Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 6

Verb confusion

"Though his use of salvia may not be the direct cause, or even contributed, to his suicide..."---In this sentence, the use of "even contributed" as it is, does not seem right to me. Am I right? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.40.58 (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it's wrong. I would go with something like "Though his use of salvia may not have been the direct cause of his suicide, and may not even have contributed to it..." Plus, I would be tempted to split this rather long sentence into two. I don't like sentences that run on too long. Something like, "His use of salvia may not have been the direct cause of his suicide, and may not even have contributed to it. However..." --Viennese Waltz 08:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for the least change, I'd go with: "Though his use of salvia may not have been the direct cause of, or even contributed to, his suicide ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd go with less wordy one: ""Though his use of salvia may not have directly caused, or even contributed to, his suicide" No such user (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is much more confusing when your eyes automatically "correct" salvia to saliva, as mine did. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad it wasn't just me! {The poster formally known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Since this is the Language desk, I'm going to repeat a complaint I've made before, even though it doesn't directly relate to the question. Salvia is a genus that contains numerous types of plants -- it is basically the sage family. In other words, "salvia" is synonymous with "sage". Salvia divinorum is one particular type of sage, which happens to have mind-altering effects. If it needs to be referred to using a shorter name, divinorum would be much better than salvia. Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite true, but you need to convince the various news media who often refer to any such plant used for mind-altering properties as simply "Salvia". It has actually lead some groceries to consider if they should keep stocking culinary sage, i have been told. Of course people can be impressed by scary terms that they don't know, consider the DHMO hoaxes. DES ^(talk) 19:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DHMO has, in fact, been known to kill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

One verb, multiple subjects

What is the name of the literary device of using a single verb with multiple subjects, often in different sense of the verb. The example in my mind is the three uses of this in Flanders and Swann's delightful Have Some Madeira M'Dear, specifically: "He hastened to put out the cat, the wine, his cigar, and the lamp" and "She lowered her standards by raising her glass, her courage, her eyes and his hopes" and finally "As he asked 'What in heaven?' she made no reply, up her mind, and a dash for the door." Most uses are not as amusing, of course. DES ^(talk) 16:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Zeugma or syllepsis. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not precisely the same thing, but I always liked this "Wiley's dictionary" entry in the B.C. comic strip: "rock: To cause someone or something to swing or sway... by hitting them with it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And I like: "Time flies like an arrow, while fruit flies like a banana". StuRat (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana as a whole... AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually prefer to reverse it: "Fruit flies like a banana, while time flies like an arrow." This makes me picture temporal-shifting insects which are attracted to vectors. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a legitimate "literary device"; more a play on words, so I doubt there's a precise term for it. But it seems to me to be a type of equivocation--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So it's not zeugma? —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple objects. —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is definitely Zeugma type 1. --Lgriot (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Some grammar misunderstanding

Hi, Recently I practiced some grammar in this site and there were some things that I didn't understand, so I'm going to share you with these as a introduction I want to tell you that so far I've known that the verb gets adverb and noun get an adjective. However, in the site which mention above I recovered some incomprehensible things, so I would like to your explanation about the first one is 1) "Robin looks sad. What's the matter with him?

why here do we say sad and no sadly? so here we can explain that the word "sad" imagines the noun. By the way, this problem accrues also in the following sentences: "This steak smells good." or "This hamburger tastes awful." are misunderstanding things.. I can guess that when it's stative verb it gets an adjective, but on second thought I think that is not right because that if we say "He think quick" it's incorrect even it's stative verb, but if we say He think quickly, that's right! so I'm confusion

so let's go to the second one

2) "Kevin is extremely clever" extremely is an adjective and I don't see in this sentence even one verb... so what is the solution of this problem?

OK, the third one is also difficult for understanding even I know that the this is an everyday use

3) "Don't speak so fast. I can't understand you." so after all there is here a verb and "fast" imagines what is the intrepidity the person does, so why we don't say Don't speak so fastly or something instead of. I know that there is no a adjective which is called "fastly" but I hope that you understand the matter ( you can read about the fastly problem- by googling)

the forth one is also misunderstanding 4) Be careful with this glass of milk. I why "be careful" and no "be carefully"? I think that be is a verb in this case but maybe I make mistake Thank you for the reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.210.198.201 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In the second sentence the verb is is. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that verbs of being and condition ("John is ...", "John feels ...") are usually parsed with predicative adjectives modifying the subject, not adverbs modifying the verb. This takes care of (1) and (4). (4) can be compared to "John is being careful." If you were focusing on the action rather than the subject, you would use an adverb: "John is careful with the milk" ("careful" modifies "John"), but "John pours the milk carefully" ("carefully" modifies "pours").

Adverbs can modify adjectives as well as verbs: "very good", "extremely clever". This takes care of (2).

Knowing that "fast" is both the adjectival and adverbial form (3) is just something you have to learn. There aren't a lot of these (I think), and they're mostly old, short words.

-- Elphion (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

With regard to (3), see Flat adverb. Deor (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And English is not entirely consistent about this (surprise!). For example "He painted the house a bright red" can be parsed on the model of "He chose a bright color (adjective noun) for the house", but we also say "He has a bright red house" or "He drives a bright red car", meaning that the color of the car is a particularly bright shade of red. So here is an adjective ("bright") modifying another adjective ("red"). "He drives a brightly red car" is ostensibly grammatical, but not idiomatic. In effect, "bright red" functions as a single, inseparable adjective.

Another inconsistency: "She is poorly today" or "She feels poorly". I've seen this (mainly British) usage analyzed several different ways, but in effect, "poorly" functions despite its form as an adjective modifying "she", not as an adverb modifying "is".

-- Elphion (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few adjectives in -ly, many of them old-fashioned or archaic, but not all: besides poorly, there is goodly, friendly, kindly, fatherly, and others. Many of them relate to relationships between people, as fatherly, brotherly, friendly, matronly. They date from a time when the suffic -lic (compare German -lich) had not got restricted to adverbs. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Miss Bono, is "is" considered a verb for anyone?! after all it's called auxiliary verb. It doesn't behave like a verb at all. 46.210.198.201 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In Spanish is/es-está is a verbal from the to be/ser-estar verb. I can give my point in this but, as English is not my native language, my explanation would be better if I give it in Spanish. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

To students of Spanish, learning the difference between ser and estar can be a challenge. I like to think of it as essence and status, as those English words have the same Latin roots as ser and estar respectively. If that premise is correct (and Ms. Bono can set me straight if it isn't), I could say Aconcagua es una montaña, y Aconcagua está en Argentina. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That is super duper correct Bugs. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that the verb "to be" has been a verb for hundreds of years (though possibly three different verbs in Old English), that it still is, and will be for many years to come. Dbfirs 23:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To be, in its various forms, is certainly a verb, but it is a special verb. It may function as an auxiliary, as Elphion says; but it can also function as a substantive verb, in which role it is known to grammarians as a copula. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

46.210.198.201 said it, not me. -- Elphion (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

46.210.198.201 -- Esperanto kind of works that way, so that Estas varme means "It is warm", where varme is an adverb with an adverb ending, since it doesn't modify any explicit noun. However, natural languages are not necessarily so tidy... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In the statement "It is warm", the "warm" is an adjective describing whatever "it" happens to be. Could be the weather, the room temperature, the water running from a faucet, a child's forehead, or whatever. The adverb form is "warmly", as in "the guest was warmly received". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Zamenhof apparently disagreed... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"The weather is warm". That's an adjective.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 7

Apple of my eye

I've heard this saying before. But today I heard from a father regarding his daughter ("she's the apple of my eye") and it just landed on my ears strangely. Is it my own bias, but I've always heard it applied to male offspring? What's the proper usage? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The father's usage seems fine to me; I've never noted any gender restrictions in its use. (For the origin of the expression, by the way, see this.) Perhaps your sense of its use has somehow been influenced by "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree", which I believe does tend to be used of male offspring. Deor (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Apples have no gender, even those who fall from (Kardashian family) trees.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

They certainly have gender in languages where gender applies to nouns (Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Russian, many others). What they lack is sex. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

La manzana, no el manzana (sounds weird and funny) hahahaha. It is feminine in Spanish :P Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, la manzana cae del manzano? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sí, pero cuando estás hablando de la fruta se dice la manzana; y cuando hablas del árbol se dice el manzano. Same happens with la naranja y el naranjo. This reminds me of a song I heard when I was a kid.

