Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

June 5

Section8

To the honorable Michelle R. Bloomberg, I am a resident of the Bronx, Ny.I recived a vocher from Nyc housing of October of 2007. The experation date for the vocher was Apirl,2008, in the process of having this vocher i then found housing before my experation date but ther was a change in my budget. Therefor the rental/transfer office then informed me that my applications would have to go back to applications for a budget resessment due to a 17% budget change therefore i am now without a vocher, and now listed to be a catagory 9 when i have already recived a vocher.My vocher # is 0593591. I am now trying to find out why my vocher was took away from me and given to someone else, they now have my lease from the apartment that i found,along with other doucments. So, my question is why do i not have a section8 vocher because of the lact of business admintration. Now i am trying to fight for what i feel is righfully mine...Where do i go from here?? I need assistance to find out what happpen from the month of october 'till now. Knowing that the apartment was found in the month of December,2007.That is my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.85.222 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Michelle R. Bloomberg? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Michael Bloomberg's wife?~~ Nope, his wife is Susan. Not sure. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing what people think we can do: the language reference desk can solve any problem! Need a girlfriend? Ask the LRD! Need a flat? Ask the LRD! Need to settle a dispute with an administration? Ask the LRD! :-) --Lgriot (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, not New York City Hall. It is not very likely that Mr. Bloomberg, or someone who acts on his behalf, will see your posting. Here is a link to a contact webpage for the New York City Government. --Lambiam 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is "Language Reference Desk" of the English Wikipedia. We have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen.

However, you might have more luck visiting New York City Housing Authority (Official site) or calling 3-1-1 toll free. If you really think Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the best person to solve your issue, he can be contacted here. Astronaut (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3-1-1 is definitely the way to go here. - Nunh-huh 11:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of text on an image

Hello. Can someone please translate the text on the image at this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GriechTheater2.PNG. It is stated that the terms are in Greek language and Latin letters. Not sure what the means, but hopefully you'll understand, lol. I would like the terms translated into English please. Many Thanks, POKEMON RULES (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means they've been transliterated from the Greek alphabet into the Latin alphabet. Since they're all rather specific technical terms, they probably don't have different English translations. Rather, the Greek words (transliterated into the Latin alphabet) would be used in English. —An gr 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles and definitions for some of the terms: diazomata, skene, proskenion, pinakes, parodoi. This site gives definitions for the other words. DAVID ŠENEK 10:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, POKEMON RULES (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words ending in Z

I have noticed a recurrence of words ending in Z on the net recently, in deliberate misspellings such as "haz". Iz thiz some kind of internet meme, and if so where did it originate from? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's of feline origin. DAVID ŠENEK 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, is there anything at all that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on? Many thankz. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... hiphop culture does it too (e.g. Boyz n the Hood), and that's older than the lolcats. —An gr 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I ain't no damn lolcat, and I've around longer than most of those boyz. (You cannot imagine what it took for me to write that last "word". What sacrifices one makes for humanity.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez haz been roun' longr dan dat. (No, no Richardrj, "thanx", aight?) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I was definitely thinking of the lolcats thing, which is a recent internet phenomenon and distinct from boyz, jeez etc. Thanks all. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auxiliary verbs in English

There seems to be auxiliary verbs in Finnish (and Swedish too) that I can't translate to English directly. These include:

jaksaa (sv. orka): have the energy to
ehtiä (sv. hinna): have the time to
viitsiä: can be bothered to

Also, I am confused by the English auxiliary verb "may", because it can mean either "be allowed to" or "be possible to". The first meaning is saada in Finnish and få in Swedish. The second meaning is voida in Finnish and kunna in Swedish.

Finnish also has two separate verbs for "can":

osata: know how to do
voida: be possible to

Can some explain to me if these can be translated to English more succintly than what I have written here? JIP | Talk 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian has (roughly the same meanings I think): orke, rekke, gidde. Never really thought of the fact that some of these don't have English translation, though it might have struck me. The first is the hardest, your translation is OK though at least in Norwegian it's mostly used negatively (jeg orker ikke å... --> I don't have the energy to...). Manage in English could replace the second one, I think, though then the time dimension would have to be implied from context. Bother could in some cases replace the third. But someone else could probably answer this better than me... All in all, you seem to have a good grasp of these things! Jørgen (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing from your userpage that you're Finnish, I apologize... I thought you were an interested English-speaker. I'll still let my answer stand in case someone finds it interesting. Jørgen (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some words that may or may not help are tired, lazy, hurry. – b_jonas 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Five years of fighting"

I heard a report on the radio this morning about Darfur, in which the correspondent started a sentence with "Five years of fighting have led to..." I would have said "Five years of fighting has led to ..." But as I got to thinking about it, it's possible that we're both right. Opinions? Corvus cornix_talk 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Has" is right. Don't listen to all those others who say the other thing. It's not the same thing as "five dogs have peed on my azalea", where "has" would be impossible. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can carefully say 'has' if you like, Milkbreath, but I will continue to use either depending on whether I have the years or the fighting as salient in my mind when I say it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milkbreath, I was taught years ago that the verb should agree in number with the word (or words) before the "of". Waz I taught wrong, or have the rules changed?--Eriastrum (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were taught wrong, and there are no rules. (Actually, I don't think I'm getting what you were taught.) Grammatically or logically speaking, it can go either way. "Years" is the subject, "years" is plural, therefore the conjugation is "have". "Five years" is a block of time whose overall effect has culminated in whatever, so "five years" is to be construed as singular, making it "has". (I don't understand Mr. Fine. The years considered individually are not what is meant.) The trouble is, when we actually go to write it, we have to pick one, and we should use the one that makes the sentence make sense, the right one. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case it makes more sense to choose "have"; otherwise the listener might be confused as to whether the subject of the sentence was "years" or "fighting". When people aren't paying attention to what they're saying, it's a common error to simply conjugate a verb based on the word directly before the verb, rather than the actual subject of the phrase. Indeterminate (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should consider the sensibilities of a listener who starts out that confused. We should write for sane people of at least average intelligence. It would not make sense if "fighting" was the subject. The listener is perfectly capable of understanding that it was the five fighting years that led to the deplorable state of affairs we're faced with today, I guess. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the five years, or the fighting, that "led to..." (whatever it was that 'it' led to)? It was the fighting, which is the subject. The simple sentence "fighting _has_ led to..." was expanded with a modifier about how much fighting to get "Five years of fighting _has_ led to..." Okay, I'll shut up and listen, now. -SandyJax (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems like a case where national/regional dialects come into play, much as how American and British English differ in the treatment of sports teams -- Americans tend towards the plural (The Colts have won 5 NFL championships) vs the British singular (The only major honour that Manchester United F.C. has never won is the UEFA Cup). As such, there is not necessarily a universally correct answer. — Lomn 19:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Americans would indeed say that the Colts have won it, "colts" being plural, but Indianapolis has, where Manchester have. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show of hands: who would write "Five years are a long time"? --Milkbreath (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that's a different case, mate. (this is where the ec happened) Logically, I'd be inclined to agree with my esteemed lactohalic colleague about his first response. But logic is not the thing. It all depends on how the speaker is conceptualising the situation. Maybe from a johnny-come-lately journalist's frame of reference, the 5 years of fighting is a single entity. Darfur used to be a nice place, then this "thing" happened, and now it's hell on earth. Thus "5 years of fighting has led ...". But from a local's perspective, it would not be one "thing" but a long series of separate, individually ghastly events, which have culminated in whatever. And if they say "five years of fighting ..." they may have all those separate bloody events in mind, not some disconnected thought about the time period. So I can't support the view that it's always wrong to say "have". In other words, what Colin said. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree, dude, I mean mate. Whatever a local might think, that's not what the sentence means. It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily divide the time up into years. If it had been one-and-a-half years, would we say "Eighteen months of fighting have led to...."? It is the span of time, not some arbitrary units, that is, not are, the subject of the sentence. Isn't English a glorious mess? --Milkbreath (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we're on quite the same wavelength. To some speakers, "five years of fighting have led to" is shorthand for "many horrible events that took place over a five-year period have led to". Just as "the group went their separate ways" is shorthand for "the members of the group went their separate ways". I can see where you're coming from, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, my thinking is that "five years of fighting" is a single, fixed thing. That's why "has" seems appropriate. To me, "have" would only work if you're thinking more about the years as individual entities, each with its own impact on the situation. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poem analysis...?

Hello everyone. Would it be okay (and helpful to me :) if I put up a poem here for analysis? It's not homework or anything, I just want to know what it's about ^^. (If this is absolutely not the place for such a thing, please tell me where I can go to get some help!) Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably get better responses at the Humanities Desk. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well okay... if you ask me, there's a little bit of ambiguity between the two desks regarding this subject (not that such a thing has been asked for in either according to Google), but thanks anyway. Kreachure (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) PS. I don't have to remove the question from here in order to ask at the other desk, right??[reply]

I just answered you, I'm not the guy to see about this. That said, if I were you, I'd go ahead and post away and let the devil take the hindmost, whatever that means. It's happened before that someone has slapped a bit of poetry up and asked for analysis. Watch the copyright thing is all. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is okay for purposes of study or teaching, no? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My eyes start to swim around like a couple of goldfish about three sentences in whenever I try to read up on the matter. Common sense tells me, though, that whatever your intention, to post a piece on the internet for anyone to read or copy violates copyright. To quote one stanza in an academic work is fair use, I guess, or even to include the entire poem in a critique of that poem, but on paper. But I am not a lawyer. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You likely need a pair of legal-eyes, then. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of languages with pre-noun and post-noun placement of adjectives

Hello, I'm looking for a very short list of a few examples of languages that place the noun after the adjective (e.g. casa verde), and a few that place it before (e.g. green house). If you can find a link to a list I'd really appreciate it, but just listing a few examples would work just as well. If possible, I'm also especially interested in Russian. I tried searching through the archives but couldn't find much, and our articles surprisingly don't seem to cover this. Thanks in advance for your efforts! --Ybbor ^Talk 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having much luck finding a list either. Many languages allow them in either position, and many have exceptions to the usual placement (e.g. French, where adjectives normally follow the noun but certain adjectives can precede the noun under certain circumstances). For European languages, I'd say adjectives typically follow the noun in Romance and Celtic languages and precede the noun in Germanic languages. I don't know enough about Slavic languages to generalize, but I notice that Russian for Red Square is Красная площадь (red square), not Площадь красная (square red). —An gr 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of the present tense of the verb "to be" in modern Russian means that, context-free, Площадь красная would be interpreted as "The square is red". It's not that you can never put the adjective after the noun, and literature is full of counter-examples, but generally speaking it goes before just as it does in English. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there might be a list at Head directionality parameter, but there isn't. It mentions Japanese as a language that is pretty strictly head-final (as with German, quite long phrases can occur as modifiers in a noun phrase, preceding the head noun). Hebrew is an example of noun-adjective, and is the converse of JackOfOz's observation about Russian, in that there is no copula and 'adjective noun' would tend to be a sentence, not a phrase. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, adjetives preceding nouns are frequently of an epithetic nature (i.e. of an appositive, rather than delimiting, character). Adjetives following nouns generally act as delimiters; since adjetives delimit more frequently than express an intrinsic property of something, it comes as no surprise that noun-adjective is a more common order than the other way round. But there are many subtleties that make the matter elusive. For instance, superlatives mayor, máximo, etc. usually precede nouns; and un pobre hombre has a very different meaning from un hombre pobre (pobre meaning doomed or pathetic in the first example and impoverished in the second one). Pallida Mors 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Plural of Destruction

Is the following usage of the word "destructions" grammatically correct?

