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

April 1

Desert planet in Japanese

What is "desert planet" in Japanese? I know Kasei is Mars in Japanese: is that its meaning as well? Desert planet? Or is it something else? Thanks in advance. Peter Greenwell (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's "砂漠の惑星"/sabaku no wakusei. Kasei is 火星 in kanji and 火 is fire and 星 is star. Oda Mari (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Greenwell (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll add in passing that all five Chinese elements are assigned to planets: Mercury 水星 'water star', Venus 金星 'metal star', Jupiter 木星 'wood star', Saturn 土星 'earth star'. —Tamfang (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Holmes, homes

Are they pronounced alike in all parts of the English-speaking world? All comments are appreciated. --Omidinist (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I (General American) pronounce the L. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Here in Detroit, we also pronounce the "L", but, judging from the rest of the responses, we Americans are about the only ones who make the effort. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm British and I don't pronounce the L. I know I should but I can't be bothered. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lazy Brits! rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't pronounce the L in Holmes...I don't think I pronounce it in Swedish words either, like Stockholm. (I'm Canadian.) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Even for people who don't pronounce the l, the vowels are often different. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Michael Howard seems to be trying to pronounce the L even in words that haven't got one. That's what a Welsh Romanian Cambridge accent does for you, I guess. 213.122.49.103 (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As an Australian, I don't pronounce the L either. Peter Greenwell (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I pronounce the L, but I don't pronounce the M. +Angr 09:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that I hint at the "L" in "Holmes" - it doesn't sound the same as "homes" but I don't fully pronounce the "L" either. Many people hereabouts (London) make it sound the same as "homes" though. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I pronounce Sherlock Holmes' surname identically to "homes" /həʊmz/, but when I encounter anybody else with the name "Holme" or "Holmes" I say something like /hɒʊm(z)/, with a vocalised 'l' and a different vowel. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I speak RP and I don't pronounce the <l> in "Holmes." I co-articulate the <l> and the <m> in "realms," though, I think. --Kjoonlee 14:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Check my signature. When asked, I always tell people that my surname is pronounced "homes". As far as I'm concerned, there is not even a hint of the l sound. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right on, Phil. I've never heard anyone pronounce the l either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronouncing the L is fairly common in the US. However, the TV show called House implicitly acknowledges that many do not pronounce it, as it's a play on Ho[l]mes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are those who dispute this connection, arguing that a House is not a Holmes. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just another data point, not that this adds much to the discussion. I was born in 1978 and raised in New York City and only know the word as /howmz/. Msh210 on a public computer (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The larger woman

In women's fashion, it's quite common to hear euphemistic phrases like "ladies with a fuller figure" or "these blouses are designed with the larger woman in mind". Why euphemistic? Because they're using the comparative form of the adjectives in a way that's designed to downplay what they're talking about, which is anything from having a naturally big frame all the way to obesity. To refer to such a woman as "large" seems to be too blunt; but calling her "larger", which is even bigger than just "large", paradoxically seems to soften it somewhat. Is this what's going on here? How does the brain know not to treat the comparative as a comparative, and to discount the surface meaning? Or is it that the comparison is between a woman of unspecified or average size and a larger one; the second-named person would be comparatively "larger", but still not necessarily "large" in absolute terms? Except the message that comes through is that these women are large, just not necessarily obese. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of instances in which a comparative adjective sounds smaller than its positive counterpart, not just body size. We speak of "older people" to avoid calling them "old people", for example. In some languages like German and Latin, the comparative form of an adjective is regularly used to mean "rather X", "X-ish" (so in German größere Gewässer can mean "largish bodies of water", implying bodies of water not really large enough to be called große Gewässer). The comparative can also be used to mean "more nearly X", i.e. "closer to attaining X-hood but not there yet": if a schoolchild writes an essay and gets a grade of 40/100 on it, and is told to rewrite it, and gets 60/100 on the second attempt, the second attempt is better but still not good. Likewise, where the U.S. Constitution speaks of "a more perfect union", it doesn't mean the union is already perfect and is going to get even more perfect (which would be impossible given the definition of perfect); it simply means "a more nearly perfect union", "a union closer to perfection". +Angr 09:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Fuller than average", "Larger than average", are what's implied. "Large", or "Obese" or (goddess forbid) "Fat" are not nice. A large woman knows she's large. To counter such, you have Big beautiful woman or plus-size woman or the term used by Lane Bryant, "Real woman". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there's voluptuous and the -esque words, like statuesque and Rubenesque. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are good positive terms. There's also zaftig, which is a little more obscure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all, but particuarly to Angr for helping me see the bigger picture, something I'm always interested in. (Or is that the "larger picture"? :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WHICH ONE

1. You are needed to the kingdom.
2. You are needed by the kingdom

Which one of the above two forms of passive forms is suggested for the active form : " The kingdom needs you " Kasiraoj (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Although this almost sounds like homework, #2 is correct. #1 doesn't make sense. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been answered above.—Emil J. 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. I'm glad my response only took 25 seconds or so... -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More interestingly, does simple "passivization" in English ever not use 'by'? —Tamfang (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Has the answer been given to you? :P No such user (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific writing in journals (at least bioscience) is one place where the passive voice is preferred. In such writing you will see, "the temperature was observed to increase..." Perhaps the OP saw something like that, which led to the question. Of course the phrase "by us" is implied. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No such user, "you" in your example is not the subject of the active form, so your example doesn't show anything. Compare: has the answer been given to you by the teacher? rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I know... It was a lame attempt at humor... I should know better. No such user (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2

'All female band' or 'All-female band'

Should the phrase "all female" in "all female band" be hyphenated? Hyphen#Compound modifiers and Compound modifier#Hyphenation of elements suggest that it should be, but the main article was moved in 2008 from All-female band to All female band, with the reason: "non needed hyphen, bad grammar". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-needed move, bad grammarian. --Kjoonlee 07:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on what sort of grammar you're talking about - prescriptive or descriptive. Prescriptively, words like all-female, semi-sweet, French-born, multi-coloured (and, indeed, "non-needed", because there is no such word as "non") et al must be hyphenated:

• "Gaston Leclerc is a French born Peruvian astrologer" tries to mean that he is French, and he was born, and he is Peruvian. But it can't mean that: that he was born hardly needs stating, and he is no longer French. So it's obvious that French and born cannot be interpreted as independent facts about him; they are connected to each other to make a quite different and indeed contradictory fact (viz. he was born in France but doesn't live there any more and is no longer French), and must therefore be hyphenated.

