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 22

"Troop:" plural until killed, then 1 equals a troop?

How come "X troops were killed" is what the media report when X individual soldiers, sailors, marines or airmen are killed? What year did this usage begin? Various dictionaries [1] report that "troop" means "A group or company of people, animals, or things." See also [2], which says a "troop is 60 to 250 soldiers, or 2 to 8 platoons." Another source says a "troop" is two or more platoons. Historically, I read things like [3] "A detachment of Troop H, Second United States Cavalry, was fired on late this afternoon by Mexican Federal cavalrymen." from 1913, clearly not referring to an individual soldier. "Troop" was clearly used as an adjective, as in "troop train" and "troop ship." It was a collective noun as in "Troops ordered out (1902) referring to soldiers in the thousands. Yet when a military helicopter crashes and all aboard die, the story says "A Black Hawk helicopter crashed Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, killing nine American troops. When and why did this odd use of "troop" commence? Does anyone say "My son is a troop in the US Army?" Or "I was a troop in Vietnam?" Is "troop" just a default term to describe soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, while avoiding the recent horrid US government term "warfighters" which sounds like they are entities from Terminator (franchise)? Edison (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Check out troop here. Bus stop (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it then correct to say "At age 11 I became a Boy Scout troop?" Edison (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on troop as a unit, but Company (military unit)#United States Army has a better explanation. Troops is a generic plural term for soldiers; troop would never be used in this context. In Scouting, troop is always a unit. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to read Michael Quinion's article. It is completely hashed out there. That is found here. Bus stop (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone responded to Quinion saying that they are a writer for the Pentagon, and the accepted US military term for one service member is "warfighter." Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Trooper (rank) is more or less synonymous with soldier. And if you're a really good Swedish one, a Super Trouper. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In Vermont you can even be a Super Trooper ;) Rimush (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to Michael Quinion: He's right about the OED's omission, but he fails to mention that the singular "troop" for an individual member of personnel was added to the OED in 1993, as an irregular formation from the plural "troops", in "chiefly Mil." usage. And the OED has a cite for that usage from 1832, albeit in inverted commas. Troop is certainly a useful word: U.S. marines, for example, don't take at all kindly to being called "soldiers", even if some insist it is correct. Finally, I can't resist linking to this, though it's old news.--Rallette (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar issue with "police". Usage has changed since I was in school, where I was rigorously drilled about referring to individual "police men" or "police officers", or groups thereof. You could have "three policemen arrived" or "the police arrived", but never "three police arrived". But "three police arrived" is considered quite OK these days. And yet, the answer to the question "What do you do for a living?" is still never "I'm a police". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, in the British Army, a troop is a subdivision of a cavalry regiment, analagous to a platoon in the infantry (also the cavalry has squadrons, where the infantry has companies). It is also used by units with a cavalry heritage such as the Royal Horse Artillery. A trooper is a cavalryman, where an infantryman is generally a private. Robert Baden-Powell was a cavalry officer, hence the use of troops and patrols in Scouting. "Troops" is however a general term for a number of soldiers, whether infantry or cavalry; for example in troop ship. Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've definitely heard 'I'm a police' on The Wire, so it seems that this might be a regional expression around Baltimore. 149.169.165.212 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

... "considered quite OK these days", Jack? Not on this side of the world, except perhaps in informal communication. Dbfirs 06:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll googlefully find various examples in print. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, one example in the Australian Daily Telegraph, but never in the British one! Dbfirs 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Indeed there is"

Hello, wikipedians. I've come for your help again. :)

The above phrase, "Indeed there is", is what I have a question about. How can I classify this phrase? It is necessarily an embedded clause, but is it covered otherwise by linguistic terminology? THank you in advance. 88.90.16.226 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Is there a phrase you can use as a sentence?"

"Indeed, there is."

...which means no, it doesn't have to be an embedded clause. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Echoing OtherDave: it's just a normal sentence with elided material. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the American accent

I was reading Boswell's Life of Johnson and came across the anecdote of the Earl of Marchmont's accent being mistaken for an American one in the 1770s. It got me thinking that the thirteen colonies were colonised by native English speakers from Britain and so how long has the American accent been noticeably different from the one spoken in England? When did Americans or Englishmen first comment on the difference? Does anyone know the answer?--Britannicus (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "American accent". There are several different accents. See American_English#Regional_differences for starters. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, they why do tens of millions of British people recognise an American accent, but not any sub-grouping of it? Eh? Eh? 92.29.121.41 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I expect in the same way that American's "love your British accent". Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is not one single "English accent" or "British accent" - there are many different accents over different parts of the UK, readily identifiable to UK residents at least. Back in the eighteenth century those accents (and dialects) would have been much more distinguishable from each other than they are now, because of the relative lack of mixing between people from different areas - and would also have been different from modern accents. The accents of the settlers would have varied considerably depending on which part of Britain they came from, and the accents that then developed in America would have arisen from a mixing of the different accents in use at that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That is like saying "There is no such thing as blue" but only navy, ultramarine, and so on. 92.15.27.8 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Both statements are true. There is no one, single color that can be referred to solely and exclusively as "blue". There are various forms of "blue" (navy blue, sky blue, ultramarine) which are all lumped together, collectively, as "blue"; in the same way that there are various accents of English in the UK, various accents of English in America, and so on and so forth. Lexicografía (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Unfortunately the article does not mention when the first American accents emerged. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a fascinating subject, and the truth often surprises most people. Patricia T. O'Conner has a cool section on this in her book Origins of the Specious, which is what I'm using as a reference right now. The English that was spoken at the time of the thirteen colonies (the time period you are referencing) was the same on both sides of the pond. In fact, today's educated American English is closer to the English of that time period than today's British English is, and AmEn has preserved a lot of words and pronunciations from that time period that BrEn hasn't, as well as vice versa. But to answer your question, the two Englishes have been different pretty much since the American Revolution (the spellings pretty much since Samuel Johnson picked the "British" variants for his dictionary in 1755, and Noah Webster picked the "American" variants for his dictionary in 1828). I don't know who exactly was the first to notice the difference, but the Brits have been (often erroneously) complaining about the Yanks' language pretty much since the mid-nineteenth century. Lexicografía (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Everard would have been more precisely correct to say "there is no single American accent," although of course outside the classroom, ordinary people use the term all the time, without needing to be extra-precise, as the heading for a large category of regional accents - which are usually ignored when it comes to making Hollywood movies, unless needed for local color, or to emphasize the difference between the hero and the villain. By the same token, if we want to be exact about it, there is no single British, French, Spanish, German, etc., accent either; but the category headings suffice to indicate what we mean in everyday language.

Having said that, I don't know exactly when our English cousins first noticed that we sounded different from them, although our colonial forebears started coining "Americanisms" practically from the moment they first reached these shores: Captain John Smith used "opossum" in his Map of Virginia, ca. 1610. Presumably pronunciation began to diverge in the 17th century, and by the following century was different enough that both Ben Franklin (1768) and Noah Webster (1789) commented on it - favorably, of course. These and other interesting observations on these points are found in Robert J. Menner, "The Pronunciation of English in America," Atlantic Monthly, March, 1915,[4] and in H. L. Mencken's classic work, The American Language, 1921, esp. Chap. 2, part 6, "Colonial Pronunciation."[5]

Thank you, Lexicografia, for your helpful reply. It is refreshing to see a reply that does not split hairs but does actually answer the question I asked.--Britannicus (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The accent of the American South changed due to African influence. Boston stayed closer to the English source. Accents in Britain changed over time. Folks living 100 km distant in the UK speak with grossly different accents. Folks 100 km apart in the US speak similarly with each other, except perhaps for the north-south variation either side of the Mason-Dixon line, y'all. Edison (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Philo-

I was thinking about philosophy recently and the meaning. I've been told it translates "love of wisdom." 'Philo-,' I know, means love, which got me thinking even more. Why does it precede -sophos? In other words, with philo- it always seems to follow the noun, or at least is the subject. Examples: Philology (study of what is loved, philo- being the subject), pedophilia (-philo being the desciptor). Just wondering. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, philology is the science of language (phil + logos). Just a thought, both philosophy and philology do come pretty much straight from the Greek, but pædophilia is a created word. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See also -phil-, as well as wikt:phil-, wikt:-philia, wikt:-phile, and wikt:-philiac. My favourite is philately, the love of that which is exempted from taxes. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Merriam-Webster lists about 160 entries for "philo-", about 60 for "-philous", about 20 for "-phily", and about 35 for "-philia". I don't see any strong trends, but a lot of the ones prefixed with "philo-" were formed in Greek, while a lot of the others were formed in either New Latin (otherwise known as modern science) or English. Lexicografía (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill the misremembering pedant: please don't be a rude person to one who is unwillingly ignorant. Anyways, Philology can be translated several ways.
I guess the modern interpretation of phil- is a matter of social convention then, eh? schyler (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think I was being rude, and misremembering? I double checked in a real dictionary before posting. I'll try not to help you in future though, as it obviously offends you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Between the two of you, Duncan and schyler, you have shown how the word philology is inconsistent with most other -logies. Though it does have several definitions (see also Philology#The_term), none of them seem to mean "study of what is loved". So it doesn't follow the pattern of zoology (study of animals), biology (study of life), anthropology (study of humans), ... There are erotology and of course sexology for the study of carnal love, but I couldn't find a specific greek term for "study of friendship" or "study of that which is loved". ---Sluzzelin talk 00:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to reinforce: @schyler, Duncan was not being rude, and you were flat-out wrong—"philology" has never meant "the study of what is loved". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't think Duncan was being rude either. He did annoy me though, by edit-conflicting me :P, and I had to revise my answer, which was almost identical with the first part of Duncan's answer. If it was the "Umm" that bothered you, schyler, then I think you misinterpreted it as condescending or rude. I've been familiar with Duncan's writing for quite a while, and I am certain that is not how Duncan meant it. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But given its now-obvious potential to appear to be condescending - and remember, if a receiver feels offended, then offence has been caused whether or not the writer intended it - it's probably best if editors generally avoided the use of umms and ers and the like (I include myself in this imprecation), or at least be more judicious in their use. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Great balls of C₁₉H₂₈O₂, what a cutthroat business the ref desk is. Damned if you answer a question, and damned if you don't. No wonder the women Wikipedians stay away in droves. I may join them. Textorus (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You never know. The women may be here, but too smart to participate. They're probably having a wikipedia party and watching all that goes on and chuckling to each other about the fallacies of man. Lexicografía (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As wise women often do. Definitely the superior sex.Textorus (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is Duncan felt it necessary to correct me without having any insight into my inquiry. I do apologize but at the same take up defense. My question still hasn't been answered though. Maybe if I clarify it: What is the determining factor in the different translations of some Greek roots which can be used as prefixes and suffixes, such as -philo-? schyler (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is a general rule, and even in the case of "-phil-", there seem to be several determining factors, and possibly some random factors as well. In terms of references, I didn't find a lot, except several snippets stating that the prefix phil- implied an active meaning (examples: philantropy (active love of mankind) or Philippe (active love of horses), while the suffix -phile implied a passive meaning (Theophilus, beloved of Zeus)[6]. This may have applied to ancient Greek (hopefully someone can comment on this). Yet in modern English haemophilia isn't the state of being loved by blood and bibliophiles aren't loved by books, they actively love books. So the date and location and context of when and how some of these words entered the English language seem to play an important part too. Are there any neologisms of this kind beginning with philo- or phil-? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Philosophy" is a keen interest in Sophia. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OED Online has philo-, comb. form: "Forming nouns denoting a liking for the thing specified by the second element" and "Formations within English first appear in the early 17th cent. (e.g. philomythology n.), and from the start, the second element is usually an English word, although in many cases ultimately of Greek origin." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Castellano