La vaca y el vaco... perdón... digo, el toro... hehehee. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Apples and apples both have gender. But apples are generally cultivated commercially by grafting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Metaphorical apples are gender-optional mutants. And don't get me started on the Killer Tomatoes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

EO has a brief explanation of the origin of the term.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow certainly thought that an Apple could be feminine! ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The etymology Bugs linked to is common cross culturally, the pupil of the eye being regarded as a fruit. It is mentioned in the Old Testament. [4]μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is described in Apple of my eye. The English article attests only a symbolic meaning, and I am a bit surprised by the fact that the EO explains it "was the pupil, supposed to be a globular solid body", for everybody knew very well how eyes are built (from butchering). The corresponding Dutch word wikt:oogappel and the German word wikt:Augapfel, de:Augapfel designate both the eyeball bulbus oculi and a cherished child. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In French the pupil is the prunelle, the sloe of the eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

See blackthorn for those unfamiliar with sloes. They are little blue-black wild plums and although edible they are really sour but good for sloe gin. Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A question for the smarter members of the collective

What is the Mandarin for the text "All we are saying is 'give peace a chance'." This is not a homework problem. Thank you and goodnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Google translate (OK, not the most reliable): 我们说，给和平一个机会 (the actual phrase I translated was "We say, give peace a chance", but I think it is close enough). Astronaut (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I also separated this question from your other question ... now below. Astronaut (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You really need to wait for a native speaker, since anyone else may not get this quite right. I am not a native speaker, but Google's translation means "We say, give peace a chance." I would suggest the following, which means "We simply say, give peace a chance": 我们简直说，给和平一个机会。(simplified characters) 我們簡直說，給和平一個機會。(traditional characters) Marco polo (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was preparing for hilarity upon reading that both of you used Google Translate, but the translations are actually very reasonable. Astronaut's translation is good. Marco Polo's translation is a bit awkward because 简直 means "simply" in the sense of "completely/totally [with exaggeration]": 你简直疯了 (you're completely crazy), 他简直被我吓呆了 （I totally scared him stiff), etc. "simply" in the sense of easily/briefly is 简单： 我们简单说，给和平一个机会！ A direct translation of the OP's sentence, which I think works pretty well, is: 我们想说的只是：给和平一个机会！ （all we want to say is: give peace a chance!) Disclaimer: although I'm a native speaker, I've forgotten most of my Chinese. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bowlhover. You've proven my point that native speakers know best! Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I try to use Google Translate in a sensible way, not always accepting the default answer it gives and sometimes feeding the translated phrase back into English. This one was quite easy. Less easy was the recent need at work to (roughly) translate the Korean: 기 취소 거래 I concluded it meant "expired transaction", which made a lot more sense in context than the "Close-based trading" that Google offered up at first. Astronaut (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Another question for the smarter members of the collective

Oh yeah, nobody told me but, isn't it true that there is no Navajo phrase for "this is a justified drone strike". I'm just saying they probably use a euphemism like "white man's cloud of bees stings the good and poor alike" or some crazy such thing ala the Nicholas Cage movie (2002 Windtalkers). Do the Navajo peoples still speak Navajo? And more importantly, have any Japanese or Germann anthropologists yet learned at least the oral part of the language of the Navajo people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of most of that ranting was, but Navajo has the most number of speakers of any Indian language native to the United States. There are a number of published books on the Navajo language, and anyone who wants can try to learn out of them, but apparently very few people who try to learn the language as adults end up sounding at all close to being a native speaker without the benefit of very extensive face-to-face time with Navajos... AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

From Old English to Middle English

I have a question about the table in this page: English languages. The problem is that the table doesn't clearly explain what dialects of Old English (Northumbrian, Mercian, Kentish and West Saxon) evolved into. I already know that the Northumbrian dialect of Old English evolved into Early Northern Middle English and then into Northern Modern English & Scots. But I'm not sure about the others. I basically feel there is a gap between the first and second line of the table. Does anyone know where precisely Early Midland & Southeastern Middle English and Early Southern & Southwestern Middle English come from? Mercian? Kentish? West Saxon? I'd also like to know where North American English dialects would better fit in that table. --151.41.144.166 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Middle English "Once the writing of Old English comes to an end, Middle English has no standard language, only dialects that derive from the dialects of the same regions in the Anglo-Saxon period." so it seems as if each of the later dialects is derived from the earlier dialects in the same geographic area. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Early Midland and Southeastern Middle English would have derived from Mercian and Kentish. (In fact, I think Midland and Kentish remained distinct dialects during the Middle Ages.) Southern and Southwestern Middle English would have derived from West Saxon. By the late Middle Ages (15th century) a standard dialect had begun to emerge around London that was based mainly on an East Midland dialect with some Kentish influences. (In the table, this is labeled Metropolitan Early Modern English.) This standard dialect was the main basis for North American English (and all of the other Englishes outside of the British Isles), though in the North American case, there were some influences especially from Southwestern and to a lesser extent from Scots dialects. The rectilinear organization of that table is an abstraction that doesn't accurately represent reality. In fact, all modern versions of English have been influenced by early modern standard English. In the case of North America, it is a direct descendant of that variety, albeit with influences from other varieties. To show this accurately, you'd need a diagram with crisscrossing dashed lines after about 1350. Marco polo (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thus an acceptable approximation could be Northumbrian > Early Northern Middle English; Mercian > Early Midland Middle English; Kentish > Early Southeastern Middle English; West Saxon > Early Southern & Southwestern Middle English. Right? --151.41.144.166 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't really treat dialects within a language like English as if each has its own independent development over the centuries--if they did, they'd be separate languages. Changes move in waves, originating in one area and moving across dialect boundaries to other areas, with, in Modern English for example, arrhotacism moving outward from a south-central origin, and the -eth > -s third person verb ending moving downward from the north, and so forth. Old dialects are largely identified with written sources attributable to geographic point-locations, like courts and monasteries. We can't strictly define boundaries of the spoken language of the time. As features spread or disappeared, what we interpret as discreet dialects because of the discreetness of the sources would have merged and split like chaotic waves on a stormy ocean.

