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

January 3

Apostrophe & Pronunciation

I was just reading an article on the BBC about Louis XVI of France, and it was mentioning his blood and DNA, etc., and I saw that it said " Louis' 16th Century predecessor" (talking about another king). Considering the 's' in this name is not pronounced, how would the pronunciation be with the apostrophe? Would it be pronounced as /z/, or left unpronounced? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that "Louis" (the name) is said "LOO-ee" when refering to the French Kings, then when Louis owns something, we say it is "LOO-eez", regardless of how it is spelled. --Jayron32 00:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. Cheers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly pronounce it as /z/ (it would rhyme exactly like Huey's or Dewey's; or Louie's, for that matter), for which reason I would write the apostrophe-s in (Louis's). This so-called rule that says words ending in -s do not take apostrophe-s has to be tweaked for words ending in silent s like Louis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The BBC spelling violates most style rules that I know. Some style guides recommend a singular possessive ending in an apostrophe (without a subsequent 's') after classical names such as Heracles or Jesus, but not after modern names such as Louis, especially names that end in a silent 's'. Possibly the BBC's style guide calls for that spelling, but in my opinion it is nonstandard and should be Louis's. Marco polo (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That is also what I suspected, and this is why I found it odd, and decided to ask. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, some style books have indeed called for no extra s specifically for words that end in a silent s, the CMOS, for instance, in one of their editions. They have vacillated, though; compare the 15th and 16th editions:

15th ed.: "To avoid an awkward appearance, an apostrophe without an s may be used for the possessive of singular words and names ending in an unpronounced s. Opt for this practice only if you are comfortable with it and are certain that the s is indeed unpronounced."

16th ed. "In a return to Chicago’s earlier practice, words and names ending in an unpronounced s form the possessive in the usual way (with the addition of an apostrophe and an s). This practice not only recognizes that the additional s is often pronounced but adds to the appearance of consistency with the possessive forms of other types of proper nouns."

In the 16th edition they stopped recommending Euripides' too. Lesgles (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a good "rule" is that one should be guided by the prevailing (or at least one's preferred) pronunciation of a term and add an apostrophe-s if it is pronounced with "suhz" at the end. Thus, for some people, "Jesus's disciples" but "Euripides' tragedies". I recall reading this in a book on punctuation; don't have the title with me right now. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good rule too! I tend to pronounce the singular possessive pretty much everywhere, so I write Euripides's. Lesgles (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Euripides trousers, you menda these trousers" (Eumenides) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "slew"

How widespread or acceptable is the pronunciation of "slew" as "slyoo" (rather than "sloo")? I'm thinking particularly of the sense "large number of". 86.160.219.242 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe StyewRat can answer this one for a change,  :) - Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is pronounced "slyoo" (/slju:/) in any region that does not exhibit yod-dropping. It is accepted (as in understood without being construed as a mispronunciation) universally and in some varieties of English (particularly RP) it is the "prestige" pronunciation (soutenue, as we would say in French). 72.128.82.131 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yod-dropping? expect we don't have any articles on yod-dropping. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My yod dropped to learn that we do, or atleast a redirect to a section on it. --Jayron32 03:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

American Heritage [1] and Webster's only list one pronunciation - not two. I am not sure two pronunciations are universally accepted. Rmhermen (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

American Heritage is a U.S. dictionary, while "Webster's" by itself is meaningless (anyone can publish a dictionary and call it a "Webster") but also suggests a U.S. orientation. No surprise that American dictionaries would not include a British pronunciation... AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the point I was making. Rmhermen (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's generally pronounced "sloo" in British English - the OED and the Chambers Dictionary lists only that pronunciation. The "yoo" sound is not usually heard after an L, especially with another consonant before it, as in flue, flew, flute, glue, where it would (to my ears) sound rather affected. Even in "lute", where OED and Chambers give both pronunciations, it sounds odd to me. The yod-dropping section mentioned above says "Yod-dropping before [uː] occurs in most varieties of English [...] [a]fter consonant+/l/ clusters". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to comment earlier that the OP was completely wrong and that no one would pronounce "slew" as "slyoo", and then thought better of it. Part of the problem could be with the OP's spelling of the pronunciation "slyoo". It seemed to me to have 2 syllables: "sly" and "oo" and therefore definitely wrong. However, looking at the pronunciation of similar sounding words such as pew (pronounced as /pjuː/), I think I can see what the OP is getting at. While Wiktionary only has the "sloo" pronounciation (as /sluː/), I have indeed heard /sljuː/, usually in RP and Welsh accents. Astronaut (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've heard it said on television that the British RP pronunciation of "suit" /sjut:/ is rapidly losing ground to /sut:/. Perhaps "slew" is part of the same process. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Welsh English is weird in having [ɪʊ̯] (or [ɪw]) where most other dialects have [juː], with the result that it contrasts "ue/ew" with "oo" in a lot of places where other dialects have merged them, e.g. chews is distinct from choose and rude is distinct from rood. I'm not sure if yew is distinct from you (or if it is, if ewe is homophonous with yew or distinct yet again), but I would fully expect slew to be [slɪʊ̯]. Angr (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Some American dialects might have something close to [slɪʊ̯] too, on account that /u/ is fronted either in most positions or triggered by coronals. Since the OP doesn't seem to know IPA, such a pronunciation (Welsh or American) would sound somewhat like "sliw" - a short i followed by w (unless the OP already has this, in which case they probably won't notice). Lsfreak (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Some regions of northern English also have /sljuː/. I'm surprised that neither Wiktionary nor the OED allows this as an alternative. Dbfirs 08:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"more slender" or "slenderer"?

Google searching reveals about 8 times as many hits for "more slender" and dictionary sites seem to use both. Wiktionary defines "slenderer" as "more slender". It is far from conclusive, but "slenderer" just sounds odd to me. Astronaut (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The OED redirects "slenderer" to its entry on "slender". The citations for "slenderer" are pretty ancient (17th century for " Females vsually in euery kind haue lesse & slenderer feet than males.", 18th century for " Roundness makes it appear slenderer than it really is."). It sounds pretty odd, child-like almost, to my ears, so I'd continue to use "more slender" if I were you doktorb _words^deeds 09:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds odd to me too, probably because of the repeated syllable 'er'. Comparative is not much help (as well as being  : it says that 'more' is used instead of '-er' for 'polysyllabic words borrowed from foreign languages', but that would imply that one should use words such as 'beautifuler'. I've just been involved in a production of Bat Boy: The Musical, in which one of the songs uses the obviously-'wrong' word 'normaler'. Is there a better rule? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I blitzed that nonsense sentence in the comparative article. The rule of thumb is use -er for one syllable words, -ier for two syllable words ending in -y, and more/less/fewer for longer words. But there are exceptions of course, cleverer is perfectly acceptable. - filelakeshoe 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Old saying: "The hurrieder we go, the behinder we get." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Number governed by "each"

Greetings to each and every one of you.

