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

March 11

Speech question

What's the name of the problem that causes people to mess up their past and present tenses? Like if someone says "I was so tired I can sleep all day" instead of "I was so tired I could have slept all day"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a specific problem. There are various neurological conditions (some of them congenital) which impair people's ability to manipulate grammatical patterns, but I doubt if there is one identified which interferes with expression of tenses as opposed to other grammatical concepts. You might find some leads in aphasia. --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anything more useful than "poor grammar". I have noticed this is quite common in people that are not speaking their native language and are often applying their Mother_tongue grammar rules to the language they're speaking. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about native speakers here? Often non-fluent speakers of learned languages slip into the present tense simply because it is usually the first one they learned and the one practiced most. (Disclaimer: this is personal observation/OR) -- Q Chris (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This only works for colloquial and academic speech, in fiction the past tenses comprise more than 50% of all verb forms in a text[1].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

People often use the present to indicate the future: As a result of a chance meeting I had with an old friend yesterday, we are going to Chequers for the weekend. And there's the historical present as well, which is sometimes mixed up with the simple past. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

.. in UK it's called Premier-League-speak. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's quite different. That is substituting one past (the "present perfect") for another. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone else has noticed that. It's also taken root in Australia. I can remember a time before which I had never heard anyone talking this way. That was around 1993, and I remember the occasion and the speaker clearly because it confused me until I worked out what was going on. But now, it's extremely common. Police officers seem particularly enamoured of it. When describing a series of events, it'll be "He has done this, and she has done that, then they have done something else ...", rather than "He did this, then she did that, then they did something else ...". You can depend on it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the Police Perfect, Jack. See. for example, [[2]] passim. What it signifies, in police-speak, may be some kind of avoidance usage (like °deceased male person″ for dead man). Djbcjk (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The best cure would be to learn Malay, which only has one tense and no plurals. Hence, 'I went to the shops yesterday' literally and approximately translates as 'I go to the shop yesterday happened'. Source: anecdotal from a native speaker. --89.242.206.103 (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Singular or plural?

"The Somerset Levels and Moors is a unique flat landscape..." sounds right, but so does "The Somerset Levels and Moors are unique, timeless and tranquil...". So, for the article, which should it be? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They collectively constitute a landscape, so singular. Discussing them as various constituent entities, they are plural, so plural. "are unique, timeless and tranquil" of course is right out, as violative of WP:NPOV. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a quote from another site. Not our article. Obviously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How about:

The Somerset Levels, or the Somerset Levels and Moors as they are less commonly but more correctly known, constitute [or make up, etc] a sparsely populated coastal plain and wetland district of central Somerset, in South West England, running south from the Mendip Hills to the Blackdown Hills.

The district occupies an area of about 160,000 acres (650 km²),... ----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that "district" in England commonly denotes a local government area. "It covers an area of about...." could do it. But there are other examples later in the article. Accepting Orangemike's main point, is this an example of where it is possible, even desirable, to use both singular and plural in the same article, depending on whether a sentence is talking about the area as a whole, or about the constituent sub-areas within it collectively? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about two different entities, or parts of entities, then you will have to call them by different names, to distinguish between them: in which case there can be no objection to one being singular and the other plural. If you are talking about the same entity in different places, then it is not ideal to mix singular and plural, and I would avoid doing so, although I suspect that most readers wouldn't notice.----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Our dear Lord Smith had this to say back in January: "The Somerset Levels are a completely unique landscape.. " [3] But then he's not a very popular figure in that area at the moment, so I guess we shouldn't listen to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What would an incompletely unique landscape look like? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, but so interesting I had to share:

Dictionary usage note on "unique," for the interested
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
“ usage: There is a set of adjectives—including unique, complete, equal, and perfect —whose core meaning embraces a mathematically absolute concept and which therefore, according to a traditional argument, cannot be modified by adverbs such as really, quite, or very. For example, since the core meaning of unique (from Latin ‘one’) is ‘being only one of its kind,’ it is logically impossible, the argument goes, to submodify it: it either is ‘unique’ or it is not, and there are no stages in between. In practice, the situation in the language is more complex than this. Words like unique have a core sense, but they often also have a secondary, less precise (nonabsolute) sense of ‘very remarkable or unusual,’ as in a really unique opportunity. It is advisable, however, to use unique in this sense sparingly and not to modify it with very, quite, really, etc. ”

--from the version of NOAD on my Mac (although this bit would seemingly apply across the anglosphere). See also [4]. But I guess, like me, you still insist that certain words should mean certain things, despite all the usage to the contrary ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You guess correctly. I do so insist.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

SemanticMantis, your post here is perfectly unique. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you say "Alice and Bob is a good team"? —Tamfang (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I might well say, "'Alice and Bob' is a good team, compared to 'The Team Formerly Known As Squiffy' or 'Seventeen Dead Horses and a Pickle'." (I have seen some really odd bowling league rosters.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I can think of some wiki editors who are a good team of one... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Noun–adjective order

Linguists have a name for everything. What's it called when a simple phrase is noun–adjective, vs adjective–noun? To give an example, what's the name for saying "car red" or "sandwich cheese" (to refer to a car that is red, or a sandwich that features cheese), rather than "red car" or "cheese sandwich"?

Thanks. (Please {{Ping}} me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm not sure about a general linguistic term that covers all languages, but in English we have Postpositive_adjectives. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Languages in which most adjectives are post-positive are considered strongly right-branching. Marco polo (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's very technical, and quite controversial, but you might also look at head-marking versus modifier-marking languages, and Johanna Nichols' Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you been to/gone to & Fuiste (ir) /Fuiste (ser) coincidence, or language universal?