"While they are very similar, only the latter is able to cause epic, city-scale destructions."

Should "destructions" be singular instead? Applefungus (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange, but I'd let it stand. It's better than "depredations", it's concise, and we know what it means. The dictionaries I looked at were mute about whether "destruction" can be a count noun. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most dictionaries don't distinguish mass nouns from count nouns. I'd say that "destruction" in normal use is always a mass noun, and this dictionary entry agrees (it uses U = uncountable = mass noun). So you want the singular "destruction" or else a completely different construct like "the epic destruction of cities". --Anonymous, 01:54 UTC, June 6, 2008.

I'm gonna have to agree with singular. The meaning of the sentence is the same if you put destruction rather than destructions (so using the latter isn't going to affect it other than making it seem 'uglier'). Kreachure (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Kreachure said. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd substitute city-wide. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even wide-scale destruction. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Check

I'm doing a translation for one of my friends, but my Latin is somewhat impoverished by my never having taken a class. Can I have some corrections?

"Mercuri ter Maxime, adjutame, Alipes! Dona tutamen caducei sancti tui a socio vehendi."

"O Hermes Trismegistos, Aid me Wing-Footed one! Offer the protection of your sacred caduceus to a fellow traveller."

You can be merciless if I've completely bunged it up. :) Steewi (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I also wouldn't mind it being made a more elegant translation, if it's not difficult. Steewi (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which way are you translating it? From English to Latin? (I thought the other way around at first.) If E-L, then "adjuta me" is two words. The end right now says "the protection of your sacred caduceus to be carried by a friend", so I think you want simply "...sancti tui conviatori". Adam Bishop (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that I've had a chance to put some more thought into it: "O Mercurii ter Maxime, adjuta me, Alipes! Dona caduceum sanctum arma mihi conviatori" The "O" more definitely indicates the vocative, and -ius names take -ii in the vocative. You don't need a possessive "tuum" - it's more natural to use it in English, but unnecessary in Latin, since it's obviously not your caduceus! "Tutamen" does mean "protection" but it's not the most usual word, and it seems odd to me to use it with a genitive. I used "arma", which is weapons but also abstract protection, with another accusative in apposition, "grant [your] sacred caduceus [as] protection to me, a fellow traveller." Adam Bishop (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam, that was great help. I was indeed translating E->L, and your corrections make sense. I'll pass the better translation onto my friend. Steewi (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine endings in English

Here's a couple that I've been meaning to ask for a long while:

1.I've noticed the forms "or" and "rix" in Latin-origin terms. I'm wondering what the English/Anglisc parallel is. For words ending in "er", is there a disused female form with "rine"? (I've noticed in German the pair Kaiser and Kaiserin).

2.What would be the plural for sisters in the old forms to match "brethren"? (Sestren?) Retarius | Talk 06:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wife of a viceroy is a vicereine. That's probably from French, though. Only example I can think of right now. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1). AFAIK the feminine ending corresponding to German -in is present in Modern English only in vixen, which is etymologically identical to German Füchsin. (2). It's just "sisters". —An gr 06:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Retarius, the archaic plural form of sisters is "sisteren"; used inclusively, brethren means members of the same kind or group, as well as kin which does for both mostly. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English suffix -ess comes from Latin -ix, through French. For example "actor" is directly from Latin, and "actress" evolved from the feminine form "actrix". The suffix -er is the Germanic cognate of Latin -or, I think. There was also an -ina suffix in Latin, although maybe it only appears in "regina", the feminine form of "rex". "Rex" and "regina" turned into "roi" and "reine" in French, hence Jack's example of "vicereine", which is really two words "vice reine", so it does not really have an "-ine" ending in the way you meant. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack, Angr, Julia and Adam. I gather the modern feminine form would be "ess" then, as in deprecated words like actress, waitress, etc. Retarius | Talk 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (Sequenced the Q & A after getting lost). : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it suits, "actress" is not entirely deprecated. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting little fact by Angr. I didn't know that vixen was the only surviving English word with the feminine suffix "-en". Apparently another lost feminine suffix is -stere surviving in the word spinster (originally female spinner [1] ). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did modify my claim with "AFAIK" (= as far as I know). There may be other words that retain the feminine suffix -en, but I can't think of any. As for -ster, I believe webster and seamster also originally had the same suffix. The former remained in use only as a surname, and the latter got re-marked with -ess to become seamstress. —An gr 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can only assume that 'webstress' nowadays would mean a female with a good knowledge of HTML.--ChokinBako (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a female dictionary? :P Pallida Mors 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A feminist dick-tionary? An oxy moroness? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far more likely to be perceived as "web stress", something we can all relate to. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. With minimal html, I'd settle for webtrix. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The individual pasta unit

Is there a correct singular form of the word "pasta", and are there singular forms for specific pasta terms like "spaghetti", "ravioli", and so on? (Besides the English "noodle".) I realize that "pasta" and types of pasta are usually if not always mass nouns, but I'm wondering if there's a more precise single word for "piece of pasta" or "strand of spaghetti". 69.111.189.55 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La pasta is already singular in Italian. The plural form is le paste (It's used in Italian, when you're talking about different kinds of pasta). I don't know whether paste can be used as a plural in English though, I think it's an uncountable noun. Lo spaghetto (the little string) and il raviolo are acceptable singulars (again in Italian, I don't know about English) when you're talking about one piece, just like a corn flake. (There's a spaghetto hanging from your moustache. I don't know, it sounds a bit contrived and hyper-correct to me. What do English speakers think?). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an English speaker (British variety), I would never use 'spaghetto', 'raviolo', and so on, except perhaps facetiously. It always amuses me that the French doubly-pluralise these names, talking about 'les spaghettis' etc. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., signs and menus advertising "paninis" are extremely common. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blinis" and "pirozhkis" are other examples. They're supposed to be: 1 blin/pirozhok; 2 or more blini/pirozhki. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally occasionally use singular forms of Italian words that are normally used only in their plural form in English, because I enjoy that sort of thing, but I think that it probably does sound contrived and hyper-correct. I think that the prevailing way to express the idea would be "piece of ...", for example, "there is a piece of spaghetti stuck to the pot" rather than "a spaghetto". I have also heard English speakers use the the plural form in the singular, which grates on my ears but is done often enough to be almost "normal". For example, "Would you like a biscotti?" or "There is one tortellini left." Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English has a precise, individual word for "piece of pasta" or "strand of spaghetti". That word is noodle. —An gr 16:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it is dialectal. If you used the word 'noodle' to refer to something pasta-y 'round here, people would look at you very strangely. 'Noodle' is reserved for those thin chinese things, also found in Pot Noodle. You'd have to refer to 'a piece of spaghetti' to be understood. 79.74.56.70 (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further comment regarding pasta which can mean dough, pasta, but also pastry in Italian. I think one of the reasons "le paste" sounds alright and is often used in Italian is that, in addition to types, it can also be used for different dishes of pasta, or for several individual "pastries", i.e. pieces of pastry (le paste danesi = "Danish pastries"/"Danishes(?)"). Italian too is normally familiar with the concept of uncountable nouns, and "i latti" ("the milks") for different types of milk sounds wrong in Italian too. Or maybe paste are just too important to be uncountable in Italian. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English speakers may not use spaghetto. But we eat SpaghettiOs. - Eron^Talk 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings us to the question of why 'Alphabet Spaghetti' is called 'spaghetti' when it technically isn't spaghetti...--ChokinBako (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it was invented back in the 50s (or maybe earlier) when a lot of people didn't distinguish different types of pasta. It was all just "spaghetti". Or maybe more accurately, the only type of pasta generally purchased by (and often available to) the stereotypical (non-Italian) housewife-mother was actual spaghetti, so anything that came along that was made of the same stuff was referred to by the same name. The marketers knew this, and they didn't want to alienate their potential market by calling it "Alphabet <whatever the correct term is>". By the time the housewives became more educated in the varieties of pasta, it was too late to change the name because "alphabet spaghetti" had entered the cultural hall of fame -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see versions of 'Alphabet Spaghetti' in different scripts. I wonder what an Arabic version would look like, and would they have beginning, middle and end versions for each letter, where appropriate? Then a kanji version would be interesting. A morse code version would be a bit boring, though. :)--ChokinBako (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, isn't English really the only language whose speakers routinely try to borrow foreign plurals together with foreign words to sound cool or for whatever reason? – b_jonas 08:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even have to be the right foreign plural. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to fry some octopodes for dinner. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what does "they" refer

An entry in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary reads as following:

weal: a sore red mark on sb's skin where they have been hit

I would like to know to what does the word 'they' belong to (to soar red mark or somebody's skin?)

AND

Is it correct to use 'they' in the above sentence grammatically?Kasiraoj (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the singular they, which is what you're looking at. In the sentence from the dictionary, sb's stands for somebody's, that is the person who has been hit. As that person's gender is not mentioned, some consider none of he, she or it appropriate for the pronoun refering to that person. So, the pronoun they is frequently used in English to refer to one person of unspecified gender. Some do not like this usage, reserving they for plural, but it is undeniably widespread and generally accepted as a useful convention. Alternatives would be to use he or she, (s)he and so forth. However they is employed, it always takes the plural verb form (they have been hit, not they has been hit). — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The antecedent of the pronoun "they" in "a sore red mark on sb's skin where they have been hit" is "somebody". You have noticed that "they" is plural, and "somebody" is singular. This usage is sometimes called "singular they". Singular they is not used in formal writing, but people say it all the time, and it has been used throughout history by good writers. Singular they is considered informal today. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's becoming more and more common in formal writing, in my experience, as the traditional list of "things you must not write" becomes shorter and shorter. It's a meaningful construction, and is often a more convenient and "plain English" approach than any of the alternatives. Some may argue it doesn't make for good formal writing, but that's another issue. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

walk enclosure

The English translation for Item 144 in the List of Kangxi radicals is walk enclosure. What does that phrase mean? I can't make any sense of it. --08-15 (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an enclosed walk way, like a colonnade or a cloister. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walk is the meaning of the letter. And the radical is used like a bracket. That's why it's enclosure. Take a good look at the letters. Oda Mari (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that answer will be entirely clear to someone unfamiliar with the way Chinese characters work, so I'm trying again. The meaning of the character is just "walk". It's called an "enclosure" because other characters are derived from it by adding strokes in between its left half and its right half. For example, the character 衎 has a character shaped like a Ŧ inserted into the middle of 行. —An gr 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --08-15 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donacor

Anyone know what "donacor" means, and in which language... Portugese maybe? It's mentioned in George Carlin: Again! as a dirty word he considered adding to his list, but I've never heard it before and neither has Urbandictionary. 87.112.34.18 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carny lingo spells it Donniker: "A rest room or toilet. Derived from 'dunnekin,' in common use among lower-class Britons in the 1700s meaning 'outhouse.' Probably derived from 'dung' and "-kin", a suffix referring to a small container or private room (many euphemisms for 'bathroom' refer to it as a 'closet' or 'the small room'). In Australian slang today, an outhouse is a "dunny"." (Another less likely etymology is "down knickers")---Sluzzelin talk 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian questions