That's prescriptive. But descriptive grammar will back up that bad grammarian because the hyphen is often dispensed with these days, unfortunately. Reasons include ease of reading, modernity of style, and avoidance of fussiness or "pedantry". (They then shit in their own nests by inserting hyphens where they're actually not required, such as in "the then-president". What a laugh!) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Without the hyphen, I can imagine it to mean "a band comprised of all females (in the world)". Paul Davidson (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, your responses were most helpful. I reversed the move carried out in 2008 and added an explanation to the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why modern writers hate hyphens? When I first glanced at the phrase "all female band", I assumed, just for a split-second, that the "s" had been missed off "bands". For ease of reading, some hyphens are essential. Dbfirs 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of compound nouns, it seems to be acceptable to drop the hyphen once the concept gains sufficient common currency to be understood without clarification. This article at World Wide Words talks about teen-ager (early '40s) shifting to teenager in the '50s, and lip-stick (1880) becoming lipstick in the '20s. A disdain for hyphens seems logical based on this. Also words like to-day, to-night, and to-morrow look old-fashioned, especially to American readers. This article, (from 1997) advises avoiding the hyphen when possible, but to "above all, strive for clarity," and follow established usage (using more modern/less conservative dictionaries to do so). It suggests more liberal use of the hyphen in compound modifiers, however, since these are more likely to be unclear without one. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad Friday

Why is Good Friday called "good"? Surely it was a bad friday for Jesus and his supporters. 78.146.86.6 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See the third paragraph here. Deor (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A slightly different take here[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Another" and "other" in legal provisions

I have seen the following provisions of the "Japanese Code of Civil Procedure" (JCCP):

"Where it is found to be difficult for a party to appear due to living in a remote place or any other grounds, if the party has submitted a document stating that he/she accepts the proposed terms of settlement presented in advance by the court or an authorised judge or commissioned judge, and the other party has appeared on the appearance date and accepted such proposed terms of settlement, it shall be deemed that both parties have reached a settlement."

I wonder why the word "other" is used, while it should be "another". Because:

1. In facts, there are always two parties in an action.
2. Both are in the same action for sure.
3. The determiner "another" means "one more, in addition to a former number; a second or additional one, similar in likeness or in effect."

So, when we have mentioned to any party first, the rest should be mentioned by "another," isn't it? Please see a similar case in the following provisions of the "Civil Procedure Code of Thailand (CPCT)" where the word "another" is used:

"A party may adduce another party as his witness."

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding in using English determiners "another" and "other". Thank you for directing me to the light,, ^^

— 118.174.66.131 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the rules for legal language, but in everyday English the word "another" is usually used when the second party has not previously been mentioned or implied, whereas "the other" is used when the second party has been mentioned or implied. The difference between "another" and "the other" is similar to the difference between the articles "a" and "the", if that helps. —Bkell (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the use of "the" is correct in the Japanese document precisely because there are only two parties to a legal dispute. There is one party and then the other party. This calls for the definite pronoun, because there is only one other party. As for the Thai document, "another" is correct, because we don't know which party that might be. Therefore we need the indefinite pronoun. Marco polo (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of suits with many more than two parties. Typically they are incrementally simplified by separate settlements of some plaintiffs with some defendants. For simplicity let's consider Haight and Page v. Stanyan and Ashbury. If Haight proposes a settlement with Stanyan, the agreement of another party, which could be anyone, is irrelevant; what counts is agreement of the other party (to the settlement), namely Stanyan. —Tamfang (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Thai example, as you can perhaps see, is not parallel. It is equivalent to saying "Parties to a case are not excluded from acting as witnesses for other parties." A defendant is unlikely to call a plaintiff as witness, or vice versa, so the provision is relevant only mostly in complex cases – that is, where there are more than two parties, and thus "the other party" is not well defined. —Tamfang (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the practice, now dwindling, in bicameral Westminster parliaments, where members of one house refer to the other house obliquely as "the other place" or sometime even merely "another place", as if it were no more relevant to them and their proceedings than their local milkbar or a supermarket parking lot. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

April 3

Clash of ofs

In my editing adventures, I came across this bit of text at Adrian Boult:

• In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, which included important recent British works, among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony, of which he gave the first performance of the revised version ...

The meaning's clear enough: there was the original version, and later there was a revised version, and Boult gave the first performance of the revised version. Although, whether that first performance occurred in the same 1918 series of concerts is not stated, and indeed, it happened some years later. So it's trying to get across 2 ideas: (A) Boult conducted the original version in 1918 (but was not the first to do so), and (B) he was the first to conduct the revised version (but this did not happen in 1918). Maybe it really needs separating into different sentences.

As for the grammar, it feels like a clash of "of"s; the first one's referring to the symphony in general, the second to the revised version specifically.

I tried the pedantically correct way and inserted a "later" for clarity:

• ... among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony, of the revised version of which he later gave the first performance ...

but that sounds just that, pedantically correct. Nobody would ever talk like that, not these days.

I could try the parenthetical approach:

• ... among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony (he later gave the first performance of the revised version) ...

which works best for me if we keep it as one sentence.

Is there an even better way? I'm not wanting to change it for the sake of change, but I would need some convicing the current text is OK. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

...the revised version of which he gave the first performance? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's missing an of, Rjanag. One gives the first performance <of something>; one does not give the first performance <something>. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you can add it: ...the revised version of which he gave the first performance of. Or, even simpler, ...the revised version of which he was the first to perform. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You could just leave the "of which" out and start a new sentence: ...which included important recent British works, among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony. He gave the first performance of the revised version, a performance "rather spoilt by a Zeppelin raid". Oh wait, you already said this. I agree. 81.131.55.149 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider the cited text to be correct, and a parse tree might convince you that it is. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain further, Wavelength?

How about:

• In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, which included important recent British works, among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony, the first performance of the revised version of which he later gave. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ack! Ptui! Burn that last monstrosity. (Brushing up on your bureaucratese?) I'd split it into two sentences. The parenthetical version would be my second choice. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am avoiding spending the time to design a parse tree, so here is a parallel sentence.

• In 2009 Xavier hosted a smörgåsbord with his family, which included seafood dishes, among them lobster roll, of which he supervised the first use of the revised recipe the preparation of the revised version. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising my sentence, because recipe is used with for (as in recipe for lobster roll). -- Wavelength (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)]

Grammar aside, the last Zeppelin raid on London was on 20 October 1917, which rather spoils a good story. Alansplodge (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But when was the last false alarm? Alternatively, maybe the LSO had a gig in Birmingham. 213.122.26.30 (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After a bit of research, the date of the performance was 18 Feb 1918[2], and on that day there was a Gotha Raid which failed to penetrate the London anti-aicraft defences[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Like Wavelength, I see nothing wrong with the original. A phrase X, of which he complexverbed can be transformed to and he complexverbed of X, even if the expansion of complexverb contains of (give the first performance of the revised version). Overlapping scopes do sometimes bite one, but this is not such a case. —Tamfang (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First, there's nothing all that wrong with the original, but "of which" is a phrase that's usually best avoided. If you want to keep it close to the original, I suggest that the obvious improved version is:

• In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, which included important recent British works, among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony, whose revised version he gave the first performance of.