In both English and Spanish the past tense of to go and to be fall together, in that "Have you ever gone to Germany" can be expressed by "Have you ever been to Germany", but only in the perfect, while in Spanish, the past tense of the verbs ser "to be" and ir "to go" are also identical in form (fui, fuiste, fue...) while they differ in all other tenses. (In Spanish this past form is called the preterite, but it descends from the Latin perfect.) Is this a coincidence, or does it indicate some sort of trend or linguistic universal? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the Spanish thing has to be an innovation. It doesn't even exist in Italian, probably the second closest "major" European language after Portuguese. Spanish se va becomes se fue (I think; my Spanish isn't that great), whereas in Italian se ne va becomes se ne andò. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I should clarify I am looking for something outside the Romance languages and the West Germanic languages that would show that this parallel development (convergent evolution in the linguistic sense) is due to some underlying logic or linguistic universal. I am familiar with the Spanish, French, and Latin. The form ando comes from the Latin ambitare and the va- forms come from vadere, the first an expanded form of ire (ambi-ta-ire) and the second a cognate with the English to wade. So those are actually both innovations as they have been made part of the ire verb paradigm by suppletion. "Been" as in have you ever been to Germany (i.e., "gone to and come back") seems to be somehow related in motivation. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Medeis -- I don't see that "be" and "go" have any particular tendency to coalesce in English, but in ancient Greek a few forms coincided except for accents or iota subscripts (e.g. accentless ειμι can be "I am" or "I go", in writing and in the segmental pronunciation of those dialects in which ει of diphthongal origin and ει originating in compensatory lengthening had merged). In Latin, some parallel forms of "to be" and "to eat" have the same spellings; the forms from "to eat" are shown with long root vowel in grammars, but I'm not sure if this distinction was consistently observed in spoken Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:AnonMoos, I should of remembered that. Various forms of eat, be and go fall together very closely in Slavic. This is an obvious phonological development from similar sounding roots, though, which doesn't apply to gone/been in English, and is an irregular development in Latin, where ii, iisti become identical to fui, fuisti in Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

March 12

a fit of unbearable coughing?

Can it be "a fit of unbearable coughing" , "an unbearable fit of coughing" or "an unbearable coughing fit"? Would you tell me which of the three is better? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.168.202 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They all work, and "an unbearable fit of coughing" seems the least marked to me. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

An unbearable fit of coffin? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"It isn't the cough that carries you off, It's the coffin they carry you off in". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a TV ad here selling their cold remedy for those with a "cough and cold". When I heard it, I thought they said a "coffin cold", in which case they should get to the hospital emergency room immediately ! StuRat (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pergament paper

Context: art catalogue descriptions of ink drawings. Is there a material called "pergament paper" in English used with this medium and technique? I suspect some faux ami translation from the Hebrew when I encounter the Hebrew נייר פרגמנט (niYAR pergaMENT) translated as "parchment paper" - which we see associated in English with baking paper, either as a synonym or perhaps the preferred term in British English. The German word pergament is evidently what's called parchment in English. Any elucidation would be appreciated. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Parchment ultimately comes from the name of the city of Pergamon/Pergamum, so they are really the same word. But I've never heard of parchment paper being used for anything other than baking. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha. So a web search on "pergamon paper" finds this most often as a translation of the Latin Charta pergamena, and eventually I arrived at paper vellum which strikes me as the most likely (and possibly even correct) answer. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Next is how to decide whether the term for such paper with the properties of vellum is "paper vellum" or "vellum paper"? Web hits e.g. art glossaries seem to favor the latter, also in the commercial context: customers seek a kind of paper, not a kind of vellum. Is this a valid justification? I don't have an unabridged dictionary available. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about the specific art term, but "vellum paper" would definitely be the correct term from a grammatical/syntactical point of view. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Spanish help: Political controversy involving a Mexican school

Here is a quote from the following article:

• "Denuncian presion de SEP." Diario Reforma. November 15, 1997. News, p. 4. Informe Académico, Gale Group# GALE|A129878062

"Indican padres de familia afectados que Limón Rojas injirió en la decisión de revocar la inscripción a su hijo al Liceo Japonés

El Secretario de Educación Pública, Miguel Limón Rojas, sí influyó para que se expulsara un alumno de preparatoria que fue acusado de abuso sexual, del cual fue exonerado, en agravio de un niño de primaria que es compañero de uno de los dos hijos del titular de la SEP, que estudian en el Liceo Mexicano Japonés, informaron integrantes del Consejo Directivo del colegio. Inclusive el subsecretario Benjamín González Roaro, quien también tiene dos hijos estudiando en ese instituto, advirtió en una carta dirigida al presidente del Consejo Directivo, Takuro Otsuda, que debido a "denuncias graves irregulares, que afectan el rendimiento escolar de los alumnos del Liceo Mexicano Japonés", exigía la salida de dos integrantes del Consejo, o de lo contrario el colegio se haría acreedor a diversas sanciones, como retirarles su incorporación a la SEP.""

So does this mean that some politicians tried to defend their decision to expel a student who was accused and exonerated of a rape? If I am reading this correctly, there is criticism of officials who had students enrolled in the school, right? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

infinitive verbs

Can I say "They pick young elm seeds to cook them as food at home."?Similarly, is "She put a fish in the pot to boil it." correct? I'm not sure about the infinitive verbs in the two sentences. I need your advice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.209.240 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, both sentences are good English. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"She boils a fish in the pot to clean it" might be more problematic. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How is that comment relevant? I can't see any relevance to the original question. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The construction also uses an infinitive. I'm suggesting that the original suggestion is much better, as it's less ambiguous. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But the question wasn't about ambiguity, it was about a usage of the infinitive in English. Almost any usage can result in ambiguity, but the questioner wasn't looking for help with that. My concern is that we don't want to confuse English-language learners who are looking for simple answers. Marco polo (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right, although infinitives seem to need special care. Happy to remove if this will help. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's okay. We've clarified that the comment didn't imply a problem with either of the questioner's sentences. Marco polo (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• The use of the infinitive is right, and necessary after "in order". But the direct object pronouns are redundant and sound foreign, and should be omitted: "They pick young elm seeds to cook as food at home." "She put a fish in the pot to boil." μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For bilingual speakers

As many bilingual speakers know, when you speak to someone who is bilingual in the same languages, you often end up speaking in one language, but occasionally using words or phrases from the other, when appropriate. I am curious about this: if both languages have grammatical case and gender, are you putting the foreign word in an (approximately) correct case and with appropriate adjective-noun agreement, or are you using it as if it was an indeclinable word of default or random gender? For the purpose of this question, let's exclude cases where one of the languages is English (as it basically has no such properties) and pairs of closely related languages, like Serbian/Croatian, or Scandinavian languages, etc., where the word doesn't feel like a foreign word. Also exclude cases where the word or phrase is a recognized borrowing, like Déjà vu in English, it has to be some random word not normally used in the target language. So I am especially curious for pairs in different families, like Germanic-Slavic, or Romance-Germanic, but something like French-Spanish would do as well, I think.

