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

August 17

German speakers: What does this mean in English?

I believe it is a medical term: Beeinträchtigenschulterstörung.

What what about the sentence: Ich trinke Beeinträchtigenschulterstörungstärkungsmittel!

Thank you very much. --Ashetuger (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Google Translate: The first is Impaired shoulder disorder. And the second doesn't really make any sense, "I'm a shoulder disorder Impaired tonic". That said, the second is being translated in a way that I'm not familiar with since "trinken" is the verb "to drink" and not "to be". Dismas|^(talk) 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The word doesn't exist and isn't well-formed. Sure, the three component words exist: "beeinträchtigen" ('to affect, to impair'), "Schulter" ('shoulder'), and "Störung" ('disorder'), but you could never form a compound with the first element in this (infinitival, verbal) form followed by its implied object. A possible compound that would mean something like 'shoulder impairment disorder' would be "Schulterbeeinträchtigungsstörung". The second sentence would mean "I drink a tonic against X" (with X being whatever that nonsense compound is supposed to mean). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. --Ashetuger (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

August 18

Cham alphabet fonts?

Cham script is included in the Unicode standard (U+AA00 ... U+AA5F). Is anybody aware of a free Unicode font for this script? Through a cursory google search I found one available but for a price and only for Macs (ewwww). I would like to add Cham script to our articles on Champa, Cham language and Cham people.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

English Etymological Dictionary

I'm looking for a text file that has, for each word in the English language, a list of the languages the word has passed through to get to English. Basically, an etymological dictionary without any sort of explanations, or older forms. Thanks in advance. Vidtharr (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you can have one without the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree: Although you hypothetically could have one without the other, you now actually can't have one without the other, because no one has made such a collection. None of the three English etymological dictionaries worth citing (Oxford, Klein, Chambers) is merely such a list, and I doubt anyone has systematically gone through any of these and pared the information down into such a list. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The OP seems to have in mind some clean sortable text with just vocabulary items and no text. Nobody's going to do that without expecting recompensation. W. W. Skeat's Etymological English Dictionary (4 parts, 1879-1882; rev, and enlarged, 1910) is an excellent free text. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I'll have to make it myself. Does anyone know where I could download a free English etymological dictionary (preferably in a text format, and maybe non-OCR)? Thank you for the replies. Vidtharr (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody's going to do that without expecting recompensation" - that's exactly why people do write things for which they perceive a market, and get them published and sold. Maybe what Medeis means is that there is little known demand for such a book. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should give up so easily. While books and dictionaries aren't what the OP is looking for, a corpus (things like CELEX) may well have this information. I haven't worked much with English corpora so I'm not sure which ones of any have etymological information in them, but there are thousands of corpora so I bet there's something out there, and they're usually in a format that is suitable for automated data mining. You can check out the Linguistic Data Consortium to search, or ask around. Some are available for free, many or not. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

August 19

Opposite of dense?

What's a word to describe an object that is not dense? Density in the physical science sense that is. Like if I want to say that hydrogen is not dense, is there a word for that other than saying it's "light" or "not dense"? ScienceApe (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Rarefied"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not rare-ified, I think — that implies the outcome of a process. It could be rare (see meaning 2 of etymology 2), but that usage is itself rare.

I don't think there is a specific one-word antonym to dense in the sense of having high mass per unit volume, if that's what ScienceApe means by "the physical science sense". However, sparse is a pretty reliable antonym to dense in a lot of other senses, some of which might be arguably part of physical science. --Trovatore (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Rarified" can clearly mean "having been subjected to rarefaction" (though it can also have other meanings -- none of them very closely and directly connected to the usual meaning of "rare", however)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That was exactly my point — we don't want "having been subjected to rarefaction"; that's the outcome of a process, but no process is mentioned. --Trovatore (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Tenuous" might work, as "dense" and "tenuous" derive from the Latin words for "thick" and "thin" respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How about loose or airy? They aren't particularly close in meaning, I agree. Gabbe (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I know it the rocket industry, vehicles fueled by hydrogen are sometimes called 'fluffy' ie not dense. Not the best term either, but there you go. 82.0.112.151 (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

