October 13

Capping his tags

In a news story about a New York six year old upsetting local authorities by drawing on her sidewalk with chalk, her father was quoted as saying “I do love that kid,” Shea said, “but I wish she would stop capping my tags.”

Can you help me make sense of that phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.159.157 (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's graffiti slang. A tag is a ubiquitous signature. To cap a tag is to deface it, often by crossing it out. See Graffiti terminology and this. (To cap is not in the Wikipedia article, but I'm no expert, so I'm reluctant to add it. Also, I hate having to cite things.) --Milkbreath 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean question

What does 침착해라 mean? Kikiluvscheese 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means "Calm down!" or "Take it easy" etc. It's the command form of "be composed", so sort of like "compose yourself". Zippyt 04:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, how do you say "Be yourself" in Korean? Some translation site gave me 침착해라 for "Be yourself," but it can't be right. Kikiluvscheese 17:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. Well, you can, but it needs to be longer and it won't sound as neat. People usually just say "자신감을 가져," which literally means "Be confident." --Kjoonlee 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you write it in romaji? (I know romaji is Japanese, so let's just say the Korean equivalent of romaji.)Kikiluvscheese 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in RR it would be "Jashingam-eul gajyeo," but the "y" is silent after "j". Eu and eo are digraphs; the eu ([ɯ]) is sort of like the Japanese "u", except that the lips aren't compressed; the lips are just straight and unrounded. The eo ([ʌ])is sort of like the short stressed "u" as in hut, cut, but, and so on, but is slightly "lower" and further "back." More details at Korean phonology, terminology at vowel. --Kjoonlee 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But who would you be saying it to? If you're good friends, then "Jashingam-eul gajyeo" is fine, but in some other cases, you should say "Jashingam-eul gajyeoyo" or not say it at all. --Kjoonlee 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

proestro - English?

Is 'proestro' an English word or at least suitable for an English publication? As best I can tell it comes from Spanish, but it sometimes used in English, perhaps only be non-native users, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate or not. It has to do with animal beeding. --Seans Potato Business 12:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but maybe it's a contraction of proestrogen? Proestrogen is the precursor to estrogen. --Kjoonlee 12:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Proestro" is not in the OED, but "proestrus" is. I've never heard it, either, by the way. To judge by the website I looked at, "proestro" is jargon from veterinary science for a stage of proestrus in dogs (and maybe other critters). So, it does eem to be an English word, but if you are writing for the average English-speaking audience you won't be able to use "proestro" unless you define it. I hope a vet weighs in here. --Milkbreath 14:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, proestro is the Latin ablative case; you'd say in proestro just as you'd say in utero (from uterus). —Tamfang 08:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of phonetic popularity reference?

I'm looking, and so far have been unsuccessful, for some sort of reference as to how popular certain sounds are universally. For example, b is a very common sound in many different languages, while θ is not. Additional information (for example, that while b and d are equally common, variations of the allophone b are more common than variations of the allophone d) would be great. The Wikipedia pages on the IPA and individual consonants and vowels just aren't factual enough for my needs. Help?

Deshi no Shi 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might try Patterns of Sounds by Ian Maddieson (ISBN 0521265363). —An gr 16:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phonology by Roger Lass has some information on system typology which you may find useful (/p/ is more common than /b/, if you have only one fricative it's most likely to be /s/, 86% of all languages have a /j/ phoneme, stuff like that). You can browse it on Google Books before you decide to buy it. Haukur 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly an answer, but in some languages, [p] and [k] are perceived to be variants of a single sound. I suspect taro was the same word as kalo, historically. --Kjoonlee 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, since "taro" has a t, not a p, your second sentence is a non sequitur. And yes, taro and kalo are etymologically related; in Hawaiian, t->k (after k->ʔ in a chain shift), and r->l. —An gr 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I meant [t] and [k], obviously. Well, I still think there are some languages that don't distinguish t and k. --Kjoonlee 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language by David Crystal is a handy popular introduction to many fields of linguistics, including this. —Tamfang 08:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

What is the etymology of "cleveland steamer"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.21.225 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has the reason for the steamer part, but as for the Cleveland part, your guess is as good as mine. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is our article of much help on the issue. The ever-reliable Urban Dictionary, in the sixth definition offered, suggests, rather, I would say, dubiously, that Cleveland means to refer to the cleavage of a woman, proximate to which the steamer is deposited. Joe 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, Cleveland laid out 1796 by Gen. Moses Cleaveland and later named for him. His descendants included U.S. President Grover Cleveland. The family name is from place names in England based on M.E. cleove, a variant of cliff. I'd expect it was named after the city in Ohio. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek COA motto - need characters and translation

Could someone help me get the greek characters from this coat of arms: Image:St Micheal's College University of Toronto.jpg. Thanks, nat^tang 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says ΕΥΣΕΒΕΙΑ - ΜΟΥΣΙΚΗ - ΓΥΜΝΑΣΤΙΚΗ, which means "piety - music - gymnastics" (a rather odd trio). —An gr 19:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, #2 and #3 together sum up Classical Greek education and can often be found paired in Plato, Xenophon, etc. (gymnastics as training of the body, mousike covering the entire education of the mind, not only poetry/music—though poetry of course was foundational for Greek education in a way it hasn't been in later periods—but every other branch of learning & philosophy & the liberal arts; see [1], the synopsis of Rival Lovers). #1 Christianizes it. Wareh 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be an article on Education in Ancient Greece; the closest we seem to have is Paideia, which is so bad I'm putting the cleanup tag on it. Wareh 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name for the disk in the bottom of a urinal?

What do you call the disk that you often see in the bottom of a urinal? I believe that an informal term is "piss puck", but what is the formal term for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.130.121 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urinal cake? Skittle 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around Google with "janitorial supplies", I found several sites that call them "blocks". Urinal block or bowl block, depending. Not a very colorful name, eh? --Milkbreath 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but thank God it's not a bowel block. -- JackofOz 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek phrase

I've heard that the Greeks had a phrase, "look to the end", meaning to look at how a person died before assessing his life. What is the original Greek version of this phrase? Cevlakohn 21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Herodotus' Histories, Book 1, chapter 32, spoken by Solon. In Greek: σκοπέειν δὲ χρὴ παντὸς χρήματος τὴν τελευτήν, κῇ ἀποβήσεται, "It is necessary to examine the end of every matter, how it will turn out." Do yourself a big favor, and read the wonderful context: start at the top of this page and read up to this quotation, which is there translated "But we must of every thing examine the end and how it will turn out at the last." Wareh 23:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Æ