I was always taught that "each" requires a singular verb. But that's not always the case:

• sentences of the form "Each of the X does Y" take a singular verb,
• but sentences of the form "X and Y each do Z" take a plural verb.

Here's a sentence I've just come across in Electoral system of Australia that uses both types of construction:

• The Australian Senate has 76 members: each of the six states elects 12 Senators, and the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) each elect two Senators.

Despite the apparent inconsistency, it reads OK to me and I have no plans to change it.

Can someone explain to me what makes the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's agreeing with the singular and plural subjects. In the first part, "each of the six states" is a singular subject, while in the second part "the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory" is a plural subject. --Viennese Waltz 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mostly it requires a singular subject, however when the adjective follows a plural subject, the verb agrees with the subject. Simple. Question solved. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the appearance of a singular/plural conflict is mitigated if the second clause is reworded to "the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) elect two Senators each". Deor (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

[Ah yes. Deor posted while I was composing my contribution.]

Voyons, mes petits:

1. the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) each elect two Senators

Simplifying harmlessly, the subject is "NT and ACT"; it is not "each". As Viennese Waltz says, above. So the verb agrees with a plural subject: "elect", not "elects". This can be seen more clearly if we distance "each" from "NT and ACT", or remove it entirely:

2. NT and ACT elect two Senators each

3. NT and ACT elect two Senators

Now, what is lacking from 3, exactly? The meaning is still there, but compromised by ambiguity. It lacks the clear distributivity that is secured in 1 and 2 by "each". Having that role, "each" cannot itself be taken as plural, in more formal registers at least. This has lately broken down. Many more people these days make sentences in which a pronoun "each" (or a fused head "each", as some say; or whatever!) gets a plural verb form. Compare replacement of "none is" by "none are", which is very widely accepted of course.

Noetica^Tea? 12:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• We just had this same exact discussion four months ago. See this thread. Each behaves as three parts of speech

(1) Each of the children studies two languages. (singular pronoun governing a singular verb)

(2) Each child has his own instructor. (adjective modifying a singular noun)

(3) They each recite poems they compose in class. (adverb modifying a verb governed by a plural subject)

• In Jack's example above, the first each is a singular pronoun governing a singular verb, in the second instance it is an adverb meaning 'individually' and the inherently plural subject governs the plural verb, modified by the adverbial 'each'. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's quite clear now. Thanks to all (and to each). Special mentions to Medeis and Noetica. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A later thought. The word "each" is performing the same logical function in each of its uses in the example I gave. But they have different syntactical functions, and hence are governed by different rules. It's the (essentially irrelevant) logical sense that I was focussing on, that was stopping me seeing the real reason for the difference. Most intriguing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It will also help if you realise that the adverbial use must always occur with a plural verb (*He each recited a poem) while the other uses always occur with a singular verb. (*Each have his own instructor.) Of course the tendency toward singular they confuses the latter point. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And further confused by the tendency to use both "both" and "each" in the same construction ("Both of them each have their own instructor", or "Each of them both have their own instructor", or "Both of them have their own instructor each"). It's as if these words mean the same thing (they don't) - but even if they did, that would still be an intentional tautology, so I dunno why they do it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bar at the top of the letter J

In the letter J, is the bar which sometimes goes across the top considered a serif or something else? To me it certainly seems bigger than a serif, but some typefaces set it exactly like a serif. Contrast to the letter T, where nobody would render the bar across the top as a mere serif. In typefaces that make it bigger than a typical serif, what is that thing called? (If anything.) Staecker (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a serif. Most sans-serif fonts don't provide a bar, though some include something similar to the serifs occasionally added to 'I' to help distinguish the latter from 'l' and '1'. -- Elphion (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a serif. For reasons which escape me, it is often exaggerated in Japanese fonts so that it looks more like a hybrid of J and T, but in traditional typefaces, it’s a regular serif, just as in an I.—Emil J. 16:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Our article on the letter has disappointing little on the history of the shape of it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Typeface anatomy is an OK article, and it has a nifty graphic. --Jayron32 18:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite true, but how does it help with the subject? As far as I can see, the only part of J it mentions is its tail (the thing down left).—Emil J. 19:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It goes through various shapes of serifs, so a specific top serif on a J (with or without additional flourishes) can be described. --Jayron32 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Some font designs include J with a left-sided top horizontal bar (to use the terminology from that article) - the Consolas font being one. I don't consider these to be serifs, which the same article suggests are smaller flourishes consistently applied. Bazza (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Some "J" glyphs have no bar at the top, others have "J" with a bar to the left, and still others have "J" with bars to both sides. It's not a serif, as you can find sans serif fonts that include a capital "J" glyph with bars to both sides (Kahlo black is an example). It's just a variation in font design. - Nunh-huh 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Our article Regional handwriting variation says: The capital letter J — In Germany, this letter is often written with a long stroke to the left at the top. This is to distinguish it from the capital letter "I". As a Dutchman I can add: this is also common in Dutch. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Martin

Japanese question

Hi! What is the Japanese text in File:Marunouchi London Street 1920s.jpg? I want to make an annotation with that text. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It reads from right to left. And from left to right, it would be "馬場先通ヨリ宮城ヲ望ム". BTW, there's a similar postcard. Oda Mari (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mari! What are the last two characters on the first postcard (in parenthenses)? What is the rest of the Japanese on the second postcard? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the characters in brackets could be 東京 (Tokyo). 86.146.105.126 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC) ... by the way, what is the significance of the word "London" in "Marunouchi London Street 1920s"?