But one or more people above said that the intention was obviously to say that he later gave the first performance of the revised version, but that doesn't fit with the article about the symphony, which says it was revised in March 1918. So I think the meaning is that in this concert series he gave the first performance of the revised version. In which case the sentence can be simplified considerably:

• In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, including the first performance of Vaughan Williams's revised A London Symphony as well as other important recent British works.

--Anonymous, 03:54 UTC, April 3, 2010.

Wow, Anonymous. Leaving aside the factual/historical issues, I'm still a little flabbergasted by "whose revised version he gave the first performance of". It would be a bold editor indeed who inserted that form of words into an article and expected it to survive for long. I know that the proscription against ending sentences with prepositions was never ironclad, but there are still times when doing so is a bad thing, because it sounds ugly, and this is one of those times. Also, isn't "whose" confined to humans? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See Definitions of whose - OneLook Dictionary Search. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That sent me to the Wikipedia article Whose [sic] Afraid of Virginia Woolf. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for all the feedback, folks. Seems I'm alone in thinking the current text is problematical. But since it still rankles, I think I'll go the parenthetical way, and then we're all happy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone. But the problem is stylistic, not grammatical. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Computer art scene groups' names

I was going to ask this at the Computing desk at first but after browsing through some of the posts there it looks like that place is strictly for technical questions, so I thought this page would be more suited to ask this; something that I've always wondered about since I started BBS'ing in the early 1990s: Why did the computer art scene groups back then, such as ACiD and iCE and many others, feel so compelled to lower-case the letter i in their names?? From what I can guess it has something to do with leetspeek, but why the letter 'i'? why not 'h'? or 'g'? or 'p'?? and exactly when and how did this custom start? The leetspeek article does not address this. -- œ^™ 03:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of ACiD it matches the capitalization pattern of the full name, and they probably liked the way it didn't look so much like "acid", which sounds nasty. If they were a particularly important group, perhaps others just copied the lower-case i from them. But this is just conjecture -- perhaps someone has a source that gives a better explanation. --Anonymous, 03:59 UTC, April 3, 2010.

In some sans serif fonts, I (the capital letter) and 1 (the numeral) look the same. Likewise with O (the capital letter) and 0 (the numeral). There is therefore a convention for computer people (especially older computer people) to emphasize the differences. Using i vs. I may have been a way to do that. The other option is that they went the e e cummings route and thought that alternative capitalization schemes were "cool" (see also leetspeak). That survives today, in some respects iPod, iPad, and iMac all use a lowercase "i" to be "hip", despite the fact that it ultimately derived from an abbreviation for "the Internet", which most traditional sticklers insist on capitalizing. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation

I was reading (the book) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and in the narrative the following sign is observed: "5,000 new homes: no dwn. payment required for vets". Assuming "vets" means "veterans", this still leaves me at a loss to explain why "down payment" has been abbreviated like that. I can't imagine "dwn." is much shorter that "down". Can anyone shed any light on this? One plausible answer might be to fit it neatly onto lines (in the "fictional" world, i.e. on the poster/sign), but as I say it's hardly shorter at all. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another commonly seen example is 'til, short for until, but no shorter than till, which is synonymous. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A period (full stop) takes up a lot less space on a line (except in monospace) than an o. 79.183.136.131 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the advertiser is part of the O Cnservatin Mvement. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you want to take up less space on the line . . . sure. But why, why, WHY would you abbreviate "dwn" and not "pmnt" or "req'd"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a work of fiction and you would have to "get into the head" of whichever character "wrote" the poster or the advertisement. Nothing more than that, I assume. I doubt that the author had any other meaning or intent. Also, in the world of real estate, perhaps that is standard abbreviation / terminology? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Verb usage

What is it called when a verb is used once in a sentence but in two different manners, eg 'The children went off in a bus and in high spirits.'? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.43.155 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Syllepsis, or semantic zeugma, as in Charles Dickens' "[She] went straight home in a flood of tears, and a sedan chair". Dbfirs 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is my favorite example of it, and online. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I was going to quote Flanders and Swann in "Have some Madeira, my dear", but he stole my thunder. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. This was beginning to get on my nerves so tonight I shall sleep easy. 92.11.43.155 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Adding Joel Stickley's "How to Write Badly Well" to Favorites") . . . I think I'm in love. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are penises called "cocks"?

This may look like a trolling question, but it is not. Where does the association of chicken with male genitalia come from? Interestingly, not only English seems to do so; Castilian Spanish uses "polla" (literally "cock" and a slang term for "penis"). So, why is that? --Belchman (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

At a guess, male chickens (cocks) typically display what is generally considered to be arrogantly masculine behavior (strutting, fighting over hens, aggression towards anyone that interferes with their 'turf', calling out challenges to rivals). They are much more obvious about it than other domesticated animals. The comparison with certain kinds of men - and the extension to male genitalia more generally - would be natural. --Ludwigs2 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what about the association of chickens with mechanical devices, as in "half-cocked" and "stopcock"? 81.131.48.116 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The cock of a flintlock firearm bore a resemblance to the head of a cock[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it was a reference to a cock's erect head. Online Etymology Dictionary seems to confirm it: "cock (v.), seeming contradictory senses of "to stand up" (as in cock one's ear), c.1600, and "to bend" (1898) are from the two cock nouns. The first is probably in reference to the posture of the bird's head or tail, the second to the firearm position. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The OED says of the penis sense, "In origin perhaps intimately connected with sense 12", where sense 12 is "A spout or short pipe serving as a channel for passing liquids through". (German Hahn is also used in both these senses.) With regard to the "spout" sense, the OED is dubious about its connection with the "male chicken" word, noting that "the origin of the name in this sense is not very clear". Deor (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So the connection between spouts and chickens is unclear, but also exists in German where the word sounds totally different? Odd. 81.131.48.116 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You have it backwards, actually — "cock" predates "penis". Penis is scientific slang for cock. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Cock" may predate "penis" in English, but "penis" was around in Latin long before there was such a thing as an organized scientific vocabulary. Of course, if English had been the international language of science a few hundred years ago instead of Latin, "cock" might be the more proper term, and "penis" would only exist, in some form, as vulgar slang in a few countries in Western Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.119.240 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 April 2010

Like I said. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd add that the metaphor really seems to be widespread - besides Castilian Spanish polla, Bulgarian also uses a word that means - or rather, originally meant - a rooster: кур. However, the root's original meaning of "rooster" was lost in the language a long time ago, leading to much embarrassed laughter when Bulgarians learn the Russian word for "hen" (курица, куры). Nevertheless, there has been a more recent re-tour of nearly the same semantic shift - modern Bulgarian slang uses патка, which literally means "duck" (and, strangely enough, the word belongs to the feminine gender, so it either denotes the species in general or specifically the female; thus, behavioural similarity as suggested by Ludwigs2 can't be the origin of the metaphor here). By the way, this leads to even more merriment when the Russian word for "partridge", куропатка, is brought up; it sounding more or less like "dick-cock". Anyway, this use of the word "duck" may confirm Kpalion's supposition that the upright position of the bird's neck is compared with an erect penis, and the bird's body is compared with the testes. In contrast, vulvae seem to be more commonly compared with more "compact", crouching mammals such as beavers (English), mice (Swedish) and squirrels (Bulgarian).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

