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

June 20

Шозбат!

22 minutes into season seven of Dexter, Viktor Baskov curses his bad luck with an expletive that sounds almost like Mork's shazbat!. Any ideas what the word might be, in either Ukrainian or Russian? —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The бат might have something to do with the verb ебать, to fuck. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't make it out. To me it sounded like he said Stolzfus! in German. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Howard Cosell's accent

What label encompasses the accent with which sports broadcaster Howard Cosell spoke? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He was born in North Carolina, raised in Brooklyn, and started out as a NYC lawyer. I would say he wasn't known for his dialect, so much as his idiolect. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good answer. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cosell's way of talking was so unique that it used to be said that "he sounds like an imitation of himself". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Although the rhythm of his speech was fairly idiosyncratic, he nonetheless retained many aspects of the New York dialect (which article lists him as an example), such as non-rhotacism. Deor (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Stroke order

What is the logic behind the stroke order of Chinese characters? Take for example [人]. Why not make it with just one movement, starting left, going up and coming down, in the same way as we would write an 'i', but without a dot? Why not make them easier to write? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a few reasons here.

1. Many writing standards have historical bases, and a lot come from calligraphy. If you're writing with a brush (as people did once upon a time), 人 would look different if you wrote it in one movement (there would be the biggest, thickest part in the lower left, as opposed to the top where it's supposed to be).
2. The example you give cannot actually be written in one stroke anyway, unless you backtrack without lifting up your pen. It may look that way when you're looking at it on a computer in certain fonts, but in handwriting the second stroke is actually supposed to start lower than the first stroke; see this animation. So what you're suggesting is not even really possible. Most of the radicals that are written with multiple strokes are ones that really must be--like 宀 (see it in handwriting as the upper half of this--as you can see, it can't be done in less than three strokes). There are only a few exceptions to this, like 口 (here).
3. You can't make a direct comparison between Chinese characters and our cursive. While some letters, like 人, look like they could maybe be written in a single stroke (but see above), how would you propose to write 藏 in a single stroke? 额? Or 三? These are just a few examples.
4. That being said, stroke order is not necessarily "logical". As you can see from Stroke order#Stroke order per polity, people writing the same characters in different countries will often write it with different stroke orders; that alone is enough to suggest that the stroke order you learn is not the "best" or the only naturally possible order. Just like most writing and language conventions, stroke order is somewhat arbitrary and learned and you can't expect it to conform perfectly to "logic". But if you want your handwriting to look like native speakers' writing, it's best to learn the correct stroke order (if you even write with a pen at all these days...)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Your example stroke is not practical at all because traditionally, CJK languages are written vertically in columns going from top to bottom and ordered from right to left, with each new column starting to the left of the preceding one. See Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts. Oda Mari (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this is related to how the scrolls are/were unrolled for writing. But I am wondering whether there is a similar explanation to how individual characters are written (from top to bottom and left to right). Top to bottom makes sense, since the texts were written top to bottom as well, but why not right to left? bamse (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Characters look different depending on stroke order. Width and pressure of lines in the wrong place make the characters look "wrong", even though they are perfectly legible (unless you're me. My wife has a good laugh when I try to copy her writing. I have no clue what I'm doing, and no, I can't read or speak Chinese. My name user name may mislead you a bit.) Mingmingla (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Whilst

I frequently use whilst in my writing; however, I was wondering: what is the difference between "while" and "whilst"? All I've been able to think of are some instances where "whilst" sounds a little awkward in a sentence and "while" would make it flow better... thanks! --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See wikt:whilst -- as that entry notes, it is synonymous with "while" but it's a Britishism: "Rare in North America and may be considered archaic, pedantic or pompous.". I don't believe I have ever even once used it. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain why many people that read my stuff think I'm archaic, pedantic and pompous. ;) I use a lot of Britishisms in my writing, probably on account of the fact I read lots of old British books (or old North American books, back when those types of words were more frequently used...) Thanks! :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Until recently, British style manuals generally discouraged "whilst", and even today "whilst" seems rare in formal writing. -- Elphion (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Could be useful in an ambiguous sentence such as I got duck legs for a little while in China. It's an adverbial genitive, apparently, whereas while can be a noun. (Though the adverbial genitive page says that those are also nouns in some sense. I don't know.)  Card Zero  (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your example, CZ. What does "I got duck legs for a little" mean? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

For a little (money). OK, not very idiomatic. Perhaps "for only a little" would have worked better.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems a bit contrived. How about:

• How did you survive in Asia without much money?
• Oh, I was a sex worker in Vietnam, and I taught a little while/st in China. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That example only uses "whilst" to eliminate an interpretation that was unlikely in the first place. Mind you, so does mine. With hours of careful work and intense concentration, I bet it would be possible to come up with an example that doesn't seem contrived at all.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there's one out there somewhere. But this sort of proves the point, doesn't it. It is hardly ever - almost never - necessary to resort to "whilst". I've had discussions with people here who readily admit they never use the word in speech, but feel it's inappropriate to use "while" in writing if "whilst" is available. None can point to any authority for this belief. I see it used by writers whose writing skills are, frankly, execrable. Why it should have such a foothold in the minds of the multitude is a mystery to me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This subject came up before, at which time I remembered having read something about 20 years ago about what I think may have been called "adverbial s" in English. I couldn't find the reference, and can't find it now, so don't trust my memory entirely. It's found in words like besides, since, hence (where I believe it originates as a genitive) and you come acrost it in words like amongst and amidst, which don't bother Americans in the least. In fact, my father often tells the story of the farmer's daughter he met who sits amongst the beans and pees. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I mist the comment above on the adverbial genitive, see that. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's probably to do with Register (sociolinguistics). Words of Latin origin sound scientific; perhaps antiquated (but not obsolete) words sound wise and serious, redolent of legalese. In While, the picture shows whilst appearing on a warning notice - a serious context. It could be worse, anyway: Norwegian language conflict.  Card Zero  (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Whilst" was used by Shakespeare, Donne, Defoe, Scott, Thackeray, and many other writers right up to the 21st century, so I don't see why we (Yellow1996 and I and anyone else) can't continue to use it (though I tend to reserve it for occasions when I want to emphasis a contrast). Dbfirs 07:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Bag

This is an interesting one for me. In English, we use the word 'bag' for a woman as a term of contempt, whereas in Japanese they use the word 'fukuro' (meaning 'bag') as a term of endearment for mothers. Are there any other languages that use this term - either as a term of contempt or endearment? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dutch 'zak' (meaning 'bag') is a term of contempt, but not specifically for women; rather it is equivalent to English 'asshole', 'jerk' and may be a shortened form of (vulgar) 'klootzak' (lit. 'ballsack'), which has basically the same meaning. - Lindert (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Same with German Sack, although it's not common as a term of contempt on its own. An alter Sack is an old fart (usually male, but it could probably be applied to old women as well). The usual German equivalent of "old bag" (female) is alte Schachtel (old box). Angr (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Bag" isn't much used in US English as a term for women. The only exception I can think of is "old bag", which is insulting. StuRat (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Language improvements/your input on specific article

Rjanag removed my request previously as spam. Not sure why, so I'm reposting it. In the spirit of WP:IAR and improving the encyclopedia, I don't see any problem with requesting language-specific help from this desk for articles.

So then, this is a request for help on an article rather than a specific question. I've started a push to get Honda S2000 up to FA quality. While I'm fixing references and content, it would be great if you could edit directly (or comment on the talk page) to improve the language and tone. The aim is to turn the article into brilliant prose. Specifically, I'm requesting input on three things:

1. Overall layout and flow of the article. Are the sections in logical order? Do they tell a compelling story? Are there any jarring segues? Is it "brilliant prose" (it really isn't at this stage)?
2. Flow of sections and paragraphs. Are the sections coherent? Do the paragraphs naturally lead from one to the next?
3. Flow of specific paragraphs and sentences. There are quite a few instances of awkward wording in sentences or whole paragraphs. Would like some expert writing rather than a ham-fisted effort from me to bring these up to snuff.

