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

September 12

Reference Desk

I am in the process of building my own reference desk. I have a dictionary, atlas, and 8 or more items. The most current additions are Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and a Greek-English Interlinear copy of The New Testament.
These are invaluable references, but are really not what I would prefer to use, because they must be used in tandem, a tedious task. I am a frequent user of this internet reference site. It is exactly what I want to use, but in a more tactile format.
Does anyone know of a reference which better resembles biblelexicon.org? Thank you very much Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There's BibleGateway.com for different translations of the Bible.. Lexicografía (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lexicografía. I am familiar with that website. I am looking for a reference book, though, that which I can add to my reference desk, and use when I do not have access to the internet. schyler (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not into biblical scholarship myself and so won't be of much use to you, but I think you could get better answers if you specified what you like about that website that you'd like to get in book form. I just played around there for a few minutes and it seems to have a lot of different aspects to it; if we knew what functions you were specifically looking for (parallel translations, transcriptions, etc.), it might help. Also, if you don't get a decent answer here in a couple of days, the Humanities desk might be a good place to inquire; I think it gets slightly more exposure. Matt Deres (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. In Thayer's it is based on Strong's Concordance, having a veritable dictionary of Greek words used in The New Testament. On BibleLexicon it has a phrase-by-phrase verse-by-verse translation, the ideal reference. It is really like an Interlinear Concordance which is what my two current references do for me (currently I look up the verse in my interlinear translation, transliterate the Greek, and find it alphabetically in the concordance, using two references in tandem). schyler (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Cruden's concordance is online, but when I was studying theology in the dim and distant past, it was recognised as the best available.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Some editions of the UBS Greek New Testament (Aland et. al.) have a Greek-English New Testament lexicon in the back (but you have to be comfortable in the Greek alphabet to use it). My edition is ISBN 3-438-05113-3, but there are probably more recent editions... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Tress, trix and tor

We may have discussed this topic before, but my searches haven't discovered a full-on discussion (it's been mentioned briefly in some questions about related subjects).

Some –tor names denoting males take –trix when their holders are female:

• Aviator --> aviatrix (not aviatress)
• Dominator --> dominatrix (not dominatress)
• Executor --> executrix (not executress)
• Testator --> testatrix (not testatress)

Some other –tor names become –tress:

• Actor --> actress (not actrix; even actress is frowned upon these days, except at the Oscars)
• Elector --> electress (not electrix; we're talking European rulers here, not citizens who are entitled to vote)
• Proprietor --> proprietress (not proprietrix; but it’s more common to see proprietor used for all sexes)
• Protector --> protectress (not protectrix)
• Sculptor --> sculptress (not sculptrix)

Then there are the –tor names that never change for sex at all (or, only for humorous effect in limited circumstances), including:

• Administrator (not administratress or administratrix)
• Alligator (not alligatress or alligatrix)
• Benefactor (not benefactress or benefactrix: I seem to recall seeing benefactress, but it’s non-standard)
• Director (not directress or directrix; but directrix exists with a different meaning)
• Doctor (not doctress or doctrix)
• Lector (not lectress or lectrix)
• Legislator (not legislatress or legislatrix)
• Mentor (not mentress or mentrix)
• Monitor (not monitress or monitrix)
• Navigator (not navigatress or navigatrix)
• Orator (not oratress or oratrix)
• Proctor (not proctress or proctrix)
• Prosecutor (not prosecutress or prosecutrix)
• Realtor (not realtress or realtrix)
• (Veloci)raptor (not raptress or raptrix).

So, who or what decides which become –trix, which become –tress, and which stay –tor? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In a very general way, the ones that came directly from Latin have -trix, the ones that came through Latin by way of French have -tress (from -trice), and the ones that are gender-neutral (or almost always historically masculine) remain -tor. But a glance at the examples you gave does not really prove this general conclusion... Adam Bishop (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I can think of some others - "empress" (from French, ultimately "imperatrix"), but also "princess" and "countess" (also through French, but they originally end in "-issa" in Latin). Hmm. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) That sounds pretty reasonable, but the OED has etymologies for all the first four on the list as being from Latin through French. Haven't looked up the others yet. WikiDao (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The feminine suffixes ("aviatrix", "actress", etc.) are falling more and more out of use these days, though I expect "dominatrix" to stick around. A friend with good proofreading eyes calls herself an "editrix", but it's a joke. PhGustaf (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you can have a lot of good clean fun with these. Is mattress a synonym of matrix? Is the male equivalent a "mator"? Is the Queen a descendant of Sophia, Electrix of Hanover?  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If a bare rocky hill in Wales is female, is it a tress or a trix? Answer: no, don't be stupid. See also list of Asterix characters - none of these really fit, but it seems in keeping with the general spirit of the question. There was a character in Asterix and the Goths called Electric, which is a near miss. 213.122.16.225 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you know this, Jack, but it may be worth mentioning that a couple of your examples don't even involve the -or ("one who ...") suffix. Alligator is an anglicization of Spanish el lagarto ("the lizard"), and mentor is just the name of the character in the Odyssey. I'm pretty sure that I've seen administratrix used seriously, though. Deor (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Some I didn't expect to find on wiktionary are agitatrix, motrix (female instigator), prosecutrix, creatrix, negotiatrix, and tutrix. --Sluzzelin talk 18:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, lovely, they're all new to me. I know someone I can now call the Motrix of Mirth. She probably won't know what the hell I'm talking about, but what the heck. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The same person that decides that a domestic canine is a "dog". No, really. All of vocabulary is arbitrary, and the fact that we can often find patterns and rules in particular areas doesn't change that. (Esperanto tries to change that by making its derivational suffixes universal and invariable, but there is still a degree of arbitrariness in the meaning of derived words.) --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Doctrix!! Luvvit! Now I know what to call her when I go in next week :)) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's cute or disturbing that my (male) GP offered to fetch a 'lady doctor' if I wasn't comfortable talking to him. Well, I'm not now! I would have been more at ease if he'd used the humorous 'doctrix'. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What did you want to hear? "Woman doctor"? Slightly ambiguous, because it sounds a bit like "tree surgeon", and a tree surgeon of course is not a tree. It's difficult to know the right thing to say. 81.131.5.26 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Lady doctor" also sounds like an ObGyn specialist. Rimush (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a tad less ambiguous, since not all that many women self-identify as ladies. 81.131.5.26 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Woman doctor" (at a push) or "female doctor" or "a doctor who is a woman" would have been fine. "Doctrix", we could have laughed and I'd have relaxed a bit. "Lady doctor" has a just-recent-enough patronising history to make me uncomfortable about how seriously my GP is going to take my problems, without being archaic enough that I can assume his use is humorous. Add in his age, and it's an extremely efficient way to worry me! 86.164.78.91 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it has to be "a doctor who is a woman", then, because people object to "female doctor" on the grounds that "female" is usually applied to animals. If in doubt, use three times as many words - this can be my new rule of thumb for these situations. 81.131.66.179 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly seen people objecting to the use of 'female' as a noun, since it has been used that way in a deeply derogatory fashion and is generally 'diminishing', attempting to reduce the woman to nothing but her femaleness. I've never seen anyone object to its use as an adjective. That sounds like something people make up when they don't understand why some language is offensive. If 'doctor who is a woman' is the only alternative to you saying 'lady doctor', yes that's much better. It isn't the only option, but I'd rather you take the piss than offend people. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

[See William Safire - On Language - Woman vs. Female - New York Times.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)]

Mary Seacole referred to herself as a doctress, which is how her mother was also known. Karenjc 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In 1926, Henry Watson Fowler (of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage fame) recommended the use of teacheress, doctoress, singeress and danceress. He liked the idea that the words carried two pieces of information. His recommendations were largely ignored. Dbfirs 07:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

[A similar discussion for French nouns is at http://www.ciep.fr/chroniq/femi/f10.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)]

---

JackOfOz -- English-language forms with special feminine suffixes are really ever diminishing in number, except in certain specific historical, technical, and legalistic contexts (they were already diminishing during the first two-thirds of the 20th century, even before the rise of the feminist movement, though the feminist movement gave the trend a certain additional push). When people coin specific female-referring terms nowadays, they're likely to be jocular and facetious, and to end in "-ette" more often than "-ess" or "-trix" (e.g. bachelorette). Furthermore, many of the forms you listed (such as director, etc.) are not felt, from the modern synchronic English point of view, as having any special Latin suffix, but rather merely the ordinary "-er" agentive/occupational suffix with a variant spelling. AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A relevant Language Log post, which suggests that the use of such feminine title is declining: [1] Lexicografía (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jupiter Elicius

How should/could "Elicius" in Jupiter Elicius be translated to English? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there is an effective translation. The epithet is related to the verb elicio, "call forth"—the source of English elicit—and Lewis and Short's dictionary says of Elicius, "a surname of Jupiter, because from him celestial signs or omens were obtained (or acc. to others because he was called down by incantations)". Offhand, I can't think of an English word that's equivalent. Deor (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Google brings up stuff related to weather: Elicius supposedly means "of weather and storms" or "of thunder and lightning" (the first one stems from an older version of a Wikipedia article). Rimush (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I found the weather reference in foreign language Wikipedias too, e.g. German WP has "Blitzlenker" (driver/controller of lighting), but they all didn't fit the etymology. The removal of the entire "Jupiter Elicius" entry, from the "older version" Rimush is referring to, had brought me here. I wanted to restore it, but couldn't find a suitable translation or explanation. Now Deor has done just that ([2] :-). Thanks, both of you! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Learning

What is the best way to learn another language on your own? Rosetta stone, books, something else?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ni-cadAA600mAh (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone is excellent (although expensive), especially with Spanish. I don't know about other programs or books. Lexicografía (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Livemocha. It's free (up to a point) and does the job for most peoples' needs. Seegoon (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The most effective way, of course, is to spend time immersed in a place where the language is spoken (usually after you've acquired some basics). It's not the easiest or fastest, though. But the answer to your question depends on your particular needs and what you mean by "best". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your vs You're

what is the differene between your and you'er —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.185.74 (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your is generally used to describe possession. examples: That's your fault. There's your car! Can I borrow your laptop? Is that Yours? You're is the shortened form of you are and is generally used to describe a state of being. examples: You're sick. You're good. You're happy. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There are articles whose titles begin with Your and there are articles whose titles begin with You're.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And there is even a title containing both: You're On Your Own. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your is the second person possessive personal pronoun. That means it's used the same way as my, his, hers, its, our, their. So: my cat, your cat, his cat, her cat, its cat, our cat, their cat.

You're is short for you are, with the apostrophe replacing the letter a. It's used where it would make sense to say you are. So: "You are despicable", "You're despicable".

86.164.78.91 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Is that Yours?" What's with the capital y? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's addressing a deity: "God, is that bomber jacket Yours or did Dave leave it over here?" LANTZY^TALK 05:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

God, is that Your idea of a joke? Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Deity is often addressed (and not only in English) in the second person singular, for example, "Our Father, Who Art in Heaven, Hallowèd be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done ... For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory..." —— Shakescene (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I got a Japanese Chikorita and its nickname and original trainer were:

http://i56.tinypic.com/dxmww1.png

What do these mean? Probably that second one is just a name but I'm interested to see what the first one is. If you can't understand it I'll redo it, it was drawing rather than writing for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The top bit says 'Chikorita'. The bottom bit says 'Chiaki', which is a girl's name. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! That makes sense, I suppose. Thanks. 93.96.113.87 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Still extant vs extant

Is it redundant to say "still extant" vs "extant". For example:

1. A document containing John Hancock's signature is extant.
2. A document containing John Hancock's signature is still extant.

