September 13

Word meaning "impoverished aristocrat"

I'm looking for a word that means "impoverished aristocrat," please. I have been up and down the OED in vain looking for this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcat1111 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This probably won't help, but perhaps a riff on "genteel poverty" could help... --24.211.242.80 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word for that? I thought of "rake", as in A Rake's Progress, but that refers to his pre-impoverished condition. I also thought of Beau Brummell, since he ended up poor and crazy too, but I guess that only refers to a well-dressed person. Adam Bishop 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't rake refer to his behavior rather than his station? —Tamfang 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones I know of are "déclassé" and "shabby-genteel". In her book Shirley, Charlotte Bronte uses the word "downdraughts" (or "downdrafts" as it would be spelled in American English). AnonMoos 02:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for a crossword puzzle? If so, how many letters etc. In English, even if there is a single word with that meaning you might be better off just using the phrase impoverished aristocrat or penniless aristocrat. Or are you looking for something like the French term fr:nouveau pauvre? --Mathew5000 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not for a crossword - this is simply something from the dim recesses of my mind. It's such a stock character(Henry James, Marcel Proust, Charles Dickens and on and on). Déclassé isn't what I had in mind, but it works very well - the OED says the noun form means "One who has been reduced or degraded from one's social class." Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcat1111 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

distressed gentleman is one I've seen more than once. —Tamfang 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gender names

To which gender the word 'nurse' belongs? Aangilam 04:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English doesn't use grammatical gender (with a few exceptions, according to the article). However, nurses are usually assumed to be female, so much so that the phrase "male nurse" is used a lot to indicate otherwise. Clarityfiend 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even in sentences such as the one a friend of mine uttered, "My brother is a male nurse" (as if he could possibly be a female one!). —An gr 06:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And although, there is a perfectly good gender specific word for them, I often refer to male air hostesses. Though that's more to do with me making a joke than the English language. Cyta 07:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

male model is another. (On another hand, I'm thinking of Edith Bunker's response on meeting a female impersonator.) I suspect this happens largely because people don't always analyze the phrases they use. I sometimes buy teriyaki turkey jerky (I love saying that) and my housemate has to struggle not to call it beef jerky, because to her beef jerky is one lexeme. —Tamfang 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the others mentioned, there's no grammatical gender to speak of in English. The word "nurse," though, is connected in its etymology and its history with the act of breastfeeding [1]. Although wet nurses are not so common in much of the English-speaking world any more, the word does still carry that meaning as a noun. As a verb, "nurse" has a range of meanings, from practicing a medical profession, to caring for a sick person in general, to breastfeeding. That's why, although a man can become a nurse, the word has a strong connection with femininity. --Reuben 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more because the vast majority of nurses, even today, are female. -Elmer Clark 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost letters

What's the most recent alphabetic character to fall out of common use in English? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest Thorn (letter), but maybe there's a better answer I'm not thinking of. If alternate forms of still-used letters count, Long s. Wareh 17:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Ash, dropping out as we speak. DuncanHill 20:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But æ hasn't been used as a letter in English for a long time (if ever). Whether it's an alphabetic character is less clear (was it ever part of the alphabet?). Tesseran 00:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ash was an essential part of the Old English alphabet. Later, it was often used in English for the diphthong ae in many words and names of Latin and Greek origins, even though the ancient Romans themselves didn't have æ. While that use does continue in English, as Duncan says it seems to be falling away fast: perhaps because few people know how to type æ on their PCs! Xn4 01:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to say that the symbol under discussion was (in its Latin-inspired use) a ligature, rather than a letter. But I found (regarding ampersand, at ligature) "Like many other ligatures, it has at times been considered a letter ..." so perhaps this distinction is not as strict as I thought. Tesseran 04:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, the OP used the term 'alphabetic character', not 'letter'. Xn4 23:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

f-ligatures are definitely dropping out of use as we speak. (Try typing one of those on a PC!) The fi in serif newspaper headlines these days looks dreadful.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Long s? Corvus cornix 16:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller's thread of the week. It's an 'out of the box' idea.

Congratulations to all contributing here. Your ignorance-busting efforts have won the fourth ever User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award. Good job. --Dweller 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Word Describes This Idea?

Consider this scenario, or any similar type situations: I am talking on the phone with a friend -- there is something that I want to mention -- but I can't for the life of me think of (remember) what it is. Of course, the very minute we hang up the phone, that's when I remember it. What is the English word that would best be used for that? Second question: would "it's on the tip of my tongue" be accurate or not? I think not (but I am unsure). The "tip of the tongue" refers to my not remembering the info ... that is, it is on the tip of my tongue, but I can't get it any further than that tip ... meaning, it won't come out of my mouth (i.e., be spoken). But what my scenario above is trying to describe is not the forgetful part -- but, rather, the sudden / untimely recollection part. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, it was "on the tip of your tongue" during the phone call. Afterwards, if it had been a retort you'd wanted to make, it would be l'esprit de l'escalier, but I realize this doesn't apply to a topic you'd wanted to introduce, but remembered too late. All I can think of is to gather up all the proverbial expressions for "too late": day late & a dollar short, too little too late, etc. Wareh 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you go to get something in another room and then can't remember what you came for, until you go back to the first room ... It's presumably related to "context-dependent learning". —Tamfang 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or like a more active form of "Cue-dependent forgetting"; by trying hard to remember something, you can keep leading yourself down the wrong mental path and end up at a dead end. As soon as you stop trying so hard, it comes to you. FiggyBee 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Time Line

I just got finished reading this book and to tell you the truth I do not get this story at all or what went on in it. It's not that I can't pay any attention but for me it is almost impossible to read these poem like books. Anyway every book that I do read I keep a time line of the major events that happened in the story. It's just a fun little thing I like to do even though I don't like the book. However I am asking if someone could do me a favor and just take up a few minutes of your time (who has read the book) to make a major event time line right here so I can make a document putting your words in to my own words and of course crediting you. Thank you so much! 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the humanities desk would be a better place for this question. —An gr 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, assuming good faith and all, but if this is an attempt to get someone to do your homework, it's an unusually clever one. -Elmer Clark 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, at least, unusually complicated. Xn4 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