Thomason and Kaufman discuss the changes from Old to Middle English at length in their seminal Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics with the point of dismantling the Middle-English creolization hypothesis. In doing so they go into great detail on the English dialects and the spread of features from one area to another. Highly recommended. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Medeis, except that I thought that nonrhotacism most likely originated in East Anglia rather than "south-central England" (would that be Oxfordshire and Berkshire?). Marco polo (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The map I am thinking of didn't show a point origin, but showed earlier and later prevalence of the phenomenon. This Rhotic and non-rhotic accents will be a much better source than my vague impressions as an American. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation of Korean

For use in mainspace a translation of the following Korean text would be appreciated (Google and similar machine translations leave much to be desired): 성범죄 피해자이기도 했던 한 탈퇴자는 "성상납 대기조 '상록수' 회원이 1천여 명에 이르며, 옥중에서도 미성년자를 포함한 여신도들을 관리하고 있다"고 폭로했다. -- Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 8

Latin word for "month"

I'm looking for a word like "anniversary" that refers to a monthly event instead of an annual one...probably no such word English word exists - but I am happy to invent one. I guess "anni" comes from latin for "year" - so what I need is month-iversary or something. So what's the latin word for a month? SteveBaker (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Mensual, maybe?--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

or "mensiversary".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Latin month is rather easy to find: mensis. Mensiversary seems to make sense. --KnightMove (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Check out this relevant discussion from the archives. Falconus^{p t c} 13:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have thought to check the archives before posting. But the conclusions are clear: "mensiversary" really doesn't work because it carries other connotations, "monthly anniversary" is wrong and "monthiversary" seems kinda ugly. :-(

Someone on that archive mentioned sextantiversary, quadrantiversary, trientiversary and semianniversary as words for 2, 3, 4 and 6 monthly celebrations. So I suppose "dodecantiversary" (1/12th of a year) might be right - although I've probably mangled the prefix here because I'm reasoning from "dodecagon" as a 12 sided object and guessing that a dodecant is 1/12th of something. Sorry - I took latin classes for a year when I was 12 years old and promptly forgot all of them by the time I was 13 years old! Maybe someone can clean that up for me? SteveBaker (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Someone" was me! Yow, I'm anonymously famous! —Tamfang (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mensiversary is perfectly cromulent; the fact some people will make the wrong inference it comes from menstruation is no different from abandonning a word like niggardly because of an ignorance of its etymology.

You could also form the native coinage monthtide, or, more euphoniously, moontide, on analogy to the Yiddish yahrzeit, although the latter is associated mainly with the anniversary of deaths. "We celebrate our moontide on the 24th" sounds particularly poetic. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I rather like the sound of that. My left brain is trying to object that it refers to a moon cycle of c. 28 days, not to a month per se (except February), but my right brain is winning so far. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The real problem would be if your moontide lay on the 29th, 30th, or especially the 31st. Of course, then you'd just celebrate it on the last day of the month. I did look up the term and found no common usages other than a 1940's film noir, Moontide, of no connection. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, if you want to be paganically radical, you can celebrate your moontide every fourth Wednesday (or whatever day of the week) eschew the patriarchical solar claendar, and sneak in 13 (sometimes 14!) celebrations a year. Then you could also call it your bifortnightly mootfest. (I am sure that's what the Hobbits must call it.) μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Somewhat along the lines of Medeis, I was thinking about this... Why do the roots have to be Latin? In Old English, the word for month is apparently "Monað" or "Monaþ" and the word for mark is "mearc", so what about something like monathmearc? Or monathhring (month+circle). Maybe those don't sound like nice words, but that same strategy could probably turn up something in Old English or in a lot of other languages. Old English Dictionary. Falconus^{p t c} 19:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I like that, but the problem is that march in that sense refers to a territory, specifically a territory (i.e., its border) as it is marked out. See marquess and margrave. Based on your idea, I would suggest a monthing as a very natural modern form. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That word "anniversary" means "the turning of a year". So "mensiversary", whether it's a real word or not, should indicate the turning of a month. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not nouns but 'monthly' or 'of the month' could serve. Monthly has taken a noun's place in publishing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Engraving grammar

I'm having something engraved and I want to make sure I'm using correct grammar. Is it correct to say "I love you mom! (next line)-your son" or "I love you, mom! (next line)-your son". --209.203.125.162 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The one with the comma is better, and most U.S. style guides would recommend that you capitalize "mom" as well (since it's used as a quasi-name). You might also want to capitalize "your". Deor (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on capitalization advice. "Mom" = your mother, while "mom" = any mother: "Hey Mom, how many other moms will be at the strip club with you, so I know how many single dollars you'll need to take with you ?". StuRat (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't see any need for an exclamation mark in this context. Unless your Mom works as a writer of Disney comic strips, in which case she'd appreciate it hugely, seeing as how virtually every single sentence ends with an exclamation mark. Or they used to back in the day when I read such things. But normal prose is not like this. Words have their own power, and a statement of love from a son to his mother is powerful enough without the need for any fancy embellishments. But it's your gig, so please do whatever suits you best. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's inappropriate to use an exclamation mark in this context ! They can be used occasionally, to give emphasis ! It's only when used repeatedly that they lose all meaning ! StuRat (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

: If your mother is anything like mine, she'd prefer you told her directly that you love her rather than vandalizing your own body with the message. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the OP meant scarification when they said engraving, I think they meant that it will be engraved on an item of jewelry they wish to present to their mom. StuRat (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I spend so much time on the Translation requests page at Wiktionary that my brain reinterpreted the OP's "engraving" as "tattoo". My apologies, and I retract my snarky comment. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I love you, Mom!

--Joe

(Assuming your name is Joe.) μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

French subject repetition

So, I already asked if French can be without subjects, but I read somewhere on Wikipedia, can’t remember where exactly, that said that the subject does not need to be duplicated in formal French. So we can say « tu sais que le veux » (you know that [you] want it) instead of « tu sais que tu le veux » (you know that you want it). Does anybody know what I am talking about? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but "tu sais que le veux" is definitely incorrect. --Xuxl (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It sounds fine to me, but that's probably because of the influence of my Spanish fluency on my high school French. Are you a native francophone, Xuxl? μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am a native French speaker. --Xuxl (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a native francophone, but have been speaking and reading French since childhood and I agree with Xuxl. I think it doesn't work here because the second verb is in a separate relative clause. You can omit the second "tu" in "tu sais et connais ...", for example, where both verbs can be seen as part of the same clause.

In your example of the relative clause "que tu le veux" leaving out "tu" would make it a null subject which French doesn't permit, unlike most other Romance languages. That article only states that "for certain colloquial expressions" French "occasionally" allows "for the omission of the subject in the same way that languages such as Spanish and Russian allow using "correct" grammar". See "null subjects in non-null-subject languages". ---Sluzzelin talk 19:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If I read somewhere that "the subject does not need to be duplicated in formal French" I would interpret that to mean that in formal French it's sufficient to say "tu sais que tu le veux" and it's not necessary to say "toi, tu sais que tu le veux" or "tu sais que tu le veux, toi". Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Czech language question

I was at a pub tonight with my father and my sister, and saw a beermat with a Czech language slogan saying: Kdo umí, umí! Now I know absolutely zero Czech. What does this mean? JIP | Talk 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Who can, (that) can!--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Instead of giving JIP a fish, you should have told him to use google translate, Ljuboslav. And "know how" is a much better translation than "can", given we're doing the OP's homework. μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no one word in English for Slavic уметь/umět and this pun does not work there. The case when Slavics beat Germanics.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

See Kdo umí, umí - 29 September 2011 - Idioms & Phrases - Idiomy a fráze - Learn Czech.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Literally "He who knows how to use google uses google." μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And those who can't use Google teach Google. —Tamfang (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

November 9

Are we ready for "fishers"?

In an Australian geographical article on my Watchlist somebody just changed "fishermen" to "fishers". Our disambiguation page for "fishers" describes it as "an archaic term for a fisherman, revived as gender-neutral". However, Fisherman, not surprisingly, says the word "may be used to describe both men and women".

I find "fishers" disturbing, at least partly because it can be quite ambiguous when spoken.