…and naturally (& often wholly) obscured by hair. (more amusing bird-related etymology) ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

apros pos, maybe? --Ludwigs2 21:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Castilian Spanish uses, among others, "conejo" (rabbit) for the female genitalia. Heh. --Belchman (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cats are also furry. Particularly "pussy" cats.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Beaver, cat, mouse, squirrel, rabbit (this last one came as a surprise to me)... I'm beginning to think that at least within (furry) mammals, the question is not which animal could serve as a euphemism for the vulva, but which one couldn't. I suppose that the animal shouldn't be: 1. Too large (dog-sized or larger); 2. Too elongated (hardly anyone would use "otter"); 3. Too noxious or vicious (a rat, a weasel); 4. Otherwise too uncommon (a platypus). Penes, on the other hand, have been predominantly avian so far.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Except when they're serpentine, of course, as with the Yiddish word "schlong", meaning snake; or the rather silly expression "trouser snake". --FOo (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the next natural conclusion is that penes are diapsida, whereas vulvae are synapsida. :) This principle could not apply to non-amniotes, of course; but no non-amniote euphemism has been brought up so far. The only one I can think of is "clam" for the vulva. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do any of those words (кур, etc.) also refer to some kind of spigot or pipe? 81.131.35.17 (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It does in Polish. The Polish word for a spigot is kurek which is a diminutive of kur (archaic word for "cock", only in the avian sense) and originally referred to a weathercock. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Russian has курок for the cock of a weapon (whereas Bulgarian uses for the same thing петле, which is, guess what, a diminutive of петел, the currently used word for a "rooster"). But all in all, the languages that do use the root kur- for "technical" terms (Russian, Polish) don't seem to use it for genital euphemisms, and vice versa, Bulgarian and Serbian don't seem to use it for technical terms; so it seems unlikely that the euphemism use developed from the technical use.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, after Facebook stopped being a serious networking site and people started throwing sheep at each other and other stuff you might expect in a kindergarten playground, I noticed people were randomly 'cock-blocking' me. I was quite surprised at this and quite offended that Facebook should allow such an activity, as, being British, I had never heard the term before and thought it meant something to do with my genitals. Can anyone explain what this activity is? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See cock block for general info. I don't know what it means when someone randomly cock blocks you on Facebook. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

April 4

Reading figures of section

As for figures of legal section, such as, "section 1234 of the Constitution," it should be read:

1. "Section one two three four of..." or
2. "Section one thousand, two hundred and thirty four of..."
3. Or it should be elsewise read.

Thank you, once again. — 118.172.68.170 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably "section twelve thirty-four". rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So, "section 103" is read "section one o/zero three," isn't that correct?

And what about "section 103-2" ("one o three dash two" ?), and "section 103/2" ("...slash two" ?).

Moreover, is that a fomal way of reading figures of section?

With thankfulness,, ^^

— 118.172.68.170 (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually it is "one o three" and not "one zero three". If there is a dash or slash, it should be read, but usually law texts use the § symbol, which is read "section".

In Britain, the / is called "stroke", as in "27B stroke six". Shii (tock) 17:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Tragedy" as generic term for misfortune or disaster

The use of the word "tragedy" as a generic term for any misfortune or disaster (whether or not it could fairly be called tragic according to the more proper use of the term involving a misfortune having its origin in a great man's "missing the mark" in a way wholly consistent with his character)dates back to about 1500. Does anyone know when this usage became commonplace? Fifty years ago, were accidents and natural processes often called "tragic"? What about 100 years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Exaggeration is older than time itself a very old practice. Probably the first person or few people to use the word in this sense were also the first to use it in an exaggerated manner. If you're only interested in recent history, I imagine if you looked, there'd be a correlation between the rise of literary education, a rise in usage of the word, and a rise in exaggerated use of it.
(Imperfect understanding of precisely defined words is also a time honored tradition :p) ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit of hunting through Google News Search gave me the impression that 50 years ago disasters such as shipwrecks were commonly called "tragic", and 100 years ago the term was reserved for personal misfortune, and 150 years ago there had to be some kind of connection to classical history, the stage, or poetry; but you might form a different impression. 81.131.23.57 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the information is correct, Hamlet, which was written over 400 years ago, is properly titled The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. In more recent times, Mel Brooks has been quoted as saying, "Tragedy is if I have a hangnail. Comedy is if you get killed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As you say, tragedy has been used to mean a disaster since 1500, along side the tragedy of an individual meaning, and the nature of english someone will still probably try to claim that calling a huge fire a tragedy is wrong. The Tragedy of Pelee: A Narrative of Personal Experience and Observation in Martinique by George Kennan (a 1902 volcanic eruption), The Tragedy of the Korosko (1898), The Tragedy of the Negro in America: a Condensed History of the Enslavement, Sufferings, Emancipation, Present Condition and Progress of the Negro Race in the United States of America by P. Thomas Stanford (1897) are a few of the early use in the more modern sense. Also tragic in the manner of tragedy: An American field of Mars; or A universal history of all the important tragic events that have occurred in the United States of North America... by Benjamin Eggleston (1839). Calamity or disaster would have been more common words for this kind of tragedy, as to when and why tragedy supplanted them, I would guess in part it was due to the rise in melodrama. The classical rules of drama were followed frequently in the renaissance but there was a steady move away from them, works were too varied to be classed as either only comedy or tragedy. Tragedy turned from meaning one type of drama you could expect to go see and became a more abstruse definition which the people wanting entertainment didn't care to know. meltBanana 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your wonderful, thoughtful answers! Special thanks to those of you who took the time to research the answer to this question. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Cowboy" builder?

