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.

December 31

grammer gone missing went missing right or wrong

tell me the term for a disappearance or vanishing is not "gone Missing"m it just can"t be right am I wrong? 63.113.199.109 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gone missing" is, in fact, a way to say that something has disappeared. Also, the word is "grammar", not "grammer". rspεεr (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For once BE and AE agree, we need has/have gone, not went. Consider these two phrases:

The last time our cat got out he went missing for 2 days. (Cat purring at your feet.)
Our cat's gone missing. We haven't seen him since Thursday. (no cat)

Hope this helps.Lisa4edit (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, this usage forms its tenses the same way that the simple verb "go" does. "Went missing", "has gone missing", and "had gone missing" are ecah the correct form in the appropriate circumstances.

I think the original poster is upset about the existence of the expression. Too bad. It forms a useful distinction from "is missing" in that it refers to the moment of the disappearance, just as "they got married" forms a useful distinction from "they were married" in the same way. --Anonymous, 18:57 UTC, December 31, 2008.

Pronoun

Why do some people use "it" instead of the appropriate sexual pronoun? For example, why "A male xyzzy does its work by pulling a foobar" instead of "A male xyzzy does his work by pulling a foobar"? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think for a lot of people, the gendered pronouns "he" and "she" are personalized, and only usable for animals you really know - domesticated animals you live or work with or that friends live or work with. But wild animals aren't like friends and so they're "it", even when happen to know their sex. It's the same with babies - one's own baby, and the babies of close friends and relatives, are always "he" or "she" (as the case may be), but babies you don't know personally are very often "it" (even if you can tell it's a boy or girl because it's dressed in blue or pink or is currently having its diaper changed). —An gr 07:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Post E.C.) It depends on the subject. If xyzzy is an animal other than a pet (cats and dogs especially), the word "it" is often used even if the gender is known. For pets some people use gender specific pronouns, others don't. I got into the habit of using "he" and "she" when referring to dogs and cats after people corrected me for using "it". Rarely some people use "it" when referring to newborns. I think this is because the gender is non-obvious. Other than that one, I haven't run across a case where "it" is used in reference to humans where gender was determinable or would be determinable. While no one would look twice if you used the proper pronoun, "he" and "she" and derivatives seemed to be preferred for humans, especially cared for animals, and occasionally suitably respected and anthropomorphized objects like ships. Everything else gets an "it". It's a subtle arrogance on the part of the english language. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we make all sorts of distinctions between human animate beings and non-human animate beings. The latter don't get to vote, receive pensions or fly aircraft, to name just a few. I wouldn't call it arrogance, but a sensible and useful form of discrimination. In some cases we know the sex of an animal, but in the general situation we don't. A passing random human stranger is usually identifiable at sight as either a woman, man, girl or boy, but a passing random cat is just a cat (unless it's clearly a kitten). That some other languages refer to their animals as he/she is nice for them, although how they'd refer to the abovementioned cat without a close examination of its genitals - not usually possible or desirable - is a mystery to me. It may be governed by the grammatical gender of the word for "cat" - it's masculine in some languages, feminine in others, and neuter in still others. But that has nothing to do with the sex of any particular cat, and sex is what usually governs the use of "he" and "she" in English. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and then again: "There she sailed." - "I used to own a Corvette, she was the sleekest ride you'd ever seen." - "Look at that eagle soar. He's a magnificent bird." (Before it lands and feeds its chicks.) Our kitty cat is "she". The cat who keeps beating her up was "he" till we met the neighbors. When ours met a stray cat she gave it a good whacking. If I meet a bull I'll get out of it's way, even if I'm certain. Let's face it we just aren't very consistent. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of English

I have been told that at some point in 16th century English language was significantly "dumbed down" (thats how that person refered to it). For example, supposedly, English had different words for plural of "you". It also had means of identifying sex of speaker based on way how they used the language (I guess with different word endings) and much longer list of irregular verbs. I have tried to search for it, but I came up with no useful info since I don't know if that language change has specific name (or name of language itself, before it was simplified). If what that person told me is true, why did it happen? If you could provide any info or links to this, I would be very thankful.--Melmann^(talk) 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but I think that basically you are correct. Over the course of the past millenium, English has changed quite a bit. Old English had something called the case system, where the word changed it's form depending on whether it was a noun, direct object, etc. This was mostly dropped, and now appears only in some pronouns (though it was dropped long before the 16th century). In Shakespeare's English, they did have multiple "you" forms, though I haven't heard that there were multiple plural ones. You was either the formal way of talking to one person, or was the way of addressing a group of people (like we use "y'all" today, if you live around the area that I live). "Thou" was, in my understanding, used strictly as a singular second person pronoun, and was extremely informal (which is contrary to what a lot of people think today). As for the name, I don't know what you mean. The process is evolution, I believe, and the names are Old, Middle, and Modern English. Old English took place from whenever English started (I can't remember for sure) and had evolved to modern Enlish by the 1200's at the latest. Middle English was the next (again, the dates escape me), and that would be the kind of English that Chaucer used. Modern English starts around Shakespeare's time; Shakespeare's writings are considered Early Modern English. Old English is so different that you will probably not be able to understand it at all, and Middle English is different enough that you will have to struggle, but may be able to get meaning from it. Modern English should be straightforward; it may not be easy to read Shakespeare without practice, but you should be able to understand it fairly readily if you take the time to think it through. Also, I think this is cool. Old English was at one time written in runes, though these were soon dropped. I know that's irrelevant, but it's awesome, so I thought I'd mention it. Oh, I think I realized what your friend might have been thinking was the other plural form of "you" - "ye". That is a myth; "ye" is a modern occurence, and really stems from a way that they wrote the word "the". It has nothing to do with the word "you". I hope this helps. --Falconus^{p t c} 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that pronunciations are wildly different. The way that you would read Old English or Middle English, or even probably Early Modern English is vastly different han the way that the authors of those works would have read them. The sounds have evolved quite a bit in addition to the actual syntax of the language, and this is evident in many places, such as the word "knock" for example. That 'k' wasn't always silent. I also forgot to address "why". I don't know for sure, but language has evolved in every single language existing on earth. Latin evolved into all of the Romance Languages for example. There are many theories on why this happens, but I am not sure which ones are more widely accepted. In any rate, English has evolved from its Germanic roots, and English continues to evolve today. --Falconus^{p t c} 14:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way that person spoke about it leads me to believe that change was sudden and maybe even organized by some kind of ruler and enforced on its subjects. But it just could have been natural way English evolved, I don't know. What didn't occur to me is to look up Old English or Middle English. For some reason I assumed whole thing has some complicated linguistic name.I'll check out links you provided, thank you.--Melmann^(talk) 14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The development of the pronoun system is one of the more interesting parts of the history of the English language. I suggest that you read the articles on Old English pronouns, Middle English personal pronouns, and Early Modern English prounouns. Contrary to what was said above, ye was an actual second-person plural pronoun in Old English — rather, it's the "ye" of "ye olde times" that is based on a misconception. Michael Slone (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how Early Modern English handled second-person pronouns: Speaking to one person informally : Thou shouldst not believe all that others tell thee. ("Thou" nominative; "thee" oblique.) Speaking to several (or to one formally) : Ye should not believe all that others tell you. ("Ye" nominative; "you" oblique).

