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

November 23

Fast food restaurants in Montreal

Commons:Category:Fast food restaurants in Montreal How would I say this in French? I'm not certain what the plural of "Fast food restaurants" is... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Restaurants rapides à Montréal Marco polo (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Marco! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that fr-wiki has fr:Catégorie:Chaîne de restauration rapide, maybe Chaînes de restauration rapide canadiennes (or Chaînes de restauration rapide à Montréal). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is "fast food" always part of a chain? Bielle (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In US usage, at least, almost always. Perhaps not always a national chain, but at least a local one. Single locations business catering to the same clientele are likely to be termed food carts, diners, cafes, greasy spoons or "family restaurant". -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. An independent restaurant operated in the same style as a McDonald's would certainly fall in the category "fast-food restaurant" to me. A diner, greasy spoon, or family restaurant, for example, is not the same thing; at those I'd expect table service (or sit-down counter service), for example. Obviously most fast-food places are part of a chain, but it's not a necessary aspect; and that's what the fast-food restaurant article says. --Anonymous, 05:08 UTC, November 23, 2010.

The traditional term in the U.S. before ca. the 1960s was "short-order", at a time when very few large or national chains of that type existed (A&W was probably by far the most prominent). AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hence the term "short-order cook" for the one who prepares the food. However, the term I always used to hear was "drive-in restaurant", as opposed to a sit-down restaurant. The "greasy spoon" referenced above refers to a sit-down restaurant that is presumed to be of mediocre quality at best. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say a drive-in restaurant is one where they bring the food to your car (e.g. Sonic Drive-In). That's not a necessary condition of being a fast food restaurant. —Angr (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Weapons of Maths Instruction

When did the joke phrase "weapons of maths instruction" enter common usage? Before or after the American invasion of Iraq? --Carnildo (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a sighting from January 2003 (if you believe the time stamp), which predates the invasion. I'm pretty sure it postdates the Bush administration's talking about WMD in Iraq, since the phrase "WMD" wasn't really in the popular consciousness before that. (At least in the US. I gather you're not talking about the US, since you said "maths".) -- BenRG (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know any more about "weapons of math instruction", but about BenRG's point about it postdating the Bush administration: Weapons of Mass Distraction was a 1997 film and everyone got the joke back then, so the math instruction joke may also be several years older -- Ferkelparade π 11:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a UK "joke" at the moment about the 'Wedding of Mass Distraction' referring to the upcoming matrimony between Prince William(what a terrible photo) and the lovely Kate Middleton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar's Daddy (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The many variants on WMD might have been around prior to 2003, but that's when the subject seems to have become widespread. The joke was given voice by "Frank and Ernest" late in the year.[1] Meanwhile, if the wedding had been a bit closer to 1991-1992, they might have called it "the mother of all weddings". "Wedding of mass distraction" is good though - inspired, even. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

if you google [weapons of math instruction], there are thousands of entries, the primary ones dating from 2003. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The repetative repeated repeats repeat repeatedly.

The above refers to repeated television programmes - where the same episodes or programmes are shown several times - a common feature of UK television. 1) Is the above grammatical and otherwise correct? 2) Could I make it any longer while still being grammatical? Thanks. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive is spelt thus. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You could add:

..., repetitively repeating repeats repeatedly repeated previously

No such user (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any scope for the words repetitious and repetitiously? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ...

How about: Repetitive repeated repeats repeat repeatedly, repetitively repeating repetitious repeats repeatedly repeated repetitiously.

Not quite as good as Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. 92.15.13.42 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See Self-reference#Self-referential sentences (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bowling pigeons?

According to clicker training, "B.F. Skinner taught wild-caught pigeons to bowl while participating in military research". I can't figure out what "bowl" means in that context, though it doesn't seem to be vandalism (having been in the article for some time).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Tumbler (pigeon)? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

According to an article in the JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR, 2004, 82, 317–328, NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER), the pigeon was taught to push a wooden ball towards a set of miniature pins. There is a paragraph on pages 318 to 319 (available online). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You can see birds bowling on YouTube! Adam Bishop (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I've clarified the article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if they get extra popcorn for rolling a 300. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Would anybody care to proof-read my documented essay on the Chilean mining incident?

Resolved

The title pretty much sums it up. It's a documented essay for my college English class. Just looking for a proof-read for spelling, grammar and flow. Ignore the URL's within the triangle brackets. Many thanks to whoever steps up to the task, but enjoy the read nonetheless.

• ODT format
• DOC format

Cheers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is a documented essay? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A documented or research essay is one which documents and analyzes an event, series of events or a facet of an event. Think of it as a Wikipedia article with an opinion. Regardless, I'm handing this in now so I will mark this as resolved. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Angel Land

Does Angleterre sound like "angel land" to French speakers, and similarly with similar words in other languages? Thanks 92.29.113.118 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Non Angli, sed angeli." Deor (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not especially -- angle [ãglə], ange [ãʒ]... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hard-g vs. soft-g, basically. Following up to the OP, Spanish is the second language I know best, and it's even farther away there: Inglaterra vs. ángel, the latter pronounced with a guttural soft-g, like "ahn-hel" or really "ahn-chel" (saying the ch like you would for Chanukah or the Scots would for loch). The Spanish way to say Los Angeles, with that guttural g, actually sounds pretty similar to the way Americans say it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the usual way of saying "Angel land" in French would presumably be "Terre des anges"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

November 24

Before the junk jokes

This New Yorker piece about airport security [2] uses the word "junk" in a context that seems to be particularly prevalent among Americans (on the assumption that the "junk" referred to is neither unwanted rubbish nor a Chinese fishing vessel). The OED, however, has no trace of this definition. When did this particular euphemism first crop up, and how has it seemingly become so widespread in America that the natural response to full-body scans is "a lot of headlines with the word 'junk' in them", while the term remains obscure overseas? 87.114.101.69 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Some citations but no etymology. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Among a lot of speculation, this seems to be credible. It refers to "a lot of junk in the trunk" as being black American slang for a lady(?) with a larger rear end. It presumably evolved to describe that general area of anyone's anatomy. As an Australian it explains to me why the term hasn't spread here so easily because we, like the British, don't use the word "trunk" to describe the rear end of a car. ("Boot" is preferred.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Urban Dictionary lists the corresponding loot in the boot, though I can't say I've ever heard or seen it used. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, never heard that one either. But loot might give us a rather tenuous connection to family jewels. HiLo48 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The page Tagishsimon linked says "No etymological relationship between this term and junk in the trunk has been confirmed." The page you linked does not demonstrate a high level of scholarship, i.e., I think they're just guessing. For what it's worth, I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and I'm familiar with both terms, but I'd never made a connection between them or noticed anyone else doing so. No one would confuse a kick in the junk with a kick in the behind. -- BenRG (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you are refering to the American slang of junk = testicles, from personal observation the term is about 10-12 years old. That is, I don't remember it being prevalent when I was in college (1994-1998) but I started hearing it shortly thereafter. Its fairly common usage now, if a male says "She opened the door and saw my junk" I'd be more inclined to think she saw him naked rather than saw his messy room. I'm not sure of the specific etymology of that usage, except as junk being a nonspecific word for an object (much like "stuff" or "thing"); which can be said with an inflection to make it clear that it is being used euphamisticly. This is one of those things that doesn't translate to print; but from the inflection on the words and the context of the conversation, it is clear when the word junk means "male genitals." I think the inflection is the key; if you applied it to just about any word, it becomes clear you mean "genitals". --Jayron32 03:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Junk", "stuff", "thing", etc., are G-rated euphemisms for any number of terms that are unacceptable in public media. For example, "junk" used to be given as an alleged street-synonym for drugs such as heroin. And I suppose the guy could say "naughty bits" instead, but that sounds a little too British. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing that kind of surprises me is that, although "junk" refers to male genitals and "junk in the trunk" refers to large female buttocks, I haven't seen what would seem a natural shift to have "junk in the trunk" refer to anal sex. My experience with hearing the word "junk" is similar to Jayron's (though my college years were 1993-1997, whippersnapper...) up here in SE Ontario; it was around 2000 or so that I started hearing it. As to why "junk" is now used, I'm reminded of something I read in one of Gershon Legman's folklore books - a jokester or limerick writer can employ any euphemism for genitals or breasts at any time with little worry of being misunderstood. Matt Deres (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The OED gives:

1. c. Old cable or rope material, cut up into short lengths and used for making fenders, reef-points, gaskets, oakum, etc.