I've created a stub for Aeneas MacKenzie, but should it have been Æneas MacKenzie instead? I'm going to make a redirect one way or another, but this is a royal pÆn, so to speak. Clarityfiend 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the man may have actually used Æ (so a redirect would be appropriate), but you put the article at the right place, in my opinion. Wareh 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes - if that's how he's listed on IMDB, that's probably his real name. You should definitely create a redirect one way or the other. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made Æneas MacKenzie a redirect page, since it's harder to type. But out of curiosity, what exactly is the status of "Æ" in English? The article doesn't really say. Clarityfiend 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolescent. Wareh 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although occasionally seen in older encyclopædias, especially articles on mediæval subjects. Bazza 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice

Which is grammatically correct and why? Suffice to say or suffice it to say 68.206.98.67 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Grandma Sue[reply]

It's a fossilized phrase—both versions are significantly remote from contemporary English, which somewhat nullifies the question of which is grammatically correct. However, suffice it to say has a subject (a dummy subject, more specifically), while suffice to say does not. Canonical English phrases always have subjects, so if you had to label one more correct than the other, I suppose suffice it to say is "more correct". Strad 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mighty careful answer, Strad. In case you're left in any doubt, Granny, "suffice to say" is wrong. Grammar don't enter into it. Idiom is what it is because there is only one way to put it. --Milkbreath 10:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "suffice it to say" is a little better, as suffice is a verb and it provides it with a subject. It may be fossilized, as Strad says, but I'd say it's still part of standard English, if a little old-fashioned. Plenty of people use it, and there are millions of hits on Google, including 672 on the English Wikipedia. Xn4 14:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion from the archives. --LarryMac | Talk 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's uses 'suffice it to say' as an example in the first definition of the word 'suffice' as an intransitive verb.

Mademoiselle

What is the short form (like Mrs. for missus) of Mademoiselle?

Thank you, 138.192.140.113 02:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mlle, which in French usage doesn't have a period after it. (Wiktionary: French, English.) Wareh 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reprehensibly OT, but Mrs is not the short form for missus. Mrs is short for M/mistress [of the house, of course], which in addition has a colloquial form missus/missis. Bessel Dekker 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jar and jug

Are "jar" and "jug" different or interchangable? I consider in the context of having a water jar or a water jug on the dinning table. --Chan Tai Man 10:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever use 'jar' in that context. A jar is a small glass vessel with a wide neck. Jug is the word you want; "pitcher" would be an alternative. And "jug of water" sounds better than "water jug". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jam comes in jars, water comes in jugs. DuncanHill 11:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I cannot think of any circumstance under which the words might be interchangeable. See jar and jug--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jar" is British English slang for a pint (of beer) - as in the invitation "Fancy a jar?". Bazza 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since moonshine traditionally comes in jars in the U.S., we would expect quite a stronger effect than you get from your jar. Rmhermen 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Water jug" sounds fine to me, but I agree, jug and jar are not that interchangeable. --Falconus 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A jar doesn't have a lip to pour, a jug does :) This is probably half-true/not the main difference, but I'd guess it's the most helpful thing to someone trying to learn words that don't have exact parallels in their head. Skittle 22:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your answers. --Chan Tai Man 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Is it ever correct to say "these ones" or "those ones" in English?

Is it ever correct to say "these ones" or "those ones" in English? I have done some searching around the internet and grammar pages, and have found somewhat conflicting answers. It seems quite natural to me to say "these/those ones," and http://www.english4today.com/englishgrammar/grammarfaq/grammarfaq_answer.cfm?qid=340 seems to agree with me. However, another site seems to disagree, http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2006/05/these_ones_thos.html . Where can I find the definitive answer? (I assume there is a definitive answer, for if it is not definitively incorrect, then it is permissible, right?)

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.204.51 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the advice in your second link; it amounts to saying that ones in "these ones" may often be unnecessary, and thus it would be better style to omit it, so that the usage may be entirely missing from the collected works of careful writers. But I don't think there is anything prescriptively wrong about "these ones" and "those ones." Wareh 16:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree. I would call the form colloquial and dialectic. I'll say it like that sometimes, and I talk English good. The OED shows a similar plural "one" from 1953 in Donegal and calls it Irish English (Are there any X? You'll find ones in the shed.)

The second link says "English is full of rules, half of them broken." I say "English has very few rules; usage is all" (in the long run). If everybody around there says a thing a certain way, it is correct by the only definition of "correct" that makes any sense. Whether a locution is appropriate in writing for an audience who expect standard English is another matter, and I would leave the oneses off, myself.

Incidentally, I wouldn't go back to the first link for advice about English because they think "drawer" is spelled "draw". Come here, instead. --Milkbreath 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exotic Irish-English citation is beside the point, since ordinary English countenances "She ate those small ones you left on the table." (KJV example: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones...") It's just that without an attribute like "small" or "little," "ones" is redundant and can/should be omitted. Wareh 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear a semantic difference. Sure, you can say "those little ones", but can you say "those five ones"? Not so much, and the latter is heard in "those ones", to my ear. I only noted the Irish citation because it sounded similarly alien.--Milkbreath 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milkbreath, I see a bit of a disconnect between what you're saying here and what you said in a previous question, "Idiom is what it is because there is only one way to put it". Can you clarify? -- JackofOz 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous question was about "suffice it to say". That has a fixed form and is of a piece, what Fowler calls "cast iron idiom". No variation is possible except as a conscious play on words. Usage trumps "rules" every time, eventually, but usage often, perhaps always, goes through a phase where its new formulation is a mistake. In years to come, "suffice to say" may become the norm, used by all the best writers, and then that will be that. But right now it's a shibboleth of less-than-complete literacy.

Here, we're talking about a casual locution, not a fixed idiomatic expression. What authority can we look to? The only authority I recognize on the correctness of an English string of words is the body of literature, interpreted by my ear and verified by consensus. Grammaticality is another matter, but more often than not what is not grammatical also sounds wrong. Our "those ones" is perfectly sound grammatically, and it is idiomatic in some dialects; it is therefore correct (and would be even if it defied one's personal idea of grammar if you ask me). Besides, I use it. It does not, however, seem to be standard American English, which is an institutional-size can of worms we can open later.

