Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 23

Pre-WW1 German physics paper

I need to understand a German physics paper for which an English translation cannot be located.

I have not done too bad so far with Google Translate, but the following paragraph comes out pretty much meaningless (The online Babylon translator is hopeless, as is Bing):

Wir betrachten ein elektrisches Teilchen T, das sich in mehr als 10-4 cm Abstand von den Elektrode befindet. Um den Nachweis zu führen, daß die quantenhafte Struktur der in der Umgebung von T vorhandenen Elektrizitätsmenge keinen merklichen Einfluß auf die Bewegung von T hat, genügt es, zu zeigen, daß die mittlere Wirkung eines Nachbarteilchen auf T um mehrere Zehnerpotenzen kleiner ist als die durch diese Wirkung geändert wird. Denn es kommen für die Strukturwirkung ja nur die nächste benachbarten (10 bis 100) Teilchen in Betracht; die Wirkung der weiter entfernten ist auf alle Fälle dieselbe, als wenn die Elektrizität kontinuierlich verteilt wäre.

Where I have typed "T" above is a character in the publication that seems to be a symbol. It looks like an upside down question mark (?) with two tilds (~), one above and one below.

Can somebody fluent in technical German translate this? Is the symbol something that gets common use in German?

Note: In other parts of this paper, there seems to be a lot of spelling errors. About one per sentence(!!), which causes Google Translate to crunch its gears. 124.178.111.204 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Most unlikely that Schottky's 1914 paper would be full of spelling errors. The above text has considerable flaws and omissions with respect to the 1914 paper, so for example the part "die entsprechende Eigengröße des Teilchens" was completely omitted. The symbol ${\mathfrak {T}}~$ is a Fraktur capital T. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right - I did miss out a phrase. The correct paragraph is:-

Wir betrachten ein elektrisches Teilchen T, das sich in mehr als 10--4 cm Abstand von den Elektroden befindet. Um den Nachweis zu führen, daß die quantenhafte Struktur der in der Umgebung von T vorhandenen Elektrizitätsmenge keinen merklichen Einfluß auf die Bewegung von T hat, genügt es, zu zeigen, daß die mittlere Wirkung eines Nachbarteilchens auf T um mehrere Zehnerpotenzen kleiner ist als die entsprechende Eigengröße des Teilchens, die durch diese Wirkung geändert wird. Denn es kommen für die Strukturwirkung ja nur die nächstbenachbarten (10 bis 100) Teilchen in Betracht; die Wirkung der weiter entfernten ist auf alle Fälle dieselbe, als wenn die Elektrizität kontinuierlich verteilt wäre.

This has been double checked letter by letter with the scan of the original our library made for me.

But Google Translate still doesn't output anything that makes any sense. Can you offer an English translation?

When Google Translate doesn't recognise a word, it leaves it untranslated. More often than not, from the context one can pick the spelling or typing error that threw it off. Whoever typeset the original text sometimes typed an i where an l goes. Sometimes Google does better if double dots are added above certain letters.

124.178.68.147 (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"We consider an electric particle T, which is located in more than 10^-4 cm distance from the electrodes. In order to prove that the quantum-like structure of the quantity of electricity existing around T has no noticeable influence on the movement of T, it suffices to show that the average effect of a neighboring particle on T is smaller by several orders of magnitude than the corresponding proper value of the particle, which is changed by this effect. Because for the structural effects only the (10 to 100) nearest neighbor particles come into consideration; the effect of the particles further away is on all accounts the same as if the electricity would be continuously distributed." --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes a bit more sense than Google's effort.1.122.84.64 (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You say "Sometimes Google does better if double dots are added above certain letters". This is because double dots are significant in German; known as an umlaut, the double dots indicate a different pronunciation, which is therefore a different word. For example, Schön ("beautiful") is different from Schon ("already"), and the singular of "mother" is distinguished from the plural with an umlaut, Mutter versus Mütter. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I quickly realised that. That is partly what I meant when I said the original paper had a lot of spelling mistakes. The middle of the paper has fewer mistakes such as missing double dots and i where l should be. 120.145.25.4 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Eigengröße = intrinsic size; Elektrizitätsmenge = electric charge ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes more sense in context that Google Translate's best effort: "Self-size" and "quantity of electricity". One word Google T refuses to translate is "influenziert", "influenzierten" and similar, which according to Wictionary means something about affecting an uncharged body, which makes no sense. 120.145.25.4 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think "influenziert" (etc) must be a comparatively recent borrowing - it doesn't appear in the first two dictionaries I looked at - but simply means "influenced". I can't see it in the quote so can't place it in context.----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's used several times in this 1914 paper. Here's a sample:-

Fassen wir die Ladung dieser Schicht mit der entgegengesetzten, von ihr auf der Metalloberfläche influenzierten Ladung zusammen, so erhalten wir eine elektrische Doppelschicht, die einen Potential = 4 pi q x d x hervorruft.