3. transf. orig. Naut. The salt meat used as food on long voyages, compared to pieces of rope

4. Whale-fishery. The lump or mass of thick oily cellular tissue beneath the case and nostrils of a sperm-whale, containing spermaceti.

A similar transf. as that in 3. could be occurring with the usage in question, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 5#'Junk' as male genitals?

—Wavelength (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be wrong to leave out the "is"?

"The stories are true and the magic real." 65.88.88.75 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly fine to me, but I'm not a native speaker. Rimush (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar to a parallel question about the sentence: "David has three and John eight". Hope this helps. Eliko (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's correct. It can also be done with commas: "The stories are true; the magic, real". (That kind is more common when the clauses are longer or more complicated.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Commas need a semicolon, dashes - don't: "The stories are true, the magic - real". Eliko (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would caution any potential writers that this usage strikes me, at least, as the sort of thing to be expected in cheesy movie posters. —Tamfang (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a bit problematic, because when a verb is omitted, the implication is that the same verb as before should be substituted, but that would give "the stories are true and the magic are real". However, most English speakers would accept it without complaining. Looie496 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I don't have a problem with it, and my understanding was that what's elided is just a lemma ("be" without a specified form). I'm sure some syntax-y people could talk about it more. My impression (if I might be so bold as to do it using generative stuff—not because I believe it, but just because it's what I happen to be trained in) is that what's elided is the lexical content of that verbal projection but not the features/inflection, which are assigned from the non-elided noun ("magic") to the unpronounced elided thing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It IS the same verb, just the singular rather than plural form, as required by context. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The technical term is zeugma (-eu- as in Euler, not as in euphoria). 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you pronounce Euler and euphoria, but zeugma is pronounced [ˈzjuːɡmə] or [ˈzuːɡmə], depending on whether or not the speaker's accent includes yod-dropping after /z/. —Angr (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right, because zeugma comes from Greek, not German. The mispronunciation "zoigma" is a shibboleth caused by imposing German pronunciation on the word. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in ancient Greek it would have been pronounced [dzeuŋma] with a high-low pitch contour on the first syllable... AnonMoos (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

November 25

sociopath- pronunciation

Is "sociopath" pronounced differently in the UK vs the US? I heard someone from the UK say something like "soshiopath", but I couldn't tell if it was a mistake. 149.169.218.35 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How do YOU pronounce it? Are you an American? Are you damaging the image of other Americans, displaying US centrism by assuming that all other readers here will all be Americans and see things from the same perspective as you? DO put the question in a broader, more global context please. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be such an asshole. My first sentence asked if there was a difference in the pronunciation in the US and the UK. My second sentence gave an example of the pronunciation as I had heard it from someone in the UK. Neither is from any "perspective". 149.169.218.35 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's that second consonant sound you're referring to, that's exactly how I pronounce it. Without knowing what the other pronunciation you're referring to is, it's a meaningless question. (Unless, of course, you're an American, and Americans pronounce it differently, and you assume that your audience is all Americans, and.....etc.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I (US) would personally pronounce it sow-see-oh-path, but if I heard either sow-show-path or sow-shee-oh-path, neither one would strike me as particularly remarkable or unusual. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think SOH see oh path is the most common pronunciation in the United States, but I've certainly heard SOH shee oh path from speakers of American English (and not just from sociopaths). Marco polo (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Most South Africans - just to throw in another perspective - say "so-she-oh-path". Roger (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Me neither. There's a spectrum of possibilities with these sorts of words, e.g. for "sexual", I sometimes say sek-shoo-əl, and sometimes seks-you-əl. It probably depends on my audience. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

However, no American would say "SEKS yoo ul". In American English, it is always "SEK shoo ul". Marco polo (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall Bill Clinton saying "sexshull"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The "sh" pronunciation is a reflection of what linguists call yod coalescence. It's something that a lot of non-UK speakers do, but to varying degrees based on where they're from, how formal the situation is and what class background they're from. Steewi (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Edited for link Steewi (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia wonderful, I've been a yod-dropper since I was a kid, and only now found out. I think that amongst the younger generations of working-class Londoners, the correct pronunciation is SOW-shia-paff. AndyTheGrump (talk)

And isn't English wonderful. :) In the US we would typically say soh-see-oh-path, soh-see-ah-luh-gee... and soh-shull-ist. And we would typically say sek-shoo-ull, although that and some other words with ua in the final syllable I've heard pronounced as if it were an ia instead: sek-shull, and men-stray-shun, for example. There's also the pronunciation of "issue", which we would typically say ish-you, but I've also heard as iss-you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I can cope with most American pronunciation, even when they mispronounce the name of my city, Melbourne, but please don't make me ever again have to hear about nukulah bombs. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlHEJtflcmo&t=0m9s /me runs and hides -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, never again make us hear about "noo-killer" weapons, as George "Dubble-yew" Bush says it. I blame his inability to verbally distinguish between "terrorists" and "tourists" for the dreadful treatment of passengers at US airports. Roger (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Foreigners mispronouncing Melbourne - that's nothing. At least //mel-born// has logical merit. But what about all the Australians who seem to be unaware there's an l (el) in the name of their own country. Bill Lawry, Eddie McGuire, Pauline Hanson and Anthony Albanese head a very long list. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne suggests it's pronounced mel-bun. But isn't that something to do with dropping the "r"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The "bourne" part is pronounced /bən/ ("b'n"); the "US pronunciation" seems to be /bɔːrn/ ("borrrrn"); "bun" is pronounced /bʌn/.

To me the "natural" pronunciation of "-bourne" suggested by its spelling would be /bɔːn/ ("born") (or /bɔːrn/, "borrrrn" if rhotic). It wouldn't suggest /bʌn/ ("bun")... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you pronounce words like "earn", "burn", "turn", etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no vowels in the pronunciation of the second syllable of Melbourne. It might as well be spelt Melbn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nor apparently an "r". Or is that correct? Do you pronounce earn, burn and turn like "un", "bun" and "tun"? Or like "ern", "bern" and "tern"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. You can forget the "r" too. And it's the latter pronunciations for earn, burn and turn. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so unless an American wants to start dropping all the r's, the right way for me to say it would be "Melb'rn". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, wait... are you saying the r IS enunciated in earn, burn and turn? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Australian English is non-rhotic, but that doesn't mean the R doesn't affect the sound of the word. The presence of the R in 'earn', 'turn' and 'burn' indicates how the preceding vowel is sounded – the absence of a rhoticised R does not make the vowels change from ɜ: (the 'burn' vowel) to a (the 'bun' vowel in AusE). 87.114.101.69 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I usually hear it as "Mel-bin" when Aussies say it. The oddest bit of Aussie english (to my "Sarf Effrikin" ear) I ever heard was the late Steve Irwin talking about "woild rawk worlibbies", it took me quite a while to realise he was referring to "wild rock wallabys". Roger (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how "no" comes out like "ner". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Me too. That seems to be something young people do. They seem unaware that it's impossible to make an "o" sound with the lips spread as if they were saying "eee". A lot of young females particularly have a smile permanently cemented onto their face - god knows why. So "No, I don't have a home phone" comes out as "Ner, I dern't have a herm phern". Weird. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, that could be a reversion to the old Australian outback tradition of not opening your lips too wide in case the flies get in. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Then there's the other camp, who say "o" as if it were "oi" or "eye" - "Noi, I din't have a hime phine". But in among the ner-ers and the ni-ers and the noi-ers are still plenty of no-ers. We inhabit an ark of righteousness, sailing on an ercean oicean icean ocean of mispronunciations. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "ner" explanation. Makes sense. Now, about the interjection, "OI!" or however it's spelled: Is that a twisted form of "HI!" ? At this point I must mention the ads for Foster's beer, which we see in the USA and which I suspect you don't see in Australia. Typical ad has some quaint behavior going on, followed by "Australian for..." whatever; then "Foster's - Australian for "beer". So this recent one has Aussies yelling "OI!" at each other and saying nothing else. "OI! Australian for 'networking'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Oi is one of those multi-purpose expressions that has different uses depending on context. It can be a simple attention seeking device, particularly to a small group of people. A bit like Hey in American maybe? It's also part of a chant used by Aussies at the cricket. It's a leader-repsonse thing, with the key line of Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi. Not defending it. It's all pretty silly. And, despite the ignorance of many who use it, not original, being derived from a similar old English chant, which is ironic given that it's probably used the most at Test matches against England. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In general parlance, if I were wanting to get my friend Bill's attention and he were 30 metres away, I'd probably call out "Hey, Bill". Only if I were wanting to get the attention of some wrong-doer like a trespasser on my property would I call out "Oi, you there". I've probably been conditioned by too much exposure to The Bill (sob, now sadly gone from our screens). The Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi thing is particularly horrible and misleadingly unrepresentative - no Australian ever utters such things outside of sporting attendances. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here we see the problem with spelling pronunciations. Do the people who wrote SOW mean the same pronunciation as the people who wrote SOH? Are we sowing seeds or talking about female pigs? 86.164.76.95 (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That threw me at first, but I'm fairly certain he meant it to rhyme with "sew" or "soh". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