Here I am interested in spontaneous language production (i.e. what you actually say on the spot), and also in what you would do after some deliberation, e.g. in writing. I think Commonwealth-era Polish tended to use Latin like this, even in writing, and I think Imperial Russian did this to some extent with French, since in both cases all educated readers were assumed to be bilingual. I am curious if there were/are "official" rules, as to how that was supposed to be done. Of course, modern Russian declines foreign nouns if they look "masculine", but that's not the sort of rule I have in mind, since it's explicitly designed for monolingual speakers.

(Note: I am trilingual myself, but I have no language pair where this would apply.) --Ornil (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I want to explicitly exclude grammatical number and natural gender (e.g. if the word is a name of a person, or gender-specific, like actress), since these are semantic properties, and I expect all languages to preserve these. I am interested in strictly syntactic properties. --Ornil (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not good at formal grammar or syntax, so please bear with me if I have misunderstood the question.

Excluding grammatical number and natural gender and thinking back to cases when speaking Spanish with Swedish foreign words, all the examples I can think of right now, I used it as an an indeclinable word as in ¿Tiene el <bok>? (Do you have the book?). Here I would just leave out the determinate case (-en) from the Swedish word (bok-en). But in this case the determinate was already in "el" in spanish, so adding "boken" would have felt superfluous. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A partial answer: The term used in linguistics is Code-switching and there are some examples in that article – I gather, however, that the specifics of what happens is going to depend on the specifics of the two languages (i.e., there won’t be a general pattern across all languages with grammatical gender, for example). Most corpuses of examples that I can find involve English as one language, but I did see this for Arabic-French (if interested and you don’t have access, you can request it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request). 142.150.38.159 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, code-switching is the correct term. The answer is that the switching normally occurs between, not in the middle of syntactical units, i.e., phrases. The exception seems to be for nouns. So in English/Spanish, "the big dog, whose owner died yesterday, bit my nephew" could be broken up as ((The big dog) (cuyo dueño murió ayer)) (mordió a mi nephew). Here the only switching within a phrase is "mi nephew".

Also, the use of a Spanish transitive verb with a human object requires the use of personal a. Once you've said mordió you are comitted to using the Spanish preposition a. You cant say "mordió my nephew" or "mordió to my nephew", but you can say "mordió a my nephew".

Spanish verbs will still decline for number according to an english subject: "The soldiers mataron los caballos." Choice of number is set for the definite article by the number of the noun and by gender if it is natural: "los boyfriends". But it's pretty arbitrary for other nouns. She went to the movie could be "fue al movie" (masc) or "fue a la movie" if the user considers inherently feminine, as the word peli ( < película) is in Spanish.

There are no learned rules. Code-switching occurs spontaneously and unselfconsciously. If there is a conflict, there will usually be hesitation and repetition "Ella fue al...fue a la peli."

Here's a brief unedited excerpt from a recent email I sent:

En la cuestion de grados, hay in los EEUU, nursery school, kindergarten, grades 1-12, and university, which is called college. Los grados 9-12 son "high school". Los años de 9th grade hasta 12th grade se llaman, en secuencia, "freshman year", "sophomore year", "junior year" and "senior" year, lo igual que los primer cuatro años de Universidad. Pues, when I was 18 I graduated from senior year of high school y me converti en freshman in college.

μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Basically I know all this, since I am also bilingual with English being one of my languages. The problem is that English has no gender, so when you substitute an English noun in a foreign language sentence, you have to make up a gender. What I am hoping to find is a case where you speak, say, Spanish and German, and you use a German word in a Spanish sentence. A German word would have a gender, and as a bilingual speaker you'd know what it was, so would you use it? And, if both languages that have noun case (so not Spanish or English), would you put the object of a sentence in an accusative case?--Ornil (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A bit ridiculous to answer my own question, but I remembered something I read. In Henryk Sienkiewicz's Potop (the Deluge), there's this passage in the original Polish (which I don't speak, but can make some sense of):

a nie inna droga salutis reipublicae zostawała

which means something like

there was no path left of the salvation of the republic

where the italicized part is in Latin, and is certainly in genitive. I would guess that had it been in Polish, it would likewise be in genitive. So at least in one case they did simply treat Latin phrase as if it was Polish and obeyed Polish grammar. There's also this:

sama [i.e. herself] justitia fundamentum regnorum

in which clearly justitia is feminine, as it would be in Latin. Although, no doubt it would be feminine as a Polish word too. But I am very curious if anyone has similar examples from other languages. Ornil (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I am not sure whether this educated glossing would be considered code-switching or not. That's usually a spontaneous conversational thing. You do occasionally see multilingual article titles part in German, part Russian, or part Latin, all of which have three genders and at least four cases. And I know from examples given when the issue was raised in class in German and Russian that the original gender will not necessarily be retained in a word that is borrowed into common usage in the target language.

Obviously nouns in -a are almost universally marked as feminine in most European IE languages. That would explain your example of "justice herself". But even cognate terms like die Sonne and el sol don't necessarily retain the same gender between genetically related languages. In any case, I expect in educated case in literature you'll get high fidelity, but although some people will make an effort in English to keep at least number (alumnus sing. versus data, alumni pl.) no person in contemporary English is going to refer to the res in res ipsa loquitur as anything but an it, rather than the "appropriate" she. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to skim War and Peace, looking for some interesting Russian-French mix which would be real code switching, since it mostly happens in dialogue, and I am sure Tolstoy is pretty accurate in capturing this sort of thing. It's very hard to find anything, since his characters tend to switch on sentence or at least complete clause boundaries. Unfortunately French doesn't have cases either, but I did see some part-Russian, part-French constructions that would be ungrammatical in Russian if you translated the French word into Russian, but would probably be grammatical (my French is very bad, so I am not sure) if you translated the Russian half into French. Unfortunately I can't find any examples of French-Russian sentence where there would be gender agreement, except in the cases where the noun in question is a person, and so has a natural (and the same) gender in both languages. I am hoping to find a word exactly like "sun" which has a different gender in French and Russian and see if is gets used in its French gender when a part of a Russian sentence, but no luck so far. Ornil (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

March 13

Oh Dae-su (Hangul: 오대수)

