Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:32, 1 September 2015

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

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.

August 24

Compare: and vs with

Do you compare this and that or this with that? --129.215.47.59 (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With. You compare "with" and you compare "to". Akseli9 (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can also "compare .. and .. ", as in the traditional exam question formula "compare and contrast X and Y". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're making all the possible comparisons between three or more things, it has to be and: "Compare the proposals from Ford, Chrysler, and GM and pick the best one." If you said "Compare the proposal from Ford with (or to) the Chrysler and GM ones", they wouldn't be comparing the latter two with each other. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Dog" and "nine"

"Dog" and "nine" sound similar in Chinese. Any other similarities or differences between them? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Chinese"? As our articel Chinese language says, Chinese is a group of related but in many cases mutually unintelligible language varieties. The most spoken, Mandarin, pronounces the dog "gǒu", and the number nine "jiǔ" (using Pinyin), which is as similar as "go" and "Joe" in English. — Sebastian 15:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by "them" - dogs and nines? — Sebastian 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the OP was thinking of Cantonese，where 狗 'dog' and 九 'nine' are in fact pronounced the same, gau2 (in Jyutping). Of course, that doesn't answer the question what he means by "similarities and differences". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of when I was mentoring in an elementary school, and one pupil of Guangdong extraction asked me to say something in Chinese. I answered in Mandarin, and she replied angrily: "No, the other Chinese!" — Sebastian 16:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

As a Chinese speaker to whom neither Mandarin nor Cantonese is native, I remember being surprised when I was first told by an Australian of British descent that there were two kinds of Chinese, Mandarin and Cantonese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He meant restaurants. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your native variety of Chinese, if you care to say? --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

They have never claimed they are a native speaker of Chinese. It seems like they were taught "Chinese" (probably Mandarin or any artificial version of it), without being told which Chinese. HOOTmag (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceGuard did not explicitly claim to be a native speaker of Chinese, but did mention two varieties of Chinese and say that neither of them were native to him/her. Using the tacit assumption that PalaceGuard is comporting with the Gricean maxim of relevance, I infer that there is some other variety of Chinese that is native. --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or probably a native speaker of one of the other varieties of Chinese, as Trovatore mentioned. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell a native speaker? HOOTmag (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose we'll have to wait for PalaceGuard to come back, but it seems that he meant he is a native speaker of a Chinese language that is not Mandarin or Cantonese. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, Mr./Mrs. Palaceguard, if you hear us, please come out and tell us, both whether you are a native speaker of Chinese, and which variety of Chinese you speak. HOOTmag (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very much flattered that I have generated enough interest to warrant an email from KageTora himself! Trovatore's theory is correct. My native variety of Chinese is Wu. The first level divisions of Chinese by number of native speakers are, in order, Mandarin, Wu, Min, then Cantonese. Not having previously encountered the view, common outside of China, that Mandarin and Cantonese are the two main varieties of Chinese, I was surprised to hear that Mandarin and Cantonese are the "only two" kinds of Chinese to that person.

It may or may not have been the same person, but I also remember being asked whether I spoke "Cantonese or Mantonese". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he didn't say 'Wontun-ese'? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Term for choosing a term that sounds more palatable to an audience?

I KNOW there is a term for this, but I just can't think of it right now. It's right at the tip-of-the-tongue.

Some people may say, "I am pro-choice. He is anti-choice." Then some people may say, "I am pro-life. He is anti-life." The issue is still the same, but the wording sweetens the positions of the proponents by making the opposing side look bad. 140.254.226.232 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ameliorate? Akld guy (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemize, dysphemize, doublespeak. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

"Framing" - Framing_(social_sciences)#Framing_in_mass_communication_research, Framing_effect_(psychology). One side frames the position as "pro-life", the other side frames it as "anti-choice". You may find these articles about linguistic framing in politics relevant [1] [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another, possibly "malreported". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

I'll also throw Cognitive reframing, Cognitive restructuring, Cognitive distortion and Cognitive dissonance out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

"Spin". StuRat (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of political issues such as abortion, I agree that "spin" is the best term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before it was appropriated by the spin doctors, abortion was a personal issue (like "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong".) Being pro or anti simply determined whether you'd get a baby, rather than whether you'd get favourable press. Strange, but true. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, August 25, 2015 (UTC) 20:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“Just go ahead now.” What the fuck does that mean? It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just garbage. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Probably not the word that is on the tip of your tongue, but that describes "rhetoric" to me. Wikipedia article here: rhetoric. Wiktionary definition here: wikt:rhetoric. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmithing? Dismas|^(talk) 04:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscation, Orwellian, Newspeak. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be logomachy... I'd used "forced perspective", a term not properly belonging to the field semantically but which can be found giving some more or less matching results: [3]. Regarding rhetoric and ideology Kenneth Burke would be the one. --Askedonty (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As framed, a complex word choice. What are you thinking of?

Diction applies to rhetorical or poetic word choice, but the OP's example of pro-choice / anti-choice vs. pro-life / anti-life suggests not mere word choice but paradigm choice, i.e., framing. Cognitive linguist and metaphor theorist George Lakoff may be the most accessible introduction to the latter; Aristotle is, of course, the first rhetorician of diction in the sense of word choice.. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Any ambiguity in "Have you lived in the UK for 5 years ... ?" ?