Don't get me wrong, I'll hit you if you call me a descriptivist. There is usage that is just plain wrong, but "those ones" isn't an example. I hope I've answered the question you asked and not one I thought you asked. --Milkbreath 01:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever question you were answering, what you say makes sense to me. Thanks. -- JackofOz 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to think of any context in which "ones" would not be redundant. I guess in "Would you like those cakes or these ones?" the "ones" indicates that the speaker is still talking about cakes and not carrots. A quick search shows that neither phrase occurs in the Bible or the works of Shakespeare, and even Wikipedia, not known for its eloquence, has surprisingly few occurrences in article namespace.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that there are no longer any rules about correct usage, and accept that common = correct, do what you want. If you want to write something that is grammatically correct, don't use a phrase that is redundant. The only "correct" usage I can think of, would be within quote marks attributing the usage to a particular individual. Steve Pastor 19:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a recent discussion about this on the Language log see here and the follow up. If you read the post immediately above this one here and are left worried that by writing these ones you have implicitly accepted that there "are no longer any rules" please rest assured that there is a very large (sensible) middle ground. Stefán 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that the word "grammatical" is being stretched and abused by such statements as (to quote the original languagelog observation) "to my ear it isn't quite grammatical." An appeal to the ear is usually a test of whether language is being used idiomatically, not grammatically. "These ones" is not part of the "best usage," it may be stylistically awkward and redundant, but it is not ungrammatical, as it leaves every principle of syntax and logic unscathed. Redundant and awkward language, in general, is not necessarily ungrammatical, unless it is also illogical ("most favorite" I'd be more willing to consider). Wareh 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed on Pg.111 of "British Or American English?: A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns" by John Algeo; but it's not previewable in Google books. I surmise he's saying it's more common in Britain than America, which accords with the Language Log posts referred to above, and with the British National Corpus (these ones those ones). Here's a British textbook: Lambotte, Paul (1998). "Demonstrative adjectives and pronouns §3". Aspects of Modern English Usage for Advanced Students: A Comparison with French. De Boeck Université. pp. Pg 58. ISBN 2804126765. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

'One' is used in all registers after 'this' and 'that' to refer to a countable.
'These ones' and 'those ones', on the contrary, are only used in colloquial language (and some people do not like them at all), while 'these' and 'those' are more formal.

If you want strawberries take these ones. colloquial, same frequency as

If you want strawberries take these. more formal

These shoes are more expensive than those better than

These shoes are more expensive than those ones

These coaches arent as comfortable as (those / those ones / the ones) over there.

Anybody purporting to explain why "these ones" is (often) unacceptable needs to take account of the fact that "this one" is (often) perfectly acceptable. Language Log has plenty of posts deploring the "omit needless words" bugbear: many insecure writers over-apply Strunk and White's rules to every nook and cranny of their prose, never trusting to intuition.

My person theory: "it's just one of those things". That "these ones" is more common in spoken than written language is not surprising given its deictic sense. So I think it is sometimes correct to say it, though you may never need to write it. jnestorius^(talk) 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put, jnestorius. Wareh 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

preposition question

Which sentence is correct grammatically (from Jim Corbett National Park):

The forests were cleared to make the area less vulnerable against Rohila invaders.
The forests were cleared to make the area less vulnerable to Rohila invaders.

--Mattisse 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say number two. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. One defends something against an invader because it's vulnerable to that invader. -- JackofOz 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Mattisse 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

Expletives

I have a few questions about expletives -- if anyone can share any insight, I would appreciate that. Thanks.

Oftentimes, when a swear word or expletive is referred to in writing, the actual (offensive) word itself will be removed and will be "masked" with a symbol such as "@$!#@$&!". Is there an actual name for this symbol (in the same way that the "&" symbol is called an "ampersand")?
Is there a name for a symbol (word) such as "f---" or "f--k" to represent the four-letter word f,u,c,k?
Is there a name to describe the phenomenon where we would call the above example "the F word"?
Would the term "euphemism" be applicable or inapplicable in any of the above situations, to describe the thinly veiled swear word? Euphemism does not seem quite right -- or is it? If not euphemism, what would be better grammatical / linguistic terminology?
Does anyone know the origin of these practices -- or have any references, cites, etc., about their history, usage, frequency?
Finally: What -- if any -- is the standard, accepted, conventional way to use expletive words in "formal" writing? Is the standard to use the exact words? To "play it safe"/conservative and use them only in direct quotation marks? To use a generic "expletive deleted" notation? To use the "@$!#@$&!" notation? Or to employ some other alternative? I am referring to an example where it would be essentially meaningless to sanitize the offensive words and "hide" them ... in other words, where using a generic statement such as this is not sufficient: "The teenager shouted several expletives at the police officer and was immediately arrested for breach of peace." If the above scenario needed to be placed into a formal paper, what would be the accepted standard? (I mean, there must be some formal settings -- who knows? a large-group presentation, a police interview, a psychiatric evaluation, etc. -- where you might need to indicate something substantive ... and you can't get away with the above generic-type sentence.) What would be used:

John called Officer Smith a fucking asshole.
John stated, "You are a fucking asshole" to Officer Smith.
John stated, "You are a f------ a------" to Officer Smith.
John stated, "You are a "@$!#@$&! @$!#@$&!" to Officer Smith.
John stated, "You are a (expletive deleted)" to Officer Smith.

I guess what I am asking is this. What is the proper professional way to write this kind of stuff in a formal setting where (a) you do not necessarily have to use direct quotes but (b) you can't get away with saying nothing at all and you need to have some substance to the writing? So, I am not referring to a police officer's arrest report -- where he would probably use direct quotations. And I am not referring to a psychiatrist's medical evaluation -- where he would probably use direct quotations. But I am referring to some formal setting, where a generic "John used bad language" statement would not quite cut it. Perhaps a letter to the Pope or the Queen or a Judge or a Senator or the Mayor or a Chief of Police or your kid's school teacher/principal or your boss or ... whomever.

7. Finally, finally: How about the same (above) questions, but when the presentation of the offensive words is spoken as opposed to written (e.g., you are speaking at a Town Council meeting or you are speaking in Court)? Any thoughts on all this? Thanks for any helpful input. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Representing profanity by a string of punctuation marks is mostly done in comics. See The Lexicon of Comicana: this is one of several comic conventions that Mort Walker invented a name for in jest, only to find it being taken up seriously. The name for them is "grawlixes".
"The F word" is certainly a euphemism. The deliberate substitution of a weaker word would be bowdlerization. I think "f---" lies on the border between the two.
As to formal contexts, whether spoken or written, I don't think there is any real standard; it's up to the responsible person or organization. For example, until fairly recently you couldn't find "fuck" in any dictionaries; today reputable ones do include it. If one politician tells another to fuck off, one newspaper will find this fact newsworthy and report it verbatim; another will use "f---"; another will use vague wording. Political forums may have rules against inappropriate language. And so on.

--Anonymous, 04:15 UTC, Oct---r 16, 2007.

Just for fun, here's an example of that last point. The Speaker of the Quebec provincial legislature ruled this week that it is now impermissible in the legislature to call your opponent a "girouette"... which is to say, a "weathervane"! (News story: in French, in English) --Anon, 05:10 UTC, October 17.

