Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 16

Correct Translation?

Sorry for the lengthy post. I tried to translate these two English paragraphs into Spanish, and I'm wondering how well I did. If I mistranslated, would you be so kind as to correct me? I really appreciate the help. Thanks.

Original English Text

In this photo is Myron and Natalia. Myron is a successful and handsome real estate agent and is 32 years old. Natalia is a 28 year old cocktail waitress and likes to garden. They are very happy because they just got married, and they are jumping because they are excited. It has been one day since they met. Myron just gave Natalia the beautiful flowers and they are having a magnificent day. Yesterday Myron didn't know Natalia, and had never met her. He had been on vacation for two weeks in Mexico. He was sick of work and decided to take a trip. On the last day, he met Natalia at the beach. Natalia was tanning when Myron tripped on her and broke his nose when he fell. She asked him if they could go on a date to make him feel better and because she thought he was sexy. Myron said yes, and they went to the casino for their date. Upon arriving at the casino, they both started to drink. Next, they played poker and won some money. They weren't thinking well, and decided they needed to get married to each other. Then they went to the beach to get married and celebrate. Afterwards, they lived together happily forever (todos los dias is fine for that part of the sentence).

Spanish Translation

En esta foto es Myron y Natalia. Myron es un agente de bienes raíces exitoso y guapo. Él tiene treinta y dos años. Natalia tiene veinte y ocho años, y ella es una camarera de cóctel y le gusta ajardinar. Ellos están muy alegres porque acaban de casarse, y están saltando porque están entusiasmados. Hace un día que ellos conocen. Myron acaba de darle a Natalia unas flores bonitas y ellos están teniendo un día magnífico.

Ayer Myron no sabía a Natalia, y nunca conoció a ella. Él hizo un viaje para dos semanas en México. Él estaba enfermo de trabajo y decidió tomar una vacación. En el último día, se reunió con Natalia en la playa. Natalia tomaba el sol cuando Myron tropezó con ella y se rompió la nariz cuando se cayó. Natalia le preguntó si ellos podían ir en una cita que le pone a sentirse mejor y porque ella pensó que Myron era caliente. Myron dijo que sí, y ellos fueron al casino para su cita. Al llegar al casino, empezaron a beber. Próximo, se jugaron al póquer y ganaron algo dinero. No pensaban así, y decidieron que necesitan casarse. Ellos fueron a la playa para se casaron y celebraron. Después de ellos vivieron felizmente todos los días.

Muchas gracias. --71.117.36.101 (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A try

I give you my version. Please understand that some changes are merely matters of style, and don't necessarily mean a translation mistep. I have emphasized some mistakes in your Spanish text. Mind you: most people will understand what you are trying to say in spite of them.

En esta foto están Myron y Natalia. Myron es un agente de bienes raíces exitoso y guapo. Tiene treinta y dos años. Natalia tiene veintiocho años, es barman es camarera/trabaja en un bar y le gusta ajardinar/la jardinería. Ellos están muy contentos porque acaban de casarse, y están saltando de alegría. Hace un día que ellos se conocen. Myron acaba de darle a Natalia unas flores bonitas y están pasando un día magnífico.

Hasta ayer Myron no conocía a Natalia, y nunca la había visto con anterioridad. Natalia tomaba sol cuando Myron tropezó con ella y se rompió/lastimó la nariz al caerse de bruces. Natalia le preguntó si podían tener una cita, en parte para que él se sintiera mejor y en parte porque le atrajo Myron. Él le dijo que sí, y eligieron el casino para su cita. Al llegar al lugar, comenzaron a beber. Luego jugaron al póquer y ganaron algo de dinero. No estaban completamente en sus cabales, y decidieron que tenían que casarse. Fueron a la playa, se casaron allí y celebraron. Después vivieron felizmente todos los días/por siempre.

Pallida  Mors 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Natalia is initially described in English as a "cocktail waitress" (= serves beverages to patrons other than those seated at the bar). Does the Spanish word barman mean this as well as "bartender" (= pours and mixes drinks, stands behind the bar, serves to patrons seated at the bar), and is it used equally for male and female bartenders (and servers, if appropriate)? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! You're completely right! My fault. Barman in Spanish would mean barman, no more than that! I'll fix that above. By the way, as many loan words in Spanish, it normally has no gender inflection (although barwoman will be understood by most speakers). Cheers Pallida  Mors 14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your corrections are spot-on. The only other thing I would add is a correction for "Then they went to the beach to get married and celebrate": "Fueron a la playa para casarse y celebrar" (because that's not in past tense in the original). Also, "vivieron felices todos los días" means "they lived happily everyday", which sounds as awkward in English as in Spanish. So, it's much more preferable to say "Vivieron felices por siempre" (forever). Kreachure (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pertinent comments, Kreachure. I left "todos los días" following the OP's suggestion, though I second your remark on its awkwardness. Pallida  Mors 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch guys! Really helpful. I appreciate it! 71.98.26.153 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of the USA is this accent from

I believe this is a regional accent, but it may just be a technique of speaking or the result of some type of coaching; I have heard it in a few American TV actors such as Steven Culp and Boyd Matson. An example is the narration of the Wild Chronicles digital short Vultures of the Serengeti. Is it a Virginia accent? --Mathew5000 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not a Virginia accent. It sounds more Midwest to me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think that is Boyd Matson narrating the clip you indicated. He grew up in Texas (or at least was born there), but I suspect his travels working with National Geographic and other jobs has mellowed out the accent in such a way as to make it difficult to pin down. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a specific regional accent that I'm aware of. The "Vultures" clip guy sounds like he grew up backwoods Southern, but he smoothed his accent out for his job. Listen to the way he says "egg" two different ways, for instance. The first one is said with some stress and is close to "aig", and he tries a little harder the second time and almost produces the short "e", but not quite. He says "on" dead center General American. Usually. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the dead-center General American pronunciation of "on"? As I understand it, there's disagreement among those who pronounce "cot" and "caught" differently regarding which of those two vowels is used in "on", quite apart from the fact that Texans often pronounce it "own". —Angr 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's at 2:48 in the "Vulture" clip. I'm just going by my ear and memory, but that "on" of his sounds incongruous with his twang. His accent is pleasant and clear, but it is not regional. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I can detect very little accent in there. Which I guess means it's probably quite close to typical broadcast English. Friday (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To me he sounds like he might me Southern or South Midland but has mostly learned to suppress his accent. His "on" at 2:48 didn't sound incongruous to me at all, but his "food" a few seconds later has a notably fronted vowel. It's somewhere between [fʉd] and [fyd]. —Angr 20:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the responses. I was curious because the slight twang makes the narrator sound warm and mellow but still authoritative. --Mathew5000 (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

South Midland? That's not a US region I'm aware of. Corvus cornix_talk 00:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

what's the meaning of the words as follows

Hi,guys.

Glad to know you here. I have a question to ask you ,anyone who kind enough to tell me ? thanks in advance!

one is "Demonym ", it is a word existed in the introuduction of our motherland--China. another one is "tildes", It is a word appeared in the "how to use wikipedia asking questions" I can't find the word in the dictionary and internet . please explain it to me ,thanks for your time .

B/R

Lucida —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachloven (talk • contribs) 08:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. For the first, see Demonym: "is a word that denotes the members of a people or the inhabitants of a place. In English, a demonym is often the same as the name of the people's native language: e.g., the "French" (people from France)". It is confusing; it is used by geographers but is not in any regular dictionaries. Perhaps that will change? Secondly, a "tilde" is this symbol: ~

It is a regular keyboard key, but differs in location. My laptop has it at the extreme right, above the #, and next to the return. My desktop keyboard has it extreme top left, next to the 1. Wikipedia notation uses the "~" as a keystroke shortcut. Five tildes ~~~~~ puts just the date like this 08:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) . Four tildes ~~~~ signs your name, as I will do, now Gwinva (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is on my English laptop above the '#' but doesn't appear on my Japanese laptop. It can, however, be produced by SHIFT-0 (zero). ChokinBako (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only place I have ever seen the word 'demonym'. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Metastasised

Is metastasised a valid British variant of metastasized? ----Seans Potato Business 19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It gets 15600 google hits and has a google definition so if usage determines validity then yes. However, in both cases, google asks if you meant metastasized and the "z" gets 350000 google hits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this page, the Random House Unabridged Dictionary says the answer is yes. Anyone with access to the OED Online to confirm it from a British source? --Anonymous, 21:36 UTC, May 16, 2008.