'Expanded'? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The opposite of a "dense packing" is a "sparse packing". I can't think of a particular word for "of low density", though Bluap (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The usual term for "not dense" is the perhaps overly obvious "low-density." "Tenuous," "rare," and "rarified" also have this meaning, although it seems to me that those words really apply only to gases and liquids and not to solids. "Light" can also mean this and has the advantage that it can also apply to solids. John M Baker (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Low-density" is probably the only precise choice, but the OP asked for "a word", not two words. I think you're right that "rare" applies only to gases. "Tenuous" isn't quite right, in spite of etymology (has the sense of something being weak, something that might not hold). "Rarefied", as I said, sounds as though something has been done to it, which is not part of the concept sought (though admittedly it might work, but only for gases). "Rare" and "rarefied" also say nothing about mass density per se, which I think is what the OP was getting at. "Light" is the opposite of "heavy", and while "heavy" can be used imprecisely to mean "dense", that's a somewhat casual usage. And "sparse", which you didn't mention but which is probably the most reliable general antonym to "dense", isn't about mass.

So I think the bottom line is, sorry ScienceApe, there is no such word. --Trovatore (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets invent an etymologically correct word: antipycnal. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps: antipycnoic? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Antipycnocious? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that a hyphenated word is still a word. "Low-density" is recognized as a word by the OED and American Heritage, among others. If you wish an unhyphenated word, the best seems to be "light." OED definition 2a (for the adj.) is "Possessing little weight in proportion to bulk; of small specific gravity." Definition 2b is "Applied to elements whose specific gravity (or atomic number) is relatively low." So that seems to be our answer. John M Baker (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, now I notice that the OP for some reason specifically excluded "light." If he also doesn't like "low-density," then I think we're stuck. There are several words (mostly obscure) that sort of mean this--the Oxford Historical Thesaurus mentions thin, subtile, airy, shire, rare, solute, intenuate, slender, tenuous, and ethereal, among others--but only "light" and "low-density" seem to have the precise desired meaning. John M Baker (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would describe hydrogen as "positively buoyant" Robinh (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That is two words, the OP asked for one. Not that I'm saying that it is a legitimate word, but Google yields the word 'un-dense'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's doubleplusgood. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't work. Just because something isn't dense doesn't necessarily mean it's the opposite. It could be in the middle somewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The practice of magnitude gradation is equally applicable to opposites, compare 'not very dense' with 'very antipycnal'. It depends. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

l think of culinary contexts, where one might desire some mixture to not be sloppy but not be too dense either. There's a "just right" point. If I'd made it too dense, and my ever-present critic piped up, he/she'd say "No, that's too dense. You need it to be ....". I can't imagine them saying anything other than "not so dense", or "not so thick" or something similar. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's more than one word. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

My point being that there is no one-word answer that would be used in such a circumstance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Diffuse! Mrgoodytwoshoes (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Plattdeutsch nickname - original name

If somebody's ancestor in Northern Germany was called "Tietje", what was his formal name likely to have been? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

German wikipedia has an article: [[1]]. It is also used as a female first name in Frisian/Dutch. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So, it's short for Dietrich, then? Danke. (My querent is Plattdeutsch but I knew it also shows up in Frisian.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

August 20

Belgian Surname

How would the surname Beckx (as in Peter Jan Beckx be pronounced? I assume it's Flemish, not Walloon French, although the article doesn't make that clear. The X article doesn't mention any special usage of the letter in that language, or anything other than the English standard 'ks' in Dutch. Rojomoke (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the X is pronounced as 'ks' in the name of his fellow-countryman Eddie Merckx. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The combination 'ckx" does not occur in any contemporary Dutch words, it is only found in some names; the only plausible pronunciation for a Dutch speaker is indeed 'ks'. The following video of of a Flemish tv-show has the name Frank Beckx in it at around 0:13: [2]. - Lindert (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation given in our article about the famous cyclist Eddy Merckx is (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈmɛrks]). Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops - sorry Andrew - I didn't read your post. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Settling place name disagreements

What references would you suggest to settle disputes as to the primary, modern, widely used name of a geographic place in the English language? Chrisrus (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Widely used atlases, such as those published by the National Geographic Society and Royal Geographical Society? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

