Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 19

"Obligated"?

Why do Americans use the clunky contruction "obligated" rather than the word "obliged"? 92.29.45.37 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, although to my ears "obliged" sounds like an empty social nicety ("Much obliged"), whereas "obligated" suggests serious consequences. Marco polo (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Different dialects use different words, and 'clunky' is subjective. I could just as easily ask, "Why do Brits use the clunky word 'redundancies' rather than the nice word 'layoffs'?" (And that question would fit nicely with these economic times.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of paired words like that in English, where one has -at- or -ate and the other doesn't, and the meanings are the same or overlapping. Prevent(at)ive, interpret(at)ive, comment(ate), orient(ate), puls(at)e, sublim(at)e, transfigur(at)e, administer/administrate. Generally they arise either because of the different derivational paths that words may follow from Latin to English, or by back formation from the suffix -ation. If you're only used to one of the two forms, the other looks wrong and ugly, but someone else may find it quite normal. --Anonymous, 03:33:33 UTC, November 19, 2009.

We are obligated to use obliged when we are obliged to use obligated. Bus stop (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, who can argue with that? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, obliged in its use as an "empty social nicety" was apparently sometimes pronounced "obleezhd"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why yes, noblesse obleezh! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, hardly anyone ever says the antiquated "amongst" and "whilst", preferring "among" and "while", but some feel the need to use the former, antiquated words in encyclopedic and formal writing. Odd. Very odd. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some feel that formal texts require a formal style of writing. Some languages have literary forms for this purpose (like Welsh); English speakers can just dig out some words you don't hear every day. It would be a dull world if people didn't do odd things. Alansplodge (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense: Jack, are you making a point about people assuming their dialect is normal and other dialectal usage is abnormal? Or, after all these years, do you really not know that British people widely use amongst and whilst in their daily speech? 86.142.231.220 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How impertinent! But thank you for enlightening me about the speech of the British people, a people hitherto known to me only from myths and legends and half-told tales. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Exchange messages from

The following sentence from the New Yorker puzzles me somehow:

The treatment of Gazan detainees is harsh; since 2007, they have been barred from any family visits, though they 
can exchange messages from family members.

Is it "exchange messages from" or "exchange messages with"? In the former case, I get the impression that detainees exchange messages from family members among themselves. In the later, it seems to make more sense to me, they send their families messages and get messages back. Am I right?Mr.K. (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. 'From' is not normal usage here, and it's the first time I've heard of it. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say it ought to be "with". To me that sentance is a poor piece of writing: too many commas - it meanders along. I would write it as "The treatment of Gazan detainees is harsh. Since 2007 they have been barred from any family visits, although they can exchange messages with family members." I am not sure but it may also be written in the passive voice, which is thought to be bad journalism. My guess at re-writing it in the active voice would be: "Gazan detainees have been barred from having visitors since 2007, although they can exchange messages with family members." 78.144.197.46 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, two points. One, your 'guess at rewriting' is not in active voice. Don't worry, many people misunderstand what passive and active voice mean, and it is a topic that has been frequently covered on Language Log; see, for example, [1][2][3].

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with the original sentence as written. Particularly, using a semicolon suggests a connection between the two parts (specifically, "treatment is harsh, and this visits/letters thing is an example of that") which your version with a period does not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If "The treatment of Gazan detainees is harsh." was the first sentance in a paragraph, then there is enough connection with the rest of it. Even being followed by the other sentance is enough of a connection I think. I'd be interested to see the original written in the active voice. 78.146.97.208 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When I read "that sentance is a poor piece of writing", I usually disregard whatever comes next. Sorry, but if you want to criticise others' writing, you have to be squeaky clean yourself, particularly when it comes to spelling such a fundamental language concept as "sentence". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacking the person is a poor arguement. Enough already. 78.146.97.208 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly did not attack the person. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read any of the links above yet? The original contains three clauses, two of which are in active voice (and the one that is passive, you left as passive in your 'guess at rewriting'). "Treatment is harsh" and "can exchange messages" are active; "have been barred" is passive. Again, see the articles on active voice and passive voice. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

the context would seem to give a clue. it would be the harsh treatment that excludes family members from each other, similar to the Jewish ghettoes of Poland and Amsterdam in 1941. That would result in family members sharing messages FROM other members. Only in extreme cases would it seem that even messages would be restricted so I would question the use of 'though'in the original statement.91.125.232.90 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One exchanges messages with others. One receives messages from others. If people are exchanging messages from others, that to me implies that they are exchanging messages from others with others. In other words, the statement suggests that Gaza detainees can receive messages from family members and that they then share those messages with other detainees. It isn't clear whether Gaza detainees can send messages to family members. I suspect that the sentence you've quoted is a mistake, likely the result of hasty editing, and that the writer really meant "with family members". Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Echoing Marco polo, it was probably just a copyediting mistake (one person wrote "receive...from", another tried to change it to "exchange...with" and missed a word. or vice versa). Happens pretty frequently in publishing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only am I not that thing OR Not only I am not that thing?

?Mr.K. (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

'Not only am I' is correct. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the context. "Not only am I not X, I'm not Y either" is correct, but so is "Not only I am not X, you are not X either". In other words, if you say "Not only am I not X", it means "X is just one of the things that I'm not", while if you say "Not only I am not X", it means "I'm not the only one who isn't X". +Angr 12:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the distinction you are making, Angr, and I will admit that in your second case, "Not only I am not..." may not be incorrect, but to my ears it sounds wrong and awkward. To my ears, the best form in both cases would be "Not only am I not..." In your second case, in spoken English, one would emphasize the word I by using a higher tone. Marco polo (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I would say "am I" in both cases and would distinguish them through intonation and emphasis. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with that. If you were talking on the phone to someone who believes you're alone, and you wanted to let them know that's not the case, you'd probably say "I'm not alone" or "I can't talk now", but you might (just barely) say "Not only I am/is/are here". Or, for "It's not just me (who's) saying this", you might prefer "Not only I am saying this". But both those formulations are very non-standard, and the choice of verb is contentious, to say the least. Other than that, "Not only I am" is unheard of among native speakers. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In Jack's cases, as he suggests, I think it is far more usual to say "I am not the only one who is saying this" or "It's not just me who's saying this" than to say "Not only I am saying this." Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

special

why does language use such contorted language to describe people? I just heard on Radio 4 the language used by the authorities in the Soviet Union and in the Eastern Bloc post 1945. Several times the word special was used, such as the Special Police-the stasi- and special people as in those in prison or under surveillance for crimes against the state. the same is true in education in the States where the term special education and students has changed original derogatory language against such students in the classroom or out on the playground. Such euphenism(?) is also seen in contortion with the ever changing acronyms ESL, ELSOl( English AS a Second Other Language) which then ironically lose any meaning themselves. Is there any link between the institutions of the Soviet Union and the U.S Department of Education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.232.90 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the Soviet Union or the Eastern Bloc ever had a monopoly on "spin" or the political manipulation of language. Politicians and bureaucrats of every ideological stripe have long devised labels that aim to present unpleasant or embarrassing concepts in more appealing terms. Marco polo (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See Euphemism and Spin (public relations). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also see Political correctness. — Michael J 19:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Special" means "specific", it is the opposite of "general". It can be used to refer to anything that is different from the norm. Special police are like police but different in some way. Children with special educational needs have educational needs in the same way as other children, but they are slightly different needs. Special Relativity is much the same as General Relativity, but applies is only a small subset of situations. The use of "special" to mean unusual in a positive way is only one meaning of the word. I'm not sure what you are saying about ESL - I think the name was changed because it was inaccurate. English can be learnt as a third language, or a fourth or whatever else. --Tango (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a horrible phase a little while ago when children with cancer or a host of other conditions were dubbed "special children". Of course they required special treatment, but how appalling for those poor unfortunate other children who weren't blessed with bad health. The message for them was "You have to be sick to be special. If you're healthy, you're just ordinary". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In didn't take long in British schools for "special" to become a playground insult. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not just in the playground. In the 1960s, Bill Cosby had a whole routine about "Special Class", dating to when he was a kid in school, and centering on the fact that those kids, whom he likened to Mortimer Snerd, seemed to be having a lot of fun while he and his "not so special" classmates had to work hard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to want