Our article on the Fawlty Towers episode, "A Touch of Class", refers to Mr. O'Reilly as "a 'cowboy' builder". Is this slang? What is a "cowboy" builder? Is it similar to a shade tree mechanic? Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cowboy%20builder%22 ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Should have known to check Urban Dictionary. Dismas|^(talk) 13:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, a common sign on the vans of builders, plumbers or electricians of south Asian origin; "You've had the cowboys, now try the Indians!". Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be afraid of being scalped. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OOI, the point of that particular line is that he quite clearly is a cowboy builder. It's dramatic irony in the sense the audience know that, and have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen (as you almost certainly did). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why there's an association between someone who herds cattle and a poor builder. Perhaps there was a particularly poor builder who liked to wear western clothes (cowboy hat and boots) ? StuRat (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr Google has let me down on the etymology of this one, but I can take a guess. A UK children's comic character called Desperate Dan has been around since the 1930s[5]. He's a larger-than life cowboy who lives in a (wierdly British) wild-west town and is always clumsily breaking things (he's the world's strongest man) and bodging them back together again. Maybe that's the association in the British psyche between cowboys and careless workmanship. Unless anyone knows better? Alansplodge (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US, at least, cowboys are associated with the Wild West, the American Frontier that was wild and lawless, as compared to the more established cities to the east. The archetypal cowboy is ill mannered and crude, prone to gambling and drinking, has little regard for the law, is hot tempered, and is likely to rush into things with little consideration. Even the cowboy lawmen, though generally regarded favorably, dispense frontier justice. Calling someone a "cowboy" (in the US) implies that they are reckless (e.g "cowboy diplomacy"). See also Cowboy#Negative associations. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The OED's first reference to unscrupulous tradesmen is from The Times in 1972. Seems to have come to the UK from the earlier US meaning of a reckless driver, first recorded 1942 and apparently frequently used to refer to the juvenile delinquents of the 50s. Drugstore cowboy was used to refer to an idle young man, who wanted to be a cowboy and who hung around drugstores since at least the 20s. One other fairly negative use of the word is almost buried in the cowboy article is Claudius Smith's militant group. meltBanana 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if a "cowboy builder" is similar to a "shade tree mechanic". What is a "shade tree mechanic"? Here in the UK, a cowboy builder is the type of incompetant builder who will use substandard materials and/or deliberately breach regulations if it will help him make more money while avoiding as much actual work as possible. The van with "You've had the cowboys, now try the Indians!" written on the side is a deliberate play on the term cowboy builder, and is used by builders of south asian descent to claim they are better than the usual cowboy builders. Whether they actually are any better I have no idea. Astronaut (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Shadetree Mechanic (a TV series named after the slang). Apparently it means amateur. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, that name implies a lazy mechanic who takes a nap under a shady tree, when they should be working. StuRat (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe bad builders became called cowboys because they habitually wear blue denim jeans rather than overalls or smarter trousers. Denim jeans are American clothing associated (in the minds of British people) with cowboys. Someone is probably going to point out that you should not wear jeans when riding horses, unless you use chaps, but nethertheless. During the seventies, when the expression began use, high-heeled cowboy boots for men were in fashion. It may also allude to the machismo and fly-by-night qualities sterotypically associated with cowboys. 84.13.53.211 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The blue jeans explanation sounds like a bit of etymythology to me, unless some evidence can be found. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you translate "故鄉" in Chinese into English?

I've been looking for an English translation of "故鄉" in Chinese that captures the essence of the word. "故鄉" literally means "old country" ("country" as in a rural area, and as in "country-style", not as in a nation). It implies being born in and spending one's childhood years in a rural area, like a village, but that the place is no longer where one lives. It also suggests one has familial and emotional ties to the place. The word is meaningful in a society in which a lot of people were born in rural areas but have moved out of those areas (to cities) but people still emotionally regard their birthplaces as "home", a place where they're from. I guess you can translate it as "home" if the reader understands the context and the intended connotations, but is there a word in English that conveys the same connotations without needing explanation? --173.49.77.185 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "old country" was used by American immigrants to mean the place of their birth, but doesn't often imply emotional ties for the reader. Shii (tock) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I was trying to explain the meaning of the word so that people not familiar with it could still suggest English equivalents. "Old country" is a literal translation but not a correct translation (and, as I noted, the "country" in my literal translation of "故鄉" means a rural area, not a nation.) --173.49.77.185 (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Homeland", perhaps? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My Old Country Home? Karenjc 19:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

故郷 is used in Japanese with the same meaning. See this online dictionary page. Oda Mari (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another answer would be "motherland". --FOo (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I usually say "home village" or "hometown". -- Vmenkov (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would translate it as "home --", where -- is whatever unit the term is being applied to - homeland, hometown, etc. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's usually taught as 'home village', but sometimes people use it to refer to the town/village where their grandparents or great grandparents came from, and they've never been there. In these situations, 'ancestral village', or 'ancestral hometown' is better. For a Chinese person, it's important to know where your ancestors came from, even if you never live there. Thus there are a lot of people in big cities like Shanghai who were born there, and so were their parents, but they will still talk about their 故鄉, and tell people that they're from there. (This also results in my notion that not many of the 20 million people who live in Shanghai consider themselves to be Shanghainese, but people who happen to live in Shanghai). Steewi (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

American pronunciation of foreign names

I've had the unfortunate experience of being in hospital for a day and was forced to watch CNN for hours on end. During this period I noticed that the American newsreaders continuously mispronounced Iran (as ee-ran when it should be ee-raan) and Iraq (as eye-rack when it should be ee-raak) yet took meticulous care in pronouncing Srebenica (shrer-ber-nitza?) correctly. My first question is - why pronounce the I's in Iran and Iraq differently? The second question is - why don't they take the same care to pronounce eastern terms correctly when taking care to pronounce (more difficult) western (European) terms? And yet the CNN newsreaders of non-American descent take such care in pronouncing all foreign names and terms correctly. I'd love to hear Americans' comments (BTW the eye-rack thing has always irritated me). Sandman30s (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have always thought it is based on how familiar the word or name is. So newscasters go out of their way to make a showy pronunciation of "Medvedev", but they don't do the same thing for "Paris" or "Berlin", and I have never heard mainstream newscaster affect a Chinese accent. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Kuhn, NPR's current Beijing correspondent, and Rob Gifford, who preceded him, both take great care in their pronunciation of personal names in Chinese, including tones, e.g., Wēn Jiābǎo, Hú Jǐntāo, &c. They tend to relax somewhat when it comes to geographical names, especially those that are well-known to Westerners; you're likely to hear Yúnnán's tones pronounced distinctly, Beijing's less so. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood why eye-rack is such a horrible mispronunciation when saying Kewba, Meks-ih-ko, and Iz-ree-uhl are perfectly okay. AlexiusHoratius 23:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Iz-ree-uhl is not perfectly ok except in the US. The first two of those three are the standard pronunciations throughout the anglosphere, but Iz-ree-uhl and Eye-rack are particularly American things (they're pronounced Iz-rail and Ee-rahk elsewhere). Btw, I've never heard a non-Russian newscaster pronounce Medvedev, or Putin, correctly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, but often I hear them make a show of it, while I never hear them make a show of "Eiffel tower". — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that Americans just don't know any better? After all, until Carl (CBM) just mentioned it, I didn't know that there was any other way to pronounce "Eiffel tower" other than "eye-full". Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say Americans have pronounced "eye-rack" and "eye-ran" that way for so long, it's almost become like a pronunciation exonym, like saying "pare-iss" instead of "pah-ree" for the French capital. In fact, saying "ee-rahn" sounds pedantic or "foreign" to an American ear. There is no alternate pronunciation of Srebenica as far as I know for U.S. broadcasters to use instead. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've usually heard "Israel" pronounced "Iz-rail" in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"is-ree-ul" is very common in the US, along with "Is-rye-ell" in certain religious settings (especially in hymns where three syllables are required). — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While we're here, I note Obama says Iran-ian, whereas everyone I've heard in the UK draws out the vowel: Ir-arn or Ir-ahn; Ir-ray-ni-an or I-rar-ni-an. Is this endemic in the US? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, what's with the British "nick-a-rag-yoo-uh" for Nicaragua or "koss-uh-voe" for Kosovo? Marco polo (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? So how do Americans pronounce Kosovo then?--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Every "o" is the same in American English for Kosovo, as in the o in "no". AlexiusHoratius 01:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Without the second one, I presume: Koe-suh-voe (that's what I find on youtube, too). Well, in British pronunciation, the "short <o>" as in "Kossovo" is more similar to the Serbian one than the "long <o>" would have been. Not to mention that the Serbian word has no long vowel there anyway, as far as I know. But I can see how the American pronunciation may be justified for American accents, because in most American accents, the "short <o>" is basically a Serbian /a/, so that the "long <o>" is actually closer to the Serbian vowel at least in terms of quality.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, now that you mention it, I suppose I probably do say "Koh-sah-voh" when saying it quickly, although if I were asked to speak it really slowly, I'd say "Koh-soh-voh". AlexiusHoratius 01:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the point is that from the point of view of Serbian pronunciation of "Kosovo", the ideal thing would probably be to have the British vowel of "cot" in all three syllables (well, it's not exactly the same vowel, but it's the closest thing available). Of course, that's not even possible. As for the American Koh-suh-voh, it would probably suggest to a Serb a spelling like "Kousavou" (that is Kaw-oo-saw-oo-vaw-oo). The British "Kossovo" at least gets the stressed vowel (almost) right, suggesting a spelling like "Kosavou" (or perhaps "Kosaveu"). An American "Kossovo" would have been spelt "Kasavou", which is not better than "Kousavou". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