Which one would be correct?Smallman12q (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Both correct -- "is extant" just means "exists". "Still" provides a sort of emphasis. --Anonymous, 23:44 UTC, September 12, 2010.

Agree; "still extant" can be correct in the right context. For instance, "300 [things] were around in [time period], but only one is still extant/only one remains extant" sounds ok to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd normally use "still extant" in contexts where you wouldn't normally expect the thing to still be extant after all that time. You wouldn't use it otherwise. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

September 13

Translation help

An IP left me a message on my talk page in Swedish, I think. Can someone who can understand translate and handle the IP's request, if possible? Thanks, bibliomaniac15 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to freetranslation.com, he's asking if you can provide a link to the Swedish Wikipedia. Grsz¹¹ 01:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hi Bibliomanic15 [sic]. Can you help me? Is there a Swedish Wikipedia. Could you give me a link to it if it exists? I can't find it. Thanks." decltype (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Diacritics

I would like to know where the diacritic marks go in the following Russian names so that I can add them to the respective articles: Кронрод (Alexander Kronrod), Болтянский (Vladimir Boltyansky), Вершик Anatoly Vershik), Гуков (Sergei Gukov), Суслин (Andrei Suslin); I guess the answer will be: Кро́нрод, Болтя́нский, Ве́ршик, Гу́ков, Су́слин. Could anyone also confirm that the diacritics I have added to the following two articles are correct: По́ппе & Ми́лин ? Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the corresponding articles at Russian Wikipedia? It usually gives stress marks. —Angr (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had already searched not only at Russian Wikipedia but also at many other online Russian databases and encyclopedias (www.psevdonim.ru, www.megabook.ru/, www.mathnet.ru/, encycl.mail.ru/) before I posted here, but found nothing. Some of the databases give stress marks but do not have the names I am looking for. Others had the names for but did not give stress marks. I guess only a native russophone that has actually heard them pronounced could really help. As I said, I would like to add diacritics to the wiki-articles, but I should be completely certain about them before I edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See sl:Aleksander Semjonovič Kronrod. It says Кронрод is stressed on the first syllable: Кро́нрод. About Болтя́нский, Ве́ршик, Гу́ков, Су́слин, Ми́лин - I'm reasonably sure they're correct, because -ский, -ин, -ов, -ик are certain adjectival and diminutive affixes that usually cannot carry the stress. Поппе looks very much like a Russian transcription of a German name (double letters are not found in native Russian words), hence По́ппе. By the way, why do we insert diacritics to Russian texts on Wikipedia? Readers might assume they are obligatory in Russian writing, but they're actually only displayed in books intended for foreign learners or small children to help them pronounce the word, and even there they might be omitted in obvious cases. --Theurgist (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical gender in English as to states

With respect to grammatical gender in English, especially in formal or ceremonial English, sometimes states have gender.

For instances, in the International Court of Justice's Case Concerning the Preah Vihear Temple (Cambodia v Thailand), "...Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces or other guards or keepers stationed by her at the Temple..."

Because in general English, states are referred to by "it," "its," etc; so, how could we know the gender of a state in English?

203.131.212.121 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Homeland article says: "When used as a proper noun, the word, as well as its cognates in other languages (i.e. Heimatland in German) often have ethnic nationalist connotations: Fatherland, Motherland, Mother country, each having some distinct interpretation according to nationality or historical usage." Which suggests that each nation/state/country has gender (or not) determined by its cultural view of itself. WikiDao (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of a country referred to as "him" though. WikiDao (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. In English any nation can be referred to as "it" or "her", whichever the writer prefers. Native English speakers never refer to a nation as "him", regardless of culture. Looie496 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the USA whose nickname is "Uncle Same," so, will the USA be referred to as "him"?

203.131.212.121 (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's "Uncle Sam", but more to the point, the USA would never be referred to as "him" except in a sentence like "Uncle Sam wants you to help him", where the meaning is indirect. Looie496 (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

America is a "she". WikiDao (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But Uncle Sam is not (unless he's one of those "special uncles"). You could mix them up if you were so minded: "Uncle Sam wants you to help him; your country will be grateful for any help you can give her". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the U.S. is Uncle Sam, too, I guess. You'd still never see the U.S. referred to as "him" -- either as "it" or else ("poetically") as "she". Here are some more National personifications, btw. WikiDao (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably in the USA's case the "she" can be taken as a reference to Columbia. 87.82.229.195 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a reference to anything in particular, it's just something we do out of habit (grammatical gender usually is). As people have said multiple times already, the US is not unique in being referred to as "she", so it's highly unlikely that it's a reference to anything special. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

States, like ships, are female. The ship of state would be some kind of bloomin' 'ermaphrodite if it were otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Other vehicles as well, if the speaker feels a particular closeness or pride in them, can be referred to as "she". I can't think of any case where an inanimate object would be referred to as "he", apart from when it is actually made to look like a man (a statue, or robot). --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See also the following archived discussions.

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 February 12#Do countries have gender?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 February 2#Feminin Ships
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 May 22#Feminine counties
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 13#Are ships feminine in American as they are in English ? And why ?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 23#a Ship is a she? or a it?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 September 22#Referring to countries/cities as "she"

—Wavelength (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1st place ‘from’ 2nd place, 'from' 3rd

Can anyone flesh out this phrase, last heard in Sunday’s F-1 race? "Alonso from Button from Massa" . . . meaning, Alonso 1st, Button 2nd and Massa 3rd. If it helps, the way the announcer uses it, there is a lot of stress on each "from." DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is "Alonso is in front of Button, who in turn is in front of Massa...". The word "from" is a neat way of saying "in front of". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. May I ask where you're from? My experience has been that British English speakers say this, but not people from other English-speaking countries. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a contraction of "has the lead from" - as in "Rainey has the lead from Alex Barros, Schwantz and Mick Doohan" (1993 British motorcycle Grand Prix). I don't know if this construction is only found in British English. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DOR I'm British. Another statement it could be is "is leading from" (I only thought of that one after I'd gone away from the computer!). --TammyMoet (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to all. I'm going to put this one down as "probably British usage." DOR (HK) (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "racing usage." I commonly hear that form of phrase at the end of the calls of horse races. Perhaps someone with the OED handy could confirm that use of "from." Zoonoses (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a word?

Is static-y (see [3]) a perfectly cromulent word? If not, what would be the proper word to use instead? -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is, in so far as it replaces the more technical but longer and distinctly less favourable electrostatically charged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I would spell it staticky, as here: [4]. Marnanel (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

According to SOED: staticky adjective (US colloq.) subject to or affected by static; resembling static: M20. staticness noun M20. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary has staticky but not staticy. Lexicografía (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The list of words at Words Ending In cky : Words Ending With cky includes colicky, frolicky, garlicky, hystericky, panicky, phthisicky, physicky, picnicky, pilgarlicky, plasticky, rheumaticky, rollicky, staticky, talcky and zincky. They all appear to be adjectives formed by adding ky to words ending in c. For definitions, you can try OneLook Dictionary Search.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Phthisicky"? Yikes. Matt Deres (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a general English rule that if a noun ends in "c", to add a suffix that starts with a vowel, you add a "k" too. Picnic -> picnicking, garlic -> garlicky, bivouac -> bivouacked, static -> staticky. Although "arc" seems to be an oddball, with 'arced' and 'arcing'. Lexicografía (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I found [four dictionaries with] Definitions of arcked - OneLook Dictionary Search and [four dictionaries with] Definitions of arcking - OneLook Dictionary Search. Also, I found [six dictionaries with] Definitions of Quebecker - OneLook Dictionary Search.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising my message by inserting "dictionaries with" in three places.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)]

Then I suppose Merriam-Webster neds an update. Lexicografía (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is probably to prevent the c becoming soft, as in plasticize. I'm not sure why we don't apply this rule to arc. Perhaps we just couldn't be arced. 213.122.69.236 (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Sorry for not making that clear. Lexicografía (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that someone thinks "hystericky" is a word is hysterical. And also kind of appalling. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a word, and I'd suppose it'd be fairly useful when someone wanted to use a hysteric-related adjective without making the reader think that something was incredibly funny. Lexicografía (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my imprecise phrasing or dickish bombast - I acknowledge that it is a word (even a word that people use, though I've never read it until now, nor heard it spoken). I am simply unable to come up with a context in which I'd use it instead of hysterical or in hysterics. When you say of someone "Boy, he's really starting to become hysterical," I think it's clear you don't mean his comic delivery is rapidly improving. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it all depends on context. . . Lexicografía (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I could hazard a couple of suggestions for why "arc" doesn't take a "k": 1. because it ends "rc", and I cannot think if a single English word containing the (rather Dutch looking) "rck"; 2. it is one of very few English words that end in "c" but not "ic". On the other hand, the same comments (mutatis mutandis) would apply to "talc" and "zinc" which are in the list above. But actually I think that if I wanted to write the words, I would write "talced" and "zinced" rather than "talcked" and "zincked". --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"zinced" makes me wince. 213.122.29.136 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was "zought". LANTZY^TALK 05:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seduce

I need a word which means "to seduce by looking at". Not bedroom eyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espratiro (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fascinate? Mesmerize? Put the glamour on? 81.131.28.196 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Leer? Ogle? Make eyes at? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think in Romance novels they usually use 'entice', but that's second hand info - I've never actually read one. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Limited number of words

I remember reading about a language which was created which had only 1000 words or something small like that. Does anyone know what this language was? Would a 1000 word language be usable? Are there any naturally occurring languages with very few words? AwesomeRSS (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you perhaps thinking of Basic English? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Or it's sinister offspring Newspeak? Some non-verbal languages for people with communication difficulties such as Makaton or Blissymbols can get along with a very small vocabulary. Apparently the core vocubalary of Makaton has 450 signs, but there are 7,000 in all. I once met a youngster with Cerebral palsy who could only communicate by pointing at a grid of about 30 Blissymbols. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Me again. A quick Google shows that the Na'vi language has about 1,000 words. Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In comparison, the Oxford English Dictionary has about 600,000 definitions and most sources consider the actual number of English words to be higher; although on a day-to-day basis, only about 3000-5000 of those words are frequently used. Lexicografía (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The original vocabulary of Esperanto had only 900 root words (although these could be expanded with various prefixes and suffixes).