It is a fictional character and the protagonist of the 2003 South Korean film Oldboy. You can look up the article aobut him. What does this name mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.174.69 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(Links added.) Does it need to mean anything? I seem to remember reading that the surname Oh can mean 'king', but I doubt one can be sure in a given case. —Tamfang (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to mean something. But in the film, the character says "my name Oh Dae-su means getting through one day at a time." Google translate, however, says 대수 means algebra, 수 number, 대 versus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.174.69 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

flourishing spring

Is "The flourishing spring returns." correct? I think it is, but I've never seen anyone else use the collocation "flourishing spring", so I want your opinion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.228.60 (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the usage certainly is valid on etymological grounds, but it has a rather dated feel to me (you did ask for opinion). The usage of the verb "to flourish" has shifted slightly over the last few hundred years. Dbfirs 07:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is a little old and poetic. I googled it, and there is a book called 'Flourishing Spring', apparently. In any case, when talking about spring, who doesn't go all arty-farty and start using poetic words? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've known some hayfever sufferers to use some imaginative words, but I wouldn't exactly call them poetic... MChesterMC (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's not incorrect, but also not idiomatic (not something people would be likely to say or to write in prose). People are saying that it's poetic because you can combine words in poems (or sometimes in book titles) that don't usually go together. If the word "spring" is modified, it is usually in relation to the weather or perhaps the mood that the season evokes. Also, it is a bit odd to use the simple present form "spring returns" without an adverb or adverbial phrase (e.g., "spring returns every year"). It would be a little more natural to say "Spring has returned." But if you are aiming for a poetic mood, then your sentence is okay as is. Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Looking out the window at the snow falling at -8° C and wishing that spring might return, someday.

"If winter comes, ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese character identification

Can anyone please identify the Japanese characters shown in http://i61.tinypic.com/2v1snf4.jpg found in an old document? NewOCR identifies it as 名 麦再 which Google Translate translates as "name wheat re-", which cannot possibly be right - the document has nothing whatever to do with wheat or any other grain or plant. But I've found NewOCR to be totally hopeless each time I've tried it. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

名稱 - just two characters, and a photo of someone's erect penis under it - choose a better image sharing site, FFS..... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

稱 is the traditional kanji of 称 and 名称 means "name". Oda Mari (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if any offence occurred. I checked the link when I set it up - it was fine. I've just checked it again and it's still ok - just shows the two characters.

GoogleTranslate did not recognise the second character - Thanks, Oda. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It was fine to me. I only saw two characters. Oda Mari (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't look closely at the row of thumbnails, then. —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. With my a bit older version of SeaMonkey, the link only shows white rectangular with the characters in it on a black background page. But I tried with Firefox, also an older version, minutes ago, I could see the thumbnails. Why the difference? Oda Mari (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you have Windows, you can install Japanese language support. Control Panel>Change keyboards and other input methods>Keyboards, then choose Japanese and Microsoft IME. You will then get an icon in your system tray which will probably say 'EN'. Click on that to choose Japanese, and switch to hiragana. Then, you will have the IME pad icon. You can use this to draw the kanji, and then add them into any program you want (Word, or your browser, etc.). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But I can do Japanese characters now - I don't need to install anything. I copy-pasted the characters you guys supplied into MS-Word, and into GoogleTranslate as a check, without any problem. The trouble is, I have a document in Japanese that was a) partly handwritten (by some old coot whose knowlege of modern Japanese was not that good, apparently!), b) reproduced on a dyeline machine - antiquated pre-photocopier technology that was never very clear, and the prints fade and blur over time, and c) as a non-Japanese, I find it almost impossible to tell which character (out the thousands in use) is which. Not much good being able to write in Japanese if you don't know what to write! If there is anything better than the utterly useless NewOCR, do please let me know! 121.215.154.87 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's a short document, just post it here and we'll transcribe it. If this guy writes Japanese in the way most people write Chinese (i.e. by scribbling chicken-scratch), even a native speaker might have trouble reading it, and a computer will have no chance in hell. --Bowlhover (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Patently absurd

What's the difference between patently absurd and just regular absurd? ScienceApe (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Kind of like the difference between denying and categorically denying,[5][6] in that they both carry a greater emphasis of certainty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

... and one has a website Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Or the difference between "There will be four separate/different investigations into this incident" and "There will be four investigations into this incident". It's very unlikely they would be four identical investigations. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Same difference, Jack, same difference. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is Wiktionary's entry for "patently": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patently

As you will see, "patently" means "clearly" or "unambiguously", so something that is "patently absurd" is "clearly absurd", whereas something that is merely "absurd" may need a little thought before you realise what the absurdity is. RomanSpa (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Patent etymology: "Short form of Anglo-Norman lettre patente, "open letter", from Latin littera patens." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as in "It is patent to the mob / That my being made a nob / Was effected by a job"[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I always thought that meant the mob actually owned the copyright to it, and that is why they tried so hard to stop anyone else from 'sharing' the business, just like nowadays..... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad you're so open and frank about all this. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 14

The top of the hill was swept off

I doubt the appropriateness of "sweep" in the following sentence, but I can't think of a better verb. "According to locals, the top of the hill was swept off accidentally by an immortal with a flick of his sleeve." I need your help. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Swept is just fine, but I would use the past perfect here: "the top of the hill had been swept off" rather than "was". The word "swept" is just fine in this context. --Jayron32 00:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming that this is in the context of a fictional character's arrival in the vicinity? —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Swept away" would probably work better. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That would invite pointless jokes, if only in the reader's mind. —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Too late: Will this wind be so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the arrrrrrrth? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"What's that you say, Sooty, you've lost E. L. Wisty?" Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow, but I don't see the joke with "swept away". What is it? 86.169.36.54 (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To be swept away can mean to fall in love or otherwise lose one's emotional footing. —Tamfang (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

German Translation Needed

I went to Germany and bought a drink called 'Gesalzengemälztparfümiertetrinken'. What does this mean? Thank you. --Bnā We must Eashgf (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, it sounds like some kind of "salty malty drink". Perhaps a bit like a savory Horlicks!? Planning a new Unusual German Beverage article? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the same person as the users Ashetuger and Ashplkoop, who posted concocted German portmanteau words here in this question and this one respectively. - Karenjc (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Shucks, and I thought they were just thirsty. They deserve a drink like that one! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Plurals of Abbreviated Words

[Moved from Science Desk!]