...or Los Anjaleez, but then again the US pronunciation for Los Angeles isn't correct in Spanish either, but then again it's been an American city for 150 years...I guess what I'm saying is that there isn't any "right" or "wrong" in the end, just different pronunciations based on where you're from. I'm still sticking to by my point about the Meksico thing - why demand Americans modify their pronunciation to what the natives use on one but not on another? Also, the person who made the point about ee-rahn sounding a bit pedantic to an American is correct, at least for me, anyway. AlexiusHoratius 01:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's no right or wrong here, pronunciation is just a matter of convention, and it is both unnecessary and impossible to reproduce foreign pronunciation. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Srebrenica has two Rs. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a question of how far you want to go in trying to imitate the correct local pronunciation vs. saying it the "English way". To really say "Israel" the right way, it should be more like "YEES-rrah-ell". Those who say it "Eye-ran" and "Eye-rack", I have long suspected are mispronouncing it on purpose, with a degree of contempt. Like those who pronounced "Vyet Nahm" as "Veet Nam". The Spanish way to say "Los Angeles" is actually phonetically not too far from the way we typically say it. Another example, the way "Paris" sounds to my ears, as spoken by a Frenchman, is something like "pah-WEE". The French drop the trailing "s" and round off the "r", which is not a natural thing to do in English. In Spanish its "pah-RREES", which is arguably the way it should be anglicized, except we emphasis the first syllable for some unknown reason, and turn it into an "eh" sound the way we say "pair" (or "pare" or "pear"), hence we say "PAIR-iss", which admittedly sounds both ignorant and apathetic, but the apparent bottom line is that we don't know and don't care. (I wonder how a Frenchman would pronounce "Albuquerque" or "Kankakee" or "Spuyten Duyvil"? And I know how Hispanics say "Chicago", namely "chee-CAH-go", which is not correct.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume too much with the Anglicized pronunciations of Iran and Iraq. The "mispronunciation" is so common that it is, essentially, correct. The word paris was borrowed a very long time ago into English, when stress worked differently in French so that it couldh ave been stressed on the first syllable in that language. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that any English speaker pronouncs "Iraq" correctly, unless they know better. The "I" and the "q" aren't even English sounds. (I know better but I still can't pronounce the "I".) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

When native speakers say those words, they sound like "ee-RRAHN" and "ee-RRACH" (the latter almost like the Scottish way to say "loch"). I usually say "ih-RAHN" and "ih-ROCK", which I fancy to at least be somewhat closer than "eye-ran" and "eye-rack". Americans aren't so good at pronouncing their own place names, though. I've heard countless persons pronounce Oregon as "or-ee-gahn" (as if it rhymes with "polygon") when it's more like "or-ih-gun" or even "or'gun". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

George Donikian is an Australian newsreader who prides himself on his correct pronunciation of foreign names, but for his troubles he's regularly spoofed by comedians. There's an Aussie cultural thing at work there, whereby people who actually care about proper pronunciation of non-English words are looked upon somewhat askance ("Are you a poof or something?"); and to avoid such criticism, the typically homophobic Aussie male will go out of his way to appear to be ignorant, sometimes astoundingly and unbelievably so, and will take considerable pride in how little he knows about how to say words more complex than "cat" or "rat". It's changing, but vanishingly slowly. The wider picture is that, as Baseball Bugs rightly says, the further one goes down the track of "correct" pronunciation, the more likely one is to be regarded as pretentious, and that doesn't work. Finding the right balance is tricky. The Eiffel Tower is probably mispronounced by more people than any comparable object in the world; but say "Eiffel" the French way to anyone but a Frenchman, and few people would know what you're talking about, which makes it all a bit pointless. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Making fun of people who try to use English correctly is certainly not limited to Aussies. :) I gather from the IPA stuff that "Eiffel" is supposed to be pronounced as if the "ei" and the "e" were long-A's, to rhyme with "hay-bale". Am I reading it correctly? "eye-ful" is perhaps closer to the German way to say the "ei". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's pretty much as if you were spelling out F-L: "efel". The Germans would say "eye-fell". Anglos say "eye-full", or even "oy-full". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One could add that since the surname Eiffel is originally German, Germans and others can be somewhat justified in pronouncing it the German way. Same with Noam Chomsky - Russians still use the original East Slavic pronunciation of the surname (roughly "Khomskee") and still treat the -sky part as a Slavic adjectival ending, even though this doesn't match the current American pronunciation and morphology.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that many Russians are not aware that the polemicist Ном Чомски and the linguist Ноам Хомский are the same. (Or did I get that backward?) —Tamfang (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Chomski - not Chomsky - is a Polish surname. 83.31.77.212 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that pronouncing Srebrenica as "shrer-ber-nitza" is actually also incorrect, contrary to what the OP seems to believe. The initial "S" in the name is really a "s", it should not be pronounced as "sh".—Emil J. 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The same applies to Sri Lanka. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it? The article says that the local pronunciation is IPA: [ˌɕriːˈlaŋkaː], and as far as I can see, [ɕ] is closer to English [ʃ] than to [s] (for example, Japanese [ɕ] is routinely transliterated as "sh" into English).—Emil J. 16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are correct about the local pronunciation. I still pronounce the "s" as in "set". -- Wavelength (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mass displays of ad hoc pronunciation notation like this that make me glad IPA exists. There, I said it. ;-) Some smug fool^{with an opinion}18:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IPA exists for (more or less) precise scientific designations, not for mass discussions involving people who are not language nerds. Typing, say, [ˈxomskʲii̯] instead of "khomskee" in such a context risks causing a complete breakdown in communication with 80% of the participants, in addition to taking noticeably longer time to format. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How about another: is it Hay-tee or Hi-ee-ti? Ja-may-ca or Ja-my-ca? Grsz¹¹ 19:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Which are both in the karə-BEE-ən, or is it the kə-RIB-iən? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, is "Sri Lanka" pronounced "sri laanka" or "sri lunka"? ~AH1^(TCU) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never heard lunka, but I do hear differences between Shri or Sree. Grsz¹¹ 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to the Apple store to pick up an ee-PAHD. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There you go, I've misspelled and mispronounced Srebrenica. I guess I qualify to become a CNN employee? Amazing what the mind concocts when on painkillers and antibiotics. BTW I've always said Shree-Lunka, not Sree-Lanka. I guess it's always down to 'you say toe-may-toe, I say toe-maa-toe'. Sandman30s (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