...Or even, doh! Yes, "SEW"-shia-paff. I had a strange conversation once with a friend of mine from New Zealand. We were in the kitchen. She asked me "have you got a measure?" At least that's what I thought she asked, until I asked her what sort of measure. "one for meshing potatoes" she replied... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Does no one say so-sho-path? —Tamfang (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Basis for La Spezia-Rimini line

Can anyone explain why linguists class Northern Italian languages north of the La Spezia-Rimini line as members of the Western Romance family, implying that they are closer to such languages as French and Spanish than to standard Italian? I thought that the most important distinguishing feature of the Western Romance family was the derivation of noun plural forms from the Latin accusative, resulting in plural forms ending in -s (even if this is often no longer pronounced in French), and our article on the La Spezia-Rimini line confirms that this a key or the key criterion for distinguishing Western Romance from other Romance languages such as standard Italian. Yet several major Northern Italian languages, such as Venetian and Lombard, derive their plural forms from the Latin nominative, just like standard Italian. So, why was the La Spezia-Rimini drawn where it was, and why are Northern Italian languages considered Western Romance? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Some assistance with Argentinian statistics from a Spanish speaker?

I wonder if a Spanish-speaking contributor could perhaps be of assistance to me here? I'm currently looking at revisions for the White Argentine article, which contains a table giving 'Net Immigration by Nationality (1857–1940', and is sourced to the Argentinian Dirección Nacional de Migraciones (National Bureau of Migrations) 1970. As it stands the chart only includes data on migration from Europe, plus a column for (unidentified) 'others'. I'd like to know if this is the way the data was originally presented, and if not, what breakdown of the figures the data actually gives? I've tried looking at the Dirección Nacional de Migraciones website (here), but due to me being a hopeless monoglot, I can't see if the data is there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you try using the English version of the site? I'll try poking around the Spanish pages. Grsz 11 02:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd tried that. I've just had another look, and not found anything, though I may have missed something - not everything is translated. Possibly the data has been removed, or wasn't online in the first place (the article isn't exactly clear on citation here). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the 1970 date, it could be from a book, an article somewhere else, pretty much anywhere. Grsz 11 03:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thinking about it, you may well be right. I'll see if I can figure out who posted the data in the first place, and if possible ask them. I'd posted a query about this on the talk page two weeks ago, with no response, so I thought it was worth at least trying here. Thanks for your efforts, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the site is awfully prepared for answering your question. I tried this other one, but when I wanted to access Document no 3, a common 404 appears. Pallida  Mors 10:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If the data were accessible, I could give it a try. But if it ain't, I cain't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Accent used by Carrie Kenny on Kim Possible

In the episodes of Kim Possible with the Bebe androids, what accent does Carrie Kenny use for the bebes' voices? Sounds european, but i'm not sure. N.I.M. (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

From RDE Example clip of a Bebe voice posted here on behalf of NIM because of captcha issues Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"thelonious" meaning and origin

What does the word (or name) "Thelonious" mean and where does it come from? Besides the jazz pianist, I've seen the word used in this context, a jazz-ish song: The trumpet child will riff on love / Thelonious notes from up above / He’ll improvise a kingdom come / Accompanied by a different drum. A baby names site tells me it's of Germanic origin but I don't know if it's to be trusted. Lexicografía (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this site, it's a Latinized form of "Till" (as in Till Eulenspiegel), which itself is a medieval nickname for "Dietrich" (and other "Diet-" (deutsch) names.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Though the –ous is unusual for Latin. —Tamfang (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I presume that the adjective "thelonious" in that song means "in the manner of Thelonious Monk". -- BenRG (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Spinoff question - what dialect of English is this?

This is a spin-off from another reference desk question about parakeets and lovebirds. The webpage in question is this.

My question: what dialect of English is this? I'm assuming it is a dialect of English, on the basis that I can understand most parts of most sentences, but not all of it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a dialect of English, it is a dialect of mechanical gibberish. Several of the pages on that site are just garbled versions of pages from Yahoo Answers. For example this [3] is this [4] put through a blender. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Is that deliberate? What's the point of a garbled page? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Scraper site. 86.164.76.95 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes much more sense now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Following some creative use of Google, it looks like a rather bodged version of this, which itself looks like English as a second language from, I'd guess, Malay (which per this often forms plurals by repeating the singular, as in "budgie budgie" in the link I've quoted). baday.net is registered in Hong Kong. Quite why a site is repeating its own contents after running them through a gibberish translator is beyond me. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this is some sort of attempt to get round copyright issues? If it is, I doubt it would hold up in court in most places, but I'm guessing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Except they're both on the same website (baday.net). I wonder if there's a version somewhere in Chinese, and these are both attempts to transliterate into English. Tonywalton ^Talk 02:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt that any of the pages on that site are legitimate questions, and any duplications of material within it are merely the same source text being scrambled in different ways. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantity/unit dash when in adjective position

Consider "The 40-meter or 7-MHz band is an amateur radio frequency band, spanning 7000 to 7300 kilohertz". Context.

Why is there a dash between the quantity and the unit (40-meter and 7-MHz)? Isn't the quantity/unit pair (without the dash) atomic?

--Mortense (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Dash#Compound adjective applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean Hyphen#Compound modifiers. It's a hyphen, not a dash, although some people use "dash" informally to mean either.

Also note that although the hyphen is required (traditionally anyway) in normal English usage, it is prohibited by SI metric usage standards when the unit is represented by its symbol. Thus the example of "7-MHz band" is wrong; it should be "7 MHz band" or "7-megahertz band" or "seven-megahertz band". In Britain they often run the symbol onto the preceding number without separation, as "7MHz band"; according to the article I cited this also violates the SI standard. --Anonymous, expanded 04:48 UTC, November 26, 2010.

Hyphens help to disambiguate otherwise ambiguous expressions.

The crew worked in twenty four-hour shifts.

The crew worked in twenty-four hour shifts.

The crew worked in twenty-four-hour shifts.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If editing, Wikipedia articles, see WP:HYPHENS, item 3, last bullet point. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

November 26

off of

Hi can someone explain the grammar in the (American) construct "off of"? For example, "get off of me" is very strange sounding to me. If "off" in that context means "away from (on top)", how can you say "get away from of me"? Surely the "of" is always redundant? Is there any example where the "of" makes sense? This has always bothered me and apart from the grammatical oddity, I can't even see the logic in it. It is becoming more commonly used and it doesn't even sound nice. Sandman30s (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As an Australian English speaker, I feel pretty much the same. It seems a very ugly construction and I wince most times I hear it. It's sounds the kind of "lower class" expression my high school English teacher would have jumped on very aggressively. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me as very odd too, I'm South African. Another American oddity that I always notice is "Where are you at?" - the "at" is redundant. Roger (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that others feel the same! Another pet hate is "laying down" instead of "lying down". Sandman30s (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Carrying that a little farther is "Where you at?" which manages to appear to be a full sentence despite lacking a verb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Aren't "laying" and "lying" two different things? "Lay" is a transitive verb but "lie" is intransitive - you can "lay" something (dust, an egg, a baby into its crib, concrete, the basis of an argument) but subsequently the thing that is laid lies (pace Bob "lay, lady, lay" Dylan). Tonywalton ^Talk 00:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Now I lay me down to sleep / I pray the Lord my soul to keep / etc." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. There's nothing to prohibit the thing which is acted upon by a transitive verb being both subject and object of the verb. (add "me" to the list of "dust, an egg" and so on, in other words). Tonywalton ^Talk 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what some people say is "I'm going to lay down for a while", or "He was laying on the road, injured". Only the verb "lie" is correct there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's no use trying to discredit idiomatic expressions by appeals to logic. Objectively, "off of" is no more redundant than "out of", which is obligatory except in a few very lower-class dialects: "Get out my way, girl." LANTZY^TALK 07:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

These guys are not particularly American...—Emil J. 13:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

But they are singing in a distinctly American idiom. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if they are, that's no reason to take revenge on another user's CSS.—Emil J. 13:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

? 87.114.101.69 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

[5].—Emil J. 15:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry about that – my browser does it automatically. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Get off of me" sounds fine to me - if anything, better than "get off me". DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Off of is everyday colloquial usage in the UK as well as the US. Don't take this badge off of me. I can't use it any more. (US) Probably something by Lily Allen, The Streets, Madness, The Smiths... for UK usage, but can't think what right now. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly isn't American in origin. The first usages of it cited by the OED make that quite clear:

?c1450 in G. Müller Aus mittelengl. Medizintexten (1929) 116 Take a sponfull of e licour..of of e fyir and sette it in good place tyl at it be ny colde, soo as ou mayst suffryn to holdyn er-in in hand. a1616 SHAKESPEARE Henry VI, Pt. 2 (1623) II. i. 98 A fall off of [1594 Falling off on] a Tree. 1667 A. MARVELL Corr. in Wks. (1875) II. 224 The Lords and we cannot yet get off of the difficultyes risen betwixt us. 1678 J. BUNYAN Pilgrim's Progress 49 About a furlong off of the Porters Lodge. 1712 R. STEELE Spectator No. 306. 6, I could not keep my Eyes off of her. 1720 D. DEFOE Mem. Cavalier 281, I had perswaded him off of that. 1748 S. RICHARDSON Clarissa V. xiii. 132 Biting my lip, [was to indicate] Get off of that, as fast as possible.