I won't fight the change just made, but I'm interested in others' thoughts on the evolution of the language here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What does what people in this limited environment matter? Either the term is well understood and comfortable in usage among enough English speakers for dictionaries to note it as such, or it isn't. Our opinion as a small community of people who frequent this website means fuckall as far as whether or not a word has acceptance. --Jayron32 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the term is hardly a neologism. The King James Bible was comfortable enough with it to use it in Matthew 4 where Jesus refers to Simon-Peter and his brother Andrew as "fishers of men". --Jayron32 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I've heard people called fishermen "fishers", and according to EO it preceded the term "fisherman", though the latter seems rather more common. I was also thinking of the KJV quote, which of course is in the original English (ha). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jayron says things are OK so long as the term is "well understood and comfortable in usage among enough English speakers...". The area in question is not a big city, trendy kind of place with a strong population of feminists who go fishing. I doubt if many speakers there would be at all comfortable with it. Yes, I know it's an old term, but it's effectively a neologism in it's modern, gender neutral form. Not pleasing to my ears. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

They're your ears. Why are you asking us to decide why things should be pleasing or not to them? You get to decide what you want to be pleasing to your ears. You can't change the entire language because you don't like it. --Jayron32 04:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

True. That's why changing the entire language is not my goal. In fact, changing the language seems more the goal of the editor who made this change. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps "preserving the language and obstructing what would otherwise be part of the natural, continual, and millenium-long evolution of language because I can't be bothered to accept such changes in my fossilized opinion of what language should be in the sense that I learned language as an unchanging thing at some point in my education and thus I refuse to accept that any changes are possible from what I learned proper language to be" is a better phrase than "changing the entire language", but not quite as pithy. --Jayron32 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Complete misrepresentation of my position. Why would you do that? HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You said you found the word "disturbing". I'm struggling to understand why it's any other person's responsibility to explain that. It's your emotion, we can't explain why you find a word disturbing. It's a word. There's nothing to be disturbed about. It's vocal chord vibrations, and does you no harm. --Jayron32 22:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll watch you in your campaign to tell the world that Facebook bullying doesn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm confused how your dislike of the word "Fisher" has led you to make that statement. Could you please explain the connection between the word Fisher and my advocacy against bullying? --Jayron32 01:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't be bothered. I'm sure some people understood my words. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You should ask the Australians.Chrisrus (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think HiLo is Australian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Too bloody right. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In academic writing about fishing, "fishers" is increasingly used. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

So the cost of a fishing license would be a Fisher Price? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Asuming your (HiLo48's) "ambiguous when spoken" refers to "fishers"' likeness with "fishes", this applies to a number of plural agent nouns whose root ends in a sibilant. Examples: mixers, bashers, pissers etc ... ---Sluzzelin talk 11:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It bothers me that a change made for seemingly "correct" reasons in one area (gender neutrality) actually makes things worse in another (clarity). This is not an accidental language change. It's being pushed by people with a particular goal. My opinion on that goal is irrelevant, but my opinion on the reduction in clarity is that it's bloody annoying. Could they not have made a better choice of a gender neutral word? HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of us pronounce "fishes" and "fishers" differently. I know that it is a merger in a lot of varieties. And I like to say "fisher person", plural "fisherfolk" but people don't seem to be following me yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In RP it's [fɪʃɪz] vs. [fɪʃəz], while in many quasi-"General American" dialects it's [fɪʃɨz] vs. [fɪʃɚz]. Any dialect which pronounces the two words the same would appear to have problems with a lot more words than those two. Anyway, for many purposes the plural of "fish" is actually "fish"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As in "all the fishes in the sea"? When the "ambiguous" comment came up, at first I thought it was because "fisher" is a homonym of "fissure". I forgot about the folks who drop the "r". It could certainly be confusing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are some people who are interested in "fissures of men". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the ambiguity was between humans and birds. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The change was made by a new editor whose interest clearly lies in articles about places in a particular area of Australia. So there's a fair chance that editor is Australian, and pronounces fishes and fishers identically himself (or herself, as the case may be). Gender neutrality is nice. Adding ambiguity isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Fishers" and "Fishes" are not pronounced identically in either UK quasi-standard English or US quasi-standard English, and I really don't know what prominent type of English-language speech, spoken by a fairly large number of people, would pronounce them identically. In any case, any dialect that pronounces the two words identically probably has problems with a lot more words than those two, and "fishes" is not actually the normal plural of "fish"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Syriac help

What is the Syriac text in this picture? http://www.chaldeanculturalcenter.org/images/top2.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6KzcuQ7nO

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about Syriac, but the transliteration is " qnṭrwn yrtwtny' kldy' ", (or in Hebrew/Aramaic script "קנטרון ירתותניא כלדיא"). The first word is ' qin ṭron, meaning "center". The third word is kal ' da: ia:, meaning "Chaldean". The second word I couln't find exactly, but it appears to be derived from ia:r ' tu: tha:, meaning "inheritance", so I would translate the phrase something like "Chaldean heritage center" (but again, keep in mind I don't actually speak Syriac). - Lindert (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Abortionist

Is this word pejorative? I have altered it in various texts I've edited because I am under the impression that it is. But I haven't been able to find consistent evidence that it is. Does anyone have insight? ÷seresin 08:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say it is only pejorative if the speaker is anti-abortion. The word itself is a simple statement of fact, unlike 'frog' for French people, or 'gook' for East Asians. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's pejorative. You should say "a doctor who carries out terminations of pregnancy". The doctor probably does many other things as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Abortionists are not usually doctors, though. The vast majority are ones who support abortion for various reasons that are not appropriate to discuss here. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What about the much simpler "abortion doctor"? Dismas|^(talk) 10:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Do doctors actually specialize in abortion? And is Kage's statement correct? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abortionist See definition 3. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That writeup does a good job of explaining why the term is negative. What it doesn't say is who performs legal abortions nowadays. I would think it's mostly, if not totally, done by MD's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Depends, mate. You can just use a coat hanger. Some countries even jail women for miscarriages, because they think it was an induced abortion. In the UK at least, it is done by proffessional personnell. But some immigrants (mostly from Africa or the Middle East, or Pakistan) do it themselves. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In places where it's legal, is it mostly done by doctors? The whole point of Row v. Wade was to liberate women from the risks associated with the proverbial "back alley abortionist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, both doctors and nurses take part. I don't think they specialize in abortion, necessarily, but they know how to do it. Lots of years in college didn't help them for nothing. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As noted in Miscarriage, the medical terms used to be "spontaneous abortion" and "induced abortion". Unfortunately, the term "abortion" has come to be synonymous with "induced abortion", and the euphemism "miscarriage" is now used for "spontaneous abortion" (an "act of God", as they say). In the days when induced abortions were illegal in the US, the public probably considered an "abortionist" to have roughly the same level of esteem as "narcotics pusher", "prostitute" and "child molester". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

To me, "Abortionist" suggests the old "back-alley" practitioner, who is probably not an MD, charges all that the traffic will bear,is not overly concerned with sanitation or the health of the women on whom he operates. I would not use it for a modern doctor or nurse who performs legal, or illegal but patient-oriented, induced abortions. DES ^(talk) 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to know what an English abortionist looked like, I suggest you watch the Mike Leigh film Vera Drake. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really my subject, but I suspect that someone who legally performs an abortion would prefer to be called a gynecologist. Alansplodge (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure the OP was referring to the person who performs the abortions? When I read the section title, I thought "Abortionist" = a supporter of/crusader for abortion "rights" along the lines of "abolitionist", "prohibitionist", "suffragist", etc.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be an abortion rights or pro-choice campaigner. I have never heard abortionist used for anything other than the person performing the procedure, although Dictionary.com lists it as included in the Collins and Random House dictionaries as an alternative meaning, "usually intended as an offensive term". See also Abortion rights movements#Terminology. -Karenjc (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The term is not used in the UK, only on certain news items about women protesting in the streets of America. This might be the confusion. None of them are doctors, and probably not even working as anything, because it's during the day, and the whole "I',m a full-time mom" thing doesn't cut it, because the kid(s) are at school most of the day and are only home when work finishes, for the husband. Total waste of a resource (Been there, done it, got the T-shirt). Anyway, I think 'abortionist' is fine for people who have that choice in mind. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