A variant on "f------ a------" that allows the reader to deduce exactly what was said without writing it in full is to replace vowels with asterisks, thus: "f*ck*ng *ssh*l*". This is also done for other reasons; many years ago The Judy's had a song called "Will Someone Please Kill M*rl* Th*m*s", where the asterisks were presumably used in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit. —An gr 05:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of which sort of censorship (which it is, in a way) in the quoting you use is not standardised. It would depend, mostly, on the audience. If it's for the Council for Easily Shocked Grannies, replacing the word entirely with CENSORED would be appropriate. In most cases, it would be acceptable to use f**k, f--- or f@!$, for politeness' sake. It could also be appropriate to use the uncensored text without removing any part, but placing a visible warning before that part of the text, saying that it contains offensive language (like you might see before a movie or on a CD case (if they do in your part of the world). Steewi 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Edited to add - there is also the possibility that people may be offended by the non-use of swearwords when they obviously occur, taking it as a form of being patronised.[reply]

5. The practice of replacing all or part of an offensive word with hyphens appears as a guideline in The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, the American journalist's stylebook. It doesn't give the practice a name.

6. I think you would have to judge case-by-case. In the highest register, I would tend to go with the exact words in direct quotation. I would expect the intelligentsia to be more offended by the insult to their intelligence that euphemism gives than by the words themselves, and indirect quotation puts the words in the writer's mouth, so to speak. If it seemed advisable to tone it down, I would probably go with the hyphens. Grawlixes are only for the funny papers and fiction. "Expletive deleted" is a euphemism for "censored", and has a comical ring to it. By the way, "expletive" is itself a euphemism for "profanity" or "obscenity". --Milkbreath 11:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. According to our WP:Profanity article, this can be called bowdlerization, as suggested by Anonymous.

3. I agree with Anonymous that the "F word" is a euphemism.

6+7. I haven't found any resources on style that talk about this, but in my opinion, when it is important to include the exact words, I would suggest using their completely uncensored forms in quotes in both written and oral presentations. It's annoying (at least to me) to see forms like "f------ a------" and hear "he called him a racial slur." When the intent is to be informative, uncensored forms are preferable since they leave it up to the reader—instead of the writer—to decide how offensive a statement was.--El aprendelenguas 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most professional approach is to actually quote what the person stated, 'he said the officer is a motherfucker'" would be fine. however if you have any restraints such as censorship one of the other alternatives is fine, except the #$%& approach which is childish and comical i.e. Pow! Bam! Kpow! "F-ing A-hole (sic)" might be the best way to state this if you have censopship as an issue.Cholga^talK! 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sic in your example above means that the speaker censored their own speech (their utterance sounded like "eff-ing ey-hole"). This seems exactly the opposite effect from the desired one. Tesseran 06:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sic would be inappropriate there. It's normally used to convey that an apparent spelling or factual error is exactly what a previous writer wrote, and should not be attributed to a typo in the current text. -- JackofOz 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations to all contributing here. This f**king brilliant debate wins the ninth User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award. Good job. --Dweller 11:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need a word

What's the word for when you use an item for a use other than its intended use? Like when you use a screwdriver to hit a nail. I'm not describing it well, but its usually used in the context that most people can't see uses for things which would be useful otherwise. E.G. a person is in a room and they need to hammer a nail and all they have is a screwdriver, so they say can't do it.

I think i heard it in AP Psychology

Micah J. Manary 05:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more formal word is expedient, but you can also say make-do, makeshift, stopgap... ect. But is that what you mean?--K.C. Tang 06:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatic? -- JackofOz 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the word is for a mental block when you CAN'T see another use for an item. Micah J. Manary 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the word is used to describe the feeling "Hey, I can't make do with that!"?--K.C. Tang 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's two words, but how about "blind spot"? Clarityfiend 07:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "to utilise"-- which is not just a fancy synonym of "use", but literally means "to turn something into a tool"; Thus, "I utilised a wire coat-hanger for a TV antenna. Rhinoracer 08:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is what you are seeking ... but as I read this post, the phrase "tunnel vision" comes to mind ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Makeshift? 195.35.160.133 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

By looking at etymology, abuse would be a good choice (ab = "away from"), but at least for your hammer example, it's probably not what your looking for since it has a strong negative connotation.--El aprendelenguas 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, "abuse" would be very negative: what you seem to be looking for, is just alternative use. Since this requires creativity, the mental activity needed might be called lateral thinking, the resulting physical act would be improvisation.
If you fail to recognize the alternative use of the screwdriver, this could, it seems to me, only be described in negative terms: you fail in lateral thinking, you are unable to improvise.
This is not mental block, which occurs if you cannot even access "normal" uses: e.g., there is a hammer in the room, but for some (emotional?) reason you fail to recognize its use. Bessel Dekker 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for functional fixedness. risk 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it.--K.C. Tang 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still another word for using something for a new purpose is "repurposing". This is a relatively new word and won't be in most dictionaries. I think it tends to imply that the original usage is being abandoned. --Anonymous, edited 01:43 UTC, October 17, 2007.

To Macguyver? Confusing Manifestation 05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation??

Looked up Anne Parillaud (actress). How to pronounce her name? WIKI listing shows pronounciation as "an paʁi'jo" Read article on IPA pronounciation, can't figure it out. Is it really pronounced "ANN PARRY JOE" ?? ANSWER.COM has a button so you can hear the word. See here for example: http://www.answers.com/Comedy?nafid=3

That would be a good feature to have on WIKI. Else, use standard english words so we can guess the proper pronounciation.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.244.170 (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more accessible description of the pronunciation would be "aan par-ee-YAW". The 'r' is the French 'gargled r'. The problem with English-based pronunciation descriptions is that many of the people who come to Wikipedia have different accents in English (my Australian 'look' is pronounced differently to a New Yorker's 'look' as well as that of a Georgian, a Londoner and also a German who has only just learnt English. IPA is independent of accent, so once you know how one of the symbols sounds, it's the same, no matter what accent or language you speak with. I hope that helps you understand the difficulty. The only other useful option is to attach a sound file to each description, but I don't know that that would be practical. Steewi 07:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling us that yaw and yo are pronounced alike in Oz? —Tamfang 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my accent, 'yaw' is pronounced [jo]. 'Yo' is pronounced [jʌʉ]. Perhaps I should have been more specific, that I was writing for my accent, as I don't know what accent to write for 76.81. Steewi 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more useful reference than the IPA page is IPA chart for English which shows the j represents an English y sound (as it would in German). It is pronounced something like Steewi said but the last syllable is more like -oh to me than -aw (or?). See IPA is useful I can't even work out what is meant! Cyta 07:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, adding audio files with the pronunciation of a word is done on Wikipedia, but requires someone to have made the file, uploaded it in the right form and put it in the article. Skittle 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

j as in Latin, Finnish, all Germanic languages except English, and those Slavic languages that don't use Cyrillic (as well as some that do) – any others? —Tamfang 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Only in London' in Latin

Can anyone suggest a definitive translation of the phrase 'only in London' into Latin? A colleague has suggested 'Londinio solus'. Inter-trans suggests 'Tantum Londinii'. Is one more correct than the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expert at Latin, but I would think that the best way to render this in Latin would be 'Londinii solum'. The correct form for 'Londinium' is 'Londinii' because in Latin, the locative case was used to indicate location in cities and towns. It should be 'solum' rather than 'solus' because 'solum' is the adverbial form. Typically, modifiers such as 'solum' follow the word or phrase that they modify, hence 'Londinii solum'. 'Tantum Londinii' doesn't look right to me. 'Tantum' can mean 'only', but in the sense of 'only so much', I think. For example, 'I'm only halfway finished'. 'Tantum' might work if you were saying something like, "I'm on my way from Brighton to Cambridge, but at the moment I am only in London." Marco polo 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest "modo Londinii." modo means "just" or "only." solus -a -um means "alone," and while it probably could be used in some construction in Latin to mean "only" (since many Romance languages' words for "only" do derive from solus -a -um), I think that using modo just works better.--El aprendelenguas 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that the meaning of modo is nearer to "merely" than to "uniquely" which seems to be what's wanted. —Tamfang 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's underwear

What word do Americans use to refer to suspenders? The page at suspenders is, inevitably, all about braces (and, by the way, some of the most unencyclopedic rubbish I have ever seen); moreover, the redirect to garter belt does not help.