Note: I moved this section down from to June 6 from June 2 because the discussion was still active and it was getting archived by a bot. —Lowellian (reply) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning about Russian pronunciation and transliteration solely from Wikipedia articles, and I have a whole bunch of questions. Let's start off with this one: Why is "Елена" commonly transliterated "Yelena"? It seems to me self-contradictory: if "е" is "ye", then shouldn't it be "Yelyena" instead? —Lowellian (reply) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (quite simplified) answer to this question is that the letter "е" in this name translates to two different sounds—the first one is iotated and the second one is not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first e represents /je/ (a semi-vowel followed by a vowel), which you can transliterate <ye>. The second e represents /^je/ — that is, the single vowel /e/ preceded by a ~~iotated~~ palatalized (soft) consonant, in this case /l^j/. What's really going on here is that the second e is encoding information about both the vowel and the consonant that comes before it. Most transliteration systems indicate iotation with an apostrophe (Елена could be Yel'ena), but since it's a name an apostrophe would be cumbersome. Strad (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you explain why the existence of the soft sign is necessary at all? Because it seems to me, couldn't you just always replace, after a consonant, a soft sign with the iotated form of the vowel and get the same effect? Is there any difference in pronunciation between "Ельэна", "Елена", and "Ельена"? —Lowellian (reply) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ельэна and Елена are theoretically equivalent (/jel^jena/), but the combination ьэ does not occur — ь + a non-iotating vowel (а, э, ы, о, у) becomes the corresponding iotating vowel (я, е, и, ё, ю). Ельена would be /jel^jjena/, with both a soft л and the sequence /je/. Strad (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case that last sentence is ambiguous: the sequence лье /l^jje/ does occur. —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean it to mean that those sequences do occur, as with пью "I drink", but that there is no such word or name as Ельена. Strad (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. You're saying:

1. Ельэна would be /jel^jena/ (except that the combination "ьэ" doesn't exist)

2. Елена is /jel^jena/

3. Ельена is /jel^jjena/

In the case of #3, "е" is itself iotated (/je/). But in the case of #2, "е" is instead iotating the previous consonant rather than iotating itself (/l^je/). What's going on? —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Russian consonant cannot be iotated. "j" in "l^j" indicates softness, and "j" in "je" indicates iotation. Does that help any?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I used the wrong terminology, though my question still stands; let me rephrase: according to the pronunciations given by User:StradivariusTV, in the case of #3, "e" is itself iotated (/l^jje/), but in the case of #2, "e" is instead softening the previous consonant rather than iotating itself (/l^je/). Why does "e" serve a different function in these two cases? —Lowellian (reply) 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The letter "е" is never iotated when it follows a consonant; it simply softens the consonant (if that consonant can be softened, that is). Iotation, however, occurs, when "е" follows a vowel or a soft/hard sign, as well as at the beginning of words. Why that is the way it is, I don't know (I just speak the language), but it plays a very important role in distinguishing some words in speech (cf. "песо", peso and "пьеса", stageplay).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this same rule apply to just "е", or does it apply to all the iotated vowels? —Lowellian (reply) 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have mentioned it. It applies to all iotated vowels.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, am I understanding correctly that the soft sign in Russian never occurs before a non-iotated vowel? What about the hard sign—can it ever occur before a non-iotated vowel? —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The soft sign does occur before non-iotating vowels, but that only happens in words borrowed (or transliterated into Russian) from other languages (can't even think of an example). Also, the soft sign occurs in Russian words before non-iotating "и" (this is especially common in proper names, e.g., деревня Авдотьино, "the village of Avdot'ino", but also is common when forming the plural form of some words, e.g., воробьи), "sparrows"). As for the hard sign, if there are cases where it occurs before non-iotating vowels, they are most certainly not common at all (and would tend to show up in words, or, more likely, names, of non-Russian origin). Again, can't think of an example off the top of my head, which only proves the point (I'm a native speaker). All in all, the hard sign is not used in Russian all that much, so a learner like you should probably memorize those few common words which use it (съезд, разъезд, подъезд) and forget about it till (much) later in your learning process.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what the hard sign does. Using IPA, wouldn't "сезд" and "съезд" both be pronounced /sjezd/? —Lowellian (reply) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It serves as a signal that the vowel following it is supposed to be iotated (and that the consonant preceding it should stay hard). Soft sign serves basically the same purpose, except that it softens the consonant it follows. And no, "сезд" (if that were a real word) and "съезд" are not pronounced identically—the former would be /sʲezd/ (soft "с", uniotated "е"), and the latter—/sjezd/ (hard "с", iotated "е").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of the soft sign is on final consonants. Before the spelling reform of ~1918, every final consonant was followed by either a hard sign or a soft sign; after 1918, final hard signs were dropped. — Come to think of it, I'm not sure of that: some consonants (including Ш) are always hard, and some (including Ч) are always soft, so maybe they were not marked. —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they were. Like you said, every final consonant was followed by either a soft or a hard sign ("ч" was followed by "ъ", by the way, despite always being soft—e.g. "плечъ", genitive of "shoulders").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following statement correct?: "All consonants are hard unless they come before a soft sign or soft vowel." —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No (although for the most part this is true). Consonants "ж", "ц", and "ш" are always hard (even when followed by a soft sign) and "ч" and "щ" are always soft.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "ж", "ц", and "ш" are always hard even when followed by a soft sign, what does it mean if they are followed by a soft sign? (Or is it the case that those three consonants are never followed by a soft sign?) Also, in the YouTube Russian tutorial video [2], the guy in it who is teaching Russian at the time 7:00-7:25 says instead that the three consonants that are always hard are "г", "к", and "х" — is he just wrong then? —Lowellian (reply) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are followed by a soft sign, that is probably just a remnant from some older pronunciation or a spelling convention (but again, I'm no expert on such intricacies). What I can tell for sure is that it has no effect on pronunciation whatsoever; you just need to remember that such words are spelled with a soft sign, is all. As for the youtube video, I can't take a look at it now (as my employer blocks youtube), but if they indeed are saying that "г", "к", and "х" are always hard, then they are terribly wrong. There are plenty of words where these consonants are soft; here are just a few examples: "Геннадий" (Gennady, Russian male name), "кино" (cinema), "химия" (chemistry).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the above question about г х к, they are soft when preceding и or е (or a г/х/к that precedes such a vowel as in мягкий). The fellow in the Youtube video probably said they're never soft because the soft pronunciations are not considered to be phonemic like those of other consonants. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the article Russian alphabet gives, in the "IPA" column, both hard and soft pronunciations for most consonants, including "к", but not "г" or "х". So something is wrong there and the inconsistency between "к" and "г"/"х" should be fixed. —Lowellian (reply) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an oversight to me. I've added the soft forms, which most definitely exist and are quite common.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an oversight. Only [kʲ] is arguably phonemic in Russian. [gʲ] and [xʲ] are allophones. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, User:StradivariusTV wrote, "Most transliteration systems indicate iotation with an apostrophe (Елена could be Yel'ena), but since it's a name an apostrophe would be cumbersome." What I don't understand is this: by the same logic that writes the interior "е" as "e" rather than "ye" so that we get "Yelena" rather than "Yelyena", then shouldn't "Пётр" be transliterated as "Potr"? But I've never seen such a transliteration; it always gets transliterated as "Pyotr" instead. Why? —Lowellian (reply) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a logical reason for such appoach; it's just one of the things you need to accept :) Note, however, that "Пётр" is also commonly transliterated as "Petr", but that has nothing to do with pronunciation whatsoever.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a bad transliteration. It's misleading. There's this eternal debate about whether there even is such a letter as ё. Those on the NO side of the argument still have to accept that e is sometimes pronounced "e/ye" and sometimes "o/yo", so in the cases where it's pronounced "o/yo", it should be transliterated "o/yo". We all came to accept names such as Khrushchev and Gorbachev being pronounced "-ov/off"; but wouldn't it have been so much simpler to just spell them as "Khrushchoff" and "Gorbachoff"? We even see transliterations such as "Gorbachёv", which is meaningless since there's no ё in English. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: on the article Yer, under the heading "Modern Russian: Hard sign", the article gives the example:

съёмка (s'yomka) "filming"

But according to the "Transliteration table" in the Romanization of Russian article, ъ is transliterated, in all seven transliteration systems given in that table, as double prime ʺ , not single prime ʹ , which is instead used for the soft sign in all seven transliteration systems. So why is the transliteration in the "s'yomka" example above given as single prime rather than double prime when it is for the hard sign? —Lowellian (reply) 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's got to break it to you: Wikipedia contains errors, and likely always will. —Tamfang (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not in so much an error as an informal simplification. Using a double prime to transliterate a hard sign is technically correct, but can be perceived as overly pedantic in common use. Of course, an encyclopedic article (such as yer mentioned above) should be overly pedantic, so I have made a correction.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing should be overly pedantic, but sometimes simple pedantry has its place. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following three statements correct?

The eleven vowels are а, е, ё, и, й, о, у, ы, э, ю, and я.
е, ё, й, ю, and я are the iotated forms of, respectively, э, о, ы, у, and а.
и is also a hard vowel but has no iotated form.

—Lowellian (reply) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[You might want to move this thread back to /Language]

"Й" is not a vowel, it is a semivowel. The rest of the list is correct.
"Й" is not a iotated form of "ы". The letter "ы" does not have a iotated form in Russian. The rest of the list is correct.
Not sure what you mean by "hard vowel"—if you mean that the consonant followed by an "и" remains hard, then the statement is incorrect. The letter "и" always softens the consonants (those which can be softened, that is). It does not have a iotated form in Russian.

Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I moved this back to /Langauge as suggested, though I think this discussion should be over soon; most of my questions have been answered. :)

Anyway, oops, silly me, I mistyped and accidentally switched й and и in statements #2 and #3 above. Okay, new revised versions of the statements, fixing that and trying to incorporate the corrections that you noted:

The ten vowels are а, е, ё, и, о, у, ы, э, ю, and я.
е, ё, и, ю, and я are the iotated forms of, respectively, э, о, ы, у, and а.
й is a semivowel. It is not itself iotated, and it does not have an iotated form.

This is correct, now, right? The article I (Cyrillic) states "Although in isolation [и] is not preceded by the /j/ semivowel like other "soft" vowels [...] in Russian it is considered the soft counterpart to ы".

—Lowellian (reply) 23:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks correct to me. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, и is not a iotated form, and ы does not have a iotated form. --Lambiam 11:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your analysis. In most analyses that I've seen regarding Russian phonology is that both represent the phoneme /i/. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the boldfaced comment above about the IPA in the article "Russian alphabet"? I boldfaced the comment because it's the only comment to which no one has responded, and I'm afraid it was overlooked because this is such a long thread/section. I will de-boldface that comment once someone responds to it. —Lowellian (reply) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have de-boldfaced that comment, since someone has responded to it. :) —Lowellian (reply) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

Vowel in "hören"

Is the ö in "hören" pronounced /œ/ or /ø/? 76.195.7.166 (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't do IPA but it's like the "ur" in turf. Depending on local pronunciation the "e" is mostly silent, particularly in Northern Germany. --70.91.165.182 (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation of "turf" may vary by accent, but if ö is pronounced like how I pronounce the "u" in turf, then it'd be /ɜ/. Kal ^(talk) 04:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) I hear the vowel in hören as /œ/, and that in 'turf' as /ɜː/. --Lambiam 04:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Duden, hören has long /øː/. —An gr 08:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a word.

