Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:01, 4 February 2011

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

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.

January 28

Pronunciation of German name

Could someone provide me with the IPA pronunciation of the German surname "Lehenbauer"? (at least I assume it's a German name) Lexicografía (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is German. I think the standard IPA would be /ˈleːənˌba͡ʊɐ/. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marco polo. Lexicografía (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Japanese language question: 思考停止

In the Xam'd anime a character (Nakiami), looking at what has happened, utters "shikou teishi...". Literally I guess it is 思考停止 - "thought-stop" or "stopped thinking"; but it sounds like an idiom or a mild expletive. Is it indeed an idiom? What does it really mean? I really hope it's not a Babylon 5 reference ("there's a hole in your mind..."). And the second question: Xam'd is influenced quite heavily by Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga), Nakiami being essentially Nausicaä. Don't get me wrong, Xam'd is a really good show, derivative or not as it is.. Does this provide any clues as to what context "shikou teishi..." comes from? I only read Nausicaä in English... --08147A012702 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without context, it's pretty hard to guess. Do you have a YouTube link to that exact moment where this is uttered, so we can see what came before? As for your second question, I saw Kaze no Tani no Naushika in 2001/2002, but I can't remember much of it, so I can't really comment on this. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of Xam'd: Lost Memories episodes, the second episode is named 尖端島思考停止, so this must be a major plot point. I don't think it's an idiom. It means whatever "cessation of thinking" would mean in the same context in English. I saw the Nausicaa movie in Japanese but never read the manga. I'm pretty sure she never said 思考停止 in the movie. -- BenRG (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a common compound (思考+停止) word/noun, not an idiom. See this ja-to-en dictionary page. The word sounds little harder, more modern and a little bit more science fictional than the yojijyukugo 茫然自失. See [1] and [2]. I don't think it's related to Nausicaa. Oda Mari (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The genesis of language

if language is built by contributions of many researchers, how can it be holistically approached? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.71.137.153 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "holistically approached". But language is not "built" by researchers, it evolves naturally as people use it. See our article on the origin of language for more information. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP geolocates to Nigeria, so, despite the impeccable English, s/he may have used misleading terms. If the question is interpreted as: Language is built by the contributions of millions of speakers over thousands of years. How has it developed a coherent semantic structure? then an answer may be possible. To the best of my knowledge - I am not a linguist - there is very little coherent structure when comparing widely differing language groups. Experts may point to relevant articles on the various paradigma employed by, say, Indo-European, Altaic, Sino-Tibetan, Niger-Congo, etc languages. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comprising

Is "comprising" O.K. here, or would another word be better: "over a billion people, comprising about 20% of the human race" TresÁrboles (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure 1 billion people would be considerably less than 20% of the human race. Linguisticly you are fine, but mathematically you may want to get a calculator. --Jayron32 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did say over a billion people... TresÁrboles (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use "constituting" instead. --173.49.11.167 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, constituting rather than comprising. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does sound better. TresÁrboles (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or for brevity, you could just use "or". --Anonymous, 23:55 UTC, January 28, 2011.

Follow-up question

I'm not a native English speaker. For me, comprise seems to be a perfect choice if we put the phrase the other way around: "20% of the human race, which comprises over a billion people". Anyone to confirm or deny this? (For the sake of simplicity, let's leave mathematics aside.) --Theurgist (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of comprises is OK there, but the statement is likely to be misread as saying that the whole human race (rather than 20% of it) consists of "over a billion people", since a relative clause normally refers to the nearest preceding noun. Deor (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

Critical period for language acquisition

I've heard that after this 'magical window' for language acquisition the synapses responsible begin to die and language acquisition becomes harder. My question is, is there any way (in theory) to prolong this period? This is only a hypothetical question, so practical considerations such as money needed, ethics, etc may be neglected. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for Critical period for language acquisition, I found many results, including the following.

Someone may wish to spend time in studying them.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question involves some confusion, I think. Critical windows have been demonstrated in animals for some basic abilities such as binocular vision, and we know something about the neural mechanisms that are involved. There is no critical period for language acquisition, in any strict sense. It does seem to be generally true that children find it easier to acquire languages than adults, but we really don't know anything specific about the neural mechanisms that bring that about. (The citations above agree with what I just wrote, by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that the question of whether there's a critical period for second language acquisition is heavily debated, as far as I know there is general consensus that there is definitely a critical period for first language acquisition. I think most linguists don't necessarily know much neurobiology, but in the neurobiological research on critical periods in general (not necessarily language-related ones) I think one of the hot topics that much research is implicating in critical periods is the growth of dendritic spines. (see particularly Dendritic spine#Plasticity.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496 -- children below a certain age will tend to naturally acquire the grammar and basic vocabulary of any language they encounter which is commonly used in their everyday lives, without much need for conscious effortful learning; while those much beyond this age can only acquire a new language by means of such conscious effortful learning, and only a few will ever end up being able to speak the language without a foreign accent. In that sense, there is a definite discontinuity which is very well established scientifically. AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about neuroplasticity.—Wavelength (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I have heard (I think from a Derek Bickerton book) is that people who learn three or more languages as children don't lose the plasticity. The change seems to come with the onset of puberty otherwise. Little kids raised in multilingual environments can speak multiple languages fluently without even realizing that they are speaking multiple languages. They think you just have to talk to uncle Sasha a particular way, and to grandpa Pierre a different way. 11:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