"Have you lived in the UK for at least 5 years since you were 13?" I am not sure if this question is ambiguous for a native speaker or not. If someone lived in the UK from 2004 to 2014, but they have left the UK since, should they answer yes or no? Does the question "Have you lived..." imply that the you should still live there to be able to answer "yes"? Highly related: is it incorrect to say "I have lived in the UK from 2004 to 2014" if we are in 2015? --Lgriot (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your questions one at a time:

1) If someone lived in the UK from 2004 to 2014, but they have left the UK since, should they answer yes or no?

The answer depends on when that person turned 13. If the person was already 13 or older in 2004, then the answer is yes. If the person turned 13 more than 5 years before his or her departure in 2014, then the answer is yes. Otherwise the answer is no.

2) Does the question "Have you lived..." imply that the you should still live there to be able to answer "yes"?

No. It means, "Up to and including the present moment, does your time living in the UK total at least 5 years?"

3) Is it incorrect to say "I have lived in the UK from 2004 to 2014" if we are in 2015?

Yes, it is incorrect, because you have placed an end date on the time span in the past. If an activity covers a time span that ended in the past, you can't use the perfect tense. You have to use a form of the past tense, typically the simple past "I lived in the UK from 2004 to 2014." Nonetheless, you can still say "I have lived in the UK for more than 5 years since I was 13" because that statement does not include or imply an end date. It means, up to and including the present, your time in the UK totaled more than 5 years.

This is a more subtle point, but if the question were simply "Have you lived in the UK for at least 5 years?", then there would be some ambiguity, as one interpretation of the question would be that it asks whether you are still living there. Adding the "since" clause removes this ambiguity by setting up a time period running from the time the person turned 13 to the present and implying that the 5 years could be any part of that period.

Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so adding "since" removes the ambiguity. Indeed that is very subtle.--Lgriot (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify a bit more, there are different verb tenses which carry different senses. There's the simple, or preterite, past tense "I lived in the UK from 2004 to 2014", there's the imperfect or past progressive "I was living in the UK from 2004 to 2014", there's the pluperfect, "I had lived in the UK from 2004 to 2014", the past perfect progressive "I had been living in the UK from 2004 to 2014", the present perfect progressive "I have been living in the UK since 2004". All of these carry a sense of "pastness", but they indicate different relationships between the speaker, the event, the present time, and the temporal relation to other events which may be related. --Jayron 32 16:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the simple question "Have you lived in the UK for at least 5 years?" would only be asked if the person was known (or assumed) to be living in the UK. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco Polo, If you lived in the UK from 2004 to 2014 - and you left the UK in 2014, then I can still say: "You have lived in the UK for at least 5 years". Can't I ? I will be quite surprised if you say I cannot... Further, I will be totally wrong, If I claim in that case: "You have not lived in the UK for at least 5 years", won't I ? Anyways, I don't think the word "since" is needed in that case for removing any ambiguity. HOOTmag (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, the strenuously correct way to say it is "You had lived in the UK for at least 5 years". You use the pluperfect tense to indicate events which happened in the past and stopped happening in the past. When you say "You have lived..." you're using the Present perfect, which implies that the "end" of the action is the present time. So, to say "You have lived in the UK for at least 5 years" usually implies that the "living in the UK" could still be going on. If you use had, you would be implying that you don't live there currently. --Jayron 32 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to your last claim - that using "had" means the event is over, and I also agree to your first claim that "have" means the event could still be going on. However, "have" does not mean the event must still be going on. Using "have" is grammatically incorrect - only if a specific time in the past is indicated, e.g. in the following ungrammatical sentence: "You have done that yesterday". However, "I have done my homework", does not imply that I'm still doing my homework. Similarly, "You have done this five times", does not imply that you're still doing this. I can say "You have visited me five times", even if you have already stopped visiting me. Similarly, I can say "You have lived in the UK for at least five years" - even if you have already left the UK. If you want to make sure the event is still happening, you must indicate that somehow, e.g. by saying: "His stories have always been wonderful", or by saying "I have lived in the UK since 2004". HOOTmag (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot of ambiguity in what you mean by living in the UK for a year. Obviously if you take a two week break abroad you would still count that as living in the UK, but from the point of view of the Inland Revenue you could spend 182 days abroad, or in some circumstances more and still count as living in the UK for that year. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft sign and palatalisation in Russian

The introduction of the Soft sign article notes that the sign indicates the Palatalization (phonetics) of the preceding consonant, but the "Palatalization sign" begins by pointing us to Palatalization (sound change) to explain the glyph's purpose. Is the soft sign meant to indicate (phonetics) or (sound change)? In other words, does it have some historical-linguistics function (comparable to the difference between "rite" and "right", perhaps?) for two words with identical pronunciations, or does it actively demonstrate that the two words are pronounced differently, or am I misunderstanding the situation altogether? Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For examples of minimal pairs, I consulted my copy of Russian—Elementary Course—Book I, by Nina Potapova, published in Moscow in 1959, and available on Amazon. I found these examples.

