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 8

Different people have different tastes

à chacun son goût OR chacun à son goût.

Which is better French, s'il vous plait? -- 00:45, 8 April 2010 User:Wanderer57

Jack's son has the gout. That said, i hear the second version more often, although both would seem to be grammatically correct. Gzuckier (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As Flanders and Swann put it: I don't care for sherry, one cannot drink stout, And port is a wine I can well do without. It's simply a case of chacun a son gout, Have some Madeira, m'dear! AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure either of my sons would agree, Gzuckier. They're both pretty healthy.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Our List of French words and phrases used by English speakers article confirms what Gzuckier wrote, and adds chacun ses goûts and à chacun ses goûts - I'm assuming these are French phrases used correctly in that language. Googling sites ending in .fr shows à chacun son goût to be the more common of the two by a large margin, with the latter occurring mostly in song titles, etc. -- the Great Gavini 08:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As a French native speaker (from France) I say: à chacun son goût. Of course it depends on the context, I could say: chacun a son goût particulier,…. Note, there is no accent on the a (it is a form of the verb avoir), in this latter phrase. The verb avoir can be ommitted like in chacun ses goûts as pointed out by The Great Gavini. Chacun à son goût seems to be used mainly by English speakers. I am not sure that it is correct in (modern) French (because of the accent on the a: à is a preposition in this case). — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to correct myself. We can say in French chacun à son goût. But I would not use it in the same way (Chacun à son goût = chacun selon son goût). I would say: Wagner ou Bach ? Á chacun son goût ! (Wagner or Bach ? It's a matter of taste! or Each to his own!) But: Ajoutez du vin blanc ou rouge, chacun à son goût.: Add some red or white wine, according to your own taste. Some may have a different opinion: I am not member of the Académie Française. — AldoSyrt (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps, De gustibus non est disputandum Rmhermen (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In the context of "to each to his own" we say chacun son goût, chacun ses couleurs -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sprachbund

From the article on Khmer language: As a result of geographic proximity, the Khmer language has affected, and also been affected by; Thai, Lao, Vietnamese and Cham many of which all form a pseudo-sprachbund in peninsular Southeast Asia, since most contain high levels of Sanskrit and Pali influences....but why is it a "pseudo-sprachbund" since the languages in a sprachbund needn't be genetically related?--达伟 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the "pseudo"-part is because those languages have not (primarily) borrowed from each other, but have a shared borrowing from other languages (namely Sanskrit and Pali). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Translation from French into English

Can a user please translate the following from French into English: “Il y a au milieu de leur synagogue une chaire magnifique & fort élevée, avec un beau couffin brodé; c’est la chaire de Moise, … ils mettent le livre du Pentateuque, & en font la lecture.” Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be something missing, but the passage is something like "In the middle of their synagogue there was a magnificent and high chair, with a lovely embroidered crib; it was the chair of Moses (?) ... they placed [there] the book of the Pentateuch and read it". rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is chaire a chair or a pulpit? I think in this case, the latter. The word couffin in French means "basket" and by extension "a kind of basket used as a crib"; I think that a translation closer to the French meaning would be "Moses basket". But the translation will be ackward: "with a lovely embroidered Moses basket; it was the pulpit of Moses [~ dedicated to Moses]...". — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

(edit conflict)This page gives "In the centre of all is 'the throne of Moses,' a magnificent and elevated chair, with an embroidered cushion, upon which they place the book of the law while it is read" which I think is a little better. -- the Great Gavini 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight, the translation I gave is probably the most preferable, because the original seems to be English and by a Mr. James Finn (as in the link I gave). -- the Great Gavini 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this link the original language is Portuguese and the writer is Jean-Paul Gozani (a French Jesuit). Aside, in this book it is not a couffin (Moses basket) but a coussin (cushion), in old French some letters s looked like f: an error of transcription in the OP text? — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have found the OP text here and, yes! it is coussin not couffin. — AldoSyrt (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Gozani is apparently Italian, not French (don't have full access to journals, but see these results). But whether French or not, assumptions cannot be made from the French version as if it were the Portuguese original. -- the Great Gavini 11:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this link, Jean-Paul Gozani was from Piedmont which was part of the House of Savoy at this time. This can explain his "French" first name. — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I would question the English translation linked by the Great Gavini. Chaire is almost certainly a pulpit, not a chair. When one is going to read from a book, one places the book on a pulpit, not a chair. The English translator might have been put off by the cushion, but it is easy to imagine the Torah resting on a cushion atop the pulpit. Marco polo (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but it's a synagogue, and a rather plain one at that, making it uncertain whether it is a chair or something fancier. I doubt that Marcopolo's and AldoSyrt's translation as "pulprit" is tenable since it is a synagogue. [C]haire could well be a French mistranslation from the Portuguese - I don't think chaires exist in synagogues. But in translating as "chair" I'm assuming Finn translated from the Portuguese original and not a French version. I've hunted high and low for the Portuguese original but in vain, making this whole exercise futile at best. -- the Great Gavini 11:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this link the bibliography of Mr. Finn's book refers to the French translation (Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, écrites des missions étrangères). I have not found a reference to the original Portuguese text. — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There's an article about the long s which explains why the letter 's' could look a bit like the letter 'f'. --Kjoonlee 23:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that usage of "chair" as "throne" or "pulpit", where we get expressions like "chairman" and "I have the chair"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently OED. -- the Great Gavini 11:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The feature of the synagogue that is probably being described as a chaire is the bimah, which is more like a pulpit than a chair. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think so. The bimah is the whole platform or dais, which may contain several lectern and seats. --ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

However, this is one definition of chaire in French. Here is a link you can refer to, and especially the definition B. 3. Moreover you can notice the French phrase: Être assis (dans) sur la chaire de Moïse. Enseigner la loi de Moïse chez les Juifs in Definition B. 1. (To be seated (in) on the Moses Chaire = To teach the Moses law in Jewish people.) — AldoSyrt (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the Portuguese Wiki, the word càtera (chair, professorship; chaire in French) at the origin means: " a seat located on a platform on which a professor gave medieval lectures". I don't speak Portuguese, so my translation may be wrong (I know, it is not good English either). Moreover, today, we don't know the exact word used in the Portuguese original, therefore I fear that this mystery will never be fathomed. — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there really such a thing as the "Jewish Bible"?

I went to a religious school, and also went to church frequently, as a child, and throughout all that time since then up until a minutes or two ago I thought that 'the bible' only referred to the Christian bible. Now, reading the Bible article for the first time, I've been shocked to see that the article is not just about the bible (as I knew it), but also describes what is described as the "Jewish Bible", which I've never heard of before. I'm really shocked that if I refer to "the bible" then someone asks me which bible I'm refering to?! Surely there's only one, although it does include both the Old and New Testaments, and with some variation for the Protestant and Catholic versions.

So do Jewish people really refer to the Torah and so on as the "Jewish bible"? Wouldnt they actually just refer to it as "The Torah"? Isnt the phrase "Jewish Bible" just a phrase or metaphor someone has made up very recently, and which seems to be loaded with an agenda? I'm now an aetheist so I've no preference or loyalty to either religion. Thanks 78.144.248.81 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

See Jewish Bible. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Isnt that like a metaphor? For example I could call the British Prime Minister "the British President". And then when someone refers to "the President" I ask "Do you mean the American president, or the British President?" 78.144.248.81 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If there had never been any such thing as the Christian bible, then the expression "Jewish bible" wouldnt exist either. So its a derived phrase. 78.147.131.74 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

See Bible (disambiguation). -- Wavelength (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Abrahamic religious_texts. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please may I beg to disagree about it being cross posted, since the questions are not the same, although they are both about religious texts. 78.144.248.81 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

See Definitions of Bible - OneLook Dictionary Search and http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Bible and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Bible. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

78.144.248.81 — you are probably right. Based on personal observation I would say that common speech equates "Bible" with "Christian Bible." But the other usage is not unheard of. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary sixth edition has as its first meaning for bible the Christian scriptures, the second meaning says "Scriptours of other religions; authoritative book". It does not say anything about a Jewish Bible. How far back has the phrase "Jewish Bible" go in common use? What countries is it used in - I suspect it may be more used in North America perhaps.