Which I have taken to mean:-

Summing the charge of this layer with the reflection induced from it in the metal surface together, we obtain an electric double layer, which results in a potential = 4 pi qxdx.

Does that (somewhat awkward prose)look right to you?120.145.142.112 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is correct. The other point that the paper has missing double dots and i where l should be is certainly an artifact of the scan. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Influenzieren is an old - established German verb. The oldest example of its use I can find is in Johann Adam Schmidt's 1803 book Uber die Krankheiten des Thranenorgans:

... die Energie unkraftig (der Ausserung nach beurtheilt): so darf man sicher darauf rechnen, dass die hypersthenische Lokalreaktion des Thranenschlauches und der Nase nicht hypersthenisirend auf den Organismus influenziert ...

Nearby neighbor

Being a Brit, I would refer to someone living in my neighbourhood as a "near neighbour". I would never use the form "nearby neighbour". But, am I right in thinking that the term "nearby neighbor", and not "near neighbor", is more commonly used in the US? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Both sound valid to me, as a native Usian. We also use the term "nextdoor neighbor", which sometimes doesn't literally mean "the house right next to me" but can also mean "a very close neighbor". --Jayron32 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Next door neighbour" (three words) would be the UK equivalent of that. My reason for asking the original question was this edit, which looked odd to me but can be excused if it's USian. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not go without the adjective there? Just "neighbor" seems fine to me, but like you (though I'm an American), I'd use "near neighbor" if I wanted the qualifier. Deor (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here in the US NE I'd use nearby neighbour, if not next-door neighbour. But it's a pleonasm, as nigh, neigh(bour) and near all come from the same root. "Near neighbour" sounds odd to me. No one talks of a 'near store' or the 'near city'. And yes, I have always spelt it neighbour. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever heard nearby neighbor. (Grew up in a Midwest college town; lived on the west coast for all my adulthood if any.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If any of what? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Adulthood. —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Google ngram shows "near neighbo[u]r" being vastly more common than "nearby neighbo[u]r", although the latter use is growing a bit, especially in US. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Shorter link —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, neither expression sounds normal to me. I'd say that people are either neighbors or they aren't. You can describe a more specific geographical relationship such as a "next-door neighbor", but neither "near" nor "nearby" makes sense with "neighbor" to me. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The me, close neighbor sounds more normal than near neighbor or nearby neighbor. --Xuxl (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as an American I find "near neighbor" to be ambiguous, since I don't know if it means someone who is nearly but not quite a neighbor; someone who is a neighbor and lives quite close to my home, which I would call a "close neighbor" (and if they live immediately adjacent, a "next-door neighbor"); or someone who is a neighbor and happens at the moment to be in my vicinity, which I would call a "nearby neighbor." John M Baker (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

My experience is the same as John's (though I'm from Canada). 64.235.97.146 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In Australian usage, which in most things is a hybrid of British and American usage:-

• "My neighbour blah blah" refers to a person living in a separate house next door or the adjacent flat in a tower block.
• "A neighbour blah blah" refers to a person living in the same street or tower block.

"Near neighbour" would refer to someone living close by but not next door.

"Nearby neighbour" is not normally used.

In Australia many people live in duplexes. A duplex is essentially two houses siamesed together with a common wall. Some people refer to their duplex neigbours as "the other side" meaing the other side of the common wall. A coloqialism is to refer to them as "thumpers" as generally you can't hear your duplex neigbours but teh common wall does transmit low frequency rythmic sounds eg drums in music from stereos, TV sound affects, etc.