If the plural of 'department' is 'departments', then what is the plural of 'dept.'? 'Dept.s'? Obviously not (though my spellchecker seems to think it's OK). 'Dept.'s'? Maybe, but that looks strange, especially in the possessive plural where it would become 'dept.'s... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If I was writing and had to use the plural, I would spell out the entire word. Most plural abbreviations just look funky. You may get better responses at the Language desk, but I would use 'depts.' and 'depts.' ' for possessive plural. Justin15w (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And sorry, I thought I was on the Language Desk.... my mistake. I will move it there. For any more answers, everyone, please answer here. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The British English abbreviation is usually 'dept', which would give you a plural of 'depts'. Bazza (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Kage, when you think about it, depts is just as much an abbreviation as dept. Full stops, if they're used with abbreviations at all, go at the end, never internally. Just because depts contains dept, doesn't mean that the full stop remains where it originally was, after t. It gets moved to the end, where it always belongs. That's if you use them at all. (You may be getting confused with apostrophes, which are used with some abbreviations but not others, and they almost always occur internally. As for why we write dept and not dep't, search me. If we did write dep't. or dep't, we'd also write dep'ts. or dep'ts.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently dep't is sometimes used - a Google search gives lots of examples - though I don't remember ever noticing it. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that before, now I come to think of it. I'd hate to see the singular possessive, though.... "the dept's' budget...". Yuck! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the singular and plural possessive combined (neat trick), but of dept, not of dep't. The singular possessive of dep't would be dep't's. The plural would be dep'ts'. Both still yuck, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want my eyes to start bubbling then melting into an icky goo streaming down my cheeks onto my new shirt at the sight of such an abomination, so I deliberately spelt it wrong. Just joking, thanks for the correction. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In the 19th century (especially in handwriting, rather than printed documents), they sometimes used superscripts for such a purpose: dept^s or dep^ts. Sometimes a superscript "s" could be directly above a period indicating abbreviation... AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, sometimes the superscript consonants were underlined. AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That superscript above a full-stop or hyphen phenomenon I have seen in modern Japanese documents. E.g. 'No.5' becomes №5 .KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Term for a noun that is both singular and plural

Is there a name or term for words like "fish" that have both the singular and plural meaning? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 July 20#Moose is a nice discussion of them, but I don't see an actual label for this situation. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that this has a special word; Wikipedia discusses the concept at English_plural#Nouns_with_identical_singular_and_plural, but I don't know that there is a special name for this class of plurals. --Jayron32 18:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• There are various different reason this might happen, simple irregular plurals, like fish/fish and sheep/sheep, or mass nouns versus count nouns, like oats. And plurale tantum, like scissors. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• See transnumeric. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See also zero morpheme. —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the plural of shrimp is shrimp in the US, but shrimps in the UK - what is it in Oz, Canada etc. Widneymanor (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite a marketing campaign targeted at Americans, Australia doesn't actually have shrimp(s). We have prawns. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Shrimp and prawns are different animals (and I am UK-ish, and I say 'shrimp' for the plural). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Kinda not really. They're both vague terms, not referring to any specific species. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of those cases where size matters. Shrimp, apparently, are usually the smaller ones, while prawns are the larger ones. Some people, however (myself included), use the terms the other way around. In any case, there is a distinction, it's just that nobody is really sure what the distinction actually is. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, kind of like between John Boehner and Barack Obama. μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea. We Brits don't really follow US politics. I'd never heard of him before until you wrote that. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia to the rescue. Barack Obama is quite a well-known person in the US, apparently. John Boehner you obviously know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC) :)

No, Jack, there clearly has been a mistake here. Not only have our American friends mangled up the spelling of our language once again, but the gentleman you refer to is our president, not theirs. Apparently. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do such brainless twats achieve fame? Why does anybody ever bother to learn stuff? Our society's priorities are completely fucked, and I hereby resign. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, Jack. She is probably not so brainless. My guess is, at 1:28am when the tweet was posted, she had probably just had a night out with her mate Mary Warner. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

One odd one is "people", which is a singular word, plural "peoples", referring to a nation or ethnic group, and at the same time has become the de facto plural of "person", with "persons" only really being used in legalese these days. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

March 15

A cuttle of days

What's it called when people say what sounds like "cuttle" when they're saying the word "couple" in conversation? Like I'll be there in a cuttle a' days.

Are there other cases like this? Does this always go in the same direction? I mean, I've never heard anyone talk about "couple fish" when they mean "cuttle fish". Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What's it called? Defective hearing - either in the talker or the listener. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably Aussie translation of "dreckley": File:Cornish time dreckly.jpg Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Straying into Emma Chizzit by Afferbeck Lauder. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

...impressed! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In US English substituting T's for P'S would be a strange mistake to make, although T's and D's are sometimes interchangeable, as in "putting" and "pudding". StuRat (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Jack, what dialect are you hearing this in? Matt Deres (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably just Aussies, come to think of it. Very common here. It's not really a 't' sound after all, just a cu'l - see below. But I've never heard apple sound like a'l, or ripple sound like ri'l. I've searched my memory, but I can't think of any examples apart from couple/cu'l. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Cu'le", sounding like 'cuttle' with the 't' replaced by a glottal stop, is very common pronunciation in London for 'couple'. 'People' sometimes gets the same treatment. London English replaces lots of letters with glottal stops - even Cockney itself is often pronounced "Co'nee". Also, "Woss 'a'nin'?" = 'What seems to be the trouble, dear old chap?" (admittedly, lots of letters have been dropped here, and some added, but you get the drift). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I was almost going to say I could almost accept the glottal stop explanation, but not quite. Then I thought longer (as Cocteau enjoins mirrors to do before reflecting) and now I think that's on the money, Kage Tora. The speakers are not actually saying the letter 't' (certainly not a well-formed one), it's just that the hearers think they are, because to make the sound they're making the tongue must be in virtually the same position as if it were sounding 't', due to the fast approaching 'l'. The editor below probably explains it beautifully and concisely, albeit in language that's a wee too technical for me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I would rather tend to think the reason people may think it's a 't' is because in English, when a glottal stop is sounded, it is more often than not a substitute for a 't', and usually not for other letters. E.g. "Muvver-in-law wanʔed a birfday presenʔ, so I goʔ 'er a nice saʔin 'andkerchief". Here you would know I meant 'satin' and not sarin (no matter what I actually wanted to buy - they say it's the thought that counts....). When making a glottal stop, the tongue is nowhere near the position for making any type of 't', alveolar or dental. It uses the glottis, hence the name. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Spontaneous sound changes like this do occur as one-offs in speech. This would likely be a case of spontaneous dissimilation, since coronal consonants (like s, t, r, n, l) do contrast with peripheral consonants (like p, k, qu, h, f). Hence a sequence of two peripheral consonant dissimilates to one peripheral and one coronal consonant. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a different explanation from suggesting the speaker's glottal stop (which is peripheral, like p) is interpreted as a t, which is indeed possible. I am not familiar with any dialect that regularly substitutes the glottal stop for p (rather than t). I am trying to imagine Eliza Dootlitle saying it. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Or Eliza McTavish? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