It's a word that I know exists I ran across it once clicking on the Random article link. I've tried various search patterns and reverse dictionary's, but no luck.

The best definition that I can give of this is: It's a word that describes a person that thinks that they are totally, without question, correct and yet they are completely wrong. [Special:Contributions/24.253.245.8|24.253.245.8]] (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Anthony[reply]

I tried a reverse dictionary through onelook.com and came up with some possible ideas. (www.onelook.com is my favorite online dictionary because it lists a few defs with usage examples but also links to other dictionary's definitions, which is excellent for really obscure or uncommon technical words)(note: blatant copypasting of defs present) 71.77.4.75 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deluded - having a having belief in something which is really untrue; misguided. To delude oneself is to to fool yourself into believing something is true because you want it to be true, when it is actually not true. Duped is somewhat similar in definition

You could also check the following

Specious: appearing to be true but really false. The claim that the ocean is blue because it reflects the sky is specious, the reality is that is actually slightly blue, not colorless.|
Sophistic: (similar def to specious, but less commonly used) clever-sounding but flawed: clever-sounding and plausible but based on shallow or dishonest thinking or flawed logic. A sophist is someone tho is sophistic.
Ostensible - intended for display, open to view; being such in appearance, plausible rather than demonstrably true or real. "His ostensible purpose was charity, his real goal popularity"
Hypocrisy (or hypocrite when referring to a hypocritical person): The claim, pretense, or false representation of holding beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually possess. A hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion, or person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. Ex- practice what you preach or you will be a hypocrite.

Q: is George Costanza a hypocrite, or meta-delusional? "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it." A conman might meet the definition of believing what they do is correct while it's completely wrong, but then we're getting into examples of what you mean. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: George Constanza? Probably both (that comes easy for a neurotic person). :) But as for the original question, I think delusion is the only adequate term that has been mentioned. All others are simply intentional deceptions used to fool others, not self-deceptions. Kreachure (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC) PS.[reply]

Beware of oncoming joke: Bush-like. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumpsimus mump'si-mes, n (A blunder for Latin sumpsimus, we have received)

A view stubbornly held even when shown to be wrong; one holding such a view. In an old story, it's said that an ignorant priest, knowing the sound of the Latin Mass but not speaking the language, said the meaningless 'mumpsimus' instead of 'sumpsimus'. When corrected, he is said to have replied, "I will not change my old mumpsimus for your new sumpsimus". This learned joke has lasted five centuries in the form of this fine-sounding word.

copypaste from (http://phrontistery.info/favourite.html). 71.77.4.75 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German word oder "Es handelt sich hier um.."

Hi, I'm revising some phrases for an upcoming German exam and one of them is "Es handelt sich hier um", and a phrase I made with it was (the rather simplistic) "Es handelt sich hier um wo unsere Zukunft liegt." Is the word order here right? My word order is generally pretty awful.. 79.72.233.136 (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word order is okay, but it sounds weird to me because "es handelt sich um" is usually followed by a noun or noun phrase, and in your sentence it's followed by a subordinate clause. "Es handelt sich hier um unsere Zukunft" sounds more natural to me, though I'm not a native speaker. —An gr 11:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that if you do want to use a subordinate clause as the object, you have to change "um" to "darum" and add a comma after it: "Es handelt sich hier darum, wo unsere Zukunft liegt" might be better. —An gr 11:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:Angr is entirely correct. The clause following the phrase "Es handelt sich hier um" must not commence with the "wo". Both of her alternatives "Es handelt sich hier um unsere Zukunft" and "Es handelt sich hier darum, wo unsere Zukunft liegt" are perfectly acceptable German.

Basically, the construct is: "Es handelt sich hier um" + <object>, where object, as stated, should be a noun or noun group in the accusative.

If you want to use a question as a subclause, you may select the phrase "Die Frage ist hier..." or "Es fragt sich..." --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!! 79.72.165.181 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving accent

What is the name of a professional who helps you improve your accent? Are there exercises for it? How can we improve our diction (in our native language and foreign language).GoingOnTracks (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Elocution lessons' is the name of the lessons you would take. I am not sure of what the actual instructor is called.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Elocutionist' is one possibility. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, you are right.--ChokinBako (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice coach, dialect coach, voice training, dialect training? Actors use these. It's good to have trainer because just listening doesn't tell you how to compose your mouth or know which part of the tonge or throat is used to make a sound that is authentic. Trivia moment here, but apparently Australians say "much" with the back of the tongue slightly raised so that it borders on "match". Julia Rossi (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language in a can?

The last image is a Russian-made canned "language". Did they feed the cosmonauts words? -- Toytoy (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't 'Язык' also mean 'tongue', as in the body part? My dictionary seems to think it does. --ChokinBako (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means both the tongue of the mouth and tongue as in language. Lots of languages have the same word for both. —An gr 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we all make mistakes, especially when it's in a foreign tongue.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are quite delectable. Unless, of course, you don´t want to eat what already has been in somebody else`s mouth. Mind you, some people eat eggs... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've eaten a fur burger once or twice in your life. What's wrong with eggs? :)--ChokinBako (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I olfactorily detect a red herring hidden in your message or are you choking, Bako, having poked your nose into exotic hirsute flora of Down Under regions? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the term RIP when used to describe a computer generated printout

In government offices it is common to reference a computer printout or report as a RIP. No one seems to know how this term came to be used or what the origin of the term is. Any help? Charmstr (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but "Report In Print"?--ChokinBako (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another guess: printouts used to come on perforated paper that one had to physically tear, or rip, apart. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Really Important Paper'?--ChokinBako (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means "Raster Image Processor" (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214294,00.html) 71.77.4.75 (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to words

Is there a difference between the terms grade and stage with respect to cancer classification? vs. Is there a difference between the terms 'grade' and 'stage' with respect to cancer classification?. Perhaps the latter is more clear, but can either one be said to conform the rules of the English language better than the other? ----Seans Potato Business 17:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a crosspost from the Science RefDesk. It's been answered there.--ChokinBako (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. The question arose in my head while I asked the question on the Science Reference desk, but if you look closely, the question asked here is quite distinct. ----Seans Potato Business 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, as far as punctuation is concerned, the latter would be better, as you would need the inverted commas.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The rules of the English language', insofar as they exist, do not pronounce on the matter, though particular style guides may. But to quote from Use-mention distinction, "In written language, mentioned words or phrases often appear between quotation marks ("Chicago" contains three vowels) or in italics (When I refer to honey, I mean the sweet stuff that bees make), and some authorities insist that mentioned words or phrases must always be made visually distinct in this manner. Used words or phrases (much more common than mentioned ones) do not bear any typographic distinction." --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full stop before/after quotation mark

Let's say I wanted to use quotation marks to emphasise the last three words "of this sentence". Did I put the full stop in the right place? I've come across both many times. Is it a British/American issue? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. British usage is to put a full stop (period) inside quotes only if it logically belongs there, i.e. if it's part of the quote. American usage is to put the tiniest punctuation marks (periods and commas) inside quotation marks regardless of whether they logically belong there, though more substantial punctuation marks (colons, semicolons, exclamation points, and question marks) go outside the quotation marks if they don't belong to the quote. —An gr 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese character 枚

The dictionaries Ive looked at give the meaning of this character as "stalk of shrub, trunk of tree" but I have also been told that it is a measure word for a noun. Is this true? Can different nouns have the same measure word? --212.120.247.132 (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is Japanese, I have heard that there are different words used to count different types of objects. I think it is similar to English expressions like a "handfull" of raisins, or a "dash" of pepper, "sheets" of paper. Using this totally awesome japanese translation site (http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/wwwjdic.html) I came up with the defintion:

枚【まい】 (ctr) counter for flat objects (e.g. sheets of paper)

and additional expressions using that character to count cloth, bills (as in money), petals, flakes, paper; so it seems the answer is yes to the second question. 71.77.4.75 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot Chinese and Japanese, along with other languages, shared the same characters. I meant the chinese character. --212.120.247.132 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is yes. Your second question was 'can different nouns have the same measure word?' The answer is yes, whether it be Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Malaysian, or whatever. After all, if each noun had its own individual measure word, it would make the language extremely difficult even for native speakers. That is why they are used to count objects that have some sort of similarity, like, in this instance, flat objects.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few measure words in Chinese, which by definition means that many nouns must have the same measure words. Same in English, of course: a gaggle of geese may be unique, but a bunch of flowers, clothes or idiots is pretty common (no offense intended; its the example that came to mind!).DOR (HK) (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be used as a word of measurement. In fact, it's more commonly used as a unit of measurement. It doesn't really have an English equivalent, but it's usually used for small countable objects, such as stamps and medals (it's the most correct measurement for stamps and medals, actually- “这版里有四枚邮票” (this edition has a total of four stamps), “中国队赢得了五枚金牌” (The Chinese team won five gold medals).) To answer your second question, yes, but some unit of measurement is more common and correct that others on specific things. In this case, both medals and stamps can be used with the generic 个 or 张, but it's more correct to use 枚.Cecikierk

Is there a word for this: a noun for the place where a child has been raised vs. born?

I am looking for a word sort of like birthplace which refers to the place where a person has been born, but I am seeking a noun which describes where a person was raised. "Hometown" is in the right direction but is too specific. If none can be found will the friendly ref desk personnel suggest novel words which could fulfill this definition? 71.77.4.75 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any real word or expression, so I'm gonna go with "nurturing place". (Okay, so it's not a word, but I think it'd get the job done if no better candidate is found. :) Kreachure (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Place of nurture' would be better. 'Nurturing place' could easily mean the place where the person in question nurtures others. Gerunds are funny in that way.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. "Place of nurture" sounds much nicer too, especially compared to "place of birth". (Malditos gerundios! XD ) Kreachure (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and 'Spanish Native Language Person' should really be 'native speaker of Spanish'. :)--ChokinBako (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Formative years" exists but can't find a formative place. Likewise "grew up in..." Otherwise hometown applies to where born, or where grew up, or where lives. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider 'hometown' to be a reference to where one lives, if one lives away from the place they were born or the place they grew up in. I was born in Liverpool, UK, but grew up in Huyton, just outside Liverpool. I have lived in many places since then, but when I said 'my hometown' to anyone, it meant either Huyton or Liverpool (because no-one had heard of Huyton).--ChokinBako (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian swears

Hi all - can anyone give me a list of swear words - profanities - curses - general exclamations of surprise/shock/dismay - that an Italian/Venetian might have employed in the late 16th Century?

Grazie!

Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few:

shit — merda
fuck — cazzo
bitch — stronza, troia

--212.120.247.132 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not realy sure if that is what the OP is asking for. That's just modern Italian swear words. --ChokinBako (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also why Finns should avoid saying Katso merta ("Look at the sea") while in Italy. JIP | Talk 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't there be scope for combined innocent words to make profane cursings against one's illegitimate birth, incestual and bestial habits, low upbringing, low character, bearing of despicable diseases, source of foul smells, spurious criminal tendencies, corruption of the saints and bringing down the family lineage (at least)? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the one that must be centuries old, in response to this: Mama mia! Are you running your researches past a few Venetians Adambrowne? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Florio's dictionary (which I think I may have linked you to before (scanned online here: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/florio/)) has some swear words in it (surprisingly!). It is somewhat searchable here: http://archimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/archim/dict/hw - I found furfantare and its derivations, fuorsennato, and fottere for a good start —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful - I can use all of that, thanks everyone - and yes, had forgotten about Florio's dictionary (my Favourites folder is much too big and unweildy) - so thanks especially for that, Steewi - found a section called 'Interjections of Grief &c.' - good stuff - but I have to ask, what does furfantare etc mean? Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It meant 'to act roguishly', and its derivations included roguish, rogue, etc. http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/florio/215small.html has the entry. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The classic 'Va fa'n culo!' has a Venetian variant: 'Ti ho in culo!' Rhinoracer (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rhino, that's a good one - and thanks, too, Julia - I'd assumed there was no Venetian community here in Melbourne, Aus, but maybe I'm wrong - I'll check it out.

June 8

Request for translation in Italian

Any would kindly help me translate the following text in Italian into English please ?

« Dolce paese, onde portai conforme l'abito fiero e lo sdegnoso canto e il petto ov'odio e amor mai non s'addorme, pur ti rivedo, e il cuor mi balza in tanto. Ben riconosco in te le usate forme con gli occhi incerti tra il sorriso e il pianto, e in quelle seguo dei miei sogni l'orme erranti dietro il giovanile incanto. » (Giosuè Carducci, Traversando la maremma toscana)

Thank you so much.--Passawuth (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sweet country, where I carried that proud dress and that haughty song, and the breast where hate and love never slept, now that I see you again, my heart begins to dance. I well recognize in you the familiar forms ~~I so well remember~~ with uncertain eyes between smiling and crying, and in these I follow from my dreams the erring traces after the enchanting young one".

I have taken some liberties in the translation, especially with "le usate forme" which I expanded into "the forms I so well remember" because I cannot think of an English adjective right now that has quite the same meaning as "usato" (literally it would be "used" or rather "used to" (ie, the forms I am used to) , but that doesn't fit the English sentence), but you should be able to understand the general meaning and tone of the passage from my translation. -- Ferkelparade π 12:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Familiar', perhaps?--ChokinBako (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, familiar fits perfectly. I guess I was so caught up in trying to fit "being used to" into the sentence that I couldn't see the obvious :P -- Ferkelparade π 12:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers of [FL-X]

What adjectives are there in English to refer to a population or geographic region speaking a particular foreign language? "Anglophone" and "Francophone" come to mind... Sinophone? Russophone? I'd particularly like to know what's suitable for Spanish and German (or Germanic languages), but others would be enlightening as well. And while we're at it, how might I look these up on my own, other than by sheer guesswork? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could certainly make up "Hispanophone" and "Germanophone", and I bet they (as well as Sinophone and Russophone) will get a tolerable number of Google hits, indicating that people have made them up. But that formation isn't endlessly productive, and I would certainly balk at "Yorubaphone", "Lakotaphone", and "Guugu Yimidhirrophone". The usual way of forming such adjectives in English is simply "English-speaking", "French-speaking", "Chinese-speaking", "Russian-speaking", etc. —An gr 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk, tsk, my dear Angr! Your examples, while striking, are not quite equivalent, as in the two accepted terms with which I opened my query, the names of the languages themselves are modified (Angl and Franc respectively). Knowing of these two led me to wonder if there might be others. Are there really none? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese speakers are called lusophones, and Spanish speakers Hispanic. Wikipedia does have a page for russophones, but not for sinophones. These terms seem to have geographical connotations rather than purely linguistic ones. Paul Davidson (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the populations-within-geographic-borders aspect that's relevant: I'd need to refer in writing, for example, to health, education, and welfare programs provided for different language groups in a country with several official or prevalent languages and where language may not correspond to ethnicity. Just checking my available options for concise terms. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point, and I still stick to it, is that your best bet is simply "X-speaking". You can safely refer to Israel's Hebrew-speaking, Arabic-speaking, English-speaking, Russian-speaking, etc., populations without making any unwanted implications about ethnicity. —An gr 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can place be used as a location of text

Hi! I would like to ask two questions in regard to place. Can it be used to mean either a part of a text (eg. The book was boring in many places) or different texts (eg. I have read it in many places that this is not true)? Thanks--Dami (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than my edit to your post, I don't think either of these sentences are strange.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...They may, however, not be the clearest choice in written English, depending on the register of your communication. Consider alternatives such as "..boring in many passages" and "...have read in many published sources..." -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further (after reading your User page): If your query is about editing in the English Wikipedia, I'd definitely recommend the substitutions I've suggested... and also (again, a matter of register): tedious (or similar; check a thesaurus) for boring, and numerous for many. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT CONFLICT) ::I agree. I personally prefer not to use 'many' in the middle of a sentence before a noun in statements. I would use it at the beginning of a sentence ("Many people say..."). I teach this practise to my foreign students, too. It just doesn't sound correct to my British ears. 'Not many', however, is fine ("There are not many people"), as is 'many' in a question ("Are there many people?").--ChokinBako (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Another view: Your first example is the ordinary way of putting it: "The book was boring in many places" (and "in many passages" is really weird). Your second example works, too, but it is better to be more specific, as Deb has it ("published sources", for example). That little struck-out "it" is interesting. It really does have to be there, but hardly anybody knows that or puts it there to the point where it sounds wrong nowadays. (Don't edit other people's posts, Chokin. This is a big rule on the RefDesks.) --Milkbreath (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Milk, I knew that. That is why I specifically wrote that I edited it, to avoid confusion. I'll stick closer to the rules from now on.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Just to clarify its a "personal" question, currently I find it too hard to copyedit an article :( --Dami (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the 'it' "really does have to be there", Milkbreath? That would be true in many languages but not, as far as I am aware, in English. I think you will be hard-pressed to find an current authority that does claim it should be there, or even could be there, in English. --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same "it" as in "I hate [it] when that happens." Fowler (or Gowers) really goes nuts on it in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, second edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965, calling it "anticipatory it" under the main heading "it". I'm not recommending it, no pun intended, but it ain't wrong, neither. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it that you are mistaken; additionally, again you have shown it that you are an inveterate prescriptionist. --Lambiam 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to actually bring out my label gun, Lambiam. Wars have started over less, certainly on Wikipedia. The truth is we're all prescriptivists, to a degree; and we're all descriptivists, to a degree. The degrees vary, that's all. But, Milkbreath, there are big differences (a) between "it really has to be there" and "it's not wrong", and (b) between "it really has to be there" and "I'm not recommending it". It's perfectly ok to change your mind, but I'm still confused and surprised that you're hanging onto this one at all. I've just read about "anticipatory it" in my 1978 Modern English Usage (Fowler rev. Gowers) and, from my reading, the above situation is not an example of it. "I have read that XYZ is the case" never needs an it, not even if you insert "in many places" after "read". If a student of mine wrote that with an it, I'd mark them wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mad. Angry, I think you guys call it. (Whether I'm the other thing or not I leave to others to decide.) I am over the centerline toward prescriptive, I think, in many cases. I still say that that "it" is grammatical, but it is wrong nowadays. Nobody uses it, and it rings false, but without it the sentence doesn't parse well, which is what I meant by "it really has to be there". Not that it absolutely must be there, but in reality the grammar wants it to be there badly. I don't recommend it for a learner, but I wouldn't be suprised to find it in some older stuff, and I wouldn't fight too long with a writer who insisted on it. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get what you mean by not parsing well. In "I have read in many places that this is not true", isn't the bolded bit a classic example of an object (in this case of the verb "I have read") in the form of a declarative content clause? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent to reply to Milbreath) It is not the same 'it' as 'I hate it when that happens'. That example does not have a complementizer, and so for many people the clause cannot function as an argument of the matrix verb. The original sentence was "I have read [it] in many places that this is not true" with an explicit complementizer 'that'. Since the 'that' makes the clause into a NP, the sentence without 'it' is acceptable in all varieties of English I can think of, your own idiolect excepted, and the sentence with 'it' is deviant at least for me. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

longest english word

Some time ago, I found the complete chemical name for "titin" (189,819 letters); today, I could not find that entry; where did it go?72.228.162.250 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)joseph richardson[reply]

It's not in our article, and it shouldn't be, but there's a link in footnote 5: [3]. Algebraist 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APA citations

if I am quoting from an electronic book from google books, and I need to cite it using the apa format (author, date, name) what date should I put, the date of the publication of that particular copy of that book ( in which case it would be 1859)? or the date on which google uploaded that book. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.203.201 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to you, depending on whether you're citing it as a book or an internet source. If you're citing it as a book, use the original publishing date (1859); if as an internet source, use google's date along with the date you accessed it. I, however, am not an expert. You might want to check one of the online guides to APA style [4], but I don't think they have a standard for digital copies of printed books. Personally, I would cite as a book. Indeterminate (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word...

The word polymath, roughly, means someone who is gifted in a wide range of subjects/topics. Is there a word which refers to someone who is interested in a wide range of subjects/topics but is not necessarily good at them? --RMFan1 (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilettante perhaps.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jack of all trades and master of none." —Lowellian (reply) 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in, Jack of all trades, master of none :) Kreachure (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You rang? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilettante, dabbler? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've come up with anything, but I'm rather perturbed that all the suggested terms are at least mildly pejorative. is the OP looking for a term to describe a person with wide range of interests without being an expert at any of them? -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single word, but you could use Eclectic[5] as the starting point of a sentence. - X201 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiring mind?hotclaws 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few possibilities are "generalist", "pantologist", or "bibliomaniac" (the latter being more specifically relating to where such knowledge is gained from a mania for books). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, what I am looking is as Deborahjay said: "a term to describe a person with wide range of interests without being an expert at any of them" --RMFan1 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the words or phrases that explicitly include the "not very skilled at them" also include the faintly derogatory implication that User:Deborahjay mentioned; you might want to pick the one that seems least this way. Here are a few more for your perusal (with Wiktionary links): "smatterer", "sciolist", "half-scholar", "sciolist"

what does 'a couple of years' mean? 2year? 2~3year? or old year?

what does 'a couple of years' mean? 2year? 2~3year? or old year? and what does mean? 2year? 121.124.4.32 (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is loosely defined. "A couple" is always more than one, but the upper limit might be anywhere between two and five, maybe six. This is what makes human-speak difficult to translate to computer-speak. JIP | Talk 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the expression "a couple" is used precisely because it's undefined. So, if you don't know how many years (or whatever) it is exactly, but you know it's only a few (probably five, tops), then you say "a couple of (years)". Kreachure (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Many Finnish bartenders have taken up the practice of saying "a couple of €" when they mean, exactly, "2€". They think saying "a couple" when they mena "two" is somehow trendy, If I gave them three to five euros, they would most certainly be surprised, but I would be nonplussed after having found out all they ever wanted was 2€. I think saying what you mean is more important than trying to sound "trendy". JIP | Talk 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most legal systems in the world would be extremely annoyed if a married couple consisted of three to five people rather than exactly two. —An gr 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple= 1 + 1, pair; of time, used inexactly. Few about four or five (small number). Several, more than two but not many. I'd say if a friend asks for a couple of dollars they mean five to 10. If a bartenders says a couple, I'd give two. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A couple" by itself means two, but "a couple of <thing>" (in North America sometimes just "a couple <thing>") is the informal idiom meaning some small number. --Anon, 09:30 UTC, June 10, 2008.

