saints church. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, some people don't differentiate Adam and atom. --Kjoonlee 23:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is how "grotesque" evolved into "grody". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the whole point of "Ghoti" is that it is pronounced "fish", and that only those in the know get the joke. // BL \\ (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Either they don't get the point, or they're trying to be funny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the existence of fishhooks and the nonexistence of goatee-hooks, I'd say the latter. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faintly ridiculous

I keep hearing this expression, usually from UK-speakers, and it intrigues me. "Faintly" seems to be an understated way of saying "frankly" or some other adverb, as a strengthener of "ridiculous", but I've never heard it used with any other adjective in order to strengthen it. Any clues what this is about? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I don't think it's a "strengthener"; rather a "toner-down" or "understater," I'd say, with the sense of "somewhat [or 'rather'] ridiculous." I'm from the midwestern U.S., not the UK, but I hear it all the time and probably use it without thinking about it myself: a "faintly amusing" TV program, a "faintly charming" woman, a "faintly odd" series of events, etc. I presume that it's an extension of the "indistinct" sense of faint. Deor (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Faintly Macabre" is the name of a character in The Phantom Tollbooth... AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any examples of this usage? In the interest of OR, I don't think I've ever heard this during my time in the UK. Martlet1215 (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it here and there (I'm a Brit) but it's not very common. As for usage, googling 'faintly' gives 2.6 million hits, and many of them are examples of usage. For starters, here's one. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incipient humor is the best part of humor. When something is all out funny, it is not so funny. "Faintly ridiculous" suggests that moment when it dawns on you that humor is underfoot, or that something is "funny." I think that is what the phrase aims for. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English has (as usual) changed somewhat since I lived there oh so many moons ago. Found this example which reminds me of the reinforced damning phrase "distinctly mediocre". -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some real-world examples:

The sense of the first one is "completely ridiculous" or "absolutely ridiculous". Some of the others are debatable. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, this just goes to show the inadequacy of my experiences. Martlet1215 (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Obscure Latin Maxim

A number of web-based lists of Latin maxims/quotations have the following:

Oblitus sum perpolire clepsydras! - I forgot to polish the clocks![www.yuni.com/library/latin_5.html]

Is this classical Latin? (I realize clepsydras is classical or hellenistic Greek) Perhaps more importantly, what is the import of this statement? Is it a metaphor? Many thanks --152.3.129.131 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's real Latin, although I don't know the significance either. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clepsydra (literally "water-stealer") is a specific kind of water-clock, and not really the word for "clock" in general. AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I heard someone say "I forgot to polish the clocks", I would guess that he meant he had forgotten to clarify something, esp. the time of something.--Omidinist (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Radium

In what year did the word radium become known to the public? 89.240.57.97 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at or just after 1898, when it was discovered by Marie Skłodowska Curie and her husband Pierre Curie. Xenon54 / talk / 00:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were so proud of this discovery that they glowed in the dark. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data point: In 1910, Ezra Pound clearly expected his readers to know what he was talking about when he wrote (in the introduction to his translations of Guido Cavalcanti's poems), "La virtù is the potency, the efficient property of a substance or person. Thus modern science shows us radium with a noble virtue of energy." Deor (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Strindberg, 1907 "En blå bok": "Was ist radium? all chemists of honor and sense still ask." (His answer: Barium sulfate. He went rather insane towards the end, ol' Strindberg) --Pykk (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Slovak Lanugage Standard That Had Been Confsicated By Hungarians, Shelved In A Hungarian Library Due To Hungarian Censorship Out Of Magyarization And Polish Dialects That Were Once Languages That Ar

I remember goggling about Slovak and Anton Bernolak's standard, and came across a standard that had been confiscated by Hungarian authorities out of hungarian censorship 'cause Magyarization and found much later in a Hungarian library. I can't find this standard now. Does anyone know about it?

What are the differences between this standard and Bernolakish?

In a version of Polish language, I remember reading in it's ==History== that Polish dialects where languages but presently, they have converged to be so similar to the standard Polish that they are mutually intelligible. I can't find this on the present version, nor on the older versions. Am I imagining things?174.3.110.93 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a rather basic English grammar question

Too much time overseas is worsening my grammar. Which does the Language Desk like best?

A) Accurately foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions, and develop contingency plans accordingly in advance.

B) Accurately foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions, and in advance develop contingency plans accordingly.

C) Accurately foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions, and develop contingency plans in advance accordingly.

D) Accurately foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions, and develop in advance contingency plans accordingly.