Is there an easy, colloquial way in English to say "not to want" to mean just the absence of wanting something, not wanting its opposite? JIP | Talk 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, most things don't have opposites, so when I say, for example, "I don't want a horse", it just means that I don't want a horse. It doesn't mean that I want the opposite of a horse, whatever that might be. Even when something has an opposite, "I don't want..." doesn't necessarily imply that you want the opposite. For example, "I don't want to be rich" does not imply that I want to be poor. Of course, there are cases where you have only two options, and not wanting one does imply wanting the other. For example, "I don't want to be ill" implies that I want to be healthy, because a person is either one or the other. Is there some other shade of meaning you want to communicate? Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think what he means is the distinction between, for example, "I don't want to be rich [but if I end up that way, ok]" and "I don't want to be rich [I want to not be rich!]". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. The most direct way to say that is "I don't care if I get rich", or, in a more formal register, "I don't care whether I become rich". Marco polo (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say "I don't want to be rich" means you lack a desire for richness, while "I want to not be rich" means you have a desire for non-richness. The difference is too subtle for many and I often see people get it wrong, but that is what the phrases mean. --Tango (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"I don't want to be X", for many English speakers, is an idiom that means exactly "I want to not be X". Idioms aren't "wrong". This idiom also works with other verbs of preference, so that "I don't like spam" actually means "I dislike spam". Anyway, you can get the other meaning across by adding an adverb, such as "I don't particularly want to be rich". rspεεr (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This can also be of an illocutionary force (illocutionary intention) in pragmatics. Let’s say for example, in a family of three (dad, mom, and a young boy) where mom drives very nice car and the dad drives not a fashioned one, and the son said in an occasion--‘No, I do not want you car’ when the dad asked his son ‘Do you want to take my car to your party today?’ Here, the illocutionary force is a non explicit performatives, i.e. to say ‘I want mom’s car’; the absence of wanting something.--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I might say "I have no desire to go" or "I don't particularly want to go" to indicate absence of desire (the former is purely absence of desire, at least with the proper nonchalant intonation, whereas the latter conveys some, but not strong, opposition), and "I don't want to go" with matter-of-fact intonation to indicate explicit opposition to going. But "I don't want to go" with a high tone on want (the same as in the 'particularly' example) also indicates absence of desire, whereas "I don't want to go" with a low tone on want indicates adamant refusal, and sounds a bit pissed off. If you want to be really clear about your opposition, but to state it matter-of-factly without sounding pissed off, for instance patiently explaining to someone who's a bit clueless, you could also say "I want to not go". kwami (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'm okay either way." Or in a more general sense, "I'm content"? Pfly (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say "I don't particularly want to be rich", you strongly imply that you are indifferent to whether you are rich or not. Thus, "I don't particularly want to be rich" does not have the same meaning as "It is not true that I want to be rich"; the latter leaves it open whether you are averse to being rich or just indifferent. If the OP was looking for a colloquial way of denying a desire to be rich without disclosing whether he is averse to it or just indifferent, the best solution might be "I am not wanting to be rich." —Mathew5000 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "Our friend"

What does [4] in this case Our friend mean? Since FWG is not hertz's friend, could it mena our enemy?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes: "Our friend" is likely being used in a sarcastic manner to mean "our adversary". The only way to answer this question definitively, though, would be to ask the original poster. Xenon54 / talk / 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, "our friend" is in this case synonymous with "block-evading banned user". — Lomn 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "our friend" can frequently be a euphemism for "that asshole", just like "my learned friend" in the mouths of British MPs. +Angr 15:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Or just a less formal equivalent of "our acquaintance"--that is, we've been dealing with him for a long time. But there is an element of sarcasm to it. kwami (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

MP's are "(Right) Honourable friends" (if from the same party), baristers are "learned friends". --Tango (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the point remains, it's a euphemism for "that asshole". +Angr 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In French, we are more intimate and call our collegues confrères from the words "con-" and "frère", meaning brother. It can also be used with sarcasm, as in "mon cher confrère" (my dear colleague), indicating quite the opposite.And if one of my brothers can fix the link so that is an internal one, I will be eternally grateful. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way Angr, "my learned friend" is not used in the House of Commons as you suggest. It is used in the courtroom when one counsel, addressing the judge, refers to the opposing counsel. So as you say, "friend" is used sarcastically. In Parliament, "my honourable friend" (Commons) or "my noble friend" (Lords) refers to a member of the same party, so it is not sarcastic, simply formal. Occasionally "learned" is used when the member referred to is a lawyer ("my noble and learned friend the Attorney General". Sussexonian (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

November 20

Fireplace accessory

People often have a holder next to their home fireplace which holds spare logs and such. What are these called? Is there a specific term for them or is it just "log holder"? Dismas|^(talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "log holder" is it. That's what we call them at home. Bielle (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's a log basket in which case it's called a log basket. These are far more common in the UK than "holders".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Roma (or Romani) for Gypsy

I'm editing a historical museum exhibition text on Nazi concentration and extermination camps. The displays have English-language captions for museum visitors who include native- and non-native speakers, upper-primary school-age on up (basically anyone who can't read the Hebrew or Arabic captions). The newly written text makes several mentions of Gypsies [sic, the period term] in the Chelmno and Auschwitz camps. My query: how well-known is "Roma" as a stand-alone term for this people in general, i.e. as a substitute for the earlier term "Gypsy"? What matters is what's best understood now and in the future, not which term is more "correct." The curator prefers a single term without a gloss in parentheses. Looking at Web evidence of usage is inconclusive, except that "Romani" seems less commonly used (and I'm disinclined to choose that because I suspect it might be mistaken for "Romanian"). My overall impression is that "Gypsy" is unacceptable usage for an educational institution. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed most people belonging to those peoples find the term gypsy offensive. I seem to recall big discussions when a memorial for the victims of the 3rd Reich was to be put up. But back then some of the representatives even contested the use of Sinti and Roma, because it was too exclusive for them. Here is a news article in German on the topic. The term Zigeuner equals the term gypsy there. Personally Id think that Sinti and Roma is more appropriate since that is the given name to both of the major "Gypsy peoples". As a non-native speaker, I might be unable to judge the frequency of usage of those terms though I find them perfectly understandable.--91.6.28.130 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I realize that "Roma" is problematic (as shown on the dab page) for having two meanings: either the all-inclusive for Romani people or for the one major group that doesn't include the Sinti. However, I can't use the combined "Roma and Sinti" without knowing whether both, or either, were interned in Chelmno and Auschwitz. (The researcher's original text, in Hebrew, doesn't make that distinction.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the term "Gypsy" could have a broader meaning than intended. That is, rather than referring just to the ethnic group in question, the term is often applied to anyone who moves from town to town without a permanent residence. Another concern is that using modern terms for historic periods seems like an anachronism. For example, I cringe when I hear people talk about the period when "African-Americans were slaves". On balance, though, I'd go with the term "Roma". StuRat (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

StuRat, it's highly unlikely that anyone visiting an exhibition on Nazi extermination camps would think the tinkers of the British Isles were included among ethnic "Gypsies." As for anachronism in terminology, this isn't like being "born in Zimbabwe in 1954." Nor are these terms neologisms coined for a new millenium, but adoption of the people's own terms rather than others'. (Think "Inuit" for "Eskimos"). The difficulty is whether the museum's present terminology, while being academically reputable, will be understood by visitors coming with whatever level of education and background they have and without recourse to look-up technology on site. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely there must have been other wandering people in the areas conquered by the Nazis besides the Sinti & Roma ? I would also expect that many of them would have been targeted for extermination. Did the Nazis lump them all together as "gypsies" ? The question, then, is how to distinguish the groups. And terms made up by a group (or on behalf of a group), recently, can be some of the worst examples of PC run amuck, like "specially-abled", so that doesn't make the term inherently better. What did these people call themselves, collectively, at the time of the genocide ? That might be the best choice. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of Sinti and Roma being interned at Auschwitz: A quick search with google scholar gives enough book titles to auggest that there is at least historical discussion on that matter. (Both SInti and Roma being deported and killed there that is) I suggest getting one of those books through a library service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.6.28.130 (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If the curator doesn't want it glossed but comprehension is an issue, why not just gloss it on the first instance it appears? i.e., "The Roma (formerly known as Gypsies)..." just once, and then "Roma" for the rest of it? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(post-EC):In a published running text I'd do so, but not here. Ideally each text stands alone. Even if visitors progress along a linear route starting at the hall's entrance, they may not read any or all texts from start to finish. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Gypsy is unacceptable, because it is offensive to many of the people the term is supposed to identify, and a Holocaust museum certainly should not revictimize Holocaust victims. I think that Roma is a term that most well-educated native English speakers recognize, but I would guess that a majority of native English speakers would not recognize the term, mainly because Roma people are not part of the social landscape in most native English-speaking regions. Therefore, I agree with Rjanag that, if your goal is maximum comprehension, you really should include a parenthetical gloss at least once at the beginning of the section. My preference would be (sometimes called Gypsies) or (sometimes incorrectly called Gypsies) since the usage continues. As for Sinti I know this term mainly from German-language texts, where the formulation Roma und Sinti is common. I think that the term Sinti is really quite obscure in English, and unless Sinti people clearly object to being called Roma, I would use just the term Roma as a generalization. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Roma is well understood in London - quite a lot of them live here. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "sometimes incorrectly called Gypsies" – the term Gypsy isn't incorrect, it's just dated and can be offensive. (But it is not necessarily offensive: Ian Hancock himself uses it in some of his publications.) My gut feeling is "Romani" is more likely to be understood than "Roma" (which for me is first and foremost the Latin and Italian name for Rome, and then a town in Texas), though I sympathize that it might be misinterpreted as "Romanian". +Angr 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OP's update: A search of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website shows online-accessible articles having repeat usage of _Roma (Gypsies)_. As time is limited, I'll try phoning the USHMM to see whether their museum exhibitions follow suit. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a Roma Wikipedian or a Romani-speaking Wikipedian can help. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of answering the question, I'm afraid that the term "gypsy" is very deeply entrenched, at least in North America. Saying "Roma" would likely confuse most speakers into thinking it had something to do with Italy (not joking). Offensive, inaccurate, outdated... but understood. Matt Deres (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the second most familiar designation to English speakers would be 'Romany' (rather than 'Romani') - that spelling is dated now, but I don't know that anybody finds it offensive. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matt that most North Americans will not correctly interpret Roma without some explanation. This is why I think you must have a parenthetical at least in the first instance unless you want to 1) create a misunderstand or 2) cause offense by simply using Gypsy. Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The "must" conclusion does not follow. There are other ways to mitigate the ambiguity. One way, promoted by the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma, is, as they do in their own name, the denomination "Sinti and Roma". Unfortunately, that is problematic, too, because it implies a priority of Sinti over Roma, and disagrees with the understanding of many that Sinti are Roma. Each solution probably has some problems attached. Therefore, it probably can't be too wrong to go with the parenthesis. If the USHMM had had huge problems with that, we'd probably find that with a Google search for "USHMM Roma criticism", which I didn't. Moreover, I wouldn't be too afraid of criticism; it can be the beginning of a great dialog. Maybe you could even write something about such language problems, and invite people to talk about that at an event during the exhibition? — Sebastian 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of an interesting way to meet all of your aims without using a parenthetical expression. That would be to start with a display and/or text titled something like "Who are the Roma?" In the text you could discuss all of the issues surrounding naming this people. That would turn this labeling dilemma into an educational opportunity, and it would make parenthetical expressions unnecessary elsewhere in the exhibition. Marco polo (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ColinFine - most English-speaking people — in the UK at least, though I suspect many elsewhere including the US — would know the word "Romany" and understand it to mean "gypsy". AFAIK it is not considered insulting in the same way that gypsy is. But Marco polo's solution is excellent, and would turn a potential problem into useful information. Grutness...wha? 22:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Marco polo's solution is excellent, and I hope Deborahjay will read it. Besides the elegance of turning a problem into something positive, it also has the advantages that it works regardless of the term she chooses, and that it documents the background for the choice, which invites discussion rather than confrontation. — Sebastian 07:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