"Garter belt" is not a synonym for "suspenders", it is a synonym for "suspender belt". So what do Americans call the suspenders themselves? 80.254.147.52 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If Americans use a different word, then we don't know what your word means, right? Suspenders are the elastic straps that go over the shoulders to hold your pants up. Please describe the thing you're asking about so we can tell you what it's called. --Milkbreath 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't use your word to describe it if I don't know what your word is. I suspect that you are being wilfully obtuse. What do Americans call the bits that hang down from the "garter belt" (if you will) and attach to the tops of the stockings? 80.254.147.52 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Milkbreath has a fair point. You are supposing that he understands what you mean, but if he is American, he might not. He didn't ask you to use the word, but rather to describe the item so that s/he could help you. A suspender belt is a synonym for garter belt as suspender is a synonym for garter. The suspenders are attached to the suspender belt as the garters are attached to the garter belt. It kind of explains itself. Perhaps reading the garter belt article first paragraph again slowly and considering the content would help - to which garters are attached to hold up stockings.

As for finding the suspenders article "unencyclopedic rubbish", why not improve the article rather than complaining? Be bold.

Also don't forget that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you and assume good faith, you may find people more willing to help you. Lanfear's Bane 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have a point or a clue. The only dealings I've had with this whole business was the time I dressed in full drag for Halloween (which resolves the s/he issue), and I wore pantyhose, anyhow, which I'm man enough to admit felt nice, incidentally. Tell you what, the experience gave me a new and lasting respect for the athleticism of the average woman. Have you ever tried to look good walking in heels? It ain't easy, and in fact it hurts.

I'd like to assure 80 (may I call you 80?) that I did not intend to be rude and that I am well able to be obtuse unintentionally. What I was there was lazy. Further, I can be one infuriating sarcastic bastard, I've been told (I'm married, you see), and you'll have no doubt about my intentions if I ever do go that way here.

Anyway, it looks like they're called "garters" (AHD) despite the fact that the word also means that thing the best man removes from the leg of the maid of honor. --Milkbreath 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do Americans call garters? I mean the things that go around the tops of stockings or socks, not the bit that connects the top of the stocking to the suspender-belt. DuncanHill 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is simply called the top band (when I look at the stocking page). There is also a garter of course which is a single band seperate from the stocking. I think the heavier band of material around the top of a stocking must also be erroneously referred to as a garter as it conceals a band of plastic tractive material which helps hold the stocking up but is known as a hold-up or stay-up (myself included in this error up until now). I never knew so much about stockings until now. Thank you Wikipedia, thank you. Lanfear's Bane 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there isn't an article on mens garters then - the ones that hold socks up?87.102.12.235 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We used to wear garters in the Cubs. DuncanHill 18:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard anyone refer to a garter belt as having parts: it's a garter belt, and the straps and clips are part of the garter belt. After all, when would you wear one part without the other? (Would you wear a suspender belt without suspenders? Or, even more bizarre, suspenders without a suspender belt? I think not.)
A garter is definitely the elasticized band that holds up socks and stockings (and shirtsleeves once upon a time.) Garters are generally worn only at weddings for a strange ceremony in which the best man removes said garter from the bride's leg and flings it at a crowd of men, one of whom then puts it on the leg of the maid of honor. You know, if it's an underwear-flinging sort of wedding.
Suspenders are elasticized or adjustable straps that go over the shoulders to hold up pants. Grammargal 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad English?
Just checking, is the phrase "I am me", bad English? I would've thought that since the subject and object are the same, it should be reflexive (I am myself). It doesn't sound too strange, but if you put it in other persons (e.g. "she is her" or "they are them") it sounds much more incorrect. Just curious. Thanks in advance. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prescriptive grammar dictates "I am I". "Am" is copulative, making the second "I" not an object but a predicate nominative. "Me" is in the objective case, and "I" is nominative.

Real-world grammar ignores all that. "I am me" is also right. It is true that "she is her" sounds unnatural; "she is she" sounds better, oddly. But "they are they" sounds really weird. It's my opinion that "me", anyway, is a special case, that we think of it differently than we do the other pronouns.

People talk the way they talk, and grammar be damned sometimes. If you want to start a fistfight down at Ye Olde Quill and Pince-nez, bring this up once everybody's got a few pints in them. Just watch what happens here. --Milkbreath 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Predictably, what happens will be that you lose your pince-nez in the process. Milkbreath is quite right, of course, though I'd amend slightly and say: "Prescriptive grammar be damned sometimes."