--Antiquary (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It fits perfectly with the pattern of other directions - "get on top of me", "get north of me", "get one mile offshore of me". There's no problem with the logic of it. The word of is somewhat decorative and superfluous, but isn't it usually? 81.131.21.92 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a question of how speakers understand the syntactic construction. If they see "get off" as a single verbal complex then adding the of is natural. Just as it is with "get out" - "get out of my room". Its not a question about redundancy (all languages love and permit redundancy anyway - there is no kind of English or any other language that is redundancy free) - it is a question about how to understand the construction as using a phrasal verb or not.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Want to add even another adverb to the mix? "Get down off of the table" is a valid Americanism.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And normal in English English too, albeit colloquial and regarded as incorrect. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that speakers of many varieties of English (certainly some UK ones) regularly substitute the compound preposition "off of" (or the fused form "offa") for the standard preposition "off", and that's all there is to it. --ColinFine (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not unrelated to how some people say things like "If he hadn't have done it, we'd be in big trouble now". The "have" is sometimes pronounced "of" and even often perceived and written that way, but whatever spelling is used, it's completely out of place formally, but it still works on a colloquial level by making the sentence easier to say, redolent as it is of "couldn't have (of)", "shouldn't have (of)" etc. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to meet someone who doesn't pronounce it as "of". Lexicografía (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I think you must be moving in the wrong circles. The people I mix with always correctly pronounce their grammatical errors. Nothing but the best for us, you know.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The worst case might be when Dizzy Dean commented on how a particular batter should not have swung at a particular pitch, or as Diz said it, "He shouldn't hadn't oughta swang." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on the phenomenon: English modal verb#Double modal. Marnanel (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Happens all the time in Southern English. "I used-ta could". Lexicografía (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, is Dizzy Dean's line the origin of a song I once heard, in which a woman tells why she left her mate? —Tamfang (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

scansion in virgil

How do I scan the following line from Virgil's Aeneid:

Navita quos jam inde ut Stygia prospexit ab unda ?

The problem occurs at the start of the line, because navita looks like one foot, then either quos iam would be the next, or quos iam in-. The first is long-short, so that shouldn't be a foot, and the alternative looks clearly like long-short-long, which is not a foot, and should be an impossible sequence anyway. If the sixth syllable in- could be made short somehow, there would be no problem, and the whole line would scan neatly, but I can't see how this can be done. Thanks as always, It's been emotional (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Na-vi-ta|quos j(am)in-|d(e)ut Sty-gi|a pros|pe-xit ab| un-da. Notice the ellisions, happening also with nasalized vowels (am) in jam. Pallida  Mors 10:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

so you read it:

( - ^ ^) ( -    - ) ( -    ^ ^) (-  - ) ( -  ^  ^ ) (- ^ )                          
(Navita) (quos jin) (dut Stygi) (a pro) (spexit ab) (unda)

? 92.230.69.163 (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the short answer, yes. Surely the factual reading was more or less like ('quos jãin)(di'ut Stygi)('a pro)... so ellision matters more to counting than pronouncing; though fair enough, many people around here that know more than me about Latin prosody can give a more elaborate answer. :) Pallida  Mors 13:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I would add to this is a link to dactylic hexameter, but IBE already seems to know how to scan. (I always have the opposite problem, I remember the rules for elision but not scansion...)

I would point out that while you've scanned the last word (¯ ˘), which is fine because it's the last foot of the line, unda is in fact in the ablative singular (being the object of ab) and so is technically undā. Likewise, Stygia, which modifies it, is Stygiā: the ā is long by nature, not long by position since the consonant cluster after it is a stop + a liquid. —Angr (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes, I didn't know the rules for elision. I knew you elided final -m in the accusative in front of a vowel, but not that the same applied to words like iam. It's been emotional (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "control" as a French word

In an old version of a Wikipedia article, it says "The word Control clearly provoked some misunderstanding by English-readers because its 1st meaning in French is "to check" and its 2nd meaning is "to have a grip over". And it is the other way round in English". http://www.thefullwiki.org/Henri_Fayol_and_the_Administrative_theory

Is this correct? Thanks 92.28.241.63 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It means inspection, checking, verification, making sure that everything is what it is claimed to be (often in an official way). It only really corresponds to English "control" in a fairly narrow technical sense (as in "quality control")... AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, is there anything I could cite so that the above can be replaced into the current article? 92.24.178.149 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not look the French word up in a good-size "dead-tree" paper dictionary, and cite what you find there? I've done this a number of times for Arabic words in Wikipeda articles, based on the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In French it can also mean to have a grip over. E.g. "Le President ne controle pas le budget de l'etat, c'est la prerogative du Premier Ministre et du Ministre des Finances." but that is a rarer use of the word. Sorry I am using a querty keyboard and lazy with finding my diacritics. --Lgriot (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In sports, a "check" is indeed a form of control, i.e. of impeding the one who's trying to advance the ball or the puck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the EO entries for those two words,[6][7] they are closely related in meaning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This - That - These - Those

As I understand, we use "this" for singular things close at hand (such "this keyboard"), "these" for the plural, "that" for things far away (such as "that mountain") and "those" for the plural. But which are the rules for conceptual objects, when distance does not apply? For example, ideas, events, circumstances, etc. MBelgrano (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but in those cases, I would use "this idea/event/circumstance" or "these ideas/events/circumstances" unless I was differentiating between one idea/event/circumstance and others. I would probably say "I like this idea, but not that one". Although, if I was pointing to select one of several items, I would use "that" instead of "this" for emphasis. --Thomprod (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Close at hand" is not always a matter of physical distance. The concept you've just been talking about is "this concept". Marnanel (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes -- it can also be "that concept", especially if you disagree with it. By using "that", you put yourself at a metaphorical distance from it. "My opponent claims that the sky is blue. That concept is valid less than half the time." --Anonymous, 00:00 UTC, November 27, 2010.

I would also use this and that for two equal options, like "which car do you like best, this one or that one?". -- Q Chris (talk)

There is always the distance in the text, which in this case is sometimes used. The last mentioned idea is "closer", and can be "this idea", whereas the first mentionned idea is further in the text, in which case it can be "that idea". --Lgriot (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The girl's name Perri

Does anyone happen to know what the girl's name Perri is short for? Could it be a diminutive for Peregrine perhaps? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a feminization of Perry, as they do with Terry/Terri? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Googling [name origin perri] led to a number of items, including this one[8] which says it derives from "Peter". I saw another site that said it actually derives from "Pierre", which makes more sense. "Petra" is another feminized version of "Peter", only with an eastern European flavor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Peri (and that's an article in need in improvement) in Dr Who was short for Perpugilliam. But that was a but odd. 109.155.42.156 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As a full name (not a shortened nickname) under that spelling, "Peri" is likely to come from the Persian-language word which is the counterpart to Arabic "Houri" (see Wikipedia article Peri), by means of the poem Lalla-Rookh or a similar literary source. Not sure about "Perri"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, as with Peri Gilpin, who was "reportedly named after the squirrel "Perri" from a Disney True Life Adventures documentary." (According to IMDB trivia which is perhaps not the best source...) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

terminological inexactitude

what date was the phrase first used? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Terminological inexactitude says 1906. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Stupid of me. I didn't think of it possibly being in wikipedia. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

November 27

Repetition of 'is' in specific phrases

I've been noticing lately that in spoken English (Midwest American in my experience, dunno about other regions) certain set phrases ending in 'is' (or other forms e.g. 'was') have the 'is' repeated afterwards. Examples:

The thing is, is we ...