While the loss of a distinction between second-person singular and plural forms brought a loss of clarity and precision, it isn't fair to say that the differences between Middle English and Modern English or between Old English and Modern English represent a "dumbing down". Semantic work that used to be done by inflectional endings or vowel mutations is now mostly done by word order and the addition of auxiliary verbs and particles. English has simply become more analytic and less synthetic. This does not make it less complex or "dumber", as foreign learners struggling with English verb aspect or articles can attest. Also, as English is the main language of modern science, technology, and business, all of which are immensely more sophisticated and complex than anything in the Middle Ages, it's hard to see how Modern English can be "dumber" than earlier forms of English.

Middle English gradually evolved in a series of stages first into Early Modern English and then into the forms of English current today. Each piece of that evolution probably originated in a specific local and/or social setting and gradually spread through the English-speaking community. These changes were not ordered or imposed by any authority. As Falconus mentions, some of the biggest changes in English had to do with pronunciation rather than grammar. Probably the most important group of changes in pronunciation was the Great Vowel Shift, which began in southern England in the 14th or 15th century and still has not completely spread to all of northern England or Scotland. Vowels have continued to shift since the 18th century, as is clear from the different values of certain vowels in England and in the United States. Most of the significant regional variation in the pronunciation of vowels in the United States has also developed since the 18th century, though some of that variation may result from the settlement of different American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries by settlers from different parts of Great Britain and Ireland. These changes happened gradually, with only subtle differences from one generation to the next, but the cumulative effect over centuries was substantial. Marco polo (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Shakespeare often uses 'thou/thee' and 'ye/you' quite inconsistently. For example, in Hamlet, I1, Bernardo says "'Tis now struck twelve; get thee to bed, Francisco.", but four lines later calls him 'you'. In fact, this is also the case in Everyman some 200 years earlier: in the first scene, Death says to Everyman: "Yea, sir, I will show you;/ In great haste I am sent to thee/From God out of his great majesty." --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shift in pronoun may have entailed a shift in tone from more respectful (ye/you) to more intimate (thou/thee), or vice versa. Marco polo (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the last 550 years or so (since roughly the mid-15th century), while many pronunciations and individual words have changed, there have been almost no losses of inflectional categories or inflectional complexity between the London/"Midlands" dialects of the time vs. modern standard English -- with the ONE prominent single exception of 2nd. person singular pronouns and verb inflections (whose loss was mainly a complex sociological phenomenon connected with the role of the T-V distinction in 16th and 17th century society). Otherwise, the only real changes have been that on the pronoun side the ye/you distinction has been lost and the it/its (or his/its) distinction has been innovated, while on the verb side the original 3rd. person singular present verb inflection "-th" has been replaced by "-s" (this last was a northern dialect form in 1450). The real loss of morphological complexity in English came roughly in the preceding 550-year period (say, ca. 900-1450). AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Model of "broken" English in Hollywood movies

Hollywood movies seem to have their own model of "broken" English spoken by foreigners. Stereotypical mistakes include:

substituting "me" for "I", and
substituting "no" for "not".

These are just the commonest "mistakes", but there are others.

Is this "model" based on real mistakes made by some non-native speakers or is it just a Hollywood invention? If the former, where are these non-native speakers from, or perhaps more relevantly, what language do they speak natively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.19.42 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Non-native pronunciations of English may provide some insight for you. Speakers of languages that use the same word for for 'no' and 'not' (such as Spanish) or 'me' and 'I' (not sure of examples except maybe some creole languages) are likely to make mistakes with these words. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly based on what are perceived to be common characteristics of various pidgins... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very common to hear native speakers say things like "Me and my partner were very happy with the outcome", so there's no reason why new speakers wouldn't pick up on that. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's equally common to hear native speakers who pride themselves on their knowledge of English saying things like "To my wife and I, our 2 dogs look different, but our children have difficulty in telling them apart" - where "me" is the officially "correct" pronoun. It's probably more likely that a person who says "me" in that sentence learned their grammar from a book, and its use might even raise some eyebrows among many native speakers. Me, I'd congratulate them (but me wouldn't). -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the original poster had in mind much less subtle violations, of the type "Me Tarzan, You Jane" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, Chinese has the same word for "I" and "me", for example "I am" (我是), and "don't look at me" (不要看我). ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As do Japanese, Swahili, Esperanto … —Tamfang (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my wife and I is of course a hypercorrection. When children begin a sentence with me and Billy they are told to say Billy and I, without context or explanation, and extend the lesson to where it does not belong. —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English to German

What is the German equivalent of the sign "Caution Wet Floor"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.33.2 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Vorsicht, nasser Boden". Or with "Achtung" instead of "Vorsicht", and/or with "Fußboden" instead of "Boden". —An gr 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr has correctly translated the sign, however it should be noted that such a phrase is not usually seen on such signs."Achtung Rutschgefahr!" is the standard. The symbol underneath is the same though. --Cameron * 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. And tonight there's a particular Rutschgefahr! —An gr 20:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why Germans say "Guten Rutsch!" for "Happy new year." (...everyone.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With + -ing

I've seen people say a few times that the with + -ing sentence structure is ungrammatical. I think that's shit, as with + -ing can be the best way to phrase something. For example "The recipe called for baking the pasta for one hour, with it being uncovered for the last fifteen minutes." "The party would start at six with the movie starting at seven." Am I really not allowed to use this sentence structure? Thanks, 76.248.244.232 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with that construction. A preposition takes an object (here, it) and objects can be modified by adjectives (being.../starting...). Admittedly, this construction might be too wordy at times or better rephrased (personally, I'd rephrase the 2nd example as "...at six, and the movie would start at seven"). Note that this is quite similar to the nominative absolute in English, which is acceptable and even appears in the US Constitution (and the Constitution writers wouldn't even agree to split infinitives!). Interestingly, both the with constructions above and the nominative absolute mirror a construction of the Latin language (ablative absolute), and English has traditionally been made to conform to Latin rules (eg. no split infinitives, no prepositions at the end of sentences), so a construction like this traditionally could be considered favorable. Do these people you mention say why they think this with construction shouldn't be acceptable?--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! He said it was awkward and ungrammatical. I agree with using would, but that might not always be parallel (grammar). 76.248.244.232 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those things that can be dangerous in the wrong hands, like "while": My sister is 28, while I am 23. My sister is 28, with me being 23. Those two sentences are mistakes for "My sister is 28, and I am 23." I'm sure Fowler had something to say about this, but we don't need to dig him up for something this obvious. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On accident" more than just a malaprop of "by accident"?