Of course any other improvements would be most welcome. I've also created a talk page section to capture comments if you don't want to edit directly. Thanks. Zunaid 20:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I did post on your talk page, coming from the notice above. But the point is that we have other procedures to get you help in the writing style of the article. You need to request a copy-edit. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't the venue for getting help bringing an article up to FA. Angr (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Zunaid: the reference desks are for asking specific questions and getting specific answers. For help with a project (such as an article), you can use one of the other venues suggested by the editors above and at your article's talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In the OP's defence, we often have people come here asking for our opinions on certain pieces of writing, and we almost always happily oblige with said opinions, as well as suggestions for improvement. If we're going to be hardline in our policy - and I'm not saying we shouldn't be - then we should apply it consistently to all comers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

But those are mostly non-Wikipedians who probably don't know what other writing-improvement resources we have – and they're mostly asking about non-Wikipedia writing (so that WP:Peer review would be the wrong place for them anyway). The OP is hardly a newbie, having been a contributor for almost 8 years, and really ought to know that the Reference Desk isn't the place to get help improving a Wikipedia article. Angr (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Still, it raises the issue. When we do help people with their writing, that's about us bringing our own knowledge and skill to the table, rather than providing any kind of reference (usually), which is what we say we're here for. If this sort of help - however we may delimit it - is a legitimate part of our role here, we ought to be upfront about it and welcome such questions in our signage. If it's not appropriate, we shouldn't do it for anybody. Maybe this should now continue on the talk page. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To me the difference seems like this: the situations you're describing are where people are asking about e.g. a specific sentence (at least, in the instances I can think of), so it really is more like asking one question ("how can this be worded better"), whereas asking about a whole article is really asking someone to do work rather than asking for an answer to a question. (I'm fine with moving this over to the talk page if you want to just paste the whole section over or something.) 108.207.118.57 (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC) (User:Rjanag, not logged in)

To go down

Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries don't mention it as a meaning, but still I'm not sure: Might the expression to go down be used for any activity in some way lowering your body? Like, for example, bowing, curtsey, fall down on your knees, to get down... --KnightMove (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In my particular age group it's a euphemism for oral sex. Calidum Sistere 23:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I already knew that... ok, I agree that it fits my question. So, no others? --KnightMove (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Networks go down. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And you can go down to the shops, or down to the pub, etc. (This could be British English only, I'm not sure) -- Q Chris (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Usually just "down the pub", in my (BrE) experience, even if "motion toward" is implied: "Let's go down the pub after work". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To "go down the shore" is typically mentioned as a Delaware Valley-ism. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, to "Go down Cape" is to head towards Provincetown, Massachusetts. Going up Cape is towards Bourne, Massachusetts. --Jayron32 19:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To get down means to dance. Maybe that was what you are thinking of? --Jayron32 01:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly "go down on your knees", but "go down" by itself isn't usually used that way. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Or "going down" as in being defeated, possibly from what can happen to the loser in a boxing match. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Moses went down HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Does your wife go?" - She sometimes goes, yes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"I must go down to the seas again ..."    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Workin' in a coal mine, goin' down down..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• To decrease in value, as in "Did the stock market go down today ?" or "Will gas prices go down ?".

• To decrease in size, as in "The American car industry has been going down for decades."

• To decrease in other ways, such as "My grade point average will go down as a result of that final exam". StuRat (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, whenever I had a History exam at school, I always knew I was about to "go down in History". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That one is so old it's on Medicare. And worse yet, you beat me to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• ... also "to be sent to prison" (is this UK only?) (missing from Wiktionary, though they do have wikt:send down) Dbfirs 07:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How do ejectives usually develop from non-ejective consonants?

129.78.233.211 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's discussed in conjunction with stød, a characteristic of Danish. (Kortland argues stød may actually be a retention from PIE, rather than an innovation within Danish.) See also ejectives. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The paths I've heard of are:

• Coalescence with adjacent glottal stops or glottalized vowels (though it's possible some of these are artifacts of analysis, and what appears to be [tuˀ] > [t'u] is really the other way around)
• Glottal reinforcement (English; voiceless stops are preglottalized medially and word-finally; before a pause, this can surface as ejection, assuming this isn't inherited from (pre-)PIE)
• Devoicing and reanalysis of implosives
• Allophonic alternation with implosives (Mam, though proto-Mayan had a set of glottalized stops to begin with)
• Optional boundary markers (at least one Totonacan dialect uses aspiration or glottalization to mark a pause, which can surface as ejectivization)
• Influence of nearby languages (Eastern Armenian and many Southern Bantu languages have ejectives instead of plain stops, from Caucasian and Khoisan influence).
• I have no solid example, but I've heard gemination may lead to ejectivization via debuccalization of one of the elements, i.e. [pp] > [ʔp] > [p'] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsfreak (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a paper was published very recently in PLOS One that argues that regions of higher altitude are more likely to have ejectives: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065275. The conclusions have been widely challenged, however; see [1], [2], and [3], among others. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

June 21

Must be the season of the which we spoke earlier

“ ... to rest his deadly rifle when it wasn't seeking gore
The which it must have often been, for Major Percy Brown.... ” — Robert W. Service, The Ballad of the Ice-Worm Cocktail

What is this the which? Is it any different from just plain which? For example, is it more likely to have as referent a state of affairs than a concrete object? Is there anyone here who uses it productively, and can report intuitions about it? --Trovatore (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My immediate sense is that the "The" helps the rhythm of the words. Take it out and read it out, and see if you don't fail not to disagree with me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found the passage easier to understand in the context of the whole poem - see here. I have no particular source or anything, but my gut feeling is that Mr Service is just adding the extra word to better fit the rhythm. Simply 'which' would make better sense, or maybe 'the likes of which' - not so good, but better than 'the which'. I'm guessing that he just really needed a one-syllable word that wouldn't really upset the meaning too drastically, sucked on the end of his pen for about 30 seconds, got bored, stuck 'The' in there and got back to work. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's simply an archaism. e.g. Acts 20:28 (KJV): "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." --Viennese Waltz 09:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably calqued on French lequel. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that actually leads into a subordinate point I'm interested in. In Italian you say il quale in pretty much exactly the way you might use lequel in French. But there's also il che, which I think is for abstract situations rather than concrete objects: Gianni promise di arrivare in anticipo, il che fece fedelmente. When we covered il che in class, I thought of it as basically an exact translation of "the which". But both are used so rarely that I can hardly be sure.