Why is it that Castellano (or "Spanish Spanish") features the [θ] sound while almost every other Western European language I know (obviously excluding English and possibly Greek) doesn't? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic's got it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, it appears in these European languages: Albanian, English, Galician, Greek, Castilian Spanish, and Welsh (as well as a few more rare ones which you may or may not care about). Lexicografía (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In Spanish it seems to have been a more recent development. Modern development of the Old Spanish sibiliants states that it emerged in "northern and central dialects", but doesn't explain why (if it can even be explained). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Ceceo#Origins (including the legend of the king's lisp). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, [θ] in Spanish is not a separate phoneme, but just an allophone of [s]. correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are minimal pairs [θ]-[s] (unlike English, for example: "sink" and "think"). And of course, Latin American Spanish doesn't even have [θ], as far as I know. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong after all. The article on ceceo that Sluzzelin points out has a lot of information on this phenomenon; it seems to be a merger that's happened in some dialects but not others, similar to the cot-caught merger and pin-pen merger in American English. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That article shouldn't be titled "ceceo". Most Spanish dialects have seseo, and the majority of the rest of dialects has distinción. "Ceceo is a phenomenon found in a few dialects of southern Spain", as the article itself says. Rimush (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, it's because [θ] is an uncommon consonant, so it's not to be expected to crop up very often. Baranxtu (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

How are "Montague" and "Capulet" pronounced? I've always pronounced them /mɑːnteɪg/ and /kæpjuːleɪ/ but that might be my French experience creeping in. I've recently heard them pronounced /mɑːntəgjuː/ and /kæpjuːlɛt/; is this correct? Also what is the point of having [ɳ] if it is basically the same as [nj]? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When I am unsure how to pronounce a word, I find it very helpful to consult a dictionary. In this one, you can even hear the word Montague pronounced. Rhymes with barbecue.

As a side note, there is a Montague County, Texas, which is theoretically pronounced mon-TAYG, like vague, but locally it comes out sounding mon-TEGG. They make good barbecue there too. Textorus (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be Italian, not French: "... in fair Verona, where we lay our scene ...". To a rough approximation, Italians pronounce all the letters (there aren't the "silent" letters as with French). I'm not great with IPA, but the latter seems to be the only way I've heard them said. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If it was /mɑːnteɪg/, then any line including the name (such as "Thou art thyself, though not a Montague / What's Montague? It is nor hand nor foot…") wouldn't scan. Marnanel (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And since in the play Shakespeare rhymes "Montague" with "thou art true" and "Capulet" with "love is set", the intended pronunciations are clear. Deor (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The "Montague" in Montague semantics is always pronounced /mɒntəˈgjuː/ (with normal dialect pronunciation variations, of course). Since "Montague" comes from Latin mons acutus, even in French it would be trisyllabic (cf. accent aigu)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If it was "montaigue" it would be pronounced the way the OP thought (aigue being medieval French for "water", as in "Aigues-Mortes", although "water mountain" wouldn't make much sense). When we first read Romeo and Juliet in high school, I thought it was pronounced that way too, because I knew a Montag family. But their name was probably German. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mantua

On a related note, how is the exonym "Mantua" pronounced? The village in Ohio is pronounced MAN-uh-way, but I don't think that's how Shakespeare said it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's "MAN-too-uh" (or "MAN-to-va" in Italian). How do they get "man uh way" out of that? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The same way they get "Camel" out of Campbell, Ohio and "Low-ville" out of Lowellville, Ohio. If you think that's weird, check out the pronunciation of some British place names. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I could hazard a guess that they initially said "Man-too-ay" (not too far removed from how the rest of us say it, but with a mid-Western nuance), which was corrupted to "Man-uh-way". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Elision of "t" between "n" and a vowel is common in this part of the world -- "I have an appointment with the dennist in Toronno." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

cf.: "Des Moines" and "Boise"--Shirt58 (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a Mantua (man-TOO-uh) subdivision in Fairfax County, Virginia. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually /'mæntju(w)ə/ in British English. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I live in Northern Virginia and I always hear it pronounced MAN-too-uh - basically like the British pronunciation, only yodless. LANTZY^TALK 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ɳ

Really this depends on whether the sequence is one phoneme or two in the language in question. English is not normally analysed as having a phoneme /ɳ/, that symbol is not usually used in transcribing English: Spanish and Amharic do have that phoneme. --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean [ɲ], anyway? [ɳ] is retroflex.—Emil J. 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

True. I reproduced the OP's error without noticing it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

September 23

Correct preposition for "claims made"?

What is the correct preposition for the phrase "claims made from insurance firms?" I'm talking about the general case, since I understand that there are special contexts where the preposition is peculiar to that situation, for example, if there are any options for which particular insurer, one might say: "I'm making a claim through the other person's insurer rather than my own." It's been emotional (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Working back from the example, I wonder if you're asking how to say "claims made directly against the policy held by my own insurance company" (rather than against the policy held by someone else's)? If that's the case, then I'd say "claims made to insurance firms." If you wanted to keep out the second-party factor, maybe "claims made directly to..." (This is usage I've heard and seen in the U.S., where in ordinary usage "claims made from insurance firms" would imply it's the firms that are doing the claiming.) Am I close? --- OtherDave (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In English English, people often claim on a policy: so you claim for damage on your insurance (or on someone else's). Bazza (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one claims on your own, or the other fellow's, insurance. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points. You hear "He has too many claims on his policy, so his rates went up" in the U.S., as well as "claims against" (meaning the same thing). I just don't recall a "claims from companies" that had the same sort of meaning. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those answers. I know about "claiming on a policy," but this is different. I'm specifically interested in the sentence as given, whether "claims made from" is correct when the object of the preposition is "insurance firms" and the verb is "(claims) made." The "second-party factor," as described by OtherDave's first post, was only to differentiate the general case (my main interest) from a more specific case (not my main interest) which popped up on google when I did my research. In the setting described in my original post, people do talk about "making a claim through the other guy's insurer," but that is, from what I can tell, a specific exception, so I was drawing attention to it to neutralise it, in case people thought of it for themselves, and used it as a good example. As for the general case, so far, OtherDave has given me "claims made to," for which I thank him, but I would be interested to see if there is any consensus out there, or a range of opinions. I don't think a casual reader would pick up on something like this, but I'm working on something I deem important, and I would like to get it right. Any further help greatly appreciated. Thanks again, It's been emotional (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to recap on what's happening in the real world. A claim of loss or damage is made to an insurance company. A payout or recompense is received from the insurance company. Against this backdrop, "claims made from" is clearly wrong. It could be argued that the phrase is a diminution of "a claim made [for recomponse] from an insurance firm", but if so, it's clumsy and untutored given there are more logical constructions to be had. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm inclined to accept that. But could one also say "claims made with insurance firms?" It's been emotional (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology, First attestation of "Lord Love a Duck"

After hearing this phrase used in the movie Nanny McPhee, I spent a bit of time looking for it on the internet. What I found is that no one really knows the origin but have narrowed it down to the British, perhaps London, and probably the lower classes. Also, its earliest attestation seems to be near 1900.

My own conjectures include three veins. First. Perhaps Duck is a mispronunciation of Duke, maybe the French spelling, Duc. The close proximity of Lord and Duke might be the cause of the surprise element of the meaning, as if one meant: "Oh, Look, there's a Lord...Duke!" Furthermore in this same vein, I googled Lord Duc and found Duc de Levis, who had dealing with the British, and was the author of the notable quote "Noblesse Oblige", the nobility have an obligation.

Secondly. Duck is a term of endearment between men and women in lower class Great Britain. Perhaps Lord Love a Duck was part of a Sermon based on the New Testament passage "There is no greater love than when one is willing to lay down his life for a Friend" John 15:13.

Thirdly. In the same vein, perhaps it derives from the passage Matthew 10:29, A sparrow doesn't fall to the ground without god knowing it, and God loves you more than sparrows."