Is there such a thing as the Muslim Bible then? Would Muslims refer to it as such, and not the Qur'an? 78.144.248.81 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Torah is only the first of three parts of the Hebrew Bible, also called the Tanakh so no, Jews would not confuse Torah with Tanakh. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do Jewish people use the word "bible" in conversation between themselves? Wouldnt they use the word Tanakh? 78.144.248.81 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not always. See, for example, International Bible Contest. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Google's news archive has examples of the phrase "Jewish Bible" dating back as far as 1856, so it's not a new term. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

78.144.248.81 — "Tanakh" is not an English word. (It's actually a a Hebrew acronym.) Why would English-speaking Jews use a non-English term? Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Because their Jewish? As Christians use as lot of non-English terms, such as "bible" for example. 78.147.131.74 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Plenty of Jews I know say "Pesach" instead of "Passover", for instance. 128.135.222.164 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Some Christians say "Pesach" too. Anyone can use any word that they choose. But the point I was trying to make is that an English-speaking Jew need not use a foreign-to-the-English-language term if a familiar English word is available. Exceptions certainly abound. The fact that someone uses a word (in this case) indicates very little. User:78.144.248.81 is questioning whether a Jew would use the word "bible." My answer, in a nutshell, is: possibly. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

More than "possibly". My Jewish friends refer to "The Bible" and what they are actually referring to is what us Christians called "The Old Testament". Keep in mind that "bible" is the anglicized word that simply means "book". Hence a traditional Christian bible is titled not just "Bible" but "Holy Bible" (holy book). Also, I think Muslims refer to the "Holy Quran", as the word "quran" by itself simply means "recitations" or something like that. Also, "Pesach" is Hebrew, and its exact translation is "Passover". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If Fiddler on the Roof can teach you anything about Jewish customs, the book in question is usually referred to as "the good book". ;)-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Good Book" is also used to denote the Christian Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

78.144.248.81, what do you think the "Old Testament" is? —Tamfang (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Weighing in here as a 4th generation US Jew raised anglophone in the Reform Movement and since the mid-1980s a "secular" naturalized Israeli speaking Hebrew: American Jews refer to "the Bible" whose first five books are "the Torah." Apart from this is the Christians' Scripture which Jews refer to as the "New Testament" and includes the Four Gospels. The term "Old Testament" is in widespread usage, as it's known that Christians refer to the Bible as including both "Old" and "New." Jews are likely to use the term "[what non-Jews call the] Old Testament" outside the fold. Besides being fairly intuitive, the term "Jewish Bible" may be considered a euphemism (presumably among believing Jews) for "Old Testament" to avoid the qualifier "old" by those for whom the "new" isn't acknowledged as part of the Scripture. In general, a Jew referring to a "biblical expression" unqualified, would implicitly not consider the New Testament as included. Being characteristically ignorant of Hebrew terms (as Reform Judaism didn't embrace Zionism until 1970), I didn't know the term Tanakh (Hebrew acronym for "Pentateuch, Prophets, Writings"), though American Jews of the streams (Conservative, Orthodox) better grounded in Hebrew do perhaps use it in the vernacular, similar to the variant usage in English of Passover/Pesach noted above, or [the]Sabbath/Shabbat (Shabbos). Deborahjay (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "Tanakh" has occurred prominently on the cover or title page of Jewish Publication Society Bible translations since 1985. AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Describing the Tanakh as the "Jewish Bible" is I think a prime example of a Reification (fallacy). It presumably was originally used as a metaphor, now for some (possibly mostly North Americans, I'm just guessing) its used without being aware of the metaphor. 78.147.131.74 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way is calling the Tanakh the (Hebrew or Jewish) Bible an example of reification? Jews have just as much right to refer to their Scriptures as "the Bible" as Christians do, if not more right to do so. First, see our article Bible, which correctly states that the term Bible can refer to either the Jewish or the Christian scriptures. In that article, you will see that "The Greek phrase Ta biblia (lit. "little papyrus books")[5] was "an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,"[6] and would have referred to the Septuagint.[7]". This Greek term, which is the origin of the English word Bible was used to refer to the Jewish scriptures before it was used for the Christian scriptures. Perhaps you grew up thinking that "the Bible" was always a reference to the Christian Bible. In fact, it is not. Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand reification. Another issue is if there is a Jewish bible then there ought to be a Muslim bible, a Hindu bible, and so on. As a former Christian I am offended by the word bible being misused in this way. Its like Linux users deciding to call it "Windows(Linux)" or "Lindows" or whatever, or Canadians calling themselves "Camericans" or some other made up name. Pity its not a trade-mark. If you are going to have a seperate (although Abrahamic) religion, why try to disguise it as another religion? 89.242.144.8 (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should there be any such thing, considering that the Bible is not an authoritative canonical scripture for either Muslims or Hindus?? Your other assertions approach close to unintelligibility. AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Some Christians regard the O.T. as being merely "background" to the N.T. Similarly, Islam seems to regard the O.T. and the N.T. togethr as being merely "background" to the Quran. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Any form of Christianity which relegates the Old Testament to being "merely background" to anywhere remotely near the same degree that Islam relegates Jewish and Christian scriptures to being "merely background", is called "Marcionist", a derogatory epithet which refers to a severe ancient heresy... AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite true. There were several different streaks of early Christianity that did not believe that "God" (i.e. the Jesus-sender) was Jehova/Yahweh/the creator god of the old testament. This was quite prevalent in the gnostic streaks influenced by Platonic philosophy, who used this argument to explain the apparent contradiction that the creation of a perfect, omnipotent and well-meaning god was anything but. The Marcionites were only one of these groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Marcionism was considered to be borderline Gnosticism by some, as explained in the Marcionism article. Marcionism includes the distinction between a semi-evil demiurge and the true high God, but omits most of the fanciful Gnostic cosmogony and claims to special exclusive private mystical revelations -- so from the traditional mainstream "orthodox" Christian point of view, Gnosticism is Marcionism plus other additional objectionable heretical features... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the OP is saying that just because he never heard the Old Testament referred to as "The Bible", that somehow something's wrong. Although "Holy Bible" is now the predominant use of the term, probably thanks to there being so many more Christians than Jews, it's pretty evident that the Christians borrowed the term from the Jews. Just another example of Christians having borrowed something from Judaism (such as reconfiguring the Seder as the Communion). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Speculate all you like. 89.242.144.8 (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thus spake the driveth-by. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton (chosen at random -- any source would do), published as part of the "From Jesus to Christ" website for the PBS series "Frontline" episode of the same name: "The English word 'Bible' is from the Greek phrase ta biblia, 'the books,' an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus." So that answers your question: the Jews used the word "Bible" hundreds of years before Christianity existed. Meanwhile, without searching for citations I can assure you that the Jewish Scriptures (later falsely called the "Old Testament") were essentially established in their present form by 100 AD, a time at which some of the books of the Christian "Bible" had not yet been written, and at which there was nothing REMOTELY resembling a "canon" of Christian books (which resulted from a two-century process -- eliminating dozens of early Christian books -- that did not properly begin until the mid- to late-second century). So, quite simply, the "Bible" WAS the "Hebrew Bible," i.e., the "Jewish Scriptures," and needed no qualifier. Only after the Jewish Christians were marginalized and finally eliminated (circa 135 AD at the latest) did the Gentile Christians find it necessary to refer to the "Hebrew" Bible or the "Jewish" scriptures (you certainly don't find any qualifiers in the many, many references to "scriptures" in the "New" Testament, including those attributed to Jesus himself, for whom "'Jewish' scriptures" would have been an outrageous redundancy). What exactly is your gripe with this historical fact? 63.17.91.51 (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Past tense words

What are the types of different versions of verbs in the past tense called, such as "Mommy, it fell and broke" versus "Mommy, it didn't fall or break?" DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

See Participle. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the participles would be "falling", "fallen", "breaking", "broken", not any of the forms above.... AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. When there's an auxiliary verb (here did), is the main verb called an "infinitive" though to is absent? —Tamfang (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's called "non-finite". rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes called the "short infinitive" (but the only verb where you can really tell based on morphological form in Modern English is "be"). AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

See English verbs. The forms you ask about are all examples of the English preterite. The affirmative forms use the inflected preterite form of the main verb. The negative forms use the inflected preterite form of the auxiliary verb do (i.e., did), plus the negative particle n't, followed by the "naked" or "short infinitive" form of the main verb. Marco polo (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

From my memory of high school grammar, I thought that they were called: simple (he swam); emphatic (he did swim); and progressive (he was swimming) forms of the past tense. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

April 9

People from Krasnoyarsk

I've searched Google and read the article on Krasnoyarsk but I can't seem to find a demonym. I'm currently using Siberian as a placeholder but surely there is a more precise term to describe someone from Krasnoyarsk? Thanks 173.33.12.81 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know – and, frankly, doubt – whether an English demonym exists, but Russian Wikipedia provides a Russian one: masculine красноярец (krasnoyarets), feminine красноярка (krasnoyarka), plural красноярцы (krasnoyartsy). The city's name comes from Красный Яр (Krasnyy Yar), literally "Beautiful Ravine" – in case you want to Anglicize it and create your own demonym out of that. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally someone posted a question on April 9th - just 40 minutes or so before the date expired. :P --Магьосник (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The foremost English demonym seems to be "Krasnoyarskian", for which there are twenty ghits, including a few in Google Books. LANTZY^TALK 02:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

April 10

Traduttore, traditore!

