Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 201.210.249.61 (talk) to last version by Nerdy Pop 3 |
- |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- |
|||
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/L|WP:Refdesk/Lang|WP:Refdesk/Language}}{{pp-move-indef}} |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
|||
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for accidental language links]] |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]] |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums]] |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia reference desk|Language]] |
|||
[[jv:Wikipedia:Dhiskusi bab basa]] |
|||
</noinclude> |
|||
{{Wiktionary|Wiktionary:Information desk}} |
|||
{{Wiktionary|Wiktionary:Translation requests}} |
|||
= May 24 = |
|||
== [[Treasure Island]] == |
|||
I'm surprised that the good doctor says when talking to the captured Hawkins, "By Jupiter". This in a book that talked Christianity, unsurprisingly from that era. Can anyone tell me more about this? Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/24.215.188.243|24.215.188.243]] ([[User talk:24.215.188.243|talk]]) 03:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I've heard it before. Yelling "Jesus Christ !" was considered to be "taking the Lord's name in vain", so they substituted a "god" they didn't care about offending. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 03:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: "By Jove" was a similar expression, [[Jove]] being a form of the word Jupiter, and giving us the word "jovial". -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 06:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: See [[minced oath]]. [[User:Djbcjk|Djbcjk]] ([[User talk:Djbcjk|talk]]) 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Or "[[Jovian]]", pretty much anything to do with Jupiter. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:To add some context: during the periods in which the book was written and is set the study of classical Latin (and often also Greek) language and literature usually formed a substantial part of an advanced education (hence the origin of the name "[[Grammar school]]"), such as that which a doctor would necessarily have received. Consequently, the British upper/educated classes were familiar with Classical culture and religion, and references to them were considered respectable. This made it acceptable, for example, to depict naked women in art, <i>provided</i> that the scene was taken from Classical history or myth, and to swear by Classical pagan deities when to do so by Christian entities would have been considered coarse or blasphemous. |
|||
:Of course, no-one imagined that those so swearing actually believed in the Pagan deities being referenced (if any actually did, they would have kept quiet about it!) Expressions like "By Jove!" remained current as recently as the 1970s in the UK, kept alive in popular children's literature such as [[W.E. Johns]]' Biggles and other series, and [[Anthony Buckeridge]]'s Jennings books: I myself learned and used to use them for that reason. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/2.218.13.119|2.218.13.119]] ([[User talk:2.218.13.119|talk]]) 16:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I wonder if this is related to those exclamations that sound as though you're about to swear, but are turned into something innocuous half-way through, like the polite people who say [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sugar_2 "Oh sugar!"] when they make a mistake. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 18:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::As made fun of in the old song, "Shaving Cream".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ffkDf0ol4] ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::And peripherally related to that concept is the "You bet your sweet [[Aspercreme]]" marketing campaign from a few years back. [[User:Evanh2008|Evan]] <sup>([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]])</sup> 22:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::My 92 -year-old father still uses lots of amusing euphemisms, rathering than using outright profanity. One of his favourites is "holy good old Sebastian", which I've never heard anyone else use. [[User:OttawaAC|OttawaAC]] ([[User talk:OttawaAC|talk]]) 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: My late Dad, who would be 94 now, used to say "Gosh old fish hooks". Again, that seems to be unique in my experience. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 20:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: For more on covert and/or implied cursing, see [[Mind rhyme]] and [[Mondegreen]] ("If you see kay..."). [[User:Evanh2008|Evan]] <sup>([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]])</sup> 20:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: More recently, "Polka Dot Undies". —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 07:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Hungarian translation == |
|||
In [[Krisztina Egerszegi]]'s article, it gives two nicknames ("Egérke" in the infobox, "Egér" in the body), both supposedly meaning "Mouse". Many searches translate the former as "Little Mouse", some have both as "Mouse", and one or two even claim the latter means "Little Mouse". Could somebody give a definitive answer? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 08:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:[[:wikt:egér|"egér"]] is the basic form and means "mouse". The suffix [[:wikt:-ke#Hungarian|"-ke"]] (sometimes "-ka" is used, depending on the base word's vowel, see link) is a Hungarian [[diminutive]], hence "egérke" is "little mouse" (or "tiny mouse"). ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 10:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::That's what I suspected. Thanks. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 12:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Japanese help: Names of organizations == |
|||
I have added content to [[Japanese community of Mexico City]] so that Spanish speaking editors can translate it into Spanish. Since the Chizuko Watanabe thesis does not print the Japanese characters, I'm trying to figure out what they would be. I used the dictionary at http://jisho.org. |
|||
*Kokusui Doshi-kai ("Ultra-Nationalist Comrades Association") = 国粋同士会 ? (NOTE: it was established by Japanese who celebrated a Japanese victory in World War II and did not accept Japan's loss in the war) |
|||
*meishin-kai ("Year of the Monkey Club" - a reference to people born in 1908) |
|||
*Bokuto Sogo Fujo-kai ("Association for Mutual Aid") |
|||
Thanks, |
|||
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 17:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
= May 26 = |
|||
== fructus est fullonius == |
|||
what is the meaning of "fructus est fullonius" (Plautus Pseudolus 781). thanks,--[[Special:Contributions/84.108.213.48|84.108.213.48]] ([[User talk:84.108.213.48|talk]]) 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:According to google translate, it literally means "fruit of the washer". Does that make any sense in the context of that item of literature? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::It was translated variously as [http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/fullonius "to receive a fustigation"], as [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=fullonius "to swallow ink", "to be stamped upon"] or as [http://books.google.com/books?id=j9LvtQKaWOIC&lpg=PA278&hl=en&pg=PA278#v=onepage&q&f=false "to be raped orally"]. --[[User:Pp.paul.4|Pp.paul.4]] ([[User talk:Pp.paul.4|talk]]) 16:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Fructus est is the third person active of the deponent ''fruor'': "he has enjoyed". Google translate (which sounds odd to me) suggests "the fuller" which gives: "The fuller has enjoyed himself." [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::The whole line is "Cras mihi potandus fructus est fullonius". ''Fructus'' is a noun, with the verb being ''potandus est'': "Tomorrow I'll have to drink ''fructus fullonius''", with the "fuller's product" being of somewhat unclear denotation, as the varying translations cited by Pp.paul.4 above indicate. (Lewis & Short even suggest [s.v. [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=fullonius ''fullonius'']] that ''fucus'' rather than ''fructus'' may be meant.) [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Didn't ancient fullers use urine as a whitening agent? To my eyes the whole phrase means something like "Tomorrow I've got third-hand piss to drink", while the fragment quoted by the OP doesn't mean anything at all. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 10:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::The fragment quoted by the OP means "It is the fuller's fruit", the full sentence, however, is constructed in a different way and means "Tomorrow I'll have to drink the fuller's fruit". The meaning of this sentence has been obscured by time and by our incomplete knowledge of vulgar Latin idiomatic phrases. My guess is that prudish translators of the 19th century might have explained it to their school pupils as an euphemism for kicks and bruises, whereas it is presumably much more vulgar (you don't drink kicks), as the modern interpretation (linked above) might suggest. It would be interesting to know how the modern English translation of Plautus' [[Pseudolus]] by David Christenson (2008) ([http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-07-03.html review]) translates it. --[[User:Pp.paul.4|Pp.paul.4]] ([[User talk:Pp.paul.4|talk]]) 22:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*I answered this on the Humanities desk, where it was first posted before the OP was redirected here. To repeat, the Perseus site has a footnote explaining that "the fuller's fruit" is a euphemism for kicks and bruises, because fullers work by beating cloth. "Fruit" basically means "product" here. The full phrase is a slangy way of saying "I will have to take a beating". The entire sentence it comes from is basically saying, "If I can't make the payment I owe, I will have to take a beating". [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 12:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
= May 27 = |
|||
==interpretation question== |
|||
What is this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVBbVqajEOQ video] on youtube actually about? It is in a foreign language. Thank you. --[[User:Badder Ińsk|Badder Ińsk]] ([[User talk:Badder Ińsk|talk]]) 09:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It's a mixture of English and Afrikaans. [[Gauteng]] is a province in South Africa, and 'Gautengeleng' seems to be a funny variation on that. The lyrics basically say that it's good to live in 'Gautengeleng' even though crime is rampant. Can't find the full lyrics, but [http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/gautengeleng--1825204/1/20 this] summarizes it: "''"Gautengeleng Gautengeleng, I wanna stay in Gautengeleng, Die crime is streng (crime is severe), but what the heng (what the heck) dis lekker om te lewe hie' in Gautengeleng! (it's good to live here in Gautengeleng)''" - [[User:Lindert|Lindert]] ([[User talk:Lindert|talk]]) 09:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== "Not like it wasn’t the first time." == |
|||
So was it the first time or not? [[Special:Contributions/98.27.255.223|98.27.255.223]] ([[User talk:98.27.255.223|talk]]) 10:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Some context would help, but logically the phrase means "Like it was the first time" because the [[double negative]] cancels out. However, double negatives are so common among uneducated people, that the meaning often becomes ambiguous.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]]|[[User talk:Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup>]] 11:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: (e/c) I think someone's mixed up two expressions: (1) Not like it was the first time, and (2) It wasn't the first time. These both mean it wasn't the first time. But the one you gave us means it ''was'' the first time. I suspect it was meant to say the opposite of that, but without a context it's impossible to be sure. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 12:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:No. When your kid is late for school every day for a month, the latest incident could be described as "Not like it wasn't the first time". The ''literal'' meaning is the opposite, but the extra negative ("wasn't") is either hyperbolic or simply due to carelessness. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 19:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::How can you possibly know that the intended meaning is opposite to the literal meaning? To me it's just a nonsensical sentence. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 20:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::See [http://www.universalhub.com/glossary/so_dont_i.html here] and [http://microsyntax.sites.yale.edu/so-dont-i here] and [http://www.waywordradio.org/so-dont-i/ here] and [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/30383/can-a-negative-be-used-to-express-a-positive-such-as-mangoes-are-sweet-and-so here] for a discussion of some dialects of English where the negative construct is understood idiomatically to be positive, all the time, and without further explanation. It does happen in some dialects of English where the understood meaning is the exact opposite of the literal meaning. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 01:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I admit that I find "not like it wasn't the first time" difficult to parse literally, even when imagining it within a fitting context. But what about "it's not like it wasn't obvious (yet he kept believing no one had noticed)", or "it's not like it wasn't allowed (but lighting a cigar in the doctor's waiting room still would have been frowned upon in the 1930s)"? Wouldn't these intuitively be understood literally? ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 11:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Supposedly there is a phrase "wicked good". Is that similar? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 11:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Not really. Same dialect, unrelated idiom. In New England English, "wicked" is an exact synonym of "very"; that is a general adverbial (never adjective) intensifier. Wicked good, wicked awesome, wicked huge, wicked long time, etc. etc. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 22:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Perhaps it is a feature of a New England dialect to contain jarring contradictions. Perhaps people speaking this dialect take a perverse pleasure in the shock value of certain uses of terms or ways of speaking. "Good" and "wicked" are almost opposites if one is not thinking of "good" meaning "very". [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 11:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Perhaps, but "wicked" meaning "cool" or "very" isn't confined to just that area. Seems to me that it enjoyed wider popularity in the early 90s, maybe late 80s. "That band is wicked!" (i.e. "the band is very impressive", not "the band has sinned", though I suppose it would be easy enough for a good rock band to do both at once). I'm from SW Ontario and would understand "wicked good" the way intended. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 11:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::In these cases I think the intended meaning is always clear—even to one unfamiliar with the particular usage. Nevertheless there could be a lingering thought in a listener's mind as to the oddity of a particular sentence construction or word choice. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 11:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::@HiLo - the very fact that's it's nonsensical read literally flags it so. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 11:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Chinese versions of English names == |
|||
I've been looking and comparing English names and their Chinese pinyin transliterations. |
|||
* Peter becomes Bǐ dé. |
|||
* Paul becomes Bǎo luó or Bǎo ěr. |
|||
* James becomes Zhān mǔ sī. |
|||
* Maria becomes Mǎ lì yà. |
|||
Can anybody tell me why the P changes into a B or the T changes into a D, even though there is actually the B sound and T sound in Mandarin? Even in native English speakers, the T sound may be silent, so the name ''Peter'' sounds like ''Peler''. The same P-to-B transformation applies to ''Paul''. Personally, I think Pó would sound closer to the original English name. Why does the J turn into a Z in ''James''? And why does the R sound in ''Maria'' turn into a L sound, even though there is actually a R phoneme in Mandarin? Can anybody tell me who made up these transliterations? Are there pinyin transliterations of other foreign names (Spanish, German, Russian, etc.)? [[Special:Contributions/69.174.58.108|69.174.58.108]] ([[User talk:69.174.58.108|talk]]) 17:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:You should look at [[pinyin]], especially [[pinyin#Rules given in terms of English pronunciation]], b and d in pinyin are not the same as English: b is between English p and b, while d is between English t and d. Zh meanwhile is pretty good approximation for English j - the j in pinyin is quite different.