When I first heard a child (age 7 or so) say something happened "on accident" a few years ago, I figured it was just a cute malaprop - children often do this, they'll hear somtehing is "on purpose" and just presume the opposite is "on accident," instead of "by accident" as I've always heard. (Edit - not actually a malaprop, as I look, as it's not the same sound, I don't think. But, you know what I mean.0

However, lately I've seen more and more of this. Has "on accident" become the new way to say something was done "by accident" - which is the way I always heard it growing up till a couple years ago (and even since then, mostly.)

And, if someone says it's a catch phrase by someone on Disney then I'll so totally understand. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. According to Grammar Girl, it's evolution of language. Older people tend to use "by accident" but younger people tend to use "on accident." There is no widespread rule for or against it. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stupidism like "waiting on someone" (meaning waiting for them, not serving them as a waiter or waitress). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.239.144 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, a "stupidism". Like failing to decline the word "the" for nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative case, and masculine, feminine, and neuter gender in the singular. Or using that neologistic verb ending "-s" on 3rd singular present verbs like "walks" and "eats" instead of the correct ending "-eth". And kids today are so illiterate, they almost never remember to put the "y-" prefix onto past participles, and often leave the "-en" ending off strong past participles, stupidly saying "I have sung" instead of correctly saying "I have ysungen". —An gr 00:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, Angr. You brought to mind "winter is icumen in / Lhude sing Goddamm." --- OtherDave (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not encountered the phrase, but would take it as analogical to 'on purpose'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Unwritten rules

Is there a name for the unwritten rules that govern language usage? As an example, the phrases "athletic performance is heavily dependent on fitness" and "athletic performance is largely dependent on fitness" are both acceptable even though a dependence can neither be heavy nor large. Also, "heavily" implies an extreme while "largely" does not, meanings that can't be determined from the literal meanings of the words "heavy" and "large". --99.237.96.81 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say idiom covers that. To greater or lesser degree, all languages employ words in certain contexts that, when removed from those contexts, mean something different. Different languages use different words in such contexts, which is why a word-for-word translation of a text, without regard to the meaning of words within the context of the text (as opposed to their basic dictionary meanings), often produces a ludicrous outcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with just grammar? 69.77.195.242 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you ask, I'll say that both sentences supplied by Friend 99 are grammatically correct. Now, one could also say "athletic performance is sizeably dependent on fitness". It only makes half-sense, but it's still what I would call grammatically correct. But is it idiomatically correct? No way. There may be some languages where size-related adverbs are employed where English prefers those from heaviness and largeness. That's their idiom. Ours is whatever ours is. In translating such a sentence into English, the translator would need to be aware of this and should render the word as "heavily" or "largely", not as "sizeably", as a machine translator might put it. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help who's next?

A couple of the girls I work with call out to the line of customers (which is usually more of a cluster than a line): "Can I help who's next?" Is this correct? It seems to me like it should be "Can I help whoever's next?" but I'm not sure. It could be correct if you think of it as "Can I help [the person] who's next?" but "the person" is omitted as extraneous sentence bits often are in English. But it still sounds weird to my ears. Then again, now that I look at it, my version doesn't sound quite right either. How should it be worded? Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can break it down to 2 questions: "Who's next?" spoken to the group, followed by "How can I help you?", directed at the person they've just identified as next in line. But if it's concatenated into one question, it would be more usual to say "Can I help whoever's next?", rather than "Can I help who's next?", because "Can I help" should be followed by a pronoun (e.g. "you"), a noun, or a nounal phrase, whereas "who's next" is not such an animal but a question. I suppose you could repunctuate it as: "Can I help? Who's next?". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all those stumbling across this post: In the US the form "How may I help you?" is considered a lot more useful in terms of job retention. Some stores and take-out places actually have posters hanging by the phone spelling it out in big letters.76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often hear "can I help the next in line?" (You did say it's more of a cluster than a line, but by saying "line" you're implying an order.) That's commoner in some situations like grocery stores than "can I help the next person in line?" In any case, I wouldn't rush to correct the wording of coworkers, especially if "Can I help who's next?" has the effect of causing the next person to step forward. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often hear this as a statement, "I can help who's next." Everyone says it, everywhere, so I thought they must be trained that way. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How should it be worded? In whatever way it is most clear to the customers. It doesn't really seem like there's any confusion and a (presumably) retail/service environment can probably be a little lax with the grammar. But it would be cool if they said something like "whomsoever is next in line, having been waiting the longest, let him or her step forward so that I may help in an effort to fulfill his or her requests." :-) --LarryMac | Talk 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Larsen cartoon of the psychic chicken, they could just lose it and shout "Ne-ext!" Julia Rossi (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"who" is a pronoun foremostly, and there's no need to say "he or she". -lysdexia 14:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeees. Sometimes it's a relative pronoun (The man who never was), and sometimes it's an interrogative pronoun (Who is that man over there?). The technical difficulty with "Can I help who's next" is that "who" is trying to be both relative and interrogative simultaneously. It's doing too much work and it runs out of puff, and the whole sentence suffers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are males more interested in non-fiction?

I read a newspaper article a while back that said men generally preferred reading non-fiction rather than fiction. I'm male and that's definitely true for me. I prefer to read newspapers and autobiographies rather than novels. I can't think of any reason why other than non-fiction seems more interesting. By the way, Happy New Year to everyone at the ref desk 165.228.151.7 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That must be one of those "6 of 10 interviewed" things. I could not corroborate those results in doing my own tally of the individuals of male persuasion in my Social circle (not the village in GA). My very own specimen of male bookworm subsists on a diet of Science fiction and Alternate history. Among friends and family many genres of fiction are enjoyed. One of my brothers reads stuff like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, some of our friends read popular fiction by the likes of Michael Crichton whereas others devour Crime fiction. Evidently there are reasons why people prefer reading something besides textbooks and the news. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Lisa4edit, logging in isn't that tough is it? hydnjo talk 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the journalist was speculating. She observed that most book clubs tend to have females as members. She also noted that book clubs targeted towards males almost always had non-fiction books on the reading list. It's more of a sweeping generalisation than anything based on published studies. Although, I suspect that there's more than an element of truth to her claims. 124.171.130.103 (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from the membership of book clubs. I don't think I know anyone who's a member of a book club, and I wouldn't want join one myself, but most people I know read quite a few books. Off the cuff, I'd say there's not a lot of sex-based difference overall in the ratio of fiction to non-fiction among them. Obviously, what my friends do isn't proof of anything in itself, but my point is that I really don't think book club members represent an average reader very well. (For starters, simply presenting people with a list of books that in itself shows bias like this would skew the results.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The membership of books clubs is not representative of the general reading public. In a book club one must want to meet with other people, and to talk about the book, in addition to actually reading. Another interpretation of the results is that women are more likely than men to want to socialize with others about a book, and the men who do want to discuss a book, are more likely to prefer non-fiction. Perhaps because non-fiction is a harder read or it brings up issues that are better absorbed after discussion. (For example, I'm a male who likes to read fiction, but I actively dislike discussing them afterward. I wouldn't join a book club, not because I don't read fiction, but because analyzing a book ruins it for me.) -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were talking about book sales clubs rather than book discussion clubs here. (The idea is that the former, being organized and keeping records by necessity, would yield decent statistics, while the latter, being informal and having a pretty small (and often nebulous) membership, would not -- at least not easily.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double period

Hi. In English, is it ever appropriate to use two full stops (..) at the end of a sentence? This is not homework. If so, when, and why isn't there are article? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Algebraist 19:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is: Haplography. You're welcome. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to say no to double periods. --Nricardo (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, because Algebraist's answer was correct and complete as to whether it is ever appropriate. I took the OP's "if so" to apply only to the "when", and I was answering "why isn't there an article?". (Interestingly, in standard American usage, that last sentence would not have the final period.) --Milkbreath (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a sentence can end with an ellipsis to indicate that it is deliberately incomplete. This is normally written as three dots and often is typed by pressing the "." key three times. So in a sense the sentence ends with two dots (the last two of the three). But those dots are not serving as full stops (periods), just as a decimal point is not; they are really just part of the ellipsis. --Anonymous, 09:58 UTC, January 2, 2009.