I think the other card reads （東京名所）馬場先門ヨリ宮城ヲ望ム (= (Famous places in Tokyo) View of 宮城 from 馬場先門)
ＫＩＮＯＵＹＡデジタルアーカイブ (= Kinouya Digital Archive)
教育用途限定 (= Educational use only)
86.146.105.126 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

January 4

Icelandic Names and Naming Conventions

I guess this applies to any place (other nordic countries?) where there are strict naming conventions and rules so I would like to hear what goes on in different corners of the world, not just Iceland. Recently hearing about how there's a list of approved names and the existence and roles of the Icelandic Naming Committee, I have three questions. First, are there other countries which have similar systems where naming a baby is strictly controlled? Is it relatively common in the world? Second, what about children born to immigrant parents in Iceland for example? What if someone wanted to name their baby Kuo, Jose, or Khadija? Must the baby get an Icelandic name? Third, as an immigrant enters Iceland (as a permanent resident I mean), is his name changed? Officially on papers I mean? Just as how in Ellis Island immigrants had their names anglicized and an "American" name closest to what their original name was, was "given" to them back in the day. Is that a requirement, part of an integration process? Thanks. - Looking for Wisdom and Insight! (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The most striking thing about Icelandic naming conventions is that they don't usually have surnames as such, but rather non-hereditary patronymics. The country which seems to be most often in the news over restricting parents' rights to name their children is Sweden (see Naming law in Sweden)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You may find our article "Icelandic name" (which could do with more references) interesting: "The criterion for acceptance of names is whether or not they can be easily incorporated into the Icelandic language. First, they must contain only letters found in the Icelandic alphabet and second, they must be able to be declined (that is, modified according to their grammatical case)." — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This article and this one are about Sweden rather than Iceland, but notes that some Muslim immigrants have adopted the surname "Mohammedsson". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Germany is well-known for requiring given names to be approved (though it does not seem to be so, as I believed until I read that article, that there is an official list. I had heard that there was, with subsidiary lists for particular immigrant communities). --ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

German names are merly required to indicate the gender (at least one of the given names) and not be offensive or open to ridicule. British naming law is not so much different.81.156.176.219 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See this related story reported in the National Post.

• Icelandic girl Blaer Bjarkardottir suing government to use her name | World | News | National Post (January 3, 2013)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in and note that new names were not given to immigrants at Ellis Island, beyond transliteration etc.--Cam (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

New names were not, as a rule, given to immigrants at Ellis Island, but stories abound of people with long family names that were difficult for American immigration officials to understand or spell having their names shortened, simplified, and/or anglicized. This seems to have happened especially often with Slavic names. Marco polo (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This only really happened when the immigrants were illiterate. Seven out of eight of my great-grandparents came through Ellis Island, none with an English surname, and none had their names changed. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

From my Internet search for baby name restrictions, I found this article mentioning Germany, Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Iceland, New Zealand, China, and Norway.

• 8 Countries With Fascinating Baby Naming Laws - Mental Floss

—Wavelength (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I had seen most of the links/articles (wikipedia and otherwise) and they were the original motivation for this question. A few I hadn't but now I have. I am still curious as to what happens with immigrants and what happens in the other parts of the world. One of the articles suggests that immigrants are actually eager to adopt Swedish-sounding names to "hasten their integration". But for those who might not be so eager to change their names, must your name be changed to comply with the local naming laws when you immigrate? - Looking for Wisdom and Insight! (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no such rule in Sweden. Of course I can't find any source for the negative, but here's a leaflet about moving to Sweden, published by the Swedish Tax Agency which handles name changes in Sweden. It says nothing about changing your name to comply with local laws or custom. Sjö (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be technically difficult to use a name written in a non-existent Chinese hieroglyph, see Naming laws in the People's Republic of China. Also there was a case when Russian parents gave to their newborn a name entirely consisting of code-letters and numerals, but this was declined and they went to the court. Though I was not interested in what was the end of the story.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding changing their names to "hasten their integration", I suspect the motivation is getting employment. Regrettably, well qualified applicants with exotic names tend to have much more difficulty in getting a job than applicants with familiar sounding names. This happens in Norway, and doubtlessly in Sweden too. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes, it does. Sjö (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

January 5

Is endos a Japanese or English word and what does it mean?

Is endos a Japanese or English word and what does it mean? Venustar84 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you show us a link or give us a sentence where you read it? --Jayron32 00:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it right here: http://wiki-sentai.wikia.com/wiki/Dora_Endos

It isn't an English word, I can tell you that. No standard online English dictionary recognizes it as anything. --Jayron32 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To be Japanese, it would have to be "Endosu". Some names which end in "-os" are Hungarian or Greek. In English, "endos" could theoretically be a plural of "endo", which could theoretically be a shortening of endomorph or endoscopy or whatever, but that seems an unlikely origin for the name of a comic-book monster... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not Hungarian, as 's' is pronounced /ʃ/ in Hungarian. 'εντος' ('endos') is Greek, meaning 'within'. It is probably just a name which has been randomly picked to make it sound exotic. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not Japanese. Maybe a coined word. Oda Mari (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Some suggested it could be short for short for endoscopic? Or it could mean refix meaning inside, internal, or within. Or example humans have ENDOskeletons while crabs have exoskeletons. Exo means outside. But how does it relate to this creature from the Japanese show:

http://wiki-sentai.wikia.com/wiki/Dora_Endos That I can't comprehended. Venustar84 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

aren't Endos a type of breath mint? μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

They're made by the Inyu Candy Company, IIRC. --Jayron32 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the one. You put it in a kid's mouth and then give them a can of diet coke. The explosion is hilarious! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A man is knighted and a woman is...?