The OED gives 'metastasize' and 'metastasizing' only. Algebraist 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And so it would, if I read it aright. Under the entry for "-ize" it says that in the OED "the termination is uniformly written -ize." They give a long explanation for that that basically says that there is no overriding justification for -ise, so why not get off the fence. So the OED is useless for answering the question. My answer is "yes". --Milkbreath (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. What spelling(s) do the quotations in the OED entry for the word use, then? --Anon, 02:25 UTC, May 17, 2008.

Hunh. All "z". Two journals, Jrnl. Med. Res. from 1907 and Nature from 1947, who were undoubtedly following their own styles; a 1974 book from Blackwell Publishing; and an American writer, Jayne Anne Phillips, in her 1984 book Machine Dreams. The extended meaning, called "Chiefly U.S.", cites journals, A. Bartlett Giamatti, and N.Y. Mag.. I would accept "-ise" especially in the extended meaning in a British source, myself. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You just have to look in a British dictionary not published by OUP. My Collins English Dictionary gives it as "metastasize or metastasise". —Angr 05:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a useful article at Oxford spelling. For me, the -z- is to be preferred. Xn4 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

"Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) is a secreted protein that exists in three isoforms called TGF-β1, TGF-β2 and TGF-β3." Is punctuation required between isoforms and called? ----Seans Potato Business 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about "required" but appreciated, yes. --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Very few commas are required, and this one only comes close, but it comes very close. I would put it in every time, no question. Without the comma, the sense is damaged; the three isoforms are not called that, each isoform is called each thing in turn. The comma makes "called" mean something like "namely", which is what is meant. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the no-comma version is natural and its sense is not damaged. The comma merely moves the emphasis slightly away from the three names by making them parenthetical. Compare "I have a dog named Lassie" (most emphasis on his name), "I have a dog, named Lassie" (less), and "I have a dog (named Lassie)" (least). --Anonymous, 02:32 UTC, May 16, 2008.

No -- Anon has overlooked a key point, the fact that there are three names, not just one. The example with Lassie is a fine one, but not for this case :-). --Danh, 70.59.79.51 (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we've proved that this comma is not "required", whatever we think of its advisability. The example I was thinking of when I made my first reply here was "There are seven stars in Taurus's shoulder called the Pleiades." vs. "There are seven stars in Taurus's shoulder, called Alcyon, Atlas, Electra...." --Milkbreath (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that whether the object of "called" is one thing or many things has anything to do with whether a comma belongs before "called" or not. Compare:

• A. "There are seven stars in Taurus's shoulder called the Pleiades", with
• B. "There are seven stars in Taurus's shoulder, called the Pleiades", and

• C. "There are seven stars in Taurus's shoulder called Alcyon, Atlas, Electra...." , with
• D. "There are seven stars in Taurus's shoulder, called Alcyon, Atlas, Electra....".

In A/B, a comma avoids the possibility of some reader thinking you're saying that Taurus's shoulders have names, and the shoulder that contains seven stars is called the Pleiades. Shoulders always come in pairs, and presumably the other one would have a different name. In C/D, it's possible that (in the comma-less version) the reader might think this shoulder's name is Alcyon, and the list of the seven stars it contains starts with Atlas. Putting a comma before "called" wipes out this problem before it can get off the ground.

A further consideration is that:

• E. "The three isoforms called TGF-β1, TGF-β2 and TGF-β3 are ...." means something different from
• F. "The three isoforms, called TGF-β1, TGF-β2 and TGF-β3, are ....".

E is saying there may be many isoforms, but we're only mentioning 3 of them here; F is saying there are only 3 isoforms in total, and these are their names. Since the original sentence is conveying the latter sense, a comma is required. Thus, "Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) is a secreted protein that exists in three isoforms, called TGF-β1, TGF-β2 and TGF-β3." I think this may be what you were getting at in your first post, Milkbreath. Sure, you can get away with not using the comma, but if you always go for what you can get away with, and don't go the extra mile to consider how one of your readers might be reasonably misled, even if only momentarily, why bother picking up the pen? Why create a less satisfactory sentence, particularly when all that stands between ambiguity and clarity is a comma? -- JackofOz (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to say essentially (although much less elegantly and comprehensively) what Jack just said. Deor (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You've nailed it, Jacko. I plead jet lag. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with E/F, but have the opposite reading for A/B: In A, the stars are called the Pleiades; in B, the shoulder is called the Pleiades. kwami (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that most readers would not see it that way, kwami. However, since you and a small group of others obviously do, I would have to take my own advice, take you into account, and recast the sentence - "There are seven stars in Taurus's shoulder, (which are) collectively known as the Pleiades". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The reverse of "orphan"

Is there a word in any language which means specifically "a parent whose children are dead"? The closest match I know of(in English) is the phrase "empty nester", but that doesn't really fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.182.55 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There might be no official term for it, at least I can't think of one. I did find this, though:

A wife who loses a husband is called a widow. A husband who loses a wife is called a widower. A child who loses his parents is called an orphan. But...there is no word for a parent who loses a child, that's how awful the loss is! - Neugeboren 1976, 154

And doesn't "empty nest" refer to, say, students who leave home to study or work, c.f. "flying the nest"? x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "empty nester" is definitely not what is meant here. Although the term comprises parents whose child died if they don't have any other children. It usually does refer to parents who find that they have new "spare rooms" in their house and time on their hands that used to be occupied by caring for their children. Parents who lost their child can take quite a while to reach that stage. "Parents in mourning" is all I could come up with, but that only applies temporarily (one hopes). --71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of Harriet Sarnoff Schiff's book The Bereaved Parent was translated to Verwaiste Eltern ("orphaned parents") in German. German WP even has an article on Verwaiste Eltern. I've seen the expression "orphaned parents" used in English too, in psychological publications and self-help groups. Not very original and possibly misleading since it could mean parents without parents, but the context usually makes it clear, and the etymology of orphan does include "bereft", "deprived", "changing allegiance", and "passing from one status to another". --Sluzzelin talk 07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sometimes heard "orphan" defined as a person with no family, although one rarely hears of adult "orphans", presumably because adults can(generally) survive on their own without the help of parents or legal guardians. Thanks for the input. 69.224.182.55 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely this is the time to coin the word "nahpro". -- SGBailey (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

T'nod esaelp. -- zOfokcaJ

May 17

Mexican Webpage

Is there some website that translates a mexican webpage to english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's in Spanish, try Google Translate. If it's in another Mexican language, like Nahuatl, you're probably out of luck. —Angr 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you don't know, practically every Mexican website will indeed be in Spanish. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

in mediis rebus

I read the phrase in the introduction to a dialogue of Plato's, "in mediis rebus." Of course, the well-known phrase is "in medias res," but when we say "The action starts in medias res," would it not be better to write "in mediis rebus" which is clearly more correct, or should we avoid Latin inflections? I know this may come down to personal opinion, but often there is an existing debate on a subject (or a sufficiently related one) that people can refer to, so it is still potentially a reference desk question. Thanks in advance, 203.221.127.209 (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference in meaning is fairly straightforward: in mediis rebus - in the midst of things; in medias res - into the heart of the matter. The second is commonly used of a story or a statement which plunges into the middle of the action and doesn't start at the beginning of it, and the literary habit is I think based on its use by Horace, "semper ad eventum festinat et in medias res / non secus ac notas auditorem rapit". (Here, medias res is accusative.) If you want to say "The action starts... [in medias res]", then it would indeed be more correct, or at least more learned, to say in mediis rebus, but as there's a long tradition which favours in medias res for this purpose, it might be more subtle (that is, less like showing off) to turn the English part of your sentence around! Xn4 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Xn4, this is really helpful. I think I'll go by the "long tradition," which is pretty much as I had understood it. I'm just not learned enough to know for sure that the accusative is accepted widely, so I was seeking confirmation. Otherwise I would have been tempted to succumb to the authority of grammar, which is silly if it isn't our own (in an English sentence, at any rate). 203.221.127.102 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"in medias res" as an invariable form is simply illiterate. It would never have occurred to Horace to say - as the Wikipedia article on the Odyssey does - that the action "begins in medias res". It begins "in mediis rebus" (in midstream). In most instances that will be the sense people want to convey and the appropriate form to use in English. Horace is actually discussing Homer at Ars Poetica 148. He says "in medias res" there because he is describing the author plunging the reader straight INTO the ongoing action ("as if" the background were already "known" and understood). Refusing to inflect or adopt the appropriate form is no more acceptable for Latin than for modern languages, including borrowings from English.