As for whether there are natural languages with few words, it depends on what you consider a "word", since counting the size of a vocabulary is complicated by issues like compound words, morphologically-related words (e.g. "brave", "braver", "bravest", "bravely", etc.) and some languages (like Esperanto) might have few "words" but many affixes for modifying them. My intuition is that the languages of technologically primitive societies who have little contact with the outside world (such as Sentinelese) probably have relatively small vocabularies, compared to English (which has one of the largest vocabularies, due in part to rampant borrowing from other languages). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There was until recently at least one language that was arguably less unnatural than one invented for a movie and that is said -- by a respected linguist, not merely a language pundit -- to have made do with a remarkably small number of words for describing a full range of subjects. The language was Damin and the linguist was Ken Hale. The constricted vocabulary, etc, are briefly described on pp 201-202 of Nicholas Evans' book Dying Words. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently I read an essay on knowledge and education by Betrand Russell (1872–1970), who wrote: "In America, for example, educational commissions point out that fifteen hundred words are all that most people employ in business correspondence, and therefore suggest that all others should be avoided in the school curriculum." The essay is several decades old, but it still illustrates that a language of the size the OP describes could be functional. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wittgenstein only needed four ;) rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? If I in the asbestos-removal business and you in the wine importing business and two others in, respectively, the renting-out-studs-to-mares business and the toner-cartridge-refilling business were each to use 1500 words in our correspondences -- a set of sets whose union would be rather over 1500 -- and also happen each to have a flat in the same block, then when the flat became dowdy how would we discuss its redecoration? For that matter, when we became hungry, how would we discuss where and what to eat? (Is it possible that Bertie was pointing out the crassness of American educational commissions?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll defer to your expertise. Are you suggesting that 1500 is an unrealistic minimum, or that I'm misinterpreting Russell's remark? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, yes, the excerpt was taken from a lamentation on the state of Western education. And nevermind, I see your point. Words used in business discourse do not a language make. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume that any given person needs 1500 words to do business in English. (I have my doubts, but for the next few minutes I'll smother them.) First point: These sets will be very dissimilar, so the set of all of them will be a lot bigger than 1500. I was going to bring up a second point, but come to think of it, may well be rendered superfluous by the first. -- Hoary (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese girls named Fenny

Why is Fenny mainly an anglicized Chinese girls' name? Where did the name come from and how did it come to be mainly used by the Chinese? What is the Chinese name (romanized please) that is commonly anglicized to Fenny? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I will just point out that it's not uncommon for Chinese people to adopt English names that are, while not necessarily "wrong", a little bit...off. As in, names that aren't really commonly used. These range from names of classical Greek heroes (Hercules, Athena) to names that exist but don't seem to be very common these days, at least not where I'm from (Freya, Vicki, Wilber, Gigi, Eason) to stripper names (Kitty, Candy) to non-names taken from fruits, animals, or other things (Apple, Fish, Harlem). Sometimes there is some phonetic relationship between their Chinese name and the English one they adopt (for instance, Will/Wilber Pan's given name in Chinese is Weibo, and Eason Chan's is Yixun in Mandarin), and sometimes there's not (Kitty Zhang's is Yuqi, Vicki Zhao's is Wei, Gigi Leung's is Yongqi in Mandarin). And then there are just people who, left to their own devices, make up any old name (I once had a student who named himself "Double Billion" because he wanted to become a billionaire...I didn't have the heart to tell him that that was weird, and that "double billion" is not a number). Who knows... rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very interesting. I would still like to know about the name Fenny/Fennie, if anyone knows anything about it. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My theory would be that it is a mispronunciation of the more usual (yet archaic) English name 'Fanny'. Mandarin Chinese speakers tend to have difficulty hearing/reproducing the sound /æ/ (not present in Mandarin), and it is often realised as /ɛ/ or even /e/ (neither of which are present in Mandarin - except /e/ in diphthongs). Spelling it more like how they 'hear' it would also stop people from pronouncing it as 'Funny', which would be embarrassing. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely a possibility. (I can attest to the /æ/-/ɛ/ difficult as well; a pregnant Chinese friend of mine told me she was naming the baby Madison, and I thought she said Medicine, which seemed like a strange name for a baby girl.) The only other thing "Fenny" brings to mind for me is Fenchurch... rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean Medicine would be a good name for a boy?  :) The other thing I wonder about is this: Chinese people are stereotypically reputed for their inability/indifference to end plurals with the requisite -s ("three dollar" etc.). So, if they name a child James or Charles, do they call them "Jame" or "Charl"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, why should they? Chinese doesn't share the obsession that European languages with whether you are talking about one or many, so there is nothing in Chinese corresponding to a plural ending. (There are ways of explicitly saying one or many if you need to, but that is different). "James" or "Charles" they would learn as words (though I think many speakers would have difficulty with the final clusters). --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fenny is a nickname for a name used in Victorian Britain, where they would name girls after plants and herbs - it's short for Fenugreek. Not as common as Rose, Violet, or even Aster, but it was used, and would probably be listed in older dictionaries of English names, and may have been picked up in China given the British influences there. --Ludwigs2 19:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly Hong Kong Chinese who have English names, so the British influence idea makes sense. Rimush (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Almost everybody who does English at primary school/junior high/high school/university has English names, whether they are in mainland China, Taiwan, HK, or wherever. They are either given them by their teacher (who may be a native English speaker or not) or they choose their own. In any case, most people get them, and then use them as much as possible. I taught at a university in China, and I had to give my students names. There were a lot of them, and it was very difficult coming up with unique names for each person - nobody wanted to be given the same name as anyone else. Luckily, English has a lot of variations in the spellings of names (Catherine/Kathryn/Cathryne, etc.), so this made things easier (and fun at times). Then you have huaqiao living abroad. They tend to give their children both English and Chinese names, and, contrary to what you may think, they do not always follow the naming conventions of the local populations: I knew a girl born in the UK whose parents were from mainland China, and her name was Apple (I'm hoping she doesn't marry a Scot called McKintosh). I also briefly met a girl from mainland China whose name was Pizza - though my contact with her didn't last long enough for me to ask her why. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Apple was in imitation of Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter, I would assume... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Apple seems to be one of the more common silly names; I've met several Chinese(/Taiwanese/Singaporean) girls named "Apple". They tend to not like it when I call them 苹果... rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

with any luck, Pizza has a sister named Beer. --Ludwigs2 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I really would like to tell you her family name, because in conjunction with Pizza it was just ridiculous - but I can't. Not on a searchable googlable page on the internet. It's not nice. And don't try and guess. Please. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Myhart? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pai? Rimush (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant that HK Chinese use their names officially, see for example Donald Tsang and such. This is also common in Taiwan and Singapore, apparently. But you're the expert. And anyway, I once met (and liked, but she didn't wanna go out) a girl from Guangzhou who had an English name. Rimush (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In Singapore it's common for the official name to be something like Annie Zhou Wan Yi, whereas here in New Zealand it's notated as Wanyi (Annie) Zhou, although it's not standard. On this general topic, I suppose lack of the subtle cultural awareness that is needed is what causes Chinese people to choose names that are either really frumpy or the other end of the scale. sonia♫ 04:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fenny could be a contraction of Fenella, a Scottish/Celtic girl's name meaning "white shoulders". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

September 14

"knowledgeable of a certain field"

What is an english word for "knowledgeable of a certain field"?

"field" is defined as "area, subject", not a farmer's field.

I don't want the words "specialist" or "expert", because the meaning should not mean that the person has had certification.199.126.224.245 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "specialist" and "expert" are the best words for this. They don't necessarily imply any kind of formal qualification. Incidentally I think it's more idiomatic to say "knowledgeable in a certain field". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• maven?--Shirt58 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC) "Maven" is pretty slang-y, and not part of your average shmo's (yes, I see the irony) vocabulary.

One might also use "guru" although this is not as professional sounding as any of the others. Dismas|^(talk) 07:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For the leader in a field, without necessarily any qualifications, there's doyen. "A doyen of topiary once told me that one day he would like to grow a maze." 213.122.59.149 (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Familiar with" ? "Conversant with" ? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pundit is a good one. By the way, I'd agree with AndrewWTaylor that "knowledgeable in" is more idiomatic than "knowledgeable of". DuncanHill (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Pundit" implies speaking or communicating about that area of knowledge, not simply understanding it. I agree that "expert" or "specialist" are the best terms for general use, and give no implication of qualification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Subject matter expert. Note that one doesn't necessarily need to have "certification" to be "knowledgeable of a certain field". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Enthusiast may be a good choice, depending on your context. Pay no attention to our article enthusiasm however, as this does not cover the usage I am talking about. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Even farmers can be outstanding in their field. Astronaut (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Similar to enthusiast without certification is buff. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it the current slang (in the U.S. at least) to use geek rather than buff, as in "She's an astronomy geek"? Deor (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Connoisseur, cognoscenti, whizz kid. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see you're no cognoscente of singular nouns. DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Some things are just not cognoscible to some people. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The buff/geek distinction depends partly on subject matter, I think. I don't think many people would use sports geek to describe anybody outside a few of the most obsessive sabermetricians, and I've seen both words used for someone who's into astronomy or interested in wine (interestingly, beer is decidedly geeky rather than buffed). Cars are for buffs, and most (but not all) TV is for geeks. I'm sure other examples abound. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It might help to jog our minds if we knew what field the hypothetical person has their knowledge in. Different terms might apply. "Green thumb" if your special touch is with agriculture. "Good with his hands" if we are talking about auto mechanics, plumbing, and light duty carpentry. "Good eye" if you are an art collector or an interior designer. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Depending on context, "professional" may work for you. Master (as e.g. in master craftsman) also seems to be missing from the list, so far. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not read all of the discussion, but the first few answers were nouns, but I am looking for an adjective, or the adjectival form of the nouns provided, or adjectival forms yet to be provided.199.126.224.245 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all these entries, and I appreciate them, require some sort of certification. If you look at the articles, for example, master and professional, there are criteria which defines such ... titles, as some people would call them.199.126.224.245 (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As earlier comments made clear, words adjectives like "expert" and "specialist" - and many of the others mentioned here - do not impute any qualification or certification whatsoever. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this word expected to be applicable to any field? Or can its applicability be narrowed to any degree? Skilled craftsman might work well in relation to primarily manual tasks. Primarily cognitive tasks might employ such words as connoisseurship and savant. But even my division into manual and cognitive is being imposed by me arbitrarily on this question. Can the OP shed any further light on what role the sought word is expected to fulfill? Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, adjectives? Need to add prepositions as necessary, but these should all mean something like "expert in..." without denoting a professional qualification (some more suitable to certain fields than others): conversant, versed/well-versed, handy, capable, proficient, savvy, learned, informed. If you're still thirsty for words, type some of these into this thing here and see what comes up. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic Exams

Hello. If exams issued in the middle of a semester are called midterms, then what are exams called if issued third-way through the semester? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Midterms. 'Mid' in this sense just means 'during' not 'in the exact middle of'. --Ludwigs2 19:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience "midterms" don't have to be quite at the middle of the semester (they're often a bit later), but there won't be more than one of them. If there are multiple equal-weighted exams, they're just called exams. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When I was at university, our school year was divided into two semesters and three terms. Any exams, therefore, issued a third-way through the semester, would be the exact middle of the first term, or the end of the second term, depending on which semester. In these cases, I would have said midterm exams and end-of-term exams respectively. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a class with a Midterm and a Final, and one with two Midterms and a Final. It really just means during. Grsz¹¹ 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

At my school (A U.S. university), any exam that's not a final exam is a mid-term exam, no matter when it occurs or how many of them there are. Buddy431 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophe confusion

What is the proper (if any) way to contract (using an apostrophe) such expressions as:

• The boy is short or,
• The priest is Caucasian or,
• That kid is noisy... Thanks hydnjo (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The boy's short
• The priest's Caucasian
• That kid's noisy.