120.145.25.4 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In all the places I've lived, I never heard the term "nearby neighbour" until it was mentioned here. You can't walk along your street from your house and reach a point beyond which you can say the residents are no longer neighbours. "Near neighbour" to us is someone whose house is not very far away. When I lived in Australia, at the time when "Real Estate" was advertised in the local paper (we had one, the West Australian, although on Sundays there was an Independent, which may not have carried classified advertising) I saw ads for duplexes and triplexes and I could never work out what these were. I see now that they are semi - detached and terraced homes, separated by a party wall. Within the past few days I've seen luxury newbuild London apartments advertised as "duplex" - can anyone explain what these are? 92.24.105.244 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Most houses in Australia are bungalows. I used to know the origin of this word but I've forgotten - can someone give the derivation? They are also made of wood, at least in the outer suburbs. In the centre of Perth there are old colonial - style houses which are more than one storey. Does the term "duplex" give any indication of the number of floors? 92.24.105.244 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

At least in Australia, the term duplex does not confine the dwellings to one story. They can be two story of even three, though that would be rare. Three story terrace houses (ie three or more dwellings with common walls between each two) are common in city redevelopments. Timber dwellings are very very rare in Western Australia due to the availability of cheap bricks. On the east coast "brick veneer" ie brick outside, inner wall and all partitions fram and clad are common, but extremely rare in Western Australia (due to cheap bricks) where double brick construction rules. Bungalows (houses with verandas) were popular among the financially better off until the 1950's. The cost, a move to smaller blocks, and the advent of airconditioning killed them off. You do see in Western Australia two story dwellings known as "californian bungalows". They were not originally built two story. Due to the double brick construction, you can add a second story in frame & clad construction without overstressing the walls and foundations. It is a popular way to increase the size of the home to cater for teenagers in growing families, add games rooms and home theaters etc. 1.122.189.85 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We have an article Duplex (building) with no mention the Australian usage, but it doesn't seem far removed from the American. I thought a duplex was a type of steam engine, but what do I know? Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

English understanding problem

The world population stated in this article, was it starting from ‘00:00 01/01/1985’ or for during the whole year, from ‘00:00 01/01/1985’ - ‘23:59 31/12/1985’? -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

See World population estimates, especially this sentence: "Taking these numbers at face value would be false precision; in spite of being stated to four, seven or even ten digits, they should not be interpreted as accurate to more than three digits at best." And note that the population estimate in 1985 doesn't match any of the estimates given in the table at World population estimates#1950 to present. Deor (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. So, what do you suggest would be a satisfactory statement? "World population at the year of 1985 was ±____ billion people."? -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue, Russell.mo, is that World Population cannot be estimated, at any time, to more accurately than probably +/- 10,000,000 people at best. That means, we can tell the difference between, say, 7,110,000,000 people and 7,120,000,000 people but not between, say 7,110,000,000 and 7,110,000,001 people. Or, to look at it another way: we do not now, nor ever have had, a reliable means to count and track every single human on the planet. So we cannot be infinitely precise in our measurements. To pretend we are more precise than we can be is called false precision. What some sources to is to interpolate numbers between reliable estimates, a dubious practice that results in false precision.

Just as a completely made-up example, say we know that world population in January, 1980 was 5,000,000,000 people and in January, 1990 it was 6,000,000,000 people. Lets say (just for the sake of this thought experiment) that world population grew linearly between those dates. So, a reasonable interpolation might be that the population was 5,500,000,000 people in 1985, and 5,750,000,000 in July, 1987, and so on. Now, at some point, our interpolations become unreasonable; for example an estimate (by interpolation) of world population, of 5,756,253,127 people at 2:47 GMT on July 23, 1987 would be completely bonkers: Our initial estimates we're using for the endpoints of our interpolation exercise were not precise down to a single person so our interpolations cannot also be that precise. Likewise, nailing down population on a specific date and time is equally silly.