Part of this problem, it seems to me, is logical rather than linguistic here. "I am me" voices an identity relation, and seems less logical than "Don't worry, it's me." However, it is hardly less grammatical, if grammar is description of usage. In daily life, how many people would say; "Don't worry, it's I"?
"It is I, LeClerc" Cyta 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is no less interesting that fear of grammatical mistakes may lead to hypercorrection. Thus, a common instance of such grammophobia is a construction like "He looked at my husband and I as if he were going to spit at us." No one, it is hoped, would say "spit at we". Lots of people say "at my husband and I" because of the conjunction and in a wish to err on the safe side (which, in fact, is a very unsafe side here). Bessel Dekker 17:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'I am myself' is perhaps more natural. Algebraist 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that has quite a different meaning? Bessel Dekker 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm not sure what 'I am me' is supposed to connote (since to me it's just unnatural), I can't say. Algebraist 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point. To me, both I am I and I am me suggest rather a philosophical point of view: one is what one is, no more and no less. On the other hand, I would (quite wrongly, perhaps) take I am myself to mean "I am acting/feeling... etc. in a natural manner", and would mainly be used in a negative context ("Sorry, I am not myself at the moment"). Bessel Dekker 12:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decommissioning
This is a question for those who have never heard this usage before. If you read that State Highway 23 was decommissioned in 1984, exactly how would you interpret that? Thank you. (Yes, this is Wikipedia-related.) --NE2 19:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would read it to mean that the stretch of road formerly known as State Highway 23 had lost its designation as a state highway with that highway number. Marco polo 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take it to mean the road was closed permanently. (Or maybe stored underground encased in concrete.) —An gr 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Angr's second comment: I would read it as a bizarre misuse of the word 'decommissioned', the normal usage of which is in entirely different areas. Algebraist 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too :) I was picturing it being carefully taken apart and the pieces taken away... Skittle 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the context: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned? Anyone care to help sort it out? --NE2 08:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a British v. American English difference? See Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Just to widen things further, I'd be seriously worried if members of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in Northern Ireland attached different meanings to the word Decommissioning. --ReddyRose 11:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a professional vs. "fan community" difference. --NE2 13:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a person doesn't know what "decommission" means, they can open up a dictionary. It's really very simple. --Son 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. It's still not clear and could mean either that the road lost it's status, or that it has been closed completely (dug up and carted away being optional). I suspect this is a GB vs US issue. In GB English, decommission often means "switch off", "close", "make unusable"; so when we decommission ships, power stations, armaments (as mentioned above), etc., it means they are no longer usable. From that logic, a decommissioned road is one which is closed and no longer usable. Bazza 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the meaning in the U.S. too: [2][3] --NE2 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I offered my interpretation above based on my knowledge of the United States, where roads are seldom completely removed from service. Instead, highways formerly designated with route numbers become local back roads when they are replaced by a bigger, better highway nearby. Since the expression "decommissioned" seems to be ambiguous and possibly misleading, I would avoid it and instead describe in simpler terms what actually happened: either "the road formerly known as State Highway 23 lost its designation as a state highway" or "State Highway 23 was permanently closed and demolished". Marco polo 14:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Turned back" (to the county/city) is one term that is used by some departments of transportation. --NE2 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I first read the question, I imagined something like what Marco said, that the route marked "SR 23" would cease to exist as such, and further that the signs would be taken down and maintenance left to whichever governmental unit below state level would ordinarily be responsible. There would thereafter be a gap in the list of state roads at 23, at least temporarily. I knew that was only a guess, though, and I would be a little peeved if that was all my state said. I've heard of a ship's being decommissioned but not a road, and a dictionary is no help if my state is going to just make up terms. --Milkbreath 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's many Wikipedia articles that say only that. --NE2 16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
allowance in spanish
what would the best way to say "allowance" ($) in spanish? and what about "chart" or "graph" what about "utility" i.e. gas, water, internet; and lastly "single family home" and "single familt detached"?Cholga^talK! 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In around 2007
If the precise year of an event isn't known, is it acceptable to say "John Doe was born in around 1390"? Is "in around" cromulent? (nb, I know cromulent isn't cromulent). Or do I have to use "in approximately"? Neil ☎ 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "in about 1390" would sound better. DuncanHill 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, 'around' is more colloquial, and so fine for a record cover, say, but not for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine 22:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just use "John Doe was born c1390" 84.68.125.254 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would write "John Doe was born c. 1390". (I'd never spell it out as " ... born circa 1390"). If your readership is not familiar with "c.", you could say " ... born about 1390". Btw, "in" should not go with "around/about", because "in" points to a specific year, whereas "around/about" does not. -- JackofOz 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would use c., but if I had to choose, I'd do away with both 'in' and 'about' and simply replace them with 'around'. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, we may be encountering different national varieties of English here. "Around" sounds horribly wrong to me, and I strongly feel the "in" is necessary in "was born in about". As to "c" or "circa", I would either write "circa" or "ca.", never "c". DuncanHill 11:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JackofOz on this. Since he is Australian and I am American, I'm not sure it is a question of different national varieties. I think that it should be either "born around 1390" or "born about 1390". "About" sounds slightly more formal and "encyclopedic" to my American ears. Marco polo 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility: "born approximately 1390." Myself, I'd write c. (circa). Pfly 06:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you'd write both the abbreviation and the word itself in brackets? -- JackofOz 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not brackets, parentheses! And, no. :) Pfly 08:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the...!
I always heard the term "That's the Oldest Trick in the Book" when somebody tries to pull a prank. I've always interpreted this saying as "That [prank] is the most clichéd practical joke" well...my question is simply as such: What is the 'Oldest Trick in the Book'? I can think of a few candidates but, still.....
Thanks!
♥ECH3LON ♥ 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(If you're a Christian) The oldest trick in the book is when a snake tricked a dumb broad into eating an apple from the wrong tree. Neil ☎ 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See The Oldest Trick in the Book. -- BenRG 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since prostitution is called "the world's oldest profession" and a trick is slang for a prostitute's customer, then wouldn't the oldest trick in the book be the first "john"? — Michael J 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.....or maybe the oldest 'john', like a 103 year old man with a big urge and a fist full of dollars (or euros or pounds!!) Richard Avery 07:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the agents of KAOS are trying to pull on Maxwell Smart at the time. Confusing Manifestation 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 17
Overly-extended vowels in IPA
Is there a special symbol in IPA that indicates when a vowel is held for an overly-extended period of time, such as several seconds? Or do you just repeat the vowel symbol several times? I'm thinking of cases where you want to describe how a word is said in a particular instance. For example, when the Yankees win a game, John Sterling says on the radio, "Yankees win! Theeeeeeee Yankees win!" — pronounced /ðəəəəəəəə/ not /ðiiiiiiiiː/. Or, the word insane in the Crazy Eddie commercial ("His prices are insane!") is pronounced /ˈɪɪɪnseeeeeeɪn/, while in the song "Time Warp" ("But it's the pelvic thrust / that really drives them insane") it is sung /ɪnˈseɪeɪeɪeɪeɪeɪn/. Or am I doing it wrong? — Michael J 03:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For most purposes you can either repeat the vowel, as you have shown, or repeat the colon, as in [ðəːːːːː]. Both are acceptable, and will probably be determined by the language you're working with and what you are doing with it. It's not necessarily useful to repeat the vowel, in many cases, because it may be ambiguous as to whether there are phonologically multiple vowels or a continuation of the same vowel. Context, of course will probably make it clear. Steewi 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
correct or ot not.
Respected Sir/Madam, I would like to know if the following sentences are correct usages of Eglish or not.
1. What beautiful girl!.
2. How beautiful girl is !.
3. If I should fail this time, I will try again.
4. We will meet tomorrow if it should not be very inconvinient to you.
5. I could do so, if I would.
I must tell you that the context of these sentences are not know to me. thanking you with regards sushama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquial English would say:
1. What a beautiful girl!
2. How beautiful the (or that) girl is!
3. If I fail this time, I will try again.
4. We will meet tomorrow if it is not very inconvenient for you.
5. I could do so, if I wanted.
SaundersW 08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That last one could also be:
5. I would do so, if I could. or simply 5. I would if I could. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What i want to know is, whether the above given usages by me are correct usages or not. because i know the other colloquial usages suggested by you and i have come accross with these sentence which i wanted to varify. are such constractions possible(grammatically also). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 is wrong because you need the 'a' between 'what' and 'beautiful'. 2 is wrong because you need 'that' (or 'the') between 'beautiful' and 'girl'. 3 is grammatically correct but the first part is rather formal, you might include the 'should' in formal written English but you would always leave it out of spoken English. In 4, 'should' is incorrect. I would rewrite the sentence as per SaundersW's suggestion, except that I would say 'not too inconvenient' (or, more simply, just 'convenient') rather than 'not very inconvenient'. 5 is incorrect - see SaundersW's and Mgm's possible rewrites. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 may be uncommon but it is not incorrect, it sounds rather old fashioned and formal though, and will invariably bring to mind Rupert Brooke's The Soldier and its famous first lines "If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field that is for ever England". Cyta 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A better way of writing 4 would be "We will meet tomorrow unless it is very inconvenient". -- JackofOz 10:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, "We'll meet tomorrow if that's convenient for you." to avoid the double negative.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced 3 is even grammatically correct. Shouldn't it be "If I should fail this time, I shall try again."? But then I've tried to work out the intricacies of shall/will before, and failed beyond 'I can hear a difference'. Skittle 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Shall and will, especially Shall and will#Current common usage jnestorius^(talk) 15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The shall/will distinction has never been widespread in British English, and certainly is incomprehensible to many Scots. Unfortunately some teachers have tried to impose a particular usage. DuncanHill 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing. My teachers never touched on anything like that, since they were busy calling adjectives 'describing words' *sigh*. And yet, I can hear a difference. Skittle 16:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, are none of the distinctions considered widespread these days? Duncan, can you not hear the difference in meaning in the example given in Jnestorius' link "I will die! Nobody shall help me!"? Looking at the page I agree with the general differences, but think I shall have to stick to 'feeling', as it makes it sound overly complicated! But having heard that the differences don't apply elsewhere, I can see that the example given by the original question asker could be considered grammatically correct. Skittle 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I tend to use will and shall in the manner of their Swedish cognates - shall for something that is going to happen, and will for something that is intended to happen. DuncanHill 16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if anybody calling for help would really say "I will die! Nobody shall help me!"; the joke is an Englishman's and misrepresents the other dialect (not that I'm condemning it: it's only a joke). The actual difference would be between those who would say "I shall die! Nobody will help me!" and those who would say "I will die! Nobody will help me!" In my Irish idiolect, "shall" occurs in very few contexts, "shan't" not at all, and "should" occurs only as "ought to", "would be well advised to"; never as a near-synonym of "would". When I hear "shall"/"should" outside these contexts, it strikes me not as wrong but as somewhat genteel Home Counties talk. There are contexts where, rather than replacing shall/should with will/would, I would use a different construction altogether. jnestorius^(talk) 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I wasn't suggesting that it was a realistic situation (would nobody just save them anyway?), but it featured in the article and I was intrigued by the thought that people might not hear any difference in meaning, even in such a construct. (And I'd assumed, probably falsely, that the guy was supposed to be trying to speak like the English people? Meh) Skittle 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have only ever heard "I will die! Nobody shall help me!" as part of an English story about a German visitor to England who falls into a river and shouts it out. Those on the scene understand him to mean he wants to die, so they let him drown. Xn4 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is a person from San Marino?
Is a person from San Marino sanmarinese, as in our Category:Sanmarinese music, or sammarinese, as implied by Sammarinese lira? Or is either acceptable? Oldelpaso 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both have a solid history of usage in English; a search of public-domain books in Google Books finds both in English [and Italian - see below] works of that vintage. Wareh 18:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Italians use sammarinese. Xn4 21:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The OUP Dictionary of the World says Citizen of San Marino. DuncanHill 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xn4's statement is true because it is in the present tense, and because contemporary Italian generally hates to preserve etymological spellings at odds with pronunciation. But the Google Books search I mentioned shows that, in public-domain books, sanmarinese was plenty common in Italian. Wareh 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. So in English we preserve the older spelling of the Italian word. For what it's worth, I'm more comfortable with Sanmarinese, in English. Xn4 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fish strike
What's the word for when a fish comes to the surface to eat a fly? Keria 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feeding? --Kjoonlee 19:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a rise. Xn4 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, thats it! I had a look in Wiktionary and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rise doesn't cover our use of the term. Maybe someone can add it (I'm not a native English speaker). Keria 09:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 18
Need Translation...
What does "JUNCTA JUVANT" mean? nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on University of Cincinnati and UC's website translate it as "Strength in Unity". iungere means to join/unite, iuncta is the perfect passive participle joined/united in the neutral plural form. iuvare means to help/aid (There's probably a more fitting meaning, but I'm sticking to what I found on wiktionary). Iuncta iuvant literally could be translated as united, they help (one another). There seems to be a legal phrase "Quae non valeant singula, iuncta iuvant." ("What is without value on its own, helps when joined" (? Please correct, if mistranslated, Latin classes are far away.)" This reference interprets it as "(Words)which have no meaning when considered separately, obtain their sense when they are brought in connection with one another." ---Sluzzelin talk 06:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works well in the legal phrase but as a motto for a university it's kind of odd. Iuncta is neuter, so if it is the subject of iuvant (and it could be, grammatically), it means some lifeless inanimate joined things are helping! But if it is the object (which it could also be, grammatically), it means "they help the joined things." Seems like it would work better if it were Iuncti or Iunctos... Adam Bishop 07:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you know...it's also the motto of New College, University of Toronto. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 09:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation Sluzzelin quotes seems quite satisfactory for the neuter, since the aim of a broad liberal arts education is to unite disparate fields of learning into something greater than the sum of its parts. Wareh 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing that "juncta" is meant to be feminine singular, not neuter plural, and that it is meant to refer to the university (universitas, schola, alma mater) and to mean something like "They support the united [university]". Marco polo 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But iuncta cannot be the feminine singular object of iuvant. Wareh 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Then it would be "junctam". How embarrassing. ;-( Marco polo 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Norwegian Dialects
In http://books.google.com/books?id=CPX2xgmVe9IC&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=%22middle+norwegian%22&source=web&ots=IJVj3Zzc-U&sig=_uSbhtzkjboI_XuW9brgk7eGau8#PPA337,M1, it says "Runic writing survived into the 18th c. in archaic communities such as Oppdal....". I was wondering which those are the most archaic? Thanks.70.74.35.53 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a latin sentence
What is the meaning of these two latin sentences: "notio quaedam intellectualis n mente aeternaliter facta" and "in qua dicitur non esse". Both are from John Scotus Eriugena. Thank you in advance for your kindly help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.156.3 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: in mente divina for n mente.) The first is Eriugena's definition of a human being, "and not only of a human being, but also of all things which are created in God's wisdom." It can be translated, "a certain idea of the intellect eternally created in the mind of God." The second quote concerns the "superessentiality" of God's nature. In fact, superessentialitas is the antecedent of the relative pronoun qua, so that Eriugena is saying that, "In God's superessentiality, he is said not to be." This will make sense if you consult this section on Eriugena's negative theology & idea of superessentiality. In general, go to the SEP article for Eriugena's philosophy, and not to Wikipedia's article. Wareh 15:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is a sentence; the first lacks a primary verb, and the second lacks a subject. The first means something like "a certain intellectual idea eternally made in the mind" or "a kind of intellectual idea...". The second means something like "in which it is said not to be", but it is hard to know for sure without the context. Marco polo 15:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing a Blank
At some point about two years ago, I saw a http://www.dictionary.com/ posting for a word whose definition was, essentially, the same as "drawing a blank" or having a "brain-fart." That is to say, in the middle of a conversation, you suddenly forget something that you are sure you have knowledge of, but just can't recall at the time.
Anyone have an idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.82.122 (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lapsus memoriae? Sometimes translated as lapse of memory. [4] might, or might not, help. Bessel Dekker 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aporia (aporia)? Wareh 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"At the tip of the tongue" might also work in certain contexts. Duja► 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly might, and the article is very informative.