While it could be a regular substitution, I'd first guess it's part of grammaticalization-triggered alteration. Just like there's no regular substitution that would turn going to into gunna, but it happens anyways as it becomes grammaticalized as a future marker. Jack also said that for him, he's only heard it for that one word. Though that explanation doesn't work very well if it appears in phrases like "How many are there?" "-A couple" where couple is receiving full stress, rather than being reduced. Lsfreak (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's extremely common, in English, for sounds to change in the case of proper names—particularly, pet names.

e.g.

Bill from Will (from William)
Dick from Rick (from Richard)
Polly from Molly
Ned or Ted from Ed (from Edward)
Buck from Chuck (from Charles)
or Bob from Rob (from Robert)

Pine (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but in the case I'm describing, if you asked the speaker to write down the words he just uttered, he'd write "A couple of days" even though hearers think they're hearing "cuttle" because of the glottal stop factor discussed above. There is no overt intention to change the word in any way, as there is in the William > Bill etc cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese character recognition

Can anyone please identify the characters shown in the scan at http://i58.tinypic.com/hs8con.jpg, especially the third one? [last of a set] 121.215.154.87 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

表面處理 => 表面処理 in post-war Japanese. It means 'surface treatment'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You're a star, Kage. Thanks for your help. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, mate. My invoice is in the post. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"straight" or "straightly"?

Greetings!

I've been wondering, recently, whether straightly constitutes a proper, English word. Let me elaborate:

For years, several dictionaries and usage commentators taught me that most, English adverbs derived from either prepositions or adjectives utilize the -s or -ly suffixes.

e.g.
The rocket's skyward movement. (adj.)
The rocket moves skywards. (adv.)

He is a careful driver. (adj.)
He drives carefully. (adv.)

Certain other adverbs, however, remain homographs of the prepositions or adjectives whence they got derived.

e.g.
We stand astride history. (prep.)
We rode our horses astride. (adv.)

This is a fast computer. (adj.)
This computer runs fast. (adv.)

When it comes to "straight," Wilson Follett, Bryan Garner, Edward Good, and others have held that it, definitely, falls into the latter category. To wit, "straightly" constitutes an illiteracy. In the OED, however, "straight" has several adjectival and adverbial definitions, but "straightly" is also listed as derivative adverb!

Far be it from me to question Mr. Oxford; nevertheless, would any of you ever use "straightly" in highly formal writing, or in legal documents? And, if so, then why "straightly," but not "fastly" or "astrides"?
Pine (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Straightly" sounds perfectly fine to me, but I speak US English. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wull, yeah, in the way "fastly" sounds okay. I could only imagine it in odd contexts, like "The lawyer asked if he drove crookedly, or straightly" Or "Are you coming home the roundabout way? No, straightly." Even then it doesn't exactly sound normal. At for the OED, it's more like a comprehensive encyclopedia of English than a pocket guidebook. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"fastly" has a perfect substitute in "quickly", while the closest you can come to "straightly" is something like "linearly". StuRat (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"straightly" sounds pretty unnatural to me. The graph here indicates that the word is, and always has been, vanishingly uncommon compared to "straight". 86.160.82.217 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Straightly" would be okay in certain contexts, e.g. It's hard to draw straightly without a ruler, where using "straight" in formal writing would indicate a poor education.

The addition of an s on adverbs ending in -ward (skyward, forward, backward, toward) varies between UK (generally with the s) and US English (generally withoutly).--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt I'd say skywards, but this American uses "backwards and forwards" and "to(wa)rds" at least as much as the essless forms. New Yorkers tend to say "foward" [sic]. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. I see nothing wrong with "It's hard to draw straight without a ruler". "It's hard to draw straightly" just sounds weird to me. 86.160.82.217 (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be the case that it sounds strange to you, but it's correct nonetheless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Correct" is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, "straight" is correct in this context, and it would seem Pine's style guides agree. If you said "straightly", I would chalk it up to either being a speech error or you not being a native speaker. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Using an adjective when an adverb should be used might be your preference, but it's only your opinion that it is correct. It doesn't really matter what you would chalk up as 'correct' when all major dictionaries indicate straightly as the valid adverb. Some of the confusion about this issue results from the fact that straight can also be used adverbially, but generally in figurative senses, where as straightly is not used figuratively. The 'Google test' results in skewed results because straight functions as an adjective, adverb and noun, so it is entirely unsurprising that it gets more hits than a word that only functions as an adverb.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Using an adjective when an adverb should be used -- "straight" is an adverb.

• straight functions as an adjective, adverb and noun -- that does not come close to explaining a 5000-to-1 bias in COCA results.