I would be interested to know the date of its first attestation. Tomgear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

As a Cockney, I can confirm that it is a Cockney expression, but I have no idea of its origin. However I note (and this might be a complete red herring) that "love" is a nil score in tennis and a "duck" is a nil score by a batsman in cricket, so could it originally have been "love or duck" meaning nil?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "love a duck" is rhyming slang, from the people who brought you J. Arthur Rank... --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No definite answer, but some suggestions here[7], as well as examples of use by James Joyce, T. S. Elliot and P. G. Wodehouse. If it was widely known to be offensive, I doubt that this[8] would have got past the censors. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily offensive, even if it is rhyming slang for "fuck" (which is plausible, as it would often be uttered where the f-word might otherwise be used). Religiously, it's a sin to utter the name "Jesus" as a profanity, but one can sort of get away with 'gee', 'jeez', 'jeepers' et al. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think they would have allowed a film called "Berkley Hunt". Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English labels "Lord love a duck" as a "mild proletarian expletive" in use by 1923, and doesn't mention any rhyming slang connection. The Duc thing is the kind of "just so story" which almost never turns out to be true in etymologies; however, "Ducky" goes back to 1830... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Using Google Books I managed to find a reference as early as 1895 ("Lord love a bloomin' duck!") , but nothing earlier. It might be worth noting that the phrase "Lord love you" was very common throughout the 19th century. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Slang and adding words

How is slang created and popularized? Does someone just randomly decide to coin a word or use an existing word in a new way? How does it spread, then? Obviously I realize that some slang might be coined and popularized through a major film or TV series or book's use of it, but what about those that are not? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a toughie. Usually slang starts within a small group of people as a variation or shortening of or a new meaning put to an existing word (i.e. phat from fat, celebutard from celebrity and retard, meatball meaning stupid person), a new word formed from existing parts (horsiculture), or, somewhat more rarely, an entirely new word without derivation from other parts (lollapalooza). Then it is popularized within that group. A lot of slang is isolated enough that it never makes it into the mainstream (look through wikt:Category:Slang and see how much you know), which is why it is indeed called slang. Usually if a slang word survives long enough to make it into public awareness, it is through public media: songs (music is a great way of conveying words - many terms have their first mainstream reference in a song), film, movie, TV series, book, newspaper, or radio. You might want to contact a better linguistic 'authority' though, like Language Log. Lexicografía (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the key features is that it's picked up either within a group, becoming an identifier of that group, *or* it is picked up by a person or group of influence, and disseminated by them (by people who want to identify with that person/group). As examples, consider the way internet memes are spread about - it's a similar mechanism. It's also how internet slang moves about. Someone of influence uses it (say, on their blog/twitter/whatever), expanding it outside its smaller in-group use (for example 4Chan, Slashdot, etc.). Steewi (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the spread of slang words can be compared to Disease diffusion mapping and can also be represented by this S-Curve (where 'Revenues' is 'Use of slang word' or any other trend). schyler (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture Assonance

I need to represent assonance with a photograph and have had very hard time finding one. I just need to be able to explain how the photograph represents assonance. Napolite2 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this happen to be a homework problem? Looie496 (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldNapolite2 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest coming up with an assonant phrase or several, and plugging them one after another into google images until you find an image that you can relate to your assonant phrase. Odd assignment, but oddly satisfying. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've only tried searching for things that I thought reminded me of assonance, I'll see if it works. Napolite2 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you how now brown cow as a backstop. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bizarrely, typing 'assonance' into a Google Image search yields 15,000+ results, some of which may be relevant. Alternatively, you could use the image on our article for Asonance :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Memorably called an "assy-thingummy" in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The first one I thought of was basketball player Charles Barkley, whose nickname was "The Round Mound of Rebound." — Michael J 14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

September 24

French

In my French class, I was taught that the French word for England is l'Angleterre, but I just watched TV5MONDE and they used le Royaume-Uni. Which is correct? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Angleterre is England, Royaume-Uni is the United Kingdom. Algebraist 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

..the difference being that the UK includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

...But, of course, just as in English, you can expect that many people will fail to distinguish the terms. --Anonymous, 22:53 UTC, September 24, 2010.

D'accord. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A famous French World War One illustration shows Highland infantry complete with Glengarries and kilts going "over the top" with the caption "Soldats anglais". Great Britain is Grand Bretagne, while Bretagne is Brittany. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And Les Cornouailles is (are?) Cornwall, while Cornouaille is a bit of Britanny. DuncanHill (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

September 25

Machine translation

Are free products like the online Google and Microsoft translators state of the art, or are paid-for programs a lot better? 86.186.35.26 (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

It would help if you could give an example of what 'paid for' programs you are referring to, as there are many many translation programs out there, many of which serve a specific purpose. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in where the state of the art currently is, not in an evaluation of particular commercially available products, so I don't have any specific examples in mind. Really what I am asking is "for general purpose translation, is Google/Microsoft/Babel Fish as good as it gets given current technology?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.35.26 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Google Translate and Yahoo! Babelfish are pretty much the best automatic services out there, yes. However, if you want a truly "state-of-the-art" translation, your best choice is always to ask a real person who speaks the language, whether through an online paid service or otherwise. There are a lot of people within the Wiki-projects who speak various languages that might do it for you free, also. Lexicografía (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I am aware that good human translators far exceed the capabilities of machine translation. What I am not so clear about is whether the best machine translators exceed the free products I mentioned. From what you say, it sounds like they don't. 86.186.35.26 (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

All machine translators have problems and shouldn't be completely trusted (for instance, not too long ago Google Translate translated "assemble a trivia quiz" into Spanish as "form a bond with Israel"). What languages are you translating from and into? Lexicografía (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any specific translation task in mind. My question is about the present capabilities of translation technology. I have casual experience of translation into English from a variety of languages using all the free products I have mentioned, and I am well aware that they all readily produce garbage. 86.186.35.26 (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

"Paid" translation programs usually serve a specific purpose - setting them apart from the free stuff. It's better at its one specific purpose, but worse at general purpose translation. So I'm told, anyway. 90.193.232.118 (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OP, you haven't clarified what you mean by 'better'. 'Better' for what? Anyway, the simple answer is 'no'. They are not a lot better. Reason being that none of them, paid for or not, is as reliable or as good as a human translator. Sure, some of these softwares might have little features like 'translate into colloquial language' or 'use medical terms' or 'keep to mechanical engineering terminology' or whatever, but they still get the stuff wrong a lot of the time. If you're just using it for casual stuff, then it's totally OK to use machine translation - it can be great fun unravelling the mess afterwards - but for industrial standard translation, it is not advisable (purposefully understated). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've said that I am asking about "general-purpose translation". Other than that, I'm afraid I cannot explain what I mean by "better" except by stating the obvious. 86.174.167.79 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Right, I'm not trying to be funny, but I'm not sure how I can put it more clearly. I and others have been trying to tell you that the answer is 'no, they are not much/any better'. They aren't. On a side note, you may need to 'state the obvious', because what may be 'obvious' to you may not be obvious to others. It is clear that you are not getting the answer that you want, and this must mean that there is a difference in how we understand your question and how you understand it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any paid-for translation programs which aren't made for a specific purpose? If not, the question is irrelevant as the circumstances to which the OP refers don't exist. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, before the free stuff came out there used to be a lot of them. I suspect that since we can now get gibberish for free on Google, companies have stopped trying to make us pay for it, unless somehow they can market their software as something special and not just generic. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

@KageTora. You seem to be frustrated that you "are not sure how you can put it more clearly", and you talk about what you have been "trying to tell me", but prior to the post in question you had not put it in any way at all or told me anything, you had simply asked for clarification which I tried to provide. In the post in question you offered an answer but nevertheless again asked for clarification, so I tried to respond to your request, which you can hardly object to. 86.186.35.223 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, OP, but since when did "the simple answer is 'no'. They are not a lot better" not mean exactly what it says? This is what I was referring to, in case you missed it. I am really sorry, but this seems to be devolving into a kind of argument, which was not my (nor your) intention. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood your post perfectly well. As part of your post, you asked me what I meant by "better", and I responded to that question. Then, for some reason that completely eludes me, you start talking to me as if you've had to explain things over and over and I'm some kind of retard for not understanding you. I don't want to argue with you either, and I do not understand how we have reached this position. I propose that we now let it rest. 86.186.35.223 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I hope we can talk about something else some other time. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

@86.186. Has your question been answered, or is there anything you are still seeking to know? If there is, what is it? Lexicografía (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you 2 (Kage and Lexi) couldn't understand the question, it is quite plain to me. Unfortunately I am not the owner of any licence for paid translation program or service, so I cannot answer. The question is: are the free AUTOMATED translation service significantly less accurate for genmeral purpose translation than any paid AUTOMATED translation service or software. If you have never used a paid AUTOMATED translation service, don't bother answering, you will not know the answer. If you have used a paid AUTOMATED translation service, let us know which one and what you thought of its accuracy, so we may have some idea of the value of your opinion. --Lgriot (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I used to use one about 5 or 6 years ago, called The翻訳 v.7.0 (by Toshiba, I think), and it was not considerably better than any of the free services we have. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Variety of English taught in China

According to my parents, the variety of English that has been traditionally taught in China is British English, because of China's economic ties with the UK during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Is this accurate? Is British English still the standard taught in China, or have things shifted toward American English? 98.116.90.160 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience it tends to vary from school to school - just depends on where the teacher is from. There are national exams, and they seem to be focused on British English, though, if that's what you want to know. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Like Kage says, it varies, but in my experience it's shifting to AmEng these days. Most Chinese people my age (university students and grad students) speak with British accents (if they know enough English to speak it at all), but little kids more often have American accents (again, if they know enough to have any discernible accent at all). rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that English is so difficult for native Chinese speakers that the Chinese accent almost always overwhelms the more subtle differences between British and American English. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Actually - and this is still relevant to the OP's question and I am surprised I didn't remember it before - when I lived in China way back in 1993, there was a girl I met and worked with on a magazine. She was a native Chinese and had never been outside of China, but spoke with the strongest Georgian accent (as in the US state, not the country near the Black Sea) you have ever heard, so much so that she was proud of it. She'd spent years trying to perfect this accent. In fact, she was so proud of this accent and held it in such value that very often she told me to shut up, lest my British accent contaminate hers. When I was in Shanghai last year, on the rare occasions that I met anyone who spoke English to me, they generally had a mixture of British and American accents. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a few quick & dirty diagnostics I sometimes use when I meet a Chinese person to figure out which English variety they were educated in. One is asking them to spell words like "color", "flavor", and "center", although if their English is good then these might be too obvious (they might be pretty aware of the differences already). Another is asking them to pronounce "Harry Potter"—works every time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