It's common for writers to discuss the problems of translation, but has a notable writer ever actually refused to allow their own work to be translated, either into a particular target language or in general? LANTZY^TALK 02:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to prevent people from translating their published works into other languages. Whether those translations ever see the light of day as separate publications is another issue; but there's nothing to stop anyone from coming up with their own private translation of any foreign-language book you care to name. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps I ought to clarify. Has there ever been a notable writer who opposed the translation of his work, whether or not he had the power to prevent it? LANTZY^TALK 04:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See Copyright Advisory Network / Translation copyright. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically in Islam, the Quran cannot be translated, only "explained" or "interpreted"...But this is more figurative than literal, since "translation" does in fact take place...--71.111.229.19 (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the book is translated, Muslims just don't consider it the Qur'an afterwards. --Tango (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Until relatively recently the Bible was also not supposed to be translated from Latin to vernacular languages, although the Latin itself is a translation, and various vernacular translations were made anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If your definition of "relatively recently" is ca. 425 years ago (around the time when the Douai Bible, French "Louvain" Bible etc. were being made). AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

George Steiner, I seem to recall, will not allow his novella The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. to be translated into German, for fear that the words he put into Hitler's mouth in his defense speech might sound a bit too good for comfort in German.--Rallette (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

From Arturo Pérez-Reverte: He originally refused to have his novels translated from the original Spanish to any language other than French. --151.51.45.45 (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Willem Frederik Hermans is another recent case. He was disappointed in early translations of his novels (from the original Dutch) in the 1960's and did not authorize any further translations until his death, which occured in 1995. He is only now becoming recognized as a major writer outside of the Netherlands and Belgium because of this. --Xuxl (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What about Mein Kampf? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't see anything about Hitler refusing permission for it to be translated, and indeed there have been many translations, all equally unreadable. What you may be referring to is the title, which, in English at least, is not translated. I've never known why not. It seems to be in the same camp as Marx's "Das Kapital". Our article very helpfully translates Mein Kampf as "My Struggle", but just as unhelpfully fails to say why that translation is almost never actually used anywhere. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The English translation of Mein Kampf was reviewed by Kenneth Burke, perhaps he has something to say about this (the English Mein Kampf was a watered down edition of the book it is said).--Radh (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

One of Alan Cranston's early claims to fame was that he circulated a semi-bootleg unexpurgated translation of Mein Kampf into English at a time when the German government was opposed to it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

How many 8-bit characters are there in Mein Kampf? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Woman, or Rich guy who likes cheap hookers?

I have heard that the 1990 film Pretty Woman, starring Richard Gere and Julia Roberts, was given a more descriptive title in Chinese, something along the line of "I am rich, but I still like cheap hookers" or "I will marry a prostitute to save money". According to a paper, Pretty Woman was translated into “漂亮女人” in mainland, “风月俏佳人” in Hong Kong. Can anyone provide a literal translation? decltype (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Google Translate yields "Pretty Woman" for both, which is normally helpful, but not here

According to Wiktionary, 漂亮女人 really is literally "pretty woman", while 风月俏佳人 literally means "wind-moon-pretty-beautiful-person". Perhaps someone who actually knows Cantonese can shed light on the latter. +Angr 13:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The mainland translation (漂亮女人) is indeed a literal translation of the English title. No idea about the HK translation (like Angr said, we'll need a Cantonese speaker), but it certainly doesn't look like it says anything about prostitutes or being cheap. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Per zh-wiki, the Taiwanese release was translated as 麻雀變鳳凰 (simplified: 麻雀变凤凰), which is literally "Sparrow becomes Phoenix". That's probably some kind of chengyu (sounds reminiscent of The Ugly Duckling) but I don't see how it would have the hooker meaning either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Some online translators and dictionaries translate 風月 (风月 in simplified Chinese) as "romance" or "romantic". However, in Hong Kong Cantonese, 風月 is often used as a euphemism related to sex business. 風月場所 refers to venues where services of a sexual nature are (understood to be) offered and bought, perhaps not openly. 俏 means "pretty" in Chinese. 佳人 is a literary word for a beautiful woman. Taken together 風月俏佳人 can be translated as "a beautiful woman in the sex business." --98.114.98.200 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The bit about "I am rich, but I still like cheap hookers" or "I will marry a prostitute to save money" are jokes. As you can see it surfacing on various websites along with dozens other fake movie titles.

In make sense to use a completely different movie title for marketability because humour and play-on-words are usually lost in translation. The translator/marketer would usually opt to use native catch phrase or idiom so that it would not sound cumbersome in a literal translation. Intersetingly, 《風月俏佳人》is also the Chinese title for Milk Money.

A famous example is The Sound of Music, whose HK title is 《仙樂飄飄處處聞》; whereas in the Mainland is the more literal 《音乐之声》and 《真善美》in Taiwan. "仙樂飄飄處處聞" comes from Bai Juyi's Tang poem 《長恨歌》 (though the original stanza was "仙樂風飄處處聞". 真善美 is another well known term meaning "truth, kindness, beauty" or just "goodness". [1] I'm willing to bet "風月俏佳人" is one of these where it comes from literary works. I can't tell you which one at this moment.

Here's a list of movie titles compared in HK, Taiwan and China. [2] --Kvasir (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the mainland China entries in that post are completely made up (probably for satire). It's rather sad that some people appear to believe that they would actually use such idiotic translations. I second 98's explanation, but there are more subtleties behind that translation. 佳人 means beautiful woman but also has the connotation of a sophisticated, cultured lady. 俏 also has similar connotations of elegance and also playfulness. In a financial context it also means something is doing well (eg. rising stock). So to tie it all together you can read it as a beautiful woman in the sex business." but with the connotations and subtleties it becomes "working girl rises to elegant lady", which fits the movie well. --antilived^{T | C | G} 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

April 11

Help with article on Japanese subject

Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

I am trying to get Masako Katsura to featured article level. I've gone as far as I can with English Language sources, but there has to be many in Japanese, probably with a lot of vital information not in any of the English sources. I could really use the help of someone fluent in Japanese who has a research skillset. The easy stuff first: I'd like to place her written Japanese name in proper form at the start of the article. I got this: の検索結果 from some Wikipedia mirror Japanese site. I have no idea if it's correct or even that I identified the correct part the page that displayed her name. I'd like to place right after her Latin character name something similar to the form that follows, grabbed from another article:

"Hideki Tōjō (Kyūjitai: 東條 英機; Shinjitai: 東条 英機)"

More involved help: it would be wonderful if someone would gather together a list of reliable sources available online, if there are any, which discuss her. It is pretty much impossible for me to do so with the language barrier. Once I have a list, I can use machine translation as best I can to see what they say and if they have any additional information and can ask specific questions here or elsewhere if I identity something to add to make sure I get it right. Of course, anyone who wants to go further and contribute to the article is welcome, but I would ask that anything you add be cited to a reliable source in an inline citation.

Finally, I am looking at a minimum for the following (citable) information all of which, is far more likely to be available from Japanese sources than English: Her exact date of birth, where she was born and lived as a child (anything on her childhood prior to 14 really) her family's details, their parents and siblings names etc., and finally, her date of death or confirmation that she's still alive and where she lives now (she would be 96-97 years old, having moved back to Japan from the U.S. in about 1990). Finally, note that apparently she and her sister toured many parts of Asia giving exhibitions in 1929 and later and it might be that she has mention in other Asian language sources, especially Chinese.