I note by the way that, later in the same poem, Service uses it for a concrete object, which casts doubt on my hypothesis:

Then deeply in a drawer he sought, and there he found a jar

The which with due and proper pride he put upon the bar

So maybe it's all nonsense. But if anyone has any more precise information, I'd love to hear it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I can but offer another immediate subjective impression, namely, that the reason is exactly the same as I suggested for the first excerpt. But as well as that, we now have the principle of parallel construction. As you know, poems exist primarily as spoken rather than read texts, and it is the sound of the poem and its impact on the listener - rather than the look of it and its impact on the reader - that's the important thing. Had Service NOT used "the" in the second example, a keen-eared listener with a reasonable memory would have noticed the mismatch, and that would have derailed their attention (if only momentarily), and that would have been fatal (if only momentarily). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And no thoughts on il che? --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My knowledge of Italian does not extend to such things. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

because Jesus

The website Wonkette often gleefully adopts and recycles language associated with the political and social groups it ridicules, and so for example it goes from this to "Glenn Beck says Obama’s not a Muslin but a perverted-Christian whatever". One frequently occurring formula is because + noun phrase, e.g. "Exodus International, an organization founded to “help” LGBT people not be gay anymore because Jesus, will now cease to exist" (my emphasis). In my own idiolect, because doesn't license a noun phrase (or determiner phrase, if you prefer). And I don't think I've ever heard an example of because+NP, or read one outside Wonkette. Is it just a Wonkette invention, or is it part of some real-world US lect? -- Hoary (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this as a recent piece of online slang in a number of places, especially in a generic form - "because reasons", meaning 'for reasons that are either poorly-explained or insufficient'. I don't think it's part of any established spoken dialect. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Alex. It occurs mostly in blogs and fora, although I've now begun to see it in science fiction fanzines as well. I've never encountered it in spoken English, and am not sure it would work in that format. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've heard and used it in spoken English, and never thought of it being strange until reading this. The most common form in my social group (native English speakers living in China) is "because China", meaning "because of some aspect of Chinese culture / politics / society which is completely different from the West"; the implication is almost always negative. It's definitely a recent thing - perhaps native English-speakers abroad are more likely to adopt internet slang into spoken English because most of our English interaction is online? 111.192.158.166 (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=because+of&ls=a.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

For me it comes across as flustered, at a loss for words ("I did it because...because....because something!"). I wonder if that's where it came from, to mock the thing being described (in your example it's probably being used to make Exodus International sound as stupid as I imagine it is). 108.207.118.57 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It reminds me a little of the Italian response perché sí to the question perché?. Doesn't work as well in English ("Why? Because yes."), but you get the idea. --Trovatore (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree in part with 108. I've usually seen in used mockingly, to say the target of the mocking is unable to come up with any legitimate response (except maybe emotional nonsense or repeating what's already been said), often when a belief has no standing and they're trying desperately to hold onto what they believe. Lsfreak (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A variant often seen on cracked.com: "because fuck you," i.e. because they can get away with it (they don't got to show you no stinkin badges). —Tamfang (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, all. -- Hoary (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would use because + noun in shorthand text messages, where I don't bother with grammar: "Not coming to work today because sickness. Hope to be better tomorrow. Any urgent problem, call mobile." --Lgriot (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You couldn't write "because sick"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is 'Hannibal Lecter' actually a plausible Lithuanian name?

Question as topic. Just having a discussion with someone about the Hannibal quadrilogy and the new TV series today and this subject came up. Thanks. --91.125.145.38 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the surname was created out of whole cloth by Thomas Harris. There are only three people in either the U.S. or Canada with the surname Lecter in the public White Pages, which would make it an exceedingly rare surname. I have no idea what ethnicity they are (prior to being Canadian), but the name is rare enough that it seems likely that Harris just invented it for his books rather than took it from any name he knew. --Jayron32 01:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Lector and Lektor are rare, but exist, and would parallel last names such as Priest, Proctor and Cantor. There are both Catholic and Jewish Lithuanians, so a name with such a religious origin would be possible. But there's nothing about Lecter that makes it plausibly Lithuanian except as a misspelling of the terms in -or. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That mispelling would be possible in English, but not Lithuanian, first of all because "c" would never be substituted for "k", and also because the "er" doesn't sound anything like "or", unlike in English. Much more plausible is that it is the Lithuanianized or Polonized spelling of the German surname "Letzter" (the last guy). Plenty of people with German surnames in Lithuania and Poland adapted to the local spelling, like Szulc, Fryc, Szwarc, Buc etc. It's entirely plausible that the name "Lecter" could be a Lithuanian name. Whether it actually occurs is a different matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be infinitesimally plausible that Letzter has been borrowed into Lithuanian as Lecter. There is no chance that it is native Lithuanian. You might as well call it plausible Cymro-Lithoanian for that. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me just consult my Welsh-Lithuanian Dictionary that's been gathering dust on my shelves for the past 40 years. I always knew that $500 wouldn't be a wasted investment. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A very large portion of ethnic Lithuanians do not have native Lithuanian names [[4]]. Polish names are very common, and German names common enough. Welsh names, on the other hand, are not. A Lithuanian with a German last name is very plausible. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

When I said it was not a Lithuanian name, I didn't find it necessary to say some Lithuanians don't have non-Lithuanian names. I have Ruthenian great-grandparents with Russified German and Hungarian names. I am sure you are aware that final -er in Germanic is either a root-internal inheritance from PIE (English star, far) or an ending developed through rhotacism after Germanic separated from Baltic. In either case, Lecter itself could not be Lithuanian, although, as you point out, if a Welshman with the name were to move to Lithuania there would be a Lithuanian with the name. The OP can let me know if anything I have said needs further qualifying. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not just "some" Lituanians. A LOT of ETHNIC Lithuanians, perhaps most, bear surnames that originate from Polish or German. Lithuanian was a minority language in Lithuania at the time surnames became fashionable. This was definitely most in the Vilnius area, where the Lecter estate was said to be. A Welshman moving to Poland is not an ethnic Lithuanian. All in all, by far the most plausible explanation of the surname Lecter in someone living in Lithuania is a Lithuanized/Polonized spelling of the German surname Letzter, all the more so as the surname occurs in Poland. Lektor is not a possible source. By the way, my maternal grandmothers name was Radziwiłł, a Polonized genuine Lithuanian name.

Now, the big question is how the Lecter estate could have been in Lithuania at all during the interwar period if it was "just outside Vilnius". That would have been in Poland at the time, and the population of that area was overwhelmingly Polish, and Lithuanians were a tiny minority. [[5]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

the big question is how the Lecter estate could have been in Lithuania at all during the interwar period if it was "just outside Vilnius" - "geographic" Lithuania? (I don't keep up with the series so I'm not sure if that's plausible) Volunteer Marek 05:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If one wants, one can reread me; I haven't said there's no name Letzter or that in Lithuanian spelling that could not very nicely be rendered Lecter. Believe me, I am all for Lithuanian pride, I know all about the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and know plenty of people named Litwak, Maceikis, and so forth. What I have done is try to answer the OP's question, could such a name plausibly be Lithuanian, to which the answer is, no. It could be a transliteration of German, as you say, into Lithuanian itself, or it could be a misspelling, I said, of lector/lektor in English. I hope that is clear. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Allright, thanks. What about 'Hannibal' as a first name though? Are there people in Lithuania with that name? As far as I can remember, Hannibal Lecter is supposed to have been born into the Lithuanian aristocracy. And that is his real name - because there's reference in the books to his father 'Count Lecter' and to 'Castle Lecter'. I don't know if Thomas Harris knew what Hannibal's ethnic background was when he first created the character though. Lecter was actually quite a minor character in the Red Dragon book. --91.125.145.38 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hannibal is not the spelling used in either Latvian or Lithuanian. But as a surname it's rather pan-European. The moveі to America is the complication. For example, I know a Hanna Fricki (Ганна фріцки) whose American name was Anna Fritsky. Do the books actually give a Lithuanian origin? I read from Red Dragon (before SotL) through Hannibal, but don't remember that, and always assumed it was an anagram. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

His mother, Simonetta Sforza, was italian, from a very ancient bloodline. She (and Hannibal as wells) descend from both the Visconti and Sforza families in Milano. It is very possible she named him Hannibal after Hannibal of Carthage. Why not? —AndresGuazzelli (talk · contribs) added this paragraph today and bizarrely placed it so that Medeis appeared to be responding to him. I restored Medeis's original indentation. —Tamfang (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, in Lithuanian Wikipedia the character's name is translated as lt:Hanibalas Lekteris. lt:Hanibalas is the Lithuanian form of Hannibal; as can be seen, grammatical endings have been added to allow the name to be declined. Double sharp (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

June 22

greek

why ω disappears from gen, sg αἴθονος (αἴθων , ωνος,)?--82.81.118.156 (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In the third declension, usually the true stem appears in the oblique cases, while the nominative singular shows modifications, due to the original stem-final consonant being placed in word-final position (and often being deleted), due to an "s" consonant being added directly to the end of the stem, or due to other modifications (such as lengthenings). (Of course, in a complicated form like θριξ / τριχος it's possible that neither the nominative nor the oblique shows the true form of the underlying stem.) If αιθων has both the genitives αιθωνος and αιθονος (the latter not listed in my dictionary), it's presumably due to a mixture of stem-types (both a stem with basic short o and a stem with long o would give αιθων in the nominative singular)...AnonMoos (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know spanish? Google translate sucks because it's translated sentences don't make sense.