@Lookie: Since most North American accents are rhotic and most British accents are not (including the accents best known outside their respective territories, in both cases), English spoken by a foreigner usually quickly strikes me, at least, as British or Americanh, even where it is overlaid by a strong foreign accent - even Chinese. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Mildly relevant, I've heard (and it doesn't really surprise me) that often an English teacher in private institutions in CHina generally has to be white to meet parents approval. So a non-native white speaker, e.g. a German may be hired even if their English isn't that good. But a native English speaker of some other ethnicity (particularly Chinese), even with excellent English and from New Zealand, US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia etc; will not (or at least not in preference to the worse white speaker). So you may get a few Chinese with German, French, Dutch, or whatever accents, but probably not many with Malaysian, Indian, Singaporean, etc accents Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case in relatively privileged settings (private tutors for wealthy people, top institutions, etc.), but a lot of places, like language training centers (培训中心) offering evening classes and stuff, will take whatever they can get. A few training centers I worked at in Beijing and Ürümchi had no non-Chinese teachers other than me; all the other teachers were Chinese people with greater or lesser English proficiency... rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I explained it poorly. I think the point of the comments I've read is that for a number of private institutions there is demand for white teachers. Obviously quite a few places do have Chinese, primarily native Chinese but their pay is generally very poor by international standards, so most people from other countries, particularly developed ones aren't particularly interested in working for them. (There would also be I presume visa issues with hiring a non Chinese citizen.) And in any case, when it comes down to it, a 'white' teacher even one with clearly less expensive and a lower level of English will often get preference to a non-white. See [9] [10] for example (although the second one suggests even being a highly competent and experienced non-native 'white' speaker can be just as problematic). The second one links to a few other discussions and there are plenty of comments in other places. It's of course difficult to know how widespread these practices actually are and how much they are just people who like to think of China (and other similar places) as 'odd' or 'bad'. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

English language in Quebec

QUOTE: Percentage of population(Quebec) that is fluent in French (95.0%)
Question: What is the percentage of Quebec population that is fluent in English? I I would expect it is more then 50%, but could not find any definitive statistics... 76.67.10.16 (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That article seems to be mostly unsourced, but if you take its numbers you can do the math:

• 12.6% (according to the article) are native anglophones
• 34% of native francophones (who are 65% of the overall population) also speak English; 34% of 65% is 22%
• 19% of the "allophones" (native speakers of langs. other than English or French), who themselves are20.4% of the population, also speak English. 19% of 20.4% should be about 4%.
• Adding those up, you get about 38%. Sounds low to me, but like I said that article is mostly unsourced. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on some time spent in Quebec, 38% sounds about right to me—if not a bit high—for fluency in English. Fluency is more than knowing a few words and phrases or being able to communicate in a halting way, which I think a majority of Quebecois can do in English. Fluency entails a high degree of proficiency in English, which I think is beyond the abilities of the majority in Quebec. If you confine yourself to the main centers for business and tourism in Montreal and the neighborhoods where Anglophones live, it is true that most people you encounter will be fluent in English. However, those areas make up a small minority of the population of the province. Outside of central and western Montreal, only a minority are truly fluent in English. Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Most of the time I have spent in Quebec was in the major cities, and even there most of my interactions in English were quite simple, not enough to judge whether people were really fluent or just had some everyday phrases. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

French Food

I notice something in a French butchers that looked like liver or pâté. It had a name along the lines of foit du guissé, or something like that. Does anyone have any idea of what it was really called, and what exactly it was? Thanks in advance. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Foie gras? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not foie gras. I know that about that stuff already. I was thinking that this stuff might be the same, but from a different animal. So maybe it said foie guissé? — Fly by Night (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There's pâté de foie gras...Lexicografía (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is foie de génisse, which is cow's liver. Deor (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of similar French Pâtés, e.g. Pâté de campagne (mostly pork), Pâté de canard, and so on, many aromatised with fruits or fruit brandies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

May be foie déguisé (disguised liver), if it's a speciality of this butcher (I have never heard of such pâté). This phrase could have been coined from fruits déguisé [11]. — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But disguised as what? There could be an unpleasant surprise for some poor unsuspecting customer.... rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that Deor has got it. Foie de génisse is only one letter off what I thought I had seen; give or take a misplaced accent. Thanks Deor! — Fly by Night (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Lithuanian?

If anyone speaks Lithuanian, they might be able to help with this thread on the Misc. desk. I'm not sure how clearly the Original Poster and the answerers are communicating with each other! 109.155.33.219 (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they are communicating perfectly well in English. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. I was concerned that subtleties might not be understood, and that the Google-translated sentences might muddy the waters. But if other people think it's fine, it probably is. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Luke"

What is the origin of "luke" to mean "somewhat" in lukewarm (at least "somewhat" or "mildly" is what I think it adds to "warm"). Was lukecold ever an expression? And are there any other words that also use the "luke" prefix in combination? Just curious. Thanks.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, the "luke" in "lukewarm" doesn't mean "somewhat", it means "warm" as well, so it's a kind of redundant word. But as for the etymology, it's originally English — it's from a Middle English word, spelled either luke or lewk (which survives today only in some British dialects), from Old English hleow meaning warm. The modern word lee, as in the sheltered side of something, comes from the same Old English root. Lexicografía (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The German adjectives lau and lauwarm both mean "lukewarm".—Wavelength (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=lukewarm&searchmode=none. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that lukewarm water is somewhere between cold and warm without qualifications, i.e somewhat warm. Whatever the origins of luke- may be, not even etymologists mean "warm warm" when they say "lukewarm". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The word does not mean "very warm", as its etymology might suggest, it just means "mildly warm". Lexicografía (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is worth checking out Wavelength's link. The origins don't seem to be clear. Either Middle English leuk for "tepid", perhaps from Middle Dutch or Old Frisian "leuk". Or from the Old English word hleowe for "warm", as mentioned by Lexicografia. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language traces it back to the Early Frisian word for "tepid, weak, slack".[12] ---Sluzzelin talk 20:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I only gave the etymology as explained in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which only gives the story of it being through Old English. Lexicografía (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, a similar term, lauwarm (=lukewarm) exists in German. It may be of interest to note that the adjective lau ("luke") and the noun Lauheit ("lukeness") do exist in the German language. Both are used infrequently and often describe a sort of wishy-washy / undecided stance on some matter. The only common (albeit old-fashioned or jokingly poetic) usage of lau is in describing the air-temperature of a given day, when it is the equivalent to "mild" / "balmy". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic argument linguistic debate between Lexicografía and JackofOz

Sorry to quibble, but which of your posts do you want us to accept, Lex? Your first one denied that it means "somewhat". But this one says it means "mildly". In this context, "somewhat" and "mildly" mean exactly the same thing, do they not? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry if I was confusing. I only meant that the "luke-" element does not mean "somewhat", as the OP was suggesting. Lexicografía (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) There's a difference between etymology and current meaning. You said above "I only meant that the "luke-" element does not mean "somewhat", as the OP was suggesting". Not in the sense that you can apply it to any old adjective (e.g. "green") to make it mean "somewhat green". No, that's true, you can't do that. It's only ever used in the word "lukewarm", as far as I know. But in that word, whatever it may originally have meant, it does now mean "somewhat", "moderately" or "mildly". That's what people mean when they say "lukewarm". Is this not so? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC) The morpheme luke- does not, nor has ever meant, somewhat. The word lukewarm has, and has always meant, somewhat warm. Are you saying that those two facts cannot coexist? Lexicografía (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Hypothetically, yes. If luke- had always had a wider application than it does, it would probably generally mean "warm(ly)" or "tepid(ly)". But it has never had that wide application, so its hypothetical meaning is neither here nor there, and there's no point reserving that meaning for the day when people might start using it to mean that. Language doesn't work that way. Ultimately, words mean what the users decide they mean, and if that's different from what the lexicians and the lexologists say, so be it, they have to duly record these meanings in their learned tomes. "Lukewarm" is the only place in the entire language where luke- is ever used. In that word, it means "somewhat/mildly". Effectively, then, luke- has changed its meaning from "warm" to "somewhat/mildly". If anyone ever did start to use new luke- words (such as lukehappy or lukeinterested or lukeargumentative), they would expect others to understand them as a qualification of the head word in exactly the same way in which luke- applies in "lukewarm". That is, "somewhat", "mildly" or "moderately". So we have a tension between a hypothetical that might have been but never was, and a hypothetical that could yet happen (which, given the propensity for people to come up with new jargon these days, is more likely than not). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I surrender, you're right. luke- seems to have taken on a new meaning as "somewhat". I was going to use the example of tomboy, where the element Tom, meaning boy, wasn't used in other words, but it seems I'm wrong on that one too. However, even though the (misanalyzed) meaning of "luke" in words such as "lukecold" is somewhat, I still am convinced the meaning of "luke" in "lukewarm" is not somewhat, but warm/tepid. Yes? Lexicografía (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Well, as I've tried to explain above, No. That's what it originally meant, centuries ago. It doesn't mean that anymore. It just doesn't. I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. -- -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Ok, I can do that. Lexicografía (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The form luke in the word lukewarm is a cranberry morpheme. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I knew there had to be a word for this... Lexicografía (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The OED also suggest the Old English "hléow" as the origin, and this view might be supported by the old dialectal "lew-warm" (tepid). I suspect that the Lancashire usage of "lew" (weak, poor, diluted) is derived from this, though the OED doesn't seem to have noticed. Dbfirs 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The element quasi- means "somewhat". See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=quasi-&searchmode=none.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In Norwegian we simply say lunken; probably the same word as in English and German but without the redundancy? 62.16.146.27 (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't resist repeating the old joke about asking a Yorkshireman how cold the water is in the swimming pool and being told "lukewarm". After jumping-in to find that the water is freezing cold, the Yorkshireman is questioned about his advice; "Well, it luked warm to me" comes the reply. Boom, boom! Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary says "luke" means "lukewarm," as in this 14th century citation from Richard Rolle: "Als a lewke bath nouther hate ne calde." The etymology is unclear but may come from the dialect word "lew," which means "weak" or "pale." That word, in turn, is "of obscure origin." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that the Lancashire usage of "lew" meaning weak or pale is a development from the much earlier usage of "lew" from "hléow". I would find it difficult to prove this, though. Dbfirs 18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

September 26

Flapping in English - Throwback or innovation?