"To hoover" in Russian

I am aware that discussion already exists about the spelling of this verb, but my poor Russian prevents me from following much of it. Anyway, is it я пылесошу or я пылесосу?

Thanks in advance for your help. 86.147.112.77 (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's я пылесошу, with stress on the о. But be aware that пылесосить is an informal word. More formally, to vacuum (something) is чистить/почистить (что-нибудь) пылесосом. Joeldl (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One of my Russian professors (many years ago) was unsure about the pronunciation of the first person singular of this verb. A student joked that it was probably because it's hard to hear someone say "I'm vacuuming" over the sound of the machine. :-) --Cam (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

May 18

...increase the sensitivity of MSP to around one alelle in 50 000

"...increase the sensitivity of MSP to around one alelle in 50 000"'. Should the word 'one' be a figure '1'? I prefer to use figures if above the value of nine or if immediately succeeded by a unit of measurement, unless at the beginning of a sentence in which case I use the word with the unit also spelt-out and not abbreviated. ----Seans Potato Business 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Another good rule is that one passage has numbers in related contexts you shouldn't mix styles, but it can sometimes look awkward if some of the numbers are very small. Here I suggest recasting the sentence to put the numbers closer together (and fixing the spelling): "...to around 1 in 50 000 alleles." --Anonymous, 07:00 UTC, May 19, 2008.

Memoirs

Are memoirs always plural, or can you have a single memoir? In the article James Cobban it says "In his memoir..." which reads oddly to me. I don't want to chnage it without advise though. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

According to WordWeb 5.0 dictionary, it is a word. ----Seans Potato Business 21:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia's article memoir also suggests validity. ----Seans Potato Business 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To move it out of the abstract, I just completed a university class titled "contemporary memoir." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

a word that describes a pictogram

Moved question from talk page, Gwinva (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I need a word that describes an illustration. Such as a picture of a shark playing pool, is a Pool Shark. Not a rebus, an ideogram or a pictogram. Any suggestions. MaMaxMaMax (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A cartoon? Or are you looking for a word for a cartoon of a concept? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How about just going with "an illustration" as you used first? I'd find that quite acceptable if I seen it used in that situation. Fribbler (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I call it a literal representation. Steewi (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A visual pun? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There's even an article on visual pun. I remember Paul Coker's Horrifying Clichés (e.g. "milking a tired concept") ---Sluzzelin talk 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

May 19

slang origin

what is the origin of the phrase:"easy as tit"? being used in a sentence might sound like this, "i know how to build that, it's easy as tit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.48.155 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen that before. I remember the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force used to say "press the tit" for 'press the button', and you used to hear it a lot in service families, but it's old-fashioned now. (I seem to remember it's in the Camillagate tapes.) No doubt "easy as tit" could stand for 'easy as pressing the tit', or even 'easy as breast-feeding'? Xn4 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "professional" as accolade in products

We all have seen it: in many products there is the "home" version and the "professional" version. It still makes some sense in the case of tools or similar objects. However, shortly I found the word in a sunscreen lotion. What the hell does "professional" sunscreen mean? 217.168.4.241 (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It could mean:

(a) it can only be applied by professionals

(b) it can only be applied on professionals

(c) it must only be applied by professionals on professionals

(d) they can charge more Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(d) is the reason, usually. Neıl 龱 10:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a ref, merely OR observation. The term migrated out of the home improvement market where "contractor grade" indicated a better quality product than their usual DIY fare. The better grade of course meant they'd charge a higher price. The marketers expanded the idea and then ran into products for which "contractor" didn't quite fit. They went to "professional grade". The "grade" fell by the wayside and whether products labeled "professional" these days merit that label under any definition is debatable. It certainly serves to differentiate the product. --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And puffery. OR here too, but as differentiation, it's used in hair salons for products only available from them as opposed to supermarkets. The buzz in this case is to imply access to goods endorsed by an inner circle of trained people. No idea if there's a way of checking, though. And yes, they are much more expensive. So maybe an (e) previously only available to professionals (*wink*).Julia Rossi (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Somali lectures

A Somali friend of mine give me a list of Somali topics to watch on youtube.com but the problem is I don't speak Somali nor do I understand Somali. Please, if you are a Somali, tell me what are titles mean in Somali? That way, I can have a little understand what is the speaker talking about.

These are the titles: 1. haweenta Saalixada 2. Awoodaha Ilaah Na Siiyey Ee Aan Dayacney 3. Shirqoolka Gaalada 4. Xiriirka Aduunyada Aakhiro La Leedahay 5. Fahamka Siyaasadda Sharciga 6. Quraanka iyo Seyniska 7. Taarikhdii Andulus 8. Hamiga Qofka Muslimka 9. Awoodaha Aynu Dayacnay 10. Fahamka Nolosha

Please take your time to answer this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.204 (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you pronounce this?

I need help with a report I'm giving in a few days and I don't know how to pronounce the word "androstenedione". If anyone could please give me the idiot's version of the pronunciation, I would be deeply grateful. Nolarboot (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The sportscasters on TV all seem to pronounce it "an-droh-STEEN-dy-ohn." Deor (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The OED gives /ˌændrɒstiːnˈdaɪəʊn/, which (if I understand your pronunciation-respelling) agrees with you except for stress and the second vowel. Mirriam-Webster gives \ˌan-drə-ˌstēn-ˈdī-ōn\ or \ˌan-drə-ˈstēn-dē-ˌōn\, which has the same stress as yours, but different second and fourth vowels. Algebraist 14:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If Nolarboot is in the United States, going with the first Merriam-Webster pronunciation seems the best bet ("idiot's version": AN-druh-STEEN-DY-ohn). I'm pretty sure that sportscasters say it the way I specified, though. As a Cardinals fan, I rather closely followed the Mark McGwire business a few years ago. Deor (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the form in which I gave the pronunciation follows the system used in The World Book Encyclopedia—not intended for idiots, perhaps, but for youngsters and other folk who are not familiar with IPA or with the various diacritics used in other systems of representing pronunciations. The guy who came up with what appears below, however … well, I don't know what to say. Deor (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

it's and-drunk // stem-enter // dean-lawn.70.7.54.99 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Using an apostrophe to indicate possesion

What if the person's name ends in "S"? For example, is it User:Strawless' information or User:Strawless's information? I remember learning that it's the former but is this correct? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Either one is acceptable - just pick one and stick to it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Different answer, equally valid: If you would pronounce the extra "s" in speech, use it, otherwise no. So, Mr. Hollis's car ran over Moses' cat. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style and all of the publishers for which I have worked (all in the United States) call for an apostrophe and an s for the possessive of nouns (including proper nouns) ending in s, except for classical and biblical names. So Mr. Hollis's, but Moses'. Marco polo (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For goodness's sake, Marco, it's not that simple. What about Descartes' politics and the Ganges' aroma? We're trying to give a pat answer to a complicated question. Zain, buy a stylebook and cleave to it. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys - quite interesting. What's a classical name and why would biblical and classical names be treated differently? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, if you don't sound another s: for instance, we say "Jesus' name". By the way, I also noticed that Zain Ebrahim wrote "Strawless' information" and like Milkbreath and Marco polo I prefer Strawless's, but Zain was on my side and I bit my tongue. Strawless (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - it's corrected. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated, but Marco polo's rule of thumb is good. The default option is to add the 's, such as Dickens's, James's. Classical names (and Latinate) (such as Caesar Augustus') often do not take the apostrophe, although in some cases it is appropriate, because that it how it is said (such as Zeus's, although Zeus' is also accepted). And when talking about the planets (ie classical names in a non-classical context), then Mars's atmosphere is preferred. Biblical names are less standard, you will see both Jesus' and Jesus's, and St. James's is standard. The Oxford guide recommends apostrophe-s after silent s and z, eg Descartes's. Since there is no easy answer, Milkbreath's advice to get a style guide is good, but if you haven't got one to hand, then think about how you say it. Also read Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound and the following section on Nouns ending with silent "s", "x", or "z". (As to why Classical and Biblical being exceptions? Tradition, and because they follow classical formats. It'll probably change, in time, much as the standard forms have. I was taught at school that James' was correct, and that's not all that long ago.) Gwinva (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In truth, there is no single "right" answer to this. To make it worse, the usual fallback of pluralising apostrophising consistently in the same text doesn't always apply, because I'd write "King James' attitude to the Court of St James's was <whatever>". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