How exactly do I write this sentence be in english: A fines dé 1954 Hollywood había renunciado a las 3 D, mientras proseguían en la URSS las demostraciones del Stereo-Kino Ivanov, atracción limitada a algunas grandes ciudades? Please do NOT use google translate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.170.206 (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate comes pretty close, it seems. Just a tweak or two so it reads better or gives you some options on saying it: "In late / By the end of 1954, Hollywood had renounced / given up on 3-D, while pursuing / continuing in the USSR demonstrations / showings of the Stereo-Kino Ivanov, [the / an] attraction limited to a few large cities." That term Stereo-Kino would be the Russian way (стерео кино) to say "stereo film" (as in stereography for 3-D photographs). The Ivanov refers to a Russian filmmaker.[6] And it looks like you asked this question elsewhere, on a site I won't link to due to pop-up ads, but it was near the top of the list when I googled 'Stereo-Kino Ivanov'. Did you get any usable answers there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

By the end of 1954 Hollywood had given up on 3D film, while in the USSR showings continued of the Ivanov Stereo-Kino, in a few large cities only. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say abandoned rather than renounced. —Tamfang (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

English language

I would like to ask a few questions:

A. In a song a singer tries to express that he wishes to shout up to the sky and let the wind take his voice and carry it away. Which one of the following better describe that:

1. "Let the wind take away my voice"

2. "Let the wind carry my voice away"

I prefer No. 2. No. 1 is more about losing one's voice due to e.g. laryngitis from overexposure to wind. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I could see "Let the wind take my voice" working as well. Though it kind of implies the wind is taking it somewhere in particular, just leaving it unstated as to where, in a way "carry my voice away" doesn't. Lsfreak (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

B. Does this makes sense:

"Believe me, it outraged me more if I did not keep my word"

Is the use of the word "outrage" correct here?

No. It could be "... it would outrage me more if I did not keep my word", or "... it outraged me more that I did not keep my word". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It makes sense, but just not the sense that was likely meant. It states that if the person did not keep his word, then something outraged him more. That makes fine sense, but just would not generally be said because the condition is more than likely uninteresting because the status of the antecedent and consequent would more than likely be known by the speaker, and so whether or not he was outraged, or whether or not he kept his word, could be asserted forthrightly rather than merely given hypothetically. Imagine a similar statement in a simple argument: "If person X did not keep his word, then event A outraged person X more. Person X did not keep his word. Therefore, event A outraged person X more." Makes sense to me. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

C. Would a native english speaker say something like this:

"Didn’t give I enough smile?"

No. It would be more like "Didn't I smile enough?". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the correct form would be "Didn't I give enough smiles?", but I'd completely agree with JackofOz on "Didn't I smile enough?" Lsfreak (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This question is a about an ended realtionship where one of the participants is trying to find our where he erred. How would a native english speaker phrase this question? That's all.

"What did I do wrong?" would be the most natural way of saying it, but there are plenty of alternatives. "There was something true, and noble, and beautiful between us - what happened?" "You spent it." Tevildo (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

193.224.66.230 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing a quote

I'd like to find a proper source (or, failing that, a proper debunking) of a quote I've seen a few times out on the web: "Every man has his secret sorrows which the world knows not; and often times we call a man cold when he is only sad." It's attributed to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow here and here and elsewhere. I also think I've seen a longer version, though it still ended at "only sad" (or maybe it had been changed to "merely sad". Wikiquote doesn't seem to have anything and I wasn't able to dig anything up through Wikisource, though that's a bit trickier. Any help? Matt Deres (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's spoken by a character (the protagonist Flemming) in Hyperion.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you! How were you able to find it? I tried Googling, but never seemed to hit anything. Matt Deres (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I reasoned that the quote probably comes from a book of his which is popular and is therefore on Gutenberg, so I could go there and do a quick full-text search of everything I found. Then I got lazy and just went to Wikiquote and followed the first link and found it. By the way, this guy Longfellow is a giant target for parody. The couplet I shot an arrow into the air, It fell to earth, I knew not where begs to be completed with the hilarious consequences of this ill-thought-out action. The Village Blacksmith describes his physical appearance in great detail, and is ripe for variation. I'm fairly sure I once heard a complete version of The Song of Hiawatha with a single entendre in every line, and then there's She stood on the bridge at midnight. Her lips were all a-quiver. She gave a cough, her leg fell off, And floated down the river.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 23

Shake versus nod

I've come to a conclusion about the words "shake" and "nod" in relation to one's head when reading those verb phrases in books. The conclusion is that if a character shakes their head, they're saying no and if they nod their head, it's a yes. Is this just my confirmation bias or is this pretty much standard? Looking at shake at dictionary.com seems to muddle the issue since it says that shake can be used for either:

a. to indicate disapproval, disagreement, negation, or uncertainty by turning one's head from one side to the other and back: I asked him if he knew the answer, but he just shook his head.

b. to indicate approval, agreement, affirmation or acceptance by nodding one's head up and down.

The part that seems confusing is that it uses the word "nod" in the definition for the approval portion. I'm not sure what references would be out there but I just wanted to maybe sort this out. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In the circles where I have moved for the 60+ years of my life I have never heard the word shake used in the way described in Part b: of that definition. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

See Nod (gesture), Head shake and Head bobble. I think dictionary.com is just plain confused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose any movement of the head could be considered a "shake", but we usually reserve it for the No gesture. People from South Asia certainly reverse the meanings - they do what we call "shake" when they mean Yes, and do what we call "nod" when they mean No. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, no (shakes his head). The South Asian 'yes' gesture is the 'head bobble' linked above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Check. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I've often heard that Hungarians do it backward. Or am I thinking of some other Balkan nation? —Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In Hungarian, the order of surname and given names is reversed. Maybe you're thinking of that. I've never heard of any Europeans reversing the head shaking paradigm. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Head bobble says, "In Bulgaria, this is the equivalent of a nod meaning yes, whereas a quick nod up means no." Thinking of that, maybe? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "shaking your head yes" is something I don't find out of place. The movement would still be an up-and-down nod, but the saying works fine. Without "yes" tagged to the end, though, it would assumed to be a left-and-right "no." Lsfreak (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Londonese"

Finns use "the Londonese language" as a fancy way of referring to the English language. But is there really any distinction between the variety of English used in London versus the English language used in the United Kingdom in general? JIP | Talk 17:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of varieties of English used within the UK, some of them almost mutually unintelligible at the extreme - here's some links to the ones Wikipedia has articles on. The varieties spoken in London include Received Pronunciation, which is considered "standard" English, as well as lower-prestige varieties like Cockney and Estuary English, which use glottal stops for medial and final t's, drop initial h's, and pronounce final l's like w's, among other distinctive features. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You forgot about Rhyming slang. That having been said, it is unlikely that any of these differences will be noticed or considered significant to many Finnish speakers of English. "Londonese" sounds like a humourous term for English in general, for RP, or for British English in general versus American English, rather than like a term referring to London accents and varieties specifically. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The traditional London accent and dialect are sadly disappearing under the tide of Multicultural London English which is spoken by younger Londoners of all and any ethnicities, including those whose parents speak the finest Cockney. Alansplodge (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, MLE is certainly what I would think of on hearing the term "Londonese". In spite of the fact that I don't believe I've ever personally heard it in London (my last visit was in 1987). But, you know, there's Law & Order: UK, and sometimes it's the best thing showing in the gym. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Some dictionaries define it as "cockney speech".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Quantitied