The only systematic use of two dots I've seen is in OED and SOED, where they are regularly used instead of the usual three-dot ellipsis. In quoting OED I typically replace that custom single-character ellipsis with three dots (such as Anonymous has just mentioned): the only sort of ellipsis I ever like to use, and the only one recommended at WP:MOS. I do not like to use the preformed single-character ellipsis (…). The CD-ROM SOED's two-dot ellipsis, strangely enough, is two separate dots rather than the OED's single-character implementation; but SOED sometimes has such an ellipsis next to a full stop, and then it uses a single-character for the three dots together. (Don't get me started on ellipses with four dots, or spacing between the dots and around the whole ellipsis, or associated kerning, or hard spaces preceding or following, or effects of adjacent punctuation on such spacing, or the general chaos and ignorance concerning ellipses and indeed hard spaces – or waterboarding.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that every single time I see something in an article written with two dots (eg. "This is an incorrect solution..") that isn't quoting something else, I should correct it to either one period or an ellipsis? ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you have a sighting in the wild? Point us to it, please. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such an occurrence in the wild would almost certainly be a mere slip, MB.

Astro, yes. The doublet is either a mistake for a full stop or a mistake for an ellipsis. Determine which is intended, the best way you can, and make it either a single full stop or a proper ellipsis. Now, here's the more important point: even if the mistaken doublet occurs within a quote, it should be corrected to either a standard full stop or an ellipsis. This is quite normal "silent" correction of a sort advocated by both Hart's Rules and Chicago Manual of Style. Only if the doublet is textually important should you retain it and annotate it with "[sic]" – when the topic itself is, say, non-standard or sloppy punctuation. For the general idea I have raised see "allowable changes" in the Wikipedia Manual of Style; for "[sic]", see immediately above that subsection.

By the way, you might like to revisit eg., which is an abbreviation of two words: exempli gratia. The punctuation is therefore normally e.g. or (sometimes nowadays) eg without any dots.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sighting in the wild: Charles Schulz routinely ended sentences with two dots in Peanuts (example). He also used zero, three and four, but I'm not sure he ever used just one. I've always wondered why.. On an unrelated note, double periods are used (in place of ellipses) for numeric ranges in many programming languages, including Pascal, Perl and Haskell. -- BenRG (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are communicating to a computer via a command-line interface, entering two periods accesses the parent directory. (See the last heading at DOS Command: CHDIR.) However, the syntax of programming languages differs from the corresponding rules of natural languages.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation Predicament

I am not sure if my punctuation is correct in the following phrase:

Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job."

Does anyone agree with this? Disagree with this?

Thanks. --Think Fast (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your "To Do" list, I'm guessing you're American. You folks put the period inside the quotes, whereas others put the full stop outside the quotes (on the basis that a sentence can end only with a full stop/period, question mark or exclamation mark, never with a quote, comma, colon, dash etc etc). If you are an American, I would say it's well punctuated. Some people feel the need to put a comma before a quote (in this case, after "whispered"), but that's unnecessary. Well done. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the people who feel the need to put a comma before a quote, and I do consider it necessary. If I were your English teacher, I'd dock you half a point for not writing:

Without realizing it, I whispered, "Nice job."

And I think even non-Americans would put the period/full stop inside the quotation marks in this case since in context, "Nice job" is a complete sentence, so the period/full stop belongs to it. —An gr 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He answered "This non-American would never do that, nor would any of his teachers or countrymen". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is "Nice job" a complete sentence? It is just a noun and an adjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.196.156 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 January 2009

Kinda like Oh, Pretty Woman with an interjection or Good job Brownie as popularized by W? hydnjo talk 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sentence" has different meanings. In this context it includes a fragment; the point is that if you were writing it down outside of quotation marks, you'd end it with a period. Therefore the period inside the quotation marks is appropriate. --Anonymous, 10:01 UTC, January 2, 2009.

Absolutely right, Anon. As JoO says, it's a complete sentence in the sense relevant to punctuation, just like Absolutely right, Anon. Much confusion is wrought by not attending to the distinction. Much.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who said that. Jack says he'd put the full stop outside the punctuation, and would even do so in the case of a complete sentence with a subject and verb, as shown by his above response of 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC). —An gr 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Angr. Of course you're right. Though JoO did seem to have assumed the same "punctuational" meaning for sentence, he did not make the statement I attributed to him.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was 2009, but let's not quibble over a trifling 366 days. :) Which of the following looks right:

A. "Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job. Really good." He answered "Thanks." Then we had lunch.
B. "Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job. Really good". He answered "Thanks". Then we had lunch.

I'd go with B every time. Having an end quote followed by a space (or 2 spaces) and then the first letter of the next sentence just looks somewhat unfinished to me. I appreciate the rationale for including the period inside the quotes, because it's a part (at least a grammatical part) of the person's utterance. But how does that theory hold when it comes to a comma, which Americans also include inside the quotes, even though it is most definitely NOT a part of the speaker's utterance in cases like:

"Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job," and he answered "Thanks." Then we had lunch. - which I would render as:
"Without realizing it, I whispered "Nice job", and he answered "Thanks". Then we had lunch. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put a comma before the quote (though otherwise I don't like commas much) and
put the stop inside the quotes because it belongs to the quoted sentence and stands as a stop for the whole statement. Outside the quotes in this form it looks like a dot rolled away.. .-) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete book of myriad treasures / wanbao quanshu

There was a household encyclopedia published in Ming dynasty China called The Complete Book of Myriad Treasures. It sounds really interesting, but I don't read Chinese. Has it ever been translated into English or French? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.48.59 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that can be located online. It seems to be transliterated as Wan bao quanshu [1] This one's spelled in two words. They don't have a translation, though. [2]. The German Institute of Chinese Studies at the University of Heidelberg seems to have a copy in Chinese, but no translations either. [www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de] Portuguese might actually be a better bet for a translation than English or French, but I couldn't find anything there either. Good luck. Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Hungarian into English

This greeting was on a postcard. I think it is Hungarian. Need English translation: Naggom sokszer csokol benneteket.63.215.26.209 (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is Hungarian, but you need to check the exact spelling. Is it this:

Nagyon sokszor csókol benneteket

And does a name or some other wording follow?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mean - Many time send kiss for you... Zn1d09 (talk)

January 2

spanish translation

how do you say gastric bypass surgery in spanish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.82.231 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Spanish obesity page [3] under "Cirugía bariátrica" it's called "bypass gástrico" or for the full term "Cirurgia bypass gástrico" (confirmed by googling). Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

polín

what is a polín, i looked it up at rae.es (la real academia española website) but didn't understand most of the words in the definition, what is it? is it like "rafters" or "wood" or "barn"? could someone translate the definition for me? "Rodillo que se coloca debajo de fardos, bultos, etc., de gran peso, para que, girando, los transporte." and "Trozo de madera prismático, que sirve para levantar fardos en los almacenes, y aislarlos del suelo." What i really don't get is what a "fardo" is defined as "Lío grande de ropa u otra cosa, muy apretado, para poder llevarlo de una parte a otra. Se hace regularmente con las mercancías que se han de transportar, cubriéndolas con arpillera o lienzo embreado o encerado, para que no se maltraten." I don't understand lío in this sense, as i thought it meant, issue or problem or polemic. is it pully? anyways, what is polín in english?Troyster87 (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polín comes from French poulain, which first means "a colt; a young horse", and then has derivative meanings that correspond roughly to those for polín in the DRAE. First, it's a little rodillo, which is a roller. Such rollers you might place under a heavy object to move it along without friction. Second, a similar piece of wood, or other such protective padding, placed under bulky objects to keep them off the ground. There is an exact English word corresponding to this latter meaning, but for the moment it eludes me. There is a third, regional meaning in DRAE: Traviesa de ferrocarril. That's a railway sleeper, which I think helps to elucidate the other meanings.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what's called a railroad tie in American. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

foal; caster; chock. -lysdexia 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

French beard

"French beard" is a common name for goatee in India. Was the slang introduced by the British? Is it prevalent throughout the Commonwealth? Jay (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember hearing it in Australia. It is not in OED; and since it does appear here in an online dictionary of Indian English, I suspect that it is confined to India.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I read French beard, the image that came to mind matched the description in the goatee article of the "musketeer" style of beard. So I don't think it is hard to image the connection of the term French beard with these subtypes of goatee. Rmhermen (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding foreign accents

How difficult is it understanding a foreigner who doesn`t differenciate between:

-[ʌ] and [ɒ] -[æ] and [a]

Cosidering that it`s the vowels that differ more between local variants of English, is it a huge problem?--88.27.176.105 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second merger ([æ] and [a]) is pretty common in foreign pronunciations of English, and I think that most English speakers would have no trouble understanding someone who made that merger. The first merger ([ʌ] and [ɒ]) is not one that I am used to hearing in a foreign accent. I think that English speakers could generally understand someone who merged those vowels, but there would certainly be cases of ambiguity, since those are common vowels (at least in American English), and they are phonemic. So I think that listeners might be confused and/or misunderstand some of that person's speech. Marco polo (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a fun game. Come up with a few dozen minimal pairs and then go into the world pronouncing them all with the same vowel. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je n'ai plus besoin d'eux

I was just listening to "Non, je ne regrette rien" and noticed that at one point Piaf sings "Je n'ai plus besoin d'eux." Why is this okay? I think my high school French teacher would have marked it wrong if I had written that instead of "Je n'en ai plus besoin." Is it colloquial? Is it poetic license? Is something else going on here that I'm unaware of? —An gr 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally you would have Je n'ai plus besoin d'eux for persons, and Je n'en ai plus besoin for animals or things. In the song, the line preceding is Mes chagrins, mes plaisirs, so en is expected. But Grevisse (Le bon usage, 1959, §498) allows d'eux also, in reference to things personified or "déterminés et individuels", or to avoid an ambiguity. There is a case for considering the chagrins and plaisirs as in a way personified; and anyway poetic licence generally, and the demands of prosody and of rhyme (with J'ai allumé le feu) in particular, justify d'eux.

Reciprocally, Grevisse allows (at §502) that en may be used for persons. The first example he gives is one using peuple – a rather "impersonal" way of referring to people en bloc.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely your high school teacher would have pointed out that it's a song, not a dictée. Or would he or she have been too busy trying to correct Georges Brassens? --- OtherDave (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French translation please

Hi - I mistakenly posted this on the Humanities Desk, but have moved it here, with some amendments. Can anyone tell me what a 'tableau of the dead' would be called in French (as opposed to a tableau vivant)? - and while you're at it, what would the French be for a 'tableau of the half-alive'?

Thanks all Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I moved Adam Bishop's answer too, which was responding to a slightly different query.

I guessed "tableau mort" might be the opposite, and Google suggests that that refers to an image created with dead, preserved animals, or a depiction of someone's death. (That seems not to be really the opposite of a tableau vivant but I imagine it would be difficult to use dead people to stage a scene...) Perhaps for "tableau of the half-dead" you could use "tableau mort-vivant" (borrowing from the French title of "Night of the Living Dead"). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if it's about "still life" in art, it's "nature morte" in French. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Julia - nature morte is great - would tableau semi-vivant work for a tableau of the half-alive? 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect semi-vivant is semi-alive and demi-vivant is half-alive. You might like to google the works of Helen Chadwick who (I think) combined living and dead objects, but not totally sure. The thing about "nature morte" is that things may be living (like ~~food~~ oops, fruit and flowers) or dead (game birds) or just not moving around (inkwells, books and musical instruments) so I'm wondering if there's a demi-life implied in "nature" and "morte"? Much more interesting if you can push it further though, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Since the dawn of time

Where did this phrase originate? I'm suspecting that it was coined because it seems awkward to ascribe a dawn to time itself; how can there be a dawn of time if time didn't even exist? Thanks for any input. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Arrow of time for some interesting ideas of how time works. The idea is that time only exists as a means of ordering events. Before there were events, there was no time. So, before the universe was created (see Cosmogony and Big Bang) there were no events, so there was no time. Time began when events began to happen that needed ordering. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time also has sands. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that comes from directly watching hourglasses (some old-timey soap-opera introduction began with the narrator intoning "Like sand in a hourglass...", I believe). AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"… so go the days of our lives." Not all "sands of time" references are related to hourglasses, however. Many derive ultimately from lines in Longfellow's famous "Psalm of Life"—"Lives of great men all remind us / We can make our lives sublime, / And, departing, leave behind us / Footprints on the sands of time"—which some think were inspired by the discovery of fossilized dinosaur footprints in sandstone. (Certainly, Johnny Mercer seems to have had Longfellow's poem in mind when he wrote the lyrics to "I Wanna Be a Dancin' Man" for Fred Astaire: "Gonna leave my footsteps on the sands of time, if I never leave a dime.")