See "Geographic Names Information System" for places in the United States.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Are there more ideas? Does anyone else have any ideas where the primary, modern, widely used names of Geographic places might be looked up? Chrisrus (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The source for most of the names in the U.S. Geographic Names Information System, and perhaps a more authoritative (because more established) source is the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN). Another source widely used by U.S. publishers is Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, as far as I know available only in print. The leading commercial atlas publisher in the United States is Rand McNally, and the names used in its atlases have some influence on other publishers. The Times Atlas of the World, published by the UK cartographers Collins Bartholomew, is influential even in the United States, and presumably also in the UK and elsewhere. That said, there are certainly cases on which these authoritative sources differ. Most publications have a style sheet that names a source to be regarded as authoritative on geographic names. Wikipedia might want to adopt a similar practice, perhaps preferring the national cartographic authority listed here for each English-speaking country for names within that country, then the U.S. BGN's preferred form for names in countries where English is not the official language (since no other government cartographic authority in an English-speaking country publishes standard forms for names outside the country's borders), and finally the national cartographic authority of the country in question if the BGN does not offer a standard form for a name in that country. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, Mr. Polo. Thank you very much. Please, if anything else should occur to you, if you would please let us know. Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How about you, any reader of these words. Where would you send a person who wanted to settle disagreement over geographic place names? Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is the Atlas of Canada but if you wanted traditional names in the Kitikmeot Region then the Kitikmeot Place Name Atlas, which will also pronounce the name is useful. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

David Cameron saying "step up to the plate"?

Hi!

I was surprised to see UK PM David Cameron quoted in an LA Times article calling on websites such as Ask.fm to "step up to the plate and show some responsibility."

What, besides baseball, is the origin/usage of this term?

Thanks, Saintrain (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

UK user here. I was sure the phrase originated from the steam train's footplate: if something unfortunate befell the train driver, the stoker or fireman would have to "step up to the plate" and take over the driving duties. However, I have been unable to confirm this usage. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

My guess would be: The phrase originated in the US, with the obvious baseball etymology. The British then picked it up. Some of them, not being familiar with baseball or at least not having it very much in their consciousness, found an alternative explanation, and Tammy either heard that from somewhere or made it up herself. But I'm guessing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the OED only mentions the baseball etymology. 129.234.53.220 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

My ex-husband was a railwayman, who came from a family of railwaymen, so I guess that's where it came from.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The equivalent British English expression is "step up to the crease". But I guess Cameron has to avoid idioms that might confuse an international audience. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Saintrain (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to add that I think it was brought to these shores through the medium of management speak. "Take a rain check" is widely used here too, although probably not universally understood. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Tête-bêche in a sentence en francais

Hello! I'm trying to use this phrase in a sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%AAte-b%C3%AAche) in French for a poem I'm writing. What I'm unsure of is what word to use before the phrase - I know a little French. Would I use à, dans, avec, etc? The sentence I'm writing is a mix of English and French. I'm describing "an old collection of poems...tête-bêche." What word, in French, should go where the ... is? Sorry if this is confusing. Thank you! : ) 74.69.117.101 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No need of anything - just place it after the word it modifies. It's an adjective. It is also invariable, so no plural form. So just "une vielle collection de poemes tete-beche." would likely be best, without knowing more. See wiktionary. Effovex (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The wiktionary link, and the other dictionaries online that I checked, seem to suggest that it isn't an adjective. It can be an adverb or a noun. To use the adverb, you could say "an old collection of poems displayed tête-bêche", or "... arranged tête-bêche", but you need a verb for it to relate to. You could choose a french verb, if you liked, and the French wiktionary gives an example of people sleeping head-to-tail: "Ils étaient contraints de dormir tête-bêche". However, like all good french terms, this has been appropriated into the OED, which cites adverbal examples in English such as "each row is placed tête-bêche to the one below it." 129.234.53.220 (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hum, I had misread adv into adj (although I had also seen it as an adjective elsewhere which is probably why I misread it when I saw it on wiktionary - other French dictionaries are blocked where I am) - but the end result for the phrase is the same. It does explain the invariability though. Effovex (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

An Irish slang?