French

What is the word for love in French that one would say to a family member (for example a parent or sibling). Aimer does not seem right, but neither does adorer. thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just aimer. As in English, I don't think there's a seperate word for romantic love and familial love. --Jayron32 02:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tu me ~~plaît~~ plais. ("You please me.") See wikt:plaire.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I am correcting my answer which was formed misconjugatedly.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)][reply]

I agree with Jayron, it seems perfectly fine to say je t'aime. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And my understanding is that if you want to be clear that you aren't saying "I love you" in a romantic sense, you can say "Je t'aime bien". Not being French, I am just going on what I have learned, but that is what I was told. Falconus^{p t c} 03:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In France we can say je t'aime to a family member. The sentence "Papa, maman, je vous aime !" is without any ambiguity. That is not the case with "plaire". We never say Tu me plais to our parents or children with the meaning I love you. The verb "plaire" has a lot of meanings that depends upon the context. A father to is son: Tu commences à me plaire ! means "you are irritating me!". A manager to one employee: Cet homme me plait means " I like this man". A man/woman to a man/woman: Tu me plais, could mean "I feel a [sexual] attraction for you". — AldoSyrt (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atmoshphare & Enviroment

In English what is the difference between Atmoshphare and Enviroment......... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.96.217 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: wikt:Atmosphere and wikt:environment (note the correct spelling of both words). Interestingly, the capitalised wikt:Environment leads to a different entry. Astronaut (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Wiktionary, unlike Wikipedia, is case-sensitive. Both pages are at the lowercase form; the first one redirects. Lexicografía (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The atmosphere is made of air. The environment includes everything around you. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the question is about figurative usage. For example: What is the difference between work environment and work atmosphere? I thought I had an answer, in my own semantic gut, basically, like in Looie's reply, that "work environment" is more comprehensive, but includes "work atmosphere", which is more specifically about interpersonal issues, emotions, and communication, but after googling a bit, I found a lot of instances where the two are used synonymously. I'd like to hear what native English speakers have to say about that. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When used figuratively, "environment" tends to take a more practical, concrete meaning, where "atmosphere" carries a softer, more emotional or sense meaning (and as you indicate, frequently includes interpersonal relationships). Sort of a "form versus function" distinction. For example when talking about how a chair affects the the "work environment", you'd likely talk about how comfortable it is, how portable it is, etc. Whereas in regards to "work atmosphere", you'd probably talk about the color, or the design style, and how it affects the appearance of the room. That said, there is a lot of overlap; appearance can affect how a space is used practically (a calming environment can improve productivity), and practical considerations can affect how something is perceived (you might think a chair is beautiful until you find it uncomfortable to sit in). If it helps any, I'd say "environment" is synonymous with "surroundings" and "atmosphere" is equivalent to "ambiance". -- 174.21.236.191 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation! In German, we also talk about "Arbeitsklima". I thought, perhaps wrongly, that "work climate" wasn't a commonly used term in English, but it received google-hits in the same order of magnitude (hundred thousands) as "work atmosphere", though a couple of hundred thousands less. I also checked for "working ..." instead of "work ...", where "working climate" gets significantly less hits than "working atmosphere". ---Sluzzelin talk 07:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to endorse the perceptive distinction made by 174.21.... Marco polo (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation help

Hello; Can you translate this into English, please? Tout le monde! Ola, belle assemblée qui a envie de bouger Pour se laisser aller au rythme de l’année Allez allez allez, il faut en profiter C’est une bonne journée et on va la fêter Chouchou, faut te lever et bouger ton fessier Danser, collé serré pour un baiser salé Prends-moi par le côté, fais-moi ton déhanché Lala, ça va chauffer, je sens le truc monter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.128.153 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on your talk...Google Translation. CTJF83 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

Norwegian text, may you help me please?

Hello, I just came over something in Norwegian that I would like to have translated.

"Mine Damer, mine Herrer, vi beder Dem vendligst om at ikke røge eller spotte i Vognen. Med Vendligst hilsen Selskabet." It was written in some kind of old tramway car, and I am curious to know what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.128.153 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make out, it roughly translates as "Ladies and Gentlemen, we ask you to not smoke or cause a disturbance in the car. Regards, the management" (more literally, "spotte" means "to mock", and "Med Vendligst hilsen Selskabet" translates as "With friendly greetings, the Company"). Either you have made some mistakes in transcribing it, or its an oldish version of Norwegian that is much closer to Danish (not surprising, there are 4 competing versions of the Norwegian language even now, and, according to the Danish, there is only one Nordic language, that the Swedes mis-spell and the Norwegians mis-pronounce (shuffle Nationalities to taste)). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, we kindly ask you not to smoke or spit in the Car. Regards, the Company". The translation of "Spotte" above is also correct (sort of), but in the context I think this is either a mis-spelling of "Spytte" or a valid, archaic form. The ortography seems OK, written Norwegian (the type that the majority uses) has evolved gradually from written Danish over the last 100 years (though they were always pronounced differently), and this is quite close to Danish so I guess from some time around 1900. (Capitalizing nouns also went away in both Norwegian and Danish some time ago, the polite you-form Dem (when still used) is still capitalized). Jørgen (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