TESOL or CELTA

How do I get a qualification in TESOL or CELTA? I know I can do it online, but is there any way that I could make the certificate myself? I own a language company, and have 16 years' experience in teaching. Or is there some official channel I have to go through? This is for VietNam. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're being asked for this by a potential employer, and/or you need it in a hurry? You certainly can't make your own certificate from one of the accredited providers, such as Trinity's CertTESOL and Cambridges's CELTA, both Level 5 on the QCF. I hold the former, in the 130-hour version, and there was a lot of teaching and learning theory as well as the subject-specific material, mandatory observed and assessed teaching practice, and the reflective summaries. As far as I know, neither organisation will offer you 100% APL (accreditation of prior learning), but it might be worth contacting them and asking the question. Both are available online intensively if you need them in a hurry, as are shorter courses, which are correspondingly less well recognised by employers abroad. I haven't worked in Thailand but am told by a colleague who has that a college degree is more of an issue than a Level 5 subject specialism.Have you considered Cambridge's Teaching Knowledge Test? It can give you a kind of accreditation quickly, and with your considerable experience, that might be sufficient for your purposes. - Karenjc (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Adjusts glasses. Sorry, I don't know anyone who has taught in Vietnam. -Karenjc (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that there's an accredited TKT exam centre in Nara prefecture if you wanted to take it in person rather than online (see here). They might be a useful contact for queries about APL in the Cambridge series, as they also offer DELTA module 1. -Karenjc (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I shall look into it. Also, Nara Prefecture is not in the UK or anywhere near Vietnam, so would not be useful. Thanks anyway. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol sorry, for some reason I had it in my head that you were based in the Kyoto area (probably just jealousy on my part - I've visited it twice and love it) so Nara would have been feasible. If you're looking in the UK there are plenty of options. - Karenjc (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you need this to work as an English teacher in Vietnam, note that the government requires a qualification which includes observed teaching practice, in which case the TKT would not help you. The people at the ministry are generally incompetent jobsworths, but they do enforce this requirement. (Equally incompetent employers such as my old one have found this out to their cost). Henry^Flower 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

In which case an intensive full-time CELTA or CertTESOL subject specialism can be completed in four weeks. Note that this doesn't count as a teaching qualification on its own in the Lifelong Learning sector in the UK; you would also need a minimum of the PTLLS award ("threshold licence to teach") if you were desperate enough to seek work in what little funded ESOL provision remains after the cuts. If you go down this road, be aware that some providers may offer an extra bridging module at little or no extra cost, allowing you to gain PTLLS alongside your chosen EFL specialism. It's not directly relevant if you don't intend to teach in the UK, but is well worth doing if you ever want to be in a position to apply for jobs abroad requiring higher teaching qualifications, such as those with the British Council, because it can be accredited as a step along the road to a PGCE or its vocational equivalent, DTLLS. - Karenjc (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Putonghua

Where does the Standard Mandarin pronunciation come from? I know it's not Beijing because they speak differently there. Moreover (I'm talking about pinyin), Northern people tend to pronounce wa, wan, wai, wang, wei, wen, weng with IPA [v] instead of [w], but don't do that with wo/wu. On the IPA page for Mandarin, I didn't find [v]. The fact which confuses me most is that even news anchors pronounce it that way. Is [v] the standard pronunciation or not? --2.245.236.128 (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you have looked at Standard Chinese. The 'v' pronunciation is mostly middle China, and not Northern. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"When /w/ occurs in syllable-initial position, many speakers use [ʋ] before any vowel except [o] as in 我 wǒ, e.g. 尾巴 wěiba [ʋei̯˨pa˦]." I suppose the OP confused [ʋ] and [v], they are indeed a little close.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what I meant, thank you. However, there is still the question why they choose CCTV news anchors with that pronunciation if [ʋ] is not standard?--2.245.236.128 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

See the source I've just added to the article.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Standard Mandarin pronunciation does indeed come from Beijing, but not from the common, working-class speech of Beijing locals. Instead, it is the speech of educated government officials based in Beijing in the early 20th century, which avoids some of the features specific to working-class speech in that city. Marco polo (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

November 10

Burmese/Karen braille

According to one of the sources for Burmese Braille (the image in the info box), there's a diacritic that looks like a virama but which is called a visarga (or s.t. very much like it – I don't read Burmese). Can anyone explain what it is? (There's a footnote for it in the article.) That source also seems to order conjunct consonants differently than how we describe them at Burmese alphabet, so I also wanted to make sure there was no problem with that. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This page toward the bottom under "combining marks" attempts to explain how virama (which looks like a "plus" sign under a consonant) is used differently than the "asat" (which is written above and looks like the symbol our article calls a "virama"). "Visarga" is also shown there. I can't get Burmese fonts to work in my browser right now for some reason so I'm afraid I can't make any sense of it at the moment. --William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the virama only looks like a plus sign when the Unicode character is used by itself. In written Burmese, there's no diacritic that looks like a plus sign. The virama is used in Unicode to stack consonants; e.g. to write ဗုဒ္ဓ, you type ဗ then ု then ဒ then ္ then ဓ. That doesn't help us figure out what character is being talked about here, though. But the article says the character being question is used in Karen Braille, which may be different from Burmese Braille. Ordinary written Karen uses some diacritics not found in Burmese, so it wouldn't be surprising if the same were true of Karen Braille. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Kopfblatt?

What's the proper English translation of the German 'kopfblatt', as in p. 111, [5]? --Soman (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't read the context of page 111 in snippet view. Kopfblatt would be header page,[6] but if the context is newspapers you are maybe looking for local edition or branch paper.[7] Short explanation here. Did it help? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Combining the two snippets for 1191 and 1192 the text is "(5) später Kopfblatt von 'Die rote Fahne', Berlin". Issues of 'Die rote Fahne' are online at Berlin State Library. It presumably means: [The newspaper] later [was a] branch paper of 'Die rote Fahne'. Perhaps somebody can translate de:Kopfblatt or link it to its English equivalent in order to get the best English rendering. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The newspapers share content with the larger paper - with the local paper adding a few pages of local news. Probably as a wrapper. Rmhermen (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusion of tongues: The German articles de:Kopfblatt, de:Vollredaktion, de:Mantel (Zeitung) and de:Publizistische Einheit have no English equivalent. What are the English words? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This practice seems to be uncommon in the English-speaking world, certainly in the UK. Our newspaper article suggests the term for producing local editions with some local content (or possibly only local advertising) is zoning but this part of the article is poorly referenced. More typically, newspapers in the UK might produce different editions for different areas with some different content (i.e local news) and some shared content. For example my own local paper produces a Birmingham and a Black Country edition, but both are published as the Birmingham Mail, and many national UK newspapers also produce an Irish version and sometimes a Scottish version. This is a somewhat different practice to having a general-purpose Mantel with a Kopfblatt with an entirely different name on the masthead for each locality. I suspect a lot of the non-local content of some of the smaller local papers in the UK is shared (most are published by one of a handful of companies such as Trinity Mirror plc and Local World) but my impression is that it's the written (etc.) content that's shared rather than the actual formatted pages, so you might read the same article in multiple papers, but it would not necessarily be in the same place in each as there is no shared Mantel which the local pages wrap around. (Compare print syndication which I understand is responsible for significant parts of the content of many US papers and is again about shared content rather than shared pages). Francophone publishing seems to follow the UK and US. fr:Quotidien régional describes regional papers as consisting of regional news, local news which varies between different editions of the same paper, and national news, which is bought in (i.e. syndicated) from press agencies. it:Quotidiano mentions that some national newspapers include local inserts, again the reverse of the German practice. It seems to follow that there are no commonly used terms in English to translate these German words which relate to publishing practices which are apparently specifically German. Valiantis (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