I think what it was was that ...

I'm pretty sure what it will be will be a giant duck.

How does this work, grammatically? Lexicografía (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's slang. And it's not new. Andy Griffith caught some early attention in the 1950s with a comedy record in which he described a football game from the standpoint of a hayseed who had never seen or heard of football before. The title of that routine: "What it was, was football." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I've been hearing these sorts of expressions all my life. What they are, are expressions a pedant would spurn but most everyone else is happy enough to spout from time to time. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But how does it function grammatically? Do the phrases 'the thing is' or 'what it was' function as noun phrases, the second 'is' or 'was' being the verb? You can't say *"The thing is we" or *"I think what it was that" ... Lexicografía (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"What it was" sounds like a valid noun phrase to me. "The thing is" doesn't. I think these are distinct cases. Just guessing here, but "the thing is, is" might have originated from "what the thing is is..." or in imitation of "what it is is...". -- BenRG (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of: that that is is that is not is not that that is not is not that that is that that is is not that that is not is that not it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is. No shit. WHAAOE. --Jayron32 13:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP's second and third examples are perfectly normal cleft sentences. In speech, the first instance of the verb will be stressed, and there may well be a brief pause after it. The first example is a different structure, in which "The thing is" is not actually a constituent (it is subject NP + VP), but in context it is often spoken with the same prosodic pattern as the cleft. I believe that this prosodic resemblance is what has given rise to an analogical insertion of a second "is" in the sentence. I first noticed this phenomenon in the 80's, and I think it is pretty well limited to sentences starting "The thing/problem/snag/question is". --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See also double copula. —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wealth Obliges

Instead of saying Noblesse oblige, what would be the correct way of saying 'Wealth oblige'. Thanks 92.29.115.8 (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Noblesse oblige" doesn't mean "wealth oblige[s]". "Noble" doesn't necessarily mean "wealthy" – there's a long list of (just for the sake of argument) English Premier League footballers who are by most peoples' standards fabulously wealthy but wouldn't know honourable behaviour if it jumped up and bit them, and there's an equally long list of impoverished aristocrats who have titles but little money. Could you give a little more context for what you're trying to say? Tonywalton ^Talk 02:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Richesse oblige. I think the OP was looking for an equivalent of noblesse oblige for wealth and not nobility. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly so, but I'd like the OP to clarify. Tonywalton ^Talk 02:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OP is obviously asking for an equivalent for wealth and not for nobility. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

24... and DuncanHill are correct. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Richesse oblige, then --Lgriot (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese phrase

What is the Cantonese phrase in Chinese characters for an unlucky wife that kills (not murder) who ever she marries? It literally means Killing Pig Stool.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

克夫 or 克夫命 is a common phrase but not the one you're expecting. --Chantaiman2 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of this phrase before, but I googled a literal translation of "Killing Pig Stool" and it came up with many hits with the meaning you described: the phrase is 杀猪櫈, shāzhūdèng. Literally, this is apparently a piece of actual bench-like equipment used in butchering pigs. Metaphorically, it is a colourful way of saying the phrases Chantaiman2 mentioned above.

Note that the above is the general Chinese phrase. The specific dialectical variation in Cantonese (according to Google anyway) is 劏猪櫈 (劏, tāng, means "to butcher"). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Latin help please

What does Ibi cubavit lamia mean? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It probably means that you're reading M. R. James. But, seriously, it's from Isaiah 34:14, and the KJV translates this portion of the the verse "the screech owl also shall rest there". A literal translation of the Latin is "there the lamia lay down". Deor (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am reading M. R. James (as everyone should). I like the screech owl - "My word! that was a noise - 'ungry like, as if it was calling after someone that wouldn't come." DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that there's some information about how the various translations have rendered Hebrew liyliyth in this verse at Lilith#Lilith in the Bible. Deor (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very interesting stuff. The Authorised Version beats all-comers hands down when it comes to sounding right. DuncanHill (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To round out the discussion the New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures translates lilith as "nightjar," and the footnote says "likely a nocturnal bird." schyler (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

cubavit (perfect) translated as shall rest (future)?? —Tamfang (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather, a Hebrew verb taken by others as referring to future time, taken by Jerome as referring to past time: Wavelength and AnonMoos explain this below. Wareh (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/isaiah/34-14.htm and http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/isa/chapter_034.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

According to paragraph 3 at http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/translat.htm, "The tense-time of Hebrew verbs continually escapes the most serious scholar and there is wide variety of translation among the most learned as whether a verb ought to be given as past, present or future."

—Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The semantics of Hebrew finite verb forms aren't really quite as mysterious as all that, once it is understood that the basic distinction is more one of aspect than "tense" or "time", though it is true that there are several complications, such as the so-called "conversive tenses". In any case, the question at hand is about the meaning of a noun... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is performancewise a word?

Consider "How do A and B compare, performancewise?".

Is that correct? Or is it "performance wise" or "performance-wise"? Wiktionary does not contain any of the three forms. Apart from the spelling, what kind of word is it in this context? An adjective? --Mortense (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an adverb. While it's not listed at Wiktionary, the suffix -wise is, as is an entire category of English words suffixed with -wise, none of which is hyphenated. So I'd say performancewise is the correct spelling. (I personally would only hyphenate it after a word ending in w, e.g. pillow-wise). —Angr (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with it, spellingwise or lack-of-hyphenationwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Frequently people will add the hyphen to emphasize the fact that the word has been constructed as an agglutination, rather than being a customary word form. (That is, I doubt you would find "performancewise" in even the comprehensive of unabridged dictionaries.) The article hyphen indicates British English tends to hyphenate words more-so than American English (e.g. pre-school vs. preschool). It also notes that there has been a tendency to reduce the use of hyphens. On a final note, while "performancewise" vs. "performance-wise" might be a style choice, "performance wise" is not an equivalent, as "-wise" as a suffix has a vastly different meaning from "wise" as an independent word. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that analysis. The tendency to drop hyphens means that an expression like "a three year project" is read as containing 4 words - when, in every way except orthographically, it has only 3 words. "Three-year" is the adjective being used here; it is a single word (albeit formed from 2 others) and it can't be spelled as if it were still 2 separate words without abandoning a considerable degree of sanity, because "three year" as it stands is totally ungrammatical ("three", being a plural number, requires the plural "years"); it only works in this context as "three-year". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, ca. 1960, the overuse of "-wise" as a suffix was considered an annoying feature of Madison Avenue advertising jargon (it was parodied on several Stan Freberg records, if I remember correctly...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, performancewise would be a perfect word to be added to Corporate Bingo HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And in The Apartment (1960), whose tagline was "Movie-wise, there has never been anything like The Apartment love-wise, laugh-wise or otherwise-wise!" -- BenRG (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is performancewise a word? Well, a look at Google Books shows it's been a pretty common word since 1950, with sporadic appearances in the 1940s. Typical early example: "Performancewise the show was seen here at a disadvantage" (Billboard May 3, 1952). Other early examples refer to music, planes and cars. --Antiquary (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Is "performancewise" a word? Can it be written? Obviously. Can it be pronounced? Yes. Does it convey an obvious meaning? Yes. Yup, it's a word. I assume your question was actually something more like "is it an acceptable word", and yes, I'd say so as well. You might want to use a hyphen for clarity because of the length of the word, but either way works. Lexicografía (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavian names