брат ("brother") and брать ("to take")
мол ("pier") and моль ("moth")
мел ("chalk") and мель ("shoal")
лук ("onion") and люк ("hatch-way")

For audio files, I consulted Forvo at http://forvo.com.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb for Russian (can't speak to other languages). Generally, the soft sign does indicate a difference in pronunciation, as the opening paragraphs in the Soft sign article suggest: either a palatalization of the preceding consonant, or else a vowel that is "iotated." There are cases in Russian where a soft sign is written but not pronounced, e.g. дочь. These spellings may indeed tell you something about grammar or the development of the language.......but they're much rarer. Herbivore (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the relevant link here is palatalization (phonetics). The soft sign makes a difference in the pronunciation of a word today, and it is used in all kinds of foreign loan words for its phonetic function. It's certainly not indicating any historical sound change when it appears in FDR or William Randolph Hearst. --Amble (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link is now fixed. --Amble (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also should be noted that the soft sign (or the palatalized consonant it represents) also affects the preceding vowel somewhat, so that the o vowels in мол ("pier") and моль ("moth") are not identical. JackofOz and Любослов Езыкин can comment. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: your question is covered in most historical grammars of Russian (the so-called process of "the fall of the extra-short vowels", падение редуцированных). Unfortunately for English-speakers, most of them grammars are expectedly written in Russian, but you might consult two Russian Historical Grammars in English either by Kiparsky (1979) or by Matthews (2003).

To give you a general idea. In Old Russian the "soft" and "hard" signs (yers) originally designated two short fronted and backed vowels respectively, supposedly they were close to /ɪ̆~ɘ̆/ and /ʊ̆~ɤ̆/. They could be either strong or weak (see Havlík's law). At the same time all consonants, that were not already palatal, were palatalized before all front vowels, namely ⟨е и ь ѣ ѧ⟩. That palatalization was not phonemic but allophonic. Then around the 12th-14th centuries all weak yers was lost, while strong yers changed: ⟨ь⟩ to ⟨е⟩ and ⟨ъ⟩ to ⟨о⟩. This led to phonologization of the previous palatalization of the consonants before the soft yers. In other words, the words like мелъ and мель were initially different in the quality of their last vowels (back ant front), but later in the quality of their last consonants (hard and soft). Or in other words, the lost of the extra-short Slavic vowels led to the phonemic palatalization of Slavic consonants. This happened not only in Russian but in other Slavic languages also (with some exceptions, but it's too much to explain here). The hard sign was written at the end of words before 1918 for some orthographic reasons (often anti-etymological), but the soft sign is still used as a palatalization sign and usually corresponds well to the etymology of words.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the soft sign affecting the preceding vowel? μηδείς got me intrigued. I never heard of that. I certainly pronounce the o in both words the same. Wiktionary, too, transcribes both o's simply as [o]. Asmrulz (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact rules, I only took Russian 101, and have a limited command of the Rusyn language, but the teacher explained to us that the prior vowel was subject to "palatalization" as well, so that the textbook by Slavonica publishers would transcribe the two words as [mol] and [mo^yl^y]. (This is not a standard linguistic transliteration, but one meant pragmatically for Russian students.) The difference in the vowel is allophonic, not phonemic, so it might not be noticeable in the way that most English speakers don't notice the difference between "light l" and "dark l". This [4] describes it as vowel raising, which would essentially be a form of i-mutation. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is allophonic, and allophonic variation is rarely perceived by (native) speakers. The chapter about phonetics in Русская грамматика (1980) very well explain this issue.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, μηδείς and Lüboslóv Asmrulz (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy is diminutive of Margaret?

Why is "Peggy" diminutive for "Margaret"? They don't even sound similar to each other. One begins with M, and the other a P. The vowels don't line up. 140.254.226.236 (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's history seems to be based on rhyme: Margaret > Meg > Peg(gy). See Margaret#Nicknames_of_Margaret, and here [5] [6]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As with Mary > Molly > Polly, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happens with male English names too: Richard > Rick > Dick .... William > Will > Bill .... Robert > Rob > Bob, etc. --Jayron 32 18:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Edward, as Ed, which can become Ted, or in the old days, Ned. And Robert can become Robin, and in the old days, Dobbin. One of those oddities of English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And also Ellen or Helen > Ellie > Nellie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Nellie is generally for Eleanor, see Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis and Nellie Stewart. 18:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a little bit in our article on hypocorism, but far more in Zairja's response here, at Stack Exchange. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on Ellen allows that it can be considered derivative of Helen, Eleanor ... or Elizabeth. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian question

I took this photograph of people giving away free Coca-Cola in Ljubljana, Slovenia. What does the text on the Coca-Cola container say? JIP | Talk 20:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The adverb ênkrat means "once". (See also http://en.pons.com/translate/slovenian-english/enkratna.) The conjunction kot means "(just) as, (just) like", and the noun "kót" means "angle; corner". The adjective pŕvi" means "first". The noun poljub means "kiss".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm guessing this means something like "Just like a first kiss"? JIP | Talk 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing similarly, but I need to find out more about the first word.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Correction: Wiktionary categorizes kot as a conjunction, but the text on the Coca-Cola container uses it as a preposition.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]