When I first heard Munich, Bach, Chopin and van Gogh in English conversation, I couldn't understand them. Oda Mari (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, don't make me bring up Gloucester. Forget Oregon, what about Worcestershire? Anyway, I think there is an old habit in America of pronouncing "i" as "eye". There is mountain near where I live called Mount Si. Before you check the link, guess the pronunciation? When I moved here I called it Mount "see", not realizing it is Mount "sigh". Anyway, when it comes to non-English place names, the better known places have standard pronunciations, which may differ in the various English dialects. But the lesser known place names have no established dialectical pronunciation, as so one must attempt to pronounce it the way the people who live there do, or invent something new. Naturally, as lesser known names become common, as in wartime, dialectical pronunciations take hold. It's no surprise that news reports use the standard dialectical pronunciations for common place names according to the audience they are addressing, but make some attempt at "proper" pronunciations of place names that have no standard dialectical pronunciation. This is part of why I enjoy listening to the BBC world news that is broadcast from time to time on the local radio station here in Seattle. It's not just the alternate viewpoints (sometimes wildly alternative), but the alternative pronunciations. I must relate a story about a trip to Italy. I heard an Italian talking on the phone to some speaker of English (American, British, who knows?), and she was trying to spell out the name of a hotel. She said, "it is spelled ee teh a el... no, no ee,.. no no, ee as in ee-tahlia!" Pfly (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've always wondered how they get "Glouster" out of "Gloucester", "Wooster" out of "Worcester", and for that matter, "Folks'll" out of "Forecastle". The point about the long I is valid. Consider Hiawatha, whose correct pronunciation is like "hee-ah-wat-hah", but has evolved into "high-ah-wath-ah". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How synchronistic that you should mention the name Hiawatha, given what I created only yesterday. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Well, as the tabloids might have said when Angelina married Brad, "The stars have aligned." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You can always spell it Gloster if you prefer; many do [6] [7][8]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, last time I was in Boston I made an effort to pronounce Gloucester the way people tend to in Gloucester, Massachusetts, or so I was informed--something like glaah-stuh. Pfly (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the list of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations. Featherstonehaugh is a good one. 213.122.3.202 (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

April 5

He is beside himself.

Why does the phrase "he is beside himself" mean that he is sad or grief-stricken or overwhelmed? How does the (presumably, physical) position of being "beside yourself" lend itself to this meaning or connotation? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

My Webster's doesn't give the origin, but it does expand the definition to, "In a state of extreme excitement." Whether grief qualifies for that is iffy, but basically it's used to mean that one is in extreme emotional state - maybe separate from (or "beside") one's normal behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This site[9] says that "beside" was also used to mean "outside", and "beside oneself" was another way of saying "out of one's wits", i.e. not in control emotionally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar expression in Polish, used when someone is really very angry, which literally translates as "to walk out of oneself". — Kpalion^(talk) 18:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it may have something to do with the psychological phenomenon of appearing to be observing oneself from a short distance away, and thus "beside oneself". This can happen during periods of great stress. It happened to me once; there were two people in my office, and they were both me - the spookiest thing I've ever experienced. See also out-of-body experience. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'm feeling a little schizophrenic today." - "Hey, that makes four of us!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just "beside himself" tends IME to mean "… with anger" (pace the third link I give below), however the phrase "beside himself with grief" is common with "beside herself with joy" maybe less so. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian_%28film%29#Thulsa_Doom , http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=7053 and http://www.infosquares.com/eslblog/blog_06172008.html to name but three. Tonywalton ^Talk 12:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that third link that you cite states: The phrase is said to date back to the times of Ancient Greece, when it was believed that during very emotional times, the soul leaves the body and is therefore "beside" it. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

If you're beside yourself, does that lead to talking to yourself ? StuRat (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

could it mean your personality is split, like schitzofrenia?--79.76.239.84 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that split personality, or Dissociative identity disorder, is a necessary feature of schizophrenia. It's not. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In Schizophrenia the schiz does mean "split" and the phrenia does mean "mind" but it' mind split from reality rather than mind split into pieces (according to memory, and without checking references) --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Phonetically

Just got this into my head and it won't go away until I've resolved it. To write something as it is pronounced is to write it phonetically. To pronounce something as it is written is to pronounce it...? Thanks 92.11.43.155 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Literally? As written? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, analogically would be appropriate—see Spelling pronunciation for our article on the topic. Deor (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the same word. 'Phonetic' refers to the correspondence between written and spoken symbols. whether you are making sounds and writing down equivalent symbols or looking at written symbols and creating their corresponding sounds it's an act of phonetics. The reason it's confusing is that we do the two things for different purposes. we write the symbols for sounds as an act of transcription (converting oral production into written text), but when we do it the other way we are usually trying to get at the semantic meaning of the sounds (the old Sesame Street "Duh - awe - guh, Duh-awe-guh, Duhaweguh, Dog" thing). --Ludwigs2 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As spelled. --173.49.77.185 (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Intuitively? Doesn't quite fit exactly, but it's a useful word I forget all the time. -- the Great Gavini 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

April 6

Etymology of "This is why we can't have nice things"

Where did the phrase originate (I know it predates computers, so it can't be an internet meme), and where (outside of the web) is it most commonly used nowadays? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, someone broke something and someone else said this. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No more Death Stars for you, Darth. Wellll, maybe just one more. But that's the last one. I mean it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In what context did you hear the phrase used? I think it's used by parents to complain after a child or another family member has broken something in the home to lament the fact that "nice" things in their home are susceptible to being destroyed...--达伟 (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's generally thought to have originated on The Simpsons (episode "Trilogy of Error", 2001). How do you know it predates computers? That's an interesting assertion. This discussion [10] attributes the use of it in comedy to Paula Poundstone, and also says that it was generally used by parents scolding children when they break stuff, and presumably still is. 213.122.3.202 (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

German garb, early 1940s

In a German-language list of garments and sundry textile articles produced in massive quantity for the Wehrmacht and the civilian population by an industrious Schneiderei in the Lodz ghetto, I don't understand what's meant by the following (if I've deciphered the printing correctly...):

• Feldblusen
• Windhosen
• Kragenbinder Kragenbinden

I have a rough idea from the literal components, but what would be the equivalent terms in English, either of that period or present-day? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Feldbluse = field blouse for the army, according to the mr. Google, who also provides image results. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Martin.