Which form is Swedish, Norwegian, or Danish? Also what is the difference between Estridsson and Estridsen?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Names ending in -sen can be Danish or Norwegian, -son can be Swedish or Norwegian or Icelandic. Both Estridsen and Estridsson means "son of Estrid". ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The double s of Estridsson makes it look definitely Icelandic - and note that in Icelandic it's a genuine patronym, not a patronymoidal surname. And I heard a rumor once that Norwegians tend not to have patronymoidal surnames meaning "son of so-and-so" the way Swedes and Danes do. —Angr (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The double s is found in old Danish and in Swedish as well as in Icelandic. The first one is of course the genitive. Norwegians do have -sen names, I wouldn't dare say if they are more or less common than in Denmark or Iceland - they are definitely not uncommon. Also "Estridsson/Estridsen" can never be a patronym or patronymoidal - "Estrid" is a woman's name. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there you are wrong. See Sweyn II of Denmark.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I am right. Sweyn Estridsson's father was Ulf JArl and his mother Was Estrid. Estridsson is a matronym also in this case. (The Estridssons were surnamed after their mother instead of following the usual patronymic custom because as the sister of Canute the Great she was more prominent than their father who was a mere Earl)·Maunus·ƛ· 04:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well (to Angr), Surname states (it needs copy-editing, BTW): "... Hansen (son of Hans), Johansen (son of Johan) and Olson (Son of Ole/Ola) the three most common surnames in Norway.[6]" --Mortense (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What about -datter and -dotter and -dottir?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Datter can be Danish or Norwegian, Dotter can be Swedish or Norwegian, Dottir can be Icelandic or Faroese.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To be exact, the Icelandic is spelt dóttir and pronounced [d̥ouʰtɪr], as in Sigurðardóttir, "daughter of Sigurður". The Faroese is also spelled dóttir, but is pronounced [dœʰtəɹ], as in Sigmundsdóttir, "daughter of Sigmund". That is, both require an acute accent if we follow strict orthography. --Theurgist (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Most common surnames in Norway (link at bottom of page gives further rankings; "antall" is number of people holding the name). First non-"sen" name is in position 14. Jørgen (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No sources at hand, but last names in Scandinavia, or at least in Norway, for common people were "fixated" (meaning they became more than a description to disambiguate people with the same given names) some time in the last half of the 1800s. Farmers usually took the name of the farm (Dal/Dahl, meaning "valley", is a very common surname as there were many farms by that name). Other people (workers, say) simply used the patronymic which then started to become inherited about that time. Given gender roles at this time, patronymics were almost exclusively used and almost no inherited surnames in Norway are original matronymics (ending in -dotter/-datter). For some reason, occupation titles ("baker", "smith" etc) did not evolve into surnames in Norway, as they did many other parts of Europe. Jørgen (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that there is, in fact, a Wikipedia article: Scandinavian family name etymology, though it's not terribly exhaustive. Jørgen (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

-dotter names were also patronymic - they would have had to become matronymic in order to have been inherited after fixation but they didn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

November 28

Malayalam and Tamil

Is spoken Malayalam mutually intelligible with spoken Indian Tamil? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoken Tamil isn't even necessarily mutually intelligible with itself. I know speakers of Tamil Nadu Tamil who don't understand anything that speakers of Sri Lanka Tamil say. Some speakers of Tamil may be able to understand Malayalam - but that would not really tell us anything about the relatedness of the two languages, but more about the speakers. Other speakers might not be able to understand it at all. Whether people understand another language depend on many factors - for example the degree of exposure to the other language and to other languages in general.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This question was only asked a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not allowing me to go through the archives, but the conclusion was that it depended on the speakers, but generally yes. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're probably meaning this thread. --Theurgist (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

November 29

Part of speech for please

Consider a sentence such as this: John, please pass the salt. It is my understanding that the word please is an adverb. Can someone please explain why. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Well, according to Wiktionary, in that context it is "Short for if you please, an intransitive, ergative form taken from if it pleases you, which replaced pray". I think this helps? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The information that you quoted from Wiktionary refers to the verb form of the word "please". I am asking about the adverb form. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Please is an adverb because it modifies the verb, "to pass". Just reduce the sentence to its core bits; John (subject) pass (verb) the salt (object). Which of those three is changed by "please". Is John different? Nope, he's the same person passing. Is the salt different? Nope, same salt. Is the passing different? Yup, its now being done politely. That makes it an adverb. --Jayron32 05:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I don't understand. How is "please" modifying the verb "to pass"? In your example, you somehow equate "please" with "politely". If the sentence stated "John politely passed the salt", then I understand how "politely" is an adverb to modify "passed". In my original sentence, I do not see that "please" equals "politely". In fact, "please" is really just a formality or nicety. I just don't see how it modifies the verb "pass". It's not the manner in which I am asking John to pass the salt (as if I asked him to pass it quickly or slowly or politely or whatever). Anything you can offer to help me see why "please" is an adverb and why it modifies the verb "pass"? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

John is passing the salt in response to a polite request. Thus, his passing is modified by the environment in which it is requested. --Jayron32 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure if "John, please pass the salt" implies that the passing is polite, but rather that the request (i.e. the discourse itself) is polite. It may be for that reason that Anders Holmberg calls it a "particle" and notes that "The semantics and syntax of please is a tricky subject" (On Whimperatives and Related Questions, Journal of Linguistics; unfortunately, the database isn't freely accessible). He also gives an interesting example that "?If you can open the door, can you open it" is dubious, but "If you can open the door, can you please open it" is grammatically correct with the please insertion. I'd also like to note that AndyTheGrump's statement was on point, according to the Online Etymological Dictionary, which says please 's "imperative use (e.g. please do this), first recorded 1620s, was probably a shortening of if it please (you) (late 14c.)." If that's the case, it's easy to see how the please 's ancestral subordinate if clause would have modified the main-clause verb, but the degree to which that's relevant to the present-day use of please is up to you. I'd say since English dictionaries don't like to use the term particle as a legitimate part of speech (perhaps understandably so, since it's such a vague term), they defer to please 's etymology and call it an adverb.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Please" doesn't really fit in well with the traditional parts of speech. You could lump it in as an adverb (if you wanted to define things that way), but it's quite different from classic "manner" adverbs, such as "quickly" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Some theories of linguistics might define it as an illocutionary particle... AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Following up on Andy's commments, presumably the "if you please" derives from the French expression répondez s'il vous plaît used in RSVP (invitations), which I take to literally mean "respond if it pleases you". I'm not a grammatician, but I would think "if you please" would be considered an adverbial phrase.

There is a funny reference to the expression in HMS Pinafore, in which the land-bound commander of the British navy orders the ship's captain to say "if you please" when giving orders to the crew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, it's a verb. Quoting the entry (I've added the links):

“ III 8 verb trans. & intrans. In imper. or optative form: be agreeable, be acceptable; be willing or kind enough to do (archaic. to do). Now freq. used in making a polite request or indicating acceptance: if you please. M17.

S. Hyland ‘Shall I tell him you're coming?’ ‘Yes please’. Beano P-Please stop fighting, chaps—just for m-me! V. Bramwell Please remember: If a pain is sharp…see your doctor. New York Times If you go to all this effort, facts please.

”

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that! Calling it a verb seems more problematic than calling it an adverb. In a sentence such as this (If you do your homework, that will please your mother.), I can see that it acts as a verb. In a sentence such as this (John, please pass the salt.), I cannot see that it has any verb function. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Unless they are saying that the standard (polite form of) "please" is just a short-hand way of saying "if you please". In which case, I can see that the "please" is a verb ... and the "if you please" is an adverbial phrase. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

I think please may actually be in the imperative here. "I am commanding you not just to pass me the salt, but to be pleased by doing so." Doesn't sound all that polite when you expand it out that way, but it seems intuitive; it would then be a shortened version of please to pass the salt. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No: it's pretty certainly short for "if you please", and we have attestations going way back to prove it. As such, it's a subjunctive: there's no command in it. We can imagine a possible universe in which you are pleased to pass me the salt, and if that is the same universe we are living in, then pass me the salt; hence, it's a subjunctive. "Pass", on the other hand, is certainly in the imperative mood. Marnanel (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A mandative subjunctive is a (third-person) imperative. "[May] it please you to pass me the salt.". The recipient of the command is technically "it", rather than "you", but still, something is being commanded. On the other hand, conditionals in general do not ordinarily take the subjunctive, although it's true that they sometimes used to and that this could be an example of that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This question has got me thinking. If you translate Please pass the salt as Passez le sel, s'il vous plaît, then the main verb of the sentence is clearly pass and please merely modifies the verb, making it an adverb. But if you translate it as Veuillez me passer le sel, please suddenly becomes the main verb (in the imperative) and pass follows that, and is in the infinitive.

The first would be expanded in English as If you please, pass the salt (or strictly if it pleases you). The second is expanded as Please to pass the salt, a formula which I think is sometimes found in pseudo upper class writing ("Please to tell His Majesty that ...") Unfortunately, unlike in French, the imperative and infinitive in English are formed identically so we can't tell which is intended. Sussexonian (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascinatiing. It's obviously an interjection, and yet not only has nobody here mention that, most of the online dictionaries under www.onelook.com have it wrong as well. American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, Collins, Webster's New World, and Random House all call it an adverb. Macmillan has it right, and Encarta goes both ways, giving "adverb, interjection" for the "Please do this" sense and "interjection" alone for the "Please!" sense. I also looked at the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary; they call it an "exclamation", which Wikipedia sais is another term for an interjection. The OED1 calls it an "imperative or optative" verb, but that was written in 1907 and they're still thinking of it as a contraction of expressions like "if you please" rather than a word in its own right. --Anonymous, 23:38 UTC, November 29, 2010.

