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 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)

If a cop pulled me over and asked me to walk "straightly", I'd wonder whether he was the one who'd been drinking, or whether he was a non-native speaker of the English language. "Crookéd" is an adjective only, the adverb being "crookédly"; but "straight" can be either. It's perfectly acceptable grammatically to walk straight (adv.) along a straight (adj.) road. Turning it into "straightly" is basically hypercorrection in this day and age, pace the historical precedents for that word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:22, 18 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 see that it's sort of covered in quotation mark#Punctuation, but not as explicitly as this. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

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".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd write "His total insomnia gave him a ghoulish appearance," followed by details if needed. —Tamfang (talk) 19:05, 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)

The figures in the Wikipedia article are very innacurate. For example it gives the poulation of the USA as 267 million - that's about the population in the 1960's. USA population today is about 317 m. It gives the population of Australia as 18m; it's actually 24 m. Correcting all the errors in population for each country but keeping the same percentage in each population as native English speakers results in about 70% of the total being accustomed to American English. For countries that have populations raised in another language but taught English in schools and having English as the language of instruction in colleges and universities (e.g., India), the situation depends on what you consider as English. Natives of the Indian sub-continent think they speak and write English, but it is in fact a set of dialects much more different from British English that is American English. And I'm not talking about accents. I worked for a few years for a certain very large USA-headquartered manufacturer of earth moving equipment, writing service manuals. The company had a style guide aimed at getting service manual authors to write in a form of English meant to be most readable to all "English" educated speakers. It specified American spellings, avoidance of certain multi-syllable words, and a simplified grammar. You could not write "When starting a cold engine, warm it up for 5 minutes before applying loads and use the time to check all gauges." You had to write: "Warm up a cold engine for 5 minutes. Do not load an engine until it is warmed up. During warm up check all gages." 121.215.154.87 (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Gages, are you sure you're remembering that right? That's an acceptable variant spelling in the US, but definitely secondary. The usual American spelling (and I think the usual spelling in all English varieties) is gauge, weird as it is. --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it gives the population of English speakers in the U.S. at 267 million. It may come as an unpleasant shock that many people in the U.S. are not native English speakers. The U.S. Census Bureau notes that 19.7% of the U.S. population uses a language other than English in their homes: [2]. As of the most recent estimates, the U.S. population is 317,706,000; that gives a value of 255,117,000 for the number of native English speakers. So the value of 267 million is probably not all that far off. The value will change some depending on how one counts things, and when the counting is done, but both of those figures (255 mil or 267 mil) seem well in line with what I would expect, given the population of the U.S. --Jayron32 15:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The table doesn't say what you think it says, and it's a mess. Where is the 317 m figure in it? The article states in text above the table that the number of native English speakers is 226m - same as the First Languge column in the table. The Percent of Population column has the figure 95%. 226m / 0.95 equals 234m - not a figure cited elsewhere. Perhaps it should be 226 (native speakers) + 42m (2nd language persons) divided by 0.95, which equals 282 m, close to the figure in the last "Population" colums, but far from being right. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In past decades in India, people sometimes learned English in the context of a set of conventionalized equivalences where English sounds not typically found in Indian languages (such as [f], [θ], [ð], some vowels, etc.) were often replaced by sounds more typically found in such languages (including aspirated stops, retroflex consonants, etc.), accompanied by an intonation and prosodic timing that was also more Indian than English. Some people were quite proficient in written English, or conversing with fellow Indians, but had difficulty making themselves understood to people from majority English-speaking countries. Of course, nowadays high-tech call-center workers and others are taught English very differently... AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• J. C. Wells' three-volumes Accents of English breaks the language up into North American dialects and "Insular" dialects which includes speech in Britain and all other (colonial) varieties outside the US and Canada and their sphere. This seems reasonable. Americans find Indians and South Africans to have "British" dialects, and no amount of movie influence seems to have changed this. Recent professors of Spanish (from Spain) and Russian (from Ukraine) I have dealt with find it easier and more prestigious to learn a "British" dialect, while better for general communication (both understanding and being understood) to learn an "American" dialect. I'ma 'gree widda, a'ight? μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

121.215.154.87, you deny that people from the Indian sub-continent speak English, despite what they think they're speaking. That's a somewhat paternalistic view, I think. My partner was born in Sri Lanka, and moved to Australia at age 22, becoming an Australian citizen 2 years after that. He's turning 50 in a couple of months, so he's been an Aussie longer than he was ever a Sri Lankan. But he still has his strong Sinhalese accent and SL-English vocabulary, which on the whole is much like mine except for certain notable differences (e.g. all tag questions are "isn't it?"; New Years Eve is never called that, it's always "31st night"; etc). One day when I was first getting to know him, I asked him when he'd first learned English. My assumption was that he spoke mainly Sinhalese at home, and maybe knew some rudimentary English but really only used it as his main language after he moved here. Well, I was shocked to see the offence written all over his face when he responded "I've been a native English speaker all my life. And a native Sinhalese speaker". He reminded me his late mother was even an English teacher. It isn't up to others to decide that, because it doesn't match their own English in every detail, the English these people speak is not English at all but at best a dialect. There are far more people speaking sub-continental English than that which the Royal Family speaks, so which one is the real dialect? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Jack, it seems to me that you and I are agreeing. The "English" that your partner learnt is different to the English I learnt or that which a Brit learnt or that of an American. But British English (or at least British English as was in years past) is the origin of all these dialects, so I consider that variants of it, such as American English, Indian subcontinent English, New Zealand English, etc are indeed variations, and not the genuine article. It happens that a retired high school teacher has moved in on my street. Although Indian, she taught English in Malaysian schools for many years, moving here on retirement. She actually speaks very clearly with a very slight "British BBC" accent, and that is very different to how Indians normally speak. I'll ask her what she thinks about English variants, next time we meet shopping. 121.215.154.87 (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we still disagree. You can't pin down any single one of the multitude of Englishes that are native to Britain and say that it alone is the original language and all others are variations. It just isn't that simple. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