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 17:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::The sound spelled in pinyin as 'b' is actually an unaspirated /p/. English does not have that sound at the beginning of a syllable. Likewise, pinyin 'd' is an unaspirated /t/. The distinction between 'p', 't', and 'k' on the one hand and 'b', 'd', and 'g' on the other, is not between unvoiced and voiced stops as in English, but between aspirated and unaspirated (unvoiced) stops. Mandarin does not have voiced stops as phonemes (though they sometimes occur as allophones). ''Maria'' is not transliterated into Mandarin using a character with the pinyin spelling ''ri'' because that syllable has a very different vowel from the /i/ in ''Maria''. In pinyin, 'r' represents a [[retroflex approximant]] that, to my knowledge doesn't occur in any European languages. So a character with an initial 'r' in pinyin would be be a good transliteration for a European syllable with an intial 'r'. In Mandarin phonotactics, the retroflex approximant cannot be followed by a front vowel such as /i/. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] ([[User talk:Marco polo|talk]]) 17:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: The fact that Mandarin doesn't have voiced stops tells me non-native English speakers, whose native language is Chinese, have a tendency to pronounce English words in chunks. Instead of ''lettuce'', they may ''lai bu shi''. Instead of ''thank you'', they may ''san ke you''. Instead of ''thank you very much'', they may say ''san ge gou wei ma chi'', which may then sound hilarious in Chinese, because it'd sound like "three dogs are fed to a horse". [[Special:Contributions/69.174.58.108|69.174.58.108]] ([[User talk:69.174.58.108|talk]]) 18:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::"English does not have that (b) sound at the beginning of a syllable" – Actually, for many English speakers, initial ''b, d, j, g'' are partially devoiced, so they are as (or maybe more) similar to Mandarin ''b, d, j, g'' than they are to Continental European ''b, d, j, g''. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 18:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
69.174.58.108 -- "Peter" may make more sense if you look at it in [[Wade-Giles]] (the most commonly used method of transcribing Chinese into English until at least the 1950s). Also, some of these equivalences of common Biblical names may have originally been established between Cantonese and Portuguese, or whatever (not between Mandarin and English)... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 04:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: One reason I believe there is some fishy with Marco polo's analysis is that the pinyin transliteration Pūkè for ''Poker'' actually has a P sound. Also, the claim that the Zh will sound like a J seems to be how Americans would pronounce the Zh in names like "Zhang", even though native Mandarin Chinese speakers do pronounce the Z in Zhang like the Z in English. [[Special:Contributions/69.174.58.108|69.174.58.108]] ([[User talk:69.174.58.108|talk]]) 12:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::"Native Mandarin Chinese speakers do pronounce the Z in Zhang like the Z in English." – I don't think so. English z is usually [z]. As far as I know, Pinyin zh as [[Standard_Chinese_phonology|pronounced in Modern Standard Mandarin]] is a retroflex affricate, and not (or only slightly?) aspirated. Examples: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Mandarin_-_Special_administrative_region.ogg syllable 4 of 5], [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/The_Hong_Kong_Alliance_in_Support_of_Patriotic_Democratic_Movements_in_China_%28Mandarin%29.ogg syllables 5 and 10 of 15]. Pinyin zh is a digraph, so it doesn't make sense to say native speakers pronounce "the z in zh" some way; it's not z+h but zh. [[Special:Contributions/82.83.68.77|82.83.68.77]] ([[User talk:82.83.68.77|talk]]) 17:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agree with 82... There may be a variation in Mandarin-speakers from Shanghai who tend to ignore the h in the Pinyin double consonants. However, even then the Pinyin z does not have the same pronounciation as the z in English. -- [[Special:Contributions/160.62.10.13|160.62.10.13]] ([[User talk:160.62.10.13|talk]]) 04:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: I saw this question shortly after reading [http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=12647 this post], which deals with an amusing result of the P/B confusion, on [[Language Log]]. [[User:AndrewWTaylor|AndrewWTaylor]] ([[User talk:AndrewWTaylor|talk]]) 13:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
= May 28 = |
|||
== The Dark Knight Rises == |
|||
In the movie [[The Dark Knight Rises]] there are several lines in the prologue scene that don't seem to make much sense. I don't know if it is a language issue or just supposed to not make sense as an artistic statement. I am having trouble understanding these specific lines; |
|||
<pre>"Dr Pavel, I'm CIA"</pre> |
|||
It is a peculiar sentence. Is he saying he is the entirety of the [[Central Intelligence Agency]]? Does it even refer to the CIA at all, or is his name Seeyiah or something? If he works for the CIA shouldn't he say "Dr Pavel, I'm a CIA agent" or "Dr Pavel, I'm from the CIA"? |
|||
<pre> |
|||
"He didn't fly so good!" |
|||
</pre> |
|||
This is stated by CIA after interrogating a prisoner by holding his head out of an aircraft. But the prisoner is brought back into the aircraft and stowed at the back of the plane, so what exactly "didn't fly so good"? And why didn't CIA remove the bags before interrogating them? If the bags were never removed to check whats under them and CIA never heard them speak until Bane started talking to him, how did CIA know they weren't all gagged? |
|||
<pre> |
|||
CIA: If I pull that off, will you die? |
|||
BANE: It would be extremely painful. |
|||
CIA: You're a big guy. |
|||
BANE: For you. |
|||
</pre> |
|||
This is even more confusing. Initially I thought it was to get across to the audience that Bane is supposed to be a huge guy. Instead of trying to show it, it was probably easier just to directly tell the audience that this person is supposed to be a "big guy", as the actor who played Bane was only 5'9. But even a really muscular person at that height wouldn't be described as a big guy. So was he saying he is a big guy in comparison to CIA? Is he talking about his stature in the criminal world? When bane responds "for you" is he saying that his size (either figuratively or literally) doesn't mean much to the average person, but to CIA it means everything? Because the wording it makes it seem like Bane is just saying that he is a big guy for CIA, implying the agent is tiny and that Bane isn't really that much of a big guy to a normal sized person. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Themosquitoman|Themosquitoman]] ([[User talk:Themosquitoman|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Themosquitoman|contribs]]) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:"I'm CIA" is a way of saying "I work for the CIA." As for "he didn't fly so good," I haven't seen the movie but it sounds like he was trying to trick the hooded prisoners into thinking the guy was pushed out of the plane and "didn't fly so good."--[[User:Cam|Cam]] ([[User talk:Cam|talk]]) 18:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::You have three questions here. Here are some possible answers: |
|||
::*1: When someone is a member of an organization whose name may be an [[acronym]], many times he or she will refer to the organization [[wiktionary:anarthrous|anarthrically]], that is without an article. Cam is correct in the CIA agent's meaning. |
|||
::*2: I agree with Cam again. It is a type of [[irony]]. |
|||
::*3: This is a form of [[ellipsis]]. It is as if the CIA agent interrupted Bane's line. Bane is saying "it would be extremely painful for you if you pull off my mask." It is also a form of [[irony]]. |
|||
:: Hope this helps and lead to some good reading! [[User: schyler|<span style="color:#458B00;">Schyler</span>]] ''([[User talk: schyler|<span style="color:#00688B;">exquirere bonum ipsum</span>]])'' 20:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I haven't seen the movie, but from the context I think "you're a big guy" means "you're a grown man [who shouldn't be afraid of some pain]". See [[wikt:big boy]] (sense 3). "For you" is Bane clarifying his previous line, as Schyler said. -- [[User:BenRG|BenRG]] ([[User talk:BenRG|talk]]) 07:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Politically correct term for Indian/Pakistani people? == |
|||
I live in the US and work with a lot of Indian/Pakistani people. Is it considered offensive if I call someone "Indian" if they're really Pakistani (or vise versa)? IOW, is there a safe umbrella term for Indian/Pakistani people? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 15:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It ''may'' be considered offensive, although I obviously can't speak for any actual Pakistani people. Here in the UK, the term 'Asian' is often used without qualification to mean people from the subcontinent; I'm aware that in the US the same term is usually interpreted to mean 'Chinese/Japanese/Korean'. My answer is therefore to say 'South Asian' for the former group and 'East Asian' for the latter. Others - including those who are actually from these groups - may have more or different opinions. |