AUS English question

Our article on the Inland taipan contains the sentence "The police was involved to find out how the Inland Taipan got to this part of Australia." Is that grammatical? I was going to change it to were, but it occurred to me that this might be one of those instances where the local dialect uses different rules for plurals than what I'm expecting. And, indeed, there's a warning to that effect when I went to edit the section. So... "The police was...? Matt Deres (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning User:JackofOz and User:HiLo48 should get their attention. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah gidday. Yes, you found me! To me, that's just bad grammar. Should be "were". "Kilometres" was incorrectly spelt too. I've done some editing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Helo

Hi. What is the origin of "helo" as an abbreviation of "helicopter"? I mean, why -o? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.42.209 (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Google references indicate late 1960s for first use, a "shortening and altering" of "helicopter". Who knows? Maybe because "heli" sounds like "helly", which is not really the best connotation. Although I've heard "chopper" or even "copter" a lot more often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think "helo" is used a lot in the armed forces. 86.171.42.209 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that with a long or short "e" - like HEEL or HELL? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I've always heard HEEL-0. There is also a piece of mechanical equipment called a "high-low", as that's a common term for a scissor lift. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

In the UK armed forces, it's shortened to 'heli' (with a short 'e'). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you certain about that? I believe I have heard "helo" from British people (though it may have originally been imported from the US), but I don't recall ever hearing "heli". 86.177.105.62 (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

UK resident here - never heard of heel-o but heli is very common. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I can remember Australians coming back from Vietnam duties using that term, and pronouncing it HEEL-0. So 1960s sounds good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You'll find 'heli' used in this film, multiple times. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Which film? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, spaz of a wank fuck tiny computer. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

November 11

Transliteration of Hebrew without vowels

I'm trying to find:

(a) the scholarly standards for transcription/transliteration of Hebrew without vowels, as used when discussing a word of uncertain niqqud (e.g. ישראל = YŚRʾL, מלכיצדק = MLKYṢDQ)

Should the transcription be given in capitals or lowercase? With or without diacritics?

(b) the name of this form of transliteration (Google searches for every term I could imagine brought up nothing)

(c) Wikipedia's standards/guidelines etc. if any on using such transliteration. (Case in point: an obscure figure in Jewish history from 13th-century France is called either דילשוט or דילשוש in Judeo-French. Sources disagree on the correct interpretation of his name, so for purposes of neutrality, a vowel-less transliteration is called for.)

Thank you all very much!

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You can start with the article "Romanization of Hebrew", but I did not find an answer there from several minutes of searching.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but that is where I started before posting. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what you did above is fine -- i.e. DYLŠWŠ or DYLŠWṬ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's odd, though, that I can't find any guide to the academic standards of transliterating texts of unknown vocalization, which is relevant in many languages (Ancient Egyptian, Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew (especially epigraphic Paleo-Hebrew), Phoenician, Ugaritic, etc.). Nor could I find any reference to the problem in librarians' guides to transcriptions—surely there are cases that a librarian is completely clueless as to the correct vocalization? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it done in several publications, but I don't remember having seen a special name for it. I tried to search for "vowelless transliteration" and "consonantal transliteration", but Google either "corrected"[sic] "vowelless" to "vowels" and "transliteration" to "translation", or it turned up an absurdly low and obviously incorrect number of search results. It's rather annoying that it's almost impossible nowadays to turn off all second-guessing and stemming and fuzzy searching in Google and do a straight-up literal search for exactly and only what you type in the search box... AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's actually easy to override Google's corrections: just put the desired search terms in quotation marks. Though I should mention that I searched for the same terms already, with no success. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not in fact "easy" -- you can use any combination of quote marks and prefixed "+" signs, but these days it's almost impossible to turn off all forms of second-guessing, stemming, and fuzzy searching in Google... AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For Arabic and Farsi special tools are being developed, they are usually called vocalizers or diacritizers. The only other ways are to know the language itself or use a dictionary.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my question. I asked about cases when vowel-free transliteration is specifically called for, for example when the vocalization is inherently uncertain or being discussed in the text. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't you just use standard transliteration schemes but just omitting vowels?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I can, and (as Anonmoos mentioned) this seems to be the norm, but that leaves questions (a) and (b) open. (I guess the answer to (c) is "none".) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading of Graeco-Roman names

I'm just now very interested in Greek mythology, and I'm reading some books on this in English and I'm encountering many new names, I've neither seen nor listened before, and I'm not sure in their English pronunciation but I perfectly know how they have to be read in Greek or Latin. Is it accepted to read aloud (or "aloud" to myself) Greek and Roman names in English texts as they are pronounced in the respective languages or should I corrupt them anyway? Or at least could I substitute Greek and Roman phonemes with their closest English correspondences (I mean a=/ʌ~æ/, ā=/ɑː/, æ=/aɪ/, e=/ɛ/, ē=/eː~eɪ/ etc.)? What is the modern practice of reading the names in schools and universities where antiquity is studied thoroughly?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally-prominent names have accepted conventional pronunciations -- Caesar = [siːzər], Phoebe = [fiːbi], etc. (definitely not [kaɪsɑr] or [pʰoɪbɛː] for any kind of ordinary use). Some less prominent classical names also have traditional conventional English pronunciations, but it may not be easy to find them without consulting specialized reference works... AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems most Wikipedia articles offer an English pronunciation in the first line. Examples: Phoebe (mythology), Zeus, Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, Odysseus. etc. Taknaran (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In American university classes, the reconstructed ancient Latin or Greek pronunciation is used consistently only in language classes, that is languages in which students are studying Latin or ancient Greek. Outside of language classes, for example in literature courses offered by departments of classics to students who are not expected to read Latin or ancient Greek, the traditional English (corrupt) pronunciation is used for most ancient names. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Given you are just reading to yourself, be comfortable with popular pronunciations like seezer for Caesar, (including the popular pronunciation used in your native tongue, not just English!) even though you know it's Kighsar. If you come accross an uncommon name, pronounce it the way they would have originally--no need to make up a popular name when you can say the original. The most important thing is raeding should flow, and you should be able to understand and enjoy the meaning without getting hung up on a word's pronunciation every time you come across it.

I have found myself reading books with names of ambiguous pronunciation, and after being driven crazy by it every time I came across it, just finally picked one pronunciation and stuck with it. Don't be afraid to do this even if it is just for convenience. One of my favorite books is Mists of Avalon which tells the Arthurian legend. The author chose the Welsh spelling Gwenhwyfar for Guinevere. There was no way I was going to pause and say "gwen hwee var" and think "Oh, that's Welsh", every time I read it. I just decided it was pronounced Guinevere and moved on.

The thing to be proud of is that you know the difference between the original and the common or modern pronunciations, and can use them when necessary, not that you make yourself jump through linguistic hoops when you are reading. Reading is supposed to flow. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a really interesting comment, Medeis. Reading silently to oneself requires no pronunciation of any words, because it's essentially a visual experience. Do you have a voice reading the words in your head, and does that voice have to stop at unfamiliar words and sound them out syllable by syllable? Each time you come to 'Gwenhwyfar' (after the first time), do you not just recognise it and move on instantaneously, or do you have to silently sound it out each time for it to make sense to you? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must have been doing it wrong all these years. Reading silently is not quite like reading out loud, but I find there's a vocal element nevertheless... a "voice in the head", so to say, albeit one that can speak pretty fast. Having been trained in phonics when I was a youngster, I can take a pretty good shot at just about any unfamiliar word, and that "becomes" its pronunciation until such time as I bother to look it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The sound of the written word is always there, just in fluent adult reading it is usually beneath the level of conscious awareness. (Just like the fact you are not normally aware the type you see is black on white, or Arial as opposed to Times.) It has become automatized and is no longer attended to so that in flow the higher-level task of abstract comprehension can be attended to. It is only when there is some tension, as with oddly spelled, foreign, or intentionally alien or impossible names like Mxyzptlk that the tension comes to attention. The the brain stalls at the abstract level, and has to shift down to a lower gear before getting started again.

