Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 12

Pronunciation of "anti" and "semi"

Please give an insight into the pronunciation of anti and semi. I've heard some people say "an-tie" and some people say "an-tee". Why the variation? And how semi should be pronounced? --Galactic Traveller (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See http://ask.antimoon.com/questions/1214/how-to-pronounce-anti-and-semi. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Americans say "antie" whilst we Brits say "antee" - same goes for 'semi' 194.223.35.225 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC) (But it is Gurumaister not signed in)

E.C. Since anti and semi both are from extinct dialects of Greek, it is hard to know what is "correct." See Dead_language#Consequences_on_grammar for more detail. Also, I can't agree with the overgeneralization above of American English and British English. I use "antie" and "antee," the latter for emphasis. Same goes for "semee" and "sem-eye," the hard pronunciation of the 'i' for emphasis. schyler (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have ben known to say "anee" schyler (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In AE, sometimes sem-ee as part of a word but always sem-i when refering to the truck. Rmhermen (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And oddly enough, "hemi" is pronounced "hemee" standalone (never "hem-eye") as with Hemi engine, and in combination as with hemisphere is pronounced with a short i; whereas "demi" is usually "demee" and is pretty much always a prefix, not a standalone. Ain't English grand? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Then there's de-MEE Moore. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I pronounce it "DEM-ee" because I don't care. Rimush (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems you care enough to come here and tell us you don't care. Which is not nothing. You may as well use that energy more productively and respect her apparent choice of pronunciation of her own name.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Americans say it either way, depending on how it makes the sentence flow, and also whether you're saying it as a standalone word or as a prefix. As with a semi-trailer truck, which we might well pronounce "sem-ee" but as shorthand, ie. just "semi", we would likely say "sem-eye". It might be less common for Americans to pronounce "anti" as "ant-ee", because that's a homophone of "ante" and "auntie" (expect in those parts of the USA where "aunt" is pronounced "ahnt" instead of "ant"). But take words like "anti-abortion". I've heard it both ways in the US, and it might be a regionalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The flow of the sentence is probably the most important indicator of U.S. pronunciation. I'll use "antee" when it's part of a well-used, unremarkable compound word (e.g. antitrust, antifreeze), and "antai" in all physics contexts (e.g. , antiproton, antimatter, antigraviton). Other than that, its use in (say) political labels (anti-fascist, anti-communist, anti-American), advertising (anti-oxidant, anti-allergy), etc. - basically general usage - depends almost entirely on the sentence structure. I'll point out that "semi" comes to English more directly from the Latin, and agree with Bugs about the rest. I'll note I do come from that part of the U.S. where "auntie" is pronounced "awn-tee," but in my travels I have never encountered anyone who thought I was calling my mother's sister a fascist. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was bemused by Jedi, which I encountered in a comic before the film was released, and naturally pronounced "Jeddy", on the analogy of "semi" and "anti". Given that it is supposed to be a foreign name, I would expect to see it written "Jedai", like Altai and Masai. But then Mark Okrand had a problem when he came to devise the Klingon language, because the second vowel of 'Klingon' wasn't anything he wanted to write with 'o'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I'm a true-blue American and I've always pronounced it "ant-ee". Perhaps it's a west coast/California dialect thing. Pfly (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Zweig

In your listing of his work, in the second to last line of that section, would you please consider a change in spelling of the word 'Verzeichnuss' (you actually spelled it correctly with an Umlaut instead of the letter 'u' I cannot add the marks above the vowels 'a' 'o' 'u' in this case, of course: 'u' to show an Umlaut) to the correct German spelling 'Verzeichniss' I also am unable to print the letter we have in German that is (almost always) the equivalent of 'ss'. In short, will you consult other Germans/German language specialists if the spelling you have used is not in fact incorrect? I apologize for my long-winded description of my request. Michael Leuthold (alterego2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alterego2000 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The usual place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Stefan Zweig). However, it seems that Mozart himself used the spelling "Verzeichnüß", see for example [1] and [2]. +Angr 21:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Verzeichnüß is actually the way Mozart himself spelled the word in the list's title, as you can see e.g. here: http://www.smca.at/presse/press_formular.php?pmid=216 - therefore, changing our entry would be the wrong thing to do. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And when editing, you have lots of special characters available from the panel below the editing panel: choose 'Latin' and you'll get pretty well all the accented letters used in European (and some other) languages. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Or you can use alt codes which I find easier. To type ü hold down the alt key and press 0252 in succession. There are codes for every character. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That, of course, depends on knowing what the alt codes are, or knowing where to find them; and also technical stuff like holding the Control and Alt keys down with the NumLock on, while typing the alt code (not something that would be blindingly intuitively obvious to an alt code newbie). I know a bit about them, but is there a lookup table that's easy for dummies to use but is also comprehensive? Going via our article alt code gets me some external links, but they fail one or both of these requirements. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Try this one. I wouldn't say the technical stuff is that difficult really. You don't have to hold Control down at all, just Alt. And yes the Num Lock needs to be on, but it usually is by default. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that this method is completely system-dependent. For example, for me Alt+0252 does nothing (or rather, the Alt+2 part of it seems to invoke a Firefox shortcut to switch to the second open tab), whereas I can produce ü by pressing Menu " u in succession (as I have the menu key bound to serve as the compose key).—Emil J. 12:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should check that. On Windows, Alt+0252 (not Alt+252) when the cursor is in a text entry mode like a Word document or a Wikipedia edit box will always bring up ü, it is not browser dependent. From your description of the tab switching, it sounds like you're trying to do it in a browser window, which is not what I'm talking about. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say browser-dependent, I said system-dependent. I don't use Windows.—Emil J. 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, if you're on a Mac (or Linux, for all I know) it will be different. I didn't bother to specify Windows. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the numbers have to be pressed on the number pad. Pressing the "other" numbers won't do jack. Rimush (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone always mention the codes that begin with 0? They all exist in three-number codes too, don't they? In this case, anyway, it's alt+129. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And yes the Num Lock needs to be on, but it usually is by default - that's what the Universal Assumption seems to be, but I'm here to tell you that I despise the NumLock key with a very great passion, and will use it only when absolutely unavoidable. (And no, I don't use the key pad for numbers, I use the horizontal row at the top of the keyboard, always have and always will. Early typewriter self-training goes in deep, and stays.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I use the horizontal row as well. But NumLock stays on because that's what happens by default, and I'm too lazy to turn it off or change the settings or whatever. Rimush (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "by default". It's never on on my computers (home, work) unless I actively turn it on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you've sometime adjusted your settings so? Not long ago there used to be a joke circulating on the Bulgarian-language Internet: "Save electricity. Make sure to turn off the NumLock key." --Theurgist (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

August 13

𣲙

What does the Chinese character 𣲙 mean? I haven't been able to find a definition for it anywhere. 68.160.243.61 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All I've been to find is that the character was in the Kangxi Dictionary. [3] Seeing that only a quarter of the characters in the dictionary actually sees use today, my guess is that this was a regional or obscure variant of 水. I couldn't find it in any Kanji dictionaries. bibliomaniac15 05:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

see http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/yitia/fra/fra02289.htm or perhaps http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/yitia/fra/fra00309.htm, variant of either 溺 or 冰96.232.190.148 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All I can see is ? in the original question. What character does OP want to know? Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't display on my system either, but it seems to be character D84F-DC99 (however you convert that into non-"surrogates")... AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The character is water with a water left side radical. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to calculate it, Mapping of Unicode characters gives the following formula... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