It's like use the odometer on your car to measure the thickness of a human hair. Since the odometer is at best accurate to a tenth of a kilometer (maybe you could guess at the hundreths of a kilometer by figuring out which fraction of a turn the last digit has moved), there's no way you could use that tool to measure the thickness of a hair, which is far smaller, by MANY digits, than a tenth or a hundreth of a mile. Likewise, when the best our estimates can give us is 3 digits of precision, (for a population in the billions, that'd be in the tens-of-millions), pretending that we can then figure out EITHER that the population will be, say 7,334,771,614 in 2016 (which is what the U.S. census bureau estimates state) OR that you can figure out the exact date on which that population will be alive on earth, is just beyond ludicrous. Instead, as Deor notes, we should be speaking in broader terms, where we can nail down world populations to within tens-of-millions and speaking in terms of precision down to the year (and not any specific day within the year) when the population was at that level. --Jayron32 23:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you both are saying (in a way), what do you suggest I should write then? Before I posted this I wrote: “World population at the year of 1985 was ±4.8 billion people.” Thereafter I started thinking about the sentence e.g., does it mean for the ‘whole year’ or ‘starting of the year’ or ‘ending of the year’… Please modify the en-quoted sentence if you wish in order to make it a sense. A clarification is sought. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be using ± to indicate 'approximately', but I believe that symbol is inappropriate and should be written ~4.8 billion. Akld guy (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got that from science. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

... and the 4800 million estimate seems to be mid-year. (The English idiom is not "at the year of 1985". I suggest "World population around the middle of 1985 was about 48000 4800 million." You can use "billion" of if your readership is American and younger Commonwealth, but it might be misunderstood by Europeans and others who use long scale.) Dbfirs 12:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think 48 billion is rather excessive. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol. It already feels like there's not enough oxygen. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I corrected up there using strikethrough. As you know, it was intended to be "4800 million" there. I imagine Americans would understand 4800 million as 4.8 billion, though we don't prefer it. But if the target is a global audience, probably better to use 4800 million, which is less ambiguous. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Two typos in one reply! I must check more carefully! Dbfirs 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer Russel.mo's main question, what I would say is "In 1985 the world population was 4800 million." That's of an acceptable level of precision, because it doesn't state a date within 1985 when it reached that population, nor does it pretend to be much more precise than it can be. --Jayron32 16:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks friends! -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

J, the second confusion I had i.e. I find it hard to believe that population counting is an issue in 2015; could've been before but not now? Technology is much more advanced than we could ever imagine; some technologies have come out, some did not, for official and non-official reasons. If we are lacking in calculating human population now, in this day and age, ammm...

Btw, your English is gone awesome! Keep it up! -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's easier to use technology to count the number of mobile phones than to count people. Dbfirs 07:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In this day an age!?!

An example:

I heard ('Matrix' movie), human body produces 120V; a battery produces the same amount apparently. Would this be relative? Or are you talking about ' radio wave' technology?

Btw, Microsoft Word does [CTRL + H]. Also if you go to a 'My computer's C drive' say 'program files' folder's 'properties' you can find out how many files are there (hidden and not hidden). We also know how to analyse heat signatures.

Jayrons statement only comes true if you are following tax paying system and benifit seeking system records, not to forget hospitals that provides birth certificates. All this only falls in the category of the 'first world countries'...

It is upsetting to know that 'the truth is out there'... I guess, if you guys don't know than it doesn't exist. However, I'll find it hard to believe that it doesn't exist.

One thing is for sure i.e. satellites are capable of searching people via their DNA.

Space Ghost (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence, being a joke, should be in small print. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I could be wrong about everything I'm stating, I still believe it could be possible. I'm keeping an open mind in this 21st century! -- Space Ghost (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How could it be possible to scan someone's DNA from a satellite? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing you'd need DNA (blood) first, (process it through the computer too), in order to identify the person thereafter... Who knows what computers can do these days! -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if you knew what a given person's DNA was, how would you detect that specific person from space? It's not like DNA sends out radar signals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That's true. Sorry! I thought I was smart! -- Space Ghost (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You have an unrealistic belief in the ability of satellites. Certain military organisations can't even distinguish between the enemy and allied forces or civilians, even with the best satellite imagery. Dbfirs 07:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

September 24

Are there volunteer editors who edit novels for writers who can't afford professional services?

Are there volunteer editors who edit novels for writers who can't afford professional edit services? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirdieTea (talk • contribs)

Perhaps, but no list available and not Wikipedia's core function. Explore writing circles, where one offers critique to others in exchange for same. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing a novel is a professional service; while there are accountants, doctors and lawyers who provide their professional services for free, they are rare and usually devoted their pro bono time to what they consider the worthiest of causes. Do you expect grocers, plumbers and booksellers to give away their products and services? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What we certainly don't expect is people giving away unhelpful comments for free. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. Ssscienccce (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Beta reader groups might be a first step? http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/50920-beta-reader-group Ssscienccce (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lots of volunteer editing goes on in the fanfiction world [1], and also in the erotica genre. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• We had this same question about a year ago. My remembrance is basically that you'll get what you pay for. A loved one or someone credited as a collaborator might be willing to do such potentially arduous work for free. You can serach the archives to get the earlier answers. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(OR): I am a retired writer who has volunteered to edit things (but nothing more substantial than a thesis), so I suspect those who voluntarily edit novels exist. How to find someone, I do not know.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this considered epenthesis?