• all major dictionaries indicate straightly as the valid adverb -- this is simply untrue. All dictionaries correctly explain that "straight" is an adverb as well as an adjective. Most dictionaries that list "straightly" include it as a subsidiary minor word, and some pretty comprehensive dictionaries do not list straightly at all. 86.169.36.54 (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot recall seeing "straightly" used. Not in speech, not in quoted speech, and not in written works. But while I don't have the OED at hand, but I do have the Chambers Dictionary - an equivalent comprehensive work. It lists "straightly" as a valid word, an adverb meaning in a straight line or manner. Jeffro77's example is therefore perfectly valid, but it does sound odd. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll find thousands of words in any decent dictionary that you've never heard or seen used before. That's almost the point, really. A dictionary containing only the core vocabulary that most people know, would sit on the shelves and gather dust. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Everyone has a limitted working vocabulary. Straightly is a valid word in the English language, but is only rarely used. More to the point as far as the OP is concerned: If used in a modern textbook, magazine, web article, or translation, would average folk accept it as valid? In many cases, probably not. When writing, it is important to spell correctly, use correct grammar, and use valid words. But the most important rule of all is write for your reader. Unnecesary unusual words are a distraction. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I found 2.6 million Ghits for "straightly" vs. 249 million for "straight". Sure, that's a lot less, but it's not exactly a rarely used word. One example: "A drunk driving test involves asking the subject to walk a line straightly". StuRat (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a really dumb way of expressing it, though (for the author of that example's benefit). An unspecified line can be circular, zig-zag, whatever. The point of the test is to require the person to walk a straight line without diverging from it. Inherent in that is the need to be able to walk straight, and there's no need to get into weird phraseology like "straightly". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The traffic cop would use a line on the road for the test, and if those zig-zag I'd say the person who drew the line has a drinking problem. :-)

Also, on a road which lacks lines, the cop might just ask the person to walk straightly, some distance, without any guidance. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the 2.6 million to 249 million ratio is definitely unrepresentative of Google's indexed content, but these Google hit counts are known to be wildly unreliable, so I am always nervous when they are quoted in support of an argument. Another statistic: COCA database (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca) reports 8 instances of "straightly" versus 41173 of "straight". 86.160.82.217 (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I speak GA, like StuRat, but "straightly" sounds horrible to me, as bad as "fastly". It's simply not in my vocabulary, and I don't know that I've ever even heard it. I would say "in a straight line" instead. Functionally, prep phrases and adverbs are largely equivalent.

Historically, the reason you can't use -ly with "astride" is that it's a lexicalized prep phrase, lit. "on-stride". — kwami (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

From a British point of view, I agree fully with the majority dislike of "straightly", but it has been used occasionally in English since 1395 (according to the OED who do not mark it as obsolete, though they haven't updated that entry since 1917). Collins Millennium Dictionary also gives the briefest mention to the adverb "straightly", but the use of "straight" as an adverb is much, much more common, and I'd certainly recommend it for normal prose. Shakespeare used "fastly" in one of his sonnets, but the OED claims that this usage is "now rare", and the use of "fastly" meaning "steadfastly" is "obsolete". Dbfirs 10:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In summary, the story with adverbs, so far, is as follows:

Since one must, sometimes, journey slowly, it would benefit him to travel light. Yet, he may still only move straight, regardless of how lightly he does so. But, if he slathers his mousse thick on his closely cut hair, then he will have to wipe it fast, in order to avoid cutting his departure close. Otherwise, his train will have clean missed him due to how cleanly he grooms himself.

Perhaps, one day, we English-speakers will join the rest of the world in having a language that actually follows logic. In the meantime, though, I'd like to thank all of you for your prompt responses, as well as for your trying hard, instead of hardly trying.
Pine (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

March 16

The father turned the boy's shoulder around and talked to him.

Hello! I have a question about the phrase "turn sb's shoulder around". I'm not sure if it is proper to say "The father turned the boy's shoulder around and talked to him." I need your clarification. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.241 (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds bad, like he dislocated his son's shoulder. How about "The father grabbed his son's shoulder and turned him around, to talk with him". StuRat (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Turned him by the shoulder, maybe, or took him by the shoulder ('grabbed' sounds a bit violent) – I might not bother saying both, if it's clear from context. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Italian and Spanish Similarities

Was curious if anyone can shed light on why, despite the considerable distance between them relative to the European continent (especially in the ancient world), there are greater similarities between Spanish and Italian than between either language and French? (Moreover, Italian and French are phylogenically related.) Would anyone see either of the following as possible factors explaining this: the populations that adopted what later became Italian and Spanish were Gothic/Lombard/Germanic speakers, whereas the ancestors of Parisian and the other French topolects featured a Celtic (Gaulish) substrate...and the fact that trading routes connected the Italian and Iberian peninsulas more closely than they did with Gaul/France, despite the geographical proximity? --2604:2000:1054:7E:9C10:34AD:712:5A7B (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This has long been attributed to a Celtic substrate in French, so much so that it's part of the national mythology, but AFAIK that's never been demonstrated. Whatever the reason, phonologically French has diverged more from Latin than Spanish and Italian. The reason that the later two are more similar is that they are (in some ways at least) more conservative, not that they've converged. That is, French has moved on and left them behind, they didn't move together and leave French behind. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--that is very helpful!--74.72.255.103 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Spanish, Italian and French did not always follow current borders. In each country, a very long list of Romance languages, often overlapping between these countries. were more or less systematically and aggressively repressed in each country with the advent of nationalism. If one traveled when I was young from Valencia, Cataluña via France and Switzerland to Northern Italy and one could hear similar languages spoken all the way, Valencian, Catalan, Provençal, Monegascan, Rhaeto-Romance, Piedmontese. These languages were closer to each other, to my ears, than each of the languages that were decreed as official by the central authorities. Today, many of these languages are still strong in Spain. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Star Lord. Nonetheless I believe most non-Castilian Romance languages of Spain, e.g. Catalan/Valencian, Galician, etc. are still slightly closer phonologically and perhaps grammatically to Tuscan and even northern Italian non-standard "dialects" than to French, due presumably to the conservatism Kwami pointed out.--74.72.255.103 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I just felt like addressing the background a bit. Kwamikagami gave a good direct answer to your question. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The peculiarities French is well-renown are, in fact, of the late development, which occured quite not so long time ago. Uvular "French" R is from 17-18th century, for example. Old French looked and sounded more like Modern Catalan. And, in turn, Old Castillian was closer to Old Catalan, than today, while all of them (Castillian, Catalan, Portuguese-Galician, French, Occitan, Italian) were closer to each other then. So when French began to diverge from the others, any possible substrate traits had to disappear by that time (the second half of the 2th millennium), so we cannot trace the "unique" French peculiarities to the quasi-mythical Gaulish substrate of the beginning of the 1st millennium. Attempts to trace every deviation to substrates is a very bad flaw of popular linguistics, which must be avoided.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Uvular R is a rather late and superficial feature, which is probably not what most people mainly have in mind when they speak of the accumulated phonological divergences between French and other Romance languages. The reduction in number of syllables in most words, loss of many consonants, rise of front rounded vowels, nasalization of vowels (accompanied by the loss of many of the original conditioning nasal consonants), are probably more relevant, and most of these traits were solidly established by 1500 (though I think there has been some additional loss of word-final consonants since 1500)...