|||
:And don't feel you have to couch a request for this sort of advice in the language of 'political correctness'; you're only doing a sensible and humane thing, which oughtn't to be seen as political or adhering to an externally imposed idea of 'correctness' at all. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 15:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Ask them what they would like to be called. As regards getting the country wrong because they sound and look the same, ask a Canadian. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 15:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::In addition to "South Asian" there is "[[desi]]", but I don't know how appropriate it is. [[Special:Contributions/82.83.68.77|82.83.68.77]] ([[User talk:82.83.68.77|talk]]) 16:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::However (in)appropriate "desi" is, it has little currency outside the continent. I'd use "Asian" in BE, "South Asian" in global context. There is a similar dichotomy between the BE/AE uses of "oriental". I've even been criticised by an American for using the term in a geographical sense. And, of course, "England" is synonymous with the UK... <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>[[User:Jimfbleak|Jimfbleak]] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">[[User talk:Jimfbleak| talk to me?]]</font></font> 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::"Desi" is very current among the young Asians in the UK, as a word to refer to themselves. The BBC has even had programmes with Desi in the title, so that shows you how current it is! --[[User:TammyMoet|TammyMoet]] ([[User talk:TammyMoet|talk]]) 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Your best bet is to ask them (and write it down so you don't forget). They will likely be pleased that you asked, and may be able to give you some insights as to how to recognize Indian vs. Pakistani surnames, for example. I've worked with many Indians and some Pakistanis, and they are nearly always willing and interested to talk about their homeland. And it makes for good team-building too. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::"''The sub-continent''" is a term still used in cricket commentary to describe the area. I wonder if a non-offensive term can be derived from that? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think referring to my co-worker Ankit as a "sub-continental American" would seem a bit off. At the very least, there's the embedded linguistic notion that "sub" equates to inferior, e.g. subprime, sub-par, etc. I've heard educated and tactful people of subcontinental ancestry, Mexican ancestry, and Arabic ancestry (all in the USA) refer to themselves and others as simply [[brown people]], meaning essentially "not white, but explaining or assuming specific ethnicity is not useful in this context" - but our article doesn't have any mention of this more modern, neutral sense of the phrase. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 16:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== How common is the "in the year of our Lord" phrase in present American use? == |
|||
Do people use this phrase when marking dates typically in courtroom settings? Where else do people stamp dates with this type of fancy phrase? [[Special:Contributions/69.174.58.108|69.174.58.108]] ([[User talk:69.174.58.108|talk]]) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Seems rather archaic, and any government usage of that term might run afoul of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::The common use is the abbreviation for that phrase in Latin, AD: Anno (year-in) Domini (lord-of). It's by far the most common formulation. The closests alternative is C.E. (Common Era) which speaks of nothing common to the ancients, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Chinese. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 05:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, CE originally stood for "Christian Era", which has fewer theological presuppositions embedded in it than ''Anno Domini'', but still calls out Christianity by name. The "Common" bit seems to have been a rather strained attempt to keep the same initialism, sort of like when [[Claremont Men's College]] decided to start admitting women, and had to find someone with the initial M that they could put into the name. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 05:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Strained, perhaps, but it's been in common academic use for more than 40 years: I first encountered it in the History textbooks I was issued with at school (in the UK) around 1970. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/212.95.237.92|212.95.237.92]] ([[User talk:212.95.237.92|talk]]) 12:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Trovatore, do you have a source for the statement that CE "originally stood for" Christian Era? It doesn't seem to be supported by our article [[Common Era]]. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 13:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Ah, you might be right; this is just what I had in my head. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 18:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Possible entomology connection for the word fuck == |
|||
In the article for the word fuck it said some possible entomology for the word fuck was Indo-European in origin meaning to strike. In the Laotian language of which I am a fluent speaker, fuck means to chop something by striking it with a knife. \uc0\u3743 \u3761 \u3713 people use that word when they need to chop Mangos or papaya. It's a different word then chopping onions onion or carrots. It's a special way to chop something especially for making papaya salad. I never took a class on the Laotian language but the older people have told me that a lot of the Laotian words borrowed from Sanskrit and Pali due to the influence of Buddhism. So when I read that the word had an Indo-European entomology I made the connection} |
|||
:I believe you mean [[etymology]], not [[entomology]]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 18:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::{{small|I like to think of "etymology" as looking for bugs in the language. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
: <small> And I believe you mean "than" at ''It's a different word '''then''' chopping onions''. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 21:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC) </small> |
|||
:The Lao word ຟັກ ({{IPA-lo|fak|IPA}}), meaning 1) v. "to chop", "to mince" 2) v. "to hatch an egg" ([[Transitive verb|trns]]) is a native Tai (or at least [[Southwestern Tai languages|Southwestern Tai]]) word. In Thai, it is ฟัก ({{IPA-th|fák|IPA}}), but only has the meaning "to hatch an egg". The meaning "to chop" probably derives from the act of "hatching" (breaking, cracking, etc.) the eggshell (or vice-versa). It is not derived from Sanskrit or Pali. On a side note, most Sanskrit/Pali-derived terms in Lao are multisyllabic and are related to religion, government, royalty or poetic use (ex. ວາດສະໜາ [wâːt sánǎː] "fate", ປະທົມ [pá tʰóm] "sleep" (royal), etc.) while native Lao words are usually single syllables and used for things related to everyday life. Not a hard and fast rule, there are many exceptions, but in general still very helpful to know.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Here's EO's lengthy take on it:[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=fuck&searchmode=none] ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:68.9.127.42 -- Due to thousands of years of accumulated sound changes etc., it's quite unlikely that the Laotian pronunciation of a Sanskrit or Pali word would be recognizably similar to the English pronunciation of an etymologically cognate word... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 21:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: In particular, because of [[Grimm's Law]] the Sanskrit cognate of ''fuck'' would most likely be something like ''pug''. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 07:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, a naive method in etymology is to compare words in different languages and identify similarities; an advanced method is to look at the history of the words in different languages and identify [[cognate]]s. Within the [[West Germanic languages]], the English verb ''fuck'', the New-Dutch verb ''fokken'' and the German verb ''ficken'' are similar in appearance and meaning, but we do not really know if they are cognates for they are not well attested in medieval literature. The German word [[:de:ficken]] has a broad spectrum of meanings and in its non-taboo meanings like ''to move to and from'' it is attested earlier than the taboo word. If the words are cognates, the vocalism of the root is presumably an ''u'' and would lead to Germanic *fug- and IE *peuk-/peug-. --[[User:Pp.paul.4|Pp.paul.4]] ([[User talk:Pp.paul.4|talk]]) 12:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Expatriate, migrant, or immigrant? == |