I have noticed that the native (kun'yomi) Japanese readings of some words/phrases (comprised of kanji) contain a <no> character that doesn't correspond to any of the kanji - for example, 井上 is comprised of <I> and <ue>, but it gets read as <Inoue>; 都城 is comprised of <Miyako> and <jō>, but gets read as <Miyakonojō>. Would it be accurate to refer to this insertion of <no> as epenthesis, or is there another name for this? 155.229.41.46 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Epenthesis "means the addition of one or more sounds to a word, especially to the interior of a word" (emphasis added). Article references should answer question with reliable sources (but does not); perhaps rather than getting a one-off opinion, article could be improved with sources cited here? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Epenthesis is a diachronic phonological process, one of the many ways in which pronunciation can change over time. Unless there is evidence that the possessive 'no' was once not pronounced in these names and now is, I would not regard this as epenthesis but simply as one of the oddities of Japanese orthography - in fact, one of the remnants of kanbun. --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have no knowledge of the Japanese, but if an /n/ is missing after a final vowel, but shows up internally in a longer form, it is often not epenthesis, but retention of an original consonant that was lost word finally. For example, the names Nero and Plato both come from stems in -n. In Latin, the Emperor's name in the nominative was Nero and the genitive ending was -is, but instead of Nerois or Neris for "Nero's" you find the Latin Neronis. source. Compare also the reëmergence of the /n/ in Plato vs Platonic. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Russian version of Plato is Platon. While not exactly common there, it's still a somewhat more common given name than Plato is in other Western countries (I don't know about Greece). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The original Greek is Plátōn but the Latin form was nativized to Plato/Platonis in analogy with Nero/Neronis. Spanish and Italian use the forms Nerón and Nerone, given that most nouns in modern Romance developed from the oblique case form of the Latin word, not the nominative.

This is nothing like European inflection or sound change. The no is a possessive particle - a separate word. (I could imagine a theory which treated it as an inflectional suffix, but I have never encountered one). The issue here is whether the particle is present in the phrase which underlies the name, and whether it is written. I don't know about these cases, where the no is within one (element of) a name. But contrast the following:

"In the case of persons living before about 1200 it is customary in speaking (but not in writing) Japanese to insert the grammatical particle no ... between the two main portions of a Japanese name." - Miller, Roy Andrew (1980). The Japanese Language. Tuttle. p. xii.

That applies to the full name (family + personal) which is a different case from that being asked about, but is very much parallel to it. (Miller not mention that in modern names, no is neither written nor spoken).

In any case, I am sure that this is a question of orthography, not of phonology or grammar. --ColinFine (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this reminds me of whether to can him Beethoven or van Beethoven.

Also, ColinFinethe no genitive is indeed related by some [[Eurasiatic language|right wing extremist}} like Joseph Greeberg to the -n genintive found in words like Finnish minun, and Mongolian минийх "mine" and the English golden, "of gold". μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

September 25

Just a little Russian

I made this edit to the Russian Wikipedia article Пятидесятническое движение в США, which is apparently talking about Pentecostalism in the US. I've gotten a Notification in response to the edit, but it's by someone who's not particularly active here and doesn't mention English competency on his Russian userpage, so I doubt it would help to ask him. So...what's the notification about? Typing in Cyrillic is hard, and I can't simply copy/paste it, but I believe it's properly transliterated poblagodaril vas za vashu pravku na stranitse "Пятидесятническое движение в США". Perhaps it's a Thanks? Perhaps that my edit got approved? Russian uses Flagged Revisions a lot more than we do. Since I transliterated it but didn't get the original letters, I can't send it through a machine translator. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't help with the Russian, but I will point out that if you can't copy and paste the text, you can show it by taking a screenshot, uploading it somewhere, and posting a link. (As I understand it, if Wikipedia is where you upload it, you'll then have to request speedy deletion.) --174.88.134.156 (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly equal to the same "thanks notification" as in English Wikipedia: "%username% thanked you for your edit on [the page] %pagename%".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't resist using the Thanks, even though I prefer sending an actual note instead :-) I started writing "I wonder if there's a way to get the software to give me information in English", but the very act of writing the question reminded me that it's possible to change the interface language. Done, and now I see Slivkov vitali thanked you for your edit on "Пятидесятническое движение в США". I wish I'd remembered that this was an option. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