--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, depending upon where you come from - Yorkshire or the North East of England, for instance - you might also contract to:

• T'boy's short
• T'priest's Caucasian
• Tha' kid's noisy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK, so except for Tagishsimon's whimsical response the apostrophe ('s) is commonly used to replace (is) even in non-possessive phrases. Ouch, my palms still hurt from parochial school where the apostrophe was meant to mean possessive. Thanks, hydnjo (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Dont forget you're apostrophe's. Their important. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, they're important  ;-) hydnjo (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... my joke was lost.... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I was just pretendin'.... hydnjo (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my teachers hated anything but possessive apostrophes. Even trying to convince them that a Beatles song called Cannot Buy Me Love would sound silly didn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"It Is Only Love" may have doomed them! hydnjo (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do we not do it in the road? Deor (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You definitely win (I think)! hydnjo (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do you mind my using that as the title of my next short story about an inept foreign agent (you of course get 50% of the royalties)? hydnjo (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Like many questions of usage, this is a matter of register. In formal writing - such as schools concentrate on, or used to - contractions are not appropriate, so the only apostrophes will be possessive ones. In transcribing ordinary speech, contractions are normal, and written with apostrophes. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine for that contextual explanation. hydnjo (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC) addendum And thanks for the link. :-) hydnjo (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But even such a school would surely have taught the difference between the possessive pronoun its (which doesn't take an apostrophe) and the abbreviation it's (which does). (Jack of Oz = )202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not back in the days when I was at Saint Agnes school, an apostrophe was very possessive. Period. Which adds to my confusion even today - the youthful mind ... well you know. hydnjo (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Addendum And I can imagine SB's confusion depending on what he was taught. It wasn't my intent here to bring up C3 but he has little respect for how we were ingrained regarding the apostrophe - very little respect. hydnjo (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody forced you bring that conflict up. But since you did, SB has no confusion as far as I can tell; he knows the theory, but he just likes creating his own rules and sticking rigidly to them. Top marks for the latter thing. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

September 15

French idiom

Hi all - I'm trying to remember the French idiom for an artistic work that is little-known, and commercially unsuccesful, but celebrated by critics and the literati. Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Succès d'estime ref.– AldoSyrt (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Spot on! thanks! Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Emma Zunz - mistranslation?

I have a linguistic doubt about Emma Zunz (original text here) that I'd like to resolve once and for all. In the fourth paragraph we find the following: "[...] fue con Elsa a un club de mujeres, que tiene gimnasio y pileta. Se inscribieron; tuvo que repetir y deletrear su nombre y su apellido, tuvo que festejar las bromas vulgares que comentan la revisación." (Italics mine.) I first read the story in the English translation by Andrew Hurley, who renders the passage thus: "[...] she went with Elsa to a women's club that had a gymnasium and a swimming pool. They joined; she had to repeat and then spell her name; she had to applaud the vulgar jokes that accompanied the struggle to get it correct." As a result of reading this, I went away thinking that the name "Zunz" must resemble some obscene word in Spanish, though I could never discover that word. Now, years later, sufficiently competent to read the Spanish original, I conclude that Hurley made a major error. My idiomatic counter-translation: "[...] she went with Elsa to a women's club with a gym and a pool. They signed up; she had to repeat and spell out her name, had to seem amused by the vulgar jokes that peppered the physical exam." The word revisación is sufficiently peculiar to be overlooked by the RAE, but it's pretty transparently an inbred Argentine cousin of revisión, the standard term for a medical examination. Evidently Hurley failed to recognize the word and pressed blindly ahead, putting his faith in context. But wouldn't his translation have been proofread by a native speaker, and wouldn't a native speaker have been given pause by this little inexplicable scene, conjured up by Hurley's carelessness, of receptionists making dirty jokes about the name "Zunz"? Is it perhaps the case that, by pure coincidence, the name "Zunz" does indeed resemble some Spanish profanity, so that Hurley's erroneous translation is nevertheless plausible? Or is Borges weird enough in his choice of words that even Spanish-speakers are willing to swallow the occasional mystery and move on? Or is this more likely a case of simple editorial oversight? I appeal to the hispanophones out there, and particularly the Argentines if there are any among us: What was Borges's intent when he wrote that sentence? (Assuming it was not merely to set in motion a charming little hiccup of translation.) LANTZY^TALK 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The French translation (by Roger Caillois) reads "elle dut rire des plaisanteries vulgaires qui agrémentèrent la lecture de l'inscription". Nothing about a physical exam. I get a sense that Emma's last name sounds somewhat ridiculous in Spanish, which fits with her being a bit of a social outcast, hence the stupid jokes. --Xuxl (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Caillois had precisely the same interpretation as Hurley. I think they're both wrong. I'd really love to hear from a native speaker, though. I'm especially curious about "revisación" and how it would be understood. If it isn't in the RAE dictionary, then it must be confusing to a lot of Spanish speakers. Incidentally, I presume an Argentine would pronounce "Zunz" as [suns], not [tsunts] as in Yiddish. LANTZY^TALK 06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Argie speaking here. Revisación is the typical word for the physical examination undergone when being granted access to a swimming pool (or similar sports facilities). No doubt as it as the first meaning. Can't think of a vulgar implication of her name so far. I guess Borges just played games with his translators. Pallida  Mors 15:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So Lantzy was right! Good job! I was curious as to how this would turn out. Rimush (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pallida_Mors, would you say that "revisación" is characteristically Argentine? I asked a Colombian acquaintance if she'd ever heard the word, and she hadn't. Not once in her life. First she insisted that it "wasn't Spanish", then haughtily conceded (in response to a suggestion from me) that it was "the kind of thing you might hear" in Argentina. Not that I place much stock in that, but it set me to wondering whether Argentines also say stuff like "televisación" and "circuncisación"... Some haphazard Google research suggests, to my surprise, that they do show this tendency. "Televisación", for instance, seems to be used chiefly in the context of Argentine sports. As for "circuncisación", that's clearly a nonce word, but the first result is the Argentine Yahoo! answers site. Could it be that "revisación" is part of a more general Argentine propensity to using -ación? Or is this a misapprehensation on my part? LANTZY^TALK 04:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, revisación is here exclusively used in the sense of medical/physical examination; for the editorial sense, we use revisión. Here this dictionary lists the variant as Argentinian/Uruguayan.
Generally speaking, the -ación is perfectly valid and productive; so, many instances of this derivation are not even listed on the dictionary, which just lists the solid, uniformly accepted productions (that's why televisación will have to wait). Here the RAE explains the origin of -ción and -ación. For the case of revisión, the obvious note is that we Argentinians have in use two forms: revisión, directly derived from Latin' revisio. And then, the apparently unnecessary form derived from revisar+(a)ción, alas, only used in the specific sense already commented above.
But come on, circuncisación!! That's going too far! :P Pallida  Mors 09:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If I haven't made myself clear in the previous answer, let's clarify it a bit. The formula of 'noun derived from the verbal root plus -ación' is in general valid, though of course may sound overproductive or plainly wrong.
The case for televisación is understandable, since it conveys the idea of "the action of transmitting something on tv". The verb televisar, relatively new, has no other verbal noun associated with this meaning. The case for circuncisación, on the other hand, is more pathetic: what's the need for it, when we have circuncisión? Pallida  Mors 09:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. In English I suppose we say "televising" more often than "televisation", but Google reveals that the latter form is not infrequently used. I was just curious as to why the "-ación" forms were so strongly correlated with Argentina. A Bit of Fry & Laurie once had a sketch set in an American courtroom, and the lawyer and judge kept using bizarre, overwrought formations like "bruisality" and "dismissulate". Evidently, to British ears, Americans have a tendency to add suffixes willy-nilly. (Although the only real-life example I can think of is "burglarize".) I was wondering if Argentines had the same reputation in the Spanish-speaking world. LANTZY^TALK 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never, ever heard or read the word "televization" until now; do people really sometimes say that where you live? Textorus (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard it in speech. Google reveals it to exist, at least in writing. LANTZY^TALK 08:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember stumbling over Hurley's translation of the title "Funes el memorioso" as "Funes, His Memory" (he does explain his rationale in the book, but to me it remains an eyesore). Lantzy, you might be interested in this and part 2, for one example. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Funes, His Memory" sounds like "Dem Funes sein Gedächtnis" which would be used to avoid the genitive. Rimush (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, Sluzzelin. Evidently I'm not the first to have noticed something wrong with Hurley's translations. It's a shame they relied on him for the big fancy edition of Collected Fictions a few years back. As for "Funes, His Memory", I've always hated that. Honestly, what's wrong with "Funes the Memorious"? It sounds cool, and it's not as if English speakers are going to stare at it for hours and wonder "What the hell does that mean?" It's transparent. LANTZY^TALK 03:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Since recently

Hello! I'm having a brain freeze: is the expression "since recently" correct in English (as in the phrase, "Since recently, they have a new car"). It doesn't sound right to me, yet Google seems to turn it up on pages with otherwise good English. If it's not a good expression to use, does someone have a suggestion for a better expression? Thanks in advance! — QuantumEleven 12:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Of late, they have had a new car?" Or "lately"? I've seen 'since' used like this in Bollywood translations and I know what you mean - it sounds wrong. I think "since" has to precede a fixed time. Sandman30s (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

'Of late' and 'lately' have connotations of temporarariness, particularly since you've changed 'have' to 'have had'. The sentence is trying to say they have a new car, and will continue to use this car, but they haven't had it for a very long, which isn't at all surprising since it's a new car we're talking about. There comes a point when a new car ceases to be a new car; when that is ...? But it's not a question of tautology to combine 'recently' with 'new car' because they might have recently bought a second-hand car. How about "They recently bought/purchased/acquired a new car"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Formulations of this kind have a tendency to sound extremely foreign: "Now we're old and gray, Fernando. Since many years I haven't seen a rifle in your hand." But QuantumEleven's example isn't quite as bad as ABBA's. The problem isn't the pairing of "since" with "recently", but the use of the simple present tense in the subsequent clause. It would sound perfectly natural were the main clause put in a perfect continuous tense: "Since recently, they've had a new car." LANTZY^TALK 06:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

... "since recently" still sounds slightly "foreign" to my British ear. Jack's suggestion is better British and Australian English. Dbfirs 11:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On further consideration you're probably right, and one would be unlikely to phrase it in such a way. But if a native speaker (or a self-assured foreigner) were to tell me, "Since recently they've had a new car," I don't think it would give me pause. LANTZY^TALK 03:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I'll try to rephrase it to a non-continuous action (such as "they recently bought a new car"). Cheers! — QuantumEleven 13:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

word for decorative arrangement...