|||
What are the differences among "Expatriate", "migrant" and "immigrant"? In what cases can each word be used? [[Special:Contributions/140.254.226.181|140.254.226.181]] ([[User talk:140.254.226.181|talk]]) 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It's all about what relation you bear to the person migrating and the countries he or she is migrating to and/or from. "Migrant" is most neutral. You'd most likely use that about someone moving from one country you don't live in to another country you don't live in. "Immigrant", basically "in-migrant", is used about someone moving into your country from another country. "Expatriate" is used about someone who left your country and moved to another country, a compatriot who went away. --[[User:Nicknack009|Nicknack009]] ([[User talk:Nicknack009|talk]]) 21:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::IMO "migrant" is the least neutral. It conjures up an image of someone one step up from a vagrant, as in "migrant worker", and is the least used of the three to describe a person moving from one country to another, versus from one region within a country to another. Another difference is that "immigrant" (and "emigrant") has the connotation of permanency, an "expatriate" may move back, and a "migrant" is generally moving around constantly. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agree with pretty much all of that. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] ([[User talk:Matt Deres|talk]]) 21:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: <small>Thank you for not spelling "expatriate" as ''ex-patriot'', a very common error. The two words have very different, and sometimes opposite, meanings. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 21:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC) </small> |
|||
:I've sometimes stuck with this problem. If we have the originating country A and the destination country B, should we call these from-A-to-B people A-ish emigrants or A-ish immigrants?--[[User:Любослов Езыкин|Lüboslóv Yęzýkin]] ([[User talk:Любослов Езыкин|talk]]) 04:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: They're A-ish emigrants to B, if speaking from an A-ish or whole-world perspective. But if speaking from a B-ish perspective, it's just A-ish immigrants. Or immigrants from A. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 05:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I hear expatriate and immigrant used, but I've only ever encountered "migrant" to refer to migrant workers -- workers who travel around to do seasonal work, typically being either legal or illegal immigrants. I suspect a definition outside of this is on the way to being obsolete. [[User:Bali88|Bali88]] ([[User talk:Bali88|talk]]) 13:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::EO says that "migrant" (which originated as an adjective) theoretically means someone who moves from one place to another.[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=migrant&searchmode=none] That notion is captured in "emigrant [from]" and "immigrant [into]". I get the drift that "migrant" by itself denotes someone more nomadic. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, an emigrant/immigrant generally moves by choice, whereas an expatriate is more likely to have relocated due to a job or to stay out of the clutches of the police (e.g. [[Ronnie Biggs]]). [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 04:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::For someone who moves, but not by choice, the word "[[refugee]]" is often applied, although that also includes "[[internal refugee]]s", who move elsewhere in the same nation. Refugees may be fleeing war, political persecution, or they may be [[economic refugee]]s. People fleeing legitimate crimes (as opposed to being framed for political reasons) are not usually called refugees. We may also soon see growing numbers of "[[environmental refugee]]s", as global climate change submerges some small island nations, and some areas either become desert or use up their underground water reserves. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 13:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: I first learned the word "expatriate" as applied to Americans living in ''e.g.'' Paris for the cultural scene, not for either of those reasons. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 07:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thinking about it more, I think "expatriate" is more a self-identification of people who are living in a country other than their own. By brother has worked for a variety of aid agencies in Africa and elsewhere, and he refers to foreign aid workers in the field, such as himself, as expats. British people who retire to Spain also call themselves "expats". --[[User:Nicknack009|Nicknack009]] ([[User talk:Nicknack009|talk]]) 07:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: A look at our own [[:Category:Expatriates]] is enlightening. In the country split, ambassadors are counted as a subset of expatriates (e.g. [[:Category:Ambassadors to the Czech Republic]] is a sub-cat of [[:Category:Expatriates in the Czech Republic]]). I'm not sure I would ever regard an ambassador or diplomat posted to a foreign country as an expatriate. The word has a connotation of an extended or indefinite stay, while ambassadors are typically sent for a defined period. Also, they don't go of their own choice but because their governments send them. Would a soldier fighting on foreign soil be regarded as an expatriate? What about a person on a working holiday or a cultural exchange program for say, 6 months? Or an ordinary tourist? -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 09:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I generally think of an expatriate as a person who lives permanently in another country, with no intent to return to his birth country, but who also has no intention of seeking citizenship in the new country. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 01:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
This is just my perception of the words expatriate vs. immigrant, but it seems like the major difference is who is doing to speaking. I've never heard an America refer to another American moving to an other country as an immigrant and I've never heard of an American refer to someone who moved here from another country as an expatriate. We typically emphasize what people are doing in relation to our own country. So like, if I'm sitting in America referring to my brother who moved to England, I am more likely to refer to him as an expatriate. I'm discussing how he moved ''away'' from America, as opposed to placing the emphasis on moving to England. If I'm talking about my friend who moved here from Mexico, I'm more likely to refer to her as an immigrant. She came ''to'' America as opposed to moving ''away'' from Mexico. I don't think the motivations behind the move are super relevant. [[User:Bali88|Bali88]] ([[User talk:Bali88|talk]]) 02:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
= May 29 = |
|||
== The city is a container that holds a stage for challenges and embraces in daily life. == |
|||
Can "container" be used metaphorically to refer to a city, as in "The city is a container that holds a stage for challenges and embraces in daily life"? Thank you. ''-- 00:53, 29 May 2014 114.249.208.208'' |
|||