So I used this word on the Computing desk only to discover (via MSW Word Processor) that it isn't a word at all! I used it in the sentence "large-quantitied [ USB ] hubs..."; I changed it to "large-quantity" - so is that correct? Thanks! --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, "quantitied" appears in the OED, with a citation from 1606; but it is labelled Obs[elete] rare. So I would say it is a word, but you might choose to regard the 'obselete' bit as significant and avoid it. In any case ignore MSW's strictures, which are sometimes contentious. As to whether "large-quantity hubs" is meaningful - well, for me I don't know what you mean by the quantity of a USB hub, though it might be clear in context (my immediate thought was storage size, but what have USB hubs to do with storage?) So I would advise paraphrasing to make it clearer. But if the meaning is clear, I wouldn't object to "large-quantitied" or to "large-quantity". Others may disagree. --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's very common in English to add -ed to a noun when that noun is modified by an adjective. An example is large-footed, which gets over 8000 hits on Google Books, but my MS Word spellchecker doesn't like footed, either, because all the spellchecker knows is "foot is a noun and nouns don't get the past participle ending -ed". That said, the phrase large-quantitied only gets 10 results on Google Books—and most of those are typos or scannoes of large quantities—so it is at best very rare. I agree with ColinFine that it isn't clear what you mean by "large-quantitied/large-quantity USB hubs" in the first place. USB hubs having large quantities? Large quantities of what? If you mean USB hubs housing lots of ports, I'd probably go for "multiple-port USB hubs". Angr (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the context. Luckily, I like to use archaic language from time to time; I'll just add "quantitied" to my list. Thanks, guys! :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"large-quantitied" → "numerous", if you want your readers to like you. Looie496 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not in that context. He wrote, "The large-quantitied hubs are generally geared towards companies, making the prices quite high", referring to hubs with a large number of ports. "The numerous hubs..." would mean something totally different. Angr (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"USB hubs with many ports are generally geared towards companies, making the prices quite high" is unambiguous as well as grammatically and idiomatically correct. You still need to provide a numerical definition of "many ports" such as "more than four" somewhere in the text. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Many-ported"? --ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd expect to see "multiport" as the adj. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

June 24

Tidyman's carpet

What is a "tidyman's carpet"? I heard it used in an episode of A Bit of Fry and Laurie but haven't been able to find a meaning for it. All references on the web seem to direct back to the episode without explaining what a tidyman is. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's the International Tidy Man populating "Keep Britain Tidy" campaigns since the 70s, see for example this one from 1975. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so why does the litter figure need a carpet? Dismas|^(talk) 03:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you mean this, Tidyman's is being used as a brand. It's a carpet made by the Tidymans company. Rojomoke (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

…a fictional company, in case anyone needs that spelt out. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Prinsengracht

The page Canals of Amsterdam presently glosses this place name as meaning "the prince's canal" and specifically named for the Prince of Orange - as a piped link to William the Silent. A Dutch colleague tells me that "Prinsen..." is plural. I don't know enough Dutch to recognize the possessive form for either a singular or plural noun. The Prinsengracht page in the Dutch Wikipedia seems to state that the name is for the Prince(s) of Orange as a dynastic title. Possibly there's a workaround here, that it's for any (or the current) Prince of Orange. However, I need to know: is "Prinsen" in the canal name singular or plural? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect Dutch is like German in that noun + noun compounds often take a "joint" which may look like a plural ending but doesn't have a plural meaning. In Berlin we have a Prinzenstraße and Prinzessenstraße, each named after an individual person, even though Prinzen and Prinzessen by themselves are plural. The German Wikipedia article is at de:Fugenlaut; another example there is Gänsebraten ("roast goose"), where Gänse is the plural "geese" even though an individual roast goose is just one goose. Angr (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Prinzessenstraße is an interesting case. There is indeed one in Karlsruhe-Durlach. It contains the genitive of Prinzess, an obsolete form of Prinzessin. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I was mistaken above: the street in Berlin is Prinzessinnenstraße. Angr (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Angr is basically right. Technically, 'Prinsengracht' could be understood as referring to multiple princes, while 'Prinsegracht' is definitely about a single prince. However, the 'n' that distinguishes the two is not pronounced, and in older Dutch it could also indicate a genitive instead of a plural. Many similar words exists in Dutch, and native speakers themselves are frequently confused about when to write an 'n' between two words. The rules are very complicated and do not just depend on singulars and plurals. Also, there have been several official spelling reforms in the last few decades that changed the rules. Without going into much detail: 'prinsen' is indeed the plural of 'prins', but the word 'Prinsengracht' is ambiguous as to whether it refers to several princes or just one. Historically, as you noted, it was named for the Prince of Orange. - Lindert (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In English too (fairly closely related to Dutch) the only difference between the nominative plural and the singular posessive is an apostrophe; princes versus prince's, and to make a plural posessive just shift the apostrophe; princes'. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(OP): Aha, but each of these is distinctive, having a unique significance. It's the ambiguity of a shared form that I (the hapless though not feckless, EN>HE translator) need to puzzle out. Still thinking this over. Thanks, all, for your input! -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The forms Prince(n)-, Keysers- and Heere(n)- are ambiguous, but the element Conincks- in Conincksgracht,[7] an alternative name for the Singel which dates from approximately the same time as the other three, is clearly not a plural. Iblardi (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

English

Are there many people who understand English in non-English-speaking country ? 雞雞 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It depends which country. But often, yes. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a map which might prove helpful. Matt Deres (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It also depends on what you mean by "many" and what you mean by "understand". Lots of people in most countries around the world understand the word "hello" and can say "My name is X." Fewer people can carry on a conversation in English. According to Matt Deres's map, every child in China is taught English. However, when I traveled to China last year, very few people there could speak or understand English. I think that the quality of English teaching there is generally not very good. That said, because there are 1.3 billion people in China, even if only 1% of the Chinese population can speak and understand English well enough to communicate easily with a native speaker, then 13 million Chinese people can understand English without qualification. You could say that there are many Chinese who understand English (even if 99% do not). Marco polo (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

School English in China, like pretty much every other school subject in China, is a rote learning exercise. You memorise long lists of words and conjugation tables and standard conversations, which you then regurgitate wholesale in an exam. The standard of instruction is also not high - decades of isolationist policies brought up a whole generation of teachers whose English were learnt second or third hand from an English speaker in the 1940s. Even national level exam questions contain grammatical errors or non-idiomatic usage. That said, people who have finished high school / gone to university would be able to understand your basic questions in English if both of you have the patience, and you speak formally and carefully, or perhaps write it down. And the quality of instruction is improving. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't the answer that English is the most widely-spoken second language in the world? Although I wasn't able to find this, our English as a Second Language article being about language teaching. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say the most widely spoken second language is Mandarin, considering the fact that most people in China either speak different dialects of Chinese, or have their own languages (there are 54 of them, out of the official 56 ethnic groups in China). Plus, mandarin is not only spoken in China, it is spoken in Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and in some other countries. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are usually counted as Chinese native areas, though--and even not discounting them I would not be surprised if English still has by far the most second language speakers. I just find it hard to believe its hard to find a statistic here. Maybe just English language? μηδείς (talk)

Yes, English language says 360 million native English (2010), 375 million 2nd language and 750 million as a foreign language. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

June 25

Latin vs. Japanese

This enquiry might be too subjective to warrant a space here, but being optimistic, are Latin and Japanese similar? Do they share a lot of grammatic features (that English doesn't possess)? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

They certainly don't share any Genetic relationship. Latin and Japanese are likely about as distinct as languages can get from a linguistic genetic relationship. --Jayron32 04:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That's misleading, Jayron. A majority of English speaking linguists advise you can't track linguistic relations back that early, (No more than about 6,000 y.b.p.) in which case there are no grounds for saying how close or far the languages might be related over that horizon which we can't breach. They don't claim there is no genetic relationship, just that it is not provable, and the distance unquantifiable

But of those who do think deeper relationships can be found, there is a good consensus supporting a connection between the Eurasiatic languages, with Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Altaic, (with their m-/t- "me thee" pronouns and so forth) as some of its branches. It is controversial many levels, but most of those people accept that Japanese is a member of Altaic. That would mean that Latin and the other PIE languages (like ours) are about equidistant to Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, Mongol, Japanese and others.