We can probably all agree that "please" is indeed an interjection when used in the following sense: Oh, please, I don't want to hear that song again! (or some similar construction). My original question, however, was specific to the Hey, you, please do such and such for me variety of "please". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Merriam-Webster lumps it into the 'adverb' part of speech, but defines it in the manner that they define interjections, with two definitions: 1) — used as a function word to express politeness or emphasis in a request 2) — used as a function word to express polite affirmation. To me it seems more of a verbal tic in the same category as 'like' (which M-W calls an interjection), whereas 'like' conveys approximation or uncertainty, 'please' conveys politeness. Lexicografía (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "interjection", in traditional parts of speech, mostly means a single standalone word not closely grammatically integrated into a sentence. In "That was, like, grody to the max!", the word "like" is kind of marked off from the surrounding clause (shown by the commas in writing), so it can be considered interjection-like. However, in the sentence "Would you please pass the salt?", "please" is not interjection-like at all (by traditional criteria). AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it not? It could be set off by commas as well and IMO doesn't contribute too much (Would you pass the salt v. Would you please pass the salt) except an air of politeness. Lexicografía (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Doesn't contribute too much except an air of politeness" = illocutionary particle. AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought interjections were particles. Whatever. Lexicografía (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

However, "interjection" implies that if it occurs in a sentence, its meaning, grammatical relationships, etc. are much the same as when it occurs as a standalone one-word utterance, while "particle" doesn't imply that... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct use of hyphens

What is the correct use of hyphens (if at all) in the context below?

• John is a 25 year old student. John is a 25-year-old student. John is a 25-year old student. John is a 25 year-old student.

Also, does it make any difference if the age is spelled out with words rather than numbers?

• Betty is a five year old girl. Betty is a five-year-old girl. Betty is a five-year old girl. Betty is a five year-old girl.

Finally, does the following manipulation of the words change anything? (The word "year" from above is made plural to "years" below.)

• John is 25 years old. John is 25-years-old. John is 25-years old. John is 25 years-old.

• Betty is five years old. Betty is five-years-old. Betty is five-years old. Betty is five years-old.

Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

It makes no difference whether you use numerals or spelled-out numbers. The attributive phrase "x-year-old" should have two hyphens (thus "John is a 25-year-old student" and "Betty is a five-year-old girl), while the predicate "x years old" should have no hyphens ("John is 25 years old" and "Betty is five years old"). Not being a huge fan of hyphens myself, I would probably let "John is a 25 year old student" slide, but "John is 25-years-old" is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.) —Angr (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

For "Not being a huge fan of hyphens", read "Not being a huge fan of correct punctuation". 87.114.101.69 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am a huge fan of correct punctuation. But hyphens are very often used unnecessarily, and when their use is wrong, or even optional, I prefer to excise them like blackheads. —Angr (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm irritated by compounds with more than one hyphen, partly because of the with-enough-hyphens-any-phrase-can-be-an-adjective trend, but see no better alternative to "n-year-old". —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Polish translation

Please could a native Polish speaker translate an English phrase into Polish for me? I want to say: Thank you and happy Christmas. Thanks for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.165.179 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a native speaker, but Dziękuję i życzę Wesołych Świąt should work.—Emil J. 15:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A native speaker here and I confirm that Emil's translation is correct. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.165.179 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

After colons and semicolons

I learned in grade school to always use lower case letters after colons and semicolons (except with proper nouns, obviously). Yet in any novel I read, they always use a capital letter after colons and semicolons. Looking it up on Wiki here, I read that my way's right, but then why do these books from major publishers do this? I guess they have the choice, but it still seems odd to me, especially considering how crazy publishers are about grammar and punctuation when sending out literary work. ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 16:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've often seen capital letters after colons, especially if what follows the colon is a complete sentence on its own, but I've never seen (or at least never noticed) a capital letter after a semicolon in edited, published writing. Do you have an example? —Angr (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised by your reference to "any" novel. Do you mostly read novels from a particular publisher or author? This may be their particular idiosyncracy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Katana = Equinox?

Is the word Katana (in one of its written forms in Japanese) somehow linked to the meaning of equinox, solstice or eclipse? Wiktionary says no, but I have a strong hint that it may be related, from a Japanese speaker that made a mistake in a presentation. --Lgriot (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "mistake in a presentation" and how you formed the connection? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, the letter for Katana is 刀. Equinox is 分点, vernal equinox is 春分, and autumnal equinox is 秋分. Summer solstice is 夏至 and winter solstice is 冬至. Other than the similarity between 刀 and 分, Japanese sword (日本刀) is pronounced nihontō and winter solstice (冬至) is pronounced tōji. I don't speak Japanese, though, so please take this with a grain of salt. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 04:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a business presentation in English, I really think they meant equinox (that is the name in English of the project they were talking about) and wrote Katana in their PPT. Unfortunately it is too senior a person for me to dare ask them directly. But maybe it is a completely unrelated mistake and katana creapt up in there for some other random reason. Thanks anyway. --Lgriot (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well katana = 刀, and X equinox is X分. In its simplest sense, 分 is to divide - an equinox is one of the dividing points of the year. You can see the connection in the construction of the character: 分 is a knife (on the bottom) cleaving two parts apart (above).

So could it be katana --> cleaving --> division --> equinox? Perhaps it's deliberate and they are going for a metaphoric rather than literal connection? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

T-glottalization in American "kitten" etc.

My best guess at the difference between General American and some Northeastern US speech is (respectively) [kɪʔn̩] vs. [kɪʔɪn]. (Or perhaps the latter should have the second vowel nasalized instead of followed by a consonant: what would that look like in IPA? Also the place of articulation seems farther back in the latter?) Am I on the right track, or is there something else going on (e.g. is the glottal stop geminated?). Wareh (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. Is there an online clearinghouse of IPA transcriptions of texts in various languages and dialects, with whatever degree of strictness, so that I could browse through IPA of different forms of Brazilian, American, Arabic, etc., speech? My ideal here would be long & accurate enough to infer the rules of sandhi etc. Wareh (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Having lived in the Northeastern US most of my life (grew up on Long Island, have lived in eastern Massachusetts intermittently since the early 1980s), I don't think [kɪʔɪn] is correct, at least not anywhere north of central New Jersey. (I am less familiar with dialects south of about New Brunswick.) You might be onto something with gemination of the glottal stop, which I think sometimes happens in the New York area. I don't think a vowel (nasalized or otherwise) occurs in casual speech after the glottal stop. It is a sonorant [n̩] everywhere I've been. I'm not aware of an online clearinghouse. I think that this sort of information is buried in academic journal articles. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Since I am no expert linguist, maybe a more personal version of the question will be clearer. I believe I pronounce such words as "mountain" and "kitten" in the standard General American fashion. When I am exposed to many speakers from the length of the Hudson Valley (Brooklyn to Albany), I am very struck that their "kitten" and "mittens" are so different from mine. Impressionistically, I would have said that I pronounced a "t," whereas they left it out and said "ki''in" (as for "mountain," I'm not sure there's any difference). However, a bit of reflection convinced me that I (and most other Americans) do not in fact pronounce a t, but a glottal stop. This raised the puzzle: what is the striking difference between their pronunciation and mine, since the unexamined belief "glottal stop vs. t" turns out to be inaccurate. My leading theory is still either (a) gemination of the glottal stop and/or (b) some kind of vowel "more" than the syllabic n. Hopefully more help is forthcoming. Wareh (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not so sure that you are wrong about this. I think maybe I have heard something like ['kɪʔʔɘn]. Marco polo (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that sort of thing, but it's not standard here...it's noticeably 'something'. (Can't quite put my tongue on it, I think I want to say it sounds childish or something...in any case, the point is, it definitely is said, but people also definitely notice that it's a bit funny.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that pronunciation is a class marker (i.e., used by people from a less-educated, working-class background). Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think many would agree, though I should say that in the area I indicated I have heard it in the formal speech of e.g. university professors too. I like your ['kɪʔʔɘn] suggestion too. Wareh (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think this extends from the Hudson Valley east into western Connecticut and perhaps western Massachusetts, as far as the Connecticut River valley. I don't hear it where I live, in eastern New England. Marco polo (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As easy as pie origin