aporia is different, I should think: it refers to doubt, whether genuine (and then it is a philosophical term) or pretended (and then it is rhetorical). Whereas "drawing a blank" is a psychological effect, hence a slip or a lapse. Bessel Dekker 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we had to depend on Wikipedia and dictionaries to guide us, then, yes, we'd find only the philosophical and rhetorical senses. And, in fairness, I don't see why other usages of the word would be encyclopedically notable, though that doesn't excuse the dictionaries' omission. But the core sense, "being at a loss," "not knowing what to do/say," certainly persists, despite the term's having been largely appropriated and narrowed by philosophers. A bit of Googling easily finds it used to mean "a feeling of helplessness," in connection with speechlessness and perplexity in general, etc. These include more and less careful usages, people who do & don't know Greek, people influenced by Derrida & people whose minds remain unclouded by Derrida, etc.—kind of messy, but enough to warrant more attention from lexicographers. There is a long tradition (Buridan's ass) of philosophically worrying the question of the springs of action, which we now tend to think of with the help of psychology. Wareh 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very real difference between
(1) not knowing the answer to a question ("doubt, perplexity, aporia") and
(2) knowing a word perfectly well but being unable to hit upon it ("lapse, slip").
In the first case, the answer is not there (not stored in one's mind), in the second case it is there but cannot be accessed. Bessel Dekker 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is possible to draw such a distinction, but I find it a bit too tidy, and I don't think the English expressions brought up in the original question are used only in cases where the answer "is there" in some definite sense (this is a quite philosophical question, and disagreement is possible about whether I "have" the resources of expression and action that are failing me—there's nothing wrong with calling it aporia without addressing this question). Wareh 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistically, I think the two are quite distinct: after all, it is a matter of definition (word reference). But let's agree to disagree. Bessel Dekker 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Synonyms
Wondering if anyone can help.
Working on a resume for high school and i need some synonyms for on time. Preferably one word but can be more.
Thanks
--204.218.240.26 12:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punctual and promt are the two main bad boys. Lanfear's Bane 12:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to prompt you for the missing "p". :) JackofOz 12:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thanks those words should help. And thanks for the spelling mistake, word didn't pick up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.218.240.26 (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... my speeling isn't all taht grate at timse. Lanfear's Bane 12:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Ha.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.218.240.26 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you, like Milkbreath, are "a better speller than your orthography would indicate". -- JackofOz 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salir vs. irse
Salir and irse can both be translated as "to leave" in a literal sense, according the dictionaries I've consulted. Are they interchangeable when used in this sense? I already know that they aren't interchangeable when used for certain figurative expressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salir = to go out, to leave the room/building etc