What does an Irish person mean to say with this word blow-in, when they are referring to a non-born Irish that has lived in Ireland for a long long time? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The term probably comes from birdwatching, referring to birds that are not native to a country or region but have been blown in by a storm. The term suggests that the bird does not belong there and is out of place. Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, there's no such thing as "a slang"--the term is a mass noun, not a count noun. You can have a bit of slang or a slang phrase, but not an Irish slang. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is quite common here in Ireland. I'm a blow-in as a Londoner living in Dublin, but it's probably more common as a term used by people living in smaller villages and towns where the population has been quite static for many years. There, people moving from other parts of the country are described as blow-ins, even many years after they have arrived. One of my colleagues, a Dubliner, is still called 'the blow-in' by his neighbours, 30 years after he moved to the countryside.

Marco has quite a nice explanation for the origin, but the phrase makes me think of litter blown into a town on the wind. Either way, though, it's certainly meant as a slightly derogatory, but affectionately meant, term for someone who arrives in a place some years after their birth, as if carried there by the wind. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not even after their birth. Where I live, one needs to have had at least 5 generations born here to be considered a "local". I've lived here only 7 years. I've never been called a "blow-in" as such, but I'm certainly a long way off being a "local" yet. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And Vermont has the same sort of, for lack of a better word, prejudice. You're not a "Vermonter" unless you can prove X number of generations of relatives who lived in Vermont. There are even some people in the state that don't feel that Burlington, our biggest city, really counts as being part of Vermont because it's too liberal/cosmopolitan/etc. There's a joke that goes along with it that says that the nice thing about Burlington is that it's so close to Vermont. Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, now I could get a joke in a book :P and learnt something new. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Teochew romanization

How do you romanize 鸭母稔 in Teochew?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ask for the WikiProject China's help in addition to here. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah-bó-nìm I believe. Alex Shih^Talk 05:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

August 21

What is X?

Suppose a French person mentions "un livre", but you have no idea what it is, so you want to ask what is 'un livre'? How do you ask this? "Qu'est-ce que c'est, un livre"? Any less cumbersome ways?

EDIT: as a follow-up, how do you say "what is this book" and "what is in this book"? --74.43.43.6 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of Dave Barry's translation of qu'est-ce que c'est — "what is that, that that is?". --Trovatore (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The answer to which, of course, is: "That that is is that that is not is not that that is not is not that that is that that is is not that that is not is that not it". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See wikt:qu'est-ce que c'est and wikt:qu'est-ce que.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Simpler: Qu'est-ce qu'un livre ? Akward but common (spoken language): Qu'est-ce que c'est qu'un livre ? — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Or colloquially: "C'est quoi un livre ?" ou "Qu'est-ce que c'est un livre ?" --Xuxl (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In colloquial Quebec French (not sure if strictly speaking this is Joual) : Kossé ça un livre or Kessé ça un livre - I don't think you can get much shorter while remaining intelligible. Effovex (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow up questions:

What is this book?: spoken: C'est quoi ce livre ?, written: Qu'est ce que ce livre ?

What is in this book?: spoken: Il y a quoi dans ce livre ? written: Qu'y-a-t-il dans ce livre ?

--Lgriot (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Qu'est-ce que" is very cumbersome in speech: /kɛskə/. It's a penful in writing, but so what? --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, it isn't cumbersome, but no one that I know personally actually sais it. I would only ever hear it on TV from some presenters or politicians (but then a assume they are very self conscious).--Lgriot (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers! Lgriot: why does nobody say it, and what do they instead? I had the impression that "Qu'est-ce que c'est?" is the standard way of asking "what is it?" --50.47.84.246 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a big trend in French (at least in France) to say: C'est quoi <cette chose> ? instead of: Qu'est-ce que <cette chose> ?; and to say: ''C'est qui <cette personne> ? instead of: Qui est <cette personne> ?. But we usually say: Qu'est-ce que c'est ? or Qu'est-ce que tu dis ? (C'est quoi ce que tu dis  ? is sub-standard French) — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why, I guess the sentence structure is simpler that way. As AldoSyrt pointed out, Qu'est-ce que is not dead in spoken French, yet, it is still used in some cases. It is an interesting trend where the written language is getting different from the day to day spoken one, for example we only use "nous" in writing and say "on" when we speak. But we avoid "on" as the 1st person plural in writing, because it makes you look like you don't know how to speak properly (even though it is ok to say it all the time). --Lgriot (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's extremely new and surprising to me. So if you're with a group of friends, and you meet one other friend, you would say "on va manger à McDonalds" instead of "nous allons manger à McDonalds"? How would you say the equivalent of "tu veux venir avec nous?" if you're using "on"? Also, would you still say "allons-y"? --50.47.84.246 (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