If a man is knighted, a woman awarded the same honour is what? Damned? Surtsicna (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Though she is titled "Dame", the process by which the British Monarch grants said title is still called "Knighting", as far as I can tell. When I search for names of well-known Dames (Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, etc.) regarding their elevation by the queen, the term "knighted" as a verb appears to have widespread use. Thus, we can say that a woman is knighted, and is then titled "Dame". --Jayron32 00:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much. Surtsicna (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

perhaps "Lady Knight"? Venustar84 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not. The answer would be a verb in passive voice, to match "knighted". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically it look like she is appointed to an Order of Chivalry, because there is no such thing as a knight bachelorette. The lower orders taking the title Dame, the highest orders Lady see, Dame (title). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying the appropriate verb is "appointed"? If so, that would also apply to males appointed to orders of chivalry at the knight level, but they're said to be "knighted", rather than appointed. "Appointed" is used for people who are admitted to lower levels of orders, such as Member, Officer, Commander, Companion etc level. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jack. Surely the honour is still a Knighthood whether you are a Knight or a Dame? Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the difference is that a knight is traditionally dubbed with a sword as part of the investiture ceremony, and for many people, that is when the person becomes a knight, not a moment earlier. That procedure is never applied to women who become dames, so the traditionalists would argue that they are not knighted at all. But in common parlance, people become knights or dames from the moment of the public announcement, e.g. Bradley Wiggins has properly been referred to as "Sir Bradley Wiggins" from New Year's Day and he doesn't have to wait till his investiture ceremony later on this year to go from Mr Wiggins to Sir Bradley. Same with new Dames. So, in that sense both are "knighted" by virtue of the public announcement. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, sword or no sword, they're damed if they do and damed if they don't. --Trovatore (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously time for you to go "knighty-knight". A good knight's sleep will do wonders for you. Just relax now, and calmly drift off, to the strains of "Help me make it through the knight". I just hope you don't have horrible knightmares about babies being thrown onto bonfires.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Lay and laid

I was doing this online (grammar) test here, and one of the questions was, "When I Got Home From Work, I _______ In Bed For Thirty Minutes" (here), and the options were "lay, layed, laid, and lied." Considering the sentence begins with "got home," which would imply past tense, I put "laid" as opposed to "lay," and apparently that's incorrect. But from what I looked up, "laid" is a past tense of "lay." So, who's right? Thanks. 174.93.61.139 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

'Laid' may be the past tense of 'lay', but the verb you were looking for was 'lie', not 'lay'. The past tense of 'lie' is 'lay.' To lay is always transitive (taking an object) but to lie is always intransitive (not taking an object). For example:

Correct: I lay in bed for thirty minutes.

Correct: I laid my watch on the table.

Incorrect: I laid down.

Incorrect: I lied my things on the table.

72.128.82.131 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be picky, the past tense of lie is lay when used in the sense of "extend one's body horizontally". It's lied when used in the sense of "knowingly tell an untruth with intent to deceive". --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Should it have been lie across my big brass bed? --Jayron32 02:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unless ol' Bob meant a verb that is rarely used intransitively. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

See also Lay and Lie: Commonly Confused Words. Alansplodge (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Among some English speakers, the use of "lay" for "lie" (e.g. "I laid down") is so prevalent that, I'm told, the correct "I lay down" actually sounds wrong to them. (To me, though, "I laid down" sounds grating and uneducated.) 86.160.216.227 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the following example: "I laid down a smokescreen to cover my squad's advance"? Wouldn't "laid down" be the correct form in this case? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because it's used transitively there: you laid something down. -- Elphion (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting laid is never wrong 203.112.82.128 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Like --Jayron32 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Dislike 86.160.216.227 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't like getting laid? How depressing is that? Never mind, we don't do medical advice here. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the "Like" icon that I dislike. 86.160.216.227 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

42 users like this. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But you don't seem to mind the Dislike icon. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's irony. 86.160.216.227 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that wrinkle, ironing it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting the shaft

Where does the phrase "to get the shaft" come from? Was it originally a euphemism for rape? Or do its origins lie in the medieval joust (where "to get the shaft" would presumably mean to get run through by your opponent's spear)? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Where does the phrase "to get the shaft" exist? And what's it mean? From your IP address I can tell you're in the US. I'm in Australia. A common expression here is to "get shafted by" someone. It's to have something unfairly done to you that puts you at a severe disadvantage. Same meaning? HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what "to get the shaft" means here in the USA. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As in the lyrics of a country song talking about a divorce: "She got the gold mine, and I got the shaft". StuRat (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

From Etymonline: O.E. sceaft "long, slender rod of a staff or spear," from P.Gmc. *skaftaz (cf. O.N. skapt, O.S. skaft, O.H.G. scaft, Ger. schaft, Du. schacht, not found in Gothic), which some connect with a Germanic passive pp. of PIE root *(s)kep- "to cut, to scrape" (cf. O.E. scafan "to shave") on notion of "tree branch stripped of its bark." But cf. L. scapus "shaft, stem, shank," which appears to be a cognate. Meaning "beam or ray" (of light, etc.) is attested from c.1300. Vulgar slang meaning "penis" first recorded 1719. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, unless the phrase originated in the 18th century or later, it probably meant getting speared rather than getting raped. Is that what you meant? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

An alternative etymology (which I've only come across in coal mining areas) is that of being pushed down a mine shaft. Given the local nature of this explanation I wouldn't expect to find it in any dictionaries. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

From the same source quoted by KägeTorä; ""treat cruelly and unfairly," by 1958, perhaps from shaft (n.1), with overtones of sodomy."[2] I may have had a sheltered upbringing, but I don't remember hearing it (in the UK) before the 1980s. Alansplodge (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I find Tammy's third hypothesis very intriguing -- in fact, I also had thought of it before (although in the context of being sent down to the mines as a form of forced labor), but dismissed it as too artificial. And yes, this explanation also seems very plausible -- when miners quarrel, accidents are likely to happen... 24.23.196.85 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymological Dictionary, this expression originated in the 1950s, probably with an implication of rape. Marco polo (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! So since this is a recent usage, it's most likely that it was just another way of saying "to get screwed" -- not pushed down a mine shaft, and definitely not run through with a spear. Just like I thought most likely. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A rat by any other name...