The Slovenian expression Res je enkratna! at http://wol.jw.org/sl/wol/d/r64/lp-sv/102006293 (published by Jehovah's Witnesses) is equivalent to the English expression It is fabulous! at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006293. Probably enkratna means "fabulous'", and then the complete text means "Fabulous (just) like a first kiss".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ioscius (talk · contribs) isn't really active on the English Wikipedia, but if you can find him, he speaks Slovenian and can probably help. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"[As] unique as a/the first kiss". μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Unique' makes sense, and if that is what is intended, 'As special as the first kiss' is probably better idiomatic English. Akld guy (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here. Two separate adjectives exist: ênkraten (fem. -tna, neut. -tno) means "one-time, one-off, one-shot", while enkráten (fem. -tna, neut. -tno) means "unique". The tonal marks are sometimes indicated in dictionaries, but are not part of the standard Slovene orthography, so both adjectives are standardly written enkraten (masc.) / enkratna (fem.) / enkratno (neut.). Apparently, the second one is meant here. --Theurgist (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Akld guy's "As special as the first kiss" is nearly perfect, in English it's necessary to turn that definite article into a possessive pronoun, so "As special/amazing/unforgettable as your first kiss". -Ioscius ^∞ 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out that JIP asked what the slogan says, not what would be a good way to express the sentiment idiomatically in an English language commercial. Literally, the sign says "unique as first kiss", full stop. Adding [as] and [a/the] is appropriate only as the bare minimum necessary to make the sentence grammatically acceptable in English. Starting to write polished advertising copy in English (something I have done a bit of professionally) is far beyond what was requested. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody can complain that JIP hasn't been given enough information. You, on the other hand, would have given him the barest minimum. Akld guy (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summation: literally translated, the sign says "unique as first kiss". However, a proper translation would be "as good as your first kiss". Eman235/talk 04:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. I appreciate being told both what the sign literally says and how it would be properly translated. JIP | Talk 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giving someone a translation (something several of us here have done a bit of professionally) typically means "expressing the sentiment idiomatically in English". I'm not sure why you'd want to give someone a literal translation alone, if it makes no sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what I was asking for was both a literal translation and an idiomatic way to say the same thing in English. I can't think of how someone would think I would have been literally only interested in a literal, word-by-word translation. After all, I speak exactly zero Slovenian, so I was interested in knowing what the expression meant in the first place. JIP | Talk 19:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the correct answer was "[As] unique as [a/the] first kiss". μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

replacing a word with its initial (e.g. "F word")

Is there a term for euphemistically referring to a word as it's initial followed by "word" (e.g. "F word", etc)? It isn't covered at the euphemism article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is "Phonetic euphemism", and it is already covered ibid. HOOTmag (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say "citation needed". The other things classified in the article as phonetic euphemisms relate to the sound of the word, as "phonetic" implies, whereas this particular usage is based on the name of the initial letter. That's not necessarily "phonetic" as it will often include sounds that aren't in the word being euphemized, like the initial E sound in "F word". --65.94.50.17 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for translation from Spanish

I wonder if a good Spanish speaker could translate this?: Estamos pensando también salir del país. Esta semana nos han saludado mucho de México, demasiado. Debe ser porque últimamente fueron los Villa y Tomo como Rey y es un granito que se deja allá. Google Translate makes a hash of it. The first sentence I understand; I'm giving it for context. The speaker is a musician from Chile (Alonso "Pollo" González from Santa Feria); his language is often very idiomatic. Tomo como Rey is the name of a musical group; there is no need to translate it. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my translation, with expressions which are probably not idiomatic enough.

"We are thinking also of leaving the country. This week they have greeted us much from Mexico, too much. It must be because recently the Villas and Tomo como Rey went and it is a small thing that it is left there." (Alternatively, the last part can be "it is a small thing that is left there." The word granite can mean "granite" or "small grain".)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be exactly sure without the wider context (e.g., are these members of another group talking?) but this sounds like:

"We're also thinking of leaving the country. We've been welcomed by much of Mexico (i.e., "seen a lot of"), too much. It must be because los Villa y Tomo como Rey recently left, and there's only a little bit remaining."

What this little bit of is (the tour, fans, the country we haven't seen?) is unclear. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the last sentence is still a bit opaque but I get the gist of it. Looie496 (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

Linguistic history of China

Here are quite decent maps that cover the political and cultural history of China. But I could not find maps that deal with the linguistic history of China. I read some articles but still have some (or rather many) questions:
1) As I understand Old Chinese was originally located in the Xia state. Later during the Shan and Zhou dynasties this state expanded. What were the languages outside of the original Xia state? Was the expansion an assimilation of non-Sinitic languages into Old Chinese or rather a unification and amalgamation of closely related Sinitic languages?
2) What was the linguistic situation in Southern China during the Xian-Shan-Zhou period? I suppose in (Far) Northern China there were Mongolic, Turkic and Tungusic-Manchu speakers, in Western China - Tibetan speakers.
3a) Are the southern Chinese "dialects" the result of the later migration from the Xian-Shan-Zhou area and assimilation of the local non-Chinise languages (akin to the expansion of Latin and the development of the Romance languages)?
3b) Or did the southern Chinese "dialects" already exist in the Xian-Shan-Zhou period of Northern China?
4a) If (3a) is true how did the substrata affect the southern Chinese "dialects"?
4b) If (3b) is true how did the Sinitic languages appear in their current locations?
5) Where was the Proto-Sinitic Urheimat and how was the linguistic landscape changing anyway?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Chinese language has some information, and cites a few scholars. You may use that as a start of your research. --Jayron32 15:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, I read that and some other things, but it hardly helps. They are either very vague or even contradict themselves.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at this, but it isn't really possible to offer definitive or authoritative answers to most of your questions.