Hi I've asked this question years ago and didn't get the right answer. It's one of those words that I've known before (when dinosaurs roamed) and it will forever bug me until I can find it again! If I get it, I will stamp it on my forehead to never forget it again and will award a barnstar of torment alleviation!! It's the word to describe such an arrangement: a glass bottle or jar filled with decorative multi-coloured chillies/peppers (and possibly small onions too) and preserved with vinegar or alcohol. It's the word for the entire arrangement, not just the jar or its contents. It's sometimes given as a gift for the alcohol to be drunk but I don't know if anyone is mad enough to drink chilli flavoured alcohol. I was given this gift again and nobody knows what it's called! Sandman30s (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(For reference, here is the unanswered question Sandman asked two years ago. Just so people get a head start, and don't spend brains or time on coming up with the same answers.) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's not potpourri like some suggested two years ago, then I'm at a loss. Rimush (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Like this one, I suppose? No, that wouldn't be a potpourri. But I don't know the answer either, so Sandman will have to live with his curse a bit more. No such user (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth, the particular square type of the bottle is called quadrotta [5], though it probably isn't what you had in mind. No such user (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be an Italian loan-word for it: a google search for 'decorative vinegar bottle' turns up a good selection of the kind of things you mean, and they are usually presented as part of an Italian themed designs. Bit they always seemed to be called 'decorative vinegar bottles' in English. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

just as an afterthought, you might be thinking of one of the related words: infuser, cruet, amphora. None of them are specific to this, but they apply indirectly. --Ludwigs2 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Italian wikipedia has a reference desk? If so try asking the question there (in English). The photo found by No such user seems to indicate it's Italian. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Maybe this [6] or this? -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Janet Fish paints items not-so-distantly-related, for whatever that's worth. See some here. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's olives they are called "Placed olives" (in contrast with "Thrown"). Ariel. (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The curse lives on! Maybe the word was potpourri then, but I'm 90% sure it was Italian sounding. Thanks guys... Sandman30s (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Conserva? --Pierpao (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

or Salamoia? --Pierpao (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Try also in Spanish Wiki: for English-speakers Italian and Spanish sound much the same way...--93.32.36.184 (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sottaceti?--Bedo2991 (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only supply the names of different types of conservation: Pickled vegetables in vinegar are called sott(')aceti, in oil they are called sott'olii, in salt water they are called in salamoia. Hans Urian (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Coins that are 1/10 of dollar

Coins are "cents" from centi. But since it's time to abolish the penny :) what do you call coins that are 1/10 of a dollar? Decies? Decis? Decs? Deces? Ariel. (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dimes in US currency (from Latin decima through French desme). --Ludwigs2 17:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Penny (1/100) - Nickel (1/20) - Dime (1/10) - Quarter (1/4, obviously). Rimush (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what the name of the coin is, I was wondering about giving a new name for the unit (not the coin), and was wondering which was most correct. Ariel. (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The US penny is not going out of circulation any time soon, for various political reasons. But the 1/10 dollar bit is a "dime", and I haven't heard any other suggested names for it. And I remember when it could buy a cup of coffee. PhGustaf (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Historically and officially, the dime is the name of the unit in the US, not of the coin. That's why it makes sense that the coin is marked ONE DIME. (And the 5¢ coin used to be marked HALF DIME, not FIVE CENTS.) It's just that the word has transferred itself to the coin (and also, in everyday usage, to the corresponding Canadian coin, which officially is a 10¢ piece). --Anonymous, 11:50 UTC, September 16, 2010.

That sounds plausible, but Wikipedia's dime page doesn't mention that meaning, and dime (United States coin) even says of one design, 'on the reverse is the lettering "10C," making it the only dime minted with an explicit indication of its value (subsequent issues are inscribed with the words "ONE DIME")'. Should this be fixed? Some online dictionaries mention the currency-unit meaning (e.g. Webster's 1913), others don't (e.g. American Heritage 4th ed.). -- BenRG (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In practice, it's unlikely there'll be one, even if the penny as a coin is de-facto abolished. Most countries which have abandoned the smallest-unit-coin happily keep calling the larger ones by the old names - see, for example, India, where the smallest denomination coin is the ten paise (100 paise to the rupee). You'd only be likely to change if you revalued (or renamed) the currency as a whole, and even then... Shimgray | talk | 21:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In China, 1/10 of a dollar is a máo (毛), and that's generally used as a unit of currency (i.e., for ¥1.50 you wouldn't say "1 kuài 50 fēn (cents)", you would say "1 kuài 5 máo" or just "1 kuài 5"). Cents (fēn) are only used in like banks, department stores, chain grocery stores with cash registers, and other "official" places. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Australian coins don't seem to have names. We just concern ourselves with what they're worth. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

They used to, prior to 1966 decimalisation. Well, a mixture of formal and informal names anyway. We had halfpennies, pennies, threepences, sixpences (known as zacs), shillings (known as bob or deeners), and florins (= 2/-, called 2 shillings or 2 bob, but never 2 deeners). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see how you get "zac" from "six", and "bob" is relatively standard for a shilling, but why "deener"? It had a sheep on, which seems to rule out the obvious guess that it came from the design. Some kind of linkage with "dinar" is possible - compare the old UK use of "dollar" for a crown coin, after large numbers of Spanish dollars were in circulation for a while valued at five shillings - but I don't see any reasonable point at which that would have come into use! Shimgray | talk | 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's something about deeners (see under deaner). Also, a threepence was called a "tray" sometimes. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Since in Britain there are ten pee to a florin and ten florins in a quid, you could call the unit a florin. "Brother, can you spare a florin?" No, somehow I don't think it would catch on. -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The expression needs to be updated for inflation, since there's little one can buy with the equivalent of a dime these days. An upper-class British type who's fallen on hard times might ask "Brother, can you spare 5 guineas for a hazelnut mocha mugaccino?". :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

£5.25? Where are you buying coffee? The Ritz? 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturally. One never lowers one's standards. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there or has there ever been a language that used a phonetic alphabet?

Or at least one that came close (like, 30 letters for 32 sounds)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.79.251 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean a phonemic alphabet, plenty of languages do. The most famous example is probably Korean (Hangul). Turkish (and many of its close relatives, such as Uyghur, Uzbek, and Kazakh) also have a more or less one-to-one phoneme-grapheme correspondence. The reason I am calling these phonemic rather than phonetic is that they only encode sound differences that also trigger meaning differences, rather than context-dependent sound differences; for example, Korean has both [s] and [ʃ], but those are actually variants of the same phoneme (in some contexts it's pronounced [s], as in Seo-ul신울, whereas in others it's pronounced [ʃ], as in 신촌 Shin-chon) so it's written with the same letter.

I don't think many languages use alphabets that are fully phonetic (i.e., alphabets that represent unimportant differences in pronunciation) because the information they would convey is redundant and not necessary for expression. For instance, if [American] English used a fully phonetic alphabet, "bank" would be spelled "bangk" or "baŋk", "kicked" would be spelled "kicket" or "kickt" or "kikt", etc. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Serbian would come close. So would Tongan. --Theurgist (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping the link under "Serbian" would be to Vuk Karadžić :) But even if the rule "write it as you speak it" does apply to Serbian, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with calling it a "language that uses a phonetic alphabet" - in essence, all that the rule seems to accomplish is to have foreign names written in the closest approximation to Serbian pronunciation rules (cf.: New York vs. Njujork), but if those foreign names use phonemes that aren't domestic to Serbian, those get glossed over for the closest approximate. If you were to include Serbian, than many other languages can be included as well - many, if not most languages don't have the convoluted writing/reading rules of English or French and really put down words in fairly good approximations of how stuff is actually pronounced - as Rjanag has already pointed out. Also, I'd like to mention Japanese (more precisely, its use of kana) here. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the exceptions on foreign names that you mention really aren't exceptions: the scope of the alphabet are the language's own 30 phonemes, and the foreign ones don't count. When foreign names are written as approximation to Serbian pronunciation (Njujork/Њујорк), they are also pronounced using, well, Serbian pronunciation (['ɲujɔrk]). The Serbo-Croatian writing system does not distinguish allophones, of course, and there are some exceptions where consonant voicing/devoicing is not recorded in writing (although it occurs in speech), in order to preserve at some morphology. ɲNo such user (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See Alphabet#Orthography and spelling --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

September 16

At what point does a metaphor become an established additional meaning of a word?

We all know what a skeleton is - the bone system of a human or animal. By metaphorical use, the word 'skeleton' has come to also refer to the internal supporting framework of something that is not an organism or perhaps not even a physical object but an idea, or something operating on 'bare bones' resources, i.e. 'skeleton staff', or the 'skeleton' of a structure. I presume the first definition was the original meaning of this word and the secondary usage evolved through metaphor. So at what point does a metaphor become so established that it can be listed in a dictionary as an additional meaning of a word? I am relying on assumptions here, but I believe that these are probably fair assumptions to make.--Nomenclaturehedonism (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can identify a specific "point" at which it happens. Eventually a word is used a lot in some sense (such as the second sense you mention for "skeleton") and then it's put in a dictionary. But there's no cut-and-try turning point when that suddenly happens (there's not a specific number or anything, we can't say "It's been used 500 times, now put it in the dictionary" or "It's only been used 473 times, we'll have to wait"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Etymonline's entry for 'skeleton', specifically, gives 1600 as the earliest usage of the word in the sense of 'bare outline', and 'skeleton crew' in 1778. Also, it also tells us that the original meaning was not 'bones', but 'dried up', and by extension 'mummified remains' - the meaning of 'bones' came later. It's just a case of language changing. As Rjanag says, no-one actually decides when a word has a new meaning (whether as a replacement for or as an addition to the old one(s)). It just happens. Sometimes it takes a long time and sometimes it doesn't. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is: it depends on the lexicographer's feel that this is a "new meaning" or "only a metaphore". Lexicographers may have each their own methods for this, usually based on frequency of use in a corpus. --Lgriot (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, you're really talking about analogies, not metaphors. Metaphors (as a rule) extend meanings through association, whereas analogies lend meanings between otherwise unrelated objects or concepts. so, when we say that a vulture is a metaphor for death (because vultures eat the dead) all we've done is expand the sense of the word vulture; but when we say a man is like a vulture (analogy) we've loaned some of the attributes of vultures to a man, and in the process begun to create a new meaning for the word vulture as it applies to men (since we probably don't mean that that man is literally like a vulture). --Ludwigs2 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To my understanding, the bare statement that 'X is like Y' would be a simile, not an analogy, which is a more extended logical comparative argument of the form 'just as X does A, so Y does B', though saying X is Y is indeed a metaphor. Thus "Man is a vulture" = metaphor; "A man is like a vulture" = simile; "Just as a man will eat a windfall apple, so a vulture will eat a dead cow" = (poor) analogy. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the correct analysis, and "vulture" has a long way to go before it "means" "death". I would suggest several hundred years of metaphor (not simile or analogy) would often be necessary before the word acquires its (former) metaphoric meaning, and often not even then. Dbfirs 11:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mandarin Chinese