Better examples of more distant relations would be Basque and Chinese (which some hold are related to the recently proven Dene-Yeniseian family), or the languages of Africa, SE Asia, Oceania, and the Americas which are all excluded from Eurasiatic. So, among the skeptics we have the belief that no measurement can be made, but among those who do believe a measurement can be made, most believe the Latin and Japanese are much closer to each other than either is to Basque, Georgian, Arabic, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Navajo, Quechua, etc. (To forestall nitpiciking, the Eurasiatic family view is criticized vehemently (as is the venerable Altaic) by the majority skeptic view in the US. But only on the basis of skepticism, not in favor of an alternate theory of relationships. There are also those who link Japanese to the Austronesian languages, rather than the Altaic.) μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's only misleading in the sense that I can say that "I'm pretty sure that you and I aren't cousins" is misleading. Every human is the Xth cousin Y times removed to every other human on the planet, for sufficiently large values of X and Y, and that is unequivocally true. Likewise, it is beyond likely that every single language can be reduced to a language spoken before modern Homo Sapiens left Africa. The more interesting question is whether linguists can make a documented connection between Japanese and Latin, just as the more interesting question is to whether one can make documented family tree that reliably links the familial relationship between two people, not just speak in vague platitudes which, while unequivocally true, don't add anything to the discussion at hand. --Jayron32 20:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Medeis was just saying that there are other language pairs that are uncontroversially more distant than Japanese and Latin. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, one can find more distant pairs. I have answered at length below. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The most blatant difference between Latin and English, from a grammatical standpoint, is that Latin is a highly inflected language, whereas English is whatever the opposite of that is, meaning that grammar is indicated more by word order and by grammatical particles than by inflection. Where you would put Japanese on that scale I'm not quite sure -- for example, one of the few Japanese words I know is watakshi, the first-person singular pronoun, and if you want to use it as the subject of a sentence you say watakshi-wa. But is wa a particle, or an inflection? --Trovatore (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

They share case marking and somewhat flexible word order (Japanese tends to be subject-object-verb, but in some grammatical contexts and some pragmatic contexts that order can be changed--it's called scrambling--; I believe Latin is also pretty flexible). Of course, countless other languages also have these same features. (For what is worth, this should probably be considered one similarity rather than two--case marking and free word order tend to covary, such that languages with case marking are more likely to have freer word order, whereas languages like English with little case marking are likely to have fairly fixed word order.) Some of the cases that are marked in these languages are similar (e.g., both languages mark accusative case and genitive case), whereas some are different (Japanese distinguishes between a nominative marker and a topic marker, which I think Latin does not do grammatically; Latin has a vocative case and I am not sure if Japanese does).

And of course they differ in many other respects. Latin verbs agree with their subjects (are conjugated for) in person and number, and Japanese verbs don't (I think?). Latin adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and case, whereas I think Japanese only agree in case. Japanese has a more complicated system of honorifics. If you look deeper (at particular structures, particular tenses or aspects, etc.), I am sure you will find very many more differences. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, from what little I know of both, you've basically hit the two major similarities. They both case-mark their nouns and they both have SOV as their basic word order. Even those are extremely superficial similarities; SOV is the most common word order, and case-marking is common over the entire Eurasian continent (and even then, their case marking has some noticeable differences, and Latin's word order is often more similar to English, for example preposition-noun, noun-relative clause). They also both have more complicated tense-aspect marking on the verb, but once again this is similar in a very superficial way. Basically what I'm saying is that you could say that, very broadly speaking, they share grammatical features... but at that level of "broadly speaking" you could say the same about nearly every pair of languages you picked, so you haven't said much of anything useful. Lsfreak (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thesre's really not much in common between the Japanese particles (or postpositions) and Latin case endings. The Japanese particles are invariable, while the Laten endings depend on the morphological class of the noun. And while '(w)o' pretty much corresponds to an accusative particle, and 'no' a genitive, the others all have meanings which don't map to anything in Latin (or other IE languages). 'ni' is a sort of locative, but is not for the place where some activity takes place, which is 'de'. And 'wa' is a topic marker, not a subject marker. --ColinFine (talk)

In response to Jayron and others above, this is one topic on which I can take a far more than armchair opinion. Indeed, just today (an hour ago) I received Sergei Starostin's Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages in the mail. (It does not have an entry for Jap. otoo, but it does mention Proto-Altaic ačV- for older relative). The claim I took exception to is Jayron's "[they] are likely about as distinct as languages can get from a linguistic genetic relationship". Jayron's claim that they certainly don't share a genetic relationship is one you will hear from certain skeptics. But they don't actually mean no genetic relation at all. They mean no as of yet convincingly (to them) demonstrated relationship. And there are plenty of respected linguists who do say Japanese is related to Korean, that that pair is a member of the Altaic family, and that Indo-European and Altaic are related within Eurasiatic/Nostratic. There are plenty of people who are skeptical of Eurasiatic and many of Altaic, but there are absolutely no respectable or plausible offered alternatives to these families other than the principled agnosticism of those who deny deep-relations can be demonstrated at all.

That being said, the notion that Japanese and Latin are about as far apart as one can get is not only false on the historical and comparative evidence (See Roy Andrew Miller on Japanese, Joseph Greenberg on Eurasiatic, Michael Fortescue on Uralo-Siberian, Nicholas Poppe on Altaic), it's also false on a typological basis. One can't just say, "Are dogs and butterflies related?" without a context. The relevant question is, among dogs and cats and butterflies and bees and octopuses, which are most closely related to each other? With a few exceptions (such as the languages of the Caucasus, the Ket language, the Nivkh language, and Chukchi-Kamchatkan) {[Paleo-Siberian language]], from Turkey to Japan, agglutinating SOV languages with post-nominal case markers dominate. These languages were for a time classified as Ural-Altaic, which is now viewed as illegitimate in the way classifying all the hoofed mammals together is considered illegitimate--carnivores, it turns out, lions and bears, are more closely related to horses than the latter are to cows (e.g., Zooamata). These "Ural-Altaic" languages differ greatly in typology from most of the languages that surround them. Word-types and language types found include incorporating languages in the Caucasus, and isolating languages in the South East. Differences in phonology include (tones in the east, ejectives in the Caucasus. The Zulu language, with its clicks and noun- and verb- prefix agreement, and the very complex and "exotic" new world languages like the Navajo language and the Salish language dialects are quite unlike the Ural-Altaic type. It is in this much wider context that Latin has to be compared with Japanese.

Now, we know that it would be context-dropping to compare Japanese directly with Latin, given that we know Latin had earlier stages, and developed from the Proto-Indo-European language, which itself developed from pre-Proto-Indo-European (Pre-Indo_European, Winfred P. Lehmann. Oddly enough, it turns out that pre-Proto-Indo-European (P-PIE) was more like the Ural-Altaic type than classical Latin. It apparently had an SOV word order, postpositions, or loosely attached post-nominal case particles, and a lack of grammatical gender as such. P-PIE was much more like Japanese than Latin would become. Evidence like vowel ablaut may suggest PIE was a Ural-Altaic type language that took on a more inflected and grammaticalized form due to language contact with the highly grammaticalized languages of the Caucasus. P-PIE's root vowels seem to have been almost totally reanalyzed on a North West Caucasian type plan at some point. Not having studied Old Japanese directly, I don't want to attempt to describe it, but it certainly appeared closer to its Altaic roots.