— On [=we] va au McDo. — Tu veux venir avec nous ? — Ouais [= oui, yes] — Allons-y ! [=we + he/she ] / On =[we + he/she] y va !. — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer the questions. Yes, we would usually say "On va manger au MacDo". There is no equivalent for "tu veux venir avec nous", we must use "nous". And we would say either "allons-y !" or "on y va !". — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Term for the U.S. plus Canada (or: North America minus Mexico)

What's the term for this? I don't think it's North America, as that would include Mexico. But I feel like this is a word for this (i.e., the WASPier part of North America). Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe anglophone North America, but even that excludes parts of Canada. BTW, there are 23 sovereign nations in North America plus numerous other territories, not just the 3 you mentioned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I remember in middle school social studies class, the textbook we read taught about Latin America and Anglo-America (although it included the US and Canada and didn't include the Carribean nations, Belize or Guyana or exclude Quebec unlike the wiki article).--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also the term Northern America which may fit more your description, although I doubt it is widely used. Also North America actually includes Central America all the way to Panama, so the region you are referring to would be North America minus Mexico and Central America.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I guess there isn't a straightforward term like I was imagining. Thanks for the clarification regarding Central America; I tend to think of it as its own thing in my mind (i.e., North, Central [plus all those islands], and South America) and thus often use North America to refer to just these three "big" countries, and forget that technically that's not right. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was taught at school that North America includes all the countries north of Panama (and parts of Panama itself), and our article has a map concurring, but apparently in American schools they are taught differently? --Lgriot (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I was taught at school (in the U.S.) that North America includes Central America all the way down to Panama, as well as all the Caribbean islands. In other words, Central America is part of North America, not distinct from North America. As for what to call Canada + the U.S., perhaps "First-World North America", though the map on the page includes Greenland in the First World. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This may be a case when the only unambiguous term is simply to call it "Canada and the United States". --Xuxl (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"US and Canada" is 13 characters, including the spaces. I doubt if you'll do better. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"US and its hat" - dang. that adds an extra space with no fewer characters. --Onorem (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The movie industry uses "North America" as in North American box office figures. It only means U.S. and Canada. Rmhermen (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Greater United States" - surely those far northerners agree :). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Even a seemingly straightforward geographic term can be misleading, too - my first thought was to recommend "North of the Rio Grande" to describe the U.S. and Canada, but even that phrase would mostly be used by U.S. Americans to describe the U.S.A. specifically, often to draw contrasts with Mexico/Central America. The best option I think is also the most common: just "U.S. and Canada." In writing you'll sometimes see something like "US/Canadian investments in Asia..." or "American and Canadian interests in the region..." Personally I'd enjoy something like "the Western Hockeysphere," but I'm guessing that's not likely to catch on. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me of seeing "north of the 49th parallel" used to mean Canada, in a Toronto newspaper. From Toronto, to reach the 49th parallel, you have to drive north for maybe 5-6 hours. --Trovatore (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In Canada, the term appears to be North America. Canadians use that term very frequently, and it never seems to include Mexico or points south. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if they ever intend it to include Saint Pierre et Miquelon or Greenland. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Greenland, I'm almost sure not. Saint Pierre, I doubt they bother to notice whether it's included or not. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here in the US, "North America" rarely includes Central America. We would say "North and Central America" if we meant both. "North America" may also exclude Mexico, depending on the context. StuRat (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. North America is a geological continent, and unambiguously includes most of Central America. Countries have nothing to do with it — it's a matter of physical geography. --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with geology but more the common terms that we are taught and use, certainly in the UK it follows the Canadian way that North America would only include the USA and Canada and never Central America. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A visit to a false premise
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're certainly correct that it has nothing to do with geology, because that's the study of rocks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC) That's awfully reductive, Jack. Geology includes the study of large-scale processes, such as the ones that produce continents. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC) That's me all over, Trovatore. There's absurdity everywhere, and we should exult in it, and it's my job, Michelangelo-like, to strip away all that is not absurd. Even the foregoing link is absurd. That's what I'm talking 'bout. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Not sure if you're joking or not. In any case, geology most definitely includes the study of the large-scale structures of the planet, including continents. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Joke? Moi?  :) Actually, I was going on your "it's a matter of physical geography". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Geology and physical geography have a very considerable overlap. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I've learnt much from this interchange, but I still think it should be kept out of sight of the younger fry. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How about "US and Canada"? drt2012 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese help: PohnpeiAirport.jpg