First, while some English speakers in South Asia are certainly native speakers, my experience suggests that native speakers are a very small fraction of the South Asian population. My experience in southern India, where English is the lingua franca rather than Hindi, was that fewer than one fifth of south Indians were anywhere near fluency, and for most of these English was a second or third language. Still, there are a lot of Indians and no doubt millions of Indian native speakers of English. It would be interesting to see well-defined numbers. My second point is that British English (whatever that is) is not the "genuine article" of English. Instead, every version of natively spoken English is equally valid. Each is descended from Old English through various regional dialects in medieval and early modern Great Britain. This point has been made here several times before, but most American varieties of English are more conservative than Received Pronunciation and are closer to the "genuine article", if by that is meant the English that was spoken in Great Britain before the language spread beyond that island. In other words, the English of southern England has diverged further from Shakespeare's English than American English has diverged from that source. The language belongs to everyone who speaks it. It isn't the sole property of those who happen to live where standard English first developed but who speak a variety that the developers of that standard would have difficulty recognizing. Marco polo (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The number I've heard for actual native speakers of English in India is astonishingly small, something like a quarter of a million. I don't seem to be finding it right now. The reason I say "astonishingly" is that the educated class in India almost all seem to speak English, often quite well, and will use it among themselves even when there is no need to communicate with non-Hindi-speakers, which is an unusual pattern for a second language. --Trovatore (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that's why ethnologists and linguists and demographers and people that care about this stuff ask what language is spoken in the home. That is, what are people speaking at the dinner table or shouting through the bathroom door telling people to use the air freshener or telling their children bedtime stories. Most people who do the counting consider this "home language" to be a person's native or "first" language. That may be why most Indians, even those very fluent in English, are not considered native speakers. When they go home to visit their mother, they still carry on dinner table conversations in a language other than English. --Jayron32 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Impel incorrectly listed as "Not a word" in wikipedia

Impel is listed as "not a word" in wikipedia. That is incorrect. Impel means: To urge to action or to drive forward; propel. This is according to The American Heritage Dictionary. I got into a discussion with my husband on this word and the above was what he found on Wikipedia, where he always goes. I knew that it was a word and what the meaning was, so I checked my dictionary and I was right. Please correct you information. Sally R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sradon (talk • contribs) 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Accordingly, we don't have an article on 'impel' - where have you seen it listed as 'not a word'? It is defined on our sister project Wiktionary: [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are you saying that Impel does not exist? μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps her husband misunderstood the deletion log at Impel. "Redirect to a non-existent page" does not mean "not a word". It meant that someone told people searching for impel to go to a different encyclopedia article—one that either nobody had ever created, or that had been deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I know what the confusion is here. The Wikimedia software has a large number of configurable options, which are set per-project.

One of them is whether titles are case-sensitive in the first letter. In Wikipedia (or English Wikipedia at any rate), titles are case-sensitive in general, but not for the first letter; the first letter is internally upcased. So foo takes you to Foo.

Wiktionary, on the other hand, uses fully case-sensitive titles, including the first letter, which is useful because it allows you to distinguish proper names and proper adjectives (for example, wikt:Polish is a different entry from wikt:polish).

So if there's no Wiktionary entry for wikt:Impel, it doesn't mean the verb impel is not listed, just there is no proper noun Impel, or at least not one anyone has bothered to make an entry for. --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds sort of plausible, but on examination I think it doesn't hold water. I googled Wiktionary, then searched for "Impel". It gave a drop down menu with various words starting with "impel", including "impel" itself. Easy. Then I googled "Wiktionary Impel" and it took me straight to the entry for "impel". If it hadn't done those things, the usability of Wiktionary would be seriously impaired. Many people use caps unnecessarily, or use lower case where caps are required, and they would all be excluded from many legitimate Wiktionary searches, and that would be a terrible pity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

True enough, and anyway the original question makes no mention of wiktionary. Still, if through my error some readers are better informed than they were about the behavior of the two sites, then I offer it humbly in a spirit of sacrifice :-) --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the beauty of the ref desk. The by-products that come our way are often of more interest than the formal answers. They are the rich, dark, aromatic molasses compared to the official refined white sugar. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

March 18

Japanese help: Japanese School of Sao Paulo

• "サンパウロ日本人学校 村石校長に聞く㊦　生徒数が再び増加傾向に" (Archive) São Paulo Shimbun. 14 February 2011.

Using Google translate I found that the article talks about enrollment trends. Is this correct?

• My text: "The school was started in 1981. At one point the student population dropped due to economic troubles in Japan, but by 2011 the population increased as Japanese companies expanded operations. On January 17, 2011 the school had 238 students including 178 elementary school students and 60 junior high students."

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The first two sentences are not correct. The school was started on August 14, 1967.[4]
My text:"Since the opening, the student population increased by a boom of the overseas advance among Japanese companies until 1981 and it decreased afterward, but it increased from 2011 as the advance of Japanese companies increased again".
As for the date in the third sentence, it is Jan. 17, 2014. The date of the article is Feb. 11, 2014/2014年2月11日付.
This translation might be a bit better than Google. Oda Mari (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I didn't know about yahoofs.jp - The text is now here Escola Japonesa de São Paulo WhisperToMe (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

leaving a large wet patch on it

Hello! I have got a question about the following sentence: "Holding the new skirt in her hands, she burst into tears, leaving a large wet patch on it." I'm not satisfied with the last part "leaving a large patch on it." But I have no idea how to improve it. Is there any problem with it? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:250:209:C1D:B9C6:F190:F80E:7B2A (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is grammatically correct but lacks correspondence with actual circumstances (unless the genre is SF/F). On a cloth fabric sturdy enough to make into a skirt, tears would be likely to leave small damp spots rather than as written. This sort of query would best be directed to an editor or a teacher of composition, reading comprehension, or if appropriate, English as a Foreign Language. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Apart from that objection, I would simply change "it" to "the skirt". Or, if you don't like the repetition of "skirt", you could go with "She burst into tears, leaving a large wet patch on the new skirt she was holding in her hands". Or, if she's actually wearing the skirt, why not say "She burst into tears, leaving a large wet patch on her new skirt" (the fact that she is wearing it is implied, you don't need the "in her hands"). --Viennese Waltz 12:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To the last point, I'd say the likelihood of "[a] new skirt [held] in her hands" implying that she's wearing it no sure thing, but rather the opposite. Certainly didn't become a fact for this reader (female, b. 1953, native speaker of AE). -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think the problem lies with "large wet patch" being overspecific and slightly contrary to expectations--a spilt glass woud leave a large wet patch. I would simply say she burst into tears, wetting the skirt. Let the reader imagine how much. μηδείς (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  Your method for measuring lacrimation volume may be unsound ... so for me that leaves quite a question mark. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  • My problem with this is that after she burst into tears holding the skirt (which I also assumed was not the one she was wearing), she immediately left a wet patch on the skirt. The word 'leaving' in the sentence implies she stopped, so the whole sentence comes to me as her suddenly crying copiously for a split second, then spontaneously stopping, with a soaking wet skirt in her hands.KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag)

The stuff of cartoons, not RL. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The stuff of anime, I'd wager.... doktorb _words^deeds 06:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I might write "She soaked the new skirt with her tears." —Tamfang (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

secondary clinical conditions

What is the meaning of the term "secondary clinical conditions"? 194.114.146.227 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Side-effects, perhaps? phone your local clinic and ask. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag)

Perhaps a medical problem which was identified during the clinic visit, but was not the one they came in for. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Ask.com (often an unreliable source), "A clinical condition is a term that is given to a list of certain diseases, which have been published by CDC. Some of these diseases are: candidiasis, Kaposi's sarcoma, Lymphoma, tuberculosis, salmonella, and Encephalopathy.". A secondary clinical condition, as I understand it, is a clinical condition that occurs in association with some other, more important, primary clinical condition. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In medical jargon "secondary to" means "caused by" (or at least "conditional on"), e.g. weight loss secondary to tuberculosis. They don't count higher than that, I believe; secondaries can chain: sleep apnea secondary to obesity secondary to Prozac use... —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you pronounce "Bodhisattva" in the American English dialect as well as the original pronunciation?