'Pluralising'? I thought we were talking about genitive here? Or was that a reference to a court specifically for a number of people all called St.James, like the John Smith Society?ChokinBako (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. My brain went to sleep. Fixed. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that reflect how you say it? i.e. "King James attitude to the Court of Saint Jameses"? Gwinva (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case, it is the addition of the 'of' that makes us add the extra 's', in the same way that we say 'a friend of mine' and not 'a friend of my'. However, I have seen place names like St. James's Square and so on. I'd stick with the no 's' thing when final 's' is pronounced, as that is what I was taught in school.ChokinBako (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

red fruits

Several times in the book describing wines I met the term "red fruits" flavor. In Wikipedia there is description of some exotic tropical "red fruit" that, I presume,is consumed very rarely in the Old and New Worlds. Hardly the author used such term to describe the wine to the readers, who never ate such fruit. Then what is considered to be "red fruits"? We never use such term in Russia. Thank you.--88.84.200.1 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Finewine's glossary defines red fruit as a "Broad catchall term for red wines with mixed flavors of apples, raspberries, strawberries, etc., and quite typical of Languedoc reds, among others" and black fruit as "A catchall term for mixed black-cherry, blackberry, plum and similar fruit aromas, commonplace in many good red wines." ---Sluzzelin talk 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

English spelling of "Masters thesis"

I'd like to know to spell the word "Masters" in "Masters degree", "Masters thesis", or "Master of Sciences" in English. Do you always need to capitalize it like wikt:Masters, wikt:masters, Master's degree in Europe seems to imply, or can it be lower case like masters degree uses it? (wikt:master's degree was created recently, but it used to have two redlinks from translations.) Does it need an apostrophe before or after the s? If it depends on the phrase or context it's used in, how? Thanks in advance for any help. – b_jonas 15:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The apostrophe before the "s" is required: master's degree. Both words will almost always be lowercase. It is possible but odd to write "John Jones, Master of Arts" where it would be usual to write "John Jones, MA", in which case both words would be capitalized, but I can't think of any other case where they would be. Note that the Wikipedia software automatically capitalizes the first word in a search string, so that when you type "masters" it turns that into "Masters" before it looks for it; you can tell that that happened by looking at the redirect. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I know about the software capitalizing the titles, but I've looked at how these words are spelled inside the article, and also in en.wiktionary there's a separate article for Masters and masters. – b_jonas 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Use is a bit inconsistent e.g. [1] and [2], or [3] and [4] vs. [5].71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Say this!", or "Say that!"

What's the difference between "please say this!" and "please say that!" ? HOOTmag (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy, one points to this and the other to that. Strawless (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain:

How should I say: "Good evening! Now, after I said that to you, it's your turn to say that to me", or: "Good evening! Now, after I said this to you, it's your turn to say this to me".

Is there any difference bewteen the meanings of both sentences?

HOOTmag (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

When words are not used in their literal meaning things can get confusing. We used to chuckle as kids about where "up the road" and "down the road" lead depending on who was giving directions. As a demonstrative pronoun the rule of thumb is that "this" is close to the speaker and "that" is remote from the speaker. If you'd apply that to your phrase you might say: "Good evening! Now, after I said this to you, it's your turn to say that to me". The reason would be that what I say is "closer to me" than what you say. Our linguists might come up with a perfectly logical reason for any of the 3 options. In everyday use I don't think it matters that much. To avoid any awkwardness you could use "Good evening! Now, after I said this to you, it's your turn to respond with ... (this may get you into a vocab level that's above your students' head, though.) --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your rule works very well with: I, you, and we. However, I suspect it can't be applied with he/she: According to Google, "He said this, but..." (22,200 times) is much more frequent than "He said that, but..." (9,860 times only). "She said this, but..." (5,110 times) is much more frequent than "She said that, but..." (935 times only). By the way, I searched it with "but" coming after the "this/that" - in order to avoid the ambiguity of "that" (e.g. in "He said that he was happy"). HOOTmag (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is whether the phrase is hanging in the air, so to speak, and still current ("this"), or said and done away with ("that"). Also, the second demonstrative would be replaced with "it". kwami (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Look at the following sentences: "We're in a hurry, and you should understand that", versus: "We're in a hurry, and you should understand this"; What's better? Should our hurriness be considered as a declaration "still current and hanging in the air"? Would you like to give an example for a phrase which is "still current and hanging in the air", and an opposite example?

2. why just the second demonstrative should be replaced by "it" and not the first one? Is there any rule here? and how about "we're in a hurry, and you should understand it" ?

HOOTmag (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at the example closely enough. In the case of a response with the same phrase, what kwami said would apply. However, watch out if your example is something like "Thank you" and "You're welcome." Then "it" wouldn't work. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kwami referred to the case of a response with the same phrase. HOOTmag (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

May 20

How to say it?

I've noticed that newsreaders for example seem to over-enunciate so that instead of saying (aloud) "the person meant to" as this: "the person men-to" they say it so that it sounds the end letter in the word and the first letter of the next word when they are the same. The effect is it sounds like tuh-tuh is happening: the person mentuh to – whereas in normal speech, one letter is elided. It sounds strange and kind of forced in a native English speaker. Can't think of other examples off hand, but why is this? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the reason, but this would help with several things: poor radio/TV reception, older viewers whose hearing is going, and non-native English speakers. I tend to talk like that when I come back from over seas. kwami (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because they are reading an autoscript. So unlike normal speach. Bed-Head-HairUser:BedHeadHairGirl13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One reason is that they're catering to a diverse audience, some of whom are hard of hearing and some of whom are not native speakers, and so they need to speak as clearly as possible in order not to be misunderstood. Really good newsreaders master the art of enunciating clearly without sounding unnatural. Maybe you're watching the wrong TV stations or listening to the wrong radio stations, Julia. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they think the natural version is somehow incorrect. See also: unreleased stop; hypercorrection --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it does help the specific hearing audience as you've suggested (I'm sure they get enough lobbying from viewers) -- though for the speaker, autoscript and hypercorrection seem to fit (even the on-camera reporter does it). It's funny because the Australian "swallowed" accent still applies. Maybe they're trying for a home-grown version of RP. Appreciate all your input guys, thanks so much Julia Rossi (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PS to Jack, haha, TV news (but is there a right one?) -- oddly I haven't noticed it on voice-overs. Different speech coaches maybe, and I'm curious to now what speech coaches might call it.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is "manslaughter" politically correct?