Julia, I agree with you about the basic meaning of "several". However, it's often used in Wikipedia articles to mean a great deal more than "not many", so usage seems to vary. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese? translation request

What does this say? I think it's Japanese. HYENASTE 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly copied gibberish. I see the kana for o and te followed by a nonsense symbol and then to. Perhaps someone was trying to copy the word おめでとう, "congratulations". Paul Davidson (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably otemoto (おてもと), a phrase commonly printed on the wrappers of disposable chopsticks (waribashi). --Kusunose 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kusunose! (Yes, I did find it on a chopsticks wrapper. :P ) HYENASTE 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

Book Info

I need a MLA citation for the Book , Seeteufel erobert Amerika, by Felix von Luckner. I don't have the book, nor can I find anything online. Thank you.--Xtothe3rd (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in the bibliography of our article on Luckner, with all the information you need for an MLA citation. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me.

I need a Farsi-English or a Farsi-Spanish translator please. PLEASE. 190.49.115.183 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can help in the first case, if it's not more than a few sentences. --Omidinist (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Farsi is the rarer of the two and those editors may not frequent the Language reference desk, try directly contacting English-language Wikipedia Farsi speakers (who've indicated this language and proficiency level among their Babel boxes, Category:User fa) for Farsi>English ; also on the Spanish and Persian Wikipedias to seek those who would know the Farsi/Spanish combination. If you're seeking a translation professional, you're more likely to get results on the Web. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

I want to say "The night that the birds didn't cry" and "The night when the birds didn't cry", but I'm not sure how to say them. Would 鳥は鳴かなかった夜 work for the former and 鳥は鳴かなかった夜のとき work for the latter?--十八 06:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

鳥が鳴かなかった夜 for the former and maybe 夜、鳥が鳴かなかったとき for the latter. Oda Mari (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, both of the English sentences that 十八 wanted translating mean exactly the same thing. 'That' is very often used as a subsititute for 'when', especially in American English. 鳥が鳴かなかった夜 is correct. 夜、鳥が鳴かなかったとき means 'Night time, when the birds didn't cry...', implying there will be a clause following. --ChokinBako (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German Prefix

Alles aussteigen bitte. Alle Leute steigen aus.

Why is the prefix not separated in the first sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.194.47 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first phrase is an imperative (a special case of the imperative plural where the infinitive is used instead of the proper imperative form, because the speaker is not personally addressing a clearly defined group of people but rather the generic group of people who happen to be in the train at the time), the second phrase is a simple statement where the verb has to be conjugated. -- Ferkelparade π 09:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking horse

A few questions:
1. Is it more correct to use 'stable' or 'stables'? Is there a difference or is the plural just a collection of stalls?
2. When riding a horse, is it correct to say 'John galloped...' or do you always have to refer to the horse galloping?
3. Are there any other horse emotions you can think of instead of 'whinny' or 'harrumph'?
4. Is it correct to say 'the horse nuzzled up against me'?
5. What kind of horse do you think a unicorn would be associated with? I am really interested in general perception rather than anyone looking this up and providing a dictionary definition which I could have done myself. Do you perceive a unicorn as a war-horse, a stallion or a tame mare prancing about in the woods, for example?
Thanks guys, this is for certain elements of a book I've been trying to write on and off for years now. Sandman30s (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Stable" should be correct, both would be a collection of stalls. IIRC, the buildings in Warcraft II were called Stables, which made it weird when you said "build a Stables".

4. I think this is correct.

5. My idea of a unicorn is more like a wild mare really. Not really violent but not very comfortable with humans. But this is an opinion... --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nothing wrong with "stables", as a certain legendary stall mucker could attest to.

3. Skittishness; rolling eyes in fear of predators.

5. A white mare is traditional, though a biologist would no doubt insist on stallions too. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that the traditional unicorn (the one of medieval bestiaries) is, as the second sentence of our article Unicorn sort of points out, more goatlike than horselike, both in size and in appearance. Deor (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 - I've heard "the stable" and "the stables" both used for a building containing accommodation for more than one horse. "Stable block" is also used of a separate building set aside for horse accommodation.

2 - Can't see a problem with "John galloped...". Cf Browning's poem How We Brought the Good News from Ghent to Aix

I sprang to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;

I gallop’d, Dirck gallop’d, we gallop’d all three

3 - Nicker; neigh; snort; squeal; bray

4 - Nuzzled up to or against me - have seen both used

5 - Whether or not it's a rhinoceros, as some suggest the medieval "monocerus" may be, most early sources seem to agree that a unicorn is "the fiercest of beasts" unless you wave a handy virgin at it. Pliny the Elder described it as having "the body of a horse, the head of a stag, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a boar, and a single black horn three feet long in the middle of its forehead. Its cry is a deep bellow." I've always gone for the more robust fantasy lit ones myself - noble snorting stallions with fiery eyes - probably for this reason. I don't tend to imagine them as timid milk-white mares.

--Ka renjc 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, this is insightful and valuable information! Let me give you a little snippet from my book, when the unicorn was first encountered...

"At first nothing happened, as the portal shimmered and flickered from the powerful magic that was sustaining it. Then suddenly a most magnificent animal sprang forth into the room. It seemed as if it was made of white light itself, even outshining Albar’s all-white presence. The unicorn’s coat glistened and gleamed with brilliant energy. It tossed its head up proudly in greeting to the wizards, making a shrill sound not dissimilar to a neighing horse. Its horn was long and spiral shaped, and its body was shaped like a muscular war horse. Vee could sense a great intelligence coming from the animal, and spontaneously bowed to the unicorn in acknowledgement of this. To their surprise, the unicorn bowed back, then tossed its head again and trotted happily to the lake, taking a few sips of water."

As you can see, I have a lot of horse-talk to go through from then on :) Sandman30s (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a warhorse: a unicorn should be majestic and stately: the prince of horses. Pure white's good, since that's dazzling and magical and a step above the average run of the mill horse. Solid, glistening black would also be stunning, but I don't really see a unicorn being a homely, ordinary brown. Mares would be fiery and warhorse-type, also, I would think. If you're wanting medieval context, then check out Horses in the Middle Ages, which I'm (slowly) working on to take to FA. There you'll find bridles, bits, stirrups, paintings, breeding and so forth. Gwinva (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More:

A stable is a building, stables are several buildings, though "the stables" sometimes could mean either. You build "a stable" or "a barn" or, if plural, you build stables and barns. The individual horse lives in a stall inside a stable, you can also call it a barn.
Who galloped is a usage question. People can't gallop, (oh, and see horse gait for more info), so the creature must. However, we Do give our horses cues or commands to move, so, for example at a horse show, the announcer will ask us, "trot your horses, please" (or canter, or hand gallop or stop). As riders we colloquially say "we" galloped, referring to horse and rider together, or "I galloped my horse."
Horses don't bray (donkeys and mules bray), but they physiologically can only make a few sounds: the whinny or neigh (which can be used in greeting, to express loneliness or to call out to other animals), the nicker- mostly seen when mares (mama horses) are expressing affection for their foals, or when horses are greeting one another with affection in general; the snort (which can have several emotional meanings from excitement, startlement, or sort of a nostril-flapping sigh that sort of implies relaxation), and the squeal (when angry or in pain)
Nuzzling implies they are touching you with their muzzle, if that's what's going on, I'd say, "the horse nuzzled him" (not nuzzled up), but that's JMO.
In myth, there are all sorts of different images of unicorns from the powerful to the etherial. Obviously, unless they have babies via cell division, spontaneous magic or something, you would need both males and females! So pick what works for you, I gave you some ideas on your talk page.

Hope this helped! Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the American Heritage Dictionary

I am an English learner in China. I am wondering what are the differences among AHD of English Language, AH College Dictionary, AHD 21st Century Reference, and AH Desk Dictionary.

I assume there is no difference in content between AHD of English Language and AH College Dictionary but the latter is a monocolor version, and AHD 21st Century Reference and AH Desk Dictionary shrink in both content and size compared with AHD of English Language. Is that true?--Whw (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Amazon.com,

The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (21st Century Reference) (Paperback) has 960 pages and a shipping weight of 2.2 pounds;[6]
The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (Hardcover) has 1664 pages and a shipping weight of 3.2 pounds;[7]
The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition with CD-ROM (Hardcover) has 1664 pages and a shipping weight of 3.8 pounds;[8]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (Hardcover) has 2112 pages and a shipping weight of 7.8 pounds.[9]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition with CD-ROM (Hardcover) has 2074 pages and a shipping weight of 7.8 pounds.[10]

I suppose that the differences in number of pages and even more shipping weight reflect a difference in content. The website of the publisher gives no information about the number of entries in each.

Of possible interest to learners of English is:

The American Heritage Dictionary for Learners of English (Hardcover), with 1024 pages and a shipping weight of 2 pounds.[11]

--Lambiam 13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

insertion of unnecessary word (of)

In the past few years, I find a very common insertion of the word "of" in sentences like "It's not that good (of) a book", or It's not that big (of)a deal. To me it sounds awkward and unpleasant. Is it grammatically incorrect? It seems not limited to any section of the country. Openbooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openbooks (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which country is it not limited to any section of? (Any of them, presumably.) I've heard it too, though I can't say I've ever found it awkward or unpleasant. I probably say it myself from time to time. My guess is it spread from constructions like "He's not much of a friend", where *"He's not much a friend" would be ungrammatical. —An gr 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that bad of a habit to insert 'of' between an adjective and a noun, so long as the adjective is short.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Written Standards

Modern Chinese has to2 Standards, Cantonese and Mandarin.