Hey, sorry for two questions in one day (I think my roomate asked one too so that's three) but I've been curious about this for a while. My friend (native Chinese speaker) says that she has a lot of difficulty understanding non-native speakers because they don't speak with the right tones. I realise that people are different and some might be gifted with languages, some not so much, but is there a general age threshold range to start learning Chinese after which you can no longer produce the tones natively/speak with a noticeable accent? After enough experience/immersion in Chinese, would it be possible to lose this accent? Thanks. PS: I'm just curious, I'm not really interested in learning the "Latin of the East" as my history book calls it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A "general age threshold" is called a critical period, and the issue of whether critical periods exist in second language acquisition is still a controversial one. Intuitively, it may be harder for people to acquire tones if they don't start learning until they're older, but it's certainly not impossible. There are many people who can pronounce Mandarin tones just fine even though they didn't start learning until after age 18 (I can say that because I'm one of them, but there are more famous ones too, such as Leehom Wang and Joseph Needham), although there are probably many many more people who can't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the reply, rʨanaɢ. If you don't mind me asking, because this is a little personal and you can choose not to if your not comfortable with it. Do native speakers say you speak with a noticeable accent? Do they ask you to repeat things because they didn't understand what you were saying (I mean in relation to your speaking, not what was being spoken)? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they're usually shocked to hear someone white speak with tones at all. They tend to say "you have no accent", but then again Chinese people are notorious complimenters so you always have to take it with a grain of salt. I almost never have to repeat myself, though. But anyway, I bet many other learners of Chinese here can attest to similar experiences. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've lived in China for 3 years, and made a reasonable effort to learn Mandarin in that time. My tones, simply put, are pretty awful. Why? I've come to realize that my ears just aren't cut out for the task. If you give me pinyin I can force myself to over-enunciate a tone for you, but when I speak with natives I simply can't pick up on the tones naturally unless they're trying to make a forceful point or something. So, with certain words where I've completely memorized the tone structure (and can mentally picture the pinyin) I can pretty much nail it, but with the majority of my vocabulary which I've picked up through daily life my tones are screwed up if present at all. People will patiently try to correct me and I can't hear any difference between what they say and what I repeat. In the beginning it was very frustrating for me until I realized that I just don't hear tones of any kind very well. (related note - I can't carry a tune to save my life) Lastly, I would speculate that someone who is a very good singer or other sort of musician would be able to pick-up accurate Chinese pronunciation much more easily than someone who has a tin ear. The Masked Booby (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think musical experience makes much difference. Mandarin uses contour tones, as opposed to register tones, which means that what distinguishes a tone isn't its absolute pitch (middle C or whatever) but its "shape", or the way it moves up and down during a word. That means you don't have to be able to pinpoint an exact pitch like a musician has to. Musical experience helps, of course, but it's not necessary; people can pick up tones without musical experience, and people can be good musicians but bad tone learners. There has been a ton of experimental research on connections between tone language experience and musical aptitude, and, while I certainly am not familiar with all of it, the impression I have of that literature is that most of the links that have been found (things like a higher proportion of musicians with absolute pitch who are also speakers of tone languages) are not super-impressive; the connection seems to be a weak one at best. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(For an illustration that this is still a hot research topic, check out p. 113 of this conference program—the conference is coming up in Nov. 2010). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reinforcing the earlier point: A lot of people learn Chinese tones (and Vietnamese tones and Thai tones...) well as an adult. The critical period hypothesis is primarily about first language, not second and third languages. I have found that some people really do struggle with the concept, though, so you will find a lot of people who are otherwise competent, but do not use tone consistently. Note that there is a *lot* of tone diversity in Chinese varieties. One is exposed to a lot of interesting varieties of Chinese as one travels around. Many are so distinct as to be unintelligible, but the difference between one city and the city one over will often be an accent difference and some different words. Part of that accent difference is tone, and speakers can adapt to people's different tone systems and understand them, with only a little difficulty. (OR, but it's academic OR) Steewi (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Temporal Adjectives

Why are some adjectives that suggest a certain time period capitalized, while others are not? Example: Ancient Philosophy vs ancient Greece. Thanks schyler (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a difference between proper and common nouns. A proper noun names a more specific period (e.g., Hellenic period in architecture, Middle Ages, Renaissance), whereas a common noun is just a description and could be more vague (ancient Greece, etc.). One handy rule to help tell the difference is that a common noun is the sum of its parts ("ancient Greece" refers to Greece when it was ancient, for example), whereas a pronoun might not (the "Middle Ages" aren't really ages in the middle, unless you think abstractly; Classical Chinese is not Chinese that's classy).

In reality, of course, this distinction is more blurred than I make it out to be here. But this is a decent rule of thumb. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Put more simply (maybe) sometimes the adjective is a true adjective (modifier to a noun) and so remains uncapitalized, but sometimes the adjective is really part of the name itself and thus usually is capitalized. In 'Alexander the Great' and 'Pliny the Elder', 'great' and 'elder' are capitalized because they are part of the standard designation for those persons, and not simply modifiers that point out that the first was excellent and the second was old. --Ludwigs2 08:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks a lot y'all. schyler (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Latin?

What does the phrase "In Nomine" mean?199.126.224.245 (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

'In [the] name [of]...' --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

[For other Latin phrases, you can refer to List of Latin phrases. Besides the basic answer provided by the first answerer, this phrase has been adopted as a musical title, "In Nomine".

—Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)]

Perhaps you want a larger phrase: In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And that means "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Rimush (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is Trinitarian formula... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that this expression is a calque of a Semitic construction (Hebrew be-shem, Arabic bi-'sm), since the Semitic preposition bi means both "in, within" and "by". In Classical Latin in + ablative means only "in, within". The ancient translators of the Bible translated bi with one and the same preposition (in), even when it meant "by", and the frequent use led to this situation, where in the name does not seem so strange ("within the name")...--93.32.36.184 (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

German word for the soft inner part of a bread loaf

It was mentioned tonight in a show on SBS, and I resolved to remember it - the best I have is something like kroft, kraft -- something like that. Can anyone help?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it (possibly because there's a different word for it in Austria), but the German Wikipedia suggests Krume: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krume_(Backware) . The word for breadcrumbs "up north" is Krümel, which is apparently a diminutive of Krume (I didn't know this until today) - down here in Austria we call them Brösel Rimush (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In English we use 'crumb' for this. For example, the third definition here--Frumpo (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

They seem to come from a common root. Rimush (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Krume! That's it! Well done, and thanks. Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rap "izzle" language

Can someone explain to me that rap music izzle language? Does it have a name? Rules? Is it just a substitution language or does it have it's own words? Where does it come from? I never understood a word of it except that I knew it was often used in a sexual innuendo way, like (I might have this wrong) "shizzle my nizzle" or something like that is I guess "suck my dick" but I don't see any substitution in there if that's correct.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. can someone please remove the self-censorship with the two asterisks above? I can't because the edit filter thingamagig wouldn't let me save it in its uncensored form.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See wikt:-izzle. "Fo shizzle my nizzle" is "For sure, my [friend]" - the n-word being the n-word.Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Thieves'_cant might be useful in general. The -izzle dates to the Harlem_renaissance. In addition to a suffix, iz / izzle can be used as an infix, also described here http://www.experiencefestival.com/-izzle_-_izz_infix_usage SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ham sandwich

This question may be too parochial for the desk, but I'll give it a lash anyway. Are the 'ham' parts of Kilmainham and Rathfarnham related to each other? I tried googling to no avail. Thanks, as always. Is mise Stanstaple (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Celtic word origins are beyond my ken, but whatever the true origin of these two place names, since they are near Dublin in what was the English Pale, it's possible their anglicized versions were influenced by the common -ham suffix (as in Birmingham); see this article for the origin of many English place name endings. But someone with Celtic/Gaelic expertise really needs to answer this one. Textorus (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles on the two places say that the "ham" in both cases is a modified ending of a person's name, in one case St Maighnenn and in the other case somebody named Fearnán. So the only way the "ham"s could be related is if these two names are related, but I don't know enough about Irish personal names to say whether that is possible. Looie496 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's because both places were probably originally founded as very small villages or hamlets. When I googled ham suffix this page was the very first hit. Answered by Textorus, with more nuance than me. Whoops. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes - if they were English. But "Kil" and "Rath" are typically Irish, and mixed-source place names are unusual (not unknown, but generally need to be explained), so Old English "ham" is unlikely to be involved. And in fact Looie's answer makes it clear that both places must originally have had "-an" or "-en", presumably modified to "-am" and written "-ham" by English speakers. (Note to American readers: most British places ending in "-ham" are pronounced [-əm], with no 'h' and a reduced vowel.). --ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to Tex & Colin esp. You actually answered the root of the question, which I hadn't properly formed in my head. I'd been wondering whether it was related to the English 'ham' suffix. Youse do good work :) Stanstaple (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Time and (time) again

The expressions (A) "time and again" and (B) "time and time again" are well known and their meaning is clear. We normally process them as a whole idiom rather than as separate words. Try and make logical sense out of the words and you'll get nowhere fast. But they're still made up of separate words, and I'm curious about the function of 'time'.

Do A and B have any differences of nuance, or can they be safely interchanged? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the logical problem with "time and time again"? It seems perfectly sensical to me. Just think of 'time' in the same sense as 'two times' (i.e., two occasions). "Time and again" is less logical, though; I assume it'd just a clipped form of "time and time again". 173.66.149.81 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Interchange them to your heart's content, though the longer one ever so slightly emphasizes the repetitive quality of . . . whatever. But not enough difference to make a real difference, ya know? Textorus (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, the logical issue is this. I agree we can think of 'time' as short for 'on two times' or 'on a certain number of times'. But it's never used that way outside of this idiom. I mean, if I wanted to express "I've previously explained this to you more than once", I wouldn't say "I've explained this to you time" (it has to be 'time and again'). Or, if someone wanted to know how often I'd done something or other, and I answered with "Time", they'd think I misheard the question. 'Time' just doesn't have that meaning, except in the idiom in question. It's far from uncommon for words to have a unique meaning within a certain fixed expression, so that's no problem. But to try to explain them using the apparent logical surface literal meaning of the component words would lead a non-native speaker very much down the garden path. (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it similar to "over" then? You can explain it over and over again, but can you explain it over? I guess you can explain it over again. Again and again, I see questions asked here also being discussed at WordReference.com's language forum (though not that enlightening, in this case [7])---Sluzzelin talk 23:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a number of threads on "time and time again" as well as "time and again" in the foreign language fora. French, Italian, and Spanish. I haven't checked them out. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure you can. "How many times have you told me about this?" "One time." "Two times." "Many times." "Lots of times." "Time after time." "Time and time again." It is by no means an isolated or fossilised meaning. The phrase itself is an idiomised (is that a word?) poetic phrase, and I do wonder if there is some original work that people are unwittingly quoting, but it isn't some special meaning of the word 'time'. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Thomas Boys in [8] Notes and Queries (Oxford University Press, 1857):

"Time and again" appears to have signified originally "once" and again," and thence to have acquired the meaning of "again and again." Grammatical or ungrammatical, the phrase has some countenance both in French, Latin, Scotch, and German.

"A time," in some parts of Scotland, is the act of once furrowing between two ploughings. If two furrowings intervene, it is "a double time;" if four, "a double double time"

In German, *once" is einmal (einmahl, "one time").

"A time," in the sense of "once," exactly corresponds to the French "une fois." With "time and again" compare also the French phrase "de fois à autre."

"Fois" is a slight modification of the Latin "vice." Like the Spanish "una vez" and the Porguguese "huma vez," the French "une fois" comes from the (not classical) Latin, "unâ vice." Indeed, our own "once," with its various antecedents in old English, claims the same origin, thus : - uná vice, un(â vi)ce, once.

---Sluzzelin talk 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, "once" has a rather dull, straightforward Germanic pedigree. It's nothing more than the adverbial genitive of "one". Hence its cognates in Dutch ("eens") and German ("einst"). LANTZY^TALK 05:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant sleuthing, Sluz. Sure sounds like the definitive answer to me. Textorus (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A follow-up question to Sluzzelin's post. It seems that numerous IE languages use a similar construct to express a n-time repetition: a number followed by an, um, word meaning "time(s)" (fois, vez, -mal). In my native Serbo-Croatian, the word is "put" or "puta", (Croatian dictionary, excellent Google translate). The type of that word is a bit indeterminate, but it tends to be undeclinable, and not useful on its own: you must say "one time", or "several times", but you cannot say just "time" (I suppose, in either of the languages above). The linked Croatian dictionary says it's an "adverbial particle", (and a "particle" usually means "none of the known word types").