Looking for a word, again

Hey, me again. I need a word to go in this blank: "Do not allow any personal fondness you might _______ for this practice to cloud your better judgement". The word in the blank means something like 'keep' or 'indulge', or even 'entertain'. It kind of implies a private patronage. It's on this tip of my tongue but I can't quite put my finger on it. What is the word I'm looking for? 24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor? Deor (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace? Foster? Sustain? Maintain? Espouse? Arakunem^Talk 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold, feel. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say "retain." Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have our permission to go right ahead and say it. :) Actually, I think simplest is best: "have". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, immediately thought "have". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hen ba ix xia jao o ho ho ho

There's a Polish pop band who are now making a career in China and had some of their songs translated into Chinese. According to Polish web sources, one of these songs' Chinese title is Hen ba ix xia jao o ho ho ho. Is it possible to determine how to write it correctly in Chinese script? The original Polish title means roughly "Polka Dotted Panties", so I would expect it's something similar in Chinese. The "o ho ho ho" might not mean anything, kinda like "la la la", I guess. Here's the band performing the song on Youtube; they begin in Polish, but switch to Chinese for the chorus. I don't know whether their Chinese pronunciation is any good though. Thanks in advance. And don't worry, I'm not going to have a tattoo. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I heard any Mandarin in there. And "Hen ba ix xia jao o ho ho ho" is not Hanyu Pinyin (ix and jao are not possible syllables of Hanyu Pinyin). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the band members themselves say "hen ba ix xia jao o ho ho ho" is something meaningless and instantly made up to audibly resemble spoken Chinese: "Majteczki w kropeczki" po chińsku? Proszę bardzo... „Hen ba ix xia jao o ho ho ho". --Theurgist (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They must mean it is made up to visually resemble romanised Chinese when written. I don't think any of the varieties of (Han) Chinese has anything that sounds like "ix". And "O ho ho ho" would probably be read as a jolly Santa Claus laugh. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is ho even a possible syllable of Hanyu Pinyin for Mandarin? I'd think it would have to be either he or hou. Pais (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. "ix", "jao" and "ho" are not valid syllables in Hanyu Pinyin for Mandarin. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ho isn't a valid syllable of Hanyu Pinyin, but is common in, at least, some Cantonese romanizations. (For example, there are lots of HK and Macau people whose last name is "Ho", from 何 (hé) in Hanyu Pinyin.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yuen dian neiku (or yuen dian kuzi) would be Chinese for "polka dot panties" - which is a phrase you'd probably never ever hear in Chinese. I do not see how the phrase above could be translated as anything to do with pokadots or panties. -- kainaw ™ 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I understand that it's either entirely made up or seriously misspelled. Thank a lot to all. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spenneberg Surname

I have searched the web trying to find out what my surname Spenneberg means. Strange i can't find anything. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.224.115 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spenne seems to be a Norse term for fibula, which may be anything from a hairclip to a buckle. Berg means hill or mountain. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it is Mr Bucklemount :-) --Lgriot (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly "Spider-town"? 173.11.0.145 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "Schulze-Spenneberg" in Germany. Your ancestors probably came from there.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Schulze-Spenneberg,+Steinfurt,+Germany&aq=0&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=19.33322,39.418945&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Schulze-Spenneberg+Steinfurt,+North+Rhine-Westphalia,+Germany&z=15

Rojomoke (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

In an article about Diako I StumbledUpon today, I found the phrase, "[t]he most famous person to come from this area is Gabe, and she can go live." Does anyone know what this last part means? Or am I correct to assume it is vandalism (the page has a history of vandalism)? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was vandalism. It started out as this, which was changed to this a few minutes later, went unnoticed for 4 months, was changed to this, and went unnoticed for another three months until you noticed it. I've removed it now. Pais (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference is a dead link. Astronaut (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly presenting a bracketed phrase

From Sarah Palin lede:

She served as governor from December 2006 until she resigned in July 2009. She cited a series of dismissed ethics complaints — which she described as "frivolous" — and a desire to not become a lame duck governor as reasons for her resignation.

This is the current sentence stream. The 'em' dashes look out of place and miss-used. Is it because they should be used without spaces,

She served as governor from December 2006 until she resigned in July 2009. She cited a series of dismissed ethics complaints—which she described as "frivolous"—and a desire to not become a lame duck governor as reasons for her resignation.

Or, would parentheses work better?

She served as governor from December 2006 until she resigned in July 2009. She cited a series of dismissed ethics complaints (which she described as "frivolous") and a desire to not become a lame duck governor as reasons for her resignation.