Also, why is the Chinese version 菩萨 only two phonetic syllables? 140.254.227.101 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think I got the first part. [boh-dee-SAHT-vah]. Now, tell me why the Chinese version has the p pronunciation. 140.254.227.101 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the Chinese version just takes the Bo part and transforms it into a p sound, and the sa part is kept. It may suggest that the dhi and tva sounds may have been part of the morphemes. 140.254.227.101 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's meant to be a contracted form of 菩提萨埵. --Kjoonlee 18:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The current reading of 菩 is pú, but it has alternative readings of bù and bó. What you have to understand is that 1) The Sanskrit term was borrowed into Early Middle Chinese during the early centuries of the common era, and that variety of Chinese did not have the same consonant inventory as Sanskrit. As a result, the term was adapted to fit Early Middle Chinese phonology. The same thing happens in English. The English pronunciation of Bodhisattva substitutes sounds native to English for the aspirated 'd' and the geminated 't' of the Sanskrit original. 2) None of the modern dialects of Chinese, such as Mandarin Chinese, have preserved the pronunciation of the Early Middle Chinese from which they evolved. They have all undergone phonological change, as has English. An example is the word church. Christian terminology began to enter the Germanic languages about the same time as Buddhist terminology began to enter ancient forms of Chinese. Church is not pronounced the same way as the Koine Greek kyriake from which it evolved for the same reasons that 菩萨 (púsà) in modern Mandarin is not pronounced the same as bodhisattva. Marco polo (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And the 1970s West Coast pronunciation coincides with Marco polo's meticulous historical analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [5]

My Archaic Chinese dictionary has p'jwəg and b'wəg as pronunciations for 菩. In Middle Chinese it was p'iəu and buəi respectively. I cannot find 薩, but based on the Japanese pronunciation ('satsu'), I would guess it to be something like 'sat'. Maybe this gives an indication of how it was pronounced around the time the word was introduced from Sanskrit (later than Archaic Chinese, but around the time the word was borrowed into Japanese from Chinese). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

March 19

swing the pen?

If I want to make my pen write more smoothly, I will move it quickly with the nib downward. I need a verb to describe such a movement, but I can't think of any one other than "swing". Is it a proper choice? Your opinion would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.183.109 (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

shaking? agitating? —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Glide"? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

jiggle? (jolt?)---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, "to bic" sprang to mind, but apparently that means something else. So I'd certainly agree with "jiggle", even if it sounds slightly weak. I think jolt has connotations of a collision happening somewhere? e.g. pen nib with desk top etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. is there a single term for "getting-pen-refill-out-of-pen-and-rubbing-it-briskly-between-the-palms"? I suspect not.

Need a Greek proverb/quote

I need a proverb or quote in Greek, to be used as an example. A requirement is that the words in the sentence can be related to either common English words having their origins in Greek or common Greek roots used in English words. Can someone suggest an example? --173.49.82.36 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

We have a long list of Greek phrases which features many examples that fit your requirements. (The first example is "Ageōmétrētos mēdeìs eisítō").---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Abbreviation in frame of 17th-century painting

Portrait of Dr. Sibrandus Lubbertus (1616)

Anyone know what the abbreviation "SS." in the caption on the bottom edge of the frame means? Also, I assume "Theol: Profr." means professor of theology in Latin, but what are the original Latin words in full? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanctissimae Theologiae Professor. Iblardi (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Would "Most holy theology professor" be a suitable translation? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanctissimae goes with Theologiae; hence, literally, "Professor of [the] Most Holy Theology". Iblardi (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"unknown a priori"

Is the usage of "unknown a priori" correct? (To describe something that is unknown until empirically measured). It's been complained about in a review of some work I've done, and the reviewer has cited the dictionary definition of a priori [6]. While a quick google search turns up a lot of examples of that usage, in this particular case a reference (preferably a well respected one) specifically stating that it's acceptable would be much more useful. The particular context, is a sentence along the lines of "... where the location of the objects is unknown a priori". Other suggestions for simple ways to phrase it would also be appreciated. Thanks, MChesterMC (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The usage is not incorrect, but the expression "a priori" has several slightly differing meanings, so my personal preference would be to avoid it's use after "unknown" because some readers will be thinking of other senses than the one intended, including the legal sense of "known ahead of time". Sorry this doesn't really answer the question that you asked. Dbfirs 17:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• We'd have to see a bigger context. One could certainly say "these facts could not have been known a priori". Of course it is stylistically like speaking of an invisible mirage. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course, you could use the perfectly serviceable English word "beforehand" in that context, and not confuse anyone. When a word is likely to cause confusion, good writers simply choose a better word. --Jayron32 01:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer "not known a priori"; "unknown a priori" suggests to me that the datum is predefined as an Unknown (as one might do in an abstract logical analysis). —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Italian

If words like "Novecento" and "Ottocento" mean 20th century and 19th century, how to say years like 900 and 800 in Italian?--2.245.92.86 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

They are synonymous. If context does not make the meaning obvious, or if a distinction needs to be made, it is possible to distinguish l'anno 800 and il diciannovesimo secolo. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Though to be ultra-picky, l'Ottocento runs from 1800–1899, whereas il diciannovesimo secolo is from 1801–1900. --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

True, and if it were really necessary to specify 1800–1900 without saying "nell'ottocento", one could simply say "tra il 1800 ed il 1900". Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly you don't just add mil or the equivalent in front like French and Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 March 2014‎

Not sure what you mean. To refer to the year 1952 in words, you say mille novecento cinquantadue, so there's your mil equivalent. But the century from 1900 to 1999 is il novecento, without the mille. --Trovatore (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's clarified it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And what comes after il novecento? I need to know cos it's coming up, like, soon. —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, but English has the same problem, as far as that goes. I suppose you can say "the twenty hundreds"? Trying to think whether I've ever actually heard that in the wild. --Trovatore (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose a roughly equally satisfactory solution in Italian would be lo zerocento. --Trovatore (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Language being what it is, an appropriate term will emerge. It would be interesting to see what (if anything) the people using during 1000-1099 AD. In English, for 2000 to date, initially the years seemed to be often called "two-thousand" something, but once we passed 2009, the traditional usage "twenty" something seems to have become more and more prevalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the 20th-century film usually spoken as "Two Thousand And One: A Space Odyssey" had a significant influence on this. Ironically, I'm sure that Arthur Clarke has written somewhere that he had expected it to be spoken as "Twenty-Oh One . . . ." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- During 1000-1099 A.D., the vast majority of people did not commonly encounter A.D. dates in their daily lives (few beyond monkish chroniclers and those concerned with establishing the dates of observances in the Christian liturgical calendar had much concern for the Dionysian era). As for "an appropriate term will emerge" there's still not really an accepted term in English for the 2000-2009 decade (something which I would have had a hard time imagining in 1999)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the same issue as what the first decade of any century would be. The 1910s, 1920s, etc. are obvious. But 1900s is ambiguous. Hence the oft-heard term "early 1900s". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

March 20

the date before the place at the end of a novel?