Finally, the question: how come that the construct and usage are basically the same in all these languages, but the used words differ so wildly? No such user (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

September 17

Which is correct (plural/singular).

I heard someone on the radio say "there weren't as many tourists this year as there was last year". Should it be "there weren't as many tourists this year as there were last year"? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You can't use "were" in the first half and then switch to "was" in the second. Rojomoke (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

However, you could have used "was" in the second half, had the "there" been deleted from the second half. Eliko (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? there weren't as many tourists this year as was last year? What sort of English is that? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not English at all unless you say "as was the case last year", but then you introduce a possible ambiguity. Use the plural for both. "Someone on the radio" is not a good role model for correct English. Even BBC announcers and presenters occasionally make mistakes. Dbfirs 11:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is totally error-free, Dbfirs. Why, even I occasionally make mistakes. :) I'm interested, who would you nominate as a better role model than a BBC announcer? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I find myself making mistakes with worryingly increasing regularity! The point I intended to make (but didn't make clearly) is that "someone on the radio" could be just anyone, with any or little knowledge of correct English. Also, spoken English, even from educated people such as radio presenters, often contains errors that would probably not be reproduced in written form. BBC announcers usually read from a script, so they should be the "best" model of spoken English, and usually they are, but occasional mistakes creep in, even there. Dbfirs 09:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"[T]here weren't as many tourists" is about a plural thing, the number of tourists; "as there was last year" is about a single thing, last year. In the end it doesn't matter - both sentences are obviously understandable. Prescriptive grammar might favour "there weren't as many tourists this year as there were last year". Descriptive grammar would say that both are examples of grammatically OK colloquial English. If I were to comment on which sentence sounds better to my ear, I would argue that "there weren't as many tourists this year as there were last year", sounds just a weeny bit stilted, and somewhat redolent of that quaint thing, the subjunctive in English.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"is about a plural thing, the number of tourists" I haven't read this discussion thoroughly, but the way you worded that sounds like a contradiction to me.. Lexicografía (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How is the "was" referring to "last year"? "there weren't as many tourists this year as there was [tourists] last year" - wrong. Rimush (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The "weren't" and the "were" each attest to the presence or otherwise of tourists. Why would you wish to make one plural and the other singular in the same sentence? Either it's: "There weren't as many tourists this year as there were last year" (standard) or "There wasn't as many tourists this year as there was last year" (colloquial; standard usage for some speakers.) Mixing the two breaks the rules of both. Karenjc 15:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is a red herring, Shirt. You may as well totally eliminate the word 'were' from your vocabulary if it reminds you of the antiquated subjunctive even in places where the subjunctive is not anywhere to be seen. But it's given me an idea: next time I buy a goldfish, I'm going to call it Subjunctive Irrelevant Redolence. Cute. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Treatment of initial r/n in North Korea

According to this encyclopedia, for Sino-Korean words, South Koreans will replace /r/ with /n/ in the initial position, while both /r/ and /n/ are lost completely in the initial position if followed by /i/ or /y/. North Koreans ostensibly do not follow this rule, and as far as I can tell, this holds true orthographically. However, when I listen to North Korean news broadcasts on KCTV and/or North Korean song recordings, it seems that North Koreans also change /r/ to /n/ word-initially and lose both /r/ and /n/ word-initially if they are followed by /i/ or /y/. Is it just me, or does it seem that /r/ and /n/ are indeed difficult to pronounce word-initially in the aforementioned situations? 98.116.90.160 (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You probabaly mean to ask whether the North Koreans find it "difficult to pronounce word-initially in the aforementioned situations", don't you? Eliko (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Korean had an archaic phonological process called the Head Consonant Rule, which changed /r/ to [n] word-initially and /r,n/ to ∅ word initially before /i/ or /j/ (like you described) in words borrowed into the language during the period that that process was active (probably a few centuries ago, but it's difficult to estimate), which means a lot of Chinese (i.e. Sino-Korean) words went through this, for example, Hanja 女性 (womenkind) written and pronounced as 여성 ([jʌsʌŋ]) in Hangeul, but when 女 is not word-initial, as in 男女 (men and women) pronounced [namnjʌ], the [n] is preserved. The Head Consonant Rule is inactive in Korean now, however, which is why the later borrowed word radio is pronounced [ladio] and not *[nadio]. Could it be possible that the combination of HCR-affected words and later borrowed unaffected words is giving you the perception that things are different in North Korea? As far as I know, HCR had the same effect on the North-Korean dialect as the South-Korean one, but I'm no expert. Here's a link that mentions a bit about the HCR to prove I'm not just making it up; go to page 3 "Word-initial l avoidance." As for /r/ and /n/ being difficult to pronounce in this environment, we have no problem say words like repeat in English, but at least in the past, Koreans perceived a markedness of these sounds in this environment which brought about HCR. Hope some of this helps.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know anything about the linguistics involved, but there seemed to be a certain amount of confusion in the U.S. about how the names of Roh Tae-woo and Roh Moo-hyun were to be spelled and pronounced, and also the Rodong missiles... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk like a pirate day

I believe International talk like a pirate day is this weekend, and is fairly amusing and has a modestly large following. Are there other days where people do similar things with different groups, like a talk like a cowboy day or anything? Googlemeister (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Unofficial observances might have something. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any others that dealt with talking differently, but you could walk around barefoot on Hobbit Day, which has either just passed or just coming up depending on how you wish to observe it. Global Orgasm Day was only scheduled once, in 2006, but celebrating the anniversary of that august event every December 22 is surely in order. Matt Deres (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a holiday I can get behind! rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Some Facebook group be tryins' to start up an "International Talk Like a Distinguished Chap Day", accordings to International Talk Like a Pirate Day#Derivatives, blast them scurvy knaves! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nepali text

Hi! I see Nepali text at http://www.caanepal.org.np/beta/templates/siteground-j15-86/images/headerimg.jpg

But how is it typed in? I want to add the text to the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You need a tool that allows you to type in Unicode Nepali. People will need the right font in order to be able to see it properly, but most people have a good Unicode font nowadays. There are some tools on the web that allow you to type Nepali using a western keyboard, for example UnicodeNepali.com; or Google Transliterate might work for you. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so where can I find an alphabet of the script so I know what to type in? that way I can look at the Nepali name in the image and type in the romanization into Google transliterate. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know. My understanding is that the Nepali characters come from Devanagiri. You can find lists of characters that can be copy-pasted at articles like Devanagari transliteration, but I'm really operating way beyond my level of competence here. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's just Devanagari script. It's pretty much the same language as Hindi. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The words are नेपाल नागरिक उड्डयन प्राधिकरण - Thank you for your help! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of "intuitive"

From Kerberos_(protocol)#Description: "the following is an intuitive description."

I understand this to mean that the description will appeal to the reader's intuition and may take some liberties for the sake of conveying the main idea. I am familiar with this sense in math circles. But in general usage, would this more likely be taken to mean that the writer is not entirely sure of the details and is basing the description on his own intuition? 198.161.238.19 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope not, since I use the word that way frequently, but honestly who knows? Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if intuitive has a specific meaning in programming; my take is the writer means either lingual as opposed to mathematical [description] or easy to understand [as opposed to counterintuitive]. But it could just as easily be a useless filler word, unconsciously put in for the sake of sounding erudite/intelligent in an encyclopedia article. Hard to tell without understanding very much about computer science. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To me an intuitive description is one that tries to create a picture in the reader's mind, as opposed to one that gives a formal definition. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what this means (in this context) is that the writer does know the material well, but is trying to avoid using technical jargon and excessive detail, so that less knowledgable readers will be able to follow it. it's the same sense as when you say that a Graphical User Interface is more intuitive than command line instructions. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure of what the writer means. What I'm asking is whether it's jargon to say an "intuitive description" means "intended to be intuitive for the reader", vs. "based on the writer's intuition". 198.161.238.19 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin and meaning of "deep sneakers"

I've tried several different searches but can't find a definition and origin for the phrase "deep sneakers". The closest I was able to come was a quote "in deep sneakers (aka up a crick!)". Nhopenwheeler (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be school slang that originated in the mid-1980s. This etymology page quotes a Newsweek Periscope piece from 1991 that defines it thusly: Deep sneakers: In big trouble. Usage: "Kevin's in deep sneakers for skipping phys ed.". Looie496 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

September 18

Phonetic equipment

I plan on using my laptop to record speech for spectrogram analysis, but my laptop's built-in microphone is horrible for this. What should I look for when buying an external microphone to generate clean spectrograms? Can any fellow phoneticians recommend something? My plan is to plug it into my laptop and record in Praat. I'm assuming that's enough for good sound sampling and all I'm lacking is a suitable microphone. Not sure if Wikipedia's the best place to ask this, but I figured I'd give it a try Thank you!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a phonetician so I don't know a ton about this, but you might want to check what is used in relevant articles related to what you're doing. For example, the facilities in my department have an ElectroVoice 767 microphone (among others; this is the only one I know off the top of my head). The only thing is, I imagine those sorts of microphones are quite expensive.

If you don't need a top-of-the-line microphone I think you can get by with just about any average one. For the intro phonetics class we teach, students have to do a project where they record themselves and do some spectral analysis, and we just let them use the regular microphones in a regular computer lab on campus; it's not the nicest ever, but it's certainly good enough to get a clean spectogram. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You ought to ask this question over at the science desk too, and I bet you will get a ton of answers and opinions. Textorus (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers so far. I've made notice of this question on the science desk. The ElectroVoice microphone looks great, albeit expensive as Rjanag points out. A short perusal of decent microphones sold online brought up a few options ~$20, mostly microphones intended for music, which make me a bit weary, at least those with "noise-canceling" features that make me wonder whether they'll filter out any meaningful frequencies of human speech, or have the potential of accidentally altering the speech signal. Is there some code-word I should look for in the product description that will tell me the microphone doesn't filter any of the signal, or certain descriptions of a microphone that would make it a good candidate for phonetic applications (I see this word dynamic a lot)? Also, I know a good amount of phonologists who have bought expensive portable recorders to plug the microphone into. I'm not sure if that's necessary--I just use a laptop, which I would think would be able to sample sound better than a higher-end portable device.... Plus for phonetic work, I'd be collecting data sitting down in a quiet room, so even a bulkier laptop isn't a problem. Are these portable samplers really any better?--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As for noise-cancelling, you definitely want to make sure it doesn't record or save stuff in mp3 or mp4 format; those are the ones that filter out some frequencies. Generally you're save if you use .wav format. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Films with American accents

Okay, throwing a spanner into the works just for the sake of a little comedy (?) relief here. My question is: Do British movie houses provide barf bags for the audience when they run films with American actors playing historical British characters - or even (gasp) an American cast doing Shakespeare?