Or, is there a fourth (and preferred) way.Buster Seven Talk 13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about commas: She cited a series of dismissed ethics complaints, which she described as "frivolous", and a desire.... I'd also change "described as" to "called" and "to not become" to "not to become". (I don't object to all split infinitives across the board, but that's an easily avoidable one.) Pais (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that em dashes shouldn't be used with spaces (see WP:MOSDASH). Beyond that, they're not really necessary for such a short phrase either (they are usually used for something that requires a larger prosodic break) and this sentence would be fine with just commas. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Tony1/How to use hyphens and dashes.—Wavelength (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a user page, not a guideline page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still useful, though. It's written by a user who is very knowledgeable in these things and it's an accurate reflection of the preferred usage (at least in my dialect). And, because that user is very active in the WP:FA process and a lot of people use his userpages as a standard, many of the Good and Featured Articles on Wikipedia reflect the usages in those pages. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent page! I thought I knew all the answers, and discovered that I didn't! Dbfirs 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Canadian weather" example, I disagree with the answer, ironically enough for the very reasons the answer gives. I would write By midafternoon, the low pressure area had moved east into Ontario. The notes say "'Mid-' anything is usually hyphenated by convention, probably because 'mid' itself isn't a whole word, yet doesn't jam into the noun nicely the way some prefixes do." I'd say the very fact that "mid" isn't a whole word (mid vowels notwithstanding) is sufficient reason not to hyphenate. The rule I follow is never to hyphenate a bound morpheme with two exceptions: where two is would come up next to each other (e.g. anti-intellectual), or where the main word is capitalized (e.g. un-American). The notes also say "There's no such thing as a 'pressure area', which could be low or high." Again, I'd say that's the reason not to hyphenate it: "low pressure area" isn't ambiguous. It can only mean "area of low pressure", so no hyphen is necessary. Double adjectives only need to be hyphenated if the phrase would be confusing or ambiguous without the hyphen. Pais (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean about the low pressure area, though I personally prefer the hyphenated form because it makes clear that the area can be high, but the pressure there is low. I shrink with horror, however from the neologism "midafternoon"! It does have an entry in Wiktionary, but not in the OED, so perhaps usage varies by region. Would you also write midmorning, midevening, midocean, midoff, midon (etc.) where you live? Dbfirs 17:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't play cricket, "mid off" and "mid-on" are fielding positions, in that article the mid- prefix is used varyingly. Of course, the point would be moot it you didn't use the words yourself. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I know nothing at all about cricket and so would never write "mid-off" and "mid-on" with or without a hyphen anyway. Midmorning, midevening, and midocean all look fine to me, although I would hyphenate between mid and a numeral, e.g. mid-1990s. Pais (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem to be a difference in conventions between British and American English. Tony1 was evidently following the British (and Commonwealth?) convention. To my British eyes, "midocean" looks preposterous "(my-doh-see-an)", but then, I was taught to put a hyphen in "to-day", so my personal preferences are out of date even in modern British terms where the hyphen in "to-day" died out around fifty years ago. The general tendency is for two separate words to be linked by a hyphen when they become closely associated, and for the hyphen to gradually disappear over time. Americans are just further along this road, and I've got left behind! Dbfirs 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there's another school of language users who just concatenate words - alot, awhile, atleast, ... - and have turned run-on sentences (or is that "runon" these days?) into a highly developed art form. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excessiveconcatenation (Germanfashion) seems to be the instyle in some artforms. Dbfirs 09:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

What is going on here? No question for 36 hours? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It happens, lol GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

February 2

Vets In Practice

This is a question about British-English spelling. There used to be a BBC television series called Vets in Practice.

I am confused - according to the British-english spelling rule discussed here recently, it's "ice" for a noun, and "ise" for a verb. Yet would not the sense of practi*e in the title be a verb, so it ought to be spelt practise?

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons article includes the text that the public can "rest assured that their individual vet is properly qualified and fit to practise, and now the same assurance can apply to practice premises". So was the series title an over-subtle pun?

I am very unclear about the phrase "in practi*e", such as "While reputed to be boring, accountancy in prati*e is fascinating" - is it an noun or verb? How is it spelt in British-english? Thanks 92.24.191.10 (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My veterinary friends here in Australia run a Veterinary Practice. Practice there is a noun. Not sure about "...in Practice". I'd be happy with a bit each way. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is obviously a noun. I don't see why the phrase "in practice" confuses you: preposition "in" cannot possibly precede a verb. No such user (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, it is clearly a noun. Think about "Women in business". DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So regarding "I had to pan my camera while taking photos of racehorses in training", the "in training" bit is not a verb phrase? The "in practi*e" part means you are doing something, ie a verb. "Women in business" means that they are busy making goods or providing services - surely a verb and not a noun. 2.97.220.121 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I business, you business, she businesses ..... - I rather think not. "I will be attending training this morning" is no different from "I will be attending school" or "I will be attending the brothel" - these words are all nouns. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that defining parts of speech adequately can be complicated. The old notion that a noun is a "person, place, or thing" and that a verb denotes an "action" are inadequate; you pointed out yourself that "practice" in this phrase seems to mean a kind of action. But that's true for a lot of words that are obviously nouns, e.g. execution in "The sergeant carried out the execution."

JackofOz gave one way to figure this out: to try to inflect the word. *"She businesses" (a verb inflection) does not work, but "two businesses" (the plural noun inflection) does.
Another property of nouns is that they can serve as the subject, object, or predicative complement, or as the object of a preposition. "Business is booming these days" (subject); "Mind your own business" (object); "Mr. Jones is an opponent of big business" (object of a prep.).
Training is a gerund, which is a little more complicated. In form it is the same as the present participle (I am training the employees), but functionally it is more like a noun: "I love this training"; "The trainings are tedious". Unlike normal nouns, however, it can take an object. "Training the employees is tedious."
Practice the verb was also derived from a noun, but through other means, in the 15th century or earlier. Despite its similarity to its verb cousin, however, it is a noun through and through. In "vets in practice," practice is the object of a preposition, in. You can theoretically replace practice with any other noun: business, town, school. It doesn't work with verbs, however: *"Vets in eat"; *"Vets in operate on horses". "Vets in love" does work, but love here is the noun, not the verb.