PTSA

What does the word PTSA means. I know is called Parent-Teacher Association or Parent-Teacher-Student Association. Jet (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked to seems to explain it pretty well. Is there something in particular you want clarified? -Elmer Clark 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although both of the articles you linked to fail to explain what the abbreviation stands for, it is indeed a common abbreviation for Parent Teacher Student Association. --Lambiam 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say that it's not a "word" in the first place? It's also not an "abbreviation". It is another type of object, an "acronym". Acronyms are constructed (usually) by taking the first letter of a multi-letter title or phrase. "Association" is a word. "ass'n" is an abbreviation of that word. "PTSA" is an acronym of the whole title. My favorite acronym is "TANSTAAFL". -66.55.10.178 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

segue not in oed

I have an old (~1980) copy of the concise oed, and an older (~1975) copy of the shorter version. The word segue, which has come into vogue recently, isn't in either. I'm sure the word must be older than the 1980s, so why does it not appear? Is it in current versions of major dictionaries, and is it listed in any recent source as a neologism? 203.221.126.156 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the full version of the OED, although mostly treated as a technical musical term (which is why it may not have made the cut for the concise). The earliest figurative quote in the OED dates from 1972. FiggyBee 05:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word was not in the first edition of the OED but appears in volume IV of the supplement (published 1986) as a verb and a noun (although the noun is tagged ‘musical slang’. --Mathew5000 06:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the 1983 Chambers, as a verb and a noun, and the origin is given as Italian. DuncanHill 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions in simple past tense

Hi Wikipedians,

The Wikipedia article on past tense gives 1) He walked to the store. and Did he walk to the store? as examples of simple past tense. Why does the question use the regular form walk instead of walked despite being in simple past tense? 219.95.184.214 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because "walk" is actually an infinitive there, and past-tense inflection is expressed on the auxiliary verb ("Did", the past of "do). AnonMoos 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why, on a side note, it can be confusing when learning another language - 'do' and 'be' are used in many instances to indicate tense which does not always happen in other languages and one of many reasons why translators such as Babelfish struggle with direct translations to and from English. Lanfear's Bane 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to form a theory of complexity of language. Each modern language seems to have areas of complexity and simplicity which roughly even themselves out. Some languages have elaborate systems of noun and adjective declension, some have verbs with complex conjugation, some have elaborate systems of politeness and so on. English happens to have very little of the above, but it does have a lot of verb tenses using a lot of auxiliary verbs. "I will have been walking", for example... Add that to the idiosyncratic spelling and we find, messieurs, that this tongue is quite rough! SaundersW 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 219.95.184.122 12:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Shakespeare's time, the question would be Walked he to the store?. This form is still preferred with be, and optional with have (it's archaic in my dialect, though that doesn't always stop me). —Tamfang 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y

I've heard alot of arguments about this but is the letter "Y" a vowel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.18.9 (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the written letter and the sound it represents. The concept of a vowel is that of a sound. When the letter Y represents a sound like "i" (as in rhythm) then it is representing a vowel. When it is represents the sound at the start of "yak" it is a consonant. SaundersW 20:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In French, the letter 'Y' (y grec) is usually a vowel, but can be a semi-consonne (semi-consonant), for instance in yeux. In German and Spanish, as in English, 'Y' (ypsilon, y griega) is either a vowel or a consonant, but it's only used in German in foreign words or names. Xn4 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Y is a (written) letter, not a (spoken) sound, hence neither a consonant nor a vowel. In writing, it can represent either a vowel or a consonant. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

a linguistic question

"Which pair contains the allomorphs of the plural morpheme in English?"

A) sheep- deer
B) crisis- analysis
C) curricula- data
D) judges- churches
E) dogs- cats

when you answer this question, can you explain your answer with its reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erman83 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do your own homework". Hint: Look up "allomorphs" in an online dictionary. Unimaginative Username 00:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, online dictionaries give different incompatible definitions, like this one:

Linguistics. one of the alternate contextually determined phonological shapes of a morpheme, as en in oxen, which is an allomorph of the English plural morpheme.[2]

This doesn't make much sense and won't help the questioner. A better suggestion is to study our articles Allomorph and English plural (as well as the textbook or course notes). The question is not phrased very well. It refers to the plural morpheme in English, while English has several. Apparently, specifically the plural morpheme -s is meant. And note that the problem can't be solved unless you know how to pronounce these words (which you can find, inasmuch as relevant, under English plural#Regular plurals). Non-native speakers whose native languages has devoicing of final consonants may have a hard time solving this from the given material even if they understand the allomorph concept perfectly well. --Lambiam 01:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that pronunciation is required to answer the question; knowledge of spelling definitely is, though. - Eron ^Talk 01:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The /t/ in [fɪʃt] and the /d/ in [bʌzd] are allophones of the phoneme for forming the English regular past tense (as well as past participle). The way these words are spelled (fished, buzzed) does not reveal the allomorphy, but instead hides it under a blanket of uniformity. Likewise for regular plurals. --Lambiam 02:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept. (Entirely possible, I'm far from an expert in this.) I was considering the different ways the plural morpheme could be spelled, not pronounced, which seemed to lead me to an answer - though perhaps not the correct one. In fact, the Morpheme article seems to clearly indicate the right answer - and it wasn't the one that I had picked! All that to say... point well taken, sir. (Falling back on writing, something I have more expertise in, I'd note that the original question would be better and more clear if it read "which pair contains allomorphs" rather than "the allomorphs.") - Eron ^Talk 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this one useful: Dictionary.com American Heritage meaning #2, which practically answered the OP directly. It even uses the phrase,"the English plural morpheme", as in the original question. Unimaginative Username 03:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think i was misunderstood :(

as i said i think i was misunderstood.because the question i asked isn't a homework.it was a question asked in the exam of open education faculty eng.tech.depart. last weekend.and now we are discussing this question so i wanted you to help me about this question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erman83 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i need help!

there is a question asked in exam by open edcation faculty eng.tech.depart. last weekend.now we are discussing on this question and i want you to help me about the answer and its reason,please! "Which pair contains the allomorphs of the plural morpheme in English?" A) sheep- deer B) crisis- analysis C) curricula- data D) judges- churches E) dogs- cats —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erman83 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we saw the question already. One main section per question ought to be enough, so I took the liberty of turning your two sequels into subsections of the original. That said — Thanks for clarifying your motive; I'll assume you're telling the truth. The original question is poorly stated but we can attack it by elimination.

sheep and deer both contain the zero morpheme, so there are no two allomorphs here.
crisis and analysis are both singular (Greek words with plural -es), so it's not this one.
curricula and data have the Latin neuter plural morpheme, not English, and in the same form therefore no plural allomorphs.
judges and churches have the same allomorph of the English regular plural morpheme, so it's not this one.
dogs and cats is the answer: both have a regular English plural morpheme, but because of the adjacent consonant one is voiced and one not.