And a follow-up question, are there any American actors that British audiences perceive as doing a truly believable British/Scottish/Welsh/etc. accent, and why? The vowels, the consonants, the rhythm, the elision . . . ? Just wondering. Textorus (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

After you've seen John Wayne play Genghis Khan, nothing else matters. Looie496 (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's nothing. In The Greatest Story Ever Told he played a 1st century Roman centurion who, having witnessed the Crucifixion, uttered the immortal line, in true JW style, "Truly this was the Son o' Gaad". Unforgettable. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do people never complain about the other way around? British people sometimes have laughable American accents. (Although I always thought Gary Oldman was American...and presumably most people don't know Hugh Laurie is British...but still! Still!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how much Hugh Laurie's American accent has improved over the years. In his Fry & Laurie days, he was pretty shaky. LANTZY^TALK 03:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(You should hear James Marsters' imitation American accent in Buffy the Vampire Slayer [I think the episode is Goodbye Iowa]...mostly over-exaggerated rhoticization...wonderful stuff.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Plus, he was an American actor doing a believable British accent (as far as I am aware), doing a bad American accent as his British character. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As for an American with a believable British accent, I'd suggest Gillian Anderson. I even recall an episode of QI where Alan Davies insisted vociferously that she was English, even though she was born in Chicago. (Of course, she did spend some of her childhood in London.) As an American, I found that especially satisfying. I think British audiences have basically decided, for whatever mystical reason, that Americans are physiologically incapable of putting on a convincing British accent, so it's become a death sport for an American actor to attempt such a feat. No one wants to be the next Dick van Dyke. And it's not as though there aren't plenty of affordable Australians lining up to play British characters, so what's the point? LANTZY^TALK 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the matter with Dick Van Dyke? "Chim-chim-cheree" didn't go over well in Britain? Textorus (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked, there was a nice little explanation in our article Dick Van Dyke. His accent was so bad, it became the widely-derided example of an American doing a bad cockney accent, in Britain. It is taken as 'common wisdom' that the only British accents in American media are 'Hugh Grant' and 'Dick Van Dyke': exceptions to this are usually noticed and praised, often with some passing reference to Mary Poppins, but oddly not remembered next time the paper wants to write an article on accents in film and on TV. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and another American with a passable British accent is James Urbaniak, if his work on The Venture Bros is anything to go by. He even played a British character doing a bad American accent. LANTZY^TALK 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And as for the converse, a British actor who can't play American, the alpha and omega is Cary Elwes. LANTZY^TALK 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oi, LANTZY. Ah you saying Australians are cheap? !! (No offence take.) Australians know that it's extremely rare for any non-Australian to do our accent at all well. As for Hugh Laurie, I only knew him as British. Is not knowing that an American thing? I wonder how many here are familiaar with Simon Baker in the Mentalist? DO Americans think his accent is OK (for an Aussie pretending to be American)? HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, HiLo, I'm saying Americans are overpaid! Generally speaking, I'm impressed by the job Australians do with any non-Australian accent, but especially with American accents. LANTZY^TALK 03:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen the Mentalist, but the Australian guy in True Blood sounds completely American to me. (The British guy, too). And Anna Paquin is not American either, is she? But she always sounds like one. Maybe that's because southern American accents always sound fake, even when they are real... Adam Bishop (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The ratio of phony to genuine southern American accents on film is probably something like ten to one. And it's always Mississippian or Texan. You never hear Virginian or Carolinian accents. LANTZY^TALK 03:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing grates on my ears worse than a Yankee actor pretending to tawk Suthun. They just don't get it. Ought to be against the law. And Lantzy is right; nobody in Hollywood ever seems to realize there is not one Southern accent, but many. Textorus (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Without a Trace has 3 non-Americans playing Americans: Anthony LaPaglia and Poppy Montgomery (Australians) and Marianne Jean-Baptiste (British). Are they generally believable to American ears? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea Anthony La Paglia wasn't American; I associate him with So I Married an Axe Murderer, where he sounds perfectly American to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There you go, then. On the other side of the ledger, we had Meryl Streep trying valiantly to do a New Zealand-influenced Australian accent as Lindy Chamberlain in A Cry in the Dark aka Evil Angels. Much as I love and admire her work, Meryl just didn't get it right. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Anna Paquin was born in Canada but grew in new Zealand from the age of four. Does s good job. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For a British actor with a terrible American accent (or perhaps deliberately portraying an Englishman with Hollywood pretensions badly failing to use a convincing American accent), see the BBC's As Time Goes By (TV series). As someone born in London, I was at first taken aback by the accents of my fellow Shakespearean actors in Northern California, but in fact their accents were probably no further from Shakespeare's than those of Southeastern Englishmen and women in this century. Many "Americanisms" like "gotten" and "fall" for autumn are just common 17th-century English that has survived in America while dying in metropolitan Britain. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell you how often I've pointed that out to British friends. And Americans, for that matter. It never sinks in. As far as most people are concerned, all Shakespearean characters (and all Romans) should sound like Oxbridge alums. LANTZY^TALK 07:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. In fact, it pains me to read that Received Pronunciation is practically obsolete now. Pity. I saw in a documentary of some kind a while back, I think it was a member of the Royal Family, saying "okay" and otherwise chatting on like an American. I shuddered a little. Us colonials like the nobility and such to talk real good English, ya know? Otherwise, what would we have to joke about? Grin. Textorus (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It was the middle classes that invented snooty pronunciation. The aristocrats were, at least until recently, always lazy in their manner of speech. Studiedly lazy, in fact: "Ain't we goin' fox-huntin'?" Presumably in order to distinguish themselves from the belabored snobbery of the upstarts. LANTZY^TALK 10:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ain't we goin' huntin'?" is still good English here in Texas. I tell you what. Textorus (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because Texicans, like British noblemen, are also studiedly lazy in their speech. Or so say my Oklahoman relations. LANTZY^TALK 10:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with laziness: its just fashion (in the sense of "the way that this group behaves"). Despite the spelling, there is nothing omitted in "huntin'", it's the substitution of one sound (/n/) for another (/ŋ/) not obviously more difficult to pronounce. But it is true that the English aristocracy and working class share a number of ways of behaving that sets the middle class apart: see Watching the English by Kate Fox, passim. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hometown"

This is a request for information, not a request that anything WP does should change. But, I started off a mini-spat at Talk:Main Page over the use on the main page of the word "hometown" to describe Karachi, the home city of a Pakistani politician. To me, the use of that word in that way seems derogatory - Karachi is a major city and (to me) cannot be described in any sense as a "town", or indeed as a "hometown". But others (apparently, everyone else in that discussion) disagree with my interpretation, saying that the word "hometown" is a common neutral description of the place someone comes from, regardless of size. That definition is not one I have ever used - I know it is used in that sense, but I had thought it was used only in a self-deprecating way by someone describing their own place of origin, not as a neutral term which could be used by anyone about someone else's place of origin. I'm struggling to understand how my understanding of the word is so much at variance with that of others. Can anyone shed any light on this - or is it, in fact, just me with an attitude problem? I would add as background that I'm over 50, in the UK, with a long professional career as an urban planner behind me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a US American and in my 30s. I've never heard "hometown" used in a derogatory way, whether the "town" actually is a town or a city. Yes, people make discouraging remarks about towns, cities, etc. For instance, many Chicagoans speak negatively of Berwyn. But someone would say "Oh, so Berwyn is your hometown!" and being using hometown to implicate anything about the city itself or the person from there. I regularly say that my hometown is Chicago (though I'm not from the city but it's easier to say that than some suburb that the questioner has never heard of) and Chicago is a major city. Dismas|^(talk) 08:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Melbourne, Australia is my home town. I do separate it into two words, but I don't feel in any way negative about telling you that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to pin this down further. In the UK, it's normal to use the word "city" for a large urban area and "town" for a smaller area. There are exceptions, of smaller places with historic city charters, but they are exceptions to the general rule. In the US (correct me if I'm wrong), the term is often (usually?) used for a particular type of administration, almost regardless of size. And, in the UK (in my view) the usual way to describe someone's place of origin would be "home town" if they originated from a home town, or "home city" if they originated from a larger urban area. In neither case would a single word be used, but two - "home town". In the US, the single word "hometown" is used (never "home city"), and that usage has now spread more widely so that it is a more common usage than before in the UK and elsewhere. Is that a fair assessment? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The title of a city or town or village etc. in the US varies from state to state. See City#United States. And I've never heard the term "homecity" ever. My spell check doesn't like it either. Dismas|^(talk) 08:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't exist as a single word (and I've never suggested it does). But I would use the two word term "home city". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also the norm in the U.S., Ghmyrtle, to differentiate "cities" and "towns" on the basis of size, just as you said. However, "hometown" is a metaphorical word, if you will: residents of New York City as well as those of Podunk, Texas (population 300), would both use the word without any hesitation, and do. There is nothing whatsoever derogatory about the word; on the contrary, the unspoken assumption would be that the speaker would feel a certain loyalty to or affection for his or her "hometown," unless explicitly denied.

"Town" as referring to a particular type of administration - no, not really. Probably you are thinking of township, a historical form of local government in New England but unknown in most of the rest of the U.S. "Cities" of course would have much bigger, more complex administrative structures than small towns would, but the main difference again has to do with the size of the place.

"Home city," whether one word or two, is an unknown phrase here, unless perhaps referring to a corporate headquarters or something like that; not used for a person's place of origin. Textorus (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

From Frank Sinatra....

     On State Street, that great street, I just want to say
     They do things that they never do on Broadway -- say
     They have the time, the time of their life
     I saw a man and he danced with his wife
     In Chicago, Chicago, Chicago -- that's my HOME TOWN

HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In the US at least, "town" is frequently used to refer affectionately to any municipality of any size, be it a village or a metropolis. New York City is a town; so is East Jesus, Alabama. In fact, you'd be more likely to use "town" to describe a large city than to describe a small village. However, it isn't as though it's a synonym of "city". It's used to refer to specific places, not to urban environments in general (except in archaic fossilized phrases like "town and country"). So you wouldn't say, for instance, "Rap music originated in towns." But you could say, "Los Angeles is a crazy town." And, at least in the United States, "hometown" is the standard term for one's native community, whatever its size or population. It's not slang. It's not in the least bit derogatory or even particularly informal. LANTZY^TALK 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"The standard term." Exactly. Not slang, not folksy, just standard.

Although, strictly speaking, one's hometown might not be the same as one's "native city"; the latter literally means the place where you were born, but as in my case, my parents moved when I was a toddler so I grew up for the next 20+ years in another city, which if anyone asked I would call my "hometown." Textorus (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that the American usage of "hometown" has more or less broken free of the confines of the word "town", so that the term is now somewhat metaphorical. If "hometown" had a synonym, it would be something like "cradle" - a connotation of nativity, early and intimate acquaintance, and persistent loyalty, a concept entirely independent of geographical size, form of government, size of population, etc. Hell, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear someone say, "This island is my hometown." It's become a single, indivisible semantic unit. LANTZY^TALK 10:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm from the UK, and to me "hometown" (one word) sounds American and a bit folksy and parochial. To me, it does not seem appropriate to decribe Karachi as a politician's "hometown" in an encycopedia. 86.173.172.12 (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

UK, late 30s here, and I agree that 'hometown' is too folksy American to appear in an encyclopedia. One would expect Karachi to be full of hot dog stalls and rodeo shows and friends shooting each other for bets. I would go with 'place of birth'. To more directly answer the OP's question, however, I can say that I am from Liverpool - a major city - and I have no trouble calling Liverpool my home town (or hometown). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)