OP's response: I do read, consider, and value all the suggestions and concerns offered here. This exhibition on implementation of the "Final Solution" is tightly designed and content-heavy as is, so my concisely revising the term "Gypsy" is as much as I can achieve here and now. The topic of the Romani people has been proposed for our commemoration of the upcoming International Holocaust Remembrance Day, to which I'll contribute in content and spirit as we've discussed here. Heartfelt thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Most English-language references that I've seen to what the Nazis did to the Roma call them Gypsies, and that really is the only term that most Americans would understand, with Romany coming rather far behind, and Roma close to nowhere. The correct term in Ireland today is "Travellers", which would be utterly bewildering in America. (See The Penguin Atlas of the Diasporas, 1995, by Chaliand & Rabeau, translated by A.M. Bessett, ISBN 0-140-17814-7; I think the same is true of the recent Third Reich at War, Hitler's Empire, and Lenin, Stalin, Hitler.) It's a difficult question where one wants to avoid offence, but (without wanting to start a huge off-topic sidetrack) very similar problems have come up with the names of the people whose ancestors were living in North America before 1492. See Talk:War of 1812#Indian Affairs. More generally still, the United States Census (at http://www.census.gov) uses up to half a dozen names for each major ethnic group, both when setting questionnaires and reporting results. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin to English translation software

I see Google Translator does not translate Latin to English, as it does with many other languages. Is there available somewhere free software that does Latin to English for a block of Latin text? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you Google "translate Latin to English" this site is suggested.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That comes up with gibberish. Since I had De laude novae militae open I stuck the first sentence into it: "Hugoni , of a soldier Christi and instructor at the war Christi Bernardus Claraevallis solace by name father : good contest contest. A single time , and accordingly , and third , if not to deceive , inclining toward a me Hugo carissime , when to you tuisque commilitonibus scriberem exhortationis discussion , and facing hostile tyrannidem , because lances not unimpeded , a pike vibrarem , a stake you not too little forem assistance , if you wish whom by force of arms not to be able , letter breath." Computers suck at translating Latin, I wouldn't even bother trying. That's what the Language Desk is for! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the English to Latin is even worse. I asked it to translate a bit of that same block of text from (my own) English into Latin: "Ut Hugo , miles militis of Sarcalogos quod vinco of bellicus of Sarcalogos Bernard of Clairvaux , abbatis nomine tenus tantum : pugna bonus pugna. Quondam , bis , quod three vicis , nisi EGO sum frustra , vos have asked me , meus carus Hugh , scribo an exhortatory sermon vobis quod vestri socius miles militis". Awesome. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The program "Words" is quite good as a dictionary. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is (it is here - and it is not really an .exe), but it only does one word at a time, and you'll have to know at least a bit of Latin grammar to figure out what to do with the results. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin Inscription

The Swedish House of Nobility has a latin inscription above the door.

Consilio atqve Sapientia, Claris Maiorvm Exemplis, Animis et Felicibvs (Armis, Arte, et Marti)

Our article only translates CLARIS MAIORUM EXEMPLIS = "after the clear example of the forefathers", I was wondering if anyone could provide a complete translation. Thanks, auto / decltype (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Consilio atqve Sapientia = Counsel (i.e. sage advice) and wisdom

Claris Maiorvm Exemplis = you know already

Animis et Felicibvs (Armis, Arte, et Marti) = In good spirits? and happy (in arms, arts, and military affairs) --71.111.194.50 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, I only have GCSE latin, but is there possibly an ambiguity regarding claris = clear (obvious) and claris = famous, distinguished? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It probably means "famous". These are all ablatives, so it would be something like "with counsel and wisdom, the famous examples of the forefathers, and happy souls (in arms, art, and warfare)". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the concept of "happy souls ... in warfare", and equating that with "art", more than just a little bit creepy ? Of course, they aren't the first to think of warfare as "art", hence The Art of War. Still, enjoying killing people creeps me out. StuRat (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, "ars" could be better translated as "skill" or "strategy" in this case. I don't think it's really creepy in context; Sweden used to have a large-ish empire, and the Romans were of course very militaristic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. The parenthesized part is actually written on a different wall, so it may not be directly connected to the "Animis et Felicibus" part. decltype (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

November 21

Bowden cable pronunciation

How is the name "Bowden" as in Bowden cable pronounced? [boʊdən] or [baʊdən]? For the non-IPA-compatible, does the first syllable rhyme with "go" or with "cow"? +Angr 08:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but have known several people with the surname Bowden. who all pronounced it to rhyme with "cow". Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, before I asked this question I googled "Bowden cable pronounced" and "Bowden cable pronunciation" and couldn't find anything useful. But now I just tried googling "Bowden cable" alone and found this, which suggests it's pronounced to rhyme with "go". +Angr 12:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Peter Ladefoged, the /oʊ/ represents the words as in ‘go’ and the /aʊ/ represents the words as in ‘cow’. However, I do not understand why the vowel on the rhyme should be unstressed if it has to rhyme as in ‘go’. Is there any phonetic rules?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asking about the vowel in the first syllable, which is stressed. You can't tell from the spelling "Bowden" whether the "ow" represents the vowel of "go" (/oʊ/) or the vowel of "cow" (/aʊ/). English even has two different words spelled "bow" but pronounced differently. "Bow" meaning "an instrument for shooting an arrow", "a tool for playing a stringed instrument (e.g. a violin or cello)" or "a decorative loop of ribbon" is pronounced to rhyme with "go", while "bow" meaning "to bend at the waist" or "a part of a ship" is pronounced to rhyme with "cow". +Angr 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

These are then the exceptions; homograph. I was wrong however, for just taking only few IPA examples of an author and relying on the examples as the correct grapheme and phoneme convention in general. Is there any chart that has the RP of UK or US grapheme-phoneme conventions of regulars, options, and parametrically limited?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean like IPA chart for English dialects? +Angr 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also a usful page for a quick reference. Thanks.Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have known two people called Bowden, one of each pronunciation. I also knew that Lord Bowden lived in Bowdon, though I don't know his preference. The best answer would be to pronounce it the way the inventor would have pronounced his own name, but that doesn't work for Halley's Comet for example. Sussexonian (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It might work, if the "Hail-iz" and "Hal-iz" camps could compromise on "Haul-iz". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"offhand"

What is the etymology of "offhand"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.14.18 (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:

[ORIGIN from off preposition + hand noun.]

Mitch Ames (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I can only guess that it was perhaps originally 'written off-hand', meaning from the hand, without notes, refs, or other preparation. kwami (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymonline claims: "Probably originally in ref. to shooting without a rest or support." --Pykk (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the biggest language without its own Wikipedia?