Thanks for any help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

One minor point that I know about: "の" is a preposition meaning "of", and is not part of the name if it occurs at the end or the beginning (some old Japanese names had no in the middle, but my vague impression is that that's kind of archaic by now). AnonMoos (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese does not have prepositions (前置詞). It's a postposition (後置詞). Rather than glossing it as "of", describing it as a genitive case particle is more precise. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said "adposition" Another point is that "-ko" as a suffix in Japanese feminine names is most commonly written 子 , as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Katsura" appears to be 桂, as in the existing article, but Masako shows at least four different names "Masako". The most common among these appears to be 雅子, so if this is indeed her name, it would normally appear as 桂雅子. A search for any of the four names on Japanese Wikipedia fails, nor does she seem to be referred to at jp:ビリヤード (billiards). 桂雅子 does get several Google hits, but most of them seem to be to do with film (映画) so I'm guessing that there is an actress of that name. That's the best I can do. --ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

At the wikiproject cross-post, they have tracked her name to properly be 桂 マサ子; she wrote at least two books, which give her name in Japanese and in this form which are shown at the National Diet Library. The link which showed this was this but now I get a "session expired" when I look at it. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It says it's closed for maintenance.

Yes the existing article has her name in that form. As far as I know, it's not usual to write a Japanese given name in katakana, which is why I was looking for spellings in kanji. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends. Katakana names were quite common in Meiji and Shōwa Period. Many (extreme) elderly people still write their names like this. Also, another factor is that the subject apparently spent a significant amount of time outside of Japan, making her "outside the group", and hence treated similarly as a foreigner. (See for example Yoko Ono.) It's hard to say anything definite. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Where the OP has written "I got this: の検索結果 from some Wikipedia mirror Japanese site.", the 'の検索結果' bit just means 'search result of', and is not anybody's name. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You'll note that I said "I have no idea if it's correct or even that I identified the correct part the page that displayed her name." Obviously I did not find the part of the page which displayed her name!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Korean syllables

How often occur the syllables 샤, 섀, 셔, 셰, 쇼, and 슈 in the Korean language? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

셔, 쇼, 슈 occur frequently.

I don't think I've heard 샤, 섀, 셰 that often, except in loanwords. In loanwords, 샤, 섀, 셰 aren't uncommon. --Kjoonlee 23:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How often occur the syllables 샤, 섀, 셔, 셰, 쇼, and 슈 in Sino-Korean words? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. There aren't any. --Kjoonlee 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are the syllables 샤, 섀, 셔, 셰, 쇼, and 슈 absent from Sino-Korean words? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this homework? The semivowel+vowel in 섀 just isn't found in Sino-Korean letter names. For the rest, the [ʃ] sound just isn't found in Sino-Korean letter names either. You might want to read the phonotactics article and try to figure something out. 야, 여, 예, 요, 유 are found in Sino-Korean. --Kjoonlee 00:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

교, 규 exist, but 갸 doesn't in Sino-Korean either. --Kjoonlee 03:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any Sino-Korean words which begin with the letter ㅋ? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, and there aren't any Korea-specific characters that start with ㅋ either. But why do you ask? Do you need detailed sources? --Kjoonlee 09:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SUV (pronunciation)

When you say "SUV" (as in sports utility vehicle) in English, do you only pronounce the letters separately ("ess you vee") or can you make it sound like a single word (like "soove" or "suvv") too? --AlexSuricata (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, always "ess you vee". And occasionally "wankermobile". PhGustaf (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only heard the initialism. If someone said they bought a soove, I wouldn't know what they were talking about. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On another hand, I have (very rarely) heard spute or pigwagon. —Tamfang (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody says "SUV" in the UK. "Four-wheel-drive", "4x4" (pronounced "four by four") or "off-roader" are the equivelant terms on this side of the Atlantic. Alansplodge (talk)

What do you call a 2-wheel-drive SUV ? StuRat (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unmarketable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody says "SUV" in the UK." - totally untrue[4][5][6]. --62.41.72.25 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the fashion for certain brits to deny use of any phrase originating in the USA. I'm Irish and we understand "SUV" fine, although the simple "Jeep" tends to be used more often, just as "hoover" is used instead of "vacuum cleaner".--92.251.220.72 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure this guy [7] pronounces it 'soove'. --Joe^Talk_Work 21:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

South African English word "moltrein"

What is the usual name for the "subway train/underground train" in South African English? I know that moltrein is also used in slang, but does anyone use it in everyday English? In South Africa I never saw a "rapid transit system", I just know it from the movies. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone make a list of grammatical differences between South African English and American/British English, for exampe: do we say dived or dove (now I think of it I can't remember, I think "dived"), sometimes I also find that South African English lies somewhat between British and American English (may be because of the media?) for example BrE = at the weekend, AmE = on the weekend, SAE = in the weekend [from: in die naweek?], sometimes it sounds British i.e. holiday, autumn etc., and other times American i.e. movie, flashlight. Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Brits don't say flashlight? Rimush (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Torch. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I lived to this age without knowing that. Thanks. Rimush (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm South African and don't know a word for that except "subway" which we marvel at when overseas. It's probably because we've never had a subway until the "Gautrain" which is to be officially opened this year just before the World Cup. Gautrain is not a nickname though; it is named after the province Gauteng. Sandman30s (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just confirmed with some Afrikaners at work and "moltrein" is more of an Afrikaans word rather than a general slang word. It comes from "mole" which has an obvious analogy. Sandman30s (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of some French names

Hi there. I'm working on the first Indochina War on an essay, and I don't want to keep bastardising the French names in my head. I'm not too clued up on the French language, nor on the phonetic pronunciation text that accompanies many articles on Wikipedia. Would anyone be able to just spell out (in terms of pronunciation) the following names?

• Rene Cogny, is it Rene as in Rene Zellwegger then Cogny as in cog-knee?

ruh NAY koh NYEE

• Henri Navarre, is it Henri as in Thierry Henry and Navarre to rhyme with Nav-Car?

awn REE nah VAHR (Note that the "on" in "on REE" is really a nasal vowel—"aw" pronounced through the nose without air leaving the mouth—rather than a vowel followed by an "n" sound)

• Langlais, is it Longlace?

lawn GLAY (In "lon" we have the same nasal vowel described above rather than a vowel plus an "n" sound.)

• Bigeard, is it Bij to rhyme with fridge then aired?

bee ZHAHR (In this word, "ge" is pronounced with a sound that I have described as "zh". This is the same sound that you make for the "ge" in the English word "beige".)

Thanks for your help, feel free to put the answers next to my bullet points. SGGH ^ping! 20:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to review Wikipedia:IPA for French and IPA, since the IPA is a more accurate and useful pronunciation guide than any comparisons to English words. But for quick reference:

• René Cogny (the accent is required): first name is like you said, Cogny is roughly like "cone-yee".
• Henri Navarre: the H is silent, so the first name is like "on-ree". In Navarre, the first syllable is not stressed, so it shouldn't sound like "nav"; the vowel is more like a schwa. Something like "nuh-var".
• Langlais: the S is silent, and the vowel at the beginning is not the same as the one in "long", it's more like the one in "la" (as in 'tra la la'). The word is something like "lang-lay".
• Bigeard: not quite sure, but it's probably more like "beej-ar". (The last syllable should have the same pronunciation as in Jean-Luc Picard: the D is silent.)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I struggle to understand the IPA stuff, but thank you for your help! Your responses are much more helpful, and you referenced Jean-Luc Picard! SGGH ^ping! 21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, the first syllable of 'Navarre' is not reduced the way we do in English. It's still an /a/, albeit short. On the other hand, the first syllable of 'René' is a schwa, so it doesn't sound like 'rennay' which is what most English speakers in Britain seem to do with the name (I don't know what Americans do with it: if they give it final stress, as they often do with French words, they may naturally produce a schwa in the first syllable). Anyway, the first syllable should be like that in 'ravine' - though with a French 'r' back in the throat. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Navarre would very much be pronounced "nuh-var" if you were saying it in English.

• I pronounce ravine like "ruh-veen". How do you say it?Paul Davidson (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But the discussion was about how the French pronunciation sounds, not about how it might change in English; so Rjanag's post seemed to suggest that it is "uh" in French. After all, you wouldn't need to remind English speakers to sound English. And if they could avoid reducing to schwa in English - it would be appropriate to encourage them to avoid it, not vice versa. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's like Picard, since no one ever pronounces Picard with a French accent (except occasionally Q, I suppose). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added phonetic transcriptions to each of your names above using phonetic spellings modeled on English spelling. Marco polo (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

IPA (someone's gotta do it!): ʁəne kɔɲi; ɑ̃ri nɑvaʁ; lɑ̃lɛ; biʒaʁ. More or less.