Why don't we say "womanslaughter"? 217.168.1.150 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a generally understood legal term. The legal profession is not going to go around changing terms that have been in common use for many years just because of political correctness. Besides, if there was a neutral term, it would have to be "personslaughter". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. 'Person', too, is politically incorrect, as it contains the word 'son'. Best just call it murder and have done with it.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that manslaughter is legally distinct from murder, don't you? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It was just a quip.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As a female I'm always saddened that, while there is still so much inequality between male and female humans, so much effort is spent on things like cleaning up the dictionary. Let's start worrying about that once we get paid the same as the "other persons".--71.236.23.111 (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In many, many contexts, "man" means "male or female human". I don't see why so many people have difficulty with that. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it does, what is a woman if she is not a woman? What is a man if he is not a man? If we degenderised all our words we'd have to work on the pronouns, too. Also, what would be a male ballerina? A ballerino? Pointless! Pointless waste of time and verging on Orwellian prophecy.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary [6] says you're correct about "ballerino" being the word for a male ballet dancer. But anyway, why do we even need words like ballerina/-o? What's wrong with "ballet dancer"? --72.94.50.27 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of PC taken to ridiculous levels: Controversies about the word "niggardly"#David Howard incident. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. Just like a person who works with dogs and thinks constantly about dogs, and a person who works with metals and thinks constantly about metals, would, on first sight, read the word 'lead' in two different ways, as a person who is constantly thinking about racial problems would take a word that only sounds similar to a racial slur but is in fact unrelated, as a racial slur. Some people are far too sensitive.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that the "son" in "person" has nothing to do with male children, don't you? "Person" is derived from "persona", a Greek word meaning "mask". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A small quibble Jack: persona is Latin, not Greek. By the way, this is Maid Marian, but I've bought a new computer and I can't for the life of me remember what the exact form of my username was, so I can't log on. Any more than I can remember the Greek word for an actor's mask - my memory gets worse and worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.14.136 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I do Jack. And it is indeed Latin, but ultimately a loan word from Etruscan.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Me again: probably prosopon is Greek for mask, but I don't have a dictionary to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.14.136 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you perhaps Maid Marion? Algebraist 16:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am, thank you so much Algebraist.Maid Marion (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is by now a little off-topic, but prosôpeion or prosôpon is indeed the Greek for mask. The Latin persona, according to Lewis and Short, comes from the verb persono [to sound through] but the Online Etymology Dictionary, in tracing person back to persona, suggests that it is a borrowing from Etruscan phersu [mask]. Unfortunately I don't have my usual access to the OED. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The OED says s.v. 'person' "of unknown origin; perh. a loanword (cf. Etruscan φersu, app. denoting a mask". The Greek prosôpon ws indeed used for 'mask', but its basic meaning is 'face' I believe. --ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite as absurd as Roman Abramovich finding something anti-semitic in the term "bunch of shysters from Sibera". Algebraist 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole pc thing is deeply cultural. But maybe even more so is the whole issue about "N word", "F word", etc. While I think every majority should be considerate of minorities' sensitivities, the very idea of banning words seems so strange to me that I can't quite stop thinking that in racial contexts. Words get banned because they're deemed offensive, with the only result that they're getting even more offensive (because now only more extreme fellows keep saying them). I can't help wondering what would happen if we went in the opposite direction and just used "nigger", "fuck", and all the other words excessively in really neutral or even positive contexts, so that they'd get less offensive. After all, they're just random sounds, and they only have the meaning we give them. We can indeed refuse to have any word that has an intensity of offensiveness as "nigger", "fuck", "cunt", etc. Consequently I still hope that the excessive use of "nigger" by some Blacks and of "fuck" by many younger people gets more wide-spread. Ever wondered why other languages (or cultures?) seem to have no equivalent in intensity to these American English words? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you would think other languages don't have an equivalent. They just don't have the same ones. Excessive and casual use of swearwords by young colleagues from Britain and South Africa has as yet failed to make me cringe less when hearing them. As far as change in meaning goes, that can go the other way, too. Just ask my friend. Her name is Gay. (As in "don ye all the gay apparel") --71.236.23.111 (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I recall a news item that an east coast state was modifying its constitution to remove the word "idiot" in place of a more PC term. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, folks. 'Blackboard' can't be called that anymore, even though it is obviously black, as opposed to a whiteboard, which can be called a whiteboard, because it's obviously white. It has to be called a 'chalkboard'. But, wasn't 'chalky' once a slur word for a black person? Where do people get these silly ideas from? It's OK to respect other people's sensitivities, but, seriously, some people are way too over-sensitive and we can't change the language by replacing words with others just to please them because we'll be either using another offensive word, or a word that is offensive to another person. As a side note, I don't get offended by 'honk if your horny', even if I am a honky.--ChokinBako (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The gir is cute as a freaking button

What does this mean? Ugly? 217.168.1.150 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mean ugly, it's just a weird expression. --WikiSlasher (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think it meant 'very cute'. 'Cute' doesn't usually come with a negative simile. You wouldn't say 'She is as cute as a bulldog chewing a wasp'. You could say, on the other hand, 'as beautiful as a bulldog chewing a wasp', which lays more emphasis on her lack of beauty.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cute as a button" is a well-established phrase.

CUTE AS A BUTTON - "cute, charming, attractive, almost always with the connotation of being small, 1868 (from the original 1731 English meaning of 'acute' or clever). Cute as a bug's ear, 1930; cute as a bug in a rug, 1942; cute as a button, 1946. Cute and keen were two of the most overused slang words of the late 1920s and 1930s." From "Listening to America" by Stuart Berg Flexner (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1992.)

"Freaking" is an tmesis that has little impact on the meaning. — Lomn 15:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If you read the article on tmesis properly you will see that a 'tmesis' is a shortening and combining of two or more words. 'Freaking', as used in the example in the article is a mere part of the word in the example. 'Freaking' is a less vulgar way of saying frigging, which is an intensifier, therefore emphasising the following expression.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bamburgh

How is the name of the English village of Bamburgh pronounced? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

['bæmbrə]. —Angr 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BDSM support group?

Something that I recently wrote in the article about the Smurfs made me puzzled:

Members of the Finnish BDSM support group SMFR are called "Smurfs" not because of the colour, but because of the similarity of the names.

What exactly does "BDSM support group" mean? English is not my first language so therefore I cannot fully grasp the meaning. Does it mean that a BDSM support group supports BDSM itself, or it supports its members? If it's the latter, it could be understood as something similar to "alcoholism support group", meaning supporting its members to come over something. But SMFR members don't want to come over BDSM, rather, they embrace it. Am I being overly cautious and paranoid here, and is it just my failure to grasp the nuances of a foreign language, or am I right? JIP | Talk 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This page would indicate that they are not a self help group like AA (alcoholism) but rather that your second definition applies [7] The organization would like to support the practice of SM or their members who engage in this practice. Just like e.g. this group would like to help the environment [8] rather than help members get over it. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely not the standard meaning of "support group." It should probably be reworded. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what SMFR is, and what it does. I was asking if this was using the term "support group" correctly. JIP | Talk 15:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Five cats and 32 dogs

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Numbers: "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs).". I've always mixed (I would have said five cats and 32 dogs). While this might be the rule at Wikipedia, what about other literary works such as newspapers? What's their policy? Any idea? ----Seans Potato Business 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You probably also grew up with "write numbers up to ten in letters." That's why you'd mix. (I would have sworn I don't do any such thing, but I do. I just wasn't aware of it. :-)--71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

APA style requires to spell out numbers until 9, and use the arabic numberals for 10 and higher. Off the top of my head I don't think they've a rule against combining the two (one experimental and 194,203 control groups...), but I may be wrong (it does look a bit odd). Similarly, there used to be an orthography rule in German to spell out numbers until twelve, but again I'm not sure about the combination. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Both The Chicago Manual of Style and Words into Type, widely used in the U.S. book-publishing trade, say to maintain consistency within a particular context: "If according to rule you must use numerals for one of the numbers in a given category, use them for all in that category" (CMS). (Both, by the way recommend spelling out numbers up to one hundred, though they also recognize that in some types of works—scientific, financial—the "spell out only up to ten" rule may apply.) When, however, numbers referring to different categories of things occur in a passage, the numbers in each category may be treated differently. An example in CMS is "A mixture of buildings—one of 103 stories, five of more than 50, and a dozen of only 3 or 4—has been suggested for the area." Deor (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most encyclopaedias seem to use words to express numbers up to and including one hundred; and many also seem to use them for numbers above one hundred which don't call for too many words, such as eight hundred or two thousand. For what it's worth, my instinct in writing for Wikipedia is to use words for all numbers unless the result looks silly, but I suspect this is old-fashioned. Xn4 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I trust the rule against starting a sentence with a numeral still holds, even if it does look silly. "Nineteen sixty-eight was a very fashionable year to be born in." —Angr 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that rule. In mathematical texts I write, I strictly aviod starting a sentence with a formula. If that would happen, I rephrase the sentence, possibly using display formulas. I can't always follow this when I take notes in a class by hand. – b_jonas 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

May 21

Learning to write properly: how long does it take?

Considering the case of all those people who don't differenciate between "its" and "it's" or write sentences like "UR l8 " instead of "you are late": how long would it take until they can write at least at an acceptable level? 217.168.1.150 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It would depend very much on a person's aptitude and motivation. With writing assignments and an instructor or tutor who can correct them, I would think that a motivated person with reasonably strong language skills and rudimentary literacy could learn to write his or her native language more or less correctly in a semester (four to five months) or so. Marco polo (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that I have the necessary skill to comprehend the difference between "its" and "it's" and use abbreviations of the form "UR l8" (i.e. use of the latter doesn't preclude basic grammatical knowledge). Beside which, if the UK government wanted to teach students grammar, they'd have to sacrifice some of the time currently wasted spent studying poetry. ----Seans Potato Business 06:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird Spanish Grammar

why is it that in the spanish vocabular the letter "J" sounds like an "h" and the letter "ll" makes the "y" sound? and why is it that cato is cat in spanish(obvious) and dog isn't dogo its perro. i would have thought that meant a pear or something. why is spanish language so complicated?