1) We don't know the geographic extent of Old Chinese. In any case, Old Chinese is defined as the ancestor of the modern Chinese languages spoken between 1200 BCE and the unification of China in 221 BCE. During this period, the language underwent considerable change, both linguistically and very likely in its geographic extent. The earliest specimens of Old Chinese date from the Shang Dynasty, not the Xia Dynasty. The language spoken by the prehistoric Xia Dynasty and its precursors was probably a precursor of Old Chinese. We do not know what languages were spoken by peoples surrounding the Shang state. Some very likely spoke dialects related to what we might call standard (Shang) Old Chinese, while others probably spoke unrelated languages. A major problem here is that, because written Chinese does not preserve the phonology of older versions of the language and because of a series of stages of phoneme collapse over the history of Chinese, it is impossible to reconstruct with certainty the Old Chinese pronunciation of many characters. In any case, foreign words were probably adapted to Old Chinese phonology. So it is almost impossible to use evidence such as place names and personal names from ancient Chinese in the way that those have been used to hypothesize about the linguistic affiliations of ancient peoples whose names are recorded in the phonetic scripts of ancient Greek or Latin, for example. However, the geographic area in which Chinese inscriptions occur did expand from early Shang times to the 3rd century BCE, and it is likely that the geographic area in which Old Chinese was spoken expanded with it. We don't know to what extent this expansion involved an "assimilation" as opposed to a replacement. Usually an expanding language does pick up some vocabulary from the languages it supplants, and this probably happened, but there are also cases such as Old English in which a language largely supplants its predecessor. Again, there is no evidence to indicate which process took place.

2) Scholars usually suppose that languages spoken in southern China before the 3rd century BCE belonged to the Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and Tibeto-Burman language families. There may also have been now-lost members of the Sinitic language family.

3 and 4) Most of the present-day Chinese languages are believed to descend from Middle Chinese, which probably spread beginning during the Southern and Northern Dynasties and continuing through the Tang Dynasty and supplanted (or to some extent assimilated) both other descendants of Old Chinese and languages not descended from Old Chinese that were still spoken especially in the South. Most of the present-day southern dialects did not exist as such before the first millennium CE. There was a significant migration at the beginning of the Sixteen Kingdoms period that brought speakers of early Middle Chinese from the ancient Chinese heartland along the Huang He to the heartland of the Eastern Jin Dynasty along the Chang Jiang (Yangzi). (See Jin dynasty (265–420).) A further migration south of the Yangzi into southern China took place during the Southern and Northern Dynasties, though the language probably spread not just through migration but also by adoption by speakers of other languages. There is an important exception to this pattern, Min Chinese, which seems to be descended independently from a form of Old Chinese, possibly brought to Fujian during the Han Dynasty, but also showing Middle Chinese influence. Again, because of the non-phonetic nature of the Chinese script and the process of phonemic collapse, it is difficult to know what forms derive from the internal evolution of the language and what forms, if any, are derived from other substrates.

5) We do not know the location of the proto-Sinitic Urheimat, partly because the membership of non-Chinese languages in the Sinitic family is disputed, and partly because the probable ancient diversity of Sinitic languages, which should have been greatest around the Urheimat, was probably later wiped out by the spread of, first, Old Chinese and, later, Middle Chinese. There is a pattern of cultural continuity between Yangshao culture and Shang culture that suggests that the cultural ancestors of the speakers of Old Chinese were centered in Shaanxi and Shanxi. Meanwhile, some scholars see the Bai language group as distant members of the Sinitic family. If this is true, it might suggest an Urheimat in the Sichuan Basin, bordering on the present-day area of the Tibetan languages. However, the evidence is inconclusive, so we can only speculate.

Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly tangentially, the OP might be interesting in today's post on the Language Log blog which discusses the origins of certain Chinese words and links to a lengthy paper examining the alleged linguistic and other evidence of whether the Xia dynasty actually existed, or was a myth invented for political reasons around a millennium later.

Some of the regular posters on Language Log are quite knowledgeable about the Chinese languages' relationships and histories. (Which is not to deny that Marco polo's own summary above is extremely interesting and useful.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, as our article on the Xia Dynasty points out, the existence of that dynasty is disputed. Still, most scholars believe that there was a predecessor state to Shang, centered at Erlitou, that largely corresponds to later descriptions of the Xia. So a majority of scholars of ancient China accept that there is a factual basis for the accounts of the Xia, even if not all of those accounts are factual in every detail. Marco polo (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese historiography, either in the past or in the present, has had a tendency to overage their history as a result of their ethnocentric mythology (a Chinese: "We are the greatest and most ancient civilization with the 5,000-years continuous history!" - a Western barbarian: "Ehm... OK" ☺). So I do not expect that everything said in Chinese manuscripts actually happened. Though we have at least a relative chronology (plus-munus 100-500 years - it's not too important for "the most ancient civilization" ☺).
Your answer was quite interesting. I thought myself if I could not find something clear then there is indeed little or no linguistic evidence (due to the absence of a Chinese phonetic writing in the first place). Anyway, my allusion with Latin and the Romance languages seems quite legit. The Yellow-Yangtze "Mesopotamia" might be like Italy where might be a proto-Chinese core somewhere (like Latium), and that core might be surrounded by Sinitic (like Italic) and non-Sinitic languages (like Etruscan, Celtic or Greek). The Middle Chinese expansion was like Romanization of the non-Italic tribes in the Roman empire (either by migration or assimilation), they were even close chronologically.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion of Chinese was like the expansion of Latin in some ways but different in others. Unlike Latin, which spread once, between about 200 BCE and 200 CE, Chinese spread twice. There was the Old Chinese expansion, from about 1000 BCE to about 100 BCE, which left a variety of divergent dialects. Then there was a second expansion of Middle Chinese, from about 400 CE to about 700 CE, which supplanted all other dialects descended from Old Chinese with the exception of Min Chinese. So, in terms of chronological depth, Min Chinese is most distant from, for example, Mandarin. Since the divergence of Old Chinese dialects was roughly contemporaneous with the divergence of Germanic languages from Proto-Germanic, the relationship of Min Chinese to Mandarin is analogous to the relationship of Swedish to English. The divergence of Middle Chinese dialects is more recent than the divergence of Romance dialects from Vulgar Latin. Chronologically, it is more comparable to the divergence of the Slavic languages. So the non-Min southern Chinese languages have a relationship to Mandarin analogous to the relationship between, say, Czech and Russian. Marco polo (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Old Chinese expansion was in the Yellow-Yangtze Mesopotamia? I think the origin of Min may be a little different: some archaic peripheral dialects (periphery always tends to be more archaic) moved southward as a result of the fall of the Yue state. The migration might be not so massive, but still proto-Min Old Chinese could assimilate the local population. The later conquest of the Min state forced that assimilation.