What is the language that has the largest number of either native speakers or total speakers, but doesn't have a Wikipedia written in it? --62.204.152.181 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Xiang Chinese is #28 on the List of languages by number of native speakers and has only a test Wikipedia at the Incubator. Maithili is #32 on the list, but according to some sources has more speakers than Xiang, and it too has only a test Wikipedia at the Incubator. +Angr 15:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[At the other end of the scale, "The Dutch language Wikipedia has the largest ratio of Wikipedia pages per native speaker from all of the top 10 largest Wikipedia editions." -- Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)]

That's not the other end of the scale, that's a different scale. I'd say the other end of the scale is Pitkern, which is the smallest language (less than 100 speakers) that does have its own Wikipedia. +Angr 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, that doesn't protect them from vandalism (or NPOV/BLP violations), see—at the risk of spreading instead of quarantining the infection http://pih.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitkern_kulchur —— Shakescene (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Volapük? I don't think anyone learns it at his or her mother's knee. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But the OP carefully asked for "either native speakers or total speakers", and I bet Volapük has more total (non-native) speakers than Pitkern does. +Angr 07:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

According to our article, Volapük has 20 speakers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well, I guess then Volapük is the smallest language with its own Wikipedia. That also explains why most of the articles there were written by a bot. +Angr 14:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many fluent speakers of Old English there are. Deor (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That probably depends on what you mean by "fluent". Lots of academics specialising in the history of the English language will have some knowledge of it. --Tango (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would consider it comparable to Latin. Plenty of people study it as a foreign language. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, at least among medievalists I know, Old English is quite important; I know lots of people who also know Old Norse, Old Irish, Old French, etc etc. I'm pretty sure some of the professors, at least, are fluent in Old English and could speak to each other in it if they so desired. (Though I doubt they would contribute to the OE Wikipedia.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My own academic training is as a medievalist, and I have pretty solid knowledge of OE; I don't, however, think that I could employ it as a means of oral communication in any fashion other than the most halting. Maybe I've known the wrong Anglo-Saxonists, but I can't recall any whom I'd describe as fluent speakers of the language. I have known a number of fluent Latin speakers. Deor (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I am not an Anglo-Saxonist myself, I am just going by the statements of bewildered Anglo-Saxonist fellow students, which may be exaggerated :) I know some fluent Latinists too, but I've never found it necessary to speak it. (What is this, the 18th century?! Plain old English is good enough for everyone!) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

identify a language from annoyingly inadequate information

This question may be inappropriate for vagueness; I won't take offense if it's deleted.

I've just moved to Bellingham, Washington. The radio stations that I pick up seem to be divided about equally between Bellingham and Vancouver. Wandering the dial, I heard a language that I couldn't place; at first I thought Korean ("sounds a lot like Japanese but with some non-J sounds"), but then it seemed increasingly like Chinese without tones.

If I'm really lucky, someone will say "Oh yeah, I know just what you mean, that's the Serendipi Adventist Church of Ferndale, speaking West Serendipi with a Muggletown accent." —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you catch the station number? That could help pinpoint it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't note the frequency because I was driving and my car radio's display is illegible in most lights. Alas. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CHKG-FM - 96.1 FM Vancouver, BC seems to be a multicultural station broadcasting in Cantonese, Cambodian, Vietnamese and sundry other languages. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a mix: "...primarily Chinese with some African, Cambodian, Caribbean, Dutch, Hungarian,Italian, Korean, Laotian, Macedonian, Malaysian, Russian, South Asian, Spanish, Thai and Vietnamese programming airing during the evening and on weekends." Intelligentsium 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Being in Vancouver myself, I'll tell you that there is a number of non-English stations that originate from here, including full time Hindi and Punjabi Indian stations, Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese stations, and a multicultural station that could have broadcast in any number of other languages, depending on time of day. Bellingham is closer to Vancouver than Seattle, so it's more likely to be a station from here.

See CHKG-FM, the one mentioned in another answer above, as a good bet, or follow the categories at the bottom of that page for more possibilties.24.83.112.118 (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the information supplied above by the OP, and the lists of languages supplied by others, I would guess it was Korean (not mentioned above) as all the Asian languages mentioned (except Cambodian (Khmer), Malaysian, Hindi, and Punjabi (none of which sounds remotely like Chinese) are tonal languages. Korean is a non-tonal language that sounds similar to Japanese and also has a number of sounds which are very similar to Mandarin or Cantonese, so I would guess it was that, in the absence of any more information. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(ED CONF) Sorry, Korean was mentioned. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KageTora, if it sounded fast and agglutinate-y like Japanese then it may have been Korean (some people also think Korean sounds "guttural", so if you had that impression then it also could be Korean). I should point out that there are dialects of Korean that are tonal, such as the ones spoken around Pusan, but on international radio and TV I assume it would be far more likely to hear the non-tonal standard variety. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but the dialects of Korean which are tonal are only tonal in the same way that Japanese is tonal - there is a distinction to be made between languages like this (which also include Swedish and Serbian amongst others) and other tonal languages like Chinese - I've forgotten what the actual terms are, but they are different. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it contour tone (Sino-Tibetan) vs. pitch/register/level tone (Japanese, Niger-Congo, etc.)? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That didn't ring a bell, but according to the article here that would appear to be the case. As a side note, notice that section of the article begins with 'Most Chinese languages....'. I have no idea what this is referring to, whether it means dialects of Chinese, languages spoken in China, or whether it tries to imply that the Han Chinese have a number of different languages (as opposed to dialects). I think the ambiguity should be cleared up as it may be very misleading. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a link. The so-called 'dialects of Chinese' (i.e. Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Xiang, Min, Gan, Hakka) are considered separate languages by linguists, so "Chinese languages" refers to those languages (roughly constured as the languages in China that are written using Chinese characters), not other minority languages spoken in China (such as Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongolian, Tai, Bai, various Lolo-Burmese languages, yada yada). Basically, it is true that "the Han Chinese have a number of different languages".... the use of the term 方言 in Chinese is misleading and there is sometimes purely political disagreement over whether the Chinese languages are dialects or languages, but as far as I know no real linguist today thinks they are dialects, as they are not mutually intelligible. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link in there. Also, I do realise that the 'dialects' are considered as 'languages' by some and 'dialects' by others, and that's why I suggested there should be some clarification in the article as it may be misunderstood. You've done that by providing that link in there, so cheers. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

KageTora, looks like you're active on multiple Help Desks:) In any case, you might be interested to know that there's a name for this phenomenon: "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." More concretely, the definition of what's a language and what's a dialect depends on political-social status, not on linguistic science. What is it that French is a language while the vast majority of people from outside France -- perhaps even most of the French themeslves -- consider Piccard, Norman, Gascon, etc. merely "dialects"? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

November 22

Does the Oxford English Dictionary mention same-sex marriage?

Could someone with access to the current (post-2000) Oxford English Dictionary advise whether it mentions same-sex marriage, and quote the relevant definition. The reason I ask is that:

• Our article on same-sex marriage claims that "The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000", citing this article, but not the OED itself.
• I have the 2007 6th edition Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which does not mention same-sex (or gay) marriages at all.
• According to the Preface to the 1993 4th edition, the SOED "sets out the main meanings and semantic developments of words current at any time between 1700 and the present day".
• According to the Preface to the 2007 edition, "We have taken advantage of the work in progress for the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary".

I.e., if the OED has included same-sex marriage since 2000, I would expect the 2007 SOED to include it also, but it does not. So now I’m trying to do two things:

1. Test (and possibly refute) my general assumption that any modern word in the OED would also be in the SOED.
2. Verify the accuracy of the same-sex marriage article's claim that OED recognizes same-sex marriage.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If the OED does include same-sex marriage, someone with access to it might like to add the OED as a reference to the same-sex marriage article, so that we have a direct citation, rather than only the current indirect citation. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what the OED (current online edition) has as the primary definition of Marriage:

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony. The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

So the Slate article seems right. If you wish you can add this citation to the article. Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the language in the article needs to be tempered. Pointing out that "some people use word X to refer to situation Y" doesn't mean OED is 'recognizing' (which can be a codeword for 'endorsing') it. I myself am a proponent of same-sex marriage, but this kind of slanted language in an article just sounds like grasping for an argument. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, dictionaries are in the business of recording word-usage, not recognizing social constructs. A better way of phrasing the OED reference in the article would be something like: "Since 2000, OED has included 'long-term relationships between partners of the same sex' under its definition of the word marriage", or "Since 2000 OED has recognized that the word marriage is sometimes used to refrence 'long-term relationships between partners of the same sex'." Abecedare (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that. Many advocates of same-sex marriage would consider the term "marriage" to be limited to the same type of officially recognized relationship that traditional "marriage" implies; the OED's "long-term relationship" seems to imply a less restrictive sense. Best to just quote what the dictionary says and leave the interpreting to the reader. --Anonymous, 07:33 UTC, November 22, 2009.