The first responder's "aw" is wrong, unless your dialect has the cot-caught merger. —Tamfang (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The French nasal [a] (i.e./ɑ̃/) often sounds more rounded than its non-nasal counterpart, so it may indeed seem more like an [ɔ] to a non-French speaker. Admittedly, a modern Southern England pronunciation of the <aw> phoneme may be too high to resemble French /ɑ̃/, but the American version is more or less fine IMO (even in a pronunciation which doesn't have the cot-caught merger). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming Langlais comes from the word l'anglais, it is pronounced [lɑ̃ɡlɛ].—Emil J. 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any French dialects with an /ɑ̃/-/ɔ̃/ merger? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I look for one word

I regret, but I do not speak well English -- please would you try to comprehend. I look for one word who in english signifies lampe électrique in french. She is like a tube which one turns on and light comes out, if you do not know to speak french. Thank you a lot. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.204.127 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Translate says flashlight, though my first thought was fluorescent lamp. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As noted above on this page, torch is British English for American flashlight.

A torch would be more precisely une lampe de poche. Lampe électrique literally means "electric light"; I cannot say whether it can also mean torch. Intelligentsium 00:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

L'article français fr:Lampe électrique est lié à l'article anglais en:Lamp (electrical component). On peut dire en anglais "lamp" ou "electric lamp" ou "light" ou "electric light". Les expressions avec "electric" sont plus précises parce que "lamp" peut signifier "lampe allumée par de l'huile" et "light" peut signifier "lumière" comme celle du soleil. Pour améliorer votre connaissannce de la langue anglaise, vous pouvez utiliser les sites suivants.

• Apprendre l'anglais en ligne gratuitement, cours anglais, British Council France (for French speakers)
• Anglais en ligne - ABA English
• e-Anglais.com: cours d'anglais, exercices, tests, ressources, grammaire
• Visual Dictionary Online
• Visual dictionary
• LanguageGuide: Foreign Language Vocabulary, Grammar, and Readings

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[Je corrige l'orthographe: "a" --> "à". -- Wavelength (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)]

[Je corrige l'orthographe: "utilisez" --> "utiliser". -- Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)]

Consider also light bulb (ampoule). —Tamfang (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Je suis d'accord avec Tamfang --- c'est possible que le meilleur traduction de "lampe électrique" est "light bulb". Ampoule électrique = light bulb, lampe de poche = torch or flashlight, mais il me semble que "lampe électrique" peut signifier tout les deux ( [8]) Tinfoilcat (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

if it's a "tube" then it's a flourescent lamp. Period. Everything anyone is about to respond to this comment with or raise by way of criticism notwithstanding. The real, the one true answer to the question is "flourescent lamp."84.153.204.187 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the French Wiki article on the fluorescent lamp says "Un tube fluorescent est un type particulier de lampe électrique". Rimush (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who might not know, the word "nothwithstanding", though usually used postpositively, just means "despite". In other words, the meaning of the above is that the one true answer is flourescent lamp despite Rimush's, or anyone else's, upcoming criticism of this answer. 84.153.204.187 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedant's corner: the word is "fluorescent" (note the positions of the u and the o). --TammyMoet (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

History is full of people who passionately declare they possess the One Truth. Here on the Reference Desk, though, you need to cite a source, which you have not done. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly sounds like the OP is describing a flourescent light, but it would be hard to say for sure unless he could find us an illustration. Also, the only other recent contribution by that IP (which geolocates to Wisconsin) seems to be in proper English, so it's possible there's a delayed April 1 thing going on here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Do they grow a lot of wheat in Wisconsin? And wherever you live?  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Field corn, sileage corn, soybeans, etc., throughout the American midwest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deadest bat I've ever seen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be the Houston Astros, who are winless so far this season. They play under arclights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. Anything's better than lights that sort of turn into flour (!) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A flashlight (torch) also looks like a tube. —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is repetitive, but the French wikipedia's article[9] on the subject makes it clear that the generic English equivalent would be "electric light", using the term "light" in the colloquial way that means "lightbulb" or "lamp". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the confusion is that "light" (which comes from Latin and Greek) is used to mean both light itself and a source of light, whereas "lamp" (also from Latin and Greek) is more restrictive and refers only to a source of light. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. "Light" is a good old Germanic word and does not come from either Latin or Greek. +Angr 12:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going by my Webster's, and also check out OE:[10] (or EO, to be clearer). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Websters and EO both say the same thing, that "light" goes back to a Proto-Indo-European root that also evolved into similar Latin and Greek words, but the English form is purely Germanic... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The ancestor words "leuk" and "lux" would not be far apart in pronunciation. It's interesting that the sanskrit root of both is "rocate", so the "R" slid to to an "L", it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The OE gives the PIE root as *leuk-, which means that the "l" slid to a "r" in Sanskrit, not the other way round.—Emil J. 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

All the better. So "light" may not come from "lux", but they both come from the same thing ultimately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lampe electrique is a sort of umbrella term for things such as light bulbs and fluorescent lamps, apparently, but the OP seems to be describing a fluorescent lamp. Rimush (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

April 12

Looking for a German expert with a lot of time on their hands

I have a German language doctoral thesis that I would like to have translated into English. It is a small book (roughly 4.5 x 7.5), probably just wide enough to fit into your back pocket, but it has 220 pages and the print is pretty small. The subject of the thesis is Chinese history and literature. I am willing to pay for the effort, but it wouldn't be the normal going rate for such a project as I am on a fixed income. If anyone is interested, please contact me on my talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar situation once myself. You can consider doing what I did. You can contact a local university and find a college student or graduate student in that field. They usually need the extra money, and they don't charge a lot since they are only students (i.e., not professionals in the field). That's my suggestion. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

But you surely get what you pay for? If you do not need this thing done (for a job) or at least not done fast, why don't you make a raw translation yourself (esp. any termini technici) and then pay somebody with a good writing style reasonable money? - I cannot believe that you learned Chinese without a bit of English.--Radh (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is that Ghostexorcist doesn't read German. The way I understood it, the thesis was written by someone else, in German. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. that's different. Well, I'd do it - but it still cannot be done overnight./ But then, User Ghostexorcist might simple be looking for something in this thing and not need the whole diss.?--Radh (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Radh, why not ask on his/her talkpage, as requested? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, you're right I guess.--Radh (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct terminology

Imagine that two people are walking down (or up) a flight of stairs. Person A walks with only one foot alternating on each step: his right foot on Step 1; his left foot on Step 2; and so on. Person B walks with both feet on each step: he places his right foot on Step 1 and then his left foot; he places his right foot on Step 2 and then his left foot; and so on. Is there a word to describe the manner in which each person is descending (or climbing) the stairs? Also, extend the same question to regular walking (without the stairs). Person C is walking normally, with one foot in front of the other. Person D is walking (as if in a graduation march) with right foot forward, then left foot meets right, then left foot forward, then right foot meets left, etc. In essence, Person B and Person D require two physical steps (foot movements) to advance one ground step (length or distance moved) forward. What word would accurately describe these walking methods? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Gait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.67 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 April 2010

The answer might be in Glossary of dance moves. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd describe person A as walking foot-over-foot, but that may be just me.—msh210℠ 00:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bastardising some dance terminology, I'd say that when your feet pass each other each time, they're open steps ('pas ouvert' in ballet), but when the other foot catches up each time, it's a closed step. Steewi (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My father (who moonlighted as a church organist) used to complain bitterly about people in wedding processions who walked like person D. He thought it looked incredibly stupid. Unfortunately, I can't remember what name (if any) he gave to that particular gait, and he's been dead for 10 years so I can't ask him. +Angr 05:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hesitation step? ---Sluzzelin talk 06:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the term he used for it! Thanks. +Angr 11:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

probably 'tread' is the best - that seems to be the word used for describing different walking styles (even tread, heavy tread, measured tread). 'Gait' (as mentioned) would also work, and has a more elegant sound. Incidentally, that particular tread/gait is used in wedding processions because (when done well) it's eye-catching - essentially, each step contains a moment where the person stops and poses for the onlookers. most people are too self-conscious about it to make i elegant, though, so it just looks dorky. --Ludwigs2 06:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

searching for meaning of a word

I just heard a word on a book on DVD and don't know the meaning. Phonetically, it sounded something like "shin-wally," possibly plural. The context were things found among the belongings of the narrator's great aunt. Can someone help with the meaning? Is it French in origin (it sounded like it might be)?

Chamois ? StuRat (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My guess is Chinoiserie. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted this question. I went back to the library last night and found the hardback version and the word (easy to do, as it came near the end at a significant point in the book). "Alansplodge" had it right. The on-line dictionary translates this as "unncessary complication," but perhaps it has an idiomatic meaning also, as the sentence was something like "All (or perhaps everything) but the chinoiserie was broken..." Anyway, thanks for your help!