10000₁₆ + (H - D800₁₆ ) × 400₁₆ + (L - DC00₁₆)

The character is U+023C99, which seems to agree with your formula.—Emil J. 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, then you can see a small image of it at http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=23C99 -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fit or fitted in American english

Does "fitted" exist in American english? If not, why not? Is it correct to write for example "Noisy (roughly linear) data is fit to both linear and polynomial functions" (from the Overfitting article) rather than "Noisy (roughly linear) data is fitted to both linear and polynomial functions". 92.24.190.46 (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was just a mistake, or an optional American usage. I've changed the word to "fitted" so that it is easily read by all. Dbfirs 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have often read "fit" being used in American-english online texts (Wikipedia, blogs, etc) where I would have written "fitted". I wondered if that usage is correct grammar in American english. Thanks 92.29.127.240 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fitted" is more like past tense, such as a bed with a "fitted sheet". "Fit" is more like present tense, such as "the sheet fits the bed". In the first example posted by the OP, "data is fit" sounds like an adjective, hence incorrect usage. It's a mistake similar to "lighted" vs. "lit". I lighted the candle vs. the candle was lit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In "fitted sheet", the word "fitted" is basically an adjective (passive participle), and has no specific past tense meaning at all. AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Even so, a "fitted" sheet means that some action was taken to design it so it would fit a bed; rather than a "fit" sheet, which would be a sheet that's suitable for sleeping on, i.e. made of linen rather than, say, poison ivy strands. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You "lighted" a candle, really? I would use "lit" there (or are you saying that is the mistake?) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In statistics, one often speaks of "fitted values". This seems to be the same linguistic phenomenon as in the phrase "fitted sheet". But "fit" is one of the verbs like "set" and "put" where, as I normally use them, the simple present tense, the simple past tense, and the past participle are all the same. I use "forecast" the same way, but recently within Wikipedia I've seen "forecasted". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Ogden Nash wrote that fit is only a past tense in "Joshua fit de battle ob Jericho  :-) .—msh210℠ 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Same issue with "broadcast", and "cast" itself. "The fisherman cast/casted his net" - I think I'd go for "cast" in the past tense. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Michael Hardy's usage considered grammatical in American english please? 92.15.11.88 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In the colloquial sense of "has stuff installed or attached," I'd say "fitted with" occurs in American English but is not the common pattern. E.g., asked to pick the right form in "The 2011 Chevrolet Whooptidoo ( comes with | is fitted with ) an iPod-compatible toaster on the dashboard," most but by no means all Americans would say "comes with."

Yes, "fit" can also be also past tense: "His old uniform fit him well in 2000." This is the simple past that Michael Hardy refers to. It's certainly grammatical in American English, as are his other examples. ("Connie set the next week's agenda before she ended the meeting." "Vince put his passport in his briefcase.") --- OtherDave (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See English irregular verbs and List of English irregular verbs. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

These articles don't make it quite clear that the usage is fine in American English, but definitely wrong in British English. In the context, I still think that "fitted" is better, but, if it was written in American English, then I was wrong to assume that "fit" was an error. Dbfirs 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that using "fit" in place of "fitted" is always incorrect in British English. Perhaps a linguist could change the articles to make this clearer. 92.28.251.219 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

¶ When a pipefitter or steamfitter has completed his or her work, what would you say: "She fit a pipe" or "He fitted a pipe"? Is there a difference when "to fit" in the past or perfect tenses is transitive, intransitive or reflexive (for example, "She fit[ted] the bookshelf into the corner", "He fit in well", "It fit well with the surroundings", "They fit[ted] themselves to the purpose")? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)]

I tried a couple of trade-union sites for steamfitters and pipefitters, but in practice such workers (in the States) tend to used words like "install" or "put in": "He installed a pipe to carry the waste water." "After you put in the exhaust, you've got to wrestle the riser in as well." In the other examples given, again, I'd say Americans (pipefitters or not) would typically use "fit" over "fitted."

I found a comment on the Language Log blog, from an American academic to a British one; the American said that in his experience "fit" is the typical past tense for "putting things into things." "Only a suit made-to-measure is fitted," he says, which goes with the fitted sheets. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a scientist (American, but work with Europeans as much as other Americans), "Noisy (roughly linear) data is fit to both linear and polynomial functions" sounds bad. "Fitted" is the past participle and adjective, while either "fit" or "fitted" sounds okay for the simple past: "we fit(ted) the data to a polynomial function". Same goes for "overfit": "I think they overfit(ted) their data." --Atemperman (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

... so we all agree that "fitted" sounds better in this article, but that "fit" would be normal in American English for the simple past in most contexts other than tailoring. In British English, I would always use "fitted" for the past, but I think I've heard "fit" in dialect. Dbfirs 08:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

English English

Are Americans in general more familiar with RP or Estuary English (or another variety)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.221.46 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A large number of inhabitants of the U.S. would be somewhat at a loss to classify England accents which were not either stereotypically Cockney or stereotypically posh... AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Most Americans in general would be familiar with whatever accents show up in movies and TV shows featuring British actors. That doesn't mean we would know what to call the accents, but we can sometimes tell them apart. Watching Monty Python is fairly educational that way, as they often lapse into what are presumably very specific British accents that they are using for a specific effect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-native here, but speaker of AmE. I can tell the difference between English and Scottish accents, for example, but not between different English accents (I also can't tell the difference between Scottish and Irish, so if anyone can point out some differences, I would be glad to be a little less ignorant). Maybe someone could also point out some famous Cockney speakers, since everybody seems to assume that Cockney is well-known. I have no idea what Cockney sounds like. To me, an English accent means the way Hugh Laurie (haha) or Kate Beckinsale speak (and yes they sound the same to me, even if one is from Oxford and the other from London - or is there no difference between the two as far as dialect is concerned? or are they both just using RP or something? confusing as f*ck). Rimush (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cockney is like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins - or at least that is what Americans think Cockney sounds like... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you qualified that, Adam. Dick's Cockney (sounds sort of rude, doesn't it) is as close to Cockney as Pope Benedict's Australian accent. (What Australian accent? Yes, exactly) Try listening to some reruns of Minder or even EastEnders, for an idea of what real Cockney sounds like. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