Irse = to go away, to take oneself off

reference here [5] SaundersW 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of a new language
The New Zealand government owned radio station (Radio New Zealand) has been including Maori (local indigenous peoples language) words in discourse. This is in their everyday conversation. Some examples are whanau in place of the Engish word family (I think here, there may also be a spelling change from the original 'Whaanau'), Kia Ora in place of hello, Kai in place of food and Kina in place of sea urchin. This practise has become everyday usage in many forums in New Zealand. In recent times the radio station has increased usage to include many more Maori words and sentences. My question is for language specialists. Is this the beginning of a new language (one could call it "Maolish") a combination of English and Maori? How does it fit in with examples of English and other languages? Is this a type of Pigeon English or is it something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platsonzl (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it will just be the integration of foreign words into the current language spoken. Like how words like (hoping these are foreign) naive, that schadefraud (spelling) word etc. To be fair most of the english language is nicked from other countries, be it part greek words, part latin, part french, part german etc. ny156uk 22:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try Schadenfreude... and I agree, English has been gobbling up words from other languages for more than a thousand years. It will survive, out there in far-flung New Zealand. Xn4 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ny156uk has it correct - to become a new "mixed language", they would probably have to use Maori grammar mixed with the English as well. As it stands, it is simply a variety (similar to dialect) of New Zealand English with a higher frequency of Maori borrowings. At the extreme end of this is a language like Media Lengua, which has Quechua grammar and almost completely Spanish words. If they use a lot of Maori vocabulary and it becomes unintelligible with normal New Zealand English, there might be some justification to calling it a different language. The definition of language, of course, remains somewhat blurry. 130.56.65.24 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A language is a dialect with an army and navy. --Milkbreath 04:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
October 19
bareback in spanish
how do u say bareback in spanish?Cholga^talK! 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, it's a pelo (I don't get it- hair?) 68.231.151.161 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
maybe al pelo meaning on the hair barehaired instead of bareback...hmmmCholga^talK! 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may depend on whether you're talking about riding a horse without a saddle, or anal sex without a condom. -- JackofOz 04:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that people use the word bareback internationally for having anal sex without a condom. ~~The Wikipedia in Spanish has an article called bareback.~~ A.Z. 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first time I heard of it. I'm neither a native English-speaker nor Spanish, and I tend to use the phrase bareback for riding a horse without a saddle, not that I come across horses all that much in my daily life. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they don't have the article, despite there being a link to it from the local article barebacking. A.Z. 04:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish Wikipedia used to have the article, but it was deleted over a year ago. The reason was: Wikipedia is not an English-Spanish dictionary. 11 voters agreed, 7 disagreed. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, the result of the 11:7 discussion was to 'keep. It was deleted for the first time in Feb 2007, and has been re-created and re-deleted three times since then (once for autopromotion, once for being a definition of an English word, and once (three days ago) for consisting of "Se trata de realizar sexo anal sin preservativo". ---Sluzzelin talk 09:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]