That's why mippsellings are so annoying when you notice them. I almost had to stop reading a book once because the author intentionally and repeatedly used "should of gone" instead of "should've gone", even though there was actually no difference in pronunciation.

If you haven't "chosen" how to pronounce a new word, you are going to pause every time you come across it. The point is, you as the reader should feel entitled to choose whatever reasonable pronunciation you find comfortable. That doesn't mean you are now going to stop, pause, and focus on the word's sound as you have chosen each new time you see it. On the contrary, it means you have settled on something, decided this is no longer an issue, and can go on ignoring the issue from that point further.

I am sure it is possible there are people who read primarily visually (the deaf come to mind) and expect it applies to a minority of non-deaf people. But that written words have an underlying phonic representation is the normal case. (If it weren't, myhspelngz that evoke a sound without much visual similarity to the target word either would not bother or be noticed by people, or would be totally incomprehensible.) μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I do notice the typeface. And some teachers along the way have told me that the purpose of seriphs (as with Times New Roman) is to make it easier to read because it visually flows better. Given that, I wonder why folks use Arial so much, or other sans-seriph typefaces. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Serif fonts seem to improve readability on the printed page, but the serifs can impair readability onscreen because resolution is often not as sharp as in print. Marco polo (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice the font (when it varies from times) when I pick up a book. The typeface used in Larry Niven's Dream Park is so bad I stopped reading it. See this reviewer. But I don't renotice it with every word I read. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So it appears that Arial is used so much because it works well on the computer screen. In any case, e-books look ugly to me, but I guess it's not going to change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice the font only at the beginning of reading a new book but then I don't.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If the font is sufficiently eyestrain-inducing, I don't get past the first paragraph. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yall. I agree with Medeis, even in your native language you unconsciously read aloud the text with your "internal voice", though I read some time ago that internal voice while reading was disapproved by the proponents of speed-reading (I neither like this nor I ever intended to read 1000 words a minute, so for me my internal voice while reading is not a problem). And while reading in a foreign language I think it is important to read internally all the words. The issue with Greek and Roman names that they are treated as English ones and underwent the Great Vowel Shift as well. For example, you can read Welsh names closely to Welsh pronunciation with English accent. This is applied to Russian, Italian, French, Arabic, and so on (except for well-assimilated names like Ivan). With Graeco-Roman names this trick seems not to work as I understand. It is bad news for me. I know the pronunciation of well-known names and read them as received but there are many other names which are not listed in dictionaries. And these are indeed very numerous. When I read just about Hercules I encountered dozens unknown names (both personal and geographic). Though I'll well probably never pronounce them in the future but still I have a dilemma whether I have to be puzzled every time how to fit them to English according to the GVS or just read them letter to letter. Yes, I accept I can't pronounce Ancient Greek or Latin properly but it is better to say /sθɛnɛlʊs/ or /stɛnɛlʊs/ or something close for Sthenelus than to puzzle my head with "proper" English pronunciation (/ˈsθiːnələs/? /sθəˈniːləs/? /ˈsθɛnələs/? - and this is not a so difficult name).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy to know good people in the past knew the problem and compiled lists of the names (with inconvenient notation but nevertheless).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In the particular case of Sthenelus, I myself would settle on /'sθɛnələs/. If English were not my native tongue, but I was reading an English text, I might settle on /stɛnələs/--and this has justification as the earlier state in Greek anyway, even if English /st-/ is not aspirated.

As for speed readers, the claim there is no underlying pronunciation would make sense in the case where you were scanning a page for words at some higher level of abstraction, such as for foreign words, for words that begin with qu-. for proper names, for the names of atomic elements, or so on. In that case you can, assuming years of practice, scan quickly for all sorts of categories without vocalizing any of the other words. Nevertheless, if you want to understand the sentence it is found within, you will have to read the sentence, and the pronunciation is implicit in doing so. Try the following experiment. While reading the following list of words aloud (do it now without practice or saying any other words but them aloud or in your head) count how many words are in the following list:

alligator, hearken, mushroom, basketball, corndog, deadfall, dig, nuthatch, olympics, pander, Susan, quite, yellow.

Chances are, if you didn't cheat, you counted the words on your fingers while you said them aloud, and checked your finger count at the end. This is because both reading and counting require subvocalization and you can't do both competing tasks at once. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I counted 13. I counted them in groups of 3 and there were 4 groups and 1 additional. No fingers, and not out loud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, because knowing that most people count on their fingers I used the count by threes method myself! The problem is you are still implicitly pausing at every third item and upping your implicitly spoken count by one, or using your fingers, or the like. The bottom line is that you can't count large numbers (more than a "few") without using some sort of known, ordered, perceptual tag. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. I only count on fingers when I'm observing something that requires a tally but lacks a "rhythm". If I were more awake I could give you an example or two. In the case of your 13 words, I read the first three, paused slightly, read the next three, paused slightly, and so on. That was a short list. Above a certain size, I might have to tally the groups of three, in order not to lose track. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd also pronounce such a way as it follows the rules: the word has three syllables and the third from the end is stressed and its vowel is short. But many times I was mistaken when I followed the rules so I prefer to look at a dictionary (even simple words break the rules: eleven /ɪˈlɛvən/, not /ˈɛləvən/, level /ˈlɛvəl/, not /ˈliːvəl/ - thousands of them). I have no problem with English consonants I can pronounce /sθ/ but this combination seems not to have existed in Ancient Greek and Latin, /sθ-/ looks like "demoticised" pronunciation.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what that means -- σθενος "strength, might, prowess" and several derivatives from it with initial σθ are listed in standard ancient Greek dictionaries, while medial σθ occurred frequently in mediopassive verb endings... AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It means in Ancient Greek ‹σθ› was /stʰ/ but in Medieval and Modern Greek it is /sθ/. Pronouncing ‹θ› as /θ/ I follow the pronunciation habits of modern Greeks (they read Ancient and Modern Greek the same).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're going for modern Greek, then γυναικιζοντες becomes [jinekizodes], etc... AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Still better than /ˌdʒaɪniːˈsaɪzəntəs/ or what it should be... (what does it mean, btw?)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Other cases

I also always wonder how special scientific Greek and Latin terms are pronounced in English. In medicine or chemistry there are many, many thousands of them. And they are read aloud, for example while studying medicine in universities. In the languages with (quasi-)phonemic letter-to-letter orthography (Russian, Italian etc.) it is not a problem but in English? Yes, there are dictionaries and lists for common terms, but what about uncommon?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems poor medics use special big dictionaries to know pronunciation. I don't envy them.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I/Me/Myself