Note that the morpheme has three allomorphs, illustrated in D and E. —Tamfang 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the plural morpheme have other allomorphs as well? I'm thinking oxen, curriculum, formulae, etc. Or are they counted differently as they are irregular? (This was my problem with the question stating that one pair contained "the allomorphs of the plural morpheme," as that suggests there are only two.) - Eron ^Talk 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of why I say the question is poorly stated; but I'd say all those others are not allomorphs but different morphemes that happen to be synonymous with the regular one, which is the only productive one (i.e. the only one that can be attached to new words, not counting extensions like chairmen, intentionally arbitrary jocular formations like VAXen, and foreign words like samurai) and therefore the only one that really has allomorphs (forms that vary predictably with the phonetic environment). Clear? —Tamfang 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly clear. I wasn't understanding that it is really a phonetic concept; I was too focused on the written aspect. I've got it now, thanks. - Eron ^Talk 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

I am wondering about the cover of the Harry Potter series in Canada and Australia. Is it the Thomas Taylor (Britain) or the Mary Grandpre (U.S.) cover art? Is the first book called Philosoper's Stone or is it Sorcerer's Stone? --Nick4404 00:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the website of the Canadian publisher, the title is "HP & the Philosopher's Stone". Not sure about the cover art, it looks like it was revised in 2004, with newer versions having a red gem on the cover and older versions a train locomotive. --Mathew5000 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Harry Potter page (article) here says, "...the first novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States)..." If you'll accept anecdotal evidence, the explanation I recall from the time of publication was that the author initially had in mind the time-honored notion of the Philosopher's Stone. However, this was deemed too unfamiliar to the large U.S. reading public. The substitution of "sorcerer" was thought to be an improvement, having the cachet of magic rather than a fusty whiff of [horrors!] intellectual pursuits. -- Deborahjay 08:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the cover art here (Canada) is the same as in Britain. Here is a link to Raincoast Books, the Canadian publisher, complete with the cover art for all seven books. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian versions have the same cover art as the UK editions and the first book is the Philosopher's Stone. Steewi 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content/Contented

Dictionary.com lists contented as a synonym for content. I'm not sure that I buy that they're one and the same, though. What do y'all think? Is there a subtle difference in meaning or connotation? — Brian (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are invariably subtle differences in connotation between all synonyms, but there are times when one serves better than another. "I am content" is pretty much the same as saying "I am contented", so they are synonyms there. But they are not interchangeable in "He is content to allow you to cook tonight" and "He contented himself with beans on toast".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP as a verb

Is there a name for the concept/practice of turning a noun into a verb as in the case of RSVP? Yes, I know RSVP actually stands for something and isn't technically a noun (according to my dictionary) but it's the only example I can think of right now, so please don't pick nits. What I'm getting at is the practice of turning that noun into a verb as in "They never RSVP'd (sp?) and I don't know why." Is there a term for this? Dismas|^(talk) 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthimeria? —Keenan Pepper 03:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verbification. - Eron ^Talk 03:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Calvin:  "I like to verb words."
    Hobbes: "What?"
    Calvin: "I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember when 
`access' was a thing? Now it's something you do . It got verbed."
    Calvin: "Verbing weirds language."
    Hobbes: "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to 
 understanding."

- Calvin & Hobbes, by Bill Watterson

SaundersW 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP is a verb. It means "please respond", so it's an imperative verb. --Nricardo 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A friend of mine in high school was having a party, and on the invitations he started to write "Please RSVP". Then he remembered that would be redundant because "SVP" already means "please". So he just put "Please R". —An gr 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least once, I've been asked (in the appropriate context), "Did you R?" —Tamfang 01:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, RSVP has been nouned. "How many RSVPs have you gotten?" "I need to send my RSVP." etc. --LarryMac | Talk 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bones

I'm reading a book called No Bones, and somewhere in this book, somebody says: "There's no bones about it." Can anybody tell me what this expression means? Thanks! Lova Falk 09:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make no bones about something: To state a fact in a way that allows no doubt. To have no objection to. [3] SaundersW 09:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I've never seen this Phrase Finder before. Just what I need. Thank you! Lova Falk 10:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Would someone mind translating "The Random Editor" into IPA. Thanks. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 12:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the IPA at Wiktionary, ði rændəm ɛdɪtə — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 13:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely The is unstressed, so /ðə/ rather than /ði:/ .DuncanHill 13:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second DuncanHill, and would add that you'll want ɚ rather than ə as the last letter if you speak General American or another accent with R-colored vowels.--Estrellador* 14:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little difficult to do this accurately unless we know which dialect of English (or which standard - i.e. English, American, Australian) you are using. The differences are generally small, but can be quite significant. If you want Australian, the last vowel in editor for me is actually [a], rather than [ə], the second vowel is [ə] and the /t/ phoneme in editor is lenited to [d] or a tap. On the other hand, it might be better to simply use a phonemic approach to remove most of the inter-dialect differences. If that's the case, use slashes and it's not as much of a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glottal stop

Something I should already know:

In the word react, is there a glottal stop between the two vowels, i.e. /ɹiʔæct/? If so, is it necessary to include this glottal stop in a phonemic transcription? If it means anything, I'm talking about a General American pronunciation. Thanks!--El aprendelenguas 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not. A glottal stop exists in American English in few cases, such as "uh-oh". You can also often hear it in British English where there ought to be a t: "I am not going to the store". But in react, it is a smooth transition. The Evil Spartan 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the correct transcription is /ɹiæct/? The two vowels together is what made me unsure. I didn't want them to be mistaken for a diphthong. Is there some kind of IPA mark other than stress that would make it clear that the word is disyllabic?--El aprendelenguas 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can put a period to indicate the syllable boundary: /ɹi.ækt/. (The IPA symbol /c/ stands for a voiceless palatal stop, a sound which doesn't exist in English.) —An gr 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help, and for being so quick as well.--El aprendelenguas 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

react is sometimes pronounced /ɹiˈjæct/, the off-glide of /i/ becoming a fleeting consonant. Could that be what's bothering you? —Tamfang 00:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Spartan, you say it's rare, but isn't it a glottal stop in words where a "t" sound is not pronounced, such as "kitten" and "button"? Separately, I note that many such words match the regular expression "tt.n$" for some reason. --Sean 18:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on accent. Received Pronunciation speakers pronounce the "t" in words such as "kitten" and "button"; Cockney and Estuary English generally replace it with a glottal stop. See T-glottalization. Gandalf61 10:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

definition and use of historical versus historic

What is correct: Historical home tour or historic home tour and how does one differ from the other. I am organizing a home tour and I have been referring to the houses as "historical homes" but have been told that the correct term is "historic homes". I don't know the difference. Please clarify. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.241.156 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this Usage Note. Briefly, "historic" means "of important historical significance", while "historical" just means "of or relating to history". —An gr 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is in which word the adjective is modifying. Is it modifying "tour", or is it modifying "home"? Was the tour itself famous, or was it just another boring tour _of_ something famous? If it was just another boring tour, then it was historical; it was a tour of something historic. But, if the tour was so horrible or memorable that the tour, itself, became widely known after the fact, then it was a historic tour. -66.55.10.178 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce "zusammen" and "entgegen"?

Organic chemistry terms derived from German. Any help appreciated 128.163.224.222 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In IPA, [tsuˈzamən] and [ʔɛntˈgeːgən]. I don't understand ad-hoc "pro-nun-see-AY-shun" guides, so if that's what you need, someone else will have to provide it for you. —An gr 21:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. On the "pro-nun-see-AY-shun" pattern, that's tsoo-ZAMM-un and ennt-GAY-gun, viz., the last vowel of each of those words is much the same as the last one in 'pronunciation'. Xn4 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ZAHM, not ZAMM. Wareh 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean the 'a' in tsoo-ZAHM-un should be pronounced as in EE (or the 'a' in 'palm' in both EE and AE), whereas the 'a' in ennt-GAY-gun should be pronounced as in 'bathe' (in either EE or AE). Well, actually, the 'ay' is rather wrong too, because there should be no 'y' sound. That is one of the biggest problems for English speakers when pronouncing other languages because there is no equivalent sound in the English language (afaik). When pronouncing the 'a' as in 'bathe', cut off the second half, where it changes into an 'ee' sound. DirkvdM 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why ad-hoc "pro-nun-see-AY-shun" guides are totally inadequate. —An gr 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not totally. IPA is a whole lot better, but you can't expect everyone to learn it (or can you?). So for those who don't know it, an easy alternative is needed. DirkvdM 06:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how much easier it is to learn than English orthography, why can't you expect everyone to learn it? Why isn't it taught in first grade? —An gr 15:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I would fully support teaching kids this at school. But that is not done, so in the meantime we can't expect people to know IPA. It's good to wish and strive for stuff like that, but you also need to keep your feet on the ground. DirkvdM 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

New page in Arabic

What does this page say? A.Z. 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a really lousy machine translation here: [4], though I suspect the original article isn't written very well either. The Evil Spartan 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Word Selection

Consider these three phrases: last ; latest ; most recent. Which of these is linguistically best to use (for correct grammar, context, meaning, etc.) in the sentence below? Are there any subtle distinctions / differences in meaning between these words or do they all pretty much mean the exact same thing? What, if any, are the distinctions? I am not attempting to communicate "last" as in "final" (example: Z is the last letter of the alphabet -- or -- The Birds is the last film directed by Hitchcock). Rather, I am trying to communicate "the last time that this has ever happened in the past although, of course, it may again happen in the future."

John F. Kennedy was the last Catholic to be elected President.
John F. Kennedy was the latest Catholic to be elected President.
John F. Kennedy was the most recent Catholic to be elected President.

OR

June of 1987 was the last time that I visited Hawaii.
June of 1987 was the latest time that I visited Hawaii.
June of 1987 was the most recent time that I visited Hawaii.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My take -

John F. Kennedy was the last Catholic to be elected President. - To me this implies finality, no more Catholics will be elected president.
John F. Kennedy was the latest Catholic to be elected President. - Suggests frequency, lots of Catholics are elected, Kennedy was the latest.
John F. Kennedy was the most recent Catholic to be elected President - suggests what you are trying to say.

Hope this makes sense! DuncanHill 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word last is ambiguous because it could either mean most recent or the final... Why ever use it, then? A.Z. 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take: go with recent. Last is ambiguous, and latest sounds awkward. The Evil Spartan 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

latest implies a regular series; most recent can be too formal for some contexts. If I say "my last trip overseas was in 1991" I do not expect anyone to infer that I'll never go again, unless I've said something else to support such an inference (like "I hate flying"). —Tamfang 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the order of the phrases seems to make a difference. "June of 1987 was the last time that I visited Hawaii" sounds final. "The last time I visited Hawaii was June of 1987" does not. I can't see any grammatical reason they should be different, though, so maybe it is a question of emphasis. I think that if someone were speaking the phrase, it would be easy to tell what they meant; if they put the emphasis on "last" then we would take it to be a final statement. The way I speak and the way I am used to hearing people speak, "last" would be emphasized in the first sentence I wrote, and "Hawaii" in the second. - Eron ^Talk 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFK is a bad example because he's the only Catholic president ever elected, and that happened 47 years ago. There may not be another in the lifetime of anyone alive now; or ever. So it seems that "last", "latest" and "most recent", while not inaccurate per se, are all to some degree misleading in his case. They all imply that there have been others - or at least one other - at some earlier time. If you were talking about (say) an Episcopalian president, of which there have been a few, "latest" and "most recent" say much the same thing. "Last" might still be ambiguous, though, depending on the construction of the sentence. -- JackofOz 01:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I would say "John F. Kennedy was the first, and to date only, Catholic to be elected President." As for the Hawaii statement, "last" is the only one that doesn't sound stilted. You can use context make it clear that you don't mean last as in final-ever; "The last time I visited Hawaii was in 1987, but I'd love to go again some day". FiggyBee 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On JFK, I like FiggyBee's suggestion best. All three of the sentences you began with have problems, though no one seems to have pointed out that "the most recent Catholic to be elected President" clearly implies there had been one or more others before Kennedy. On the Hawaiian puzzle, you can escape the ambiguities by turning it around thus - "I last visited Hawaii in June of 1987". Xn4 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

I have been seeing inconsistent use when referring to the Palme d'Or Award given at the Cannes Film Festival. Is the term properly italicized or not italicized ... and for what reason? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This film did not win the Palme d'Or at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival. ----- OR ----- This film did not win the Palme d'Or at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival.