If you can get your hands on it and have the patience, I'd recommend looking up the relevant sections in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language or the shorter student version, both of which go into much greater detail. Hope this helps. Lesgles (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that a gerund is a "non-finite verb form". So therefore, "training" is a kind of verb. As would be running and driving below. 92.15.14.91 (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about "I am in business, your are in business, she is in business" compared with "I am running, you are running, she is running"? Or "I had to pan my camera while taking photos of racehorses running", or "Women running". You are going to tell me that running or driving are not verbs? 2.97.220.121 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, close edits. See about training above, but I'll try to clarify. "Am in business" and "am running" are similar in that they're both predicates; they make some proposition about the subject, I. But predicate is a larger category than either noun or verb. Your first example has a prepositional phrase "in business" which serves as a complement to the verb am. That phrase is neither a noun or a verb in itself, but it contains the noun business. The second contains the verb run in the present progressive tense (see grammatical aspect, which in English is formed with the auxiliary verb to be and a present participle in -ing. In your last examples, the participle is used to modify the nouns racehorses and women. Lesgles (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "in" is the clue - you can be in business, or in a cave, or in America. You can't be "in" a verb. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As Lesgles pointed out earlier, "running" and "driving" in these contexts are deverbal adjectives (specifically, participles).

Just because something expresses action or activity doesn't mean it's a verb. "Verb" is a syntactic category, defined by the role it plays in the structure of a sentence, and not a semantic element defined by whether it expresses "activity" or "thing". Nouns can also express action (e.g., "the defeat of the army"—"defeat" expresses an action or event but it plays the role of a noun in the sentence's structure). In your "running" example, "racehorses running" has the same meaning as "racehorses that are running", but running in the latter example is a verb within a relative clause whereas in the former example it's an adjective. Both words express the same meaning but are at different places in the sentence structure.

So, to go back to your original question: while "in practice" or "in business" semantically expresses an activity that they are doing, syntactically they are sitting where the object of the preposition "in" sits. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "in Practice" part of the expression actually adjectival, in that it describes the Vets? Think about "Vets in retirement". The word "in" is an important bit here. Of course, I don't know whether the adjectival form should contain an s or a c. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this case the prepositional phrase is used adjectivally, but that doesn't change the spelling of the object of the preposition in the phrase, which is still a noun, just like retirement. Lesgles (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So semantics and syntax are out of kilter for verbs? 92.15.14.91 (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin & Spanish

Are they the same? GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why. GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Read the articles, and find out for yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn: you might want to read the article on Spanish and the one on Romance languages. "Romance" is the term for languages that have their origins in so-called Vulgar Latin, the Latin of ordinary people as opposed to Roman aristocrats. To oversimplify, Spanish (and other Romance languages like French and Italian) is a linguistic grandchild of Latin. To overextend the metaphor, you are descended from and share genes with your grandparent, but the two of you are not (presumably) the same person. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're Philip J. Fry. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) But your approach is colossally wrong-headed, Glenn. For some reason known only to yourself and God, and without even apparently bothering to check out Latin or Spanish language, you seem to have assumed they're the same language. You come here for confirmation, you are quickly disabused of your assumption, and you then demand "explain why". Where do you get off? It's like demanding to know why Barack Obama and Hosni Mubarak aren't one and the same person. It's suspiciously trollish behaviour, and that can only lead to a bad outcome. For you. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for us to explain it here. A quick look at the articles Latin language and Spanish language will explain the basic idea. The languages are closely related, but not the same thing at all. Spanish evolved from Latin, but has diverged into a separate, different language, because it is used by far more people far more often than Latin. JIP | Talk 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sounding like a troll yourself, I was just asking a question. No need to get out of hand... GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

If you go to the top of any Reference Desk page, you'll see this Q & A:

Is there any way I can get a faster answer?

Yes, you can search first. Please do this.

I'd encourage you to do that, because by your own admission on one of the other pages, you asked before looking. You're not the first person to do so, but now you're aware that people providing responses aren't obligated to do so. Not only is Wikipedia the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's the one anyone can search. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also direct you to the article Language change, which will help to answer your question why. Marco polo (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since this is the language help desk, it's pertinent to note that the request "Would you explain why, please", is a more appropriate way to address volunteers than the order "explain why". More likely to get you the answer you want. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic numbers

In which order are numbers in arabic read/pronounced ? Left to right as in European languages, i.e. (roughly) millions first, then thousands, then hundreds, then multiples of ten, then multiples of one? Or right to left?