When you zoom into File:PohnpeiAirport.jpg there is a blue sign in English and Japanese. What is the Japanese text? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I know enough to tell you the meaning is the same as the English text above (it starts with Youkoso (welcome) Ponpei, and I recognize pasupooto (passport), entorii peemitto (entry permit), paasu (pass)), but my Kanji knowledge is too poor to give you a transcription. Effovex (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Some characters are not clear enough and I could not read them.The first two ?? might be 帰国, but I'm not sure.
ようこそ　ポンペイ州へ
入国申請書を記入しパスポート、？？航空券、及び、
エントリーパーミット　（？？証）を携え　ブースまでお進み下さい。 Oda Mari (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

self subsisting

What is meant by "self subsisting"? Can you use it in a sentence. Is it a derogatory term?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Some context would help, but I assume it means the same as self-sufficient, in which case it is not derogatory.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It commonly appears as an English translation of one of the 99 names of God in Islam, القيوم (Al-Qayyūm). Here's a link to a site translating it in this way, and offering an interpretation of its meaning. A Google search produces many examples of people asking the same question, and a variety of answers in the general area of "not dependent on external sources". This document demonstrates that the term is also used in the Bahá'í Faith and there's an explanation of its meaning in the fourth paragraph ("that there is nothing other than Himself upon which He depends for His continuing existence") seemingly in response to a journalist who pointed out that the phrase "means nothing" in the English language. In any case, it's not derogatory. - Karenjc 15:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with Swedish!

I need help with the word 'Possum', referring to the animal. It is spelt Pungråtta or Pungråttor? Whats the difference between the two? I am learning Swedish. Thank you. --KuchenZimjah (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Pungråtta is singular, pungråttor is plural. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The word is pungråtta ('possum'), with the plural pungråttor ('possums'). See http://folkets-lexikon.csc.kth.se/folkets/folkets.en.html#lookup&Pungr%C3%A5tta.

This is a first declension noun - an 'en' word ending in -a - so the plural is formed by removing the -a and adding -or. This is the same as blomma/blommor and lampa/lampor. The definitive ('the possum') is formed with -en (pungråtten), and the definitive plural ('the possums') is formed with -orna (pungråttorna).

Note also that nouns in Swedish only take a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, just as in English. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The definite singular is pungråttan, not pungråtten. Gabbe (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In, On or At

What's the right way to say it: I lef s message in/at/on my talk page? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"On my talk page" is the usual idiom. "At" is possible, I guess, but "in" is unidiomatic. Deor (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Deor! :) (i asked because English is not my first language and I wanted to make sure I didn't make any mistakes) So you guys didn't make any RLMAO Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite all right, Miss Bono. The idiomatic use of prepositions tends to be one of the most difficult problems for nonnative speakers of a language. My attempts to speak German are notorious for unusual preposition usage. Deor (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

An editing screen is the electronic equivalent of a piece of paper. You write on paper, it being a flat surface. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help that in Spanish, en can translate as "in", "on" or "at". Usage doesn't necessarily match up between Spanish and English, or necessarily even within English. If I'm having major surgery, I'll be either "at the hospital" or "in the hospital" for a few days if I'm American, or just "in hospital" if I'm British. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking a simple case, if I'm "at home" in English, I'm en casa in Spanish. I wouldn't say I'm "in house" in that context, I could say I'm "in the house" or "in my house" or whatever. And I'm not "on" my house unless I'm repairing the roof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

On means sobre, like when I say That book is on the table? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 22

Japanese translation?

I'm staying in a dormitory in Japan (Kansai area). Today, when I got home from work, (about 6.30pm) the dorm manager said something that sounded vaguely like go kai ri. He also held his hand up out which looked like he was waving (so I waved back) but I figure he could have been holding up five fingers. I can't figure out if he was trying to tell me something or if he was just saying hello, or what. Google translate didn't help me.