In English, an informer is colloquially known (mainly among criminals or people who emulate criminals) as a "rat" or a "weasel", among other words; in Russian, the common word is "stukach" (literally, "knocker"). What are the corresponding words in French, Dutch, German, and/or Flemish? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard "weasel" used to mean this in English, just my namesake and "stool pigeon". To me, a "weasel" is somebody evasive, like a politician: Q: "Who is responsible for this disaster ?" A: "Mistakes were made". StuRat (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've encountered this usage of "weasel" as "informer" once, in Tom Clancy's war novel Red Storm Rising: "Alekseyev [the Russian army group commander] sat on the edge of his desk. He lit a match and burned the message form [that Sergetov, the Red Army inside man in the KGB, brought him to warn about the informer on his staff], watching the flame march across the paper almost to his fingertips as he twisted it in his hand. 'That fucking weasel [he said]. Stukach!' An informer on my own staff! 'What else?' " 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In Jack Vance's Demon Princes series, a "weasel" is an agent of the Interworld Police Coordinating Company working in the lawless Beyond. —Tamfang (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A grass in British English. Dbfirs 09:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A contraction of "snake in the grass", "from Virgil's Latet anguis in herba [Ecl. III:93]"[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, rhyming slang. Grasshopper = shopper. To shop someone, to inform on them to the police. From cop shop = police station? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My English/French dictionary gives balanceur - literally "swinger". Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard balanceur, but une balance is usual, un donneur, une donneuse (even for a man), un doulos (slang). A little bit less colloquial: un mouchard, un indic (short for indicateur), un mouton (for a prisoner). — AldoSyrt (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Snitch is quite common too - particularly in the context of a police informant among criminals. Roger (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Merci, everyone! So, of the words Aldo listed, which one(s) is/are most likely to be used in a political context (as in, an informer ratting out the opposition in occupied France during World War 2)? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you mean French who cooperated with the Nazis, "collaborator" is the term I'm familiar with, although their cooperation wasn't necessarily limited to snitching on their fellow Frenchmen. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was asking for a colloquial term as used in a casual conversation, not a formal term. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll go with "mouchard" -- "indic" sounds too formal, "balance" or "balanceur" too ambiguous, and "doulos" like something that a criminal would say (as opposed to a rogue SOE agent talking to a Resistance fighter with a couple of kids within earshot). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In German, the best word might be Verpfeifer based on the verb verpfeifen, meaning roughly "snitch". A word with a more negative connotation (implying betrayal)—that might be used about someone who snitched to the enemy—would be Verräter, based on the verb verraten (not cognate with English rat, by the way). Marco polo (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, "verraten" means "to betray". 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In contrast to the verb verpfeifen the agent noun Verpfeifer is not widely known (I saw it two lines above for the first time in life). It seems to be an attempt to translate whistleblower (see this newspaper article of 2009 and note that they put it in quotes as a newly-created word). According to de:Informant in casual conversion de:Spitzel (paid) or Verräter (unpaid) might be adequate, but it depends very much on the situation. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Spitzel" sounds better to me, so I'll go with that. Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Germann: For Verpfeifer I agree. It is not a nominalization I have ever seen. Nor used. Nor does it sound natural to me in any way. The common (highbrow) word would actually be Denunziant -- which is as far as I can tell, Cognate to "denounce" in English. While I otherwise am in agreement with Pp.paul.4, you could also try Judas, that being a form of Antonomasia. It should be understood and I have heard that one used in informal contexts. Context dependent, you might also find the term "inoffizieller Mitarbeiter", shortened "IM", of use; such was the title of (of course informal) Stasi spies in the GDR. -- Abracus (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At school in Australia an informer is often described as a dobber, or even worse, a dibber-dobber! HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In Australian prison slang an informer is a "chocolate frog", rhyming slang for "dog". It's the name of one of Jim McNeil's best known plays. No, I am not making this up. The "old familiar juice" is gaol brewed moonshine. Ray Mooney (no article yet), better known for the Everynight ... Everynight, the play that was adapted to the 1994 film of the same name wrote a play called A Blue Freckle. "Freckle" means "arsehole/asshole", in its literal meaning. A "blue freckle" is a gunshot wound. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

From a passing-by french in a hurry : "balancer" is = to "to chuck, to dump" (a good french police film : "La Balance") - a "doulos" is a felt hat, like those worn by policemen in the '50 (a good film with Alain Delon : "Le Doulos") T.y. 81.164.0.32 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For the fims, follow the links in my previous post. (In "Le Doulos", the main actor is Jean-Paul Belmondo, not Alain Delon) — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And a "mouchard" or a "donneur"? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The word mouchard ([4], A.- 1.) comes from mouche (lit. a fly [5], II.-, D.-, 2.), old slang for "spy" or "police informant". Because, informants surround and follow, like flies, those under suspicion. The word donneur ([6] B.-) comes from the verb donner ([7] I.-,A.-, 2., c), γ))= "to squeal". — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Aldo! Looks like "donneur" would be the best term to use in my case -- as I said, I think "balanceur" would be too ambiguous, while "doulos" would not have the right connotation (the mental association between a felt hat and an informer would most likely occur to a criminal, whereas my characters are SOE agents and Maquis/Kreisau Circle guerrillas rather than common criminals). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Balanceur simply does not exist. Doulos is old fashioned "argot" (and only used by criminals). No one use it anymore (but the movie is great !). There's a slight difference between "une balance" et "un mouchard". Un mouchard is someone who is in a group with the specific purpose of spying. At the very least, he's been doing it for a certain time. That's very close from "indicateur" (but indicateur is a police term). Snitch is a good translation. Une balance is someone who, when asked what is going on in the group, will quickly betray his group. He's the one who talks. So, depending on what you mean, you can use both for describing someone who's ratting out during the occupation. If he's been doing it for a certain time, especially if he's in a "resistant" group with that specific purpose, he's a mouchard/indic. If, when the Germans interrogate him, he quickly talks, he's a "balance". --80.13.10.56 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup for the explanation, 80 IP! And if the informer just eavesdrops on people he dislikes, and denounces them when he gets the chance (as many informers in the Soviet Union had been doing), would that make him a "balance", a "mouchard", or a "donneur"? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An informer who eavesdrops on people on a regular basis is cleary a "mouchard". Especially if he has close ties with the police, he is also "un indicateur (de police)", more commonly called "un indic". --Gede (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Cambodian/Khmer help

Hi! What is the Khmer for:

• State Secretariat of Civil Aviation http://www.civilaviation.gov.kh/images/banner1.GIF
• Cambodia Angkor Air http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cambodia_Angkorair_logo.png

Please post it in text so I can insert it into the articles Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

រដ្ឋលេខាធិការដ្ឋានអាកាសចរស៊ីវិល State Secretariat of Civil Aviation

កម្ភុជា អង្គរ អ៊ែរ which is Kampuchea, Angkor, and "air" transliterated to Khmer script--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! According to http://www.civilaviation.gov.kh/law_civil_aviation.pdf, រលអស is the Khmer abbreviation for the first, right? (SSCA is the English abbreviation) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with that particular organization to confirm its "official" abbreviation, but I can confirm that is the one used in the publication you linked. Also, I just corrected an error I noticed in the Khmer script, there was a diacritic missing below the ស in the word ស៊ីវិល.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Yeah, it has to be the Khmer abbreviation because SCAA is definitely the English abbreviation WhisperToMe (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a database of lyrics with faulty language?