At the end of a novel, a writer may indicate where and when he or she wrote the work. But I'm not certain if the date comes before the place or the other way round, like "May,1990 in London" or "London in May,1990". I want your idea. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.225.219 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the 'in' is not necessary. I would write 'May 1990, London', but 'London, May 1990' is also acceptable. It would be a matter of personal preference. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with KageTora that either order is acceptable, but my recollection is that, in the examples I've seen, the place usually precedes the date. The first example that came to mind was A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, which has "Dublin 1904 / Trieste 1914" at the end. The introduction of Bruce Jay Friedman's Lonely Guy's Book of Life ends with "BJF / Penn Station, 1978". Deor (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

fodder vegetables?

What are they?\What is their common denominator? could someone please elaborate? Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked our article Fodder? That may shed some light on it for you. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't... and it did help. thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(ECx2!!!) Characters....

Late at night + just woken up + just starting work = brain is still in bed, ∴ bone question.

If 'alphanumerics' means 'letters and numbers', and 'numerals' (or 'digits') means 'numbers', then what is just 'a, b, c'? 'Characters' encompasses them all (and could include symbols, I guess). 'Alphabetic characters' springs to mind, but is there a single word? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Letters? Bielle (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, I was wondering if there may be a more 'official' term - it's for an IT translation (most foreign translators tend to use 'alphabets', which is clearly wrong). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetic.[7][8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BB, but I need a noun. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Alphanumeric" is just a shorthand way of saying "alphanumeric character". Ditto for "alphabetic/character", but I can't say I've heard that shortening used in practice. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Alphabet" = noun   71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And "alphabetic" = adjective. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

71.20.250.51, thanks for pointing that out, but what would you think if a website asked you to 'enter your new password in no less than six alphabets'? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Letters of the alphabet" is the only way to express that, I think. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but problem is, I am limited to a certain number of bytes for each string. I need to keep the messages as short as possible. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I'd be going back to Bielle's original suggestion, "Letters". Or "Letters only". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for an equivalent usage to "alphanumerics", then "alphabetics" is your answer. Although using just alpha characters (letters) as a password is not the strongest plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger, BB. I didn't write the computer program. I'm 'merely' the translator. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nowadays you can't be too careful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Bugs? 'Alphanumerics' is fair enuf, as it has to cover both letters and numbers. But when it's letters only, the best word is ... er, 'letters'. Why make it harder than it needs to be? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Letters" works too. The question is whether the OP wants a term in the same "style" as alphanumeric and numeric. That term would be "alphabetic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh.....'letters' it shall have to be. 'Alphanumerics' is fine for combinations of 'letters' and 'numerals', but 'alphabetics' sounds like some sort of Jane Fonda work-out video for toddlers. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

'Tas' - a three letter word

Morning Language desk.

I recently played a round of a well known phone based word puzzle game which encourages playing rounds with people you know, kind of putting down words with friends, sort of thing. Other turn-based word puzzle games on a phone device are available.

While playing one round, I was permitted to play TAS. What that, then, asked my opponent? Not sure, responded I, but it allowed me to put SEXY on a triple-word tile, so I'm not particularly interested. Of course, that is not true, I had to try to find out. Only, came there none.

My trusty OED account helped little. I saw "tas" within entries, but not as an entry in its own right. So, language desk, unless I'm missing something really obvious, what could this little three letter word mean?

With thanks.... doktorb _words^deeds 03:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The plural of "ta"? --Jayron32 03:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wiktionary: tas. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of these games let you write 'backwards', because in the boardgame version(s), the players are not usually sitting next to eachother. 'Sat' (past tense of 'sit')? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 - as a northerner, that did cross my mind! User:KageTora - for this specific game, I'm not certain that is allowed (would that it were!). User:JackofOz - obliged, sir. doktorb _words^deeds 04:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Wiktionary is wrong because that spelling existed only in Old French and Middle English, not even in early Modern English, so cannot be described as "alternative". Of course, if anyone can find any cites (not mis-spellings or scannos) to contradict my claim, I'll shut up. (I'm awaiting a response before I change Wiktionary, just in case I am wrong!) Dbfirs 08:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a major 'problem' with online Scrabble-esque games. I have a problem when playing my brother in that he always jams a bunch of his letters into vaguely phonetic words until the game lets him play something. Its rarely a word either of us had heard before, but the computer accepted it and there is little to be done about it. 50.43.148.35 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

rendering OED pronunciation for Latin words in IPA

OED provides the pronunciation by "educated urban speakers of standard English in Britain and the United States" for the Latin cogito as /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/ /ˈkɒ/.

To render that using IPA-en, would that be

/ˈkoʊɡɪtoʊ/ /ˈkɒ/ or /ˈkoʊɡtoʊ/ /ˈkɒ/ ?

Similarly, would the IPA-en for Latin sum be

/ˈsʊm/ or /ˈsʌm/ ?

These modern pronunciations are for the cogito ergo sum article, which also provides the Classical Latin pronunciation ({{IPA-la|ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm|}) in a footnote. humanengr (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

UK-speaker here, and I say /'kɔɡɪtəʊ/. I have never heard anyone say /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/. I know the length of the first 'o' is long in Latin, but we don't usually bother with that. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(another UK-speaker) I hear it as closer to /'kɒɡɪtəʊ/ than /'kɔɡɪtəʊ/, but otherwise I fully agree with KT above, and I've always heard the vowel short (much shorter than most American pronunciations), just as cogitate is usually /ˈkɒdʒɪteɪt/, not /ˈkəʊdʒɪteɪt/ (Wiktionary needs correcting). The big OED allows /'kɒɡɪtəʊ/ as an alternative. (The number of speakers of Classical Latin here is diminishing, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear a Classicist say /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/.) I would retain the Latin pronunciation /sʊm/ rather than Anglicise it to /sʌm/ but there might be differences of opinion there, so I won't push my northern viewpoint. Dbfirs 07:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, really? To me, to do anything other than the best rendering you can of the Classical Latin pronunciation is just bizarre. Why would you do that? --Trovatore (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a classicist, so I can do as I like. I think the shortening of the first vowel from /oː/ is possibly because that vowel is not found in southern British English (though it is in my dialect, so I've no objection to pronouncing it that way). Dbfirs 10:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as citable sources for modern pronunciation are concerned, we have OED's British/American as /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/ /ˈkɒ/; and Collins shows /ˈkɒɡɪˌtəʊ/ for BrE. Are there other citable sources for modern usage? (The Classic Latin is already provided in a footnote, so that is not an issue.) humanengr (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

To me, modern usage is the Classic Latin pronunciation, or at least as best as you can do. That is, that's what I believe an educated American, at least, would try to do. Note that /əʊ/ is not used in American English, so if OED says it is, I'm afraid that pretty much discredits them on the point right there.