Goodness knows how come the online dictionary translates it as "unnecessary complication"! It is, in fact, the name given to the Oriental furniture and porcelain, which was so popular in the 19th century in England. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The word is indeed also used in a derived sense, meaning "unnecessary complications" (as in "les chinoiseries bureaucratiques") but the concrete meaning is the primary one. --Xuxl (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Concrete furniture, eh? Sounds pretty solid and durable, if not particularly comfortable.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

April 13

es

What is veer?174.3.123.220 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is "es"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably "edit summary"; that's where it says "NPOV veer". Why don't you ask the editor, User:Nmate, directly? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct English? "such nicer"

Is it correct to say: you have such nicer chairs than us. 188.174.4.248 (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you would go "you have much nicer chairs than we do". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

... or "Your chairs are so much nicer than ours". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, "You have such nice chairs; they're much nicer than ours". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to say there is nothing incorrect about "such nicer" and it sounds fine to me although "much" is more common. It may, to many, sound a strange construction but I cannot think of any rule against it. meltBanana 12:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

meltBanana, is English the first language you ever talked fluently in? (I'm not asking if you're a 'native speaker', a different question). 84.153.214.140 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First and only language I can claim any fluency in, but apparently not quite enough. Lots of words could replace "nicer" in that sentence after either "such" or "much": "heavier, funkier, comfier, greener, prettier, smaller" etc. but "such nicer" does not work? I would guess it is because "such nice" is a semi-fossilised phrase and as such people can't read it properly when it is "such nicer" so it seems wrong. but then you probably shouldn't take grammar advice from me as I am a bit of a descriptivist grammar anarchist (aGrammachist?) meltBanana 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Such" means "(the) like" or "so" (with which it apparently has a common origin). The expression "and such" is equivalent to "and the like". It's used for equating rather than comparing in a superior way, as with "nicer". "Such nice" equates the subject with "nice". "Such nicer" doesn't really work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why does 'so much nicer' work, BB? It's because it means 'nicer [to a certain as-yet-unspoken extent]', in the same way as 'such nicer' theoretically could. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I think that such cannot be used with a comparative adjective. It is an adverb similar to very in this way. Marco polo (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"You have such a nicer chair than me/I do" sounds fine to me, so why shouldn't "You have such nicer chairs than us/we do"? I'm a native speaker and this question has puddled me a little. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's odd. Going slowly through it, yes, it does sound wrong, but on the hand, it doesn't sound so wrong I wouldn't use or hear it in fluent informal speech. Not saying I eve have done, just that I doubt my ears would prick up if I did. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence works, but something like "You have such nicer chairs than us that I want to buy them." works. "Such" should generally be used in the form "such ___ that ___". It is common to say things like "You have such nice chairs." but "You have very nice chairs." is preferable. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it works very well for me with "a nicer chair" (singular), but is odd in the plural form, for some reason. --Lgriot (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I went out for dinner last night and had a really excellent meal. It was such a good meal!

Could I have said "It was such a better meal"? Or "It was such a/the best meal"? I very much doubt it. I'm with Marco Polo here. This usage of 'such' requires the positive form of the adjective. It's an intensifier that implicitly puts this particular meal way ahead of many other, unspecified meals. It's way better than any of them, and may even be the best meal I ever had, but I still don't use 'better' or 'best' with 'such'. That's because, as others have said, 'such a <good meal>' is roughly equivalent to 'a very <good meal>', and we never say 'very better'. We do say 'the very best', but that doesn't mean we can say 'such a best' or 'such the best' or 'such best'. 'Such a <good meal>' is also roughly equivalent to 'an extremely <good meal>', and we never say either 'extremely better' or 'extremely best'.

Now, when we're comparing one thing with another and making a marked contrast, we can't use 'such' in the way some people are saying is ok to their native English ears. (I'm really surprised to hear this being defended, and while I accept there are many Englishes, I wouldn't have thought this was standard usage in any of them.) We have to use 'much' or 'so much'. Your chairs are (so) much better than ours, rather than Your chairs are such better than ours. So, to come full circle, You have such nicer chairs than us is not on, and not only for the inappropriate use of 'such'. You can't compare chairs with people, or pretend that 'we' are chairs, which is what this is saying. It has to be something like You have such nice chairs; they're (so) much nicer than ours. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I (native Brit Eng speaker) fully agree, and am equally bemused by some of the other comments here. "Such a nicer chair..." and "Such nicer chairs..." both seem, to me, unequivocally wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I (native Am Eng speaker) fully agree too. "Such nicer chairs" is simply ungrammatical for me. +Angr 10:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The singular version really sounds fine to me, but not the plural version, which sounds clumsy. The only example online that I could find was a question on Yahoo Answers (where someone asks why women have 'such nicer butts', so I decided not to use that to illustrate my case :) ). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wise move. The premise of the question is obviously false to begin with. +Angr 11:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You don' realise what you're missing lol.--92.251.220.72 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have said the phrase to myself several times and I can't find anything wrong with it. Maybe there is some prescriptive grammar that says that "such" cannot be followed by a comparative, but I would have no difficulty understanding the phrase if someone said it, and it would not even occur to me that the phrase might not be correct. I'm a native AmE speaker.

There are some google hits for "such larger", "such greater", etc. Also, the replacement "much greater" obviously has a different meaning than "such greater", to my ear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Jack of Oz's comments about "such a better", that phrase is clearly fine, with seven million google hits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

such + comparative does seem to be used, at least marginally, in constructions like "Why does X have such Y-er Zs?" See "why do" "such bigger" and "why do" "such larger" for examples. (But note: there are lots of false positive hits there, and lots where the "why do" and "such X-er" are not contiguous.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pooh, Google! What would they know! Any source that disagrees with me is obviously wrong, and can be haughtily and contemptuously dismissed.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gender

What is the plural of brother?

"Brothers"; formerly also "brethren", now used only in religious contexts. Note that the difference between singular and plural is in grammatical number, not grammatical gender. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Note the "en" pluralization, suggstive of Germanic origins, as with "men", "women", "children". As per my Webster's: "Brother" is Bruder in modern German (although, curiously, the German plural appears to be Brüder rather than Bruderen), Old High German bruodor, Old English brothor, Latin frater, Greek phrater. Schwester for "sister", Old English sweostor, Old Norwegian systir, Latin soror, Sanskrit svasr. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, in "children", "brethren", and "oxen", the "en" operates as a suffix, but in "men" and "women" the "en" is part of the basic root (with umlaut modification). Historically, the English forms "children" and "brethren" are actually double plurals (which explains why you don't find any n consonant in the plural of German Bruder). AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sehr gut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Antonym

Can give be a antonym of get??? --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any examples in which it would be. The two words would seem to be more or less antonyms. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a difficult time comprehending this Q without quotation marks, so here it is, corrected:

Can "give" be a synonym an antonym of "get" ? StuRat (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Get" was sometimes used as a variation of the verb "beget", so a sentence along the lines of "I will get a child on Alice" (meaning "I will make Alice pregnant") was possible, and can be seen as close in meaning to "I will give Alice a child", though they have nuances of differing attitudes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could say the same about the more common phrase "I will get Alice pregnant". I think what the OP is probably referring to is how we say 'get sbd. a present'. Here it doesn't mean 'give' per se, but more like 'fetch' or 'bring' I would say. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In that example I would have said closer to "obtain", as a previous and distinct action from the subsequent giving, but see [11]. The 'working class' use of the verb get to construct a phrase describing almost any any action has I dimly recall been perjoratively remarked on, possibly by George Orwell (not apparently in the essay Politics and the English Language: in 1984?) or Anthony Burgess. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, antonyms. For comparison, I'm thinking of the FTP commands "GET" and "PUT". Opposite directions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry friends, it was antonym. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that changes the whole game. Yes, get and give are antonyms. As in "giving as good as you get", and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Without checking the history, it looks to me like the original question was "Can give be a synonym of get". After a few answers were given, the word "synonym" was changed to "antonym", with nothing to show it had ever been different. Coming to this thread for the first time now, it's very difficult to follow what the heck's going on. Richardrj and StuRat look like they've lost most of their marbles, etc. Extra999, next time you change a question, please strike out the original words (like this) and insert the new words beside them. That way, newcomers will have a chance of comprehending the game without having to go through a befuddlement stage. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK>

a real answer?