I don't think that the expansion of Latin happened once in the short span of time. There were rather several waves (the first one was during the conquest of the Italic peninsula) into several directions (Hispania, Gallia, Africa, the Balkans). The spread and the dissolution of the Slavic languages was also much durable, the last stages are thought to be as late as the 12th century. What confuses me is the modern Slavs still somewhat can understand each other, but as I know understanding between the speakers of the Sinitic languages is close to zero. They may be quite recent (not much than 2000 years) but these Chinese "dialects" are rather like the groups of the Indo-European family. Probably the first waves were during the Qin-Han period. And due their nature the changes and differences are more prominent than in other language families.

By the way I found in ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese a very good overview of the history of the language[7]. And I also found some interesting maps [8][9][10] (I cannot say where they are from, don't you know?).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first two maps are from The Cambridge History of China, V. 1, pp. 241, 242.[11]--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

Out-and-out

Wiktionary:out-and-out tells me that "out-and-out" means "complete, utter". I already knew that, but both examples they give refer to negative things: an out-and-out idiot and an out-and-out lie. The Douglas Adams' quote refers to "an out-and-out atheist", almost as if that were akin to being a criminal.

Is this ever used of positive things, eg. "He is an out-and-out champion", or "I have spoken the out-and-out truth"?

Where did this expression come from, and is there a corresponding opposite, such as "in-and-in"? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By searching Google News, I found "five out and out world-class players" here and "out-and-out champion" here.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definitions are indexed at http://www.onelook.com/?w=out-and-out. Vocabulary.com (http://www.vocabulary.com) has (at http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/out-and-out) the definition "complete and without restriction or qualification; sometimes used informally as intensifiers" and the synonyms "absolute, downright, rank, right-down, sheer, complete". A plumb line (with a plumb bob) indicates a completely vertical line, so "downright" is equivalent to "plumb": "a downright winner, a plumb winner, an out-and-out winner". Another synonym is "outright", alluding to a completely horizontal line like that indicated by a spirit level.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halsbury's Laws (title "Gaming") reports a nineteenth - century case on the clause in the 1845 Gaming Act which prohibits bringing legal proceedings to recover any money paid to any person to abide the result of a wager. The judge ruled that the clause meant "paid out and out" and did not operate to prevent the litigant recovering his own stake. However, before you all rush off to the betting shop to reclaim all those losing bets you've had over the years please note that although the statute makes betting contracts unenforceable they are not illegal so the bets stand. 89.240.30.79 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gambling Act 2005 makes gambling contracts enforceable. See here for some info. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to correct the impression some readers may get that gambling contracts were unenforceable before 2005. That's not the case. Casinos can and did sue customers for the amount paid for chips where the customer's cheque bounced or was stopped. Bets with totalisators or their agents have always been recoverable in the courts because one party (the tote) cannot lose so it's not a gambling contract. The same with football pools. In one case involving Vernons Pools a client sued for a dividend not received (I would guess that either the agent pocketed the money or the coupon got lost). The court held that the provision in the rules that the transaction is a "gentlemen's agreement not intended to create legal obligations" and that the agent is the agent of the customer meant the client could not recover.

The plaintiff's lawyer argued that the agent is quite obviously the agent of the pool promoter (he hands out the coupons, collects the money, sends the coupons to the promoter, gets paid commission etc.) and then invoked the maxim "notice to the agent is notice to the principal".

However, it is true that for a legally binding contract to come into being there must be an intention to create legal obligations. So for example if two scrabble players agree that whoever loses the game will go out and buy kebabs for both at the local takeaway that is not legally enforceable. The judge agreed that the agent was acting for the promoter. As he put it, "You can say in the contract that black is white but that doesn't make it true". Nevertheless, the client had signed away his legal rights and could not claim.

The National Lottery has been sued by players for winnings in cases where either the ticket was lost or the claim under the lost ticket rule was made outside the 180 - day deadline for claims. The lottery started in 1994 and whether any cases pre - date 2005 I cannot say. 89.240.30.79 (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's say that two drinkers are playing cards in a pub and are betting on the outcome of the hands. By closing time one player is ten thousand pounds down. Do you think his opponent can recover his winnings by issuing a writ in the High Court? The courts have always regarded gambling suits as void as being an abuse of process. Do you know of any cases which have actually been brought? 89.240.30.79 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verse of the old music-hall My Old Dutch begins with the lines "I've got a pal, A reg'lar out an' outer", where "out an' outer" is clearly meant positively. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other gambling cases you might come across are where a friend contributes to the cost of a ticket but the player keeps all the money. That is why the National Lottery recommends that syndicate agreements be reduced to writing. Sometimes the syndicate leader doesn't tell the members they've won, or says they won less than they actually did, or misrepresents the bet which was placed or the results in cases where the members have a record of the selections and check them against the results. Another variation on the theme is where the player hands in the ticket to the shop for checking and the proprietor tells him it is a loser after verifying it is a winner, retains the ticket and claims for himself. That requires the National Lottery to be pretty proactive and note that a National Lottery outlet is claiming a jackpot. All this is peanuts compared to the people who simply do not claim even multi - million pound wins, on a par with the billions which the banks have in dormant accounts and life insurance companies have in policies which have matured but are unclaimed. 92.24.106.233 (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration of French into Hebrew

I need some help with something that I should really be asking about at the Hebrew equivalent of the reference desk, but I don't speak Hebrew. So I was hoping somebody could get this information for me from Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians.