I believe that the reason this is so is because Hong Kong is an SAR. The Chinese government included in the political provisions for a separate written standard for the lingua franca that was and still is spoken in Hong Kong SAR. But most importantly, compared to some other places that are more rural than Hong Kong, the Cantonese written standard first started off in Cantonese opera; as playwrights wrote scripts for their actors and actresses, they wanted to incorporate the vernacular so they used characters not found in Classical Chinese. Are there any dialects that have these written traditions?68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The background cited above contains significant mis-information. Although various spoken Chinese dialects can be very different, written Chinese remains rather homogenous across the whole China in the last two thousand years or so -- especially after Qin Shi Huangdi -- and remains so. Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong (and Macau) and Singapore are the four main regions with significant different Chinese cultures. Having said that -- to answer your question -- "the" modern written Chinese language is essentially one, except [not so] trivial differences in choice of word, vocabulary, slang usage, etc; and other superficial variations, e.g. traditional vs simplified characters, vertical vs horizontal writing. --Chan Tai Man 14:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

You are wrong: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Cantonese#Written_Cantonese and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Cantonese.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one 'standard' - Mandarin. Cantonese is not considered an official standard, though when HK was British it was used in official communications alongside English. It is not used so much now, as all official communications in HK are recommended to be in Mandarin, and government officials are working towards that (whether they want to or not). As for dialects that use specific characters not found in Mandarin or Classical Chinese, they all do, to varying degrees. Otherwise people would not be able to read or write vocabulary specific to their own dialect.--ChokinBako (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Mandarin orthography and Cantonese orthography are significantly different enough that they are not mutually intelligible. Here's an example, news reporters use 中文, while the lay people use 粵語. The lay people, Cantonese speakers, without formal training (in their case, Education in grade school) would not be able to understand it. Yes, their text books are written in 中文, but they speak 粵語. In fact they speak 中文 in Cantonese phonology. For the untrained speaker, 中文 phonologically spoken in Cantonese and 粵語 phonologically spoken in Cantonese is mutually unintelligible.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the WERE mutually intelligible. But, while we are on the topic, I, myself, can understand spoken Cantonese (even though I am a Mandarin speaker), but only because I have studied Ancient Chinese (the phonetics of it, as well as the grammar), Japanese, and Korean, so I can make a guess at what is being said, like an English/German/Danish speaker could guess at Norwegian, or so. In no way did I say that they were mutually intelligible, though.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... more mis-information. When one speaks Cantonese, one speaks Chinese -- more precisely a Chinese dialect. Cantonese doesn't parallel to Chinese. The former is an element in the later set. For an uneducated man, who lives in a Cantonese speaking environment who can't read or write, he will understand quite well when read to. Unfortunately, not much so if that Mandarin-style writing, although read in Cantonese dialect, is dotted with linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style. --Chan Tai Man 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Just so you know, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Chinese is a very general term, in fact, it is so unspecific, that it is hard to exactly know what one is talking about when they say they speak Chinese. It is accurately established that many dialects of Chinese are not mutually intelligible. Cantonese and Mandarin are perfect examples. I used the word 中文, when the Written is established on MANDARIN. Many articles have a 粵語 version and a 中文 version. When read to an PURELY Cantonese speaker, a 粵語 version of an article will be intelligible, but the same 中文 version will not be intelligible.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that your comment: "... is dotted with linguistic jargons and in a half-witted pseudo-academic style." is racist. It is a fundamental linguistic principle that any dialect is capable of expression equally well as any other dialect.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. If I had been accused of hypercritical on one's writing style and logical agrument or the lack of them, there might be some grains of truth in it. Racist? I don't have a clue where does it come from. Take the second sentence of the above paragraph as an example. I challege if there exists such so called "fundamental linguistic principle". I hold that the expressiveness of different Chinese spoken dialects varies and depends very much on context. --Chan Tai Man 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Whatever you want to call it, linguisist. But I know, my very first linguistic class even said, that any dialect, language, grammer etc. etc. is equally adept in expressing anything they want. Would you argue that Irish is for fairy tales and that it couldn't be used to express academic literature?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that "principle" has a name? It would be good if a reference can be cited. At the same time, here is a counter example, 係咩, 係囖, 係喇, 係o架, 係嘅, 係阿 cannot be transcripted into Mandarin style writing very accurately and certainly not with the same conciseness and mood. While one is quite liberally wandering away from Chinese dialects and making blanket statement on all languages, there are more counter examples. There are no direct English translation for 兄, 弟, 姊, 妹, 姑表, 姨表, 舅表, 'cos English culture doesn't have such fine grain differentiation. OTOH, it would be a challenge to find one-to-one Chinese translation for good, very good, excellent, brill, superb, wonderful, amazing, outstanding, wicked; or leopard, cheetah, jaguar, panther, puma. Again it is down to cultural and geographical differences. On that note the following is interesting, "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten." Nature languages are quite nature in the sense that no single authority -- government or linguist -- can not easily dictate rules or "principles". They are mostly observational on actual usage. Of course, there are exceptions, for examples, by killing or other forceful means. It happened big twice in Chinese history, and more subtlely during Ming and Ching dynasties. --Chan Tai Man 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the background given by the original poster in his question is very misleading. Besides the things other people mentioned, there are many more dialects/languages in current and common use besides Cantonese, among them Shanghainese and Taiwanese. —Lowellian (reply) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My question is, as leading from my reply with chinese characters, is maybe Shanghainese or Hakka has these written orthographies. Could you list them?68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that both Cantonese and Taiwanese have a history of finding ways to write down constructions specific to those dialects, even sometimes inventing new characters not used in written Mandarin. I strongly suspect this is also the case for all the other major Chinese dialects, including Shanghainese, Hunanese, etc., though perhaps their written forms are less well-known outside of China due to them not being spoken in areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan that have a history of being at least de facto politically separate from mainland China. —Lowellian (reply) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect this is also the case for all the other major Chinese dialects, including Shanghainese, Hunanese, etc.....
— Lowellian (reply) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.148.164.166#Your_question_on_the_Reference_Desk_about_Chinese

What are the other major Chinese dialects? Is there any way to get all those characters?68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the articles Spoken Chinese and list of Chinese dialects for information and lists about the major Chinese dialects. As for getting those characters, I can't really help you there. For the dialects less well-known outside of China, you would probably only be able to find them on Chinese-language websites. Even for the dialects like Cantonese and Taiwanese more well-known outside China, it would be difficult to find them, because almost everything on the Internet written in Chinese is written as it would be in Mandarin. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know probably the greatest standardized source of Cantonese characters are in the scripts of Cantonese operatists. Are there any other corpora for for any dialects? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I don't know where you would find them. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that 68.148.164.166 has now clarified that s/he is considering written characters not spoken dialects. Versions of the Bible in Cantonese (in Chinese characters), Shanghaiese (in Chinese characters) and Hakka (in romanisation) dialects have been around for quite a while. However, their circulations are tiny compare to that of the Mandarin Union version. In Hong Kong there might be a [not so] significant sub-culture of written Cantonese in youth magazines. Nevertheless, pupils are taught Mandarin-ish written Chinese in schools. The Hong Kong government has a Big-5 Hong Kong Supplementary Character Set (HKSCS) as part of the ISO 10646 standard [12]. Nevertheless, there are just hundreds of characters among a collection of tens of thousands. So, to answer his/her question: Cantonese, yes; Hakka, no (or very few and became unknown) based on second handed information from native Hakka speakers; Shanghaiese, I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable. --Chan Tai Man 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Has this question been moved forward to today?--ChokinBako (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much at all. Part of my confusion was the OP keeps switching the discussion from written Chinese language to spoken Chinese dialects rather liberally, and to a point even claiming "Chinese" is not a well defined term. At the risk a total misinterpretion of the OP, I attempt to paraphrase the orginal question. Q: Modern written Chinese is largely based on the Mandarin dialect, are there any dialect-specific written Chinese characters? A: Yes, Cantonese has a few hundreds of such characters which has been codified quite explicitly. It is possibly much fewer in other dialects, and it is hard to find a definitive list. --Chan Tai Man 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to blame other people for you just slightly imperfect english.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been mis-read. Nobody has said anything remotely along that line. On the contrary the discussion seems going very well. However, putting forward personal opinions as they were indisputable facts is a bit irritating. --Chan Tai Man 08:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman (talk • contribs)

Good, now we have an answer that expands a little on the answer I gave to what I understood to be the original question.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of "aleek betho"

Hello,

I have seen this saying before in a book some years ago and I tried to find the meaning then but was unsuccessful. Today I received an email from my boss and she had written "aleek betho" in her message.

I have been trying for two hours to find the meaning on the internet, as an old english saying or a French phrase, but I come up with nothing. I need to email her back and I'm hoping my answer to her question does not involve this phrase.

Does anyone know what "aleek betho" means?

Respectfully, --67.36.24.60 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Arabic to me. 'Aleek' would mean 'to you' or 'upon you'. 'Betho', I'm not sure about. My Arabic vocabulary is quite limited, and I can't guess it from the romanisation. I imagine it would be something nice, like harmony, blessing or somthing. Steewi (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Arabic. 'aleekum' means 'with you' or 'to you', not 'aleek' (unless it was very informal). Where is this boss from? It seems more like Urdu to me. Do they have many Urdu speakers in/near Wyandotte? --ChokinBako (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an arbitrary combination of Arabic and Persian, it means "Hello to you." --Omidinist (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, literally translated, it would mean 'with you to you'? How bizarre.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. My boss is Irish. To make this more clear, she asked for someone's email address as follows:

Would you please forward to me "aleek betho" (person's name) email address?

I was wondering what she was saying about the person; hopefully something polite. The person in question is a female and her first name is Alexis. I thought aleek might mean Alexis in another language. I hope the additional information helps. Respectfully, 67.36.24.60 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)--67.36.24.60 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so we were all totally off track! Amazing what you can do with a little context! I can only guess that this person is from Ulster, but without the correct spelling I can't say what it means. Why not aske her, and then tell us afterwards? I think there are a few people here now who would like to know!--ChokinBako (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask her tomorrow what "aleek betho" means, because it's driving me crazy not knowing! I will post what she says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.24.60 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive with proper nouns such as businesses

Is it correct to say "I am going to Kroger's grocery store" or only correct to say "I am going to Kroger grocery store." Is the "Kroger's" being possessive there or can it not be used in a possessive form in such a case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.49.98 (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the store is owned by one Kroger, then it's correct to say Kroger's. But it may be owned by a family of Krogers, and/or known as "Krogers Grocery Store", or even "Krogers' Grocery Store", in which case use whichever spelling applies. You'd never say "I am going to Kroger grocery store"; but you might say "I'm going to the Kroger grocery store". For example, if the formal name of the business was just "Kroger" (cf. Aldi, K-Mart, etc.) you might normally say "I'm going to Kroger", but if talking to someone who didn't know what Kroger was, then you'd add the explanation " ... to the Kroger grocery store". Or even "... to Kroger, the grocery store". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the correct form appears to be "Kroger", without the possessive. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated than this, and I'm sure there's been studies of it, but I can't think what to look it up under. At least in British usage, it's common to refer to businesses, especially shops, with "'s" even if there's no personal name - but not always. The supermarket chain headquartered here in Bradford is formally "Wm Morrison Supermarkets" but always referred to as Morrisons. Similarly Sainsbury's, with the apostrophe. On the other hand, Tesco - which is not anybody's name - is always written thus, not "Tescos" or "Tesco's" - but I would normally say "I went to Tesco's". On the third hand, I don't think I'd ever say I was going to Asda's.