One problem with Van Dyke's attempt is that he kept lapsing in and out of it. But that could be his voice coach's fault (assuming he had one). So, did Audrey Hepburn do it better in My Fair Lady? (Other than the singing, which she didn't do.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it was overdone, but very deliberately so given the premise of the story, which was all about a wager on the (im)possibility of teaching a born-and-bred Cockney woman to speak, dress and generally behave like an upper class lady. I'm sure Shaw (heh) would have approved such a strong and marked contrast being made. He won an Oscar for adapting Pygmalion into the 1938 film, in the making of which he was heavily involved. I'd say Audrey Hepburn's Eliza was very much a child of Wendy Hiller's, and that certainly had Shaw's imprimatur. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, basically My Fair Lady without the music, as I recall. Perhaps you've seen the impish poster for the stage play (see link) that shows Shaw controlling Higgins as Higgins is controlling Eliza. So how about Julie Andrews as Eliza, and Stanley Holloway as Eliza's father in both stage and film versions? I'm just curious if any of those folks has the right accent or if they're snowing us ignorant Americans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cockney is what all the film and TV characters who addressed people as "guvna" (i.e. governor) were speaking, or trying to speak. To Americans it does sound a little bit like an Australian accent. I guess cockney was more internationally culturally prominent in the 1960's than today... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are strong regional dialects and different idioms used in all cultures. England is no exception. Consider such examples as Cockney / Rhyming slang (East End of London), Scouse (Liverpool area), Geordie (North East England) --Senra (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rimush / others in general - the British Library website has an 'accents' section (http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/sounds/) that has recordings/details about English regional accents. It's very interesting if you're looking to hear the difference. I know a Texan lady who lived in the Uk for a good decade and she said it was very interesting that she could tell the difference between someone that lived in Leeds's accent and someone that lived in York even though they're only about 25 mile apart - yet in Texan she said you could drive maybe 300 miles and still have the same 'accent' - no idea how much water that holds, but certainly Leeds and York have slightly different accents! ny156uk (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, mate! Rimush (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You can do better than that. In rural areas, you can tell someone's village (so to within a mile or two) from their accent (or you could, it only works with elderly people now, since people move around much more than they used to - go back 50 years and it was far more reliable). --Tango (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

¶ See this very recent discussion: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2010 July 27#British accent. Perhaps the question that started the current thread originated from that discussion. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nigerien/Nigerian pronunciation differences in American English

Are Nigerien (someone from Niger) and Nigerian (someone from Nigeria) homophones in standard mid western English? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've heard it pronounced "ni-zher-ian" ("ni" as in "nit"), although I am sure that most people would never need to use that word, or would even know that Niger exists. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A running joke at my high school was pronouncing Niger as the N-word. The infamous Nigger River was a source of annoyance for our global history teachers. Rimush (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone finds a reliable source, then the information can be added in a footnote to "Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think standard mid western English would pronounce these differently than other American english dialects? Perhaps the old heritage of French trappers. Or did you want the General American English pronounciation? Rmhermen (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be quite interesting to find out if any dialect at all made a distinction between the pronunciation of the two words. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does it seem that strange? For "Nigerian", I say /naɪ.dʒi.ri.ən/, whereas for "Nigerien" I say /naɪ.dʒər.i.ən/, with a syllabic /r/ (Maryland, US). And if you pronounce "Niger" as /ni.ʒer/ (rather than /naɪ.dʒər/) like I do, you would presumably as /ni.ʒe.ri.ən/. I don't see why "Nigerian" and "Nigerien" should be pronounced identically in the first place. 173.66.149.81 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that the country Niger's name is actually French, wouldn't the adjective be something lie "Nigeroise"? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What, like Parisioise? ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Nigerien" and "Nigerienne" are used by the CIA Fact Book and the U.S. Agency for International Development--a bit curious, since we talk about "Haitians" rather than "Haitiens." I'd agree that many Americans would be unaware that there's one country called Nigeria and another called Niger. I'd be willing to bet a modest dinner that (a) more of them would have heard of Nigeria, and (b) most of the folks in group (a) would tend to pronounce "Niger" to rhyme with "tiger." --- OtherDave (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The potential rhyme between "Niger" and "tiger" was mentioned at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 13#Rhyming dictionary made of paper, not only in the list at the beginning of the subsection, but also in four subsequent comments.—Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The British tent-maker Blacks of Greenock do a heavy 6 person tent called a "Nijer"[4] which I always presumed was the name of the African river with phonetic spelling. Alansplodge (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The word Nigérien ,if it exists at all, is French and is spelled Nigérien not Nigerien. This immediately leads the English speaker towards a pronunciation based on the French, and away from the standard way of saying "Nigerian". Sussexonian (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"If it exists at all?" Well, technically, in French the word is "nigérien(ne)," since French doesn't capitalize nouns or adjectives related to nationality. In English, I'd lean toward forms used by, say, the Republic of Niger's embassy in the U.S. and its consulate in London, both of which explicitly state that the term for the nationality is "Nigerien." --- OtherDave (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In French it is a little bit more complex. When it means "the people" the noun is capitalized, when it refers to the language it is not capitalized: Les Nigériens[capital N] ne parlent pas tous le français [small f]. More here (in French). — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese transcription and translation

Can someone please transcribe and translate the first couple of sentences about Dayuan from this Google Book scan of a Chinese book?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y41H4OnymqUC&pg=PA198&dq=%E7%A7%A6%E6%B1%89%E5%8F%B2+%E5%A4%A7%E5%AE%9B&hl=en&ei=TaVlTLzlMIKclge7jI3YCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have a book that translates the information as:

It [General Li Guangli’s army] reached the outskirts of the remote Ferghana, beyond the Pamir Plateau. Originally that was the last undisturbed placed from the upheavals in...Northwest Central Asia and inhabited by people with 'deep eyes, big noses and (distinguished) headdress.' Their principal livelihood was growing grapes, grazing and raising horses. Although they had often seen Han emissaries coming and going in Central Asia, and they also knew that there was a Great Han country to the East, but because they had been under the control of the Huns for [a] very long time, they did not hold the Han emissaries to as a high esteem as those of the Huns (Xiongu).

Someone told me that the author of the above quote might have translated parts of it incorrectly. I would like to see what other translation are possible. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what it is that you want? Are you talking about Jian Bozan's text, or the original text from the Book of Han?

96.232.190.148 (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jian's text of course. I provided a link above to his work in my original post. However, someone has already contacted me concerning this. The author did translate this wrong. The text doesn't say anything about a "headdress," only "profuse beards". It appears the author confused 鬚 for something else, possibly 鬏. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

August 14

Subjunctive in English

Kind of related to the similarly titled question a few threads above. When is it appropriate to use the subjunctive form "if [noun] were" in English? Is it in all occurrences of "if" or only some? 99.137.223.239 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As ColinFine said in the thread above, the subjunctive is used in contrary-to-fact "if ..." clauses, such as "If I Were a Rich Man" (when one isn't a rich man) or If I Were King (when one isn't king). In clauses of simple futurity or possibility, it isn't used: "If I am ever in New York, I'll look you up." Deor (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And, as was alluded to above, its usage is dying out, except maybe in a few dialects or registers. This song is a contemporary "ripoff" (though that's allowed in music) of the one linked to in the previous post, and in the audio clip you'll notice the lack of subjunctive where it traditionally ought to be.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that in formal English prose the contrary-to-fact subjunctive is alive and well. Popular music perhaps isn't the best indicator of general usage, but I'll note that the Beatles sang "If I fell in love with you, would you promise to be true ...", not "If I fall ..." Deor (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