I'm curious about the history of the alveolar tap in American and Australian accents. The relevant articles are pretty laconic on the subject, and don't mention anything about the history of the phenomenon. In particular, I wish to know if flapping was a feature of any precolonial British dialects, or if it was a later development that occurred independently in North America and Australia. LANTZY^TALK 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"General American" seems to be mainly derived from a mix of 18th-century British dialects, where the London dialect did not play a particularly strong role, while Australian is much more heavily influenced by 19th-century working-class London speech, so I'm not sure how a common-origins hypothesis would really work. AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My thinking is the same. But it always struck me as odd that Australian and American dialects should have independently developed a trait which is so rare cross-linguistically. LANTZY^TALK 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent Clause

I'm finding the reading of this sentence disagreeable:

"Passed not only to maintain the “integrity of Mexican territory” but also to create a sense of boldness in the new Bustamante government (A Glorious Defeat, p. 68), The Law of April 6, 1830 saw a somewhat surprising response in the Anglo-American Colonies of Texas."

Maybe because of the length of the sentence, or the fact that it utilizes an independent clause at the end, I don't know. Anyone have any insight in how I could possibly reword this sentence? Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Always difficult without knowing the context, but here's my suggestion: "The Law of April 6, 1830 was passed with the aim of maintaining the "integrity of Mexican territory", and encouraging the new Bustamante government to act boldly (A Glorious Defeat, p. 68). However, it produced an unexpected reaction in the Anglo-American colonies of Texas." Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor thing, but I believe there also should be a comma after the "1830", I think that's the usual format for dates that have commas within then. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much y'all. schyler (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar tenses

Is there such thing as Present Continuous tense, Present Perfect tense, Present Perfect Continuous tense, Past Continuous tense, Past Perfect tense, Past Perfect continuous tense, Future Continuous tense, Future Perfect tense, and Future perfect continuous tense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.198 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack is walking; has walked; has been walking; was walking; had walked; had been walking; will be walking; will have walked; will have been walking. English verbs explains it all. Looie496 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Wikipedia article "English verbs" seems based on the kind of grammar that was taught in grade school decades ago. If you think of grammar as a dead discipline uncritically passed on from one generation of schoolteachers to the next, then yes, you're probably right. However, if you're more interested in the language of the real world -- an interest that does not require an interest in linguistics -- then you'll want to look at the latest and best descriptive grammar of English. This, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, doesn't merely dictate that English has so many tenses, it explains how this is. It talks of present (perhaps better thought of as "non-past") and past, and perfect for both. (Or possibly perfective rather than perfect: I don't have it to hand.) It treats the progressive as a matter of aspect, and what old-fashioned books call "future tense" as a matter of modality. And there's nothing new in any of this -- if it seems revolutionary, that's simply because the school grammar books (and Wikipedia, which sadly is based on them) are so ossified. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Xhosa clicks, places of articulation

On the Wikipedia article for Xhosa, it lists two of the three click POAs (c and x) as "Dental/Alveolar". Seeing as Dental is not the same as Alveolar, I'm wondering which it is. Is one dental and one alveolar? Does it vary by dialect? Phonological conditions? Anything like that? Thanks. 67.158.4.158 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Xhosa in particular, but dental and alveolar are close enough together that it's relatively common for them to be interchangeable within languages. Even in English, [d]s and [t]s may be more alveolar or more dental depending on the speaker and the region. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Upon listening to some audio samples and watching some youtube videos, I think I've gathered that "c" is dental and "x" is alveolar lateral. (I also kinda think that "q" is lateral as well, honestly, even though everywhere it's just described as "postalveolar","palatal", or "alveolopalatal" with no mention of laterality. But I'd still much prefer an actual source to confirm or deny this.) 67.158.4.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Just so everybody knows what the discussion is about, here's Miriam Makeba singing the click song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Size of vocabulary required to understand TV?

Years ago I recall a comparison of the size of vocabulary a reader would need to comprehend various (British) newspapers. It was as far as I recall about two or three thousand words to read The Sun, but higher for quality newspapers like The Times or The Guardian, although the Times has dumbed down since then.

Have there been any studies of the size of vocabulary required to comprehend what is spoken on TV, and how this compares with other media such as newspapers? For example, for a long time I've suspected that mainstream evening science tv is in fact aimed at children. Thanks 92.15.16.83 (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Short answer I don't know. Waffly bit: I think the key part of your question is where you ask for a comparison. If one study were to say that you needed a vocabulary of 3000 words to understand X and another that you needed one of 5000 words to understand Y, this would mean next to nothing, because there's an enormous range of reasonable (and not merely perverse) ways of estimating vocabulary size and conceptions of "understanding". The studies would have to apply the same standards. ¶ Incidentally (or perhaps not), I rate my English vocabulary as at least average for an adult first-language speaker of English. Yet if (unusually) I were to read articles about tennis matches, baseball matches, the financial nitty-gritty of mergers-'n'-acquisitions, those rare fashion articles that are about fashion itself rather than sleb gossip, the more technical stuff about interest rates, tips for using Facebook and the other social networking services, etc etc etc, my vocabulary wouldn't be up to the job. Am I able to understand the Guardian? I'd say that yes I am: I can understand the bits that I want to read. (I'd guess that there are very few people who don't routinely skip large sections of the newspaper.) Yet if some lethargic teen said that newspapers were boring and that he didn't want to read any page of the Guardian, I'd say that there was something wrong with him (possibly his vocabulary). Perhaps I'm just hypocritical here; but even if I'm not, where do we draw the line between lacking vocabulary because of a lack of interest, and lacking interest because of a lack of vocabulary? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are three links.

• Fred Rogers (a person speaking English slowly, clearly, correctly, and politely)
• Mister Rogers' Neighborhood . Homepage | PBS KIDS
• Vocabulary: Concepts and Research (scroll down to the last table for statistics about Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Here's a PDF that might provide some answers. LANTZY^TALK 21:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It might, but the URL has been mangled - could you update please? What's the equivalent of "truncated" for losing a bit in the middle? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Syncope, at least when it happens to a word. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The full link appears to be http://doe.concordia.ca/copal/images/dept_of_edu/copal/4_macfadden_barret_horst.pdf 92.15.25.79 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The table linked to by Wavelength indicates that the vocabulary of TV is lower than that of children's books. I'm not surprised in the least. No wonder people are turning to the internet instead. 92.15.25.79 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a bit unfair to compare textual and aural media - language on TV or radio has to be processed by the viewer/listener in real time, whereas a reader can linger over (or even look up) an unfamiliar word or turn of phrase in a book or newspaper. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not really true, as most people read much faster than people speak. 92.15.25.79 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"He asked who was the murderer", is this legitimate in an indirect speech (whether formal or informal)?

or must one say:

• "He asked who the murderer was".

?

I'm asking about both the formal speech and the informal speech.

HOOTmag (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"He asked who the murderer was" sounds much more natural to me than "He asked who was the murderer". Lexicografía (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the first one is understandable, but generally considered incorrect by native English speakers. See Wh-movement for more details on why, but basically, whenever you have a wh-clause (like "the murderer was who?"), you move the wh-word to the beginning, and leave the verb at the end. Indeterminate (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The word order in indirect questions also depends somewhat on the variety of English being used. In James Joyce's story "Araby", for instance, you will find the sentence "She asked me was I going to Araby", which construction is apparently common in Ireland. And the wh-movement article cited by Indeterminate points out that "I wonder what did he buy" is acceptable in Belfast. Deor (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New York English sometimes uses this kind of construction. Rimush (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ Rimush; this construction (specifically, lack of subject-auxiliary inversion in indirect questions) is a feature of several dialects of English (I think Dublin English is another) but not Standard English. It's a common example in intro syntax books everywhere... rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It can certainly be fixed with only punctuation. He asked: "Who was the murderer"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a "fix", it's a different sentence, a direct quotation rather than a paraphrase. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with the original and am surprised by people calling it nonstandard. It's similar to "He asked who did it", where no other word order is possible. I see the choice of moving "was" to the end as a matter of preference. --Anonymous, 19:03 UTC, September 26, 2010.

They're different types of sentences, with different types of verbs. In theory, the base word order for the sentence in question is "the murderer was [someone]", where "who" (the wh realization of that noun phrase [someone]) obligatorily moves to the edge of the clause and "was" optionally moves up. In your sentence, the base order is "[someone] did it", with the noun phrase already up there; that's the reason you can't derive a different order. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains a lot: you are simply forgetting that the base sentence could just as well be "[someone] was the murderer". --Anonymous, 04:28 UTC, September 28, 2010.

The well known British auther, H. Rider Haggard, wrote in the beginning of the 37th chapter of his celebrated novel Montezuma's Daughter: " he asked me what was my quarrel ". Eliko (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the case be, "he asked me what was wrong" and "he asked me what wrong was" mean two different things. Lexicografía (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally incorrect translation.