I bet you can find at least one game, normally played seated, where (at least by custom) you can give up by getting up. Then in fiction about the game: "The play caught Smith totally off guard. His response, the only possible one, was to [get/give] up, take leave politely, and walk briskly away from the indignity, and towards the bar." :). 84.153.214.140 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He meant to say "antonym" anyway. But "getting up" does not equate to "giving up". They are separate acts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese translation

Can someone please translate the text at the bottom of the following image http://park.geocities.jp/matukinrei/fhoto/km.JPG I am placing the link in this form because for some reason it doesn't work, at least on my browser, when I access it as a link, but does if it is copied and pasted into my address bar. If it would help you with the translation, the image depicts Masako Katsura, Kinrey Matsuyama and Vernon Greenleaf in or about 1951-1956.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It says 'Kinrei Matsuyama (left) and Masako Katsura (right)'. It also includes their sports titles - '選手' - which just means 'player' and needn't be translated. Masako's name is written as 桂　マサ子, in answer to the question posted yesterday [EDIT] - and I see now that that was cleared up, too. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks KägeTorä. Now the question is, can I claim this as anonymous because there's no information on the photo, and thus that it is public domain after 50 years per Japanese copyright law, or do I need more than "the source provides no information on its provenance". Damn. (Not really asking; just talking to myself. I'll head over to media copyright questions for this).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I wouldn't have a clue about that anyway - I'm just a lowly linguist :) Always best to be careful were you get pictures from, though, especially if you're making yogurt. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese

Why was Porygon-Z's original Japanese name porigon zetto rather than porigon zii? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Porygon is the link, for editors who don't know what you're referring to.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if this helps, but the Japanese rendition of English zed is ゼッド (zeddo). --151.51.15.200 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Its Japanese name, according to Bulbapedia, is ポリゴンZ and from [12] As with Porygon2, it is currently believed that Porygon-Z will not appear in the anime as a result of the Electric Soldier Porygon incident, except possibly as a brief cameo. It is currently the only Generation IV Pokémon that has not appeared in the movies or anime yet.
  So, the question is, just out of curiosity, where did you hear its name? --151.51.15.200 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Google search of ポリゴン　ゼット (zetto) gives 67,400 ghits and　ポリゴン　ゼッド (zeddo) gives 216 (of which the first one is a question asking if it's 'zetto' or 'zeddo'). Japanese Wikipedia's article on Porygon-Z also gives it as 'zetto'. In Japanese, 'Z' can be either 'zeddo' or 'zetto' but is usually 'zetto' (as ALC says here - you hear 'zeddo' more in English Language Schools). Hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But where do either of those come from? Wouldn't a direct transcription of Z into katakana be zii? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Zed is the British/Canadian term for Z. Look here: [13]--151.51.15.200 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And ALC does give ジー but it really is not used much. The Japanese Wikipedia article on the letter 'z' says (at the bottom of that section) that the letter is mostly pronounced 'zetto' in Japan. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems more likely to me that it came from Dutch, where apparently the name is "zet" (according to the Z article). The Dutch were among the first European countries to have extensive trade with Japan, and the only ones allowed in during most of the Edo period. Rckrone (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard numerous hypotheses on the subject, and that was one of them. However, it strikes me as odd that only one letter would have a Dutch name, while the rest have English names. Another hypothesis I was told was that it was because the Latin name is 'zeta' (doesn't explain the change from 'zeta' to 'zetto' with elongated 't' + 'o', usually indicative of original final '-t'), and still other people have said it came from German. This is all just things I've heard, of course, and can't provide sources. The Japanese Wikipedia article for ゼット does say it's from Dutch, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

German exonims

Looking at the German Wikipedia, I noticed that a lot of Italian cities of Northern Italy have a German translation (dt. veraltet means ancient german name). Here are some examples:
Como > Chum, Sondrio > Sünders, Bergamo > Wälsch-Bergen, Milano > Mailand, Pavia > Pawei, Lodi > Lauden, Crema > Krem, Cremona > Kremun, Brescia > Wälsch-Brixen, Mantova > Mantua, Verona > Bern, Vicenza > Wiesentheim, Padova > Esten, Venezia > Venedig, Belluno > Beilun, Udine > Weiden, Lecco > Leck, Vigevano > Vigen, Feltre > Felters, Varese > Väris, Legnano > Ligni, Monza > Montsch, Bassano del Grappa > Bassan.
While it's normal to have German exonims for Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol or for main cities (Roma, Firenze, Napoli...), some of the towns I mentioned are pretty minor. How do you explain this? It is because Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia, while almost entirely Italian-speaking, was part of the Austrian Empire? When were they instituited for the first time? And, if so, I would like to find a list of ancient German names of now-Italian cities. I'm seeking expecially for: Rovigo, Treviso, Schio, Conegliano, Magenta, Goito, Solferino, Chioggia and Concordia. --151.51.15.200 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not all of the towns in your second list will necessarily have their own German names. Even though the towns in your first list are relatively unimportant today, either 1) they were important towns or even independent city-states during the Middle Ages as part of the Holy Roman Empire, or 2) they are at the base of the Alps not far from German-speaking areas, for which they could have served as commercial entrepots. Some of the towns meet both criteria. Therefore, in medieval times, each of these towns probably had a German-speaking minority of soldiers and itinerant merchants. Most of the towns in your second list were too insignificant and/or too far from German-speaking areas in the Middle Ages for this to be true. Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article "German exonyms" might be helpful. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's a sentence I didn't expect to see. —Tamfang (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

[I am adding quotation marks to my comment of 00:28, for use–mention distinction. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)]

The only town of the ones you asked about specifically where I have read a German exonym is "Tervis" for Treviso. For example on an old map by Sebastian Münster: "Von der Statt Treviso / oder Tervis" ("of the town Treviso / or Tervis"). 18th item, "EUI1273", on this site ---Sluzzelin talk 01:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Demolished building

Resolved

Why is it said that a demolished building was raised to the ground. Raised gives the impression of something going up not down. Thanks, Mo ainm~Talk 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's "razed" to the ground, not "raised". Although spelling it as "raised" probably happens from time to time. AlexiusHoratius 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The etymology of "raze" - for which "rase" is (or was) an alternative spelling - is related to "abrasion" and "razor" and refers to scraping something back. "Raise" has quite a different origin, from Norse via Old English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This pair of words is a fine example of both the homophone and its subset, the heterograph. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an editorial cartoon in the 1980's, depicting Ronald Reagan explaining that the "secret plan to raise taxes" which he was accused of having was actually a "secret plan to raze Texas" -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks for the replies had a feeling it wasn't spelt that way. Mo ainm~Talk 09:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Eye of the Tiger lyrics

What do they sing in the chorus? Various lyrics websites, e.g. this one or this one, give the lyrics as follows: It's the eye of the tiger, it's the thrill of the fight/Rising up to the challenge of our rival. However, Survivor do not pronounce the sounds of the phrase I underlined in the same way as they do elsewhere in the same lyrics. The /aɪ/ (/ʌi/?) diphthong that can be heard, say, in tiger or fight, or, where it's followed by /v/, alive or survivor, is definitely not what's in rival. The /v/ itself and with the other /v/'s in the text are not as like as two peas either. This website gives the lyrics in another way: Risin' up to the challenge if I rather. Is this meaningless? None of the numerous dictionaries I possess say rather can be a verb, neither does Wiktionary. Thanks. --Магьосник (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

From years of listening to this song I have always assumed it was "rival", and indeed I do not hear anything that would cause me to doubt my perception of that word. Singers are hardly consistent with the manner in which they sing, and they do take odd liberties with pronunciation -- as evidenced by the strange conversion of the "l"s in "challenge" to "r" sounds. However, I hear nothing out of the ordinary in Dave Bickler's pronunciation of "rival", and definitely nothing to suggest he wanted an "a" or "th" sound. Xenon54 / talk / 00:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall that "our rival(s)" appears on Karaoke machines. FWIW, /v/ and /ð/ are similar sounding, differing acoustically from each other only in their pitch. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In this youtube[14] I'm hearing "our rival" every time he says it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, most Americans pronounce "rather" with an [æ] vowel which is not too similar to a standard [ai] diphthong. AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Our article Eye of the Tiger includes a quote from one of the songwriters affirming that it's "rival" and was originally supposed to rhyme with "survival" until the text was changed, leaving it an assonance of "tiger". +Angr 10:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Anyway, is a hypothetical *rising up to the challenge if I rather meaningless? --Магьосник (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily meaningless, but definitely ungrammatical. "Rising up to the challenge if I'd rather" is at least grammatical, but not particularly meaningful. +Angr 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The meaning, to me, would be that they may or may not make a real effort, which runs counter to the rest of the song, which states that they definitely will make the effort. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

April 14

Is there a larger variation of the Sator Square?