However, the only "synchronically productive" constructions where there's a distinct so-called subjunctive inflection are: 1) "were" following first person singular and third person singular subjects ("If I were", "If he were" etc.) and 2) Verbs in certain subordinate clauses with third person singular subject, but no "-s" ending (or "be" with any subject), in sentences such as "I demand that he leave the room", "I demand that we be given five dollars", etc. In other cases (such as "If I fell"), it can't really be directly proved that it's a subjunctive, since there's no distinctive verb form used... AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos - actually, a conditional using the past tense is always the subjunctive mood (conditionals in the past tense are always counterfactuals), and I hardly think the usage is dying out (though the grammar on it might be changing). --Ludwigs2 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos's point is that except for "be", the past subjunctive and the past indicative are visually and auditorily indistinguishable. So it's unscientific to say that "If I fell, I would have gotten back up" uses subjunctive "fell" rather than indicative "fell". --Atemperman (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. If some pedant were looking for correct uses of the subjunctive and he came across "If I fell, I would have gotten back up", he would give it a big tick (assuming he were an American pedant; others say "got back up"), because it satisfies the form of the subjunctive. He wouldn't think "Maybe they thought they were choosing the indicative, and just happened to fluke the right answer. No, I can't give them a tick unless they can convince me they wrote it consciously as the subjunctive". Would he, now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking more recent answers as a cue, rather than the original question, I'm pretty sure I'd say "If I fell, I would get back up" and "If I had fallen, I would have got back up". The former responds to the question "What would you do if you fell?" - a hypothesis relating to a forthcoming event, perhaps. The latter responds to "But if you had fallen what would you have done?" - a question about something that might have happened in the past, but didn't. But I don't think I'd ever say "If I fell, I would have got back up" which seems to be a mish-mash.86.135.25.224 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I wouldn't say it that way. If you are using "If I fell" as a subjunctive then it should be followed by the infinitive ("get") not the present imperfect ("have gotten"/"have got"). (Although, I'm now a little confused having looked it up on Wikipedia. Our article, conditional mood, which is what we're talking about, is a little unclear - the connection between the three types it lists and the four tenses it lists afterwards isn't made clear.) --Tango (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of "recently" to refer to a past time period

I'd like some comments on use of the word "recently" in the following passage. Is it okay, in that it's clear by context that it speaks to the framed time period? Is it jarring because it appears to refer to today? Something in between? If you would reform the use, what would you suggest as a change? I have underlined the word for ease of identification. Thanks in advance.

In 2005, the top ten movies at the U.S. box office included three adaptations of children's fantasy novels (including one extending and another initiating a series), a child-targeted cartoon, a comic book adaptation, a sci-fi series installment, a sci-fi remake, and a King Kong remake. It was a slow year for Corman: he produced just one movie, which had no American theatrical release, true of most of the pictures he had been involved in recently.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it jarring and personally I often make some awkward, wordy circumlocuting to avoid it when I'm writing. Something like "true of most of the other pictures he had been involved in during the year/(whatever time period) leading up to this." rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it natural and not at all jarring. The context with the nearby past-perfect-tense verb clearly establishes the meaning. --Anonymous, 04:41 UTC, August 14, 2010.

The sentence needs rewriting in any case. It doesn't make clear whether what is true is that he produced just one movie, or that it had no American release, or both.

Seriously? Are you saying that one possible interpretation is that most of the pictures he'd been recently involved in were the only film made in 2005? How many "only films" can there be in a given year? Or are you saying he made only one film per year in the recent past? Then, how far back does "recently" go? It would have to be at least 4 years for that interpretation to make any sense, and that's really stretching "recently" in an industry where careers come and go in blinks of an eye. No, imo the only reasonable interpretation is that most of the pictures he'd been involved in recently had no American theatrical release. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the recently can only refer to American release, but I don't like the mental jarring caused by the shift in time frame. I would have been happy with "... true of most of the pictures he has been involved in recently", but that is not what was intended. In formal writing, I would prefer to write something like " ... as had been the case with most of the movies he had produced in the previous (few) years". Dbfirs 07:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. This was from a minor editing skirmish on yesterday's featured article, where I was changing "recently" to "at that time" and related expressions that made clear recently referred to 2005 and not today. It became mooted when someone determined the specifics and changed it to "the preceding decade."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Do the following two sentences differ in meaning?

1. The five best workers were rewarded. 2. The best five workers were rewarded.

Is there any difference in meaning of the above sentences? If yes, what?

Thanks, Vineet Chaitanya121.242.23.197 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking strictly from instinct, I'd say the only difference is in the information you stress - in 1., you want to say that five, and not three or ten workers were rewarded, in 2., you're saying that the five workers who were rewarded were rewarded because they were best. Is this making any sense? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually the two would mean the same thing. However if previous information had said that the workers were divided into groups of five, then the "best five" might mean the best group, while the "five best" clearly means the five individual best. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence is actually grammatically questionable. the word 'best' and 'five' both modify the noun 'workers', but 'five' is a quantifier (and thus a noun in its own right), while 'best' is an adjective that assumedly is intended to modify 'workers'. putting 'best' before 'five' (while common enough in casual language) creates ambiguity, because it's unclear whether five is an object specifier or quantifier (e.g., does this mean the 'best Level Five workers'?). it's always better to quantifiers first. --Ludwigs2 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Ludwigs: I don't think there's any practical ambiguity in the second, and I think his specific example is far-fetched (If it were normal in this factory to refer to "five workers" to mean "workers of level five", he would have a case, but if that were so there would frequently be ambiguity, and they would have measures to reduce it).

I think there could be a slight difference between the two, in that the second could refer to a group of five workers which was the best such group, whereas the first would tend to imply five workers taken from anywhere; but unless it is known that there are such groups, I don't think there would be any difference in meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a clear difference. Really, both sentences assume a list that ranks many workers according to their abilities; Both sentences assume that for every number n, the first n workers on the ranking list are considered to be "the best n workers"; Both sentences assume that the best five workers are better than the others. However, the first sentence (about the five best workers) assumes that just the first five workers on the ranking list are considered to be "the best workers", the others being considered "low level workers" (and likewise, although for every number n, the first n workers on the ranking list are considered to be "the best n workers"), while the second sentence (about the best five workers) doesn't assume that. Eliko (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How to say "It's what he's been searching for." in French

My initial guess at this translation was the following: "C'est ce qu'il a été recherchant." A friend of mine told me that when you use "a été" it usually indicates that the action is being done to yourself, so that the sentence above would thus mean something about the person being searched, rather than the object being searched for. Is this correct? I would think that this would be the case when rechercer is in the past participle form, instead of the present participle. "...il a été recherché." would mean, I guess, he has been searched, which would indicate an action that is done to the subject. Do both of these cases suggest that the subject is the one being searched or only the latter? My friend's suggestion was to use "...qu'il recherchait." instead, which I recognize as a perfectly valid option, but I was wondering if my oriignal statement was correct given the idea that I'm trying to portray. 24.187.115.154 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your friend's suggestion (recherchait) is the only one that works. You can't use present participles like that in French, since they are not really a verb form, at least in this case. You could say "en recherchant", where it is a gerund and means "while researching", or you could use it as a noun, "a researcher" although here French happens to use the actual noun "chercheur". "Il a été" always means "he was" or "he has been", in a simple description (although "il était" would be more usual), or it indicates a passive sentence, which I think is what you are describing. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, French, like many languages, does not have distinct continuous forms corresponding to the English "was searching". "Cherchait" can mean "was searching", "used to search", and even "searched" if the activity is not being regarded as a completed action. See imperfective aspect. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to insist on the "continuous" aspect, you can use en train de: C'est ce qu'il était en train de chercher. — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely the English phrase implies that he is still searching, so a better translation would be ce qu'il a cherché or even ce qu'il cherche depuis longtemps. -62.49.68.79 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I would have said C'est ce qu'il est en train de chercher. But you cannot say ce qu'il a cherché, as in French it implies it's finished. And depuis longtemps (for a long time) seems to be an interpretation (we don't know the context). — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