Does anyone have any clue what he meant and how I should have replied?

Thanks. 110.3.247.175 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Search "Japanese hand gestures" in Google or your search engine of choice. Is this a student dormitory? See if there's an orientation manual, a bilingual phrasebook (preferably illustrated). Inquire with the concierge staff whether they could arrange a Big Sibling or similar sort of local hospitality to help you handle the ropes. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okaeri is the shortened form of Okaerinasai and means "welcome back". It is derived from Kaeru - to return. Effovex (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I guess the proper answer would have been Tadaima "I'm back" - although normally Okaeri would be given in answer to Tadaima. Effovex (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. 110.3.247.175 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The weather is nice.

In the sentence, "It's a nice weather." , why is the article a necessary? I know that "It's nice weather." is incorrect but I can't explain why. Thank you.203.228.255.210 (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would says it's the other way round: "It's a nice weather" is not idiomatic. "It's nice weather" on its own is also slightly strange, but people often say things like "there's going to be nice weather at the weekend." The word "weather" usually behaves as a mass noun. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew is right. There are very few contexts in which you could use "weather" as a count noun - the only one I can think of at the moment is in the idiom "in all weathers" (which is a set phrase where "all" cannot be substituted by other quantifiers). --ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As the others have implied, "It's nice weather" is the correct form. "It's a nice weather" is not a sentence native speakers would utter. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Google found me this, so maybe there are some dialects where "a nice weather" is possible. Perhaps the questioner could tell us where they saw or heard the expression? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Italian-English! "It's-a me, Mario!" MChesterMC (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

how do you pronounce ɦ ?

Just how do you pronounce [ɦ]? Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ɦ has its own article. I can't listen to it, but the sidebar has the sound. Do you need something more? Effovex (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I can listen to the sound file, and if I didn't already know what [ɦ] sounds like, that audio file wouldn't help me at all. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Right on, Angr. That sound file makes as much sense as "voiced glottal fricative". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't listened to the sound file, but I don't think that [ɦ] can usually be pronounced in isolation -- it's generally just a pronunciation of a vowel with breathiness, but without devoicing it. AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that I have been misled by the description of it as being voiced. :-) I think I'm getting closer...is this the right sound? Because I'm pretty sure I'm following the instruction at Breathy voice and am still not getting that exact sound. For now, trying to imitate that sound is just giving me radicals like [ħ] (and perhaps [ʕ]). Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation we have in the article sounds like a stroke-ridden man asking for his tablets or something. Loool. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Plural or not?

• I got some opportunities for part-time job
• I got some opportunities for part-time jobs

Which one is correct? (or both are wrong?)

Based on what English grammar? - Justin545 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The first one needs to have "a" before "part-time". Put that in, and it's on a par with the second. It depends on the context though. If you're looking for a job for yourself, you'd probably choose "for a part-time job", because presumably you only need one job. But if you're like an employment consultant, you might be looking for as many opportunities as possible to tell your clients about, and then you'd be talking about "for part-time jobs". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, though I find "some opportunities (plural) for a part-time job (singular)" a bit odd, and would probably say "for part-time jobs" even though I was only looking to get one job. --ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I'm always confused by the similar issues. It's sort of empirical and I can't find out the rules at all. - Justin545 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In the former case you have to add the indefinite article "a" because job is a count noun and the rules say that count nouns generally require an article or a determiner when they are singular.

Re the context, "I got some opportunities for part-time jobs" could imply that you were considering various different jobs, and might even be interested in taking more than one job, although not necessarily, which is basically what Jack and Colin have said. "I got some opportunities for a part-time job" definitely says that you were looking for one job, and had a selection of possible vacancies to choose from. - Karenjc 21:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Karenjc! - Justin545 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 23

FAO and the NATO

Hi, I was reading something talking about "FAO" instead of "the FAO", and then I found our own article on the Food and Agriculture Organization uses "FAO", not to mention (the) FAO's own website. It looks wrong to me, but then I realised we don't say "the NATO". Is there a rule or guiding principle to whether it's "the SNLA" (Some Number of Letters Acronym) or just "SNLA"? IBE (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This brings out the difference between a true acronym and merely an abbreviation/initialisation.