The Sator Square is composed of 5x5 of chracters. Is there a larger English version of words that accomplish the same effect of making words up to down and left to right in each row in perhaps 6x6 or 7x7 characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.11.38 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on word square has a few examples under "Modern English squares", up to order eight:

B I T	C A R D	H E A R T	G A R T E R	B R A V A D O	L A T E R A L S
I C E	A R E A	E M B E R	A V E R S E	R E N A M E D	A X O N E M A L
T E N	R E A R	A B U S E	R E C I T E	A N A L O G Y	T O E P L A T E
	D A R T	R E S I N	T R I B A L	V A L U E R S	E N P L A N E D
		T R E N D	E S T A T E	A M O E B A S	R E L A N D E D
			R E E L E D	D E G R A D E	A M A N D I N E
				O D Y S S E Y	L A T E E N E R
					S L E D D E R S

---Sluzzelin talk 12:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you read on, it then gives an order-9 square and discusses attempts at an order-10 square. --Anonymous, 21:41 UTC, April 14, 2010.

long word

According to [15] "in long clothes" is a word. What does it mean?174.3.123.220 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a word, it's a phrase used as a synonym for "beginning". I've never heard it myself, but I guess it means "wearing baby clothes", since those are often one piece, rather than separate pants and shirt. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My SOED defines "long-clothes" as "the garments of a baby in arms". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In Victorian times, babies which were too young to move around much on their own were often dressed in long gowns (often going past the feet). Once they started crawling around a lot on their own, then they were dressed in shorter gowns which left the feet free. They wouldn't really be dressed in gender-specific clothing (clearly-differentiated boys' and girls' clothes) until they started walking and talking. AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A traditional infant's christening gown is a semi-surviving example of "long clothes" in the sense above (though it's mentioned only somewhat briefly on the Wikipedia Baptismal clothing article). AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The garb worn by the Popeye character called "Swee'Pea" is an example of one of those long gowns, which in the 1930s would still have been well-known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition

What is "fatihah." [16]?174.3.123.220 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sura 1 of the Qur'an... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What is "le premier pas"? (same place)174.3.123.220 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

French for "the first step". -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What is "narrow end of the wedge"? (same place)174.3.123.220 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the part of a wedge that is put into the crack, (ie. the narrowest point of the triangular wedge). It's the part that goes first. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Metaphorically, the "narrow end of the wedge" (or "thin end of the wedge") is something small that leads to greater consequences. For example, relaxing the rules about some minor point may be seen as the "thin end of the wedge" that will result in more relaxation of the rules in increasingly significant points. +Angr 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally (just before this question was asked), I was visiting the Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the "slippery slope" argument, or, "if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile". StuRat (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

plural of word

Mrs is a singlar ,what should be its plural.also what is plural of Miss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.110.243 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of them are adjectives so they have no plural. However, if you treat them as nouns(which you shouldn't) I guess "misses" is a mass noun, while the plural of "miss" would be "misses".--92.251.220.72 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Both are nouns. Miss is straightforward: the plural is Misses (as in John Singer Sargent's painting The Misses Vickers (see here). Mrs. is more difficult and rarely attempted as a plural, but the French Mesdames (plural of Madame; abbreviated to Mmes) has been used in English for the purpose - see Wiktionary. Karenjc 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Miss was widely used as a noun in the nineteenth century ("a young miss" etc), but a little less so in today's language. I think Mrs. is rarely used as a real noun (as opposed to an honorific title prefix), except in the fixed slang phrase "the Mrs". Historically, Mrs. was originally a contracted form of "Mistress", the feminine of "Mister"/"Master", but this doesn't help in trying to pluralize it, and the fact that it ends in a phonological [sɪz] sequence helps ensure that it doesn't have a real plural (the pronunciation [mɪsɪzɪz] would sound ridiculous...). AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are trying to pluralize Mrs. in a sentence, recast the sentence so you don't need a plural form. If you're writing a letter, you can address it to "Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones", for example. The online Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary suggests Mesdames, per Karnejc above.[17] -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But still, suppose a man has the habit of saying "the Mrs." for his wife. Now suppose he's been married several times. He's telling a story: "My first Mrs. said ABC, but my second Mrs. thought DEF, and my third Mrs.—" and at that point you interrupt and say "How many Mrs.es ([ˈmɪsɪzɪz]) have you had?" +Angr 18:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We have narcissuses and censuses. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And missuses.—msh210℠ 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, AnonMoos misses (sorry) a point made by Flyguy below. the feminine of "Mister"/"Master", but this doesn't help in trying to pluralize it well it does help: an accepted plural of Mister is Messieurs, sometimes written "Messrs", which backs up the similarly-derived plural Mesdames mentioned. Sussexonian (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The OED gives, for the plural, either Mrs. or Mesdames. This Canadian site also suggests Mmes. or Mms. (but I have never seen the latter). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Name of ideoligical conflict of the 20th century?

Is there a name for the huge conflict between capitalism and communism, democracy, dictatorship and naziism that took place throughout much of the 20th century?--92.251.220.72 (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard "the battle of ideas" used. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you've identified several distinct conflicts. I don't think that they all share a single name. Indeed, I don't think that there was a single conflict between democracy and dictatorship, nor was there a single ideology of dictatorship. There were many different ideologies and many different struggles against dictatorship in different times and places. Marco polo (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"The short twentieth century", or "The Age of Extremes", covers the period. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marco polo that there are several distinct conflicts here, not all of which took place on a global scale. Of those that did, the conflict between capitalism and communism is known as the Cold War (though that term usually refers only to the period 1945 - 1989), and the conflict between Naziism and other forms of government is known as World War II. John M Baker (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically I am looking for terms that refer to the period 1914-1989, in the same way Age of enlightenment and Victorian era refer to their respective times. Thanks Ghmyrtle, but those words don't suit my conext.--92.251.220.72 (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hawaiian diacritical use not explained

The Hawaiian language contains many diacritic's and they are not explained within the language diacritical's page. Going to the United States section does not list them either, even though Hawaii is a part of the US. If an expert could be found, would appreciate the addition of this information to your website. Thank you. MRoof (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Hawaiian language#Orthography (writing system) unsatisfactory? —Tamfang (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Hawaiian has only one diacritic, the macron. The only other "funny character" it has is the okina ‹ʻ›, but that's not a diacritic because it doesn't modify other letters. +Angr 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Puzzling use of "people"

I don't really expect a clean-cut decision here, but I'm interested in other people's reactions. I ran across this quotation from Gordon Brown, in reference to his preparation for the televised debates: "The best teacher is the people of Britain." Intuitively, this sentence strikes me as very odd, even while my analytic brain insists that it's grammatically correct. Perhaps it's simply a matter of old-timeyness, since a phrase like "the people of Britain" would almost always be accorded a plural concord in contemporary speech. I am nevertheless aware that the word "people" may still take a singular concord, depending on the sense of the word intended. And it wouldn't have bothered me if Brown had said "The best teacher is the British people". Even "The British people is the best teacher" would have sounded less strange to my ears. Incidentally, I'm American. Does Brown's sentence sound awkward to British speakers? LANTZY^TALK 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound very odd to my American ears. I can easily imagine an American politician saying "The best teacher is the people of America." Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also American, and it also sounds fine to me. It's even OK to say "a people", as in "The British are a people who talk funny". :-) StuRat (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a Brit it does sound odd to me - presumably the wording "The best teachers are the people of Britain" was not used for fear of offending real teachers. (I too can easily imagine an American politician saying "The best teacher is the people of America" - your last President committed far worse offences than that against the language.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is meant to be read in the same way as if it said "the public" instead of "the people". I don't think this is the "'people' as a plural of 'person'" sense. --Anonymous, 21:48 UTC, April 14, 2010.

That word ordering seems fine.--92.251.220.72 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Simplified Chinese Characters

Does there exist a list somewhere that lists all of the Chinese characters that have been simplified or a comprehensive list of all of the general simplification rules (ex: 門 ⇒ 门) as well as the unique simplifications? I've looked all over on the internet for some sort of a list that covers all of the simplification methods/all the characters that have been simplified but haven't been able to find one. Preferably, I'd like one that is available for free on the internet. -- Trevor K 20:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)