By the way, what the ever-lovin' do you mean by /ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/ /ˈkɒ/? I'm not aware of any Latin phrase that starts with cogito ca, and indeed there is no such Latin word as ca, as far as I'm aware. --Trovatore (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That was two alternatives "/ˈkəʊɡɪtəʊ/ or /ˈkɒɡɪtəʊ/". I assume that the second alternative is a possibility for the American pronunciation, as well as for most British people, though the symbol "ɒ" will be interpreted as longer in most American English. Dbfirs 08:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, the second one is definitely not a possibility for the American pronunciation, because /əʊ/ does not exist in American English.

But the more important point is, why is anyone looking for a "modern" pronunciation? Sayings in foreign languages are pronounced in the language they come from. Cogito ergo sum is in Latin, so you pronounce it in Latin. If you don't, I'm afraid I consider that inferior usage. --Trovatore (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot about the second əʊ. Obviously the American ending will be different, too, as it is for many speakers in the UK (I don't pronounce əʊ either unless I'm putting on an affected "RP".) The problem with Latin is that we are not sure how the Romans pronounced it (and there was much variation anyway), and each Latin scholar thinks that his version is the nearest to the conjectured original, even though he is influenced by his own native tongue. Dbfirs 09:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And, iiuc, we have no idea how Descartes would have pronounced it. 😊 humanengr (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dbfirs -- thanks; iiuc, OED indicates when a pronunciation is specifically American. (It didn't in this case.) @Trovatore -- As English pronunciation of Latin has been recognized as legitimate (see, e.g., Traditional English pronunciation of Latin), providing reasonable guidance in this regard is a help for the reader. This is supported by at least the 2 major, citable authorities indicated. humanengr (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, you should put the Latin pronunciation in the guide on a par with the supposed "modern" ones. It can be qualified as "Latin". --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

/'kɔgitəʊ 'ɘ:gəʊ sʊm/ in Brit.Eng. Don't forget, we don't pronounce the 'r'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 08:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Trovatore -- I appreciate the point, but am hesitant to add to the length of this first line of the article. (Other substantive pronunciation issues are covered in the footnote as well.)

@KägeTorä -- The OED entry for ergo writes the pronunciation as you do, but the pronunciation guide (linked above) indicates that the 'r' is pronounced. humanengr (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't indicate that -- it's a (dia)phonemic transcription. — Lfdder (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lfdder for your help (once again). My initial question in this thread was prompted by changes made to the form you and I had worked on last June. I was looking for authority re the 'i" and 'u'. Do you have any pointers on that? humanengr (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

the i should be transcribed w/ ɨ in IPAc-en (a schwa in AmE). OED and Collins transcribe sum w/ the vowel in foot (ʊ). I doubt anybody would pronounce it with the vowel in strut -- unless they've never heard it being said before and aren't even a tiny bit versed in Latin — Lfdder (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when some people have /ɪ/, and some have /ə/, we write it ⟨ɨ⟩. — kwami (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

US English, and I pronounce it with /ɒ/ and /ʌ/. I knew a bit of Latin once upon a time, but it seems pretentious to try to mimic Latin vowels when speaking in English. I mean, I'd never pronounce Venus "wennoos". For those of you who use the /oʊ/ and /ʊ/ vowels, do you have an /ɛ/ in "ergo"? I noticed the comment "don't forget, we don't pronounce the 'r'." Well, if you wanted to be authentic, you would pronounce it, wouldn't you? And use a pure /o:/ rather than a diphthong? If we can use the NURSE vowel for "ergo", as the OED has it, we're already so far off from a Latin pronunciation that I don't see how anyone can criticize using the COG vowel for "cogito" or the STRUT vowel for "sum", or even a soft gee. — kwami (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that Venus is a naturalized word. When you say "Venus", you are speaking English. When you say "cogito ergo sum", you're not.

Sure, I understand we can't get perfect, and I have some doubts whether I could even make myself understood, when speaking to Cicero. But you do the best you can. We can certainly do better than we would by reading it in English. Even just KOH-ghee-toe AIR-go SUME. Probably terrible, but still better than "traditional English pronunciation of Latin". --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite true. Like e pluribus unum and other Latin mottoes, cogito ergo sum is semi-naturalized. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In oral academic discussion (and others pretending toward such), most would (at least want to) use Classical Latin. In more general discourse, speakers presumably would prefer to not sound too grossly in error -- or at least not too far from the most common usage. In that context, I prioritize, from high-to-low, the issues as 1) primary stress on the first syllable of cogito, 2) hard 'g', 3) 'u' to distinguish from a simple 'sum'. How to pronounce 'o' might be #4. Lower priority are 'r' because it's regional; the 'i' because the syllable is not stressed. The intent of the footnote is help stem the spread of errors re #1 and 2 -- readers are much more likely to view a footnote than refer to the IPA guide. humanengr (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@kwami -- I’m US English and had 2 years of Mrs. Deane’s Latin in the long ago, hearing there the same pronounciation Trovatore did in Mrs. Fellows' class. In the decades since, it’s always bothered me when I hear /ʌ/ in cogito ergo sum — not because it’s not what I understand to be 'proper' Latin, but because it’s not how I would expect someone attempting to informatively address such philosophic subject matter would say it. So, given the context of its primary use being in philosophic discussion, I would prefer reverting to /ʊ/ which, as Lfdder notes, is the OED and Collins transcription. Thoughts? humanengr (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way — now I have some concerns about this /ˈsʊm/ in the Latin pronunciation. I'm sure I was taught /ˈsu:m/ instead (where no doubt the glide is an Americanization, but that's not my concern right now). Is there in fact a good reason to prefer /ˈsʊm/ over /ˈsum/, or vice versa, in the language of Cicero? --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you could use the long vowel of "soon" in older RP. Is that considered closer to "proper" Latin? I'm not familiar with the different schools of Latin pronunciation. My teacher used a short vowel, but not /u/. The short /u/ vowel (extreme close, back and rounded, like a monkey sound) is rare in modern English, though speakers of some other languages (like /Urdu/) will be familiar with it, and it occurs in my local dialect, but I seldom use it because it would sound very northern and old-fashioned. Dbfirs 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know what the best theories currently are (that's kind of what I was asking). What I do know is, in Mrs. Fellows' class, sum rhymed with "loom". --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems there is a bit of an edit war going on the cogito ergo sum page. May I suggest we revert the changes to a point prior to this recent batch. humanengr (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Latin pronunciation needs to appear. A footnote is not good enough. Note that even the article you pointed me to on the "traditional English pronunciation" says that it went out of style around the beginning of the 20th century. --Trovatore (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