Who does your translating into Welsh? I have attempted to read several pages in translation and have had to refer back to the English in order to make sense of the piece! This is TOTALLY unacceptable and I would like your comments please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.212.78 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, and can you provide a link to the page(s) in question? Lexicografía (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There may also be a misunderstanding. The Welsh Wikipedia is not a translation of the English Wikipedia, but an independently developed Wiki. Some articles may originate as translations from another language articles, but that is neither the default nor is the relationship likely to remain stable over time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh Wikipedia, like all Wikipedias, is written by many different editors, some of whom may be fluent in the language and some with very limited command of it. (I have written a little in the Welsh Wikipedia, but I know my Welsh is limited). If you can improve the text, please do so. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The questioner may also not realise that all WP editors are volunteers, who do it out of the goodness of our hearts.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Zina Zaflow

Zina (الزناء) is the Arabic word for fornication. It is also, in various non-Arab cultures, a given name with no such connotations. But what are we to make of Zina Zaflow, an Arab-American actress? And born in Baghdad, no less. I don't know how her name is written or pronounced in Arabic. Maybe that makes all the difference. Surely to God her loving parents didn't name her in honor of extramarital sex. And even in the unlikely event that her parents are the Arab equivalent of iconoclastic flower children, isn't it incredible that such a name was countenanced by the Iraqi authorities? Don't Arab countries have regulations like the ones in Sweden that prohibit names like "Superman" and "Hitlerzombie"? LANTZY^TALK 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

زناء zināʔ comes from root z-n-y "to fornicate", but there is also a root z-y-n which means "to make beautiful". However, for all I know her name could have a ظ... AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How is her name pronounced in English? That would presumably be the same as the Arabic pronunciation. If it's "zeena" then it's probably from the second root AnonMoos gave. (This reminds me of the story of Akbar Zeb...) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

English would not necessarily distinguish Arabic زناء and زينة (among others). AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Z" has more than one sounds in Nastaliq languages. Even the name of leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah is not pronounced with absolute "J" as people are accustomed to in west, where we simply differentiate between J and Z and stop it there. Certainly the proper name you mention above has nothing to do with sex but rather with excellence etc. And btw, you sure "superman" is banned as name in Sweden ? 124.253.135.137 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

September 27

To comma or not to comma

"However, Conway's younger brother George, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave." Is the comma after "George" correct or not? I don't believe it is, since George is preceded by "brother", precluding any confusion, but another editor disagrees. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not incorrect or correct, it's just a style thing. Having the comma there is a bit more explicit, and avoids the temporarily awkward-looking phrase "Conway's younger brother George and Maria". You could always reshuffle the sentence (depending on what the surrounding stuff looks like) to get rid of this problem. Or you could replace "and" with "as well as". rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine as you quoted. Pedants might prefer another comma after "brother", because "George" is in apposition, but I think the sentence reads better as you have it. Dbfirs 07:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Except, of course, that you should never start a sentence with "however" in the sense of "nevertheless". --Viennese Waltz 12:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Would "nevertheless" be acceptable? If so, what's wrong with "however"? This sounds like the sort of "rule" that old-style prescriptionists try to impose for no good reason. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Nevertheless" at the start of a sentence is fine, but there are a couple of reasons why the same doesn't apply to "however". The first is stylistic, and therefore a matter of personal taste; putting "however" at the start of the sentence weakens the point being made. In the above example, the fact that the people are determined to leave is buried in the middle of the sentence, whereas it really should be leading it off. Secondly, "however" does of course have another meaning ("however you look at it"). The ambiguity between the two meanings can only be resolved by the addition of a comma after "however" when it is used at the start of a sentence to mean "nevertheless". But not everyone would think of adding that comma (although in the example sentence the writer has done). Better to avoid any prospect of ambiguity by moving the "however" to the middle. I would therefore rewrite the sentence as "Conway's younger brother George, however, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave". The sentence is still a mite unwieldy, though, and I might be tempted to recast it again as "Conway's younger brother George, however, is determined to leave. So too, is Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there." --Viennese Waltz 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In this sense, 'however' has the same function as 'but', but 'but' cannot sit where you currently have 'however' - "Conway's younger brother George, but, is determined to leave". I'd much rather see 'however' at the start, because the primary thing the sentence is, is a contrast with the previous sentence, the key to which is 'however', and if that becomes apparent only after a few words, the whole point of the contrast is lost. You say that 'however' with the 'nevertheless' meaning must be set off by a comma if starting a sentence, but then argue that even that should make way for a repositioning of the word itself. That sounds like double speak to me. I agree that a comma is necessary. As long as the comma is there, I honestly can't see any ambiguity with the other meaning of 'however'. The fact that some people would not think of adding a comma is not an argument for anybody else not to have the word at the start. They don't get to have such power over punctilious punctuators. Why not let the word stay where it most naturally and logically belongs, at the start, but with a comma. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the point of the sentence is to emphasize the contrast with the previous sentence, and that's precisely why the subject of the sentence should go right upfront. We're not given the previous sentence in this example, but I imagine it would say something about a person (or persons) who is determined to stay. The contrast is between those who want to stay and those who want to leave, and that contrast is IMO best served by naming those (or at least one of those) who is determined to leave at the get-go. --Viennese Waltz 21:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Compare:

• "Conway and Alice are convinced the best course is to stay and fight it out. However, Conway's younger brother George, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave."
• "Conway and Alice are convinced the best course is to stay and fight it out. Conway's younger brother George, however, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave."

Give me the first version every time. 'However' sitting right up front tells the reader to expect something different from what was in the previous sentence, and then they're gven the details. The second version could be leading up to say that George was of the same mind as Conway; until we get to the 'however'. Also, the 'however' "belongs" to both George and Maria, yet you've given it to George alone; it reads as if George has made the decision to leave and Maria is just going along with him. In my version, it reads more like a joint decision. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the full paragraph, from Lost Horizon (1937 film): Initially anxious to return to civilization, most of the newcomers grow to love Shangri-La, including paleontologist Alexander Lovett, swindler Henry Barnard, and bitter, terminally ill Gloria Stone, who miraculously seems to be recovering. Conway is particularly enchanted, especially when he meets Sondra, who has grown up in Shangri-La. However, Conway's younger brother George, and Maria, another beautiful young woman they find there, are determined to leave. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider this simpler example:

• "The food was excellent. The service, however, was terrible."
• "The food was excellent. However, the service was terrible."

The first is greatly to be preferred. Just say them aloud and you'll see the difference. The natural intonation of one's voice emphasizes "the service" in the first version, whereas in the second there's a kind of falling off at "the service" which weakens the impact. In the George and Maria example, there's too much going on for it all to be contained in one sentence and I would break it up into two (see my rewrite above). --Viennese Waltz 07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Latin translation

"Sancius…rex Aragonensium" granted privileges to the monastery of San Pedro de Siresa by charter dated 4 Sep 1082, the dating clause of which refers to "regnante rege Sancio cum uxore sua Felicia et filio suo Petro in Aragone et in Pamplona et in Superarbi sive in Ripacorza…domno Garsia fratre regis episcopo in Iaca…domno Sancio Ranimiri comite in Ripacorza, domna Sancia comitissa atque sorore regis presidente in Siresia…Raimundo Beringerii et Beringerii Raimundi fratribus comitibus in Barcelona"(113).

Can someone translate this for me into English? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's in the form of a bunch of ablative absolutes: "King Sancho reigning with his wife Felicia and his son Pedro in Aragon, Pamplona, Sobrarbe, and Ribagorza; ... Lord García, brother of the king, being bishop in Jaca; ... Lord Sancho Ramírez being count of Ribagorza; Lady Sancha, countess and sister of the king, presiding in Siresia; ... [and] the brothers Ramon Berenguer and Berenguer Ramon being counts of Barcelona". Deor (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Further note: García and Sancha are mentioned in the antepenultimate paragraph of Ramiro I of Aragon. Deor (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that was enough.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

pronouncing Eugen

How is the name "Eugen" (as in Prince Eugen and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk )pronounced?. Is it "Aygen" or "Yoogen"?--Sodabottle (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As a German name it is pronounced 'Oygen' /ɔjgɛn/. --ColinFine (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks colin.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How synchronistic! I bought a DVD of Sink the Bismarck! in June, but when I put it on I discovered it was faulty. I didn't get around to replacing it till last week. I finally got to play it for the first time yesterday. There were many references in the movie to the German cruiser the Prinz Eugen, which I had never heard of before. And now, only a day later, up pops Prince Eugen again. Maybe they should retitle the move Synch the Bismarck!-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the OP was waiting until you got the DVD to work before posting the question, hoping you'd be able to answer. Yes, Jack, we are watching you.... :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It sure feels like it sometimes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The name of the Swedish prince is not pronounced like in German, nor like any of your two suggestions. The initial e and u are separate. My IPA isn't great, but possibly something like: /eʉɧeːn/. A bit like eh-oo-shEHN, or something. The /ɧ/ is a fairly uncommon sound, and I am quite uncertain how to represent the last e sound. Have a look at Swedish phonology and Wikipedia:IPA_for_Swedish_and_Norwegian. (I can't vouch for how he pronounced his name himself, but that is how it is commonly pronounced by Swedes now.)/Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have looked at the articles before giving an answer! But my answer is good for the Austrian (except that I'm not completely sure of the quality of the first vowel). --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's variously given as [ɔy] or [ɔɪ]. In spoken German, the ɛ would be reduced to a schwa or even disappear. Baranxtu (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the "Eu", but am not so sure about the disappearing ɛ. Are you saying "Eugen" is a homophone of the verb "äugen". I would have said the e is distinctly more audible in Eugen, than in Germanic or less recently imported words or proper nouns ending in -gen such as Rügen (or äugen). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A few questions about accents...

Born and raised in the United States, and was thinking about other English-speaking countries and how we perceive their accents. What parts of the countries are we getting their accent from? For example, when we in the US think of a Canadian accent, we all think of that same accent. I assume that accent doesn't apply to all of Canada, so what part of Canada is it from? What about for other countries, like Australia, England, etc? Also, what do other countries typically think of when they think of a US accent? Do they think of somebody talking with a Southern accent, or a New York one, or what?