Pop songs in English (especially by non-English speakers, but not exclusively) not too rarely contain mistakes in English grammar or vocabulary ("So when you really love me, darling..."). Often it is not easy to decide whether it is correct English or not ("All I want is loving you..."). To avoid being influenced by that - is there a database to list such mistakes? --KnightMove (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of flexibility in poetry, which is what songs are. First, I'd like to hear why you think the two phrases above are "mistakes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the first case it must be if, not when, as the meaning is "in case you love me", non "as soon as you love me".

In the second case, Google search indicates that "All I want is [a specific activity]" is using to+infinitive, not participle: "All I want is to love you". Testing this for several verbs, infinitive is hundreds to millions times more usual, which indicates that participle is plain wrong. --KnightMove (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

When does not need to mean "in case" in that sentence. Rmhermen (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It means more like "Once you really love me..." or "If you really and truly love me..." or "If you've got the hots for me" ... bring me Leontopodium alpinum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"All I want is loving you" does not necessarily equate to "All I want is to love you". "Loving you" is often a polite poetic euphemism for getting laid, and another euphemism such as "to make love to you" has too many syllables to fit the sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

KnightMove -- several external links at bottom of article Mondegreen... AnonMoos (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• The two sentences aren't so much wrong as they are unidiomatic. They can be understood, but under normal circumstances they wouldn't be spoken by a native English speaker. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Spoken, probably not. But in poetry, the rules of normal prose don't necessarily apply. Just listen to the repeated cry of "Call Me Maybe". The words could be used that way, but not the way she's singing them. Or a more gross example, "We don't need no education..." And again I say, there's nothing wrong with either of the OP's phrases when used in poetry/singing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The line from Help! that goes "I know that I just need you like I've never done before", always struck me as odd, like it should be "I know that I just need you like I never have before", but that doesn't sound quite as poetic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I find nothing the slightest bit odd about that line. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is very British. No one in North America uses "done" like that, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds "odd" to this American, but not incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No discussion linking ungrammatical lyrics and Paul McCartney would be complete without a mention of "the world in which we live in" (Live and Let Die (song)). 86.160.216.227 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It can also be interpreted as "this ever-changing world in which we're livin'...", which is awkward phrasing also. Since he's not-rhotic ("when you were young and your hot was an open book..."), "we're" sounds a lot like "we", hence the discrepancy. This falls into the Mondegreen category. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I found an interesting piece at [8] in which McCartney himself seems unsure, but "thinks" it's "in which we're living". 86.160.216.227 (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Artists only produce art, they don't explain it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Talking of lyrics misheard/misunderstood as ungrammatical, the lyric "If I lay here / If I just lay here" in Chasing Cars used to drive me absolutely nuts until I realised it was subjunctive(?) past tense, as in "If I went there". 86.160.216.227 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.hooksandharmony.com/20-songs-bad-grammar/.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

While it's true that poetry can break grammatical rules, I agree with the questioner that the lyrics he has cited sound wrong, or at least weird, to a native speaker. Marco polo (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been a native American English speaker all my life (so far) and I don't see a problem with the lyrics. The proposed "corrections" to them don't sound right, for pop songs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Songs with nonsensical lyrics.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the information. In case anyone is interested, there is a famous similar example to the Paul McCartney quote above in German: In the original version of Falling in Love Again (Can't Help It), Marlene Dietrich sings "Männer umschwirren mich wie Motten um das Licht" (Men cluster to me like moths around the flame) - the second "um" is redundant. --KnightMove (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

January 6

Difference between for example and for instance ?

What is difference between for example and for instance ? Where are they used ? 106.212.34.233 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Answer to question 1 is nothing. Answer to question 2 is interchangeably. --Jayron32 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

They're effectively the same thing.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For example is a bit more formal. I would not recommend the use of for instance in business or academic writing. --Nricardo (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In Legal writing woo-woo, "for instance" might indicate relevance to the matter at hand to one and to only one other relevant matter. "For example" might indicate relevance to the matter at hand to one and/or to more than one other relevant matters.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

January 7

Eragrostis = lovegrass : why that name ?

Hello, Learned Ones !

First, all my best wishes for 2013 to all on Ref. Desk, & especially to those who care to answer my (sometimes pointless ) questions on "Humanities", «Miscellaneous», «Language», "Computers" etc...

My question : while enjoying an ethiopian meal and smearing my new pant with red sauce dribbling from the teff made injera crèpe, I wondered what the Agrostis genus has to do with love. Is it because some of its seeds clings to furs or dress ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. signé Arapaima (can’t log in, I’m staying in a hotel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.0.32 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No one knows the reason for the name—at least according to the last paragraph of the description at the top of this page, though some suggestions are reported. The English name "lovegrass" is obviously derived from the first suggested etymology. Deor (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does "unsafest" sound wrong?

Wiktionary accepts it, but it still doesn't sound like a "real word" to me. Is there an underlying "unwritten rule" of allowed English wording that I'm subconsciously applying here? 23.30.218.174 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see this section above. The rule for comparatives (-er for one syllable words and "more" for longer ones) applies to superlatives too (-est for one syllable words, and "most" for longer ones). So that is why "safest" but "most unsafe" sounds the most correct. - filelakeshoe 16:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

However, that rule doesn't explain "unhappiest", "unluckiest"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I question the premise. "Unsafest" sounds perfectly fine to me. Firefox's spellchecker likes it too. Angr (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Horses for courses, Angr. You can't really question when someone says that something doesn't sound right to them, as the OP did. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Subject, class, course ?