: Almost anything ''can'' be used as a metaphor for almost anything else. Not sure what else to tell you. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 01:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It might be better to just say "The city is a stage ..." Also, "embraces" is a bit of an odd word choice. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:This is a bit of a mixed metaphor. That is to say, you are using two different, unrelated things to make your metaphor. In this case, you've said that the city is a "container" that holds a "stage". There are no containers in real life that holds stages, so it's a strange-sounding combination. As Clarityfiend points out, "stage" is good enough. [[User:Mingmingla|Mingmingla]] ([[User talk:Mingmingla|talk]]) 02:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed. Condensing the ideas slightly, why not just "The city is a stage for challenges and embraces in daily life"? However, in either version "embraces" seems inappropriate — "for embracing the challenges of . . ." is a more common construction. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/212.95.237.92|212.95.237.92]] ([[User talk:212.95.237.92|talk]]) 13:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Container" can be used metaphorically. But I am not sure the solitary sentence provided above is supplying us with reason for thinking of a city as a container. Are "challenges" and "embraces" associated with "containers"? It could be that surrounding sentences shed light on the notion of a city as a "container". This might lend validation to the metaphor of city as container. One can certainly think of a city as a container. But I think the question concerns whether or not thinking of the city as a container contributes in some way to the verbal communication one is endeavoring to accomplish. We can also think about what “container” means. A container of coffee? There are container ships—they carry a certain form of container. The word container has a variety of meanings. Is the word “container” constructive in that particular usage? Only the writer can really know. It occurs to me that perhaps the word “platform” could substitute for the word container in the example sentence. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 13:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== translating wikipedia page == |
|||
i have found a wikipedia article on a german author i am interested in. unfotunately the article is in german. can you tell me if there is an easy way to translate it into english? |
|||
regards |
|||
kim halik ''-- 10:16, 29 May 2014 [[User:Kimhalik]]'' |
|||
:Which author? Presumably you are looking at the German Wikipedia. If you look on the left hand side of the page there is a section where it says "In anderen Sprachen". If English is listed there you can just click the link for the English Wikipedia article on the author. Or else you can just look him/her up on the English Wikipedia, but maybe you've already done that. For easy translation you can put the article into [http://translate.google.com Google Translate], this will give a pretty approximate translation with lots of mistakes but will give you the general gist of the article. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 10:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:And if there is no article in the English Wikipedia, please let us know. Either you can create it, or one of us can. [[Special:Contributions/86.146.28.105|86.146.28.105]] ([[User talk:86.146.28.105|talk]]) 18:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
= May 30 = |
|||
== Preferred pronouns in non-English languages == |
|||
Living in the US, I've noticed a preference for non-"traditional" pronoun usage in transgender individuals (i.e. pronouns other than "she/her" or "his/him"). Some of these are new inventions (e.g. ze/zir/zem, if I remember correctly) and some are not (e.g. "it/its"). In some other languages such as Chinese or German, there are clear corresponding, relatively gender-neutual analogies to the latter case, but in others, such as French, I don't think there are words that currently exist "outside" of the feminine/masculine binary (which I assume is what the usage of such "preferred pronouns" is trying to achieve). In those languages, what (if any) methods are used to achieve results similar to the ones in English? --[[User:Morningcrow|Morningcrow]] ([[User talk:Morningcrow|talk]]) 13:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I've seen an example from a German speaker using Z-initial pronouns. This risks some confusion with the awfully-similiarly-pronounced feminine singular, polite second person plural and third person plural forms (zie vs sie), but it has at least been tried. I've not seen anything similar for French, and given that every single thing in French has a binary gender, I don't know where you'd start. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 14:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Starting points: try our article [[Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns#Romance_languages]]. If you can think of a page title you would have looked for, trying to find this, we can create a redirect so that future searchers find it more easily. [[Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender]] is also interesting, although slightly tangential to your question. |
|||
:I found a small discussion with French-speakers present, here: [http://french.stackexchange.com/questions/836/given-the-lack-of-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-in-french-how-should-one-refer-to-so]. They suggest that it's less sensitive in French, but I suspect I could also find discussions of English-speakers who don't understand what the fuss is about in English, so I wouldn't give it too much weight. |
|||
:It looks like some non-binary French-speakers find it frustrating, and typically have to default to the masculine, although there are attempts to create new terms: [http://humainsvolants.tumblr.com/post/76059430529/a-psa-on-non-binary-people-outside-of-the-english], [http://genreagenre.tumblr.com/]. [[Special:Contributions/86.146.28.105|86.146.28.105]] ([[User talk:86.146.28.105|talk]]) 14:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Chinese doesn't have gender-neutral pronouns (that refer to humans) in writing, but in speech, all third-person pronouns sound the same. There's no way to tell the person's gender from grammar alone. |
|||
:Gender is such an integral part of French that it's impossible to make gender-neutral overnight. Every noun, including abstract ones like "peace", has a gender. The gender is often completely unpredictable: "war" is feminine, for example, whereas "perfume" is masculine. The gender of a noun is not necessarily the gender of its referent: a "person" is always feminine, even when the person is male. Adjectives change based on the gender of their noun, as do articles (the/those) and sometimes even verbs. Impersonal pronouns (like "it is raining") always use the masculine. |
|||
:Making French gender-neutral is not as easy as changing one pronoun; it has to involve a drastic overhaul of the grammar. That said, there are many people who try to make French less male-dominant. See [http://cafaitgenre.org/2013/12/10/feminisation-de-la-langue-quelques-reflexions-theoriques-et-pratiques/] for one attempt. --[[User:Bowlhover|Bowlhover]] ([[User talk:Bowlhover|talk]]) 16:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Hence why I was wondering about French specifically - I couldn't see any way the issue of gender in terms of grammar might be avoided . I realise that Chinese doesn't have gender-neutral pronouns that refer to humans either, but since part of the cases I'd seen in English involved use of "it/its" as a personal pronoun I was less interested in that specific case. --[[User:Morningcrow|Morningcrow]] ([[User talk:Morningcrow|talk]]) 19:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::The genders could be called A and E; then there would be nothing very strange about war being in A and perfume in E. They are just arbitrary groups of nouns. I've never understood why people attach so much importance to certain nouns referring to male and female humans that they insist on naming the entire grammatical categories after them even when (as in French) there's nothing else "feminine" or "masculine" about those categories. -- [[User:BenRG|BenRG]] ([[User talk:BenRG|talk]]) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, it is a language intended for use by human persons, so I don't think there's anything particularly surprising about nouns referring to human persons being given heavy importance. In any case, there are lots of situations where grammatical categories are named after a specific instance of them. For example, the [[dative case]] is so named, I believe, because it's the case given to objects of the verb ''dare'', "to give", but there are lots of datives that have nothing to do with giving. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Korean [[solfeggio]] == |
|||
{{collapse top|Never mind. Question was based on a misunderstanding on my part.}} |
|||
I was surprised to find that the musical notes in Korean are not do, re, mi but 빨주노초파남보 (''bbal, ju, no, cho, pa, nam, bo''). I didn't find anything about this in our article [[solfeggio]], and I also didn't find anything about it in the Korean wikipedia article [[:ko:솔페지오]], whose title is just a transliteration of "solfeggio". Does the Korean system go by a different name, and is there some other term I should be searching for? Is it derived from the European system but with completely different names for the notes, or does it have some other origin? It would be interesting to add something about this to the article, if sources can be found. --[[User:Amble|Amble]] ([[User talk:Amble|talk]]) 17:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Does the article [[Music of Korea]] lead you anywhere interesting? --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 18:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I haven't found anything there or linked there that's related to solfeggio or 빨주노. Do you have anything specific in mind? --[[User:Amble|Amble]] ([[User talk:Amble|talk]]) 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry, misunderstanding on my part. I missed a context shift and thought these were musical notes when they're actually just short names for the colors of a [[rainbow]]. --[[User:Amble|Amble]] ([[User talk:Amble|talk]]) 22:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