I would be inclined to leave dictionaries out of it. Does anybody dispute that the word is sometimes used that way? We don't need citations for simple undisputed facts. We don't cite a dictionary for every article to confirm what a key word in its name means. --Tango (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is disputed, though. In Australia, for example, marriage is legally defined as "the union of a man and a woman ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal definitions are often more restrictive than common usage; that is not evidence against Tango's claim. Algebraist 12:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of any "disputes" over the use of the term "same-sex marriage", both numbered points in my original post have been answered (thanks Abecedare). Incidentally (and again, independently of any "disputes") I shan't add the OED citation to the article myself because I never cite a reference that I haven't seen personally. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified symbol from a rebus

I came across this symbol in a rebus, that I and some colleagues were trying to solve during a break Friday. I don't have the source in front of me, so it's drawn from memory. I'm certain about the cross, the first (leftmost) loop, and the apostrophe at the top right, but not quite sure about the second loop. I've browsed through a bunch of symbols in the charmap utility of Windows, and looked at various unicode tables and tables of astronomical, astrological and alchemy symbols, without success. (The closest is the symbol for Saturn). Does anyone recognize this? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Could it be む? --ColinFine (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Japanese hiragana お (o) or maybe あ (a). 124.214.131.55 (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese hiragana お it is! Thanks! I'll see how "o" works out in the rebus tomorrow. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple context-free grammar for English

I am looking for a simple context-free grammar (CFG) that can be used to explain the syntax of English sentences to, say, someone who's beginning middle school. The grammar does not need to be complete—simplicity is more important. It would be sufficient if it can explain the structure of maybe 95% of sentences encountered by the learner. The goal is to give the learner an understanding of the constituents of English sentences, and how simpler constituents build up to progressively more complex ones, eventually producing a grammatical sentence. Phenomena like subject-verb agreement, the case/person/number of nouns/pronouns, subject-verb inversion etc. need not be accounted for, at least not by the CFG itself.

I've seen examples of such grammars in books on natural language processing. However, the example grammars tend to be very incomplete and seem to have been designed to have just enough generality to explain the given example sentences. What I'm looking for is a learning tool that balances complexity (in terms of the number of constituent types and rewrite rules) on one hand, and generality and completeness of the other. (The trade-off is not precisely defined.)

Can someone help? -- 14:32, 22 November 2009 173.49.12.182

Due to syntactic research results established 50 years ago (Chomsky's Syntactic Structures etc.), it's pretty much impossible to have a context-free grammar which will accept 95% of sentences of English, unless it also accepts a vast number of "ungrammatical" sentences which are not English. What's wrong with just using a small "toy grammar" to demonstrate basic concepts? AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(The OP responding to AnonMoos:) I'm aware of the result that English cannot be (completely accurately) described by a CFG, but I'm not writing a parser or grammar checker for English. My goal is much more modest: to come up with a relatively small number of rules that can help someone understand the syntactic structure of most English sentences, i.e. what words go together to form a unit, and how sub-units nest inside bigger units. It's OK if the grammar allows the subject and a corresponding reflexive pronoun in a sentence to have mismatched gender—constraints like that can be addressed outside of the CFG. The "toy grammars" I've seen in NLP books seem to be intended for illustrating how the syntax of English can be described using a CFG; communicating the syntax rules of real (meaning not a small toy subset of) English doesn't seem to be the goal. In my case, what I'm trying to help someone learn is not CFG as a theoretical tool, but the syntax rules of a real language, which is English. --173.49.12.182 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who coined the word ‘context-free grammar’ and its intended meaning of the original author? If it was the meaning to say, for example, ‘simple’ (free from contexts, e.g. various types of phrases and clauses), then the rules of syntax is interesting and sufficient for middle schools. The GG (the context grammar and some complex syntactic rules) as we know today is the syntax theory that is available (but not sufficient) to explain how a sentence forms within the rules of the language.

As for as I know, there isn’t any syntax theory that is sufficient to honestly explain the rules of the language within the phrase structure rules until now . However, some linguists have achieved varying level of successes on this process.-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(From the OP:) I'm not sure if the question was addressed to me; I do understand the technical meaning of "context-free". As I indicated in my response to AnonMoos's comment, I'm not looking for something that's completely precise—I believe any precise formal description of English will be way too complicated for my purpose. Can you suggest a CFG for English that's suitable for middle school-level learners? --173.49.12.182 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how much time you have to spend on it, but Liliane Haegeman's Thinking Syntactically is a good introduction to generative-transformational syntax that is not too theory-specific—i.e., it teaches the basics about phrase structure rules, syntactic trees, etc., without being too specific to GBT or any other theory. I read it when I was in college so I'm not sure how appropriate it would be for a middle-schooler, but I remember it as being an accessible introduction. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the basic syntax (phrases structures rules) is accurate enough for middle school learners if they are not confused with the sentences that are beyond their rules of phrase structure trees. And as the middle-school learners still have to learn the language unconsciously, the basic syntax can support their unconscious language learning, though not all the simple sentences can be taught within these syntax rules. However, if you are looking for something like Venpa (prosody syntax) or NSM (cultural scripts) as CFG, I do not have any cue about those.-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

November 23

Minimum requirements for a complete language

Not sure quite how to phrase my question, so I'll try twice:

I'm planning on constructing a language.

1. What are all the words or grammatical concepts necessary for the language to be able to express any idea (anything that can be expressed in any other language)?

...or maybe this is a more focused version of the question:

2. What are all the words or grammatical concepts that can't be explained with other words?

For example, I could describe words like "house," "swim," and "where" with other words; I could convey their meanings without using them. A language doesn't need those words to be a functioning human language. But I don't think I could explain words like "or", "in" and "what" without using another language, synonyms, or those words themselves.

I can make all my verbs and nouns, and decide the order is SOV and direct objects should end with -ut, etc., but the language still won't be able to express "The house that I told you about burned down yesterday." Any obscure tribal language can express this; any language could also express the concept of a computer, even if it doesn't have a word for it.

The idea is that once I put a certain set of words or grammatical features into my language, there won't be any English sentence I can come up with that the constructed language can't somehow express.

Is the answer something to do with parts of speech, or recursion, or dependent clauses...? Do I just have to invent a certain number of closed class words (but then I still wouldn't necessarily have recursion, would I)?

Thanks,
Jeff 74.105.132.151 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recursion and embedding are definitely one of the necessary things, especially if you want to get by without a lot of vocabulary. (For example, if you don't want the word 'house', embedding is needed to say 'place where people live'.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One must be very careful on stating what is "necessary" for a language. I can't remember the name of the researcher or tribe, sorry, but I do recall a story about a tribe in South America, I think, where the language did not have recursion/embedding. It was mentioned that there was some controversy about that fact, as the conventional wisdom was that the capacity to embed was one of the prerequisites for language. Sorry I can't give more details, but my main point is that whenever you state "language must have this", you run the risk of some isolated tribe somewhere showing you up. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Pirahã, but as you pointed out, other linguists disagree with Daniel Everett's claim that the language doesn't have recursion, and I think it's such a rare exception that it can't really be used yet to say that a language doesn't have to have recursion.

Rjanag, thanks for your answer, I figured that would be the case. But I still don't know exactly--what specific set of concepts or structures must be included before the language becomes a fully creative language, capable of expressing anything. I don't know if that's beyond the scope of the Wikipedia Reference Desk, if it's even answerable at all.

Jeff 208.252.2.254 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"probando"

What is probando?174.3.102.6 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[5]. Deor (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gender

Does the phrase "circulus in probando" change when referring to feminine or masculine, or neuter, or neutral? What other cases does it change?174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Circulus is a noun (not an adjective), while probando is a neuter gerund, so the genders would never change. The case of circulus would sometimes change if it were used as part of sentence... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Proto-computer data-bank system

In a historical text about the Nazis' information management applications in the Final Solution, I 'm editing a sentence with the description:

• "...a proto-computer data-bank system using Hollerith machine punched cards."
  

Is the wording in italics valid? If not, how might it be rewritten or otherwise improved? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a data tabulation system -- such system can count selected items, and tell you how many individuals with characteristic A also possess characteristic B, but it's not a full computer database in the modern sense. AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why I chose "data bank" rather than the modern term "database". Does that qualify? Also, besides the tabulation you describe, I suppose it could also sort and arrange content for easy access according to encoded parameters. (from my personal experience operating an IBM card sorter in 1974)-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Call it a tabulating machine - simpler, clearer and more accurate than "proto-computer data-bank system". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. The language is quite deliberate: The author is emphasizing the early computerish aspect of the Nazis' system that used Dehomag equipment with its Hollerith-IBM connection. I'm trying to formulate a wording that doesn't lose the "computer" element. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So ... the part I don't understand is why you or the author think that a tabulating machine is a "proto-computer". When IBM moved into the production of electronic computers in the 1950s it adapted its existing standardised punched cards and associated card punches and readers as a convenient way of storing data and programs off-line - and the sale of blank cards was a profitable commercial sideline - but a tabulating machine is just an electro-mechanical sorter, and is in no sense a computer. The phrase is like describing a horse-drawn cart as a "proto-automobile" because it has four wheels and two axles. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding the "tabulating" part heading in another direction, because my understanding of the "data bank" aspect has to do with information storage and retrieval: i.e. data processing, not necessarily tabulating. Is it "electronics" that defines a computer, being other than an electromechanical sorting machine? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The generic name for the equipment manufactured by companies such as Dehomag is unit record equipment. The central piece of equipment, called a tabulating machine, could read punched cards, sort them into categories according to criteria set up by the user on a control panel, and track simple statistics such as the number of cards allocated to each category. Our computer article says "The defining feature of modern computers which distinguishes them from all other machines is that they can be programmed. That is to say that a list of instructions (the program) can be given to the computer and it will store them and carry them out at some time in the future". A tabulating machine did not store data - this was all held on the punched cards - and it did not store its instructions. Therefore it lacked key aspects of our modern definition of a computer. To describe such equipment as a "proto-computer" is at best confusing, and at worst positively misleading. The most you can accurately say is that some of the technology developed for unit record equipment was re-used in early commercial computers. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this is obvious: why don't you consider the punched cards as part of the computer? 86.140.144.63 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Because a computer could not automatically select and load the punched cards that it needed - this had to be done by a human operator. I suppose someone could in theory build a computer that wrote data to punched cards with a card punch, stored the cards in an equivalent of a tape library and automatically selected and loaded cards when it needed the data - this would be a form of tertiary storage device. As far as I know, such a contraption was never actually built. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I say leave "proto-computer" alone. It's correct that unit record equipment was not programmable, but it did have two characteristics that we would associate with computers today. First, it took advantage of information-carrying electrical signals to perform a series of rapid, repetitive, automatic decisions. Second, it was configurable as to exactly what these decisions were (which column of the card to look at). It's not a computer, but it anticipates some capabilities of computer technology. That is exactly what "proto-computer" means. --Anonymous, 22:08 UTC, November 23, 2009.