At 08:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC), you said "you should put the Latin pronunciation in …” and changed the article at 08:54. I responded here at 09:41. Lfdder undid your change at 10:49. You redid the change without responding here to my point. Putting aside for the moment the merits of your argument, it would seem proper for you to revert the changes, and then the discussion here can suitably proceed. humanengr (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't even a close call. It's a Latin phrase. The response to your 09:41 point would be, the "other substantive points" are explained in the link to "IPA for Latin", and without them, the increase in length is not much. --Trovatore (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, you are refusing to undo your changes so the discussion here can proceed. Instead, you declare that this isn't even a close call. Your arguments may prove convincing, but you are making it difficult to consider them further at this juncture. humanengr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore, though for the English. I would expect "soom" (FOOD vowel) before "suum" (FOOT vowel). I was surprised the OED had the latter, and would only expect it with two CODE vowels in cogito and a trilled AIR vowel + ar in ergo. As for it in Latin, there are different approaches, one of which is ignore vowel length and pronounce the vowels as in Spanish. Another common one is palatalization of c and g as in Italian. That's Latin as she is spoke, BTW. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, those two are roughly what I would call the "Classical Latin" and "Church Latin" pronunciations, respectively, though of course I understand that it's not likely that the former would be recognized as "good" pronunciation by an actual Ancient Roman. I am still not persuaded, though, that there's any such thing as cogito ergo sum in English. (What's a "trilled vowel", BTW?) --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant that the AIR sound would be trilled, since that's a vowel for RP-speakers.

The OED marks it as an unassimilated phrase, but then provides it with English vowels rather than a Latin pronunciation.

BTW, although I agree w Lfdder on most things, in this case (showing the Latin) I agree with you. Classical Latin can be considered the target pronunciation for anyone who wishes to be authentic, just as we give the French pronunciation of Paris even though we (hopefully) don't hear it in English. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What are the differences between inflammation & infection

When is it accepted to use in one of them? 194.114.146.227 (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Infection is the presence of bacteria or other pathogens. It may or may not cause inflammation which is usually marked by redness and swelling. Other things such as acid can cause inflammation. Dbfirs 08:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to your things, I've got it. Thank you! 194.114.146.227 (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Please see inflammation and infection.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese character identification

Can anyone please identify the Japanese characters in the scan at http://i61.tinypic.com/2m4zmac.jpg? It is a scan of a description of an electronic part in a 1960's factory catalog. Most of it is tables and graphs which I can understand, so I've only scanned the text. "6R-A3" is the standardised Japanese electronics industry part code. The designation "HiFi" and following few characters may or may not be the particular manufactuer's catchy marketing name for the device, or perhaps the family of devices that this part belongs to. 143.238.217.204 (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Here it is ⇒　　　概要 6R-A3　Hi-Fi用は9ピン、ミニアチュア形の電力増幅用3極管であります。プレート内部抵抗が低いので、OTL電力増幅に適し、低供給電圧でも動作するように設計されているので、B電圧100Vの商用電源を直接整流して利用できます。 KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Marvelous! 143.238.217.204 (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Hi-fi is not a 'catchy marketing name' for a device - it's an actual name for a type of technology that largely grew out of fashion around about the time when CD players arrived on the scene or at least, the nomenclature did). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I was speculating on why "Hi Fi" was embedded in the text, and thought it might be helpfull if the characters did not make complete sense to a person fluent in Japanese but not qualified in electronics. Hi Fi / audio is not the application the part was originally designed for. 143.238.217.204 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A 9-pin miniature triode [specifically] for amplifiers sounds like it's perfect for a hi-fi, and not really for much else :) Maybe you were thinking of the 6SN7, but probably not, because that is specifically designed for amplifiers, too (though, admittedly, earlier designs were not). Being a professional translator is not just about knowing the language, it is also about knowing what you are translating, and if you have a text with something in it that you don't understand - you find out what it is - even if all you have is a product ID or something. Our job is not just mindlessly translating from one language to another, it involves lots of research, and is fascinating. In this case, however, 'hi-fi' was a word we used when we were kids to mean anything that played music. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

His concern for his daughter directed him toward home.

"He didn't go to the party. His concern for his daughter directed him toward home." I don't think "direct" is a proper choice in the above-mentioned context, but I can't figure out a right one. Could you enlighten me on this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.214.61 (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine. However, if you feel it needs changing, "pointed him in the direction of home" is an alternative. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, "His concern for his daughter directed him towards the party" might be a tad more realistic :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

He had to race home to catch her trying to sneak out "to the library".[9] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or "led him home". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or impelled him homeward. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Starting to begin

Is "XY is starting to begin." simply a pleonasm, or does this actually make sense in English? --KnightMove (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be said in jest, or for emphasis, but one would not use it in concise formal writing. Dbfirs 13:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Whereas, "XY is in the initial stages of initializing" makes perfect sense? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Questions like this really need the paragraph in which the term is found to make a judgment. In most cases "is beginning" would be preferable. But you can always imagine some context: "thesecond machine is starting to begin its cycle already, but the first has seized up" where, due to some odd contrast, a pairing like this makes sense. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The question was inspired by the German-based pop song Taken by a Stranger. The chorus starts:

Taken by a stranger

Stranger things are starting to begin

According to German translations on the web, the meaning is something like "If you are fascinated by a stranger, follies will take their course". I wondered whether this is correct English and googled the phrase - as there are a few thousand hits, but not more, so I am still unsure. --KnightMove (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't bother me. It implies the contrast that all sorts of things have been beginning, but now even stranger ones are starting to begin. Also, you can get away with almost anything for the sake of poetic license. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A matter of degree?

In data analysis, we often speak of a "representative sample", meaning that e.g. the features of a few thousand people are thought to capture the features of a whole country (let's set aside the details of sample choice, and assume it's done correctly with regard to the statistical approach).