(edit conflict)A Feldbluse is a field jacket (we don't have an article on that specifically, but see Army Combat Uniform#Field Jacket, M-1941 Field Jacket, M-1965 field jacket, etc., for some examples). The only meaning of Windhose I know of is tornado; I'm unaware of it being used for a literal pair of trousers (but WWII-era German military uniforms are hardly my area of specialty!). A Kragenbinde (plural Kragenbinden; I don't think Kragenbinder is a word) seems from the German Wikipedia article to be a kind of detachable collar used with field jackets. +Angr 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Would Windhose by any chance be Wendehose, or reversible trousers? The Kragenbinde is indeed a detachable collar protector, meant to protect your tunic collar from sweat.--Rallette (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Further from the OP: The lettering is clearly Windhosen, though perhaps by the hand of a non-native or undereducated speaker of German. It even occurred to me that it might be a back-translation from Yiddish, but checking my Weinreich YI>EN dico yielded only ווינדל (Windl), meaning "diaper" or "swaddling cloth". Might this be some garment that's padded or lined? Another possibility would be puttees or gaiters, if perhaps the Germans (military or civilian) used these? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This eBay page suggests it *might* be rain pants, i.e. pants you wear over your normal pants when cycling etc. in the rain. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Martin.

The German wikipedia "Regenhose" says that rain pants are pants which are wind an rain resistant, so perhaps Windhose and Regenhose are the same. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Martin

When I was young, we certainly had "Windjacken", i.e. jackets that had no stuffing, but worked as a windbreak - typically made from tightly woven and possibly waxed cotton. The term seems to have fallen out of use with the rise of high-tech functional clothing based on synthetics and Gore-Tex-like membranes. But I'd expect a "Windhose" to be pair of wind-resistant trousers to wear as an extra outer layer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, so the English term would *probably* be "wind pants" (or "rain pants"). Mr. Google has plenty of (modern) hits for these. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Martin.

In UK English, they would probably be called overtrousers[11]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, "wind pants" were a crucial part of our cold climate gear. These were heavy, insulated, waterproof overpants worn with suspenders. They were worn overtop the regular combat uniform pants, usually when the parka and mukluks were worn. pic. Seeing how armies borrow ideas/terminology from each other, this may we what you were looking for. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Auto / Otto

In my dialect of English, "auto" and "Otto" are homophones. Are they always homophones in English? In which dialects might they not be homophones? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

They are homophones only in accents with the cot-caught merger, which includes Canada and some U.S. accents, and maybe some Scottish accents. They're distinct in the rest of the English-speaking world. +Angr 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

They are distinct in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they're distinct in RP and Black Country/Brummie too. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

They're distinct in London and southern England too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP's user page doesn't indicate where he's from, at least that I saw. I'm in the American midwest, and the words are pronounced "AW-toe" and "AH-toe" respectively. They might be used in plays-on-words that might also include "ought to", but the pronunciations would not actually be identical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Angr's link explains really clearly where these vowels are merged. Everywhere else, they are not. Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignis/Lapis

Is there any German word deriving from Latin ignis (fire)? Like in English: igneous, ignition, ignescent, ignicolist, igniferous, ignifluous...
And from lapis (stone), like lapidation, lapidary? I have only found Lapislazuli.--151.51.45.45 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See [12] and [13] for some German Wikipedia articles starting with those elements. I'm sure there are more words than just those, though. +Angr 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Angr's link for "ign..." suggests that there may not be any commonly used German words derived from ignis. Most of the German Wikiarticles beginning with those letters seem to be English titles or names of bands. There is the "ignitron", whose name came from its American inventor or his American employer, but I think this is a fairly obscure technical term. There is also Ignimbrit, a geological term, and that's about it. For lapis, there are a few non-technical words that most educated Germans would know. My German is these days a little short of fluent, but I can think of the word lapidar without even checking a dictionary. Marco polo (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oronym

I learnt today of the word oronym and wondered what the corresponding word for prose is, as in the example 'Godisnowhere'. It reads 'God is nowhere' and 'God is now here' depending on what you see. Thanks 92.11.43.155 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rebracketing is the general etymological process. Not sure if there is a term for the word game. meltBanana 18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

April 7

Welsh

Why are there so many mutations in welsh. It makes it too difficult.--79.76.239.84 (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, natural languages don't evolve in such a way as to be easy for nonnative speakers to learn. And native speakers don't have any difficulty getting the mutations right. The mutations serve a useful purpose for native speakers, providing a way to distinguish between masculine and feminine nouns, between subjects and objects, etc. +Angr 07:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see (?) lenition. I could have sworn I've seen this and things like it crop up quite a few times now. -- the Great Gavini 07:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting on famously

One of the meanings of 'famously' is 'to an unusual degree'. The only example I can think of where this meaning actually applies is where we’re talking about two people who’ve just met, they click instantly, and thereafter they 'get on famously'.

Are there other things one could do 'to an unusual degree', that might be described as being done 'famously'? I don’t believe there are any common ones, but maybe there’s an arcane example or two. If I’m right, why would the word 'famously' have this meaning in only one very specific context? Or is it a case of a meaning that was once used more widely, but has dwindled down to one last bastion? -- (JackofOz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the OED, it was once used generally to mean "splendidly". It is attested in Shakespeare: "I say vnto you what he hath done Famouslie, he did it to that end"; and in Bulwer-Lytton: "I've contrived it famously". LANTZY^TALK 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this simply comes from an older colloquial use of the adjective "famous" to mean "splendid" or "magnificent", as in the 1890 attestation "It is a famous place for a fair." The latest attestation is from 1960: "Both parties..were ready to claim a famous victory in the early hours of tomorrow." It seems to have been quite a common sense of the word. LANTZY^TALK 03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It probably derives from a something along the lines of 'in a way worthy of fame or praise' --Ludwigs2 05:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"A famous victory" is back in vogue, at least among certain Australian sports commentators. When I heard them referring to something that had only just happened, literally 5 seconds ago, as "a famous victory", I wondered where they learned their English. But I now see they were more learnèd than I gave them credit for. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)