Both Italian and Catalan continue the basic late Vulgar Latin vowel system resulting from the aftermath of the changes ī → i, ū → u, ĭ and ē → e, ŭ and ō → o, ĕ → ɛ, ŏ → ɔ, and ā and ā → a. That is, the vowels of many individual words have changed in Italian and Catalan, but the basics of the overall phonological vowel system have remained in place. By contrast, the French vowel system has gone through several radical restructurings since that time. Continental European language scholars of the first half of the 20th century were sometimes too fond of invoking substrates to cover any divergent language developments, but French has been less phonologically conservative than some other Romance branches for a long time... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese character identification - pre-war?

Can someone please identify the characters shown at http://i59.tinypic.com/im0ah5.jpg? [overlooked in previous query] 121.215.154.87 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

變更　⇒　変更. It means 'change'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, again, Kage. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The writer wrote the novel in/on/at Elm Street.

I am not sure which preposition is the right choice in the sentence "The writer wrote the novel in/on/at Elm Street." It means that the writer wrote the novel when he lived there. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.152.50 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"In" would be incorrect, unless rephrased, for example: "The writer wrote the novel in his Elm Street apartment.". "On" is okay, but could be ambiguated with "about" (..."he wrote his novel on Elm Street in order to tell the story of the residents who live there...) "At" sounds odd, unless clarified, for example: "The writer wrote the novel while at Elm Street" (still a bit awkward).  — For clarity, the sentence should be rephrased slightly, in my opinion.  —:71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[modified example for clarity:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)]

Notice that "on Elm Street" could have a completely different meaning than "in/at Elm Street"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"On" is the default American usage here. Brits do say "in" a street to mean what Americans mean by "on" a street--hopefully one will comment. But you could also say he wrote at Elm Street on the weekends and at the park during the week. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To us colonials, to build a house in the middle of a street would be Madness! —Tamfang (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd insert "while living". Without that, I can't decide which preposition is least bad. —Tamfang (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Was he a vagabond so he couldn't afford a house and had to write in/on/at the streets?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. If you said he wrote it while 'in the street', it would mean he was outside all the time while he wrote it. Same with 'on', but 'on the street' has connotations of a much older profession than being an author. 'At the street' seems to imply he was there temporarily (still outside, however). Better to put 'while living', and use 'on', or 'at', but not 'in'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it needs to be made clear that American and British usage here varies widely. I wouldn't be giving categorical advice without qualifying it as following a certain dialect. If we already know the author had one or two addresses, I see no problem with saying "on Elm street" or "at Elm street" without saying "while living". The wider context and the dialect of the author are very important here. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Writing a novel on a street would require a great deal of chalk, but would be an interesting piece of art. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A work of art like that should get a lot of traffic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 17

Don't quote me on this, but I need help.

What are the rules on punctuation inside and around quotations. I'm not talking about whether the comma goes inside or not, but something more comprehensive regarding complete sentences (with various punctuation marks) followed by something like "she said." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Here ya go. --Jayron32 02:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite comprehensive enough. Only one example shows the "he said/she said" after the quotation. That helps, but doesn't cover the case where a line ends in a period. Is it replaced by a comma? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an exact rendition of what you are trying to write? We can help you if you can do that. --Jayron32 04:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"This is a statement," he said. "Is this a statement?" she said. Are these two correct? I.e. a period is replaced by a comma in the former situation? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

He said "As a computer scientist, I feel uncomfortable with ambiguity and inconsistency. The first full stop is inside the quotes. Now I end the final sentence." (logically, it should be 'Now I end the final sentence.".', ending both the quoted sentence and the overall statement. Typographically, that just looks wrong. Another possibility to consider would be 'Now I end the final sentence".' --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Our quotation marks article is pretty comprehensive. Note there are differences between British and American practice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I had similar questions when I first started writing fiction, and opened a few popular works of fiction to see how they handled direct speech. They were all consistent and from that I assumed correctness. BTW I use double quotes for direct speech and single quotes for everything else that needs to be in quotes. Sandman1142 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is a ghoul a good metaphor?

"Insomnia deprived him of all sleep and left his eyes bloodshot and his hair tousled. A glance of him reminded us of a ghoul." I am not sure if "a ghoul" here is a proper metaphor. I want your judgment on it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.231.102 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The original meaning of ghoul was one who stole bodies from graves and sold them to scientists (back when body donation was illegal). So I don't think they would necessarily look like that. Try zombie (def #5). StuRat (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a proper metaphor because it's not a metaphor at all. Other than that quibble, I've got no problem with it. Ghouls have acquired the connotation of being rather nasty looking. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the original term was an Arabic demon that robbed graves and ate corpses. The English sense or grave robber comes from that. Rather than ghoul, for a simile I'd say something like "he was like a politician after a weekend bender." μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A metaphor (q.v.) would be "We glanced at this ghoul". Also "reminded us of a ghoul" suggests that we have actually seen a ghoul to be reminded of.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How about "he looked like death warmed over".[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

American and British English, native and nonnative speakers

According to the "English language" Wikipedia article, 58.5% of native English speakers are from the US and 15.8% are from the UK. So I assume American English is the dominant variety among native speakers. What about nonnative speakers? Is British English the dominant variety among nonnative speakers? I guess that because the table in that article shows the countries with most nonnative speakers are India, Pakistan and Nigeria, all former British colonies. I am also a nonnative speaker from a former British colony, Singapore, and I find American English confusing. --220.255.2.68 (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It may depend on who you count. Those former British colonies probably have more people who were formally taught (British) English, but US cultural influence through movies and songs has taught many people around the world some (American) English. So, the non-native US English speaker pool may be wider but shallower. StuRat (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Indian and Pakistani folks I've worked with tend to use British spellings, such as "favour". A very small sample, but might suggest a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

During my school years in South Africa (another former British colony) we only used the OED. Somebody backing up the spelling of "color" citing Merriam-Webster would be considered a smart-arse. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I know a South African teacher in Taipei who, in order for his Taiwanese child pupils to understand him, must use an American accent all the time. Presumably American spellings follow.. --89.242.206.103 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)