I would like to find detailed instructions for transliterating French names into Modern Hebrew in a standard way, if there is such a thing. For example, this could be some agreed upon system used in Israeli newspapers or library catalogues. I would obviously prefer it if the instructions were in a Western language, but I understand such a thing may only be available in Hebrew, in which case I will make do with the Hebrew text. But first I need to find it.

Thanks for any help you can give me. 184.171.213.97 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a a page of instructions for transcribing French names into Hebrew (it's in Hebrew, unfortunately).

At the Hebrew Wikipedia's Language reference desk, requests for transcriptions from various languages are a pretty usual thing, and many of the users know English, so it wouldn't be much a of a problem if you use English to post any questions you may have.

You could also ask me if you'd like to have (suggestions for) Hebrew renditions of some specific names - although I'm not really a Hebrew speaker, I'd say I do have some idea of how transcription works. --Theurgist (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. That Hebrew Wikipedia page looks like it will do perfectly. I'll start with that and ask again if I have trouble with specific issues. 184.171.213.97 (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Life hack?

When did an idea, a suggestion, a tip or a handy hint become a "life hack"? Who dreamt up that stupid, stupid expression? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You left out one "stupid". Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny O'Brien did, in 2004, according to the article on life hacking. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, Jack, you just gave it a whole lot more publicity. Reminds me of the way the Bible says to blot out the remembrance of the Amalekites because of what they did, thus guaranteeing that their name would live on for the next few thousand years to the present day, lol. Deuteronomy 25:19 for anyone interested. Akld guy (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very interested. Thanks. That book (which English has the Greeks to blame for misreading) is full of spiritual Gameshark codes. There. Now they're both public. May the least stupid sounding make it (loosely translated, at least) into the history books, and may the other join what's-his-name. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

I've only ever seen it on Lifehacker.com, Jack. It basically means a way to fix something in your life. Hacking into a computer can be used for benevolent means, too. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see it on social media all.the.time. I know what it means (see my question). I was just questioning the need for such a neologism; despite claims of it being the second most useful word of 2005, I still say there's no need for it. Anyone who doesn't see things my way is wrong, and all intolerant people should be shot. The end. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And then there are food hacks, such as how to dice an onion[12]. Bus stop (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

It's not clear to me that our article really addresses Jack's question. O'Brien still seemed to be using the term to describe computer programming techniques. The transition to mean "tips and tricks for everyday life" comes with a big ol' ^{[citation needed]} tag on it. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 Least Effective Life Hacks People Apparently Use touches on the "cottage industry" it has become. And here are 12 'Life Hacks' by People With No Idea What Life Hacks Are. Also, 8 Stupid Kitchen Hacks (Tested for Usefulness). Cracked has more, but things work best in threes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, August 31, 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not there is a Life hack: Slice and cut a watermelon in seconds. Bus stop (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same with those "instant karma" (aka "justice p**n") videos. Most of them are just videos of generic fails and clearly show that the person has no idea what karma is. Asmrulz (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instant gratification is a mind trap; revenge is a dish best served cold. Quickly rushing to burn a witch for the sake of parental panic can come back to haunt those precious, stupid children. Troubled by nightmare disorder? Use a common household razor to slice and cut your eyelids off in seconds! Problems with invasive pests? Ultra-high sound waves will make them scream their antennas off, guaranteed!

This justice porn manages to grasp the idea of rapid-fire karma, while also solving the First World problem of not enough chair legs: Simply raise yourself, you spoiled brats! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is relevant or not, but 'life' may have been used as an acronym by O'Brien in the same way that LIFO and FIFO are used in computer terminology to mean 'Last In, First Out' and 'First In, First Out' respectively. I'm wracking my brains to think what 'LIFE' might mean, though. Akld guy (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be a hard philosophical question, till Google made it easy. There are only so many seconds in the day, whether you're using them to code software or save the princess ASAP. There are two sorts of players in LIFE. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

"The object of the game of life is to see clearly one's good and to obliterate all mental pictures of evil. This must be done by impressing the subconscious mind with a realization of good. A very brilliant man, who has attained great success, told me he had suddenly erased all fear from his consciousness by reading a sign which hung in a room."

Life hack from 1925. I wonder if it still works. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

One weird thing to remember about all manner of tricks, tips, techniques, textbooks and training is that different strokes work for different folks. A great idea in the wrong hands is a waste of time and potential. And what those lucky few make do with what they have may itself work for some and not others. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

August 31

Antiquated Superlatives for Victorian-style poster.

Sorry - this is going to be a rather vague request - but you guys have done well for me in the past, so here we go!

I'm trying to compose a poster of the kind that were around in Victorian times where a product was ridiculously over-hyped using flowery words and a dozen different fonts.