On the "dawn of time" question, I, like Julia Rossi, am drawing a blank. All I can add is that the OED, s.v. dawn, has no quotations illustrating this expression—the closest is "dawn of history" from 1878, but that's not really the same thing. Deor (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual quote is "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives". (I can't believe I've actually watched this show sufficiently often to have memorised it, but there you go, life's rich pageant has enough for all of us.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; those links are interesting. In case I've been misunderstood, I was asking who first used the phrase "since the dawn of time" in a piece of writing, not whether it makes sense. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I return with google-fu in tatters, having found that the origins you seek are lost also in the mists of time. Send out the next one while I tell you a story, that essay checkers hate the phrase, Shakespeare won't own it and even the writers of Genesis eschew it though ghits show that multitudes use it every time it turns around. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED records no such figurative senses before 1633:

["Dawn, n."] 2. fig. The beginning, commencement, rise, first gleam or appearance (of something compared to light); an incipient gleam (of anything).
1633 P. Fletcher Purple Isl. xii. xlvi, So spring some dawns of joy, so sets the night of sorrow. 1752 Johnson Rambler No. 196 32 From the dawn of manhood to its decline. 1767 Babler II. 100 If he possesses but a dawn of spirit. 1823 Lamb Elia Ser. 1 Old Actors, You could see the first dawn of an idea stealing slowly over his countenance. 1878 Stewart & Tait Unseen Univ. ii. §50. 69 From the earliest dawn of history to the present day.

OED would record any earlier occurrence it was aware of; so we can conclude that as far as OED is concerned dawn of time is later than 1633.

Here is one from before November 1694, if the author in question is indeed John Tillotson (1630–1694):

They loved; but such their guileless passion was
As in the dawn of time informed the heart
Of innocence and undissembling truth. (In James Thomson, The Seasons and The castle of indolence, 1727)

Here is one from 1906 that seems to echo Tillotson, with rather more ferocity:

He nodded to her, and she came and sat by him, and they had more drink, and then he went upstairs into a room with her, and the wild beast rose up within him and screamed, as it has screamed in the jungle from the dawn of time. (Upton Sinclair, The Jungle, chapter 22)

But none of those is strictly since the dawn of time. The earliest I find for that is from Transactions of the Annual Meetings of the Western Literary Institute and College of Professional Teachers, 1839. See the text on the page here in Google books.

There seems to have been a small flurry of instances of since the dawn of time in America from then on, including this lovely one from 1840.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the nick of time, this beautifully meandering thread defies what I got from the arrows of it. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recliners found in cells

"Texas jail closes after recliners found in cells" is the headline of this AP report. Among the other objectionable items found in the cells, why did recliners make the headline? Perhaps I lack the imagination to use one in a nefarious way, or is this some other device? If the latter, the recliner page could do with a revision.-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jails are for punishment, not for relaxing as if one were at a vacation resort. --Nricardo (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this seems a marginal consideration relative to the other offenses noted in the body of the article. (On the other hand, it certainly attracted my attention the way other headlines don't!) If this were just a matter of "quality-of-life" items, it's certainly less portable, therefore less fungible, than the usual drugs/cigarettes/weapons. I posted this query to the Language RD rather than Miscellaneous , wondering whether this is a Texas regionalism that's escaped me in the decades I've been reading about my native USA from overseas. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Texas, and I've never heard "recliner" used to refer to anything other than a recliner. But Texas is a big state, and I can't claim to speak for everyone's lexical competence. —An gr 12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the story, though, it seems like more than just that. What I'm thinking is that any upholstered furniture can be used to hide things in. —An gr 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would anyone hide a recliner in a cell? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, someone might hide a knife or a gun in the recliner. —An gr 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean relatives might smuggle in a metal file when they bring a cake or a... recliner? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that some of the cells locked from the inside, I suspect not much hiding needed to be done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online Italian language resources

I find myself living in a city that borders on Italy (literaly, see Nova Gorica vs. Gorizia), and it turns out that not being able to speak Italian is often a bother, so I want to learn at least some basic Italian. Could somebody point me to a good online resource for studying Italian? A google search finds some sites, but I can't really make out which are good and which not, hence the question here. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For vocabulary, see LanguageGuide: Foreign Language Vocabulary, Grammar, and Readings.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was starting to learn Italian, I was surprised by the huge number of pretty high-quality resources to be found for free on the web; excluding a dictionary (which you'll definitely need to buy), it is possible to learn the basics of the language without spending any money at all. However, most of the sites I used were in my native German, so I'm not sure they will be of much use to you. I found this online course in German pretty well-structured and a good way to get all the basic grammar rules, then there's a free Italian-German online dictionary here. In English, I found this series of tutorials pretty useful although they are not as well-structured and interactive as the German course I linked to above. Here's a huge resource of vocabulary games which are great to practice basic vocabulary and grammar rules if you have 10 minutes to spare. A hugely useful resource is Italian Verbs which gives you a complete searchable index of all Italian verb forms (great for finding and practicing irregular forms). As a sidenote, once you've got the basic grammar and a solid basic vocabulary, I found the Italian Wikipedia a wonderful (and, of course, free) resource for reading lots of interesting stuff and expanding my vocabulary - its coverage of Italy-related topics is often much better than here on en (just compare Cinema of Italy and it:Cinema italiano) -- Ferkelparade π 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging vowels

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Understanding_foreign_accents.

What English vowels are merged more frequently by foreign speakers and what are the worst mergers?--88.27.176.105 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally it has to depend on the the vowel inventory of the speaker's native tongue ...--K.C. Tang (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[æ] (the "short a" vowel as in cat) is not too widely distributed as a vowel phoneme among the languages of the world, but slightly mispronouncing it does not usually lead to serious miscomprehension (as long as you don't merge it with [ε], the "short e" vowel as in pet). What I find really kills overall comprehension (more than pronouncing one or two specific vowel qualities slightly off) is not pronouncing English with strong stress and accompanying vowel reductions in unstressed syllables. Getting this wrong is guaranteed to make your attempts at speaking English sound quaint and very very foreign (the linguistic terms are "stress-timed language" vs. "syllable-timed language"). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

minding your "BI" business

I grew up in New York City and in the 1960's-70's we commonly used the phrase "mind your BI business" to say "mind your own business." Problem is none of us knows what the "BI" stood for or what the origin of that phrase is. Alternatively, some think the phrase is "bee eyed."

Internet searches have yielded nothing so far. Anyone have any ideas?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcapucci (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that, too. I thought it was the "bi" in "biz", like "show biz". --Milkbreath (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"however" as conjunction

What is the status of "however" as a conjunction, in a sentence like this?:

The work contains the grand scale of historical painting, however[,] it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama.

Merriam-Webster tells me it's a conjunction, but in the same sense? This usage feels like a run-on sentence to me. I always reword these sentences or insert a semi-colon. Is the above grammatically and stylistically valid? You see it quite often. Thanks, –Outriggr § 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The role of "however" is certainly a matter of opinion. In your sentence, however, it's wrong. You need a comma after it to prevent reading "however it presents" as "in whatever way it presents". This is mandatory. Put the comma in, and we have "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting, however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama." Now there is another problem. "However" wants to attach to the first clause. A band-aid solution is a semicolon: "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama." This at least kind of works, and it is the format that purists object to, I think. Me, I usually leave that the way it is when I run into it. It's clear enough, and enough people do it to make it de facto OK. I don't write that, though. It's awkward, and it lacks in expressiveness what it saves in ink.