I'm a non native speaker of English, and struggling to comprehend the way the different subjects are described in secondary school ("high school") in the UK and the US. For instance, what would a student say, if he/she wanted to express his dislike of a certain subject (such as mathematics) : "I've always hated this subject/class/course" ? Or, how would a teacher describes what he/she is teaching : "in the subject/class/course that I teach the student are more interested than in mathematics ?" Thanks for your insights ! 80.13.10.56 (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, in London 40 years ago, we would have said "lesson" - for example, "What lesson have you got next?" answer; "I've got history next." "Subject" could also have been used but not "course" or "class". However, school jargon has changed over the years, I'll see if I can find a younger person to ask. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's still the same for UK usage. I don't think many of our younger generation have yet picked up the usage of "course" and "class" from American TV. "Subject" and "lesson" still predominate. "Class" means the set of students being taught. Dbfirs 09:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, the first sentence would be "I've always hated this subject" if the speaker is referring to mathematics as a whole. If the speaker means that he or she hates trigonometry as it's being taught this year by a particular teacher, then the speaker would say "...this class". Your second sentence is a bit ungrammatical, so I'm not sure what you're looking for. If you meant to write "Students are more interested in the subject/class/course that I teach than in mathematics", then in the United States, any of those three could work, depending on what the teacher means to emphasize. If the teacher says "subject", then she (let's assume she's female so I don't have to keep typing "he or she") means that students like the field that she teaches better than mathematics, apart from her specific curriculum for that year or her teaching style. If the teacher says "course", then she means that students like the curriculum that she is teaching that year (and possibly her teaching style) better than mathematics. If she says "class", then she is implying that students like a combination of her teaching style and content. In the United States, a subject is a discipline or a field of knowledge, such as mathematics. A course is a curriculum unit within a subject. For example, 11th-Grade Trigonometry would be a mathematics course. Finally, a class is a group of students taking a course under a particular teacher. I think my information is up to date because I interact with teachers professionally. Marco polo (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I live in the Midwest US, was in high school 7 years ago and just finished college. Most often for both, I think I've just heard "I hate calc/psych/rhetoric/etc." With "I hate this X," "class" is what I'd expect to hear, but it's ambiguous between the topic, the teacher, the assignments, the students, or some combination ("I hate this class. It's interesting but no one takes it seriously." "I hate this class, I don't get stuff fast enough.") "Subject" is less common and maybe a little formal, but less ambiguous. I wouldn't expect to hear "course" in high school, just in college. With "lesson" I'd assume they're talking about that day's particular combination of topic and approach. Lsfreak (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Lsfreak about the United States, particularly on students' language. While secondary school students rarely refer to "courses", however, teachers sometimes do. Marco polo (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all ! --80.13.10.56 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Spanish

I'm a Spanish student, I have a hard time understand this sentence: "pero cómo me les iba a ir si todos de la casa querían que fuera a la escuela." I'm more concern with the part "pero cómo me les iba a ir". What les means? I learn that it would mean something that "to them" or "to you" (many people). If I translate it by myself, it would read "but how I leave to them to go", doesn't make sense to me. 174.20.35.57 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are you sure there's not an infinitive verb or some other word missing? Les means "to them". Irse means "to leave" as in "to go away" but it doesn't take an object, indirect or otherwise. This sounds like a bad google translation with either an extra word or one missing. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick search of Google Books shows that the sentence is taken directly from a book called Y no se lo tragó la tierra, written by Tomás Rivera and Evangelina Vigil-Piñón. It is apparently written in the narrative voice of a Chicano boy. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to make sense - literally "But how was I going to leave them if everybody at home wanted me to go to school" but more idiomatically, "how was I supposed to leave, seeing as everyone at home wanted me at school". Context. He is not literally asking but expressing that it would be improbable that he would try to leave the school, since everyone at home (where he would presumably go if he did) expected him to be at school, in response to the previous sentence "...Y el barrendero todo asustado con la escoba en el aire, listo para aplastarme si trataba de irme." (and the janitor, all scared with the broom in the air, ready to come down on me if I tried to leave) 72.128.82.131 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't make sense to me... I know he is not actually asking a question, it works the same way in English like that. I thought "fuera" means "away or out of" then how can you translate it to "my family want me to be in school?" And I don't get the usage of the word "les", why it is not "to them" or "to you" (many people)? Let do an example: "Yo se (original is les) lo doy" would be translate as "I gave it to them." Why is "me les iba a ir" mean I leave them? It looks like it should be "I leave to them". Explain in detail please.Pendragon5 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• • So he is a Chicano? Mexican(?) speakers like to make verbs reflexive when the standard European spanish verbs are not. It has a certain sense of 'I was made to ' or 'I decided to' or I myself .eg. me iba=> I (decided to ) to go(I went , a Spaniard would just say Yo iba or iba). The les(answering your question) seems to complement the 'todos'=>everyone.e.g. 'me les =>'everyone wanted me to .., which complements todos de la casa querían. You translated 'Como' here as 'seeing' (correct).--Jondel (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think les here refers to the school principal and other people in the office who are contemplating a punishment for the narrator. @Pendragon: Be careful! Fuera here is not the preposition as in out, but the imperfect subjunctive of ser. Querer que governs the subjunctive but since the piece is written retrospectively (i.e., in the past tense) the imperfect subjunctive is used.

Jondel makes a good point, that in Mexican Spanish (and many other Latin American dialects), there is a little "looser" use of indirect object pronouns than in Castilian Spanish, not only where a physical receiver of the action is involved but also when you want to specify (vaguely) who is being affected. The same thing happens in English: you say, "I gave her the book" and 'her' is an indirect object even though it is not "to her" (though you could also say "I gave the book to her" which just illustrates the pitfalls of attempting to draw a one-to-one correspondence between languages). The verb is irse, to leave - don't even think about the me, it is an idiomatic usage. Me les iba a ir means "I was going to leave them". Personally I would have used dejar which is a little more formal but avoids the multiple pronouns. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd, I have never come across irse with an object. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

January 8

Is "renowned" derived from a verb?

Greetings.

I just made this edit, with the edit summary: "renown" is a noun; what we need here is a verbal adjective, "renowned".

Then I got to wondering. If "renowned" is verbal, there must be a verb that relates to it. It sounds like it's the past participle of "to renown", except I've never heard of anyone "renowning" something/body. I checked renowned in wiktionary and my own trusty dictionary, and they just say it's an adjective, with no mention of any related verb.

I'm guessing the form "renowned" came into existence when there was a verb, but that verb vanished so long ago that it's not even recorded as ancient or obsolete. Am I on the right track here? if not, how do we explain the the –ed ending? Are there any other adjectives in the English language that end in –ed but are not derived from verbs?

PS. After I wrote the above, I checked the archives and found this thread, where I referred to "famed doctors". So there's another example of an adjective with an –ed ending but without a corresponding verb. "Reputed" would be another, unless one can repute something. Now I'm guessing there's probably a whole class of such words.