Another related question, when I watch old movies, they seem to talk differently. Did people in the fifties have a different accent than people nowadays, or is that just the technology muddling the sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.241.54 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, accents certainly change over time, and the date of an old movie can often be approximately determined from the accents. British "Received Pronunciation" from fifty years ago now sounds somewhat stilted (though some still speak it). The BBC now encourages a much wider variation in regional accents (and even a foreign one). Here in rural Northern England, I have difficulty distinguishing between Northern American and Canadian, though the accents of Southern American English are easier to identify (in many cases) from this side of the pond. Dbfirs 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See General American. Rimush (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We've had this question about movie accents about five times recently...and we always point to Mid-Atlantic accent for that one. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The stereotypical Canadian accent is an Ontario accent, I think, specifically a Toronto accent. As for "English accents", there are of course many of them, but I think most Americans, if they reflect on English accents, will be familiar with two of them: a working-class accent, which is more or less Cockney; and a more refined accent, which is Received Pronunciation. Estuary English, falling somewhere in between, might be most Americans' idea of the default "English accent". Most Americans will hear other regional English accents as somehow English (without recognizing the differences among them), though I think Americans might misidentify accents from the far north of England as Scottish. Marco polo (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the stereotypical Canadian accent, with the weird vowels (like the very strong pronunciation of "aboot") is actually a rural accent, from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta (i.e. "central Canada"). The Toronto accent is more like general American. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I defer to Adam, who I think is actually Canadian. Marco polo (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! The Toronto accent, by the way, depends mostly on your pronunciation of "Toronto". There are a few "right" ways (various pronunciations, but the second T is always assimilated into the N), the "wrong way" (the way Americans usually pronounce it), and somewhere in the middle, the way other Canadians (and especially newscasters) say it. I'm not sure there really is otherwise a "Toronto accent". The current mayor has a folksy rural Canadian accent - but his parents were American and English. The Prime Minister is from Toronto but represents Calgary, and has no particular accent at all. There are so many immigrants in Toronto, and people from all over Ontario and the rest of the Canada, that you'll hear dozens of different accents every day. But I would still say that if there is such a thing as a native Torontonian accent, it's very close to General American. (From watching too much American TV, probably.) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! I've always pronounced it "Tor-on-oh". I'm a US American and have only spent about 2 days total in your country. By the way, I stress the second syllable. Dismas|^(talk) 06:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think "Torontonian accent" isn't a real thing, at least not yet. Toronto is so multi-cultural that anything resembling a specific "accent" is blown away by the fact every is speaking English as a second language (a bit of exaggeration, but not much). I was thinking of people I know in Toronto when I started replying and noticed that more than half of them are ESL and almost all of them come from outside the city. When speaking clearly/formally, I pronounce it toh-RON-toh, but if I'm not paying attention, it can slip into tah-rannah (no stress). Matt Deres (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I pronounce the t before the final letter in Toronto, Sacramento, and Atlanta. I pronounce the t in the prefix inter (as in international and Internet) and the t in winter. I pronounce d and t after n in probably every English word where they occur. However, I am aware that they are sometimes elided in the pronunciation of Winter Wonderland. See also The Lawrence Welk Show#Format, paragraph 1 (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good Southerners always leave off that final "t", and in the case of Atlanta, the first syllable too, becoming "Lanner". Lexicografía (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For the original questions, there is some relevant information in Dictionary of American Regional English and at Forvo.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

is refutal a word?

Microsoft Word is underlining it... 92.229.12.55 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is; however, refutation is much more common. Lexicografía (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The OED dates it back to 1599, and agrees with Lexicografía's definition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Is there a free OED available online ? 124.253.135.137 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

However, in the UK at least, your local public library is likely to have a subscription to it that you can access online with your library card number. 95.150.23.4 (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

September 28

Off a cliff or Over the cliff

Which one is correct:

• He drove his segway off a cliff.
• He drove his segway over a cliff.

(This is for the Jimi Heselden). Smallman12q (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In my version of Australian English one tends to drive over cliffs but fall off them. No logic to it that I can see. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But perhaps we both should have looked more closely at the Jimi Heselden article first. The wording doesn't have him driving. He was riding. In that case, drawing the parallel with riding a bike, I would lean towards "riding a Segway off a cliff." HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I ride my bike over kerbs all the time. I don't take your point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say over, not off. Over the cliff, over the edge, over the precipice, over the railing. Lexicografía (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You can see links to pages with definitions of cliff at http://www.onelook.com/?w=cliff&ls=a.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously nothing official, but I picture 'over' beginning with an upward motion and 'off' being a drop for the entire process. You go over a curb, but off a cliff. --Onorem♠Dil 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as statistical frequency, "over the cliff" is much more frequent than "off the cliff" at Google Books, but "off" takes precedence at Google Web. Lexicografía (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Google result counts are a meaningless metric. —Bkell (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that. Lexicografía (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

as Lexicografía pointed out, 'over a cliff' seems to be an abbreviated form of 'over the edge of a cliff'. one goes over demarkation lines (like edges), but one falls off elevated places (like cliffs). bit o' grammatical confusion. --Ludwigs2 01:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, both phrases given by the OP seem to imply it was done on purpose. I know that colloquially 'he drove his car off a cliff' can be used even for accidents, but in any case, we don't fully know the circumstances which led to Mr. Heselden being found at the bottom of the cliff with his Segway. It's more likely that he was riding/driving along the cliff when he fell off it (the cliff) as the BBC news article says. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now the online version of my city's "better" newspaper (The Age) has a headline telling me that Heselden "drove machine over cliff", and their article text tells me that he was "found dead after falling off a cliff..." Take your pick. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to apostrophise 'better' in relation to The Age, HiLo. It is indisputably better than the alternative. I read it. What more proof do you need ?  :) -- (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"He drove it over..." implies to me some degree of intention to do it - of which there is absolutely no evidence in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose we change it to "injuries apparently sustained falling from a cliff whilst riding a Segway". --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

[Edit] - I have changed it. If there is any disagreement, feel free to revert and we can continue the discussion. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of "Rani"

It is a word used in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and many more Indian-origin languages. Even people who are not familiar with Indian languages are aware of it (It is so well-known). It means, of course, the female equivalent of Raja, - the Indian for a King. It is also an honorific for a brave/bold/beautiful or wealthy woman.

Recently someone has tried to convince me, to my surprise, ( I was interested in its origin for a long time ) that it has erotic origins - It comes from "Raan" ( ਰਾਣ ) or woman-thigh, contrary to the elementary knowledge we held in respect, that it sprang from "Ran" ( ਰਨ ) i.e. battlefield. This new thesis has it that historically only women with stout thighs were able to rise to such high ranks of royal prominence for their agility to procreate and provide sexual satisfaction (see: Nagar Vadhu)

One more, that can be called a proof, is a famous punjabi folk-metaphor:

              ਰਾਣੀ ਨੂੰ ਰਾਣ ਪਿਆਰਾ

(To the queen/beauty what is beloved is her thighs)

Has any one knowledge about it ? 124.253.135.137 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In Sanskrit, the stem of raja is rajan-, so the accusative case is rajanam, the dative is rajñe etc. Therefore the Sanskrit feminine rajñi is a regular feminine derivative of raja. If there's an apparent morphological disconnect between masculine and feminine forms, that would appear to apply to more modern Indic languages, not Sanskrit... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The term Rani seems to have a totally separate etymological evolution. It has nothing to do with the masculine raja. It's becauase India had a very deep set matriarchal dominance at social, politicol level before outsiders (aryans etc.) came and set up the foubdations of what is today Hindu religion. And woman's strength was above par then. What you say is not wrong, I know connection of raja is rajan-, so the accusative case is rajanam. Please don't try to confuse two things 124.253.135.137 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, do you have any specific evidence that dative masculine rajñe and nominative feminine rajñi are linguistically unconnected (despite only differing in a vowel), or that rani doesn't come from rajñi? Those would certainly seem to be the most strongly probable linguistic hypotheses... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly the same as "rex" and "regina" in Latin. (Is there a Greek equivalent?) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Being not much familiar with this encyclopedia's rules etc. - it forbids original research I think, but what our thesis is here is that the term Rani came into usage much before Raja was heard of. That seems strange but no other society had such pure female-dominance system as ancient India had. Of course what you are saying is true about western cultures - "rex" and "regina" in Latin, but here the context different 124.253.135.137 (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If your thesis is that pre-Indo-European cultures of India were matriarchal, then I don't know why you're delving into Indo-European etymologies... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Adam, there's not a Greek equivalent, but there's an Old Irish equivalent: rí is "king" and rígan is "queen". I don't think any serious linguist believes in any etymology of rani other than < Sanskrit rājñī < PIE *rēĝ-nih2 (or something similar). The OP's suggestion sounds like a combination of folk etymology with wishful thinking. Pais (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

British overseas territories

I would ask this on the talk page of the article, but I fear it may be one of those touchy subjects that end up in pages of rants. I'm just curious. The name of the group of territories is the British Overseas Territories, and they are so designated in the lede. Why does the article's title use lower case for "overseas" and "territories"? Bielle (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has a weird history. I looked back at its earliest incarnation, and all it talked about was Crown Colonies. No mention of BOTs at all, even though that was the title. So the article content has changed completely, but the title looks wrong. I'm tempted to be bold and fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The name was changed from Crown Colony at some after the Falklands War. I'll try to find some details later, unless anyone knows? Alansplodge (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the title looks wrong - British Overseas Territory is an official designation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Page should be moved, but there is a redirect in the way. I have requested speedy deletion of the redirect to allow the move (db-move). The relevant legislation is the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Page now moved, thanks for spotting it Bielle. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian journal title

Could someone translate "Problemy Peredachi Informatsii" and also write it in Cyrillic in a form suitable for use in a citation? Thanks. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Problems of Information Transmission", Проблемы передачи информации. 128.135.222.164 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Minimalist languages