I know how in which order the numbers are written, I just wondered if the order of reading changed upon adoption by the Europeans. Arabic numerals does not really make that clear. Yaan (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even in English, numbers are not always read from left to right. For example, 19 is read "nine-teen". -- Irene1949 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to congratulate you on your command of English numbers. ;)

I had actually hoped that the word 'roughly' would make sufficiently clear that I am not so interested in the little subtleties of how numbers are read in English. Also I am not really interested in European languages that follow a 'twenty and one' rule, but otherwise still read numbers from left to right.

Basically, I had hoped someone could tell me what 1234567890 looks like in Arabic words, and which of the words/compounds are for which power of 10. Thinking of it, Farsi might be OK too, and Turkish would at least be interesting. Yaan (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually the biggest first, like we do it. "1001 Nights" for example is "alf layl wa layla", literally "a thousand nights and one night". They wouldn't say "one and a thousand". However, for smaller numbers, the smaller number comes first; "twenty-three" is "thalath wa ashrayn", "three and twenty". For "1234567890" it would start with "one billion", etc, and the only difference would be in the tens ("two hundred and four-and-thirty", and so on). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more under Arabic writing, mentioning telephone numbers too, but unreferenced. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the OP is trying to ask may be answered like this: '23' in Arabic is written '23', same as in European languages, but is read as 'three-and-twenty', and is read from right to left in this way, and in keeping with the script. '123', however, would be read 'a hundred and three and twenty', and not 'three and twenty and a hundred', for some reason. Now I am not sure which stick I've got the wrong end of.... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the OP asked about Turkish, the order there is the same as the English one: 23 is yirmi üç, which is litterally "twenty three". 123 is yüz yirmi üç, also litterally "hundred twenty three". --Xuxl (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's initial question seemed to be predicated on the fact that Arabic is written right to left, but the numerals are written left to right. Turkish is written left to right, so there is unlikely to be a conflict when reading. --Jayron32 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Turkish was written right to left until about 90 years ago. Presumably the way numbers are pronounced didn't change at the same time the writing system did. Pais (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Endianness#History (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was creating computer systems for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The terminals were Arabic. As you typed, the letters moved from right to left, since Arabic is read right to left. But when you typed numbers, they appeared left to right, since that's the way Arabic numbers are read. What was the funniest, to a person used to the Roman alphabet, is that Arabic characters are written differently depending on whether they appear at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of a word, so as you typed letters, they changed shape on the screen. Corvus cornix_talk 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

Plurals of English nouns ending in "i" [?]

Hello, again!

I'm curious about how one pluralises words ending in <consonant> + i. The article on English plural makes no mention of it.

I've always assumed that one simply adds -s in these cases, not -es. (With some very rare exceptions, such as chili chilies, and Wadi Wadies.)

But several dictionaries state that, in words not derived from Latin or Italian, the -es suffix is perfectly acceptable. eg. taxi taxies

As far as I'm aware, the highly respected Oxford English Dictionary frowns upon this doctrine. Does anybody here know how other sources such as New Fowler, Strunk and White, Garner Legal, or Thomas Kane feel about this?

--Thank you! Pine (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that none of them approve the addition of an apostrophe.

Never seen "taxies" as a plural (and I speak as a former taxi driver, so I am obviously an expert on any topic you care to name ... ). "The aircraft slowly taxies (v.) to the terminal" cf. "I had to take two taxis (n.) to get home from the airport". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler's Modern English Usage devotes a whole page to "plural anomolies" but doesn't mention words ending in "i". Taxi is an abbreviation of "taximeter cab" so you could (just maybe) make a case that an apostrophe denotes the missing letters. Alansplodge (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's drawing a very long bow; but if one could justify it that way, then it'd also apply in the singular, wouldn't it? ("Here comes a taxi' now" - No, I'd rather wait for a 'bus). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I really like the archery analagy BTW; I might save that for later on. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever seeing "wadies," which must be wadis for off-duty taxies. I'm also sure that kiwi does not derive from Latin, and the plural I see most often (other that "kiwi" for a bunch of birds, the way you'd say "there are lion in the bush") is "kiwis." --- OtherDave (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are lion in the bush"? Who would say that? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who didn't think they were sheep or deer? Actually, I think your right about Lion though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED marks the plural taxies as obsolete, but does record wadies. On the other hand, the Merriam-Webster Collegiate records taxies (after a qualifying "also"), but doesn't mention "wadies." Frankly, I think dictionaries are the best source here, not usage commentators. Dictionaries will give you facts about what is actually used and let you make up your own mind, rather than giving you one person's opinion as some books tend to do. Clearly, taxis and wadis are the most common choice and are therefore least likely to be noticed. Note also alkalies or alkalis. 82.124.101.35 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, chilies, taxies and alkalies are the most common exceptions. 82.124.101.35 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxies looks wrong to me. It's a pity though. It ought to be the plural; then we could have "taxis" rhyme with "praxis", as it ought to.