It's normal to use italics in English for titles of works of literature and art (poems, books, films, paintings, etc.) and also for foreign words and expressions which have not been fully domesticated (such as Monsieur), but not for proper names. We don't normally use italics for the titles of awards - Nobel Prize, Academy Award, etc. - which are more like proper names than like titles. I'd say the form without italics is generally better, and in a list of awards received by a person or a film it would have the virtue of consistency. In other contexts (perhaps where other expressions in French had been put into italics) you might find it would look odd to leave Palme d'Or as the odd man out, and the boot might be on the other foot. Xn4 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mi'kmaq and Acadian French toponymy

The name Acadie is said to have come from the element [kadi] found in many Acadian places: Tracadie, Choubenacadie.

What is the meaning of "cadie" in the Mi'kmaq language, if any?--Sonjaaa 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article on Tracadie says that the Mi'kmaq word is akatiek and that it means "place." --Reuben 17:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar 2

Whew, i thought to myself. Uh oh, i'm in deep trouble. My heart thumped hard, what am i going to do?

In the following sentances do i need to put speech marks for whew, uh oh and what am i going to do when i am not actually speaking but thinking.

It depends on the style you're aiming for. If you're going for very casual, first-person narration, then quotation marks would not be required. Otherwise, it should be something like;

"Whew", I thought to myself, "uh-oh, I'm in deep trouble". My heart thumped hard. "What am I going to do?"

Although I'd be inclined to minimise the direct quotation, since it's in first person anyway;

"Whew", I thought to myself. I was in deep trouble. My heart thumped hard; what was I going to do?

Also, note that Americans put the ending comma or period inside the quotation marks (except, increasingly, in technical documents), while Brits like myself put it outside. FiggyBee 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some authors use italics for indicating unvoiced thought:

Whew, I thought to myself, uh oh; I'm in deep trouble. My heart thumped hard. What am I going to do?

See for example Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 22#Technical Term for Italicized Thougts in Literature. --Lambiam 10:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell from reading American and British books, putting the period or comma inside the quotation-marks is always the rule if a complete utterance is quoted. The difference FiggyBee cites applies, I think, to quotation of fragments: "She called you 'a weasel', but I don't believe it." —Tamfang 16:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering; how could a complete utterance end with a comma? -- JackofOz 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Warm, sunny, not a cloud in the sky, looks like a good day for chopping off a few more heads", said Robespierre. Xn4 01:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which confirms my suspicions. The comma is outside the quotes, not inside as suggested by Tamfang. -- JackofOz 01:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what point you're trying to make, Xn4, but I've never seen that in an English book – unless it was published by amateurs. —Tamfang 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By convention, a final period is replaced with a comma when the quotation is embedded in a sentence. But – thanks – my condition was indeed too restrictive.

"As you must know," said Henry, "it's hard to state rules in a form that accounts for all cases." "Still, Henry," Irene began, but I didn't hear the rest of what she said because of the train going by; though she may have used the word "pataphysical". —Tamfang 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Still, Henry" case, I'd write "Still, Henry, ..." Irene began, but I didn't hear etc. Since she went on to say something else, just writing "Still, Henry," suggests she stopped speaking at "Henry". The ellipsis removes this false impression. I realise that the rest of the sentence makes it clear that she didn't finish there, but in terms of form, I doubt you'd end the quote with the comma. -- JackofOz 04:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Still, Henry," Irene began, "I don't like it one bit." bother you similarly? The ellipsis makes me think that Irene trailed off, which is not the case. Tesseran 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dash would be better imho. —Tamfang 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish / If you wish so

Which sounds better to a native speaker (preferably from North America): If you wish, other conditions can be agreed upon or If you wish so, other conditions can be agreed upon? TIA. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first option is more ususal. --Reuben 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reuben, except that I would spell it usual. —An gr 18:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, Reuben and Angr. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in between these two is If you so wish, .... The use of so suggests, however, a quite specific wish (If you so wish, we can assemble it for you) and does not go well with something so unspecific as "other conditions". --Lambiam 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lambiam! You seem to be right. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 10:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long German word for "jeep"