Well, as far as sounds of letters go, that's just how the language evolved. There's not really a reason except that. Furthermore, cat is gato not "cato". For your last question, English is much more complicated than Spanish. Spanish is much more phonetically correct. It also follows the rules more of the time than English and has far fewer irregular verbs. Cheers, Zrs 12 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

English and Spanish are two different languages with different histories. A Spanish-speaking person could just as well ask why in English "J" sounds like a "Ch" in Spanish and why "pear" in English doesn't mean dog. The answer is that each language developed on its own. Some words in Latin began with the letter j (or its predecessor i). This sound was pronounced like the English consonant y as in yellow. This sound came to be pronounced something like an English h in Spanish and like the j in just in English, even though it was still spelled with a j in both languages. Neither language is weird, they just developed differently. Oddly enough, no one knows the origins of the English word dog or the Spanish word perro. But it is not surprising that two different languages would develop unrelated words for the same thing. Even within English, the British use the word petrol for the substance known in American English as gasoline. Neither is wrong, neither is weird; they just developed differently. Spanish is no more or less complicated than English or any other language. It will seem harder than your native language because you did not learn it as a child. Marco polo (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is no less complicated than English? How now? Zrs 12 (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lonnie Ritter" in Little Big League: "Kids today are amazing. I played winter ball down in Venezuela—they had kids half his age, every one of them speaking Spanish. That's a hard language." Deor (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, both dog and perro are "mystery words of unknown origin." No one knows how the two languages wound up with oddball words for the common animal. In contrast, both cat and gato come from the Ancient Latin word catta, which is of African or Asian origin. Similar words were adopted by many European languages. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In broader terms, let's look at the question as to why some Spanish words sound like English words and some don't. Think of languages as being on like a family tree. Both Spanish and English are part of the Indo-European family of languages, which all may have descended from a single language spoken in Eastern Europe thousands of years ago. By about 3,000 years ago, Indo-European had divided into several languages or types of languages, including Proto-Germanic and Italic. Latin developed from Italic. During the Roman Empire, Latin spread to the parts of Europe occupied by the Romans, including Spain. Latin developed into the several Romance languages, including Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese, which is why those languages are so similar. But the Romans never occupied most of Germany, so the Germanic languages remained widely spoken. Starting in the 5th century, Germanic-speakers took over what's now England. Their languages became Old English. In 1066, the Normans, who spoke a form of French, invaded Britain and became the dominant class. Many words of Latin origin were added to the English vocabulary. Some Romance words, like market, replaced their Old English counterparts, which is why the English and Spanish terms are so similar. Other Old English words, like mus, stuck around, in this case becoming mouse. That's why the word is so different from the Spanish one (ratón). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Main reasons why Spanish is easy:

1. Only five vowel sounds are used, ever : a (as in cat) - e (as in bet) - i (as in hit) - o (as in hot) - and u (as in put). The way a word is written is exactly the way it's pronounced (99.9% of the time) thanks to this (so no variations as in pear and heard etc.)
2. All (present tense) verbs end in either ar er or ir so they're easy to identify and use
3. These are the rules I came up with in three minutes so I'm sure there are other rules that make it even easier. Kreachure (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think "dog" in Spanish would be "dogo"? Did you originally think Spanish is English with "-o" after every noun? Your original message makes it look like you think English is easy and Spanish is difficult just because you grew up with English and speak it natively, but you had to pick up Spanish at a later age with no previous experience. As said, a Spanish person would think just the same about English. JIP | Talk 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To address your question about the relative complexity of English and Spanish, Zrs, it is kind of a maxim among linguists that all languages are about equally complex, but in different ways. Granted, the non-phonetic spellings of English give the written language an added and unnecessary complexity, but the two spoken languages are really similar in complexity. Some ways in which Spanish is more complex than English are gender, verb conjugations, formal and informal address, two different forms of the verbs "to be" and "to have", and so on. Marco polo (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Zrs_12 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cato? Dogo? This reminds me of a sketch by the Comic Strip Presents team, where these guys from England are in a restaurant in Spain, and one of them is repeatedly asking the bartender, "Where's the bog?". The bartender can't understand so he resorts to 'el bogo'. Classic!ChokinBako (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Musical Instrument in Japanese

I and a Japanese friend of mine where talking about musical instruments today, and he said his 5 year old daughter has the instrument I am trying to ask about in this post. I know exactly what it is, because I worked in a kindergarten in Japan for two years and all kids have one each. Neither of us could remember what the thing is called. It's a wind instrument, but looks like a small piano. You blow into it and change the note by pressing the keys. I called it 'air piano' because I remember a Japanese guy I used to know who had had a stroke saying in his English that he was trying to build himself a 'left-handed air piano' and at the time I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought he meant an actual piano that you blow into to get it to work. But, when I was at the kindergarten some years later I found there was such an instrument and a specific word for it in Japanese. Does anyone know? Also, what is the English for this (if any - I've never seen them in the UK)? I find 'air piano' sounds too much like 'air guitar'.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Was it a melodica? Reminds me of the recorder, which was handed out to every elementary school kid where I grew up. — jwillbur 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

YES! That's the one! That's what it was in Japanese, too! I KNEW it sounded like the word 'harmonica'. Thanks! I'll email him tomorrow! We spent ages trying to remember that! --ChokinBako (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is known as "kenban harmonica" (lit. "keyboard harmonica") in Japan. It is also commonly known as Pianica, by Tokai and Yamaha's brand name. Melodica is not a common name in Japan. --Kusunose 08:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, the thing is called "mellodion" in South Korea. --Kjoonlee 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it being called 'pianika' by the teachers, but he didn't understand that, so I was looking for another word for it, not sure whether I had remembered 'pianika' correctly. Thanks all!--ChokinBako (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaber Elbaneh, the al-Qaeda operative ...

This is the beginning of a news item in washingtonpost.com email dispatch of May 18, 2008. I'm wondering why the same Arabic article appears differently in the two nouns, Elbaneh and al-Qaeda. Any rule in English for that? --Omidinist (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No rule, just usage. Someone, possibly Elbaneh himself, transliterated his name like that first, and everyone else accepted it as the standard way of transliterating it. "al-Qaeda" has the more "proper" transliteration "al-", combined with "qaeda" which could be transliterated a number of different ways. It's not the only English spelling I've seen, but whatever the spelling the usual pronunciation in English is totally wrong (it would be al-Qaa`idat if it were up to me!). With Arabic we should keep in mind Lawrence of Arabia's opinion: "There are some 'scientific systems' of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a wash-out for the world. I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are." Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, would you mind giving us an IPA transcription of al-Qaeda (the standard Arabic pronunciation, if there is such a thing)? Algebraist 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess /ælˈqɑːʕɪdə/ or /ɛlˈqɑːʕɪdə/ (I'm not really sure how to transcribe an ayin plus a short vowel, since I have so much trouble pronouncing it properly to begin with). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Algebraist 13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistakenly copied the K out of the al-Qaeda article, it should be a q, phonetically. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by this question I looked at how Al-Qaeda is spelled on Wikipedia. Currently, at the least, the following spellings are in use in articles:

Al-Qaeda, Al Qaida, Al Qaeda, Al Quaeda, Al-Quaida, Al-Queda, Al qaeda, Al Quida, Al Quida, Al-Quida, Al Quida, Al Quada, Al-Quada, Al-Qa'ida, Al Quaida, Al-Qa'eda, Al-Qaida, Al-Qaida, Al Queda, Al-Quaeda, Al-Quaeda, Al queda

Redirects also exists for the following spellings:

El Qaida, El-Qaida, El-Qaeda, El Qaeda, El Quiada, El-Quiada, El-Kaida, El Kaida, Al-Kaida, Al Kaida, Al Kaeda, Al-Kaeda, El-Kaeda, El Kaeda, El Queda, El-Queda, Al-Qaïda, Al Qaïda, Alqaeda, Al Qæda, Al Qæda, Al Qa’ida, Al-Qa'idah, Al-Qa’ida, Qaeda, Al Qa'idah, Al Qaidah, Al-Qaidah, Äl-Qaida, Äl Qaida, Al-Qa'eda, Al- Qaeda, Al-qaida, Al qida, Alqaida, Al-Qaid, Al-Qaid, Al queada, Al-Qa'edah, Al Qaeeda, Al qada, Al-qida, Al-Qa‘ida, Al quada, Al-Qida, Al Qida, Al-qā‘idah, Al-Qaida Al-Jihad, Qaida Al-Jihad, Qaida al-Jihad, Qaeda al-Jihad, Qaeda Al-Jihad, Qa'edat Al-Jihad

Adam's suggested spelling is not among them; in fact, only one spelling uses a final t. Rmhermen (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the -t is usually silent...I would spell it that way so I know it's a ta' marbuta rather than an A or an H or something, but I know it's not useful for a general transcription. (When it is the first word, like in Qa'edat Al-Jihad, it would be pronounced.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only my opinion, but while a transcription like Adam's — mirroring the orthographical structure of the word in its original script — could be useful for those who already know Arabic, the normal purpose of a transcription is simply to provide a phonetic "translation" that makes the word pronounceable in the target language. In other words, spell it in such a way that someone, unfamiliar with the term, will pronounce it in a way that is reasonably similar to the original, given the phonetic rules of transcription's target language (English or whatever). If there are many spellings that make sense, picking one and sticking to it is a good idea. There's not really any "wrong" way. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I am a seventh - grade student. I have been learning French for the past year. Our French teacher changed three times. This is confusing as each pronounced certain words differently. How do I pronounce "Il est trés intelligent?" Any other standard rules for pronunciation? Cyberina 11 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

''''UPDATE': Forgot to mention this, but I already know that 'J' is pronounced like S/Z, H is generally silent and a vowel has a different inflection when is has an accent. All I really want to ask is, are there any other sutle laws governing this issue? Merci beaucoup pour votre aide. Cyberina 11 11:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know IPA (or something similar)? If you do, a good dictionary should help you with pronunciations; Wiktionary, for example, has pronunciations for all the words in your example sentence. Otherwise it'll be hard for us to help you with only text to work with, but if you tell us what your own accent is, it might make it easier to provide illustrations. My own French is too rusty to give general pronunciation tips, but note that j is not exactly s/z: it usually represents /ʒ/, the sound represented by the s in 'treasure', 'vision' and 'asia'. In French g often represents this sound too. Algebraist 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the difficult things about French for an English speaker is that French uses a lot of sounds that don't occur in English or that aren't used very often, like the s in treasure. Really, the best way to learn those sounds is from a speaker who has mastered them (for example, a native speaker of French). It isn't encouraging that your different French teachers did not have the same pronunciation. This suggests that at least two of them did not know the correct pronunciation. Listening to recordings like the ones on Wiktionary can help. Another tricky thing about French is all of the silent letters, typically at the ends of words, and the rules for when and when not to pronounce letters at the ends of words. Sometimes, a consonant that is usually silent, like the s in très, is actually pronounced when the next word in a phrase begins with a vowel. For example, très is usually pronounced something like "treh" in English. (Actually, the vowel is not quite the same as any English vowel.) However, in the phrase très intelligent, the s is pronounced like an English z to sound something like "treh zaN tel ee zhawN" (with the capital Ns representing nasal sounds rather than an English n and the zh representing the sound of the s in treasure). This process, where a silent vowel is pronounced before a vowel at the beginning of the next word, is called liaison. You can learn more about it at this website, where you should also take a look at the links under the heading "Learn more..." Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So your phrase is pronounced something like "eel ay treh zaN tel ee zhawN" or il e trɛ zɛ~ te li ʒɑ~ in basic IPA (the tildes should appear above the vowels instead of after them, but my browser won't display them that way). Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to write this way, I suggest that you transcribe as "ee-lay treh zaN-teh-lee-zhawN" so that the English does not insert glottal stops and velarize the (seemingly) syllable-final "L". Another suggestion may be to transcribe (s) intelligent with a "D" like "zaN-deh-lee-zhawN" because if they stress the "teh" they may produce an unfrench aspirated "t". But, you would need to monitor the student's pronunciation for this. (Or, you could just leave this alone as aspiration is so automatic for english speakers. Depends on the student's motivation...) – ishwar  (speak) 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing you might look into for pronunciation help are the several online Text-to-Speech demos available - many of them have French. The pronunciation is usually pretty good, and you don't even have to download any software. Indeterminate (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient One-Liner

There's a joke format that goes, "_____ just called, they want their _____ back." Anybody know the history of this? Where it came from, when it showed up, etc? Black Carrot (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The "List of snowclones" page used to say that it was from a 1992 SNL episode. The skit is supposed to have been called "Sidewalk Insults".

"1985 called; they want their hair back." --Kjoonlee 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But I have no idea whether that's true or not. --Kjoonlee 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

country/ ies of origin

When talking about a group of, say, refugees from various countries, is it better to say "They returned to their country of origin" or "...to their countries of origin"? The second seems technically correct, but sounds stilted, because it adds unnecessary detail. I would have thought the first a little better, because "country of origin" can simply be read as saying that each one has a single country of origin. Is this correct, or is the first a little sloppy? thanks in advance, 203.221.127.102 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the second option, but I can't point to a specific rule. Fribbler (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer "They returned to their respective countries of origin" to make it clearer that each has only one. —Angr 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That has a better flow, alright. Fribbler (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This desk sees every one of the lumps in this cream of wheat we call English. "They returned to their country of origin" is right. Yes, yes, there is more than one country, or there are more than one country. There are more countries than one. This isn't arithmetic, it's language, and it's absurd to say they returned to their countries of origin for the same reason it would be to say that they're pulling our legs. That said, whenever you sense something is wrong with a sentence, you are right, there is. But as bad as the frying pan may be, the fire is usually worse. We, with high hopes and the best of intentions, set about correcting it: "They each returned to *urk*...." Pesky sex thing. "His or her"? Well, what else is there, for Christ's sake? It would have to be a him or a her, so how can I not feel like an idiot writing that? I can't. Me, I don't like the whole feminist thing—they got all they're going to get out of me when my first love broke my heart, so it's "Each refugee returned to his country of origin." Copyeditor's note: Recast. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So use singular they. -- BenRG (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, if you're in the mood to needle a stuffy grammarian, you could use the Spivak pronouns. On topic, however, I think it's a matter of taste, like the serial comma. It depends on how particular (heh, a little grammatical joke) you are about the mutability of phrases or idioms such as "country of origin" or "pulling my leg". Personally, I prefer "country" for formal situations, and "countries" for casual ones. Indeterminate (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it just that you're considering "country/ies of origin" rather than "country"? In a slightly more complex set-up, it might resolve itself:

• "They came from many different countries, and they returned to their country of origin" - this sounds quite, quite wrong to me.
• "They came from many different countries, and they returned to their countries of origin" - that sounds about right. It's still not an ideal sentence. I'd more naturally write "They came from many different countries and they returned to those countries". But the point is that if you'd use the plural in this sentence, why would you use the singular in a different one, assuming we're still talking about people from different countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"They returned to their country of origin" sounds like a lot of people from one single country going back there, or one person of unknown gender returning to 'their' country. "Countries" is correct for me.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"They each returned to their own country of origin" is also a valid way to phrase it. Then again, "They came from many different countries, and they returned to their country of origin" doesn't sound too bad to me. I automatically understand that they return to different countries, because of the context, and "their own country" is implied. Steewi (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the OP was asking about technical correctness, not implication.--ChokinBako (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Apostrophes

When dealing with nouns that have integral apostrophes—"Macy's", for example—how does one indicate a possessive form? Jouster  (whisper) 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no one right answer to any such question when it comes to English. A good rule of thumb is to cause the least disruption to the flow of reading, and I'd say that in the case of "Macy's" it would be best to leave it unchanged in the possessive: "Macy's first sale took place on a Friday." (The issue does not seem to be addressed in the Chicago Manual of Style 15.)--Milkbreath (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Milkbreath, but if you feel awkward with this approach it's nearly always possible to turn the words around to avoid the risk that someone might try to say you've got it wrong. So "The coffee shop at Macy's..." instead of "Macy's coffee shop..." Xn4 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In very informal writing I'd boldly write "Macy's's", or perhaps Macy's's, but practically nobody does that. In any other situation I'd recast. ("The Macy's store's coffee shop" in another option for that.) Leaving it unchanged looks like an error to me. --Anonymous, 22:11 UTC, May 21, 2008.