I tend to say "John Doe and myself went back to the store to buy a CD", but I've heard people saying "You and I" (Like Lady GaGa in a song), or "You and me"... What's the right way of saying it. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Following strict grammar, "You and I" is the correct way to say it, but using "me" or "myself" is quite widely accepted nowadays. - Lindert (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The best way to tell which pronoun to use is to divide it into two separate sentences, one for each person: "John Doe went back to the store to buy a CD" and "I went back to the store to buy a CD." Same thing works for objects of sentences: "She gave donuts to Larry and me" becomes "She gave donuts to Larry" and "She gave donuts to me."    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so I was saying it the wrong way? How embarrassing! I've heard Bono saying myself as well, so we both are wrongy. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The slippery one is "myself". And if I'm remembering correctly, "me" and "myself" are the same word in Spanish. As in, como se llama, "how do you call yourself (i.e. what is your name); and me llamo Juan, "I call myself John (my name is John)". In English, "myself" is used in certain situations. It tends to be used for emphasis or when you are the subject of your own verb. I'm reminded of this line from a Gilbert & Sullivan song: "When I went to the Bar as a very young man (said I to myself - said I)..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I know myself/yourself...etc as "pronombres reflexivos". In the sentence He kissed me, you can translate it as Él me besó o Él me besó a mí, to emphasize that he did kiss me -- Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You can use reflexive pronouns for emphasis in English, too: "Actually, the person in the Godzilla costume was I myself." "Don't try to fool me; you yourself were the murderer!" Deor (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Steven Pinker has a lengthy discussion of this problem in The Language Instinct. The upshot is that dividing the sentence in two is not linguistically valid, and it is not obvious that any one way of saying it is more valid than any other -- "John and I/Me/Myself" is a collective entity, and the rules governing collective entities are not the same as the rules governing their parts. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That runs counter to what all my English teachers said over the years. But what did they know, compared to whoever this Pinker is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

He is a scientist and a science author. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. I'll go with what my English teachers said, because (1) they were students of English; and (2) regardless of what Pinker says, it does work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I was being ironic because Looie had provided a link to the man and I thought you had clicked on it. :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Very good. :) I hadn't linked on it because I knew he had it wrong. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Steve Pinker is by far the most famous linguist who is currently active, and quite possibly the most famous cognitive scientist. He is also a brilliant writer, and has written around a dozen bestsellers. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that he's considered a cunning linguist. But he's still wrong about the I/me rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Steven Pinker is not a linguist (per se), and Noam Chomsky is both alive and far more famous. (Although I'd take half a pinker over a dozen chomsky's.) μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am watching a lot of House Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember how in school you'd put your hand up to indicate you wanted the teacher to recognise you for some reason. They'd typically say "Yes, <name>", and that would be your permission to speak. Well, I had a teacher who would point at the kid and say "Yourself". Whether he couldn't remember anyone's name, or because he was Irish, or maybe both, I couldn't say.

As for "John and myself went to the store", that always sounds to me like someone who's avoiding saying "I" because it's supposed to sound selfish to talk about oneself, which is probably a very early childhood lesson that got over-taught and went in too deeply. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Irish people tend to say myself?? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

See Irish English μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The confusion arises because Spanish me covers both English me and myself. The important thing is to know when to use myself. Once you know that, whether to use I or me is the largely same as in Spanish.

You have to use myself when the subject and the object are the same in a verb that is not usually necessarily reflexive: Yo me odio: "I hate myself." (Odiarse is not a normal verb.) In normally reflexive verbs, like lavarse and afeitarse you can use myself, or leave it out as understood. "I shave in the morning" and "I shave myself in the morning" are both fine. The simple "I shave" is more normal. If you were in a troop of dancers, you might sya, I shave myself first, then I shave the rest of the girls."

In other cases, you use myself to indicate emphasis, or that you did something alone. Examples of emphasized contrast: "(As for) myself, I like liver; the rest of my family hates it." "I don't feel like going myself, but you can if you want to." Or to indicate lone action: "I read the book all by myself." "I found it myself, don't expect me to share it." (In these cases in Spanish you would probably say "lo hice solo" or "Yo mismo lo hice" and would no use a second pronoun.

Once you know whn to use myself, when to use I and me is pretty obvious. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So, is it correct to say "And then, Sharon and myself looked at each other surprised by Robert's stupid comment"? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say, "Sharon and I looked at each other..." Sharon looked at me. I looked at her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it's wrong. But you would definitely hear such things, and unless I were being paid to coach someone, I wouldn't even notice it. The problem is you can't grammatically say "myself looked at", you have to say "I looked at", per Bugs. I wouldn't remove it from dialog in a novel, except if the speaker were giving a formal speech. "Sharon and me" would also be more common in this instance thatn "Sharon and myself", but technically it would be equally wrong. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean: unless I were being paid to coach someone? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cuando me pagaran para corregir su lenguaje profesionalmente. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, te pagaría para que corrigieras mi shitty Inglés si tuviera dinero. :P Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 21:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about pronouns

Person A: "I am trying to think of the name of that famous actress who was murdered by Charles Manson."

Person B: "Oh, you mean Sharon Tate."

Person A: "Yes, that is her!"

As far as grammar is concerned, is the final statement correct or incorrect? Should it – in order to be grammatically correct – actually be "Yes, that is she"! ... ? Or is either version acceptable and correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Does Predicate nominative help? RJFJR (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see. I assume you are referring to the section of "disputed forms" within that article? Thanks. So, the answer is that there is no clear answer, it seems. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

English is moving toward a system with disjunctive pronouns, rather than strict case agreement. Saying "It is I" when you knock on the door just sounds pedantic. But, "It was I who stole your money" is less jarring, as it is followed by an implied sentence where I is the subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've always heard Honey, it's me. I'm home and I thought that was the correct way of saying it. Can you say It's I? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You speak some French, non? It's like, Chérie, c'est moi. Again, see disjunctive pronoun. If you said "Honey, it's I", she would think you were more interested in obsolete grammar rules than in her. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagined how it's pronounced. If spoken very quickly a new foreign-sounded greeting is coined: Hunneetzye! Can be a shibboleth for a family.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a glottal stop between honey and it's I in my dialect, and I expect in most, if not all. Without the glottal stop it sounds like Hannah Yitzai, the famous Dadaist poet and hand model of pre-war Vienna, turned Depression-era film star and voice actress. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct word

In the above question on this Reference Desk (question about pronouns), I stated: "So, the answer is that there is no answer." The funny construction of that sentence reminded me of a similar sentence that I once heard on a TV show or a film: a character said to another, "The rule is that there ain't no rules" (in some type of competition they were about to engage in). Is there any word by which this odd type of sentence construction is known? What, if anything, is that construction called? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, "...ain't no rules" is called "incorrect grammar". HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It still works in selected cases. Like the Lewis Carroll comment, speaking through the Tweedle brothers: "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Loophole Abuse, maybe. —Such a gentleman 20:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, using a concept or its foundations to deny its own validity is called the Stolen Concept fallacy. See also:

  Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”
  
  Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.
  
  The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing. --L. Peikoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

  μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• • As with the Babel fish - proving God's non-existence by proving His existence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 12

Image of Fatimah

I've just posted a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Fatimah asking for some information on an image. Thought I would cross post here as the image has some, what I assume is, Arabic script. If anyone is willing to take a look and see what the script says it might help. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

pronunciation of "surely"

In which American dialect is the word "surely" pronounced identically to shirley? In my American dialect, they are just not homophones, because I pronounce the -ir to sound like the -er sound in better or greater, and I pronounce the -ur sound to sound like -oor in moor or boor. 140.254.229.115 (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Forvo has six pronunciations indexed at http://www.forvo.com/search/surely/.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Your IP suggests that you're in or near where the "Ohio Valley accent" prevails, so that might have something to do with it. Farther west in the midwest, moor and more are homophones, as are bore and boor, pour and poor... and shirley and surely. I think we know that to say those words the "right" way, we should pronounce the "u" or "oo" or "ou" sounds more like the the "oo" in "food". But we typically don't. I was going to say "roof", but that varies between the "oo" in "food" and the "oo" in "look", so it's not the best comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What accent are you? 140.254.229.115 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)