Resolution: I'm submitting "data processing with a precursor to the computer." And thanks to you all! -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Diallelus

What is Diallelus (circular logic)? Usually I can break down latin, like in in medical terminology, but this word seems like there is no morphology in it.174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's Greek in origin - di allelon through or by means of one another.--Rallette (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy

What is the fallacy, or what is the fallacy called, when one changes the subject?

For example:

Speaker	Statement
1	Considering only color, should I buy a red or a green car?
2	The green one has a strong engine.

174.3.102.6 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A non sequitur? --Kjoonlee 10:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the list of fallacies, it seems close to a red herring... Vimescarrot (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or a green herring? :) Or is it simply "not paying attention to the question"? Being of a literalistic nature, if I were speaker 2, I would respond, "Why should I decide what color you like?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Is it a reference to the color in my example?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The "green herring" statement was, yes. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the original example as asking for guessing a preference, but relating to certain objective aspects of car color, e.g. "Red cars are most often stopped by the police," "Green won't show dirt but will start looking shabby soon after the original finish wears off," etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be called "reading things into the question". Which I did also. What the question really is a good example of, is the kind of question that often pops up on the reference desk - where the questioner presumably has something in mind, but the question is worded too vaguely to give a straightforward answer, and requires other questions back at him in order to fully understand the original question. Which is basically what you're doing, except not wording them as questions. The simplest comeback could be, "Why do you ask?", thus impelling him to either give further information or to walk away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this qualifies as a fallacy at all. A fallacy is an incorrect pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion is not supported by the premises. There has to be some kind of inference. Usually an incorrect argument is called a fallacy only when it is at least somewhat likely to be mistaken for a valid/correct one. --173.49.12.182 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the "considering only color" it would a bit of a post hoc, to take it slightly less literally than the article. Most post hocs are two things put together with the suggestion of a relationship where none actually exists, or at least something rather tenuous. That's my thought anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP is right, it's not a fallacy, it's plainly and simply "not paying attention". The questioner said, "Considering only color", and the answerer considered something besides color. Never mind that there's no obvious reason a green car would have a better engine than a red car, in general. Basically there's not enough information to evaluate. A fallacy would be this joke of Woody Allen's from Love and Death: "A. All men are mortal. B. Socrates is a man. C. Therefore, all men are Socrates." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a fallacy, but it is certainly a common trick of argument (particularly, dare I say, when politicians are being interviewed). I would call it non sequitur. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you may dare say it, Colin. Rule # 1 of Politics: Never answer the question asked of you. Answer the question you would like to have been asked of you. Heaven help us if someone ever asks a politician a question they were hoping to be asked. But of course this, by definition, has never happened and can never happen. When they say "I'm glad you asked me that question ...", they never mean "That was the exact question I was hoping to be asked". They mean "I'm still going to say what I want to say, without regard to what I was actually asked; it's just that there happens to be a very tenuous connection between the words I'm about to deliver and the question you asked, and you might therefore like to think I'm answering your question - but I'm not". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviate

Are there any derivationally related words to obviate?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

obviation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The "ob-" prefix refers to "facing" (as in the "obverse" side of a coin). The "viate" part is a verb form of "via", which means "by way of". The Latin verb is "obviare". Its adjective form is "obvius", which comes to English as "obvious", although its original definition, "standing in the way of", is no longer used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the ‘obviative marker’. In linguistics, a) it is an illeism, or b) it is of refering a third person in question who is not important in a discourse. I have not checked this in contexts, but there are few details in WP (e.g. grammatical person).-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is apparently an "obviated person" (and perhaps an "obviate case") in Cheyenne language. The Latin "obvius", by the way, also meant "obvious" in the modern sense; "standing in the way of" had its own archaic fossilized form, "obviam". Of course, that, and the verb "obviare", come from "via", "way". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A trivial aside: The only time I can recall seeing "obviate" in print, other than here and in the dictionary, is in a section of the baseball rules book where it pre-defines some rules concerning what to do if the ball bounces over the fence and such stuff as that, "in order to obviate ground rules..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it from linguistics articles, which are always claiming that their analyses obviate other more complicated analyses. +Angr 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford version of what we used to say, "It's clear that..." or "It follows that..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The rules book used to say, "To obviate the necessity for ground rules, the shortest distance from a fence or stand on fair territory to home base should be 250 feet." Nowadays the rules book truncates that opening phrase and says "shall" instead of "should". Left out was the underlying assumption that if the fence was closer than 250 feet, a ball hit over it would be declared a ground rule double instead of a home run. I guess the umps nowadays don't like words such as "obviate" in the rules book. They probably got it confused with "ovulate" or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

nom de morte

What is nom de morte?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It means "name of death". I think Mark Gribben coined it to be equivalent to nom de plume, except that Bonin was famous for killing rather than writing. A better writer than Gribben would have said simply "nickname". +Angr 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that a better writer could have managed to spell "mort" properly. — Emil J. 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Morte" was commonly used in older forms of Anglo-French, like "Le Morte d'Arthur". Probably a proper mistake though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

...and still another German question

When I last visited the World Bodypainting Festival in last July, there was a horrible rain storm on one day. I decided to seek cover at the entrance of the festival before the rain stopped. One woman who saw me seeking cover said to me: Sprich! I replied Ich warte nur, bis das Regen endet. Now I know this is supposed to mean "I'm waiting for the rain to end", and the woman understood me, but my question is, was this grammatically correct German? JIP | Talk 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's der Regen, not das Regen, and I think aufhören is more idiomatic than enden: Ich warte nur, bis der Regen aufhört. I'm rather surprised by the woman's single-word command of Sprich!, though. It sounds like something you'd say to a dog. Perhaps she wasn't a native German speaker either. +Angr 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the German for, "I'd rather watch the rain wash the paint off you!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The woman wasn't painted but fully clothed. Thanks for the replies. JIP | Talk 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sprich!" is grammatically correct and although it may be uncommon to talk like that with potential clients, Germanyis know for its "pay and shut-up" client service. 80.58.205.99 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity in English Syntax

One of us chooses a number; Afterwards, another person must choose a number other than the first person's number. Note that the first person is absolutley free to choose, while the second person's number depends on the first person's number. Now look at the following sentence:

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is.

Did my choice precede yours, or vice versa?

P.S. If you think you have an absolute answer, look at the following two sentences:

1. Your wife is a person depending on who you are.
2. Your wife is a person depending on whom you are.

Who depends? your wife (on you), or you (on your wife)? The answer for the second question is simple, while it's not simple for the first question (about my choice)...

HOOTmag (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I'd say a man's wife is a person regardless of who he is, and I'd say sentence no. 2 above is ungrammatical. +Angr 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of who he is? This is an open theological question, I wouldn't like to refer to. Note that I'm referring to the sentences from a linguistic point of view, rather than from a philosophical point of view.

Ungrammatical? "Your wife is a person depending on whom you are", means that "Your wife is a person on whom you are depending".

Anyways, you've referred to the less important sentences. Refer to the most important sentence, about my choice.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that unless you are a little green Jedi Master and we expect to hear you speak that way. In any case, we still don't know your question...if it is "can English be ambiguous" then of course the answer is "sure." Obviously the way out of your first sentence is to write it so that it makes sense; "the number I choose depends on the number that you choose" or something. You don't have to write confusing English just because it is possible. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My question is: "Did my choice precede yours, or vice versa?"

Note that the following sentence:

• "My choice is a number depending on which your number is"

May mean - either:

• My choice is a number that is depending on which one your number is,

Or:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Your first sentence is ambiguous (and your example 2 grammatical) only by a strained interpretation of English grammar, ignoring all the pragmatics. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I ignore all the pragmatics. Here, what I care about is grammar only. HOOTmag (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) These things would not be said in this way. It would be "My choice of number depends on yours" and "Your wife is a person you depend on". The stranding isn't natural. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's unnatural; However, it's still grammatical, and that's what I care about (only), in my (unnatural) ambiguous sentence. HOOTmag (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There can technically be some ambiguity in the first sentence (now that I read it very closely), but the second reading ( a number [ADV depending on [which yours is] ] ) is very questionable, and only borderline grammatical. Particularly, "which" generally is not used that way (in this case it would usually be something like "which one", which would remove the ambiguity). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Only borderline grammatical? Can't I say: "Which is your number"? Must I say "which one is your number" for being fully grammatical?