Any clues about the above, O renowned colleagues? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's derived from a verb, meaning "to make famous". But the loop seems to be the verb "renown" to "renowned" ("famous") and then back to the noun "renown". Fun one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 08:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From Etymonline: c.1300, from Anglo-Fr. renoun, O.Fr. renon, from renomer "make famous," from re- "repeatedly" (see re-) + nomer "to name," from L. nominare "to name." The Middle English verb renown has been assimilated to the noun via renowned "famous, celebrated" (late 14c.). So it seems like it was re-nouned. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Such wit re-verberates loud and long in the corridors of my so-called mind.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz -- It's not really true that an "-ed" suffixed form comes from a verb. "Double-barreled" doesn't come from a verb "to barrel", "Bow-legged" doesn't come from a verb "to leg", "Long-lived" originally had a completely different pronunciation from the verb form "lived", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, thanks. So, is it possible to come up with a full list of such adjectives? That is, ones that end in -ed but are not derived from or related to a verb in current use. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's one: hallowed ("on hallowed ground"; we never use the verb "hallow" except in special contexts like "hallowed be Thy name"). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallow is indeed a verb. I use it in the imperative when answering the phone. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

'Besotted' might be a candidate. I don't think you can besot someone, though you can be besotted with someone. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

'Learned' is another interesting one, with different pronunciation from the simple past tense of 'learn', having 'my learnED friend' (educated person I know) differing in meaning from a hypothetical 'my learned friend' (a friend I learned about). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's enough examples, but I also thought of "left-handed" and "right-handed", which appear to have nothing to do with the verb "hand". 86.171.42.77 (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz -- It's somewhat productive (i.e. new ones can be coined in some circumstances), so I don't think a fixed list is possible. Someone who had a beard dyed fuchsia could be "fuschia-bearded", etc. etc. Here's one discussion: http://web.tiscali.it/njross/dubarrelart.htm -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for translation of Latin epitaph

I'm working on an article about a French village and would like to mention a marble slab that was found in the church. The slab has a Latin inscription along three of the sides – the fourth side is missing. The text is in Gothic lettering and is not easy to read. I have two sources that give the text. The first gives:

Hec est sepultura mag[ist]ri militis, utriusq[ue] juris professoris, domini Jordani Bricii, domini castrorum Velaucii et Castrinovi-Rubri, qui fuit judex major Provincie, et fecit edifica...

From here. The book can be viewed in the US but I'm in London and have only "Snippet" view (unless I use a proxy server). The second source gives:

HAEC EST SEPULTURA MAG[IST]RI NOBILIS UTRIUSQUE JURIS PROFESSORIS DOMINI JORDANI BRICII, DOMINI CASTRORUM VELAUCII ET CASTRI NOVI RUBEI QUI FUIT JUDEX MAJOR PROVINCIE...

The text is given in note 2 at the bottom of the page here.

The text is about Jordanus Bricius. Velaux and Châteauneuf-le-Rouge are communes near Aix. JUDEX MAJOR is some form of senior judge (juge-mage in French).

Note that the 5th word in the 1st text is militis while the 2nd text has NOBILIS. The text appears to be damaged at this point. How should I translate the epitaph? Thanks Aa77zz (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"This is the tomb of the noble master (and) one of the professors of the law, Lord Jordanus Bricius, Lord of the castles of Velaux and Châteauneuf-le-Rouge, who was chief judge of Provence."

(That's the second version. For the first, substitute 'master soldier' for 'noble master', and add "and made buildings..." to the end.) If you have an image of the text, I'd be happy to try and work out which transcription is the better. Or is the transcription a copy of the now-missing side? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

UTRIUSQUE JURIS refers to secular (Roman) and canon law. Iblardi (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, rather than "one of the professors of the law", it's "professor of both laws [viz., canon and civil law]". Deor (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Aha. Thank you. So "professor of both canon and secular law", rather than "(and) one of the professors of the law"? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Deor's suggestion is good. Iblardi (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Page 78 of the first source here has a picture - which I intend to eventually upload. Aa77zz (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid Google Books' preview of that book is insufficient for me to be able to see the image at all. Sorry. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

According to this biographical dictionary Jourdain Brice had a booklet printed in 1433, well before Gutenberg invented the printing press. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Lefebvre"

I'm giving a presentation soon and am wondering how the surname of French philosopher Henri Lefebvre should be pronounced – "luh-FEV"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. The '-re' (with a schwa sound) reappears depending on the following syllable (so the English possessive of the name, Lefebvre's, has a sort of 'ruhz' sound at the end). The 'b' never reappears. The surname of Louis James Alfred Lefébure-Wély, which is surely closely etymologically related, is pronounced luh-FAY-byoor-VAY-li. Language is weird. Does anyone know about the origin of these names? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The Lefèvre article on the French Wikipedia gives [løfɛvr] for all variations of the name, including 'Lefèbvre'. - Lindert (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the trickiest names for English speakers who don't know any French to pronounce, especially ironic since the name means "Smith". I worked with guy named Lefebvre once, and he pronounced it "luh-FAVE", though IIRC, baseball player Jim Lefebvre pronounced it "luh-FEE-vur" while fellow player Joe Lefebvre pronounced it "luh-FAY". The French pronounciation given my Lindert is probably the best for any native French speaker, with the caveat that many dialects of french drop final "r" sounds, or clip them very short (as in 4 = quatre, [kɑt] and [kɑtr] are both heard). --Jayron32 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer Alex's question on the origin of the name, it means "Smith", and I'm pretty sure it comes from the same root that gives us "ferrum" latin for iron. I think it comes from an archaic French word, as the modern French word for smith is forgeron. The French Wikipedia article cited above by Lindert confirms that it is an archaic word meaning just that. --Jayron32 22:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The name derives from faber, "craftsman". This is unrelated to ferrum, which is probably a loanword, imported from the Near East along with the metal itself (according to Walde-Hofmann, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch). Iblardi (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for that. --Jayron32 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The "b" was introduced solely to reference Latin etymology, and so was useless and confusing with respect to French pronunciation from the start. The fact that "v" and "u" were not clearly distinguished as separate letters until ca. the late eighteenth century caused some people to pronounce it "Lefébure" (see Lefébure)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Looking particularly at Jayron32's comments, I suppose that's why John Boehner is pronounced "BAY-nər"? It looks like the surname was originally German ("Böhner"?) which would make the pronunciation more like "BUR-nər". — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)