All that being said, nowadays the two languages are quite different, and will not subjectively appear very similar, unless you are familiar with other languages from a broad world-wide range. They have fairly simple phonologies and similar vowel systems, both marking length in consonants and vowels. They both allow implied subjects/objects and verbs to be left unstated. Of course that really tells you very little, and while you can sorta guess at what Catalan would be like if you know French and Spanish, but had never heard it, knowing anything about Latin or Japanese would give you absolutely no idea of how to imagine the other language had you never met it. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Family name "Frautschi" = ?

Hello Learned Ones ! Do you know the origin of the family name "Frautschi" ? I think it comes from germanophone Switzerland (where it shouldn mean "little lady", I think... ), but on WP de I find only 3 russian names...In WP en, I find a female hochey player from Interlaken , along with an american scientist & a violonist...Thanks a lot beforehand. T.y Arapaima (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It sure sounds Swiss, and there are several Frautschis in Switzerland, and some of them even have websites: Psychologist Christian, conceptual artist Chri and composer Franz. German speakers should tell you the etimology. No such user (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reference on the meaning of Frautschi online (finding good German onomastic information online has stumped me before). My electronic Swiss telephone book gives 155 entries for Frautschi, most of them are located in and around Gstaad or Saanen in the Bernese Oberland.

The suffix -tschi is quite common in Alemannic surnames (Gautschi, Bertschi, Fritschi) and can also be a diminutive in Bernese dialect: "Meitschi" ("Mädchen" in Standard German) means girl (little maid), "Müntschi" means "kiss" (probably from "Muu" for "mouth", though "Muntsch" for a big kiss exists too, possibly as a back-formation).

In other words, while your assumption of "little lady" doesn't sound implausible at first glance, I couldn't find anything corroborating it. Names are often tricky, and it is easily possible that the etymology of "Frautschi" has absolutely nothing to do with "little woman". ---Sluzzelin talk 14:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Swiss Radio DRS has experts explaining the origins of Swiss German names as requested by listeners, and one can listen to a decent amount of them online here (in Swiss German) Unfortunately nobody seems to have asked for an explanation on Frautschi yet.

I did listen to the ones ending in -tschi, and it's a bit of a mixed bunch, though most simply seem to be nicknames of given names (or first names). Bertschi/Bärtschi from Berchtold, Fritschi from Friedrich, Dietschi from Dietrich, Rutschi from Rudolf, Witschi from something like Wighart. On the other hand, Bratschi is a nickname derived from an old onomatopoetic word for a clapping sound ("bratsch") and somehow "Bratschi" came to mean a fat, plump, talkative person. Gautschi is derived from the "Kawertschen", Christian money changers from either Southern France or the Piedmont. None of these examples come from the Bernese Oberland, but it does show that the etymology often is not that straightforward or obvious. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Only a guess: Frautschi or Frutschi in Switzerland might just be a Germanization of a Romance name "Frucci" (or vice versa). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Traditional children's rhymes and songs

I was chatting with my young nieces and nephews (ages 9 to 13) over the weekend when the topic of traditional "playground" rhymes and songs came up. They knew "Ring-a-ring a rosy" and "Eenie meenie mynie mo" but not "Two little dicky birds" (excuse my spelling). Are some of these of rhymes and songs going extinct? Has anyone published serious literature on these types of songs? (Demographic info: I'm male, 45years old, white, English-speaking, South African). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The classic work on this subject is this one, but it's rather old now (first published in 1959). As to whether these songs are dying out, the only song my 9-year-old son and his friends seem to sing in the playground is "Gangnam Style". Make of that what you will. Viennese Waltz 08:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Small world. My 7yr old niece also knows those but not Oranges_And_Lemons. (Demographic info: I'm male, 45years old, white, English-speaking, South African).196.214.78.114 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I recall that there has been some serious research on nursery rhymes but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. However, the Opie Book of Nursery Rhymes attempts to collect both the rhymes that are more familiar and their regional variants, and may repay some further reading on this. Iona and Peter Opie seem to have produced a fair amount of work on nursery rhymes. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd guess the version of Eeny, meeny, miny, moe that these children know isn't the same as the version I knew over 50 years ago, when we used it in the school playground as a choosing rhyme. Two Little Dickie Birds is perhaps more used between parent and very young child - I remember singing it with my own children - rather than being picked up from peers as part of playground culture. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I remember "Two Little Dickie Birds" being used by girls as a Skipping-rope rhyme. BTW That article has a useful template at the bottom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry forgot to provide the obvious link: Nursery rhyme. And I forgot to sign too! Doh! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a bit of anecdotal evidence in this past reference-desk thread. Deor (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The word "mother"

Why is the root of "mother" an "m" followed by a vowel in so many languages - even totally unrelated ones such as Latin and Zulu? Is it because such a sound is one of the first that a baby is physically/neurologically capable of intentionally producing? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be what's known as a false cognate, and your suggested explanation isn't too far off from what some linguists have hypothesised. See Mama and papa. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! WP:WHAAOE. So my hunch seems to be confirmed, by at least some linguists. "Somewhere in a cave in the Geat Rift valley a gazillion moons ago, a homonid baby saw its mother and responded by smiling and making a repetitive "ma ma ma" sound - that sound became the word for mother." Offers for movie rights welcome! :) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Or, "many times in homes all over the world, hominid babies saw their mothers and responded with "ma ma ma". --ColinFine (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a humorous take on this at http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1581. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That cartoon really nails it down perfectly! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ははは「はは」と笑っている！KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Google translate :( say that is: 'My mother is laughing as "mother"!'I don't get it!?!? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a pun. 'haha' is 'mother' in Japanese, and also means 'haha' (as in laughing). I was pointing out the fact that they have a different word. Some very small kids in Japan do use the word 'mama', but they soon grow out of it. Medeis says below that Japanese uses the word 'otoo' for 'father' (it's actually 'otousan'), but they also use 'chichi' and 'papa'. Never use Google Translate. It's mad as a bag of monkeys. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I omitted the -san ending because it's an honorific suffix. Isn't there a modern stand-alone form otoo with a long /o/? The form I am used to seeing in comparative works is with a long final o, but that might be a mistake or an older form. Unfortunately I cannot read Japanese, and good phonetic and transliterated sources in the Roman alphabet are hard to come by. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is actually pronounced as a long o, but is written with a u at the end, and never comes without the honorific suffix. To be honest, my theory is that it is cognate with 'otto', which means 'husband', and with 'otoko', which means 'man'. Due to the fact that the Japanese people are made up of three separate ethnic groups which came in thousands of years ago during the Jomon and Yayoi periods (one from Polynesia, one from Taiwan, and one from Korea), plus the Ainu, and the language is a mix of the languages they brought with them, I doubt that 'otousan' has any affinity whatsoever with Hungarian 'atya'. The only similarity is that they both have vowels and a 't' in them, which is hardly surprising considering the paucity of sounds a human mouth can make. 'Iraira' is Japanese for 'frustrated' - does this make the language close to Latin, with it's 'ira' (leading to our English 'irate')? Japanese 'itte' is the imperative of 'go', similar to Latin 'ite'. 'Anta' is Osaka dialect for 'you'. Does this mean it's similar to Egyptian colloquial Arabic? No, it just means there are similar words in different languages, which is bound to happen after thousands of years. We just happen to be lucky enough to live in a time where half a dozen words in Japanese resemble words from 6,000 languages across the globe. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your additional comment ignores my post below, whose evidence you do not answer. I am not sure whether you believe Japanese is demonstrably related to any other family, but no one (at least not me) is talking about random comparisons of superficially similar words in uncritically compared modern languages. (You may have missed these detailed comments above on methodology giving links an references in the Japanese vs Latin thread.) Of course plenty such coincidences exist. Rather we are talking about roots that have been traced back to their protolanguages and which show regular sound correspondences between those languages. You haven't addressed this, you have pointed to the existence of a bunch of other stuff. I have given some cognates below, you can find scores more in sources like Fortescue that I have mentioned. (Oddly enough, Greenberg compares Latin ite (PIE *ei-, "to go") with various Uralic forms (Hungarian jöv-, Altaic aja- "go, walk", Proto-Eskimo ayu- "go further" and Old Japanese ayum- "to walk". So, itte may indeed be unrelated--but other comparisons are possible.) μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• There seem to be two things going on. It is plain that mater/pater, mother/father go back with regular sound correspondences to an Indo-European root just like other regular words. But it is interesting that both these words start with ma- and pa- like baby talk words in other languages. Apparently these words were "formalized" from baby talk with the addition of the -ter suffix at some point in Pre-Proto-Indo-European and now act as words of the regular lexicon.