Not that it is wrong but I would suggest reducing the comma load by moving around the parts to read "The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people reacting to the unfolding drama rather than heros." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftus (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"However" is also called an adverb by [2 MW], and I can't say the distinction is clear to me. This is one of those cases where the parts of speech fail us, I think. (Does anyone know how to make a link like that display right?) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "however" can also be used to describe an adjective, for example: "The motorboat cannot overcome the rapids, however fast it may be." ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly favor a semicolon before "however" and a comma after it in such sentences. AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MB's analysis well enough, including the requirement for a comma to make clear that in whatever way is not meant. I also agree with AnonMoos (AM) that in cases like this there should be a semicolon, and that this is no mere band-aid solution, pace MB. So AM and I would want this (assuming that the words themselves are not to be altered):

The work contains the grand scale of historical painting; however, it presents ordinary people, rather than heroes, reacting to the unfolding drama.

I also agree with MB that parts of speech are a slippery matter, and that this is manifest here. OED and SOED classify however only as an adverb. (And note, Astro: it remains an adverb when it modifies an adjective.) The much more subtle and expansive Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999) has it this way: however is an adverbial (and being a single word it is an adverb). Specifically, it is a linking adverbial: it "shows the speaker/writer's perception of the relationship between two units of discourse" (p. 875). Some others in this same category are lastly, for one thing, to conclude, in other words, and therefore. But however belongs to a different subcategory than those. The linking adverbials on the other hand, alternatively, and in contrast are contrastive linking adverbials; and though and anyway are concessive linking adverbials. Longman gives however, along with yet, intermediate status as a contrastive/concessive linking adverbial (pp. 878–9, 881).

NOW: all of that applies to however in one sense. It does not apply to it in sentences like this (inspired by Astro's example, but with fast as an adverb now):

However fast you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

How are we to classify however in this sentence? The matter is rarely addressed well; but I was surprised to find that even Longman does not, so far as I can see, settle the matter. It puts whenever and wherever in the category circumstance adverbials, with an implied subcategory marking condition and contingency (p. 844). (Note the linking function here too; circumstance and linking functions overlap.) But however in our sentence does not comport itself exactly as those two do.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a way forward. We could substitute like this:

However fast you drive, you'll still run out of fuel. [Our original]

Whenever you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

Wherever you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

But also:

However you drive, you'll still run out of fuel.

However can function by itself to mark condition and contingency, making it parallel to whenever and wherever; but it also enters into the construction of indefinitely many complex adverbials such as however fast, however well, and so on, each of which is itself parallel to whenever and wherever. I intend to continue my search through Longman's minute analyses; but we could wish to see all this set out more lucidly. Longman is corpus-based, and very ambitious; I suppose it can't achieve everything, or make everything equally transparent and retrievable.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the analysis. I certainly agree with the semicolon approach, but had a moment of doubt given how often I see the construction in question (though never, come to think of it, in professional writing). –Outriggr § 06:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic language translation

For the article Fahd's Revolutionary Organization, how should the following be translated?: منظمة فهد الثورية : اضطرار مؤسسها القائد العمالي الرفيق حكمت كوتاني للجوء في كندا ورحيله عن الدنيا في منفاه البعيد --Soman (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own understanding is that it means that the organization went defunct as its leaders went into exile in Canada. Correct? --Soman (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything after that last word? Wrad (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the last word is البعيد. The source of the text is [4]. --Soman (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about how its founder and leader was sentenced to exile and went to Canada and died early in his exile. I don't see anything about the organization being defunct, but it would seem to be a natural reaction. Wrad (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

german to english

Can you please tell me what the following says. I was sent this from my nieces husband that doesn't write english.

"ne, aber Jen ist krank und ich musste putzen und kochen, damit alles vorbereitet fuer die Ankunft meier Eltern war"

Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinano55 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nein, aber Jen ist krank und ich musste putzen und kochen, damit alles vorbereitet fuer die Ankunft meiner Eltern wäre" means "No, but Jen is sick and I had to clean and cook so that everything would be prepared for the arrival of my parents." German "Ne" might be equivalent to English "Naw". (See pronunciation: nein, ne, nö, net - WordReference Forums.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "war" rather than "wäre" is okay too; the implication is that everything was in fact ready for his parents' arrival, but he had to cook and clean to get it that way. I'd have spelled the first word "Nee" with two e's, but it's mostly a spoken word rather than a written one, so spelling can vary. —An gr 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

latin numbers declinability

Hi, I've made some effort to find this one out for myself, and I'm fairly sure I know the answer, I'm just looking for explicit confirmation. Are latin numbers like viginti unus declinable? I know the books say all numbers from 4 to 100 are not, so obviously that includes 21, but I'm wondering if the terminal part, the unus, is considered declinable, on the basis of unus, -a, -um, while viginti is kept indeclinable. I would expect not, since unus is singular, and viginti unus plural, but it's good to get it precisely. I am also interested in general in what happens to numbers like 101, 102, 103, and 1001, 1002, etc. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Gildersleeve and Lodge the indeclinability is only stated with respect to simple number words, while "Compound Numerals" are discussed separately, and the specific example of annos unum et viginti ("twenty one years", accusative case) is given... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Genesis 11 Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata and Esdrae 2 Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength's examples show quite clearly what is also illustrated (but not, damnit, made explicit, as AnonMoos points out) in Gildersleeve and Lodge (see §96; §94 is in fact misleading, since it gives for example ūnus, ūna, ūnum for "one", but only vīgintī ūnus for "twenty-one"). Where they occur in higher compound numbers, ūnus, dūo, and trēs are in fact declined.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Pronounciation of "Albeit" and "Whey"

I'm not too good with the pronunciation key, so a dictionary isn't much help. How does one pronounce the word "albeit" and "whey" (as in whey protein)?

Is "albeit" pronounced al-BE-it and "whey" pronounced "whee"? Acceptable (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure it's "all be it" (like the three words) and "way" (like a path or method of doing something; you can hear the pronunciation in the common nursery rhyme Little Miss Muffet.) 99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See (and hear) Results for albeit and Results for whey. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I relate to the second of all-BEE-it emphasising the second syllable; and of whey, is there a "h" in there? Pop-up: whey – (h)wā (just checking as a non-IPA-er) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "whey" is pronounced "way" or "hway" depends on your accent of English. If you pronounce "whine" like "wine", "which" like "witch", and "whether" like "weather", then you'll pronounce "whey" like "way". But if you say "hwine", "hwich" and "hwether", you'll also say "hway". See wine-whine merger for details. —An gr 07:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Though I'm totally inconsistent with them all. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. As long as you know what the rules are, you're perfectly entitled to break them. —An gr 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I'm inconsistent with some of them, but not with the others. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single word that means "uncared about"?