August 15

Baidu

Why is the front page in black and white. Also, how do you say "not as much as I would like" in correct French? I mean this as a response to the question "Parlez-vous francais". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.198.120 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Baidu, but for the French you could say "pas autant que je voudrais" (or maybe "...je le voudrais", or "...je le souhaite") Adam Bishop (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of Chinese websites were in black and white on Sunday because China had a national day of mourning for the victims of the 2010 Gansu mudslide. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

German translation

Can someone help me translate this sentence? Nach dem Tod Friedrich des Strengen kam es zwischen den Brüdern Balthasar und Wilhelm sowie ihren Neffen Friedrich dem Streitbaren, Wilhelm dem Reichen und Georg zur so genannten Chemnitzer Teilung (13. November 1382), bei welcher Balthasar die Landgrafschaft Thüringen erhielt.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"The death of Frederick the Strict resulted in the so-called partition of Chemnitz (13 November, 1382) among the brothers Balthasar and William as well as their nephews Frederick the Belligerent, William the Rich, and George, where Balthasar received the Landgraviate of Thuringia." ---Sluzzelin talk 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But the German does not say that Frederick's death resulted in the partition of Chemnitz, merely that it preceded it temporally. We don't want to introduce a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy into the translation where none was in the original. +Angr 15:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true, and I originally wanted to point that out, but couldn't come up with an unclumsy way of translating "nach ... kam es zu" (and it was late). "After the death of Frederick the Strict, the so-called partition of Chemnitz came to pass(?) ... happened(?) ... occurred(?)". Please help me out! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"After the death of Frederick the Strict, Balthasar received the Landgraviate of Thuringia in the so-called partition of Chemnitz." +Angr 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Diversion: Landgraviate cf. Landgravate

I was intrigued by Sluzzelin's use of "Landgraviate" above, so I checked it out. In my ignorance of such matters, I assumed the correct form would be "Landgravate", as the usual approach is to add -ate, not -iate, to words where such forms exist (cf. marquessate, protectorate). In WP, Landgraviate redirects to Landgrave, which recognises the -iate form only. I was expecting to see some mention of the -ate form, but no. Landgravate goes nowhere, yet if you do a search, you'll see it's used a few times on WP, and a google search finds a respectable 5,000 hits, compared with 31,000 for Landgraviate. Dictionaries recognise both forms, although it looks like -iate is the predominant form. I'm wondering where that stray "i" came from. This really does look like a verb (meaning, obviously, to fly an aircraft in such a manner that you end up in a grave, on land. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, a simple answer is because it is "landgraviatus" in Latin, although where does that extra -i come from? "Margraviatus" is the same way, but not other offices like "episcopatus" or "principatus" or "comitatus". I guess that is because those last three are directly from other Latin words, and landgrave and margrave are Germanic terms. I was thinking that maybe in Latin the endings were considered to be similar to the word for "strong" ("gravis"), but that doesn't seem to be the case, since the office-holder is a "landgravus" and it is declined like any other -us noun (i.e. not like an -is adjective). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is landgraviatus in Latin because one of the Latin expressions for a landgraf is landgravius (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landgraf) and not landgravus. You'll find that it is very common to coin a Latin word by adding -ius to the vernacular.

The further suffix -atus is added to the stem in an analogous way to comitatus from comes, gen. comitis, etc. Ehrenkater (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! How silly of me, I didn't even think to look for "landgravius" (I tried "langravus" and "landgravis"). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I know. Thanks. I'm sure I'll be needing to use the word 'landgraviate' some time today.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Politeness: Spanish, and more

In English, I would say, "Could you please bring me more salsa? Thank you." The translation sounds off to me, so, really, I need to know the correct placement of 'por favor.' The wrong translation: "¿Puedes por favor trajarme mas salsa? Gracias." And, for bonus points, what is the etymology of 'gracias?' It always seemed to me to be a conjugation of the infinitive 'to thank' (graciar) to the second person, thus gracias. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd translate it as "Por favor, traigame (un poco) mas salsa" (Please, bring me (a little) more salsa). "Gracias" isn't a verb - it's etymologically a plural noun, cognate with the English word "graces". Its meaning is somewhat different though, more like the religious concept of "grace", or "blessing", with an element of ritual added to it. Steewi (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is from "gratia" in Latin, and presumably entered Spanish through the Latin phrase for "thank you", "gratias (tibi/vobis) ago" (more literally "I give you thanks"). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So more a plural 's,' then (graces) schyler (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly a plural - to be precise, the accusative plural, which in transalpine Romance languages (French, Occitan, Catalan, Castilian, Portuguese) was generalised to become "the" plural. --ColinFine (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that, in everyday usage, there isn't a singular or plural form of "gracias", "gracias" is the only word and it's used to thank either one or many actions.

The verb for the act of being grateful is "agradecer". Yo agradezco, tú agradeces, él agradece, nosotros agradecemos, vosotros agradecéis, ellos agradecen. MBelgrano (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

One example that comes to mind is a prayer before eating, sometimes called "saying grace", or "returning thanks" (to God). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The same holds for English. "Thanks" appears to be a plural noun, but one would never use "thank" as a singular noun (it is used as a verb, of course). --Tango (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The one before eating is called "dar gracias". MBelgrano (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"To give thanks", right? "Thank you" presumably is a shortened way of saying "I thank you", hence it's a verb. There's also the expression "a thank-you note", but that would still be a shortened "I thank you." Any German-speakers know whether danke is considered singular or plural? Obviously it's a cognate with the English word "thank(s)". I know almost no Mandarin, but "thank you" is "shei shei ni" or some such, which literally means "thank thank you". In French it's merci, which sounds like it would be cognate with "mercy", which is basically a synonym for "grace" in one context. In Spanish, usted is short for vuestra merced, which would translate as "your grace" in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, danke is actually a verb form, specifically the first-person singular present form of the verb danken ("to thank, give thanks"). I think it's a contraction of Ich danke ("I give thanks, I thank"). The noun is Dank, but it doesn't have a plural form and is equivalent to the English noun thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

August 16

Fraudsters in American English?

I'm after a (formal) word that describes someone who commits fraud in American English (or in World English). According to Oxford Dictionaries, fraudster is used in British English. I looked at deceiver, impostor, masquerader and scammer (informal). Any ideas? Thanks  Davtra  ^(talk) 08:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

charlatan, swindler, con artist come to mind. Someone or something that is a fraud is a "humbug", though that doesn't sound terribly formal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What about defrauder? That's what I think is used for specific instances or allegations, e.g. at trial or in a newspaper report. For hypothetical example, "She struck back at her defrauder"; "He was a notorious defrauder of trusting women." However, the term might be used less without a specific victim or context; I don't think I've seen phrases like "She was a professional defrauder", or "Current law protects defrauders."