September 26

Arabic paleography

Probably, I ask about a thing nonexistent, but is there something close to Bischoff or Thompson's paleographic works but on Arabic script? Especially I'm intersted in when and how additonal non-Arabic letters have been invented, or in other words the history of letters.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with French translation

Could someone translate something in English into phonetic French for me? Thanks!Claire Anemone (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• /'kɛlkɘʃoz/ μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• /il brilg; le tɔv lybrisijø sə ʒir ã vrijã dã la gwab/ —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

/ju 'filsi 'iŋgliʃ kɘ'nɪgɨt/! μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick Japanese Translation

Not sure if this is the place to ask this, but I need help translating two non Wikipedia Japanese articles to English. Well, not so much translation, but more or less what the articles are saying. There's only so much Google Translate can do. The two articles talk about Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors and Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward

First article is really short, and I believe it mentions that for the release of Virtue's Last Reward, the developers made 999 free for a short time. This would be useful for the promotion section.

http://www.famitsu.com/news/201202/02009394.html

Second article is a bit longer. I had a hard time understanding this article, but I do believe it's talking about a game release party of the developers.

http://www.famitsu.com/news/201202/15010000.html

My apollogies if this is the wrong place to put this. If it is, then could you possibly point me to where I need to go. Thanks. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the correct place. The first article does say that in celebration of the release of VLR, Chunsoft made 999 free to play from 2012-02-02 to 2012-03-06. The second article is about a pre-launch press event for VLR on 20152012-02-15 starring Kotaro Uchikoshi (the director) and Mikie Hara (a gravure idol). It doesn't look like anything interesting happened. -- BenRG (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I need. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

September 27

Meaning

What is the meaning of Forthcoming? Chandelia16 (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Google is your friend.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also Wiktionary --catslash (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Or http://www.onelook.com. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Knightly address

Do other European languages have an equivalent to the convention of "Sir [name]" referring to knights? I'm curious, because it seems like in many cases the equivalents of "sir" and "mister" would be identical, for example Spanish señor. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish Don/Doña is somewhat like Sir/Dame, for instance in requiring to be followed by the forename. Historically it was applied to members of the nobility. --rossb (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe "Chevalier" might be used as a term of address in Francophone contexts relating to that qualification; similarly "Ritter" in Dutch and "Ridder" in German ones. See details within our article Knight. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you mixed up German Ritter and Dutch/Flemish Ridder there. But as for forms of address, I'd say German "de:Herr" is the equivalent to "Sir". It has lost a bit more of its associations with knighthood, but then even in English I would usually address an unknown man as "Sir" as a form of courtesy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I tried looking at all the various different language articles linked to Sir Galahad and none of them called him monsieur or señor or Herr or gospodin Galahad. They all just called him Galahad (in the local variant) or simply Sir Galahad. I don't think giving the modern translation of the term of address sir in English actually addresses the OP's specific question. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

September 28

"Bed smart"

Is there a common way in English to express that a person is highly competent in sexual matters in a similar way to the term "street smart" - and like that one, used unisex and with rather positive connotations? --KnightMove (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There's always the simple "good in bed". --174.88.134.156 (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"sheet smart"? -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Commented literature

What options do we have regarding series of literary analysis of classical works? Is there such a thing as Penguin Books with notes, academic analysis, and a thorough introduction? Something that's more serious that Cliff's notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A previous (short) thread on this topic is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 May 23#Commented editions of English literature. The Norton Critical Editions are still, as far as I know, the closest thing to what you're talking about (at least in terms of a fairly extensive series rather than one-shot annotated editions). Deor (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"... attributed with a little odd sense of humor".