The question: is "representative" a property that a sample only does or does not possess -- or does it make sense to use it qualified by degree? In other words, is "highly representative" more akin to "highly unique" (i.e. to be avoided in technical writing), or is "highly representative" more like "highly regarded" (i.e. no problem). My dictionary says "Representative: typical of a class, group, or body of opinion" -- which leads me to believe that "highly representative" is not good writing. On the other hand, I have the same problem with "typical", so I turn to you for semantic/linguistic thoughts on the topic. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, writing "highly representative" is awkward English. You can get around it by using the term in statistics confidence, which can work in lay language for non-statistics trained folk too. You can say something like "The sample size is such that we have a high confidence in our conclusions." 143.238.217.204 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet "representativeness", defined as "the degree to which [an event] (i) is similar in essential characteristics to its parent population, and (ii) reflects the salient features of the process by which it is generated", does exist in decision theory or behavioral economics. See representativeness heuristic, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

True. "Representativeness" is a word you'll find an any good dictionary. While you can write "The blah blah has great representativenes of such and such", writing "highly representative" is awkward English, as a sample is either representive or it is not. It's a bit like writing "The dog has come in from the rain highly wet." The dog is either wet or it isn't. One should say "The dog has come in from the rain soaked to the skin." In other circumstances "wetness" is a valid word. 143.238.217.204 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A sample can be more or less representative. For example, the sample may mirror the general population in age distribution, but not in level of education, racial or ethnic background, regional distribution, or any number of variables. This is a question of methodology, and we usually refer to methodology in terms of strength or validity rather than height. So I would prefer "strongly representative" or, even better, "representative across multiple variables" to "highly representative". Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely wetness has degrees? I wouldn't mind sitting next to a slightly wet dog, but I'd avoid close proximity to a very wet dog. Thanks all for the input so far! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks for the input. After some thought, I realize this is more of a math question than a linguistics question. I have now come to the position that "more representative" makes perfect sense. In the context of two subsets A, A' of X, we can (with perfect knowledge) quantify the representativeness with respect to X of A and A', and make comparative statements about the two properties. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese help: image descriptions and "what does the Japanese say?"

First, may I have a Japanese image description of File:Arrows in Okazaki.jpeg? The English is "Advertisements at an intersection in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan, featuring many arrows. The image has been cropped and color-balanced from the original; please contact me if you would like the unaltered version."

May I also have a Japanese description of File:Arrows in Okazaki edit.jpeg? The English is "Advertisement at an intersection in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan, featuring a depiction of traffic lights using a shade of blue, rather than green, for use illustrating the Japanese section of Distinction of blue and green in various languages. Cropped from the original by User:Garrett Albright."

Second, what does the Japanese in File:Arrows in Okazaki edit.jpeg say? (Please post the Japanese characters and English translation so I can tag the image and post text of both)

Third, if you are interested, what do the other billboards in File:Arrows in Okazaki.jpeg say? (I understand this may take some time)

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't translate your descriptions because I'd just embarrass myself, but the image text is 車検 "car inspection" on the bottom right, 岡崎で車検が安い "Car inspection is cheap in Okazaki" in yellow, １km先 パチンコ手前 "1 km ahead, in front of the Pachinko (parlor)" in the rounded rectangle, and 車検のコバック "Kobac car inspection" below that. -- BenRG (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How about "愛知県岡崎市の交差点における様々な矢印を使った看板" for "Advertisement at an intersection in Okazaki, Aichi, featuring many arrows"?　As for green and blue, see also Green#Languages where green and blue are one color. The caption of the image in the Japanese article is "Examples of arrows used in advertisements". Oda Mari (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I added the Japanese description to one image WhisperToMe (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese translation needed

Hi, may I please request a Chinese speaker take a look at Junior Writers Awards? There are a couple of references listed here and here. They are written in Chinese, and the mechanical translation I'm viewing isn't being very helpful. Basically I'm trying to figure out where we can put some inline-references. I'd also appreciate it if you could help to establish the subject's notability. I believe 2014 was the first year this award program was held, and we had some issues with conflict of interest and spam at the article. So any info you can dig up would be appreciated. The awards are based in Hong Kong and Macao. Much thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "based out of"

As a semi-regular AfC reviewer I often see articles that use the phrase "based out of <place name>" instead of "from" or "in". It is used in reference to people, bands, companies, etc - practically anything that has a definite location. As it usually occurs in pop-culture articles I suspect the phrase may be peculiar to younger writers and, as far as I can tell, mostly Americans. I wonder where the phrase originated and how it has become so popularly and (IMHO) inappropriately used? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe this originated as a (literal) military expression; adopted to common usage originally to suggest a place that serves as a sort of "headquarters", but where one doesn't necessarily work or frequent. (I agree that common usage is largely inappropriate). Somewhat appropriate example might relate to a band who spends most of its time "on the road" but is "based out of" someplace where their recording studio is. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it just an abbreviation of "based in but working out of"? It's not very common on this side of the Atlantic. Dbfirs 19:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically, yes. It's not all that common in US, either. Sometimes it is still used in the literal sense: "Seal Team Seven, based out of <whatever military base>, began operations out of <etc.>..." 71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(EC)Unless you're an MP, with multiple homes you can claim all sorts of nonsense for, employ family members to do bugger all, and let your husband spend your government-issued credit card balance on porn, safe in the knowledge that only one or two will actually go to jail, rather than the whole bloody lot. "Based in Nottingham, but working out of Derby taxpayers' pockets". For example (I chose that particular un-example, so that I do not have to go to court for defamation of some random guy's character). Move along, nothing to see here. Ignore this total change of subject. I am too tired. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Pryor was often based out of his mind. Otherwise, the phrase is not very common in America either. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There are more than 4500 articles here on en.WP that contain the phrase - that's roughly 1/1000 of the total articles - a significant fraction IMHO. Looking at the first few pages of the search result it seems that it occurs disproportionately in music and sport related articles - thus reinforcing my impression of it being a feature of the language of young people. (BTW the linked search is only of mainspace, I suspect that including Talk pages would inflate the proportion as the phrase may have been edited out of many articles that once had it. I'm just too tired now to search that too, it's well past pumpkin time here so I'm off to bed... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a caution about accepting raw numbers of search hits: The syntax Wikipedia uses for internal searching does not totally match Google’s protocols. In Google, enclosing a text string in quotes produces results for that exact string; in Wikipedia, it does not necessarily have that effect. For example, the very first hit from your search is Holy Trinity Catholic High School (Simcoe), which does not include the word "based" at all. The next hit, Ubiquitous Synergy Seeker, does have the word, but not the expression "based out of". The third one, Intel Active Management Technology, has the text string, but in the form of "... a hardware-based out-of-band", which is not what you’re looking for. After that, the search does seem to find valid instances of "based out of" for at least a few pages, but I haven’t examined it closely after that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that "based out of" occurs in descriptions of bands and sports teams simply because they travel a lot (see the first reply by 71.x). -- BenRG (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We also have to be on our guard against the rise of the abomination-atrocity "based off of". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

From what is that opinion based off of? — Preceding malapropic catachresis added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't you mean "What is that opinion based off of from?"? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That depends on who that opinion based off of from is to.  — Preceding nauseating comment added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the kind of nonsensical misplacement of prepositions up with which I will not put... KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Guillemets 《 》

Hi, I've noticed guillemets 《 》 come up a lot in articles about Chinese subjects (and elsewhere I'm sure), for example here. MOS:QUOTEMARKS states that straight quotes are the preferred quotation mark for articles, but I'm curious what the procedure is in a table like below, where we are noting the Chinese title. Do we use italics/quotations as appropriate for major/minor works, or do we retain the guillemets?