According to my German teacher (i.e., an American teaching German), there is a word, Geländegängigermehrzweckigerpersonenkraftwagen, which means something like "all-terain, multi-purpose people car," or simply "Jeep." However, I can't find much evidence online of this fact. Googling Geländegängigermehrzweckigerpersonenkraftwagen only gives one result, and one of the search results for "long german word jeep" is a comment on a blog. Neither result is very conclusive. Can anyone here (a native German speaker, maybe?) tell me a) Whether this is a real German word, and b) Whether I'm spelling it right? — Insanity Incarnate 19:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a fluent nonnative speaker, I'd say this is three words, not one: geländegängiger mehrzweckiger Personenkraftwagen. The -er endings on the first two words show them to be inflected adjectives and therefore separate words from the noun they modify. Inflected adjectives don't form compounds with nouns. However, googled as three words, I get no hits at all. As de:Jeep shows, the usual German word for "jeep" is Jeep. Mehrzweckpersonenkraftwagen (without the -iger-) is a real compound meaning "multi-purpose passenger vehicle". —An gr 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions are answered, there's little to add, except that the words "Geländewagen" or "Geländefahrzeug" (redirects to same article on German Wikipedia) are often used for off-road vehicles (where I live, it's called "der Offroader" and hated by some [5]). One more thing, non-German speakers love these agglutinative monsters, but they are rarely used in everyday speech, see also Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz. Even the Personenkraftwagen is normally abbreviated PKW, Pkw, or even PW, and a lot of people simply call their car "Wagen" or "Auto". ---Sluzzelin talk 20:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is mehrzweckig even an adjective featured in dictionaries? Though it's meaning is clear, I don't think it is and I don't know zweckig or allzweckig either. There are all sorts of adjectives using the prefix zweck- ("zweckmässig", "zweckbedingt", "zweckverbunden", "zweckentsprechend", "zweckwidrig", "zweckentfremdend"), and for multi-purpose, you add the affix Mehrzweck- to the noun ("Mehrzweckhalle", "Mehrzweckgerät", or Angr's "Mehrzweckpersonenkraftwagen") ---Sluzzelin talk 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best German-English dictionary I have at home is a Cassell's (12th edition), and it doesn't have mehrzweckig. Xn4 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The longest fake word we came up with in German class was "Geschwindigkeitbegrenzungschildfabrik" ("Geschwindigkeitbegrenzung" was in the text book!) Adam Bishop 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget you can stick -chen' on to the end of any of those too! Sounds like a made up word by your teacher to grab your attention. Lanfear's Bane 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The longest German word I know is 'Donaudampfschiffahrtgesellschaftskapitän', meaning 'Danubesteamshipcompanycaptain'. Btw 'Kraftwagen' doesn't mean car or vehicle but powered vehicle. Personenkraftwagen is a new word to me, but it makes sense compared to 'Lastkraftwagen', which means 'truck' ('Last' being 'cargo'). DirkvdM 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reduplicative slang

Hi, in Korean, there's an old reduplicative slang which is used for mild obfuscation. Rules:

Gada becomes gabadaba
- You can see that the vowel is reduplicated for each syllable, with "b" used as a new consonant
Ani becomes abanibi
- If no consonant is there, you use "b" anyway
Seoltang becomes Seobeoltabang
- Syllable-final consonants do not get reduplicated, but get pushed to the reduplicated syllable

My own rules (I don't know if these are traditional or not):

Yeong-gye becomes yeobeong-gyebe
Wang becomes wabang
- Ignore semivowels

Does something similar exist in other languages? Thank you! --Kjoonlee 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, lots more examples at language game. The slang above (or a variant) is listed as gwi-shin-mal. It looks like it's also known as dokkaebi-mal. --Kjoonlee 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Korean translation

Would anyone with some knowledge in Korean please translate the following into English: 제목없음 . Thank you!

207.161.3.132 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No title." Or in the context of email, "No subject." -- Visviva 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.3.132 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Correct Pronoun to Use Here?

"The Godfather" is a film trilogy with Parts 1, 2, and 3. "The Lord of the Rings" is also a film trilogy with Parts 1, 2, and 3. All six of these films have been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.

What is the correct pronoun to use in the sentences below and why? Is the pronoun singular (its) or plural (their) and why? That is, does the pronoun take the place of "this trilogy only as considered separately" or "both of these trilogies as considered collectively" ... and why?

I do realize that I can reword everything to avoid this issue. But, assuming that I want to maintain this construction, what is the proper pronoun to do so? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"The Godfather" is the first of only two trilogies to have all three of its films nominated for Best Picture.

"The Lord of the Rings" is the second of only two trilogies to have all three of its films nominated for Best Picture.

versus

"The Godfather" is the first of only two trilogies to have all three of their films nominated for Best Picture.

"The Lord of the Rings" is the second of only two trilogies to have all three of their films nominated for Best Picture.

I would say "its" because "their" implies a person. However, I would rewrite it to avoid the problem - "...trilogies of which all three films were nominated..." Adam Bishop 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct word is "their". Pronouns have the same number as their referent, in this case, "trilogies", which is plural. Therefore it is the plural possessive, "their", not the singular possessive, "its". "Their" does not imply a person. It is the correct possessive pronoun for plural referents, both animate and inanimate. Incidentally, if you were to begin the sentence "'The Godfather' is the first trilogy...", the correct ending (following your model) would be "...to have all three of its films nominated for Best Picture", because "trilogy" is singular. Marco polo 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The pronoun refers to "first" and "second", so its should be its. "The Godfather" is the first ... to have all three of its films nominated for Best Picture. —Nricardo 01:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Marco polo had it exactly right. Only two trilogies have had all three of their films nominated, and The Godfather was the first of them. If you were saying "The Godfather is the first trilogy to have all three of its films nominated", that would be fine, but changing "the first trilogy" to "the first of only two trilogies" changes the referent from the first trilogy to two trilogies, hence a plural pronoun is required. -- JackofOz 03:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try it this way: Johnny is the first of the five boys to lose [his | their] teeth. Pick the right answer. —Nricardo 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not so easy because it's an ambiguous sentence without a context. If you're referring to those 5 boys standing over there, one of whom is Johnny, and at least two of them just happen to have lost their teeth, then it's "Johnny is the first of the five boys to lose his teeth" (= of those 5 boys standing over there, Johnny was the first to lose his teeth). But if you're referring to a group of 5 boys, all of whom have lost their teeth, and Johnny was the first to do so, then it would be "Johnny is the first of the five boys to lose their teeth" (= of those 5 boys who've lost their teeth, Johnny was the first). In other words, the composition of the group of boys is defined either by their all having lost teeth, or by some other factor such as they're all standing over there (and their tooth loss is just incidental). In the case where Johnny is the only one of the 5 to have lost his teeth, then in the first scenario it would be "Johnny is the only one of the 5 boys to have lost his teeth". This wouldn't apply in the second scenario because they've all lost their teeth. -- JackofOz 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Chinese reference or advice

The article section Gödel,_Escher,_Bach#Translation is flagged for the unreferenced assertion:

Jí Yì Bì (集异璧, literally "collection of exotic jade") which is homophonic to GEB in Chinese.