It's something I can't say I've ever come across, so I'd paraphrase it, too, by using 'of', for example. "The reputation of Macy's", for example, would be better than "Macy's reputation'". Of course, this would depend on the phrase and the paraphrasing.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The text includes "... which carries Macy's famous shopping bag sign ..." and "The former South division was formed following Macy's acquisition of Bullock's ...". If it were Wal-Mart, it would be "Wal-Mart's famous shopping bag sign" and "Wal-Mart's acquisition". But double apostrophes are so unusual that they're contraindicated in the Macy's and similar cases. It looks like bad spelling, even if it could be argued as being technically correct. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the multiple apostrophes and S's that look odd. I wonder if Macy's' would be okay. And on the topic of multiple apostrophes, fo'c'sle has two of them, and making it possessive would add a third. "The fo'c'sle's surface was drenched in seawater." Paul Davidson (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How can i get my first car trick my ride

Question moved to the Miscellaneous Reference Desk.

May 22

Feminine counties

I just came across the following sentence:

Northumberland's county flower is the Bloody Cranesbill (Geranium sanguineum) and her affiliated Royal Navy ship is her namesake, HMS Northumberland.

Is it customary to attribute the feminine gender to English counties, or is this a Latin/Northumbria thing? Is it customary to do so in encyclopedia articles? It's been there for over a year, but otherwise the article talks about its flag, its landscape, its scenic beauty, its historical significance, and its kilt and tartan. I really stumbled over the her, which is why I'm asking. Thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a matter of personal taste. 'Her' is used for countries, counties, and ships, and all sorts, but equally 'its' is also used. There is no convention here. I, personally, would prefer 'its', but some people may say otherwise.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think consistency of usage within the article is the paramount consideration. Deor (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not actually the question, though, Deor.--ChokinBako (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The OP said that "otherwise the article talks about its flag, its landscape," etc., so I took it that part of the question was whether "her" in the quoted sentence should be changed to "its". Deor (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Footnote formatting

Suppose we have a multi-page article with superscript numbers in it that refer the reader to footnotes at the bottom of each page that provide additional information. Now suppose that there is, say, a quotation at the bottom of page 1 that must be sourced, so we add a superscript number after the quotation and indicate the source at the bottom of the page. However, when we do this, the quotation itself is bumped on to page 2 because of the space taken up by the footnote. But this means that the footnote must be moved from page 1 to page 2 (since it must be on the same page as the quote). But the space left behind by moving the footnote cannot be filled with text, since to do so would move the quotation back on to page 1, returning us to the initial situation. Does this mean that we must leave a large blank space at the bottom of page 1? How is this handled in professional publishing? --BrainInAVat (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not really a language question. Best ask it on the Computer Help Desk.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Publishers handle the problem in various ways. The easiest, if it's practicable, is to get the author to add to or make cuts in the text so that the quotation and the footnote both fit on one of the pages. (This is also a good way of dealing with a "widow"—an unfilled last line of a paragraph at the top of a page.) A footnote can also be run over from one page to the next—that is, the beginning of the note can be set on the first page and the rest, separated from the bottom of the text by a thin rule extending the width of the typeblock, on the next page. Or, if the superscript occurs in the last two lines of a recto page, those two lines (and the note) can be moved to the next page and each page of the spread from which they were taken be set one line short. There's always some way to deal with such things. Deor (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Swearing

Why are swear words considered taboos? It's not like they hurt anyone. For example, if someone were to say "poop" (e.g. in the context "I've gotta take a poop"), there is no reason for that person to be punished. However, if they were to say "shit" (e.g. in the context "I've gotta take a shit"), they are much more likely to be punished, even though the words mean exactly the same thing. It just makes no sence to me, and I have yet to get a good explanation. You're dreaming eh? 03:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Human nature, perhaps? Or Human convention? Acceptability (linguistics) is often more complex than grammaticality. --Kjoonlee 03:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some words develop a taboo during the course of their use, and are replaced by newer words. The older words then either die out or continue to be used with this taboo and vulgar connotation, while the newer words are acceptible. These new words, in turn, develop a taboo during the course of their use, and they are replaced. Thus the cycle continues. This is linguistic evolution.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Zounds! This is a crosspost from the Miscellaneous Desk. There's a good answer there. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

British Accent and indian pronunciation

I am an Indian trying to understand British Accent for a u.k process call center in India . Even though we are following an English language , ours is non phonetic in aspirated sounds and counting of diphthongs.So in the areas of counting syllable my knowledge is limited to differentiate in to phonetic codes for pronunciation.As far as i have approached Indian teachers their pronunciation is somewhat similar to mine even though they learned English phonetics.They said it to be impossible for an Indian to master english in Oxford sense.So i request to get a link on internet to get the components such as

1.combined sounds in phonetics

2.classification of words based on how to count syllables for oxford pronunciation.

3.How the diphthongs are combined to get the complex sounds produced.

4.How can be the articulation end up for Indians —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinkle.leelabhai (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a link for you, but I will say it's not impossible for an Indian to master the "Oxford pronunciation" (usually called Received Pronunciation or RP), though it is difficult once you're a teenager or older. It's also unnecessary to completely replace your Indian accent with RP; as long as you understand everything that's said to you in English, and your interlocutor understands everything you say to him, that's surely sufficient. —Angr 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that acquiring the accent is a part of job training so that clients do not notice that s/he is calling from India. Although there are lots of people in the UK who speak Indian English, the marketing ploy asks that they try to mimic a more 'native' English accent. Perhaps the article on Indian English and Received Pronunciation will give you something to compare. Otherwise, the best practice you can have is through immersing yourself in UK English, by watching BBC, listening to BBC world, and talking to English people. Short of paying for a dialect coach, that is your best bet. Steewi (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You can train a bit at home. Look for BBC podcasts [9] or other British native speaker audio sources. Listen carefully to when they breathe. Then play a sentence. Don't say the words, but hum at the same pitch and rhythm as the speaker and try to breathe at the same places as they did. Record your humming and train till you can match the phrase. Then say the words. You'll improve with training regularly. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead me to the truth

When I asked a question at the Science desk, I was referred to this article at The Independent whose heading is "My killer dinner: How a vegetable diet lead to organ malfunction". Is this a Britishism? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the use of 'lead'. My first thought was that the lead was a pun, but I think it was just a typo for 'led'. Steewi (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see this error all the time. I've never quite decided whether people make it by analogy with "read" (present tense) and "read" (past tense) or by thinking "/lɛd/" and then spelling it the way the name of the metal that is so pronounced is spelled. Deor (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the spelling is a typo, as the article has nothing to do with lead. Well done, The Independant, for making sure the world knows that even us Brits can't spell (or hire people who can!). Anyway, I never read The Independant, because the only thing it is independant of is reality. Better reading The Guardian.--ChokinBako (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Voicing in English phonetics

Hi,

1. Voicing is a distinctive feature in English
   1. Aspiration is not, since "spin" can have an aspirated P
2. Pin and bin are distinguished by voicing

Do people all agree on the above? But then,

• I scream (not apsirated)
• Ice cream (aspirated)
  • Can these be distinguished by a native speaker?

And also,

• Initial Bs are devoiced
  • But the chorus of "Beat It" sounds seems to use a fully devoiced stop

So how do people distinguish "beat it" from "Pete it"? --Kjoonlee 06:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"spin" can have an aspirated P Do you mean if it's physically possible? Otherwise English does not have an aspirated stop in spin. Beat it and Pete it are fully distinguishable for me, since /p/ in Pete *is* aspirated. Less confident about I scream ~ ice cream but scream has a longer vowel for me. Ladefoged argues that there is no clear opposition between voiced and voiceless stops in English. They are distinguished rather by aspiration word-initially, and by vowel length elsewhere so that the real difference between words like cap and cab is that the former has a shorter vowel. — Zerida ☥ 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)