This is the reason I prefer zeroes to zeros — the latter looks to me as though it should rhyme with either CMOS or BIOS (BIOS as in basic in/out system, not as in the plural of "bio"). --Trovatore (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Trov? Because "go" and "do" are inflected as "goes" and "does", so every word that ends in "o" has to follow the same pattern? That sort of thinking - making words look as we think they ought to look - is how we have a word that rhymes with "loco" but is spelt "cocoa" (cf. load, boat, road etc). And why "Napoli", which looks like an Italian plural, was rendered in English as "Naples". And similar examples. Why not "ratioes" or "radioes"? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be better spellings, yes. Heroes, tomatoes. It's too bad the distinction wasn't kept consistent, so that terminal os could be pronounced confidently with the soft /s/ instead of the hard /z/. --Trovatore (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe pronunciation has anything to do with it. Are there any plural nouns whose final s, where preceded by a vowel (houses, ratios, lamas ...) or a vowel sound (voters, ...) is not pronounced /z/? I doubt it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I doubt there's any such thing, unless say the plural of pathos is also pathos. But that's because pluralizing s is pronounced /z/. That's why you put the "e" before it in plurals like heroes and tomatoes. As I say, it's just too bad it wasn't done consistently. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the plural of Coke is Cokes, the plural of Pepsi must be Pepsis. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic; but apparently the official plural of the Euro is "Euro" because "Euros" is a homophone for the Greek word meaning to urinate ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whose father?

Quoting from our article John Relyea.

"He was born in Toronto, Canada[2] to Gary Relyea, one of Canada's well-known opera singers and Anna Tamm-Relyea, also a professional singer[3].

John Relyea is a 1998 graduate of the Curtis Institute of Music, in Philadelphia and studied under renowned opera bass Jerome Hines as well as his father."

"his father" means John Relyea's father, not Jerome Hines's father. Is there a concise way to eliminate the ambiguity without naming the father again?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "... graduate of the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia and, like his father, studied under renowned opera bass Jerome Hines"? --173.49.13.226 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read a different meaning: "Relyea is a 1998 graduate of Philadelphia's Curtis Institute of Music. He studied with his father and also with renowned opera bass Jerome Hines." Bielle (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle's interpretation agrees with the reference. I've taken out "also". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of sentence

Some grammar books classify sentences into 5 types - 1. assertive (statement), 2. interrogative (question), 3. imperative (command or entreaty), 4. optative (wish) and 5. exclamatory (strong feeling). On the other hand, other grammar books classify sentences into 4 types - 1. assertive (statement), 2. interrogative (question), 3. imperative (command; entreaty, or wish), 4. exclamatory (strong feeling). Wikipedia does the second. So, the controversy surrounds Optative sentence. Is it wrong to classify sentences into 5 types? Please help, I'm confused. --ZZOlak (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have an official "endorsement" or anything; these articles are written by random people like you and me. The article you linked is a very brief overview; our article on Grammatical mood (which is what this type of sentence classification is called) lists many more types, and we have an article specifically on optative mood.

Overall, it's just a matter of how specific you want to be. If you want a general summary, 4 or 5 is fine. If you need to be really specific (for example, if you need to clarify the difference between optative and jussive moods), then you would adopt more specific classes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an ambiguity about what the scope of that classification is meant to be. Are you looking for a classification of grammatical sentence types (i.e. different classes of grammatical forms), or a classification of speech acts (i.e. communicative functions a sentence is used for)? These are not the same. If you think of the sentences "Oh that it were possible" and "may you ever prosper", both express "wishes", but grammatically they are quite different. Likewise "what a fine morning!", "oh shit!", "what the heck?" and "oh that's wonderful!" are all "exclamations" of strong feeling, but grammatically they all belong to different classes. So, I doubt either "exclamatory" or "optative" correspond to well-defined formal classes of sentences in English. The next thing you need to consider is that classifications of sentence types are heavily language-dependent. So, what language are you talking about, English? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, classification of sentences (based on their purpose) in the English language. --ZZOlak (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to strictly look at classification based on purpose, then you should read about Illocutionary force, which refers to the pragmatic goal of a sentence. (For example: "can you pass the salt" is a question, but in actual communication it's not interpreted as a question but as a request or demand.) The classification you gave above is one of grammatical moods, but those moods can convey different types of illocutionary force (as in the example I just gave, where "interrogative" sentences can encode questions or demands). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't actually say they are "moods", technically, at least not in English. "Mood" is generally taken to be a morphological category of the verb. The types we are dealing with here are syntactically defined (sentences with and without subject-verb inversion, wh-movement etc., overt subjects, etc.) Only in the case of the imperative does the sentence type also correlate with something which in other (inflectional) languages also often is a mood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be picky, but all of the link articles give English examples of different moods. I think English definitely does have mood, it just don't mark it morphologically like ancient Greek. The fact that the mood is handled with auxiliary verbs doesn't mean that there is not a grammatically distinct semantic content that can be described by mood. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Sorry, but what I was just trying to explain is that this inherently an oversimplification. You cannot really classify sentences based on their purpose, because there is no one-to-one mapping between sentence types and communicative purposes. Communicative purpose is, strictly speaking, a matter of speech acts, i.e. "utterances", not sentences. However, in English, there are grammatical types of sentences that loosely correlate to classes of communicative acts (statements, questions and so on.) The influential Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al., 1985), §11.1, distinguishes the same four "major types" you found in the Wikipedia article: declaratives, interrogatives, imperatives and exclamatives, plus a number of minor or irregular types that don't fit in any of these main categories. I don't know what exactly you meant by the "optative" type you said you found in some other books, so I can't tell you where in the Quirk et al. scheme they would fit in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly any system of typology or of taxonomy can have variations of classification involving differences in combination and separation.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French words entering English