== artificial languages == |
|||
When people talk about artificial languages I have to wonder, isn't English an artificial language as well? It was made by humans and animals in nature don't speak it |
|||
:By artificial, people generally mean [[constructed language]], that is, one that is deliberately devised, with neat, precise rules of grammar. [[Esperanto]] is the best known example. English, on the other hand, developed gradually and haphazardly. As a result, [[English grammar|its grammar]] is a bit of a nightmare, even for native speakers. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 21:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: (ec) The language philosopher [[Rudi Keller]] once made the point that natural languages are what he called a "phenomenon of the third kind", something that doesn't really fit into the dichotomy of "natural" versus "artificial" things. Or, you might say, the phenomenon of language simply shows up a weakness in our definition of "artificial" and "natural", because these terms can mean a lot of different things. If you take "artificial" to mean "anything made by humans" and "natural" to mean "not made by humans", then of course language is artificial. However, normally we mean something else by these terms. An "artificial" language is one that was created by humans ''intentionally'', according to a systematic plan and design. That's the crucial difference. Normal languages are shaped by humans, and we all effectively keep shaping and re-shaping our languages and changing them – but we don't do so intentionally, with the conscious goal of creating a "new" language or changing one. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Why do you think that English was ''made'' by humans? Natural languages have to be learnt by infants, but so does walking: they do both naturally and effortlessly. Languages change over time, and as a consequence are different from each other, and hence from place to place; but so are bird-calls. Certain aspects of languages are consciously made by people, but they are pretty marginal to language as a whole. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 23:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== aluminum == |
|||
Why do Limey say "allie-min-un" instead of aluminum? {{unsigned|KieraCameron2077|21:40, 30 May 2014}} |
|||
:We (Brits) don't. We pronounce ''aluminium'' the way it's written, with an I before the U, just like in the names of most other elements ending in -um, like uranium and thorium. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: I want to dissasociate myself from the aggressive way the question was asked. However, the history of the word ''alumin(i)um'' is a bit of a sore point. Davy's original spelling <small>well, actually not quite his '''original''' spelling; that was one no one uses anymore, namely ''alumium'', but he changed it to ''aluminum''</small> is the one Yanks still use, and it was just fine; it converted the feminine ''alumina'' to a masculine form to mean the metal, nothing wrong with that. ''Platinum'' and ''tantalum'' also end in ''-um'' without the ''i''. |
|||
:: If it weren't for the letter of an anonymous meddler to some journal, the whole world would call it ''aluminum'', and that would be better. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Or, according to our article, if it wasn't for a mis-spelt advert, America would still use -ium, as it did for most of the 19thC. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: The ad used Davy's correct spelling. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I blame Noah Webster, who introduced lots of comedy mis-spellings into his dictionaries. Unfortunately, most Americans didn't get the joke. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Most of Webster's spelling reform did not catch on. I don't know whether that's good or bad; it's just a fact, and now they look extremely strange. See the history of the [[American and British English spelling differences]] article, or <s>[[Talk:American and British English spelling differences#American words ending in -ize with no corresponding term in British English|this discussion on the talk page]]</s>. However, that has nothing to do with ''alumin(i)um'', which was unknown (as such) in Webster's day. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Sorry, wrong link for the talk page discussion. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Here's the correct one: [[Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 4#Obsolete spellings listed as "American" without explanation]]. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Um, actually we're both wrong - he spelt it correctly in the first edition of his dictionary, or at least according to our [[Aluminium]] article. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::<small>You mean he ''spelled''' it ''incorrectly''. HTH. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC) </small> |
|||
::::::::::<small>Nope, he ''spelt'' it ''correctly''. Time will shew that I am right. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::::::::::<small>Spelt is a grain. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 22:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC) </small> |
|||
::::::::::::<small>Spelt is the past tense and past participle of spell. I understand some foreigners spell spelt spelled. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 22:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:Actually, it was the British who changed the spelling from "aluminum" to "aluminium".[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=aluminum&searchmode=none] This is just one of those language oddities, like the question of whether to pronounce "iodine" to rhyme with "line" or "lean". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: Route - root or rout? In the UK it is root, in the US it can be either (that's eye ther not ee ther) :-). [[User:Widneymanor|Widneymanor]] ([[User talk:Widneymanor|talk]]) 07:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Meaning of a sentence == |
|||
In English what does it mean when someone says "the goy know shut it down"? |
|||
:That sentence doesn't make much sense. Where did you see it? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Do you mean "They're gonna shut it down"?!? If so, "gonna" is slang for "going to" which is used to indicate future tense. "to shut it down" is slang for "to end" whatever "it" is. So "they're gonna shut it down" means something is about to come to an end. However, if I misread your [[Eye dialect]] or if you meant something else, I'm sorry, but like Bugs, I can't make sense of what you actually wrote, because that sentence has no direct meaning. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 23:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, if you interpret ''know'' as the [[mandative subjunctive]], it could mean "let the Gentile know shut it down". Still doesn't make a ''lot'' of sense, but when it comes to interpreting strings of words as grammatical utterances, when there's a will there's often a way. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 23:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Why not "know" as "no"? Then it could be a reference, in broken English, to a Gentile who did not shut down a machine, for instance. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 23:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: (ec) I was looking for a way to interpret the written text as a grammatical utterance. Yes, I understand that that was probably not what the questioner was interested in. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
In Hebrew [[goyim]] or "goy" means cattle and refers to non-Jewish people. "The goy know" means that non-Jews have become aware of [[Zionist Occupation Government|ZOG]] and must be silenced (shut down) [[Special:Contributions/208.105.74.232|208.105.74.232]] ([[User talk:208.105.74.232|talk]]) 00:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:See our [[goy]] article. ''Goy'' does not mean ''cattle''. It means ''nation''. The Bible referred to everything that was not Israel as "the nations". In modern Yiddish, the singular ''goy'' has come to mean ''Gentile'' through a reasonably obvious linguistic process. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
= May 31 = |
|||
== Chinese tones == |
|||