Anyways, when I say:

• "My choice is a number depending on which your number is"

it may mean - grammatically (borderline or fully) - either:

• My choice is a number that is depending on which one your number is,

Or:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending.

HOOTmag (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You can only say "which is your number" in a certain context: i.e., when a several numbers (of a limited number, for example "5, 10, and 13") have been presented, and you're asking "which [of the above] is yours"? Otherwise, it's not natural English. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, and my sentence should be interpreted in such a context. HOOTmag (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't see how this is a very informative topic. It seems like you're essentially saying "I've found a routine example of ambiguity, but it only works if you accept a nearly-ungrammatical sentence and only in a very specific, unrealistic context". There are plenty of other examples of ambiguity that don't have such restrictions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you still keep calling it "nearly ungrammatical" (or "borderline grammatical") sentence, and why do you think it's in an "unrealistic" context? Let's assume that both of us are given your three suggested numbers: 5,10,13, out of which one of us has to choose one number. Afterwards, the other person must choose a number other than the first person's number. Such a situation is quite realistic, isn't it? After we chose the numbers, I announce: "My choice is a number depending on which your number is". Note that in the (realistic) context described above, which involves three numbers only, my sentence is quite grammatical (though unnatural), isn't it? Now, a third person, who has heard my announcement, is trying to determine whether my choice has preceded your choice, or vice versa. So this third person must finally fail to determine that, although my announcement is quite grammatical, and would also have been sufficient - had it had only one meaning, right?

My aim is not to find ambiguities in English, since English has plenty of well-known ambiguities. My aim is to point at a new ambiguity, having been unknown before. This new ambiguity is based on a fully grammatical (though unnatural) sentence, and on some specific syntactic properties of English (not of some other languages).

HOOTmag (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And we can add another caveat: it only works in writing, not speaking. In the situation you describe above, prosody would disambiguate the sentence if it were spoken. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not only is my sentence unnatural, it also works in writing only. Yet, in writing, my grammatical sentence exemplifies a new kind of ambiguity, unique to English syntax (and maybe to other Germanic languages which permit stranding). HOOTmag (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And given the timing of your post here, I'm not entirely convinced your aim isn't to try and prove something about your reading of a sentence above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My aim has only been: to present a new kind of ambiguity emerging from English syntax. KageTora's sentence - you're now pointing at - is really rather similar to mine, yet I see no other connection between both sentences, because KageTora's sentence can have one meaning only - as we both agreed ibid., and as I myself explained ibid. HOOTmag (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read this entire section carefully, but if I understand the OP correctly, the sentence My choice is a number depending on which your number is clearly means my number depends on your number. If I wanted to say the opposite (using his syntax) I would say My choice is a number dependent on which your number is, meaning on which your number is dependent. Keyed In (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since (in your opinion):

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number depending on which one your number is

then (in my opinion):

• My choice is a number dependent on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number dependent on which one your number is.

Similarly, since (in your opinion):

• My choice is a number dependent on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number on which your number is dependent

then (in my opinion):

• My choice is a number depending on which your number is

may mean:

• My choice is a number on which your number is depending

P.S. Today (Tuesday), it's Bava Basra 95.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first assumption is wrong; Keyed In didn't say anything about adding "one" after "which". And if you do add it, the ambiguity is removed (only one reading is possible if it says "which one"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

He meant to be clear, not that there should be any ambuguity in that sentence. He was just showing that my suggestion (dependent) is equally ambiguous; I agree, as indicated below. Keyed In (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, Keyed In said nothing about adding "one". However, he thought that my original sentence should have been interpreted as if "one" were added to it, so I told him that his sentence should also have been treated the same way. HOOTmag (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first point (first 4 lines), but not your second. I.e. I agree that My choice is a number dependent on which your number is can mean both. I never indicated that this way can only mean one way.

However, I think that My choice is a number on which your number is depending is also not correct. It sounds like many non-native English speakers who use the present participle to indicate simple present tense, e.g. I am thinking that this is a good idea instead of I think this is a good idea. Or, if you prefer, "I am thinking that it is not being correct to be saying that my number is depending on your number." ;-)

P.S. Here in YIH"K it's already Wednesday :-)

Keyed In (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So why do you think my original sentence (My choice is a number depending on which your number is) "clearly means my number depends on your number"? In your opinion, my original sentence is simply ungrammatical, using "depending" instead of "which depends", right?

I agree with you that I had better replace my original sentence by: My choice is a number dependent on which your number is. However, it's still ambiguous, and this is my point.

I wish I was in YIH"K...

HOOTmag (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. My issue was only with the word depending. Changing to dependent maintains the ambiguity without the awkward participle.

(BTW, I'm not one to go around pointing out grammatical errors that others make, but since this is the Language desk, I think I should mention that grammatically it should be "I wish I were in YIH"K," Unless you mean "I wish I once was in YIH"K.") May it be BB"A. Keyed In (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear in my last post, so I would like to clarify: my issue with the word depending was only in one of the 2 meanings. If the original sentence My choice is a number depending on which your number is means My choice is a number depending on which one your number is that is fine. In that case, the present participle depending is used properly. However, if it means My choice is a number on which your number is depending that uses the awkward "is depending" which should be replaced with "is dependent" or simply "depends." I hope this is helpful. Keyed In (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

November 24

What does this say

I need to know the marriage date of Louise Marguerite of Guise.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Italian:

• Il 24 luglio 1605, per volere di Enrico IV, convolò a nozze nel castello di Meudon con Francesco di Borbone, principe di Conti. Il contratto matrimoniale era stato firmato il 1º maggio di quello stesso anno con l'intenzione di riunire in un forte vincolo l'antica dinastia di Lorena, da sempre cattolica, con la dinastia dei Borbone, di fede protestante. [1]

German:

• Am 24. Juli 1605 wurde sie auf Wunsch Heinrichs IV. im Schloss Meudon mit François de Bourbon, dem Fürsten von Conti, vermählt. Der Heiratsvertrag zu dieser Verbindung, welche die alte Adelsdynastie Lorraine enger an die Bourbonen binden sollte, wurde am 1. Mai des gleichen Jahres auf Schloss Fontainebleau unterschrieben. Die Historiettes von Gédéon Tallemant des Réaux behaupten, dass Heinrich IV. zuvor selbst eine Heirat mit Louise-Marguerite erwogen haben soll, doch sie sei 1590 von Gabrielle d’Estrées in der Gunst des französischen Königs verdrängt worden. Da Louise-Marguerite aber zu jener Zeit gerade einmal zwei Jahre alt war, gilt dies nach heutigem Forschungsstand als widerlegt.

It's pretty obviously July 24, 1605. Were you looking for a complete translation? You might try Google Translate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No if you are sure. I just noticed in the middle it mention a second date (1 May); I didn't know if the first was a betrothal and the second the marriage date or not. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak either of these languages, but at a cursory glance it looks pretty likely that the marriage was announced on 1 May and held on 24 July. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, July 24, 1605, the wedding took place; on May 1 of that year "the marriage contract had been signed with the intention of reuniting in a strong connection the old dynasty of Lorena...with the dynasty of the Borbone."--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In English usage, which here generally follows the French, the houses would be those of Lorraine and Bourbon, so my shaky translation from the Italian would be something like

On 24 July 1605, at the wish of Henry IV, she married François de Bourbon [Francis of Bourbon], Prince of Conti at the Castle [Château] of Meudon. The marriage contract had been signed on the first of May of the same year, with the intention of uniting with a strong link the ancient House [dynasty] of Lorraine, Catholic as always, with the House of Bourbon, of the Protestant faith.

Henry IV (or Henry of Navarre, 1589-1610) had been the leader of the Protestants (or Huguenots) in the French Wars of Religion, but changed his faith to secure the French throne, with the famous, or notorious, comment "Paris vaut une messe" (Paris is worth a [Catholic] Mass.) The Guise, which le Petit Larousse illustré describes as a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine, led the ultra-Catholic faction in the Wars of Religion. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

O Fortuna

Our article provides a translation of the poem and we also have it translated on Wikisource, but the translations don't match. For example, our article translates ludo mentis aciem as Deceptive sharp mind, while our Wikisource article has it reworked from a rather different angle and instead has as fancy takes it, completing the thought from the line previous. There are other differences as well. Since neither of them make any attempt to be "poetical", could someone who knows Latin give them a look and see which at least translates it more properly? My dead-tree translation (by David Parlett) makes an incredible effort to preserve the metre and structure (but sometimes fudges the literal meaning) and has that line as shifts us like pawns in her play. It's one of my favourite pieces; I'm a little annoyed that I might have fallen in love with a mistranslation! ;) Matt Deres (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the two construes the poem exactly as I would, but on the whole I think the Wikisource one matches the meaning of the Latin better. For instance, with regard to the passage you quote, our article's "Detestable life / now difficult / and then easy / Deceptive sharp mind" translates the verbs obdurat and curat as adjectives ("difficult" and "easy"), leaving "Deceptive sharp mind" (awkward for several reasons, particularly since all three words in ludo mentis aciem are nouns) in some sort of extrasyntactic limbo. (I like to think that aciem hovers ambiguously, able to be taken as the object of the preceding obdurat and curat or, in parallel with the following egestatem and potestatem, as an object of dissolvit. Nevertheless, as punctuated, a literal translation would be something on the order of "In its play, hateful life now hardens, then cures, keenness of mind; it melts both poverty and power like ice.") Deor (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand your meaning, but it reads kind of strange in English, doesn't it? As read, it seems that life can harden keenness of mind and also cure keenness of mind, both of which seem like odd expressions. Would the original Latin have implied that it was the hardness that could be cured or is it more like curing someone of illness (i.e. cure=removal), so that life hardens keenness of mind (i.e. makes it slower or less nimble) and then may cure it (i.e. remove it completely)? Matt Deres (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the meaning, expressed less literally, is "alternately dulls and sharpens one's mental acuity". Deor (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that pretty much fits with the rest. Thanks very much! Matt Deres (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Italicization in cursive handwriting