Why is it that English words that originally entered from French (specifically in the historic period beginning with the Norman invasion, not modern imports), often turn out to be closer in spelling to the Latin words they are derived from than what they looked like in the Old French they entered from. I had a pretty good example but I cannot remember it, so I'll have to give a substandard example: the word choir is derived from Old French quer, but it looks much more like the Latin chorus than the Old French. This example is substandard because it is possible there has been interference from the French chœur, but there are examples where no such interference is present and this still happens. Why? 24.92.70.160 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason is that standard orthography came much later than the linguistic changes you are noting. Spoken language changes are generally treated by many linguists as completely independent from written language changes. People learn to speak before they write; it is quite possible to be eloquent and illiterate at the same time. There's not guaranteed to be a correlation between the two. The key thing is how the words are pronounced moreso than how they are written. Modern English spelling came much later, and even then there are distinct differences between 'official' spellings of the same word in varieties of English (c.f. "jail" vs. "gaol") In the period just after the Norman invasion, there is likely to be a wide varience in spelling of the same word. --Jayron32 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sometimes it's because of etymologically influenced spelling in English. For example, debt started being spelled with a silent b to more closely resemble Latin debitum, but that didn't happen in French dette. (Though it did happen in French in other words, e.g. sept "seven", respelled with a silent p to more closely resemble Latin septem.) In other cases, English borrowed words directly from Latin rather than through the intermediary of French. If the same word entered French by linguistic inheritance rather than borrowing, it could be changed more heavily than the borrowed English word. For example, English potion is more like Latin potio than French poison, because the English word is borrowed directly from Latin, while the French word is inherited from Latin and so underwent all the usual sound changes. Pais (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the spelling is influenced by the Anglo-Norman or initial Norman pronunciation, not the other forms of Old French that developed into Modern French. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a real hardcore adventure in English spelling, check out Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, someone besides me uses the phrases "hardcore adventure" and "English spelling" in the same sentence! Lexicografía (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject - Verb - Object" - and exceptions

At school I leant that S - V - O is the correct sequence in English sentences. But as I observed 22:53, 10 December 2010, in some cases the grammatical subject follows the verb, especially when it is the verb “says” or “said”, like in this sentence: "And this," said the Director opening the door, "is the Fertilizing Room." (to be found it here). Now I have come across a different example. In his book Freedom evolves, Daniel C. Dennett wrote, describing an idea of somebody else: "Only if foresighted, purposeful agents have been manipulating you for their own ends are you absolved from personal responsibility for the actions undertaken by your body;" Why can it be are you instead of you are? Is there any regularity which might help me to see in which cases such a sequence is correct? -- Irene1949 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely correct. SVO is the most common (or dominant) and perhaps the basic sentence order in English, but there are many alternate structures that may come about due to structural transformations (e.g. SVO "You saw John?" can change to OSV "Who did you see?") or special focus structures or stylistic structures (e.g. "into the room came a man"). The whole idea of dividing languages up into "SVO languages", "SOV languages", etc., is not universally accepted by linguists. You can see our article on word order typology for more information. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I found that word order typology is an interesting article. Change of word order in questions is quite familiar to me, as my mother tongue is German. In English, it seems to be a little more difficult. You say "Who did you see", you don't say "Who saw you?" or "Whom saw you?" There are several reasons why this is easier in German. First thing, we'd never use the nominative pronoun "Wer" ("Who") instead of the accusative pronoun "Wen" ("Whom"). And then, Germans make much more use of inflection: for example "Du" (nominative for "you") is different from "Dich" (accusative for "you").-- 91.34.176.111 (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do say "Who saw you?" (to ask which person did see you). We don't say *"whom saw you", for reasons you hinted at; while English doesn't have a lot of case distinctions, one of the few we do have is who-whom (who is nominative, whom is accusative). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(If what you're hinting at with "whom saw you" is an OVS word order for questions, we can sometimes say that in fossilized phrases, such as "What say you?" rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Cyrillic

hello,

which transliteration system is the standard to romanize the Russian cyrillic alphabet; is it ISO 9? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 23:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard according to who, and for which language? For Russian, you should check out this article. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skirting the issue, unwillingness to ask for something directly.

What's the term used to describe the behavior or characteristic of someone who asks for favors without actually asking for them. They just skirt and hint at the issue and hope or expect that eventually someone will OFFER the favor without them actually having to ask directly for it, as if others are obliged to them or it somehow absolves them of reciprocating the favor since they didn't actually ask for it. Not having any luck googling. Vespine (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectness? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being circumspect? Angling / fishing? I guess the OP is asking for something with negative connotations, but the same behaviour will probably be viewed as either proper or suspect depending on the cultural context... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

span

whats this mean voce entende quando voce masturba-se

@@ Line 305: / Line 305: @@
 :Indirectness? <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 :: Being circumspect? Angling / fishing? I guess the OP is asking for something with negative connotations, but the same behaviour will probably be viewed as either proper or suspect depending on the cultural context... --[[User:PalaceGuard008|PalaceGuard008]] ([[User_Talk:PalaceGuard008|Talk]]) 23:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
+== span ==
+whats this mean  voce entende quando voce masturba-se

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language: Difference between revisions