Can someone verify or refute this, or otherwise help clear this up? Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full Chinese title should be Ji yibi zhi dacheng, which means something like "a conglomeration of different jades", with "bi" being a kind of jade (circular in shape) in ancient China. The "jades" here supposedly refer to the works of Gödel, Escher and Bach. Full bibliographical information: Gedeer, Aisheer, Bahe: ji yibi zhi dacheng (哥德尔、艾舍尔、巴赫: 集异璧之大成). Trans. Guo Weide et al.. Beijing: Commercial Press. 1997. ISBN 7100013232.--K.C. Tang 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, that helps. dr.ef.tymac 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word which rhymes with "fight" and "write"

Can anyone please suggest a word, preferably with one syllable, which means "to study" and rhymes with "fight" and "write"? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.35.252 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps dive [into a subject]?--K.C. Tang 08:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dive doesn't rhyme with fight and write! - Adrian Pingstone 09:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, dear Adrian, be so kind; as to forgive my assonant rhyme?--K.C. Tang 09:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of one-syllable words that rhyme with "write" and "fight". Might any of them be useful? SaundersW 09:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bight (recess of a bay), bite, cite, dight (archaic, clad), fight, height, kite, light, might, night, pight (archaic, to throw), quite, rite, right, sight, site, tight, white, wight (archaic, human)

From that list, all I can see that matches "study" is "up all night". :D HYENASTE 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Wiktionary --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Cite' is involved in study but does have a more specialised meaning than simply 'to study'. If you can't find another one, and you're writing poetry, you may have to restructure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scaglia orazio aci S. Antonio

A decade ago, I was given a wood carving showing warriors fighting. Beneath was written "Scaglia Orazio aci S. Antonio," if I remember correctly, for I have passed it on to my brother. I interpreted the motto as "send a prayer to/for us San Anthony." It this the correct translation? What battle might be depicted? The origin of the carving most likely is Naples.LShecut2nd 12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the name of a person (Orazio Scaglia) followed by the name of a place (Aci Sant'Antonio). "Scaglia" can mean "throw" or "cast" (imperative mode) or "s/he throws", but this doesn't make much sense here ("Cast Orazio, Aci Sant'Antonio!"? Orazio throws Aci Sant'Antonio."?) Orazio is the Italian name for Horace, and Orazio Scaglia seems to have been an Italian racecar driver active in the early 1970s (google's results for "Orazio Scaglia"). Aci Sant'Antonio is a small Sicilian town and larger comune. Based on these results and the information you gave us, it's very difficult to guess what battle might be depicted. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, even our short article on Aci Sant'Antonio mentions a notable wood carver, Giorgio Petralia. According to the Italian article on Aci Sant'Antonio, "not everyone knows that Aci S.Antonio is the home of the the carved wooden Sicilian cart (citation needed). There are still shops where it's possible to admire the skilled and spectacular art of the master "carradori" and master painters (such as Nerina Chiarenza and Domenico di Mauro). The sides of the carts depict the by now famous scenes of chivalric tradition (Roland, Charlemagne) and characters such as Saint Alphius and his brothers, as well as Saint Agatha, and Saint Rosalia."

Maybe there is a connection to your carving. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The carving is a fragment that could have been on a carrozza Siciliana. My friend found it in the street during the San Gennaro festival in NYC. He said that a building was being razed near by. Basic colors were used to paint the carving. The soldiers have helmets and shields.LShecut2nd 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

stabilization of automatic translation

Assume the following English sentence:

   The cat sat on the mat.

take that English and use an automatic translation tool to translate it into Spanish.

   El gato se sentó en la estera.

take that auto-translated Spanish and translate it back to English using the same tool.

Repeat this process until the result stabilizes, (remains the same no matter how many times you apply the translation tool).

Repeat this translation process using increasingly more elaborate phrases, up to and including entire chapters from well-known books. See how many passages eventually "stabilize". Stable passages can be dubbed automatic-translation-proof passages.

Is there a website or resource out there where someone has done this? I'm wondering what is the largest repository of "automatic translation proof" passages. dr.ef.tymac 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting concept that just cost me half an hour of playing around with Babel Fish. Any such repository, if one exists, would only apply to the one translation tool used to test those phrases. Our article on machine translation lists four different approaches that can be used for machine translation, and each approach will almost certainly give different results. A sentence that is "stable" for one translation tool might not be stable on another. Also, there are likely to be many more sentences that cannot be stabilized at all than there are stable sentences. For instance, using Babel Fish the sentence "The cat sat on the mat" quickly stabilizes, but the sentence "Repeat this process until the result stabilizes" will eventually reach such a grammatical mess that Babel Fish returns an error instead of an attempted translation. 152.16.59.190 07:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the tower will crash to the ground causing confusion all round...hotclaws 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption that the sequence will eventually stabilize is false. Two other outcomes are possible: the text could get longer and longer until the algorithm terminates with an error (as observed by 152.16.59.190), or the sequence could begin to oscillate between two or more different texts in each language (as I just observed):

Then the tower will crash to the confusion around which Earth cause everything.
Entonces la torre se estrellará a la confusión alrededor de la cual causa de la tierra todo.
Then the tower will crash to the confusion around which Earth cause all.
Entonces la torre se estrellará a la confusión alrededor de la cual causa toda de la tierra.
Then the tower will crash to the confusion around which Earth cause everything.
...

It might take a very long time to terminate or start repeating, but these are the only possibilities if the algorithm is running on a computer with finite memory. —Keenan Pepper 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. counties - what is the difference between established and organized

A book I'm reading lists the dates in which a county was established and when it was organized. What's the difference between the two? What happens when a county is established and when it is organized? I couldn't find any information in the U.S. county article or with a Google search. Psych less 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess: "established" means its boundaries were defined; "organized" means its internal government was set up. An unorganized county (or other territory) is a way for the parent state to subdivide its own activities, like sales territories for a commercial company. —Tamfang 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verreisen vs. reisen

Hi, could someone explain to when one would use the German word "verreisen" and when you would use the word "reisen". Are there certain rules or prepositions that goes along with each verb? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.161.21 (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both words strictly mean "to travel", and the preposition used for the destination is "nach" in both cases (Ich reise nach Italien), but the two verbs carry slightly different connotations:

"verreisen" is mostly used without specifying a destination and puts the focus on the fact that you are going to be away from home ("Ich verreise am Samstag" would mean that I am not going to be here next week and that the people I'm telling this want to know whether I will be here or not, not where I'm going). It can be used with a destination ("Ich verreise nach Italien") - this is grammatically correct, although a bit uncommon. This form focusses more on the process of travelling and seems to imply a long and eventful journey .
"reisen" is generally used with a specified destination and puts the emphasis more on the destination than on the fact that you're going to be away from home (ie, it would be the correct answer to the question "where are you going?").
Both verbs, and the accompanying noun "Reise", are slightly dated as they seem to imply a great journey, months on the road, strange cultures and experiences etc. The more common words in today's language are "Urlaub" as a noun and simple "fahren" as a verb (which is used rather indiscriminately for all methods of transport, even though it literally means "to drive").