Hi, the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wV8B4bx1lM (see e.g. section at 7:50) explains four Mandarin tones as high flat tone, rising tone, low flat tone, falling tone. Other places, such as Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Chinese_phonology#Tones have a down-up "V-shaped" tone instead of the low flat tone. Why the difference? [[Special:Contributions/86.183.31.9|86.183.31.9]] ([[User talk:86.183.31.9|talk]]) 00:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:From the [[Standard Chinese phonology#Tones|Standard Chinese phonology]] section you linked to above: "Third tone, low or dipping tone (上 shǎng, literal meaning: "rising")...has a mid-low to low descent; '''if at the end of a sentence or before a pause''', it is then followed by a rising pitch. '''Between other tones it may simply be low'''." Hope that answers your question.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 00:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Nevertheless, the video does seem anomalous in that the main presentation of the tone is as a flat tone. This seems contrary to all other explanations I have seen, in which the main or initial presentation of the tone is "V-shaped". If you search Google Images for "Chinese tones", for instance, every single picture looks essentially like the one in Wikipedia, and none look like the one in the video. On the other hand the woman in the video appears to be a native speaker, and teacher of some kind, at least she has lots of lessons on YouTube, so it puzzles me a bit. [[Special:Contributions/86.183.31.9|86.183.31.9]] ([[User talk:86.183.31.9|talk]]) 02:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::One way to think of it is like this. The v shape is correct. Tone 3 is a falling, low, then rising tone. But whenever it appears next to a higher tone the initial falling and final rising gets swamped by the higher tone. And as you never hear two low tones next to each other (the first is always changed to tone 2), and as all other tones are higher, this always happens. You only hear the low part of it, and you think of it as a low tone. The exception is when the low tone is at the start or end; only then can you hear the initial fall or the rise. So there's no contradiction, it's just that in normal speech there's no difference, except at the start and end of speaking.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 03:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::John gives a good explanation. If it helps, you can think of it as a type of tone [[allophone]] (I see "allotone" in that article although with Mandarin's neutral tone given as an example). In that case it's not surprising that the native speaker doesn't differentiate between them. As it says in the allophone article, "(n)ative speakers of a given language usually perceive one phoneme in their language as a single distinctive sound in that language and are "both unaware of and even shocked by" the allophone variations used to pronounce single phonemes."--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 04:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Or, more precisely, [[Tone sandhi]].--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 17:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Would you say this the same way? == |
|||
I have here a book published in Great Britain in 1902. The title is "Modern Spiritualism: '''A''' History and '''A''' Criticism." This phrase bothers me. It does not roll off the tongue. I would prefer it changed into either: "Modern Spiritualism: History and Criticism" (both indefinite articles dropped) or: "Modern Spiritualism: The History and Criticism." |
|||
I am no language expert and don't know rules. My perception is intuitive. I read and the usage sticks in my mind. Reading something that essentially reflects English usage at the end of the 19th century I often notice that they used articles differently. It seems there were other standards. Is it correct or I am confused? Thanks, --[[User:AboutFace 22|AboutFace 22]] ([[User talk:AboutFace 22|talk]]) 02:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:The title is fine as written. Both your suggestions would work too. It's just a matter of preference. '''[[User:Calidum|<span style="color:#000000; font-family:serif">Calidum</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Calidum|<span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Talk To Me</span>]]</sup>''' 03:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I would guess that the author was just being modest in not claiming to write ''the definitive history'' or ''the final criticism''. Use of definite articles in the title sounds slightly pompous to me (it might be appropriate for use by a highly respected authority on the subject), but either indefinite or no articles sound fine. Titles of a hundred years ago tended (on average) to be slightly longer and less "snappy", though there are many notable exceptions. [[User:Dbfirs|''<font face="verdana"><font color="blue">D</font><font color="#00ccff">b</font><font color="#44ffcc">f</font><font color="66ff66">i</font><font color="44ee44">r</font><font color="44aa44">s</font></font>'']] 06:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:The second "A" seems redundant, so I'd drop that. If anything should be concise, a title should. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 06:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>[[Harlan Ellison]] once wrote a story called ''Out Near the Funicular Center of the Universe the Wine has been Left Open Too Long and the Memory has Gone Flat''. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 07:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC) </small> |
|||
== Non-verbal languages == |
|||
Are there any natural languages that are non-speaking, as in, writing-only languages? [[User:YeastyTrains|YeastyTrains]] ([[User talk:YeastyTrains|talk]]) 15:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:The simple answer to your question is Yes, there are plenty of [[sign language]]s, such as ASL, BSL etc. Tne question about writing-only languages is more complicated, and depends on what you mean by a language. There are languages such as Latin and Sanskrit which were never the native idiom of anybody (they were very similar to vernacular languages of their time, but they were codified into something a bit different); but they have nevertheless been spoken at various times, so they probably don't meet your criterion. Note that spoken or gestural languages seem to be something that people spontaneously develop (or at least, have an innate capacity to learn) which is not true, as far as we know, of written languages. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 16:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:There are also [[Whistled language]]s and [[Talking drum]]s. The are usually based on [[tone (linguistics)|tones]] of a spoken language, though, so may not technically qualify as "non-speaking".--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Possessive grammar issue == |
|||
At [[Przevalski's nuthatch]], a user has changed the opening sentence from |
|||
:"'''Przevalski's nuthatch''' (''Sitta przewalskii'')..." to |
|||
:"The '''Przevalski's nuthatch''' (''Sitta przewalskii'')..." |
|||
The addition of "the" is painful to my ear because in normal grammar we would never put an article before a possessive like this. In short, it sounds as strange to me as "The Einstein's theory of relativity is..." On the other hand, I recognize that the possessive here is actually part and parcel of the name phrase itself, and so could be viewed as really no different than "The bald eagle is..." Is there any formal guidance on this grammatical foible?--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 20:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:The change looks correct to me. You wouldn't write "Bald eagle is a bird of prey", would you? It's no different here. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 22:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I disagree. The species is referred to as though it belongs to its eponym; no article is required. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::That seems to beg the question. Yes, of course we wouldn't write "Bald eagle is a bird of prey", but that construction lacks the possessive that normally would bar prefixing an article if it wasn't part of a noun phrase. We also wouldn't write "Theory of Everything is" but we would write "Moore's law is" (and never "The Moore's law is"). Why is it different here?--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 22:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Word most liable to cause offense == |
|||
What is the most offensive word in the English language? [[User:Nerdy Pop 3|Nerdy Pop 3]] ([[User talk:Nerdy Pop 3|talk]]) 22:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:51, 31 May 2014
-