Is there a natural language with no verb or adjective conjugations, no gender (for inanimate objects), no explicit tenses, no articles, and no explicit adverbs (so the corresponding adjective is used if one exists), a minimalist vocabulary, and very systematic grammar rules? I know that Chinese, especially ancient Chinese, fulfilled almost all of these criteria; is there any language that meets all of them? --140.180.1.6 (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If by "no explicit tenses" you mean "no inflectional tenses", then your best bet may be a creole language... AnonMoos (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In unnatural languages Toki Pona is close, but I would be surprised to learn of a natural language. Classical Chinese used aspect rather than tense. I'm not sure that it could be called minimalist - its syntax is nightmarish to account for. Steewi (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Haitian Creole, a more/the most radical French-based creole, fulfills all your criteria expect that it has articles and maybe explicit adverbs as well (an adverbial suffix <-man> from French <-ment>, but I'm not sure how productive it is, and I think an adjective can serve as an adverb in some cases). It doesn't have a "minimalist vocabulary," either (don't let the lexicon section of the article fool you into thinking it's comprehensive), but I feel like a language with fewer lexical items would have to compensate will more grammatical complexity, which would violate your other criteria. There are no stupid natural languages.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

re Steewi: I'd say the same thing, and besides I don't think there's any objective way to define what constitutes "very systematic grammar rules". Someone with an English background and used to thinking about grammar in a generativist way might have one idea what constitutes "systematic grammar" (SVO word order, anyone? :P) but there's no reason to think that is nature's default. Heck, languages with strict case-marking systems but relatively free word orders could be "grammatically" simpler, depending on how you decide to argue it. And a language like Chinese might seem to have a crazy grammar to an English speaker who is used to sentences being arranged around subject-verb-object relations, but if you take topic to be the main factor then it doesn't seem so crazy anymore. Our views about what constitutes a "simple" grammar are always going to be biased by our experience and our way of thinking about what grammar means.

Now, if all you mean by "systematic grammar" rules is that the rules can be complicated but don't have a lot of exceptions, then that is more easily quantifiable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Exceptions make grammar vastly more complicated. --140.180.16.115 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Death(s)

The explosion caused the ______ of nine people.

Would it be proper to say "death" or "deaths?" DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say "deaths". rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say 'death'. I think the singular form is correct for collectives but not for lists: we'd say "the typhoon caused the death of thousands", but "the storm caused the deaths of Jack and Amy". But I don't think the other is strictly wrong. --Ludwigs2 05:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly off the exact point: I think it might also differ depending on the exact circumstances. If Jack and Amy died together (in a car crash, say, or a house fire, or a suicide pact), we’d talk about “the tragic death of Jack and Amy”. But if they died at different times and from not necessarily the same cause but still very unexpectedly, we’d be more likely to be referring to “the tragic deaths of Jack and Amy”. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The explosion caused nine fatalities maybe ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say deaths, but death doesn't seem wrong either. Lexicografía (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The explosion killed nine people, or The explosion caused nine deaths. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

'Death'. I agree with 202.142... above. 92.28.249.130 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The explosion resulted in nine deaths. (Basically the same as suggested above by DuncanHill.) Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"The explosion caused the death of nine people." It is singular because people only die once. "The explosion caused the killings of nine people" or "The explosion caused the suffocations of nine people" are wrong. In "The explosion resulted in nine deaths" the plural relates to the number of people. I am not a linguist, but my guess is that "the death of" is a verb phrase and "nine deaths" is a noun phrase, if that makes any difference. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proper word for a type of analog switch

I'm trying to find an example graphic of an old-fashioned analog switch but can't figure out the proper term to search it up. The type switch I'm trying to find has a series of textual settings that are in a radial pattern on a disc hidden behind the console. There is a handle/dial/knob in the center of the disc that extends through the panel and to the left (usually) of the knob is a viewport/slow in the panel that shows you only the current setting. Turning the knob *thunks* the switch to the next setting and seeing the text rotate up and away (and out of view behind the panel) is the major visual component of the experience of using this switch. Unfortunately, these sorts of things are before my time so I haven't the slightest idea what they're called. Googling for variants of dial/analog/rotary etc hasn't found what I wanted. Can anyone help? The Masked Booby (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a rotary switch. I know what you mean about the text showing through a window, but I don't think there's a more specific term for this since all rotary switches would in practice have their various settings labeled somehow.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

French word for "machines"

what is the French word for "machines" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.21.134 (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on context, but the word is exactly the same in French ("machine" in Wiktionnaire) for most meanings, in fact the English word came from the French. Alternatives might be "bécanes", "mécaniques" or "mécanismes" in some contexts, but these are not direct equivalents. Dbfirs 11:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Downstream [of] the filters

I've recently noticed a lot of occurrences of the prepositional phrase "downstream the X" (e.g. "The pressure downstream the filters is..."). The lack of "of" seems very jarring to me (a British English speaker). Is this correct in American English, or is it more likely an error due to the reports being written by non-native speakers? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian words used in english

I can only think of 'vodka' and 'pogrom'. Are there any more? Thanks 92.28.249.130 (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Politburo? DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few, really. See List of English words of Russian origin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but nearly all of those are Russian words that are understood by some English-speakers, in the same way that some French words are understood (eg avant garde). Sorry I should have been more specific. What I mean was words more like 'cul-de-sac' that are not considered foriegn in every-day use. 92.28.249.130 (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Russian words that have become standard English words (even if they generally refer to Russian things) would include, apart from vodka, pogrom and politburo:

• gulag, intelligentsia, mammoth, rouble, sable, troika, pavlova, apparatchik, bolshevik, commissar, soviet, tsar. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you consider "not foreign", since most English words come from other languages, but here's a few (I'm linking them all to Wiktionary, dunno which ones actually have entries): agitprop, apparat, babushka, balalaika, beluga, blintze, cadet, cheka, chistka, commissar, cosmonaut, cossack, czar/tsar, glasnost, gulag, intelligentsia, knish, kremlin, latke, mammoth, parka, pavlova, perestroika, pogrom, purga, rouble, samizdat, samovar, sevruga, shaman, sobornost, Soviet, sputnik, steppe, taiga, tokamak, troika, tundra, vigorish, vodka, yurt... Lexicografía (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And wikt:Category:Russian derivations. Lexicografía (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cadet" is from French. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Those wikt links seem to show the etymologies of those words, and some of them appear to not have originally been from Russian. Can't be sure if 'shaman' counts, as it is listed as being from German<Russian<Evenki<Chinese<Pali<Sanskrit. 'Yurt' is listed as from Russian<Turkic. 'Tundra' is from Kildin Sami. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I was only going based on what my M-W unabridged program brought up as search results of etymology:Russian. Lexicografía (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

grammatical correction

while chatting informally say via internet i used in reply of a sentence

'i intended never' wheteher the sentence is grammaticaly correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihitdalmia (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The question seems to be, whether "I intended never" is a grammatically correct reply. Online, I wouldn't worry about it too much, but you might want to rephrase it as "I never intended to" ? Lexicografía (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Rules for c and g

When I was very young, I was taught that when c is followed by e, i, or y, it is pronounced as s. All other times, it is k. Is that an accurate rule? Is there a similar rule for g? -- kainaw™ 14:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In what language? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone go to English Wikipedia and ask a question in English using Latin-based letters and not be asking about English? Using pedantic arguments to hide that you don't know the answer is very childish and transparent. -- kainaw™ 14:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kpalion was being polite. You could have been asking about French, or Spanish, or Italian, or Portuguese, all of which have different spelling-to-pronunciation relationships. Insulting people for asking simple questions is very childish. Lexicografía (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming English. It's not quite as simple as that, Kainaw. In -cial words (social, facial, trucial ...), the ci is pronounced "sh". I'm sure I know a word where -ca- is pronounced "sa", but I can't bring it to mind. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Façade, if you drop the cedilla (and many people do). Lexicografía (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

English doesn't really have hard-and-fast rules for this sort of thing - it all depends on the etymology of a particular word. Lexicografía (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured such. I've been reading a lot of natural language processing papers and the "rules" they use for demarking syllables and converting words to phonics seem more like "very general rules" instead of "rather accurate rules." -- kainaw™ 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The rule for C is pretty accurate, in the sense that words that violate it usually seem a little strange (to me, anyway). Exceptions include Celtic, soccer, arced, disced, zinced, arcing, discing, and zincing. (As has been pointed out previously, there are also words from French like facade, garcon, and soupcon, which are in French and often in English written with a cedilla to indicate that they violate the rule.) As evidence for the existence of the rule, I'll point out that many verbs ending with a hard C add a K when the -ed or -ing suffix is added (for example, picnicked, picnicking, frolicked, frolicking, magicked, magicking), in order to preserve the sound of the C. There doesn't appear to be a similar rule for G. If I had to invent one, I would say that G is usually hard before A, O, or U, but before E and I it's a toss-up—there are plenty of words on both sides (get vs. gentle, girl vs. giant). Exceptions to the "hard before A" rule include margarine, algae, and gaol. —Bkell (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Margarine and gaol are real excpetions, but algae is one of the examples that shows the "soft" pronunciations of c and g are found also before the "ae"/"oe" (æ/œ) that come from Greek/Latin diphthongs. Other examples are Pangaea, coelocanth, and coenocyte. Pais (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Margarine can be pronounced with a hard g. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ćevapčići

Is the word Ćevapčići a plural? If so, what is the singular? Ćevapčić? Ćevapčik? Pais (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What language do you think it's in? It looks Romanian to me, but Google Translate doesn't recognise it as anything. Rojomoke (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ECx2) Romanian does not have either č or ć in its official orthography. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a Bosnian/Serbian (take your pick) word of Turkish origin, and it's a plural noun, so it doesn't have a singular form, but in a pinch you could call one single one of them a "ćevap" - although this is not strictly speaking correct. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) We have an article Ćevapčići, but it doesn't give a singular form of the word. --Viennese Waltz 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Viennese ECed me out of a subtle and stealthy retraction of my own bullshit - I take back the thing about the plural noun. It's overwhelmingly often used in the plural form, but I suppose a singular form would exist. In Slovene it is "čevapčič", but I'm not sure about Bosnian or Serbian. In any case, the singular would definitely not be with "k", South Slavic languages don't work that way. Also, the "ćevap" thing still stands, that's an acceptable singular form, AFAIK. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)