Even then, modern IE languages still have apparently new baby talk creations like mom and pop, as well as nana and dada and forms in other languages that are similar, but don't show regular sound correspondences. And meanwhile, forms like at(y)a and an(y)a seem to show an old presence from Latin atta/anus to Hungarian atya/anya to Japanese otoo for father. This might be evidence of an older case like mater/pater where baby talk roots were formalized and passed on with sound correspondences in an earlier language family. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A recent paper argues that "mother" is one of a small number of ultraconserved words that is found in multiple language families and predates the prototypes of those language families. While the paper has come under some criticism and I'm not comfortable with all of its conclusions, it does seem likely that proto-Indo-European, etc., did not simply materialize from the void and that at least a few older words still survive in some form. Note that this theory is not inconsistent with the Dinosaur Comics theory just described; both could be factors. John M Baker (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to KageTora, the comparison is not so facile. With false cognates like ire, from Latin ira, I would obviously want to trace back to PIE first (it goes to *eis-) and compare with the other branches of Altaic and Eurasiatic. No luck there. But as for comparing the words for father/elder male relative in other branches of Eurasiatic, to add to Latin atta, Gothic atta and the Japanese forms you've given, I'd look at Proto-Turkic ata- (Decsy), and Proto-Uralaic æc'æ, Aleut aðax, ProtoEskimo-Aleaut ataq, and Chukchi əɫəɣ, as well the less obvious Nivkh yvŋ (per Greenberg) and Kamchadal isx. These all point to a Proto-Eurasiatic *at(:')a-q, which fits very easily with otoo, otto, or otoko. Again, I am not really able to speak with any authority myself on the internal development of Japanese. (A parallel form, an{:')a-q, with optional lengthening and palatalization of the /n/ is found for words for mother in the same range of Eurasiatic languages.) μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I will agree that 'mama' is common all around the world - the original question - but this is simply because this is the first word a baby, who has not developed the motor skills yet for real speech, will say, and generally this is referring to mother - the source for nourishment and food. This is why we say 'mammary glands' (I am glad I don't have 'pappary glands'!). 'Papa' or 'dada' come next. Do you notice they all have the same vowel, and repetitiveness? That is because that is all they can produce at that age. So, 'mama' becomes a sort of nickname for mother, and 'papa' or 'dada' becomes a nickname for father. Sometimes a baby will refer to himself as 'baba' (and the parents will too). This is because that is all they can pronounce. At that age, they have a limited number of consonants, and only one vowel - as in, opening the mouth. It's not surprising that so many languages have the same or similar word for 'mama'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You do have papillae. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

misplaced modifiers

I need to know which usage is correct: "The forbidden substances, which increase the mass of Hb include..." or "The substances forbidden to increase the mass of Hb include..."121.247.79.53 (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The first is definitely wrong. If you precede "which" by a comma, that means you're treating what comes next as a parenthetical clause, and parenthetical clauses must both start and end with commas. That is, Hb should be followed by a comma. On the other hand, if it was not your intention to have a parenthetical clause - and comparison with the 2nd sentence suggests it was not - then the comma should be removed. It's the difference between restrictive clauses and non-restrictive clauses. As it stands, the 2nd sentence is grammatical. As it stands, the 1st is both ungrammatical and ambiguous. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes on clauses, but my question was about the modifier 'forbidden', should it come before 'substances' or before 'to increase'?121.247.79.53 (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That would depend on the context, please point us to the full text. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As a simple adjective, it comes before, like almost all adjectives in English: "the forbidden substances". If it is the introductory word to a longer modifier, it usually comes after: "the substances forbidden to minors", "the substances forbidden in the home", "the substances forbidden by law". The latter examples can all be restrictive (without parenthetical commas) or non-restrictive (set off by commas).

However, in your example

• "the forbidden substances, which increase the mass of Hb, include" restricts the discourse to those substances which are forbidden, and comments that they increase the mass.
• "the forbidden substances which increase the mass of Hb include" restricts the discourse to those substances which both are forbidden, and which increase the mass. There is no necessary connection between increasing the mass and being forbidden, though I think there is an implication that they are connected.
• "the substances forbidden to increase the mass of Hb include" is grammatical, but has quite a different meaning, which I do not think you intend. It picks out, from all possible substances, including those that increase the mass, just those substances which are forbidden to increase the mass.

This is unlikely partly because "forbidding" is normally something you do only to animate agents: you might forbid somebody to use a substance, but not normally forbid a substance to do something (though some people are happy with "forbidding a substance to be used")

• "the substances, forbidden to increase the mass of Hb, include" is even more unlikely: it designates all the substances you might be referring to, without limiting them, but comments that all these substances are forbidden to increase the mass. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

121.247.79.53: as Roger Dodger pointed out, this would be easier if you would show us the whole sentence (or, better yet, several sentences of context). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How do we correct an error in a definition?

In the Oxford Dictionary, US English, the definition of a "thole pin" noun- "a pin, typically one of a pair, fitted to the gunwale of a rowboat to act as the fulcrum for an oar." This is incorrect in that it is not the fulcrum. TarbabyJohn (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to contact the Oxford Dictionary people. This is Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Our article on rowlock states When a boat is rowed, the rowlock acts as a fulcrum, ... I fail to understand why this device, be it called thole pin or rowlock, does not act as a fulcrum. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is wrong. If the rowlock is the fulcrum then the water is the load and the purpose of rowing is to move water. Unlikely. The rowlock is the load and the fulcrum is in the water. 81.151.158.160 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The oar pivots on the rowlock and extends beyond it in either direction. Relative to the oar, the rowlock and boat do not move, but the water does. So it is indeed the fulcrum. Mingmingla (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

According to our article on Rowing (sport), "the blade fixed in the water is the fulcrum". According to Basic Physics of Rowing either point of view is correct, depending on which frame of reference you are using. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Just corrected the formatting. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

June 26

Chavacano

Ano ang chavacano ng pangungusap na "tagarito ako"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.14.5.200 (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate gives (Tagalog): "What chavacano the sentence "I belong here"?" Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And I have now learnt that there is a Chavacano language. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "You took my freak"

I was watching a Bart Baker video on Youtube (I know, I have bad taste!) and one of the lines in the song is "You took my kid's freak!". This is said at 2:21 in the video by an angry dad to Bart (who is playing the part of PSY in the song). It's obviously something he (Bart) shouldn't have done, since a cop is holding a gun to his head (he has been placed under arrest!). I haven't got this line wrong since there are subtitles. What does "You took my kid's freak" mean? Thanks everyone! 59.167.253.199 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)