I'm writing the as easy as pie article, but the sources don't seem to agree on the origin. This site suggests the phrase is of American origin, while other sources state it is of Aborigine origin. What is the origin of the phrase "as easy as pie"?Smallman12q (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem to originate from the UK. P. G. WODEHOUSE used the phrase in 1925, and the Saturday Evening Post in 1913, according to the OED. The phrase seems to derive from the earlier US expression like eating pie which was used in "Sporting Life" on 26 May 1886. Dbfirs 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

... (later) The Australian derivation might possibly be an independent convergence towards current usage, but I've modified the claim in the article (just as a temporary measure). Please remove my text when your research finds earlier usage. Dbfirs 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rioplatense "vos" conjugation

Is it just the vosotros form with the "i" deleted? Or are there exceptions? LANTZY^TALK 04:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image vs picture

Hello, I'm a non-native English speaker. Can you explain to me the difference of meaning between "image" and "picture" ? When do you use either word ? I just can't seem able to grasp the difference. Thank you, have a nice day. 130.79.160.112 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what EO has to say about the two words:[9][10] The root words originally meant an "artificial representation" and a "painting" respectively. So I would say that a picture is one type of image. Another would be a statue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In normal use, they mean roughly the same, with 'picture' being the more usual word. A little child will know the word 'picture', but might not yet know 'image'. 'Image' is generally preferred when people are talking about what they see in their own head, or generally want to imply a less solid 'impression' rather than a literal 'picture' that you could point to. So, having seen a goat attacking a melon, you might say, "That's an image that will stick with me." Having seen a great painting and bought a postcard copy, you might say, "I'll stick this picture on my wall." You can get away with using the other word, but it will sound strange. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The latin root of picture can be translated as 'painting', while that of image is 'copy'. As has been pointed out they're inter-changable in modern usage, but you might use 'image' to describe something created without too much human intervention whilst 'picture' implies an act of composition. Blakk and ekka 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In practice, I (an English English speaker) would use "picture" for most uses, but "image" in the context of computers or in some special circumstances. For instance, I would say that the Turin Shroud bears an "image" rather than a "picture". I'm not sure I can explain why - perhaps someone else can do better. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand it, a picture may be a two-dimentional man-made image, with a defined and specific content. An image would be instead simply anything that we can sense with our eyes. MBelgrano (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that doesn't explain why one might choose to use the word "image" rather than "picture" to refer to a man-made image, as frequently happens. --Viennese Waltz 14:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting question. I'm inclined to agree with MBelgrano here - a picture is an image created with intent. If I pick up my digital camera, and look at what I see through it, it is an image. If I press the button, I 'take a picture'. Note also that the term is sometimes used in reference to cinematic works: early ones with sound were often referred to as 'talking pictures'. The 'Turin Shroud' example seems to suggest that where intentionality is ambiguous (or at least, not attributed to human intent), 'image' is more correct. For many purposes, the words are more or less interchangeable though, so I'd not worry too much about getting it wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image is a more clinical term than picture. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking metaphorically, an "image" of a person or thing has a greater connotation of reputation while a (mental) "picture" is more to do with the senses. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture is more rooted in the corporeal; image carries a more conceptual flavor. They can be used interchangeably, but the core different shades of meaning can result in new implications when one is knowingly substituted for the other. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You hear "image" more in the worlds of graphic design, desk top publishing etc. These people speak of "high res images" and "image libraries" as a way of making themselves sound ritzier than they really are. The same people who use "font" when they mean "typeface". --Viennese Waltz 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, image is definitely the word one wants to use when one wants to sound sophisticated and an expert in some area of endeavor. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

See pretentious. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[unindenting] At the risk of sounding pretentious, I am a professional editor, and in the company where I work, image amounts to a technical term with a specific meaning. We use the term photo to refer (unsurprisingly) to photographs. We use the term art to refer to visuals built using applications such as Adobe Illustrator. Art includes illustrations, graphs, tables, maps, and so on. So a photo of the Mona Lisa is a photo, but not what we refer to for publishing purposes as art. Now, we refer to art and photos collectively as images. I suppose we could use the word pictures, but most people don't think of maps and graphs as pictures. I suppose that most people don't think of graphs as images, either. However, image has more of a technical feel to it than picture, and I suppose that is the reason why this word was chosen for this technical use. I have contact with other publishing firms, and I think that the use of the term image is fairly widespread, at least in American publishing, to describe all visuals in a file format suitable for publishing. Marco polo (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Where content is concerned, basically you've got 2 things: text and images. Right? Or what did I miss? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An image can also be a natural phenomenon, e.g. images of a partially eclipsed sun created by the pinhole cameras of foliage. —Tamfang (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, in publishing contexts (these days), you have more than just text and images. Other possibilities include video, audio, and interactive templates that can accommodate any of the foregoing. Marco polo (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I betrayed my 19th-century origins. :) Is a video considered an image, or would only individual frames be considered images? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image means still image, so a frame (saved as a .png or such) could be an image, but not the entire video file. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say a "picture" represents a view of something that is real or is meant to look as if real, while an "image" is a more general term and includes any sort of visual display. A computer "image file" can represent anything like that: it might also show a table, a reproduction of a page layout, whatever. Of course, in metaphorical usage "image" and "picture" have pretty much the same meaning. --Anonymous, 23:18 UTC, November 30, 2010.

Past of the past

I'm writing an article where, at a certain point, I describe a situation in the past, where a man makes a comparison between the present and a past event (present and past from his perspective, both are past for ours). Are "currently" or "at the time being" acceptable ways to make reference to the former present? If they are not, which ones should I use? MBelgrano (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The general linguistic term is pluperfect... Why not "at that time"? AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, or then, often used as in "he said to then-Senator Hillary Clinton" or even "he said to then Senator Hillary Clinton".—msh210℠ 16:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

currently could easily cause confusion. —Tamfang (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Named for"

Is "named for" correct usage in American English? I have seen it used many times here. A made-up example, "The Davey lamp, named for Sir Humphry Davey". In British English "named after" is used. Thanks 92.28.247.40 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes: in American English, either is used.—msh210℠ 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems peculiar to British ears, as saying "named for John" would imply that John could have chosen the name themselves, but delegated the naming responsinility to someone else. Like "shopping for" or "driving for" someone else. 92.28.247.40 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"For" is one of those very diverse words in English. Like "of". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Named for and named after are nearly synonymous in American English. There are certain situations in which named after would be preferred. For example, "John is named after his father". Whereas, named for, I think, implies that the person (or thing) that inspired the name is somehow renowned or honored. For example, "The street was named for George Washington." In this latter case, named after would also work. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the nuance is that after implies that both bearers of the name are of the same (broad) kind, or bear it in the same way? Many colonial towns are named after other towns; Washington Street is named for ... —Tamfang (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that works: "Boston, Massachusetts, is named after Boston, Lincolnshire." In that sentence (in American English), named after sounds more natural than named for. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Named after" is what my American ears grew up with. "Named for" is not unusual but I've never liked it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

the mystery schwa

I continue to be baffled by entries like this:

Sidereal time (Template:Pron-en) ...

Does phonotactic theory insist that /r/ cannot immediately follow a front vowel? Is the /ǝ/ meant as a kind of off-glide? I have a hard time imagining anyone saying /VərV/ (other than in words like theoretic), and yet I see this intrusive /ǝ/ in numerous articles (particularly in astronomy, though I assume that's selection bias). —Tamfang (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a British pronunciation. I agree that in General American English, there is no schwa in that position. Marco polo (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I heard the word pronounced without the schwa at http://www.forvo.com/search/sidereal/ and http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=sidereal&submit=Submit.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I speak British English and indeed I pronounce it as sigh-deer-real, with /dɪər/. Well, I think so, at least... Does that count as an off-glide? Thanks. --Kjoonlee 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Vowels and English verb forms

One aspect of the English language that is obviously Germanic in origin is verbs in which the main vowel changes with the tense: "give", "gave", "keep", kept", "come", "came", etc. One pattern frequently occurring in both English and German is "i", "a", "u" as in:

I sing.

I sang.

I have sung.

The bell rings.

The bell rang.

The bell has rung.

etc. I had thought that changes in the vowel when the verb changes forms without any change in the tense happens with some German verbs but not in English (I hadn't thought about this very much, apparently). As far as I know this happens in German only in the present tense ("Ich nehme", "Er nimmt", etc.). But then I noticed:

I say.

He says.

"Long a" as in "bait" in the first form; "short e" as in "bet" in the second. That's certainly a commonplace word, and that's why I say I must not have thought about this a lot.

What other examples are there? (The vowel changes with the verb form while the tense does not change.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

List of English irregular verbs#Present tense irregular verbs has all the rest. --Kjoonlee 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)