¶ Generally, the grammar of to defraud is to defraud [someone] of [something] or (passive voice) to be defrauded by [someone] [of something]. In other words the fraud is committed on someone (rather than something), who in the active voice becomes grammatically the direct object (accusative case) and not the indirect object (dative). What the victim is deprived of becomes the object of the preposition "of".—— Shakescene (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about grifter? It's a bit more specific than just any kind of fraud, though. Matt Deres (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fraudster is perfectly good American English and is the term that would be used in a formal context. John M Baker (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think "fraudster" is more of a journalistic jargon-word, rather than either a technical legal term, or a common ordinary everyday word... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a variant on "gangster", with the assumption that a "fraudster" doesn't murder you, he just robs you blind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Confidence man" is formal, and I believe "swindler" is also formally acceptable. Of course these are specific types of fraud -- an embezzler also commits fraud, but a different type. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, fraudster is an acceptable word in American English, but it is not in a very formal register. Maybe semi-formal. You might see it in a tabloid newspaper or hear it in conversation, but I think not in one of the more prestigious newspapers. I agree that the formal term would be defrauder. Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fraudster has moved into a more formal register in American English in the past decade. It is now seen frequently in legal opinions and in Securities and Exchange Commission statements. John M Baker (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

French uvular 'R'

When pronouncing the French uvular 'R' (ʁ in the IPA), is the uvula and back of throat supposed to vibrate audibly? 76.230.150.36 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The tongue and the uvula are the articulators of this sound; the back of the throat has no active role. To be clear, to uvula comes forward (pointing towards outside your mouth) and rests on the tongue. As for the exact articulation, it depends on what you mean by [ʁ], which can symbolize either a uvular fricative (voiced or voiceless, I suppose) or a uvular approximant (which, unfortunately, is just a redirect to the fricative article, even though they are different sounds, but similar), which are both acceptable realization of the French <r>. Those aren't the only realization of French's <r> either; check out note 2 of the French phonology article for all the variations. I'd say the uvular approximant is the most common articulation, with the uvular trill with a good amount of popularity in the French classroom since it's part of the Parisian dialect. Have a look at those articles, and if you're still unsure of any certain articulation, feel free to ask.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The popular uvular fricative/approximant version is articulated as follows: the uvula rests on the tongue as a stream of air is expelled from the lungs. For the fricative, the tongue pushes the uvula close enough to the top of the mouth to block enough of the airstream to cause friction against the uvula, causing it to vibrate. The approximant variety is similar, except the vocal cords must be pulled together to cause vibration (voicing, you're doing it right if you put your hand on your voice box and feel vibrations), and while the tongue pushes the uvula to the top of the back of the mouth (velum), it's not pushing hard enough to cause much audible friction, differing from the fricative. I suppose both the voiced and voiceless fricative variants may be attested in French (though our articles are ambiguous on this), which would mean in the first articulation given, the vocal cords may be pulled together to vibrate or held apart to let the airstream pass through unagitated.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar Chinese characters meaning

What does the chinese characters above the title means in Avatar: The Last Airbender title card. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer with the meaning - but I will give the four characters here for the convenience of the next person who can answer: 降世神通 --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It essentially means "divine medium who has descended upon the [mortal] world", ie, "Avatar". 67.110.18.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

So this isn't a Japanese phrase? It doesn't really have a Chinese sort of syntax to it. Steewi (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

French meaning

I have an assignment with the instructions "Choisissez un des proverbes et illustrez-le a l'aide d'une histoire." My question is: Are they asking me to write a story about one of the proverbs, or do they mean to draw (illustrate) it? Thanks for help 68.197.252.207 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean 'à l'aide'. Illustrez in this context would be like illustrate, definition 2. They are asking you to write a story. 76.230.214.232 (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "à l'aide", but on the computer I'm currently on doesn't provide easy access to charmap or the like. Thanks, though! Now I just need to come up with a story. 68.197.252.207 (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

For your future future reference, 68.197, there's a fairly comprehensive set of accented letters below the edit box (where you originally typed your question) - choose 'Latin' from the dropdown menu (where 'insert' may be visible) and then highlight and click into your text as required. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Come off it!

when we say that, Come off what, exactly?--MasterOfTools (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't been able to find much other than that it's been used since the nineteenth century. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That site locks you up for awhile, probably to generate popups or plant spyware or something. "Come off it" or "come off" might be short for "come off your 'high horse'." Ironically, "come on!" is often used much the same way. "Come off" is also used to mean "to present oneself", perhaps unwittingly, like "He comes off as an expert." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Does it affect anyone else like that? I never had problems with it... Vimescarrot (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One of these days, I need to upgrade from my TRS-80. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, the usual variant is "Come off the grass". I've never been quite sure what that referred to, but that doesn't stop me from saying it frequently. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That variation suggests that someone has wandered off from the "straight and narrow", i.e. the sidewalk. In the broadest sense, "come off the grass" or "come off your high horse" would both mean "get back to reality", or "get real!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

misc

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welsh How can I say 'Fuck off' in Welsh please?--FarTraveller (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Cachau bant! schyler (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Old saying I heard this saying: 'Hell hath no fury like a woman spermed'. i thought they like it now and againn, so what it mean please?--FarTraveller (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) It's Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned schyler (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Sperm Whale Should it not have been nemed a semen whale? I mean what color is sperm?--FarTraveller (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) See this schyler (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC) See also Spermaceti, which says the substance was originally mistaken for the whale's sperm, which it ain't. And FYI, the terms "sperm" and "semen" both mean exactly the same thing, namely "seed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC) You want to know what colour sperm is? I'm tempted to say that if one were a wanker, one could easily engage in some original research. The question is, is one? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC) That was an odd question to ask, wasn't it? There is no limit to the number of light, yet current, jokes that could be made on that topic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

August 17

Pronunciation of nonexistent words

1. The Google "human speaker" pronounces "wir" as wire, and "rir" as reer (although "fir" is always pronounced as fur, never as fire nor as fear). Are there any "rules" for pronouncing such nonexistent words like wir and rir?
2. Additionally, it pronounces "wor" as were, so the "or" in "wor" is pronouced as the "or" in "word" "work" (and likewise), rather than as the "or" in "nor" "for" (and likewise). How does Google "know" that the "or" in the nonexistent word "wor" should be much similar to the "or" in "word" "work" (and likewise), rather than to the "or" in "nor" "for" (and likewise)?

Eliko (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the machine has to follow some rules, but I'm afraid only Google can tell which ones (if they do not keep it a trade secret), and anyway you should not assign any significance to what it happens to return for nonexistent words because that's not what it is supposed to be designed for (garbage in, garbage out).—Emil J. 11:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For your 2nd question, Google's pronouncer program probably has a big dictionary of pronunciations (i.e. words mapped to their phonetic makeup) that is uses in most cases, but if you ask it to say a word it doesn't recognize, it probably defaults to the language's most common pronunciation of that combination of letters. I'm guessing <or> pronounced as "err" ([ɝ, ɚ]) is more frequent in English words than the pronunciation "or," and Google's program figured this out by counting the occurrence of both pronunciations of <or> in its dictionary.I use probably a lot because, as far as I know, Google has not released this algorithm as open-sourced yet, so there's no way to know for sure.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not exactly. <or> is more likely to be pronounced as "or" than as "err". Here are a few common examples (with four letters): "horn", "corn", "norm", "morn", "lord", "fork", "cord", "cork", "born", "form", "torn", "sort", "tort", and many others.

"wor" is similar to "nor" and "for" (and likewise) in that all the three have three letters only, and end with "or". However, "wor" is also similar to "word", "work" (and likewise) in that all the three begin with "wor".

Anyways, I've just found that "wor" does have a meaning ("wor" = "our"), in Geordie English, as indicated in the article Geordie.