• Radar is an acronym because you pronounce it as a single word, not as 5 separate letters (ar-ay-dee-ay-ar). NATO is an acronym because you pronounce it as a single word, not as 4 separate letters (en-ay-tee-oh). Qantas is an acronym because you pronounce it as a single word, not as 6 separate letters (kew-ay-en-tee-ay-ess).
• The FAO, on the other hand, is simply an abbreviation because the 3 letters are sounded out (ef-ay-oh), and we don't pronounce it as a single word "fow" or "fayo". Same with the FBI, the CIA, the USA, the UN, the EC etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it makes a big difference how you say it. The FAO is calling itself "FAO", as linked. Should I regard this as an illiteracy on their part? And btw, I hope I can get away with using "illiteracy" as a countable noun. IBE (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As always, there are exceptions. MI5, not "the" MI5. BLP, not "the" BLP. JFK, not "the" JFK.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

These exceptions might even be questionable. The rule seems to be, if it isn't a proper acronym, just follow the same rules as for the expanded form. I would never say "The biographies of living persons" or "the military intelligence section 5" (or for that matter, "the John F Kennedy"). IBE (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Although "the JFK" can be used for the JFK Airport. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note how, likewise, the FDA refers to itself as just "FDA", although typically it's called "the FDA" by most everyone else (which used as a noun).[3] Within its articles, though, it also says "the FDA". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese help: Mandarin street names of Toronto Chinatown streets

Hi!

I need help with a street name in Chinatown,_Toronto#Translation_of_street_names. What is the Pinyin reading of "Beverley Street 比華利街"?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's Bĭ(比) húa(華) lì(利) jīe(街). Alex Shih^Talk 05:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

verb doubt

"The higher the investment in non-renewable energy is, the higher the total investment in energy capital assets"- In this sentence, is the use of the helping verb "is" correct? If not then please explain the rule about such sentences with some examples.Seeker (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I would add "will be" to sentence, as it's a cause-and-effect scenario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That kind of paired construction is called a comparative correlative. (Oh, we don't have an article yet!) You don't actually need the is in your example. "The higher the investment in 'x', the higher the total investment in 'y'" is ok. It's the same structure as: "The greater the risk, the greater the reward" and "The more the merrier". If you are going to use the 'is', then I agree with Bugs that it is better to add a corresponding verb on the other side, to maintain balance. There is a nice explanation of the structure, citing the Oxford English Dictionary and with a number of good examples, here. - Karenjc 08:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Difference between written and spoken language

Are some words pronounced exactly the same way like medal and meddle, or is there always a slight difference which you can't hear? Th4n3r (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No; words like medal and meddle are pronounced exactly the same. There are some pairs of words that are distinguished only by a very small difference, though; for example, some speakers almost have the cot-caught merger but not quite, so that for them cot and caught are just slightly different--so slightly in fact that when the speakers hear their own pronunciation played back to them out of context, they can't tell which word is which. But I don't think any native English speaker makes any difference however slight between medal and meddle. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, meddle and medal are complete homophones, that is, they are pronounced exactly the same. So are sea and see, and many other pairs in English. The reason such homophony is typically complete and there are no "slight differences which you can't hear" is this: each spoken language consista of a fixed system of elementary sound units, so-called phonemes. Both sea and see consist of the same two phonemes in English: /s/ and /i:/. Two words either consist of the same phonemes or they don't. That's usually a clear yes-or-no thing; there aren't any "intermediate" sounds between the phonemes that would be a matter of such "slight differences" you speak of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(Update: I wrote this before I saw Angr's answer. Don't worry about our two anwers being seemingly a bit contradictory: mine is just the slightly more basic version of the answer; his is the slightly more advanced one, adding one complication to the basic picture I sketched. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC))

Sometimes it depends on dialect. Some Americans pronounce 'latter' and 'ladder' identically (at least to my ears), but in my British accent they could not possibly be confused with each other. --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Canuckois dialect in USA

I am looking for an expert in the Canuckois dialect as spoken by Americans of French Canadian descent in the New England states. My goal is translation of a number of terms used in the works of science fiction writer Julian May, including the Intervention series and the Galactic Milieu series.Alixnc286 (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)