I'm having a hard time finding enough superlatives and other similar words that feel sufficiently outdated for modern speakers - yet are still comprehensible to those who are reasonably literate. So I have phrases like "Replete with sundry alchemical substances" and "An avuncular event with luminaries and sages of all kinds"...but I'm running dry on similar sounding stuff.

I guess I'm really looking for a pile of those dusty and overly flowery words to play with. Whatever you have would be good!

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help at all? -Jayron 32 16:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The electric corset looks interesting. It might be an early attempt at a Sauna Belt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of old-fashioned compliments [13] that might work for products. the Language of flowers might also have some inspiration, either in visually including certain flowers or just using their names. The posters for Medicine_shows and patent medicine seem especially ripe for mining, e.g. [14]. Girl Genius [15] often uses this kind of language, but it might take a while to find the appropriate pages, and you wouldn't want to directly plagiarize. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an event 'avuncular' doesn't sound right to me. Unless it's some kind of uncle-centric society. :) 64.235.97.146 (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary offers two meanings:

In the manner of an uncle, pertaining to an uncle.
(by extension) Kind, genial, benevolent, or tolerant.

...I kinda meant the second one...but I guess you're right. This is why I need help! SteveBaker (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to write a numerical expression in words

I would like to know exactly how to write a numerical expression in words. As an example, let's use the number 542,879 for illustration. I know that there is, obviously, "five hundred forty two thousand" and "eight hundred seventy nine". My question is in the details. Where do hyphens go (if at all); where do commas go (if at all), where does the word "and" go (if at all). Stuff like that. Also, capitalization versus lower case letters. This is if it were to be written in a formal paper, where the words (not numerals) are required. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be "five hundred and forty-two thousand, eight hundred and seventy-nine" in British English, and "five hundred forty-two thousand, eight hundred seventy-nine" in American English. Dbfirs 20:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add a couple of additional points. (1) There would be no capitals, unless beginning a sentence or proper noun. (1a) I'm American. In writing a check/cheque/draft on my account, I will normally capitalize the first letter of the amount on the check itself. (2) In the United States, you will often hear the ands in speech. But they are not "standard" in US English, so one would not write them. (3) Truthfully, in Standard English, at least in the US, most style guides will tell you that only numbers through "ten" are written out as words. So while I presume you have some reason to want to write this out in words, in normal standard written copy you should use numerals for a number like that. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, I am American. So, I am concerned with the USA way of doing things. The purpose is to write them in a formal paper, in the following manner, as an example. This is to verify that twelve (12) widgets were received by the client last Wednesday. For example, when one has to write out the actual words and also numerals in parentheses. That type of thing. Back to the question (and the reply above by Dbfirs). Why are some numbers (e.g., forty-two thousand; also, seventy-nine) hyphenated, and some (e.g., five hundred; also, eight hundred) not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the numbers from 21 to 99 (twenty-one to ninety-nine) are hyphenated, and no others (obviously, this includes the "twenty-one" in "twenty-one thousand" or "twenty-one million" as well.) Why? I have no idea. That's the rule, though. --Ashenai (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90. —Tamfang (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason but a difference: forty-two is addition, five hundred is multiplication. Five hundred bottles is five times {hundred bottles}, and I imagine that in some languages it's analyzed that way: five hundred-batches of bottles. (In French this is true of millions.) But forty-two bottles is not forty times {two bottles}; the forty and the two belong to the same level of structure. —Tamfang (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

Translation from Low German

Can anyone please help me translate a poem by Klaus Groth into English or into Standard German?

This one: [16]

I tried asking a couple of friends from other German regions, but they could only understand bits of it. --My another account (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any friends from the Netherlands you could ask? Dialects of Low German are also spoken there, so a speaker of one of them might find Groth's dialect more accessible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rough translation:

Let me go, my mother's asleep!
Let me go, the watchman is calling!
Listen, how quiet and beautiful it sounds!
Go, and leave me nicely here.

Look how the church towers there so large.
By its walls the dead are asleep.
You too sleep well and think of me!
I will dream of you all night.

Mother's awake, she will sure hear us!
Enough now! Good-bye, good-bye!
Next night, when she'll be asleep,
I'll stay here until the watchman calls.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I am from the wrong part of Germany to really comment, but) I am curious why you translate "dar slöppt de Dod" as "the dead are asleep". It does not look plural to me (but it makes a lot more sense than the "there sleeps Death" that I would have guessed). Is "de Dod" commonly used for "the Dead"? —Kusma (t·c) 14:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that too, and I'm not a speaker of the dialect either. There are plural verbal forms in -t in Low German, although according to conjugation tables on several websites I just checked, the plural form would be "slaapt", not "slöppt", so it does seem rather more like a singular form here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Slovenian question

I took this photograph of Slovene text in the Metelkova district of central Ljubljana, Slovenia. What does it say? JIP | Talk 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Copula in Slavic Languages

Zero copula#Russian discusses Zero Copula in Russian. Is this present in other Slavic languages, or particular to Russian? I have a Serbocroat textbook that suggests kuća je mala.

@@ Line 372: / Line 372: @@
 [[File:Slovene text in Metelkova.jpg|thumb|right]]
 I took this photograph of Slovene text in the Metelkova district of central Ljubljana, Slovenia. What does it say? [[User:JIP|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
+== Zero Copula in Slavic Languages ==
+[[Zero copula#Russian]] discusses Zero Copula in Russian. Is this present in other Slavic languages, or particular to Russian? I have a [[Serbocroat]] textbook that suggests ''kuća je mala''.