Eliko (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Flink

There are multiple links to 'flink' on the net - "a group of 12 cows" - but there is no wiki entry nor a dictionary.com entry. Is this word a myth or perhaps has dubious origin? Sandman30s (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The OED has an entry for flink, with the definition "to behave in a cowardly manner." It gives one example: 1893 E. CUSTER Tenting on Plains xix. 388 All the boys done bully, but Corporal Johnson -- he flinked. It guesses that the word is an alteration of flinch. I found nothing authoritative for the word flink relating to cows on the open web or ebook/journal databases available to me. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I could not find it in any slang or dialect dictionary but I found a flurry of flink from 2002 works which may have been when it was coined. Seems an unlikely word, why would a word be needed for such a specific number, more likely someone suggested a small flock was a flink as a form or humorous diminutive, in fact it may be a propagated nihilartikel. Collective nouns are often fairly dubious with little evidence of their natural use. Here is the actual creation of a "flange of baboons". As an aside slink is an interesting word related to cows and other farm animals. meltBanana 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! (nihilartikel is a new word for me) Sandman30s (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha! I've just realized that it could have come from a back formation of "cowardly" as defined in the OED! Sandman30s (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A vs. E

I started this at Humanities, where they were talking about Anglicanism, etc., and I have moved it here...

Really a language question, but I wonder how come it's "Anglia" ("Anglo-land") and "Anglican" and "Anglo-Saxon" vs. "Eng-land"? For that matter, "Saxon" vs. "Wessex" ("West Saxon"), "Sussex" ("South Saxon"), etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

England#Etymology TomorrowTime (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain why "A" vs. "E", but there's a clue in the fact it was first applied to the southern part of the island, where "Sussex", etc., are and also in the etymology of "Saxony", which suggests it was somewhere between an "a" and an "e" sound, hence variant spellings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's umlaut; it's the same thing that gives us the e in men from the a in man. +Angr 13:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Angr's right. I think that in Anglo-Saxon, you would have referred to one "Angel" (with a hard G) and two or more "Engel" or some such. The "Engla" in "Englaland" (the original form of the name England) is, I believe a genitive plural form, such that the name means "land of the Angles". Marco polo (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It had to remain "Angl-" in Latin so Pope Gregory could make a terrible pun. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Having done a little more research on this, I no longer think that "Engel" was the plural form of "Angel". There were a few Anglo-Saxon nouns that formed plurals that way, but those nouns would not have had a genitive plural in -a, as this word does. Also, my Anglo-Saxon dictionary shows the nominative plural form as either "Engle" or "Angle" (with the second syllable pronounced [lɛ]). So, it looks as if these were two variant forms of the same name. I don't think it could be right that the pronunciation was somewhere between "A" and "E", because Anglo-Saxon vowels are represented very clearly by the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, which has a letter—Æ—for the sound intermediate between "A" and "E", but this letter is apparently never used to spell this name. The two variant forms could reflect different Anglo-Saxon dialects (say, Midland/Mercian vs. Wessex). It could be that a process of umlaut affected the stem form of this name in one dialect but not another. Marco polo (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Translatish

I'm curious: what is this? I encountered it while searching possible vocalizations of an unfamiliar surname (זורלא) I need to romanize from a Hebrew-language source text. The site is useless to me, I'm just perplexed that I can't make any sense of it and am prepared to blush if it's something obvious I'm missing . -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks kind of like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2008_October_12#Mystery_language.3F_Code.3F... AnonMoos (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That page has been discussed here. It's quite likely a constructed puzzle challenging readers to decipher it. The blue words are links to supplementary pages, like this one, where there are English translations of some sample sentences. --Theurgist (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

License template help needed in Spanish and Polish

Hi! The Commons template Commons:User:Raboe001/licence is in need of some translations

The Spanish language template is missing a translation for:

• "PS: In case of refusal of the above terms the author reserves the right to take legal action.

This license and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by you of the terms of this license. In this case the author reserves to demand declaration to cease and desist, and compensation (according to the MFM fee references currently in force). Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

The Polish language template is missing a translation for:

• "This license and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by you of the terms of this license. In this case the author reserves to demand declaration to cease and desist, and compensation (according to the MFM fee references currently in force).

Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

It would be nice of someone would post the entire paragraph in Russian, Arabic, and Korean.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Read by anyone without"

"The book is mostly written without much technical detail and can be read by anyone without a mathematical background."

The second part of this sentence suggests to me that having a mathematical background is an impediment to reading the book. Is that a fair interpretation of the second part of the sentence?

I'm being picky. The meaning "a mathematical background is not needed to read the book" is pretty clear from the first part of the sentence. But is the second part correct?

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fine; it doesn't say anything like "can be read only by people without a mathematical background." --Anonymous, 22:37 UTC, August 17, 2010.

Without knowing more of the context, it's possibly not clear that "without much technical detail" means "without much mathematical detail." You might consider a rewrite like "Smith's writing is clear and can be understood without a detailed knowledge of mathematics." --- OtherDave (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not fine, it's very sloppy writing. Looie496 (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you prefer it to have been worded? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it isn't, it's terrible. "Mostly written without much technical detail" – wtf? What about the bits that are then, is a non-technical person supposed to just skip those bits? And the second part obviously means that you don't need a mathematical background to be able to read it, but it doesn't say that. I would rewrite the second part to something like "can be read by non-mathematicians". The first part, though, is unsalvageable. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not: "...can be read by anyone, with or without a mathematical background." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it could be written better, but it's not terrible. It's totally understandable as stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The first part is confusing/merging 2 concepts: 'The book is written without much technical detail' and 'The book is mostly written without technical detail'. These say the same thing in slightly different words, but what we have is a little of each. Or, it might be saying that it's replete with technical detail but only a little at a time, except in some places, where there's a lot more. I sort of doubt that's the intention, but it's a valid interpretation of what's written. Rather than talking in negative terms, how about "The book contains very little technical detail ..."? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

August 18

Epenthetic /g/ in Spanish

If my observation is correct, it seems that in Spanish, if the [w] sound occurred at the beginning of a word or immediately after a vowel, an epenthetic /g/ is inserted before the w. For example, in the version of Detective Conan broadcasted in Spain, the name "Miwako" is pronounced like "Migwako." Am I accurately describing what's going on? 98.116.90.160 (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably. The change of /w/ to /gw/, especially in word-initial position, is moderately common. The Spanish words Guadalupe, Guadalquivir, and guacamole (for example) all come from words that originally had /w/. The Spanish, French, and Italian words for "war" (guerra, guerre, and guerra respectively) all originally had /gw/ (now only the Italian word does) and derive from a Germanic word that had /w/ (cognate with English war). In Welsh, /w/ > /gw/ at the beginning of a word is a regular sound change. +Angr 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Angr's pretty much explained it. I can only add that the Real Academia Española's various usage guides (e.g. the Diccionario panhispánico de dudas over the years invariably suggest approximating w in English loanwords as "gu" (rather than "u" or word-initially "hu"). Many Spanish ESOL books recommend the same (with words in English itself). This may be through a misunderstanding of English pronunciation (English j is often approximated as Spanish y in loanwords, even in non-Rioplatense Spanish), or, perhaps more likely, rather a sort of allophone inherent to Spanish itself (as Angr touched on and as the Diccionario hints at in its entry for "u"). -- the Great Gavini 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unclear Ending to Short Story

Hello, and sorry for writing a long and boring question. I've written a short story basically about a Vietnam veteran who has a traumatic experience. The story is set after with him being on drugs in the setting of a concert. The traumatic experience is when his friend (Jesse) tells him to run and as a result dies before him while the main character (Mark) survives. Another character (Reggie) gives him drugs and while on an acid trip, Mark hallucinates he is back in the situation where his friend dies and he is given a chance to save him (and does so) all the while mistaking Reggie as his friend. Throughout the story there is a theme of Mark escaping using the drugs, so what I need in an ending is some ideas or a fix of what I have. My current ending results in Mark thanking Jesse for saving his life and then passing away thus finding the 'ultimate' escape from his trauma. So this is what I have for the end so far -

Struggling beneath the screaming, delusional man, Reggie yelled out to the onlookers for help. Those few that heard over the thunderous music grabbed Mark’s arms and legs and pulled up the frantic figure, allowing Reggie to stand. Mark’s unfocused gaze wept bitter tears as he hysterically cried out into the night. As Reggie approached, a quiet calm came over him. “Thank you for everything, Jesse.” he murmured softly as his eyes closed. Mark had found his final escape.