Similarly there used to be a club in Bradford called 'The Maestro', but I never heard anybody refer to it as anything but "Maestro's". --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I was a kid, I lived about two blocks from a Kroger supermarket; and I'd always say to my mother as I walked out the door, "I'm going to Kroger's. Is there anything you need?" Deor (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typing Korean

How is it possible to type Hangŭl on a foreign (Japanese computer) keyboard using MS-IME2002 without all the letters appearing separately, and in fact, not having anything to do with the QWERTY? I mean, if I type 'sŏnsaeng' (teacher), it comes out as 내ㅜㄴㅁ둫, which is totally incorrect. How could 'nai-u-n-m-tuh' be the same as 'sŏnsaeng'?--ChokinBako (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The core rules of English

I’ve been mentally diverted by ColinFine’s phrase in Referring to words above – "The rules of the English language, insofar as they exist ...". Style guides and grammar texts pronounce on all manner of things, and each one gives a different set of rules, albeit with various overlaps. That's understandable, since the only value in publishing a book that's consistent with an existing book would be to give more/less detail, or pitch it at a different audience, etc. I also understand that some issues are ones of style rather than syntax, although exactly where the dividing line is is sometimes a fraught question. So, I’ve been wondering if anyone has ever sat down and recorded the core “rules” that everyone agrees on, or is it such a moveable feast that this would be an endless and impossible task? But then, I muse that if the French can do this for their language, surely the English are up to the task (assuming they could be bothered). To partially answer my own question, we also have to consider that the "English" as used in one part of the world can be close to unintelligible to "English"-speakers from elsewhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just stick with the habits I've become accustomed to, based on the 'rules' I learned at school in the UK and the 'rules' I teach as an English language teacher. Actually, my native dialect (scouse) shuns many of these rules that I have learned and teach from the textbooks I use, but that just goes to show that there is not just one form of English, there are many. Plus, as English is used as a first language in so many 'jurisdictions', so to speak, we will never get the co-ordinated effort to make a standard that the French have managed to achieve (The French just did that because they were annoyed that the Lingua Franca of the modern world had become English and not French, as if it ever was). I'd just accept differences, but still put forward one's own opinion as to how one has experienced it in the past - they become the rules you have learned, and if someone is asking about them, then they deserve an answer.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Jack, with more and more 'average people' getting onto the media scene (with blogs, and websites, and reality TV, and all sorts), the language is changing, I would say, far faster than it was 100, 200, 300 years ago. The rules we learned at school are breaking down, and new ones are forming. We just have to get used to it, so that one day we can accept 'LOLZ' and 'I can haz cheezburger' and all that bollocks. Cheer up, Jack. It's not the end of the world, just the language as we know it. :) --ChokinBako (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand the changing nature of language, much as I might resist some of the changes until they've become faits accomplis. It's just that we often see, on this desk and elsewhere, robust discussion about what's "right" and what's "wrong", and I was wondering if there was a published collection of all the rules that absolutely nobody whose opinion is worth anything disagrees with. Thanks for your thoughts so far, CB. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said yourself, there have been books written about the basics, and the only reason for other books to be written would be to add to or detract from what has already been written. No point in writing a book with exactly the same rules in it. So, there are no actual rules, at least, not recognised by the British government. Anyway, who are these so called learned individuals who dictate how our beautiful and powerful language should be? We can decide for it ourselves. After all, we speak the language at least as well as (and probably far better than) those people who just write books so they can afford the mortgage for their stately homes and a couple of bottles of sherry each day. WE decide how the language is formed and how it works, and so does everyone else. This is part of the fun of the language desk here on wikipedia. No worries, mate!--ChokinBako (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's true that some people may be die-hard 'THIS is how it is!' (or 'robust' as you call it) argumentative types, but that is all part of it. These people will not listen because this is what they believe, because this is the language as they have experienced it, however 'right' or 'wrong' it may be. You are right in searching for a 'core set of rules', but there are none, really, not now that English has become a global language. The Yanks would never agree to a total spelling reform and grammar amalgamation, because they just don't want to be part of Britain or have anything to do with Britain (as a whole, even though their people as individuals say 70% would love to marry a Brit!!!). Point is, the language is disintergrating. Look at it in 30 years, and you'll see the kids in High School looking back on our English and using dictionaries, as if we were writing Romeo & Juliet.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the inital question, I'd have thought that the 1860-page Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [13] would be pretty damn comprehensive. However, that seems to purely cover descriptive points of English. As for the prescriptive ones, well, there isn't going to be a list of every single one, because they depend on an individual's taste. As a side note, I doubt that English will change as much as you claim in 30 years, ChokinBako. Semantic drift and sound changes just don't seem to happen that fast. Plus, Standard written English is fairly slow to change - as has already been said, we're not about to have a spelling reform, sadly, and slight differences of vocabulary shouldn't impede communication to the extent you suggest. --Estrellador* (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was conscious in using the phrase that it might provoke comment. Of course I believe that there are rules of English. But nobody ever argues about them, or even writes them down except for foreigners (or in academic grammars like the one referred to above). That's because nobody needs to - we all (native speakers) know them anyway. The rule that says that 'the' precedes the noun phrase it determines; the rule that says that adjectives of colour generally follow adjectives of size; the rule in some dialects but not others that you don't use the simple past with a specific time reference that includes the present ("*I didn't see him today"). As a descriptivist, I regard these as the only rules of English - but there are quite a lot of them, and some are very complicated and subtle. And of course they do change over time, but mostly quite slowly.

Questions of usage that arise here and in similar places are not usually of this kind. (Sometimes they are, when English is not the questioner's language). IMNSHO they are often appeals to authority from people who have been taught to distrust their native judgment. A lot of them are about punctuation (which is in a sense very little to do with language - like the rest of writing it is an entirely learnt activity, but even more arbitrary), and I almost never engage with these, because I simply don't care whether you put the full stop before or after the inverted commas.

Oops. I seem to be ranting. I'll stop. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just piling on to what Estrellador said, people have compiled comprehensive descriptions of Standard English (the form of the language used for most printed works and formal speeches), the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum being the most recent. You will find that in describing the language from the ground up, the vast majority of the rules are firm and undisputed—for example, the always precedes the noun it modifies, just as it has since before recorded history. Other, non-standard forms of English (Hiberno-English, AAVE, etc.) have also been the subjects of comprehensive description, though perhaps not to the same extent as Standard English. If you are looking for a gentler bottom-up description of Standard English than the Cambridge Grammar, I suggest A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, also by Huddleston and Pullum. Strad (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

Insults in Calvino's Cavaliere Inesistente

I recently ran across this list of insults, allegedly "in all the languages of the Christians and the Moors", in Calvino's Cavaliere Inesistente:

-Khar as-Sus!

-Escremento di verme!

-Mushrik! Sozo! Mozo! Escalvao! Marrano! Hijo de puta! Zabalkan! Merde!

I recognize "escremento di verme" and "merde" and can guess at the meaning of "hijo de puta", but what about the others? Are they actual existing insults in any language, or are they just random vaguely Arabic-sounding words? Knowing Calvino, I would expect the list of insults to be some sort of pun, and I fear I might be missing the joke here. -- Ferkelparade π 07:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Khar as-Sus" is the same as "escremento di verme", in Arabic. We have an article about marranos. "Mushrik" is a sinner, from shirk. I don't recognize the others. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sozo, mozo, escalvao!" is from Contrasto con la donna genovese by Raimbaut de Vaqueiras. It is Genoese and this book translates it as "filthy, stupid and cropped like a thief". DAVID ŠENEK 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zabal (Ar.) and zebel (Per.) mean "dung"; and kan is the same as khan in some names like Genghiz Khan. Together they refer nowadays to an astute, crafty person. --Omidinist (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone - that covers everything. -- Ferkelparade π 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper term for a flipboard?

Hi there - looking for a little help as to what a flipboard is actually called? Wikipedia refers to them as a type of dynamic display, but I'm sure there's a more specific name for them. I'm looking for a good image of one, but it's kind of hard to search without the proper term. Thanks in advance! --131.111.135.84 (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split-flap display, or Solari indicators, after the manufacturer. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question!

How do you add the suffix -ian to the name Kelly, properly?

'Kellian', I would assume. 'Kellyan' just looks funny, and 'Kellyian' is definitely not right. You could also hyphenate it as 'Kelly-an', but that looks like a girl's name, and not an adjective.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid the suffix if at all possible and instead use phrases like "inspired by Kelly", "followers of Kelly", "students of Kelly", or whatever. If you absolutely must tack on the suffix, I would prefer "Kellyan", even though I agree that it looks funny, because "Kellian" looks inaccurate to me. It suggests something associated with a person or place named "Kell". Marco polo (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Kelly-esque', perhaps? Obviously it depends on the context, but if this fits, then it seems perfectly ok to me. --ChokinBako (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery character

Hello all; I've been trying to find Unicode codepoints for all the characters on the Wikipedia puzzle-globe; I think I've managed most of them, but there are still one or two mysterious ones, namely the two to the left of the Hebrew resh (which is U+05E8). You can check my table of research on m:Talk:Errors in the Wikipedia logo for reference. Any thoughts? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think any of the letters had ANYTHING to do with Wikipedia, and that they were just random letters from different scripts. After all, Hebrew 'resh' has nothing to do with Wikipedia because 'wikipedia' has no 'r' in it. The one to the left of 'resh', though, looks like Lao to me, but the one further to the left is impossible to see.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large version of WP logo to help ease the eye strain. - X201 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I can't even begin to guess what that is. It looks like a central asian script, but I have absolutely no idea which one.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the pieces were supposed to say "wi" or the nearest equivalent, apparently, but others were apparently just chosen because they looked nice! I agree that that one looks like Lao, but it looks even more like Telugu or Kannada; or maybe some relative. It'd be nice to know what the actual current character is as well as identifying those two "replacements" suggested on the external link... I don't know, it's a bit confusing. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a previous thread on this subject. This thread is also interesting. It looks like the glyphs in the logo were never proofread by readers of the scripts in question, some of them don't even exist, and Nohat (or the Wikimedia Foundation?) has no intention of fixing them. Frankly I think this is pretty embarrassing for such a prominent logo. I'm surprised the katakana puzzle piece hasn't shown up at Hanzi Smatter. -- BenRG (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it even made The New York Times, and that was a year ago. I think it would be a good idea to fix this. It's too easy to read it as cultural insensitivity—I'm sure they would have quickly corrected a similarly serious error in the Roman script (say, if the W was missing a stroke or mirrored so the stroke weights looked wrong). I guess most Japanese and Indian users will just snicker and move on, but still. -- BenRG (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the things that got me into this investigation in the first place. I think the main stumbling block in fixing it was that User:Nohat had lost the original source file he used to create it, and hadn't managed to recreate something that looked right. I've got an idea on how I might be able to pull it off, but I need to get actual fonts and codepoints for the different characters, hence my problem. At the very least I want to get that Devanagari bug fixed, whenever I get to the proposal stage I'll probably include optional "change all pieces to 'W'/'WI' or the equivalent", and somebody has brought up "get rid of the Klingon piece" too.

Anyway, discussion of the more general "fix the logo" topic should probably centralise on m:Talk:Errors in the Wikipedia logo, and leave this topic just for "what are these two characters?". In particular I want to know the edgemost one, I was intending to replace that Indic-looking one with the Kannada mentioned here anyway so it's less of a deal. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, you can replace the omega with a digamma. Deor (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adolf Hitler und sein Weg zu Großdeutschland"

My query, with details and context, is posted on the discussion page for Austria at the Time of National Socialism. An answer there would be appreciated; I'll sort out and restore the linguistic content here, with due attribution, after responses are received. -- Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

Etymology of "decidedly" and "eventually"

"decidedly": Was this ever used to modify a verb to suggest it was the result of an actual decision? That is to say, the result of an act of human will? Or has it always simply been a broad magnifier?

"eventually": Has this always simply indicated the modified verb would occur at some vague future time, or in the end (depending on which definition[14] you read)? Did it ever suggest that the modified verb was dependent upon an event? E^robson (T^alk) 00:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has eventually 1. In the event of something happening, but there's only one quote and it's from much later than the other uses. Decided and decidedly appear to have always related to the earliest meaning of decide: 'To determine (a question, controversy, or cause) by giving the victory to one side or the other; to bring to a settlement, settle, resolve (a matter in dispute, doubt, or suspense).' Something is decidedly the case if it has been decided and is no longer in doubt, but the decision doesn't have to be an act of human will. Algebraist 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]