This question is actually something I've pondered for several years. In cursive handwriting, is there a way to "italicize" text? If I were to write, say,

"According to The Chicago Manual of Style, italics should be used for words in a foreign language, such as knäckebröd."

in a handwritten letter, how would I properly emphasize the italics? In the past I've sometimes resorted to underlining... decltype (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In handwriting, I would underline the book title and put the foreign word in quotes. I was under the impression this was standard. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, going back to my early school days, handwritten essays would have followed that. With the ubiquity of keyboards these days, though, I think almost anything hand-written would be informal enough not to worry about any MoS guidelines. Now, if you just want to have something that stands out slightly (as italics do in regular text), I've also seen instances in novels and such that simply switch back to normal text, as in It was a dark and stormy night; the worst in years. Matt Deres (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm old enough that only a couple of my pre-college papers were typed (on pre-Selectric typewriters that required either underlining or the red part of a typewriter ribbon for emphasis). If one's cursive handwriting is upright, then it is (I've found) possible, if not completely effective, to slant it for emphasis, but underlining is the usual (and generally-understood) way to emphasize a word or phrase (or to indicate foreign words or technical terms within other prose). Another way (although enhanced by underlining or enclosing in quotation marks) is to use non-cursive ("print") letters, slanted or upright, or even SMALL CAPITALS and l e t t e r - s p a c i n g: this can be a good practice, anyway, when spelling out a name or a foreign word where every individual letter should be independently clear. These other methods wouldn't work well, however, for sentences and paragraphs. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that underlining on a typewriter or in handwriting is equivalent to italicizing in print (except for mathematical equations like x = 2y, where the x and y are italicized in print but plain with a typewriter or handwriting). Note that just as italicizing is inconvenient or impossible on a typewriter or in handwriting, so underlining of text was inconvenient with traditional (hot or cold metal) typography, so there was a convenient duality between the two forms of marking. With phototypesetting and now digital media we now can do both italicization and underlining if we want, but this is new enough that no standard way has developed to use them with distinct meanings. --Anonymous, 22:33 UTC, November 24, 2009.

And in the mathematical examples, it might be dangerous, or at least confusing, to underline the unknown variables x and y since underlining and overlining often indicate mathematical characteristics, connections or conventions. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, since underlining can mean many things, newspaper proofreaders often double-underlined words to be italicised and triple-underlined those to be put in bold-face, usually accompanied by a marginal or interlinear notation like "bf". (My Merriam-Webster Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives a different convention, perhaps oriented towards books with more typographical flexibility than newspapers: single straight underlines for italics, double for SMALL CAPITALS, triple for ALL CAPS, and single wavy for boldface.) But that's markup for printing; I'm certainly not recommending it for simple handwriting. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ikonganaku

our housename is called 'ikonganaku' - can anyone tell me what this means or where it would originate from. Google shows nothing - i've been told it's possibly japanese or afrikans? Any info would be much appreciated. Thanks 213.52.216.196 (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What if it's split as "Ikonga Naku"? "Ikonga" is a placename and personal name in the Congo, and "naku" appears also to be Congolese. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not a Japanese name, but, just for interest I can tell you that if it were Japanese, it could mean 「遺恨がなく」(pronounced 'ikonganaku') - 'without a grudge'.  :) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Could that be it? A bit like Sans Souci? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, possibly. I misunderstood the word 'housename'. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with (archaic) Dutch translation

Can anyone translate this for me? It's a caption for an old Dutch religious print showing a couple of artists painting God and the angels. One labelled A is fine, but B is being grabbed by the devil. I wondered what B has done wrong.

Om mat ghy de stercker tot de deugt verweckt sout worden, soeckt ende volght [A] d’exemplen der Heyligen, meest van uw’ Patronen, ende versoeyt [B] de sonde, die u van deselve treckt, ondersoeckt wat sy van dese deught hebben gevoelt, en geschreven; hoe sy die hebben geoffent door ‘t ingeven van den [C] H. Geest.

Thanks in advance. BTW, this not work or homework, but trying to help solve a puzzle at a blog post [6]. Gordonofcartoon (talk)

I am native Dutch, so I'll give it a try. First, there may be some transciption errors in your text. "Om mat" is maybe "Om dat" or "Op dat"? And "versoeyt" is probably "verfoeyt"? Also "geoffent" may be "geoffert"? Could you check these please? 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.

Very very rough translation: So that you will be stronger stimulated to the virtue, seek and follow [A] the examples of the Holy ones, like(?) most(?) of your Saints, and abhor [B] the sin, which pulls you away from this, research what they have felt of this virtue, and written; how they have sacrificed this by the inspiration(?) of the [C] Holy Spirit. So the text does not seem to indicate what [B] did wrong, unless I am missing some subtlety in the old Dutch. Maybe some other Dutch person can do better, but I hope this is a start. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.

I looked at the image at the link, and my very uneducated guess is that the one painting is too frivilous, so the devil takes the artist, while the other painting is nice and religious so that artist is safe from the devil. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.

The use of "ibid."

I have not seen the use of ibidem in a sentence as an adverb but as an abbreviation for citations, like:

4. E. Vijh, Latin for dummies (New York: Academic, 1997), p.23.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., p.29.

Is this example (see:in context) in WP correct? -Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How about if a Manual of Style translates (or refers) "ibid." not as ‘the same author’ (same citation) but as ‘in the same place’? To the latter case, the first two citations is correct but not the third. Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)-

I haven't seen a manual of style that does that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) It's the same "place" in the sense of being the same book. You can't use it to refer to a different paper by the same author. — Emil J. 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not checked any recent manuals of styles. But just to refer ‘the same book’, the citation would be ‘id.’. To refer ‘in the same place’, the citation would be ‘ibid’. So a simple correction would be:

4. E. Vijh, Latin for dummies (New York: Academic, 1997), p.23.

5. Ibid.

6. Id., p.29.

That means ‘the same book but in page 29’ (though it is different in legal quotations; cf. id.). Are there any recent manuals that recommend avoiding these abbreviations for adapting any other English forms in modern writings? Or are these still preserved abbreviations?-Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal usage differs from other usage, as it says clearly in the very article you linked (Ibid.). Just because it meant "the same exact" place in Latin doesn't mean it's always used that way today, and there is nothing wrong with the usage presented in the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Latin abbreviations are supposed to be avoided now anyway. If I remember correctly, the latest Turabian (and presumably also the latest Chicago Manual) just repeats the author's last name (and the title if necessary), no idems or ibids or anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

November 25

In business usage, does "payroll" include "benefits" ?

For example, if I'm discussing Company A's payroll figures and budget, does that include benefit costs the company pays? I suspect in America these are calculated separately. But in China most "benefits" take the form of cash additives to monthly paychecks, making things a bit murkier. Is this something that varies from company to company? I haven't been able to get a definitive answer anywhere and am hoping a CPA or other such expect drops by and sees this... Thank you. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the use of prepositions

Consider the following sentences:

Q1: Where did you get the birthday present for Mary?

Q2: Where did you get the birthday present for Mary from?

Q3: Where did you get the birthday present for Mary at?

A1: I got it at Sears.

A2: I got it from Sears.

Are the prepositions at the end of Q2 & Q3: (i) grammatically acceptable (ignoring the style "rule" about not ending a sentence with a preposition)? (ii) necessary? Assuming that Q1–Q3 are all acceptable, which of them sounds most natural to you?

Between A1 & A2, which of them sounds more natural (assuming that they are both grammatically acceptable)? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.11.55 (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Smells like a homework question. +Angr 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No. --173.49.11.55 (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Q2 specifically asks you where you were when you got the birthday present.

Q3 asks where were you when you got the present. So you would answer: "I was at Sears when I got the present.".

Q1 asks "Where did you get the birthday present?"

Both Q1 and Q3 are especially similar, but Q2 specifically asks where you were.174.3.102.6 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that interpretation from them at all. The questions all mean the same thing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sport Abbrevations?

What is "PL'r"?

What is "OL'ing"?174.3.102.6 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess. PL'r = power lifter, OL'ing = overhead lifting? --173.49.11.55 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the rest of the content of that page, I might agree. But those abbreviations are not used on the page supplied. Maybe the entry that used them was taken off the home page? Dismas|^(talk) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkish graphotactics

Which Turkish letters cannot start a Turkish word? --84.61.167.221 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Which Turkish letters cannot end a Turkish word? --84.61.167.221 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)