E) Other (please provide your own iteration).

Thank you, 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might find a more concrete (but equally accurate or more accurate) way of expressing the substance behind these semi-clauses, if we had more context. Is this for example, from a job description or curriculum vitae or request for applicants? Aren't impacts and consequences essentially the same thing, or is one sense included within the other? Could "accordingly" be replaced by "appropriate" or "the requisite"? Are you stuck with these specific words because they've already been prescribed by a committee or by bureaucratic compromise and consensus? —— Shakescene (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are appropriate. I depends on the situation you are using.174.3.110.93 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation I'm actually working from a document originally written in Chinese. Eliminating either impacts or consequences is easily done. Using accordingly is true to the original language, but appropriate would be smoother... 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see, it's rather a different (and very old) problem, how much to translate the literal words, and how much (the translator's interpretation of) the sense behind them. (For example, Edward Fitzgerald's translation of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam is a classic of English poetry, but it's said by some to be better than the good original because the translation isn't literal.) If you're translating what I think is the sense behind the words, you can throw out several of those words and just write something roughly like

Accurately foresee the results of major decisions and use those predictions to develop appropriate contingency plans

(In other words, almost exactly what both Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush failed to do in 2002-3.) But in the rare cases when I'm translating, I like to keep as much of the original wording and phrasing as I can, partly because I'm less than perfectly fluent or idiomatic in any language besides English, and partly because every original word has a cluster of associated nuances, connotations and meanings that might apply to the total sense. For example, "accordingly" is implicit in the second semi-clause and "in advance" is already included in the meaning of "contingency plan" (if you develop them after the event, they're not contingency plans). Keeping closer to what I divine to be the meaning of the original Chinese, I'd try something like

Foresee the impacts and consequences of major decisions accurately and (accordingly) develop contingency plans ahead of time

But only you can tell how well that matches the original. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is just about the order of a bunch of adverbials, C is by far the best. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think so? I like A the best. Indeterminate (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. "...and accordingly develop contingency plans in advance." Eyethangyew. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "in advance" superfluous when speaking about contingency plans? One can hardly develop them after the event. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish equivalent of the name Harriet

Is there one? if not, is there a Swedish name close to it?

thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet is an English form of the French Henriette which is, of course, a feminine form of Henri, which in Swedish is Hendrik. That's as far as I can take you, but someone else might know how to feminise it. Gwinva (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, WHAAOE. Henrietta tells us that the Swedish form is Henrika. Of course, I should have looked first at Harriet (name) which tells us the same thing. Also, "Rika" is a short form. Gwinva (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way (and I know this from experience) Harriet (etc) means "ruler of the house". It can be strangely apt... Gwinva (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have a Harriet ourselves, and it is certainly a case of nominative determinism... Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet is itself not unusual as a given name in Sweden, though it is not so popular nowadays. See for instance Harriet Bosse, Harriet Andersson. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think it's probably the most common variant of the name. The census says 9463 "Harriet"s in Sweden, versus 3797 "Henrietta", 1374 "Henriette" (the French but in Sweden more likely Danish/Norwegian version), 2462 "Henny"s, 343 "Henrika"s.. Anyone got any others? --Pykk (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm a goose - I should have realised there's an article about the name Harriet! and better still, it has the versions in many languages - such an exhaustive article! Sorry everyone, I've sort of wasted your time - thanks heaps for your responses. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does this ambiguous statement mean?

From http://epic.iarc.fr/keyfindings.php

"Intake of milk and cheese was significantly associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk. The data suggested an inverse association for yogurt."

Does that mean that consuming yogurt reduces the risk of colon cancer, or increases it? And similarly for other similar statements on that webpage. Thanks. 89.242.155.121 (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 477: / Line 477: @@
 :::Ah, I'm a goose - I should have realised there's an article about the name Harriet! and better still, it has the versions in many languages - such an exhaustive article! Sorry everyone, I've sort of wasted your time - thanks heaps for your responses. [[User:Adambrowne666|Adambrowne666]] ([[User talk:Adambrowne666|talk]]) 11:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
+== What does this ambiguous statement mean?   ==
+From http://epic.iarc.fr/keyfindings.php
+"Intake of milk and cheese was significantly associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk. The data suggested an inverse association for yogurt."
+Does that mean that consuming yogurt reduces the risk of colon cancer, or increases it?  And similarly for other similar statements on that webpage. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/89.242.155.121|89.242.155.121]] ([[User talk:89.242.155.121|talk]]) 12:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)