Year	Title	Chinese Title	Role
1988	A Magic Doctor in Suzhou	《姑苏一怪》	Ye Tianshi

Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Guillemet just says that they're used in Chinese "to indicate a book or album title". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, remember that Chinese doesn't have bold or italic typefaces, so they need some other way to distinguish titles from quotations. — kwami (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123 and kwami. Thank you, my question is about whether or not it is appropriate to use guillemets in articles when we are noting the Chinese titles of books or albums, or if we should still use italics (for books and albums) or quotation marks (for lesser works). In the above example, I'm not sure which version of the following we should normally see in articles:

Year	Title	Chinese Title	Role
1988	A Magic Doctor in Suzhou	《姑苏一怪》	Ye Tianshi

or

Year	Title	Chinese Title	Role
1988	A Magic Doctor in Suzhou	[姑苏一怪] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	Ye Tianshi

or

Year	Title	Chinese Title	Role
1988	"A Magic Doctor in Suzhou"	"姑苏一怪"	Ye Tianshi

If it helps, I use WP:AWB, and I'm trying to figure out whether or not it's worth my time to set up an automatica find/replace for guillemets, or if they're acceptable when we're translating Chinese text. I'll post my query at the MOS just in case this turns out to not be a good place to ask. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese text should never be italic, and it looks bizarre to use Latin punctuation with Chinese characters. But why do we need anything at all? The point of punctuation and changing font faces is to set off the title, but having it in Chinese characters sets it off just fine. So I'd simply drop the guillemots:

Year	Title	Chinese Title	Role
1988	A Magic Doctor in Suzhou	姑苏一怪	Ye Tianshi

The only place I remember seeing Chinese guillemots where I thought they were useful was in citation footnotes that were entirely in Chinese, where the Chinese punctuation was necessary because the title was embedded in Chinese text. But I'd leave them in rather than use italics or Latin quotes. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

March 21

stir oneself

A question about "stir oneself". Is it right to say "It's time to wash the dishes, but none of us would stir ourselves." ? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a commonly-used idiom. Dbfirs 00:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The tenses didn't match ("it was time"), but yes, it's fine. You can of course change the meaning entirely by adding "a drink" at the end. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In my US English case, using "stir" that way is uncommon, but still understood. I would be more likely to say "nobody would move", or "nobody would lift a finger", if I really wanted to make them all sound lazy. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

While still a bit rare, "bestir" is a better word choice, at least IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Figuratively speaking

Somewhere else on Wikipedia I recently challenged an absolute statement by another editor, suggesting that his claim could not be accurate because of its absoluteness. He responded by telling me that I could see he was speaking figuratively. Well, I couldn't, mainly because I'm not sure what it means. So, what does it mean when one says one is speaking figuratively? (Yes, I have sought clarification via Google, and have become totally confused.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Figuratively speaking means "as a figure of speech", or not to be taken literally. Sometimes it refers to an obvious exaggeration or hyperbole; meant to be sarcastic or humorous. In other words "don't take this seriously". Of course, sometimes one uses "figuratively speaking" as an excuse for being rude or inarticulate.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes = metaphorically. — kwami (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Like when someone says something like, "I have literally been working on this forever", they are speaking figuratively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Like whatever, dood; that answer is as useful as a screen door on a submarine.  — Preceding rude and inarticulate example added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's a really good example of figurative speech. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese for "sub-chassis"

In electronic equipment utilising vacuum tubes, the various parts were usually mounted on a bent-up sheet metal dish, which had holes punched in it as required for bolts and parts. This was termed a chassis. In some cases, a complete sub-assembly, a sub-chassis, would be installed in the chassis along with other parts or sub-chassis. What are the Japanese terms for chassis and sub-chassis in electronics? I tried puzzling it out with GoogleTranslate, but putting likely English words and phrases in, getting the Japanese equivalent, and translating that back to English always led to something that indicates the machine translation was probably not right. 143.238.217.204 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean a 治具 (jig)? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Chassis is シャーシ or シャーシー in ja. I think "sub-chassis" is サブ・シャーシ. Oda Mari (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Jig, which means a tool that guides or assists, doesn't seem right. A chassis is not a tool, it's a permanent structural part of the equipment (radio, TV, whatever). シャーシ and サブ is of course "chassis" and "sub" spelt out phonetically in Katakana - it may or may not mean anything to a Japanese, and there may be Kanji for whatever the Japanese call a chassis. Perhaps 副 (auxiliary attached) is what Japanese would use for "sub-"?? 143.238.217.204 (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Mari is correct. There are lots of foreign words in Japanese, and many of them do not have kanji at all. For example, コーヒー ('coffee') is usually written in katakana, but it does also have kanji => 珈琲, usually only found on the signs of coffee shops. パソコン ('computer') however, does not have kanji. 'サブ' is perfectly fine here, and does not need a kanji. It is perfectly understandable to anyone who needs to read about chassis and sub-chassis. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no kanji for them. See [10], [11], [12], and [13]. They use サブシャーシ. Oda Mari (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok - thanks given to both of you. The websites prove Oda correct. 143.238.217.204 (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

'Oda' is her family name... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So? —Tamfang (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Arabic question: File:Graffiti_in_tunis.JPG

What is the Arabic in File:Graffiti_in_tunis.JPG and what does it mean?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Media, revive, stimulation". KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"I couldn't disagree more"

The sentence construction, "I couldn't disagree more," seems to suggest: "I could agree more." Let's say Lucy makes a claim. Her friend Stephen hears and retorts that he can't disagree more. What does that mean? Does Stephen agree or disagree with Lucy's claim? Maybe it's placing Agree and Disagree on a scale, with Agree on one end and Disagree on the other end, and Stephen means that Lucy has made a claim that makes him reach the end of the Disagree, until he can't disagree any more. In other words, he's reached the limit of Disagreement, if that makes sense. 140.254.227.92 (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree so much that to increase my level of disagreement is impossible. On a scale of 1 to 10, my level of disagreement is 10. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In the same way, we have "I couldn't agree more". This doesn't mean "I have stopped agreeing and from now on will disagree instead." It means, "I agree with you 100%." KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no. I like that. Next time I disagree with someone I am going to tell them "I couldn't agree more. By which I mean I am going to stop agreeing, and from now on only disagree." That's brilliant. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

... and, just to clarify further ... the idiom "I couldn't ...... more" cannot be one half of a double negative because it is used only for emphasis, meaning something similar to "extremely", or "as much as is possible". Think of the (commonly-expressed?) sentence: "I couldn't love you more". Dbfirs 21:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Then, just to de-clarify, bear in mind that speakers of English - and esp. UK English (ɥsılƃuǝ uɐılɐɹʇsnɐ puɐ) tend to say the opposite of what we mean, for even more emphasis, so Medeis' comment above actually makes sense. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 22:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

lovey-dovey to describe a man?

Can "lovey-dovey" be used to describe a man? For example, is it right to say "He was a lovey-dovey husband. He would drink with his wife in his arms."? Or should "romantic" be used instead? Thank you vey much!