Is the sentence "He is attributed with a little odd sense of humor." grammatically and semantically correct? How could it be improved? --KnightMove (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Little" is the problem word in the above. If you want to say he has an odd sense of humour; "He has an odd sense of humor.". If you're trying to say not all of his humour is odd, "He has an occasionally odd sense of humor." would be clearer. - X201 (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Would "... somewhat odd sense of humor" also work? --KnightMove (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The claim is being made of the person referred to, which is exactly "he". --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I parse that as trying to use the phrase a little odd attributively, which doesn't work. So, yes, somewhat odd is a way of saying what I guess was intended. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

To specifically answer the posed question, the sentence is not semantically correct English. One does not say, "He is attributed with..." The correct usage is that the attributes come first and the individual is the object of the attribution. Here is the correct usage: A little odd sense of humor is attributed to him. Akld guy (talk)

No, that still fails the test adduced by ColinFine. "A little odd sense of humor" suggests his odd sense of humor is little, whereas, what it's trying to say is that his sense of humor is a little odd. I think I'd write "His sense of humor is said to be a little odd", or even just "His sense of humor is a little odd", but that's getting away from the original sentence structure perhaps too much. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My answer only addressed the question of whether 'attributed with' was correctly structured, and my correct usage rephrasing was intended to answer that. The 'little odd' was adequately answered by Colin Fine. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have inserted my answer directly under the OP's question, then what I was driving at would have been clearer. Akld guy (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Quotes are attributed to the people who said them, so the verb choice or its usage is simply wrong. You could say he is credited with an odd sense of humour, or an odd sense of humour is one off his attributes. If you want to say "little" in this context then use the adverb slightly instead. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of parallel

I still struggle to remember how the word "parallel" is spelled. I know there's a double L and a single L but can never remember which goes first. Both "parallel" and "paralell" look right to me when I write them down (as any fule no, the latter is wrong). I usually end up Googling the word every time I want to use it, which is annoying.

Does anyone have some kind of mnemonic way to remember that the double L goes first? An 'I before E except after C' (except when it doesn't) sort of thing? --87.224.68.42 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My problem with the word used to be misspelling it "parralel", obviated by remembering that the "ll" was an illustration of the word's meaning. Decades of practice using it has impressed the correct spelling in my grey matter, but I don't know of any "rule" (in English? Ha!) to reinforce it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that "parallel" and "allele" come from the same root.[2][3] And remember that "parallel" has two parallel lines running through it, but not on the end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually struggled with the same thing as a kid (in German), and made up my own mnemonic (though not a generalizable rule). In German I used "alle Leute" schreiben es falsch" (everyone spells it incorrectly). In English, I guess, you could use "if all else fails", for example. (Or "all-electronic", "all elves help Santa", ...) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• The first two ells in parallel are parallel. i figured that one out in 6th grade, not that I expect everyone to be so cllever. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I also figured out how to capitalize the letter I around about the same age, not that I expect everyone to be so clever. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

September 29

Pre-war German paper - 2

The following is part of an original German text:-

"Wenn nun auch im Fall beliebig geformter Elektroden die (in Wirklichkeit vorhandenen) Anfangsgeschwindigkeiten sicher u. U. eine bedeutend größere Rolle spielen, aus bei symmetrischen Elektroden, so ist doch demnach der Langmuirsche Satz in der angegebenen Form rich ig."

Which I think translates as something like:

"Now, if in the case of arbitrarily shaped electrodes (of practical use) the initial velocities ???? play a significantly greater role than in the case of symmetrical electrodes, Langmuir's claim in the given form is therefore yet compelling ."

This translation doesn't actually make much sense in the context. It makes more sense (at least to me) if the word "initial" is replaced by the word "peripheral".

What does the abbreviation "u. U." mean?

What is the correct transliteration of the words "rich" in the original German, noting that the German for "Form rich" (wealthy) is "Bilden reich"? 120.145.161.132 (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"u. U." is "unter Umständen" (under certain circumstances), and the last part "rich ig" is missing a letter, it should be "richtig" (right, correct).

Otherwise your translation is not far off. Using mostly your wording, with some corrections, I would re-arrange the whole sentence to make it clearer: "Even though the (in reality existing) initial velocities under certain circumstances certainly play a significantly greater role for arbitrarily shaped electrodes than for symmetrical electrodes, the Langmuirsche Satz is therefore still correct as given."

--Tokikake (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Terrific. Thanks. 120.145.161.132 (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)