My mental lexicon seems to be out of whack today and I can't find this word I'm looking for, if it even exists. Is there a word that applies to something that isn't cared about? "Neglected" is not right because I don't want the implication of "not attended to". 99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the word "unappreciated". -- Wavelength (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm... not quite the sense I want. I want to evoke something that has no empathy for it whatsoever, not just something that isn't necessarily liked or enjoyed or understood. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disregarded" as adjective. M-W says "...to treat as unworthy of regard or notice". –Outriggr § 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unloved"? Overlooked or underrated? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ignored"? Bunthorne (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Forlorn"? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that some entity (someone or something) is "uncared about" in the sense that a person is apathetic or indifferent about that entity? -- Wavelength (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forsworn? Abandoned, surrendered, lost? Unused? – Julia Rossi (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unadored? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shunned? (I feel a whole lot of un- words coming on) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floccinoccinihilipilificated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.29.166 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Floccinaucinihilipilification. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English grammar [A number of people was, or were?]

"A number of people" was affected or were affected? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives the following examples: A small number of children ARE educated at home. and (SLIGHTLY FORMAL) A large number of invitations HAS been sent. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 10:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aletheia, it is usually nothing more than sheer pedantry to insist on one or the other choice as "correct". The best choice will often depend on context and register. Were affected is almost always used, in fact. This sort of question (agreement of the verb with a group term in the subject) comes up again and again. Please hold back from responding unless you have some authoritative or well-researched answer to offer.

Google searches are blunt tools, but this ought to tell us something:

"A number of people was"

[284 hits; almost all are portions of larger constructions: "One of the things I mentioned to a number of people was..."]

"A number of people were"

[about 146,000 hits]

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is not a matter of context and register. "A number of people" is always construed as plural. "Was" is simply wrong. I can't post a direct link, but look up "number" in the online American Heritage Dictionary; you'll find this explicitly stated in a usage note at the end of the entry. "The number of people" is construed as ~~plural~~ singular, but that's a different expression: it's about the number, while "a number of people" is about the people.

There are many expressions in English where a subject that appears to be grammatically singular takes a plural verb and vice versa. In some cases the practice does depend on "context and register", or on whether you're speaking British or American English. In others, it doesn't. I imagine Wikipedia has an article discussing it. Or perhaps several articles discussing it and saying different things. --Anonymous, 04:49 UTC, January 5, 2009. (Confusing error corrected later.)

I'm sorry too, Anonymous. No one said that this was a matter of context and register, exactly. The point, against naive ideas of "correctness" (such as what we saw from Aletheia, who gave the "wrong" verdict, as it happened), was this:

Ιt is usually nothing more than sheer pedantry to insist on one or the other choice as "correct". The best choice will often depend on context and register.

This was followed by a statement excepting the case under discussion: A number of people was affected (hardly ever used) versus A number of people were affected (the clear standard). As for your continuation, I think you must mean this:

"The number of people" is construed as singular, but that's a different expression: it's about the number, while "a number of people" is about the people.

Of course. All of that said, you ignore sentential context where it is needed. You say this:

"A number of people" is always construed as plural.

That is simply wrong. Consider contexts like this:

A number of people is hard to estimate, unlike a number of houses. People move around too much.

Precision! :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's totally contrived. it would be "the number of houses is" and "the number of people is".

here's the rule:

“

the number...is

 a number...are

”

[–Unsigned, by Anonymous.]

Yes yes, Anonymous. Of course it usually works out that way. I have said the same myself, way back where I presented evidence from a Google search. And AskOxford states it just as you would bluntly have it. But AskOxford and you are incautious, and imp[r]udently pedantic when you present this as an iron-clad rule. My counterexample may look contrived to you, but it is perfectly unexceptionable. Your rewriting of it would not be apt in all broader contexts. Try this, too:

I'm not sure how to interpret the text, here. A number of people is normally stated with precision in Sturt's journals, but this is just "three or four dozen". I think it refers to the horses, not the people.

Contrived? Only in the sense that I have made it up; not in the sense that it is unnatural English that stretches grammatical "propriety". The better rule to make is simply this:

Number of people is singular when it refers to the number, but plural when it refers to the people.

And then give full examples in short sentences, rather than make clipped and inaccurate pronouncements. The risk if you do the latter is that you will be cited as proscribing more usages than you intended – or (let's face it) than you even thought of. This problem comes up again and again, with servile literal readings of incautiously stated style-guide rules.

:)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Noetica's improved statement of the rule and concede that there exists a context where "a number of people" can be singular.

However, I want to defend my original response (except for the singular/plural slip, which I have corrected, thanks). The original query did include a specific context: "A number of people was/were affected." I took the mention of "context and register" to be saying that there are registers or larger contexts where the usual sentence "A number of people were affected" would need to be corrected to use "was", and that's wrong. Also, I point out that the Google evidence was not presented as an "exception" to the statement that right and wrong often does not apply. That's why I felt it necessary to respond.

Finally, for the sake of clarity, the "Unsigned, by Anonymous" text was contributed by some other anonymous poster, not me. --Anonymous, 23:13 UTC, January 5, 2009.

Very well, Anonymous. Please do sign your contributions one way or another. For the record, it was I who added "[–Unsigned, by Anonymous.]" after the earlier anonymous post. That fact is itself recorded in the history of this page. Someone has to see that the discussion is structured so that we can know who said what, and which anonymous contributor is which (still unclear, without tedious research in the history). Everyone should sign, always, in a way that clarifies who they are among the several participants, and who they are not.

As for the rest of your response, fair enough. It is not possible for writers to cover every conceivable reading or misreading every time they put fingers to keyboard. Already these threads become bloated with codicils, caveats, and recherché qualifications. It is often more efficient to express oneself with a moderate level of specificity, and then correct where the need arises, as it did in this case. Conversely, readers ought to apply a principle of charity: consider whether your first reading is likely to be right, or whether there is an alternative way of construing things that accords more rationality and good sense to the writer. Who knows? Reader and writer might agree more than they had expected to.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech word for "tailor"

How do you say "tailor" in Czech? - Aletheia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google translate says its "krejčí". --Soman (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that. Another reference is here. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 10:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be exhaustive, one thing needs to be added: krejčí is a masculine noun; the feminine equivalent (and tailors surely are often women) is krejčová. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My best friend had ancestors who came from Czechoslovakia to the United States, and she knew that their last name was pronounced "Craychee" (she didn't know how to spell it) but that when they came to the U.S., they took the surname "Taylor." She was under the impression that a lot of "Craychees" became "Taylors" here, but wasn't sure if it was an exact translation or just custom. I promised her I would find out. Now I can also tell her how they spelled it! - Aletheia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Edgar as a German name?

Would the pronunciation of Edgar (as in Edgar Feuchtinger) in German be [ɛt.gaɐ] as would be expected from the spelling and the presumed syllable break between d and g? Or is the pronunciation something different? --Iceager (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Duden 6 – Das Aussprachewörterbuch gives the following pronunciations: 'ɛtɡar, engl. 'ɛdɡə, fr. ɛd'ɡa:r. Note that they don't list all