If anyone really would like to help and needs to read the whole story, I'll put it up here. Any contributions used will be referenced! Sorry about the confusing nature of it all Thank-you! Viskadaik (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend putting the story up here as it would take away space from other people who need to ask questions. You should configure your account to where people can contact you via email. Just go to the "my preferences" button, scroll down to "email options" and check the "Enable e-mail from other users" box. People who want to help can then contact you by going to Special:EmailUser/Viskadaik.

Your story sounds interesting by the way. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Can anyone tell me what is the meaning of Ipsos Mori? This is the name of a well known organisation which conducts surveys. It must mean something, but probably not "By the dead themselves" which is as far as my rusty Latin gets me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sing7along (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Ipsos MORI, the second part is an acronym and stands for "Market & Opinion Research International" and they're a subsidiary of Ipsos. (I don't know how Ipsos's name got picked). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If interpreted as Latin words, it could be a subordinate ACI clause which would mean something like "themselves to die" (exact meaning dependent on the main clause). AnonMoos (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the word that means "parent of a deceased child or offspring"?

Greetings Wikipedia-ers--

What is the word that means "parent of a deceased child or offspring"?--Or is there one? We have orphan, widow, widower, to describe the surviving member of these 'paired direct relationships'... but what is the word for the parent of a deceased child, children or offspring? Surely a word or phrase exists, especially given higher infant mortality rates in previous eras (and regions) prior to medical advancements, but I have not found it anywhere online nor by calling those in funerary services. It was suggested by one I spoke to that the above terms were perhaps more terms of entitlement (inherit-ability, as it were)than terms defining a survivor-hood state of being.

It's one thing when you can't think of a word you know... it's another thing altogether when you cannot think of a word, and NO ONE seems to know it. It's a "puzzlement"!

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhon23 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This was asked a while ago. We found no definite answer, but "The reverse of orphan" might interest you anyway. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussion asked for a word in any language, so I'll continue that request here, especially as the OP here didn't mention English specifically (though that seems to have been his intent). In Hebrew, there's a verb, שכל (in paal), which means "to lose a child to death"; I believe the related piel verb means "to kill a child of [direct object]". The way Hebrew works, it would be easy then to create a noun מְשֻׁכָּל ("father who's lost a child to death") and have people understand you; whether such a noun has ever been used, though, I don't know.—msh210℠ 20:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bereaved parent. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In our language punjabi we have a word ਔਤਰਾ . It means one who has no son  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I right that that word is transliterated autarā? And does it mean specifically "one whose son has died", or can it be used for someone who's never had a son? +Angr 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish

Hey, I'm started a beginning Spanish course today. My teacher (a non-native speaker, sadly) says that in Spanish "V" and "B" are pronounced the same. I have inferred that she is teaching us Latin-American Spanish (what particular brand, I'm not sure yet), since she didn't mention anything about lisping the s's or z's. I (a linguistics enthusiast [read: amateur]) thought there might be something wrong with that, but I'm none too familiar with the different varieties of Spanish. In Latin American Spanish, is the "V" pronounced like the IPA character β? 76.229.234.175 (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Different texts will tell you different specifics, but generally B and V have come to be pronounced the same way, but the oddity is that there are two different pronunciations. It's like a hard B at the beginning of a word, more like a soft V when in the middle of a word. Or that's how they taught in my school, anyway. A Mexican born friend told me that was "lazy" pronunciation, but it's how languages evolve. That "lazy" approach is kind of like why we now pronounce "knight" as "nite" instead of "kuh-nicht", as we once did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your IP address indicates you're in the U.S., so it's not surprising if you're being taught Latin American Spanish. That's usual in the U.S. Your teacher is right that "b" and "v" are pronounced the same in Spanish. Both of them are [β] after a vowel, r, or l, and both of them are [b] after m or n (both pronounced [m] in this environment) as well as at the beginning of an utterance. So v is pronounced [b] in words like enviar [embiar] and phrases like con Velázquez [kombelaskes], as well as at the beginning of a sentence like ¿Vienes conmigo? [bjenes konmiɣo]; and it's pronounced [β] in words like cava [kaβa] and cuervo [kwerβo] and in phrases like la vaca [la βaka]. +Angr 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Linguistics question

What is the name of the linguistics phenomenon when after word X enters language A from language B, if language A already has a word "Y" for what "X" signifies, then X changes in meaning slightly to a closely related meaning which may or may not be an alternate meaning in language "B", not retaining its original significance of Y. This might not happen immediately but over time. Here's a concrete example: French raisin means "grape" but presumably "grape" entered English first (oddly enough, also from French), so raisin means dried grape, and no longer means grape. If this example is incorrect, consider the French word crayon. It means pencil in French but a wax piece used for coloring in English, presumably becasue pencil entered English first. 76.229.234.175 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a term for it, but keep in mind it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes it's the new loanword that takes over the primary meaning and the old native word whose meaning gets shifted. For example, doom (a native word of Old English origin) originally meant "judgment", but when judgment entered the language from French, doom shifted in meaning first to God's judgment specifically and then to its modern meaning of "deadly fate". +Angr 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A similar example: Old or Middle English used to use hund (from German) to refer to all dogs, but then when we got dog (I don't remember from where) we started using hound to refer only to a specific kind of dog. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As for articles, I found nothing specific under loanword, while our article on false friend has this odd sentence in its lede: "As well as complete false friends, use of loanwords often results in the use of a word in a restricted context, which may then develop new meanings not found in the original language.". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the general phenomenon called "one word - one meaning" or "one meaning - one word", and I know I've seen it discussed as a driving force in language change. Unfortunately, I can't find any of these discussions right now (I think I must be having a moment). I don't think I've ever heard a more formal term for it. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Attorneys General"

Is "Attorneys General" the correct plural of "Attorney General"? I heard a news report use it, but I'd always thought that the plural was "Attorney Generals". --70.134.48.188 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes. The descriptor follows the noun in the French style, and the noun is pluralised rather than the descriptor (though in French they would also pluralise the descriptor, but keep in mind that English does not do this and "attorney" is only distantly related to any French words). "Attorneys Generals" is an example of how languages change, and this example, once considered bad English, now considered poor usage or uneducated but not blatantly wrong English, might become "correct" one day. 76.229.234.175 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)