--Ferkelparade π 09:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum on prepositions: you use "nach" for anything that doesn't have a definite article (nach Italien, nach Rom) and "zu" for everything that does have one (zum Himalaya, zur Oma, zum Meer). You can also use "in" when you want to say that you're not only going to Russia (nach Russland) but will be doing a bit of travelling around in the country (in Russland). --Ferkelparade π 10:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Great explanation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.44.61 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: verreisen is still quite common (i.e. not dated) in expressions like "Ich bin verreist" to mean "I'm out of town". —An gr 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Is the following sentance in correct grammar?

As he came closer. And closer. And closer. My heart start to thump harder. And harder. And harder. -- 07:43, 18 September 2007 219.88.99.8

It's a passage, not a sentence. Some would say that it has excessive sentence fragments, and the verb tense of "start" is not consistent with the verb tense of "came"... AnonMoos 08:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict: the same, a bit longer) As he came closer. And closer. And closer. My heart start to thump harder. And harder. And harder.

You are writing something here that consists mostly of sentence fragments, probably for literary effect. "As he came closer. And closer. And closer." are three sentence fragments: the first is a clause, and the repeated "And closer" is a phrase. Equally "And harder" is a phrase. None of these has the elements necessary for a sentence, which are a finite verb (a verb with its subject) and that it makes complete sense.

"My heart start to thump harder." is a sentence, but it is not quite correct since the subject "My heart" needs the verb to agree with it. That would have to be "starts" in the present, or more likely "started" in the simple past since you set the scene with "As he came". SaundersW 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original string of words makes a sentence. To be correct, it needs to lose all of those periods, and the second verb needs to agree in number with its subject, as SaundersW points out, and in tense with the independent clause. Here is the correct form of the sentence: "As he came closer and closer and closer, my heart started to thump harder and harder and harder." Stylistically, I think that the triple repitition of the adverbs is excessive. The sentence would work better with simple reduplication: "As he came closer and closer, my heart started to thump harder and harder." Marco polo 12:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing post, Marco polo. If it makes a sentence, why is any change other than stylistic change called for? -- JackofOz 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The triplication and the excessive stops are, I'll bet, intended to convey slow suspense. I'd be content with this:

As he came closer – and closer – and closer – my heart thumped harder and harder.

(To start thumping is a momentary event, which cannot be dragged out.) —Tamfang 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally there is (unless my memory has mistakenly magnified it) a great description of a drawn-out dreadful event in Robert A. Heinlein's novel Farmer in the Sky. The narrator has emigrated to Ganymede, which is kept habitable by a handwavy force-field called a heat-trap, and the heat-trap breaks down in a quake(?). The passage goes something like this: "Very soon the water in the irrigation ditches would freeze, and then it would get colder. It would get cold enough to freeze the very tears in our eyes, and then the blood in our veins. And then it would get colder ...." —Tamfang 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what's meant is "my heart started to thump harder, and then started to thump even harder, etc.", with three discrete increases is heart-thumping-hardness. 75.3.82.67 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just now

In English, the phrase "just now" is normally used to describe a past event. But sometimes it is used to describe a near future event. Which is actually correct? How does Americans and Britons use it? kawaputra^torque 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about British usage, but in general North American usage I don’t think you would use the phrase ‘just now’ to describe a near future event; instead you would use the phrase ‘be about to’ or ‘be just about to’. (For example: “I am just about to click on ‘Save page’.”) --Mathew5000 08:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Mathew5000 said, in North American English "just now" is used only in a past tense. I have heard it used to describe a near-future event only when spoken by someone whose native language is Spanish and the person is not yet fluent in English. I assume this is because of the word "ahorita" in Spanish, which means "right now" and is often used to mean "in the very immediate future, as in right now." I can see how someone who is accustomed to using "ahorita" might translate that as "just now" and use that phrase in a very-near-future sense, but that is not considered correct usage. 152.16.16.75 09:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a North American, I'd have to disagree that "just now" is used only in a past tense. It can also be used as mentioned below.

Is your specificity because you're Canadian? I'm from the U.S., and I've never heard "I'm doing it just now" except in England. 75.3.82.67 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--LarryMac | Talk 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it is used with the past tense, "just now" means "very recently" - I did it just now. It is also, however, used with the present tense to mean "at this moment in time" - I'm unable to get to the phone just now. 80.254.147.52 12:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British English uses it to mean very near or at the present. "I'm doing it just now." is generally taken to mean "I'm doing it at the very moment." or "I am in the process of starting to do it." Some people might use "right now" as indicated above. It's all a bit vague, but that's one of the nice things about the language. Bazza 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small note: "ahorita" is only used in Mexican Spanish. Using that word would make you sound a little like Ned Flanders in Spain (and maybe in other places too), since "ahorita" is something like "li'l now" (in Spain you just say "ahora"). --Taraborn 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would Spaniards use ya mismo? Corvus cornix 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Taraborn 20:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks

I wonder whether some kind of quotation marks are used in all modern languages writing in the Latin alphabet. Also, how do languages with other scripts handle direct speech, quotations, etc. in written texts? I am specifically interested in Asian languages now but information about other languages that are out of my knowledge is welcome too. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After searching Wikipedia properly, I found this: Quotation mark, non-English usage. However, additional comments are still welcome. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German exams

What is the German equivalent to the Cambridge English exams? I'm teaching myself German and I'd like to prove my knowledge someday. --Taraborn 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Goethe Institute seems to be the place to look. DuncanHill 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to look at the [Institute of Linguists exams]. SaundersW 15:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

When referring to groups...

When referring to a group of people who use the name of a single thing (as in Modest Mouse, The Blue Man Group) is the correct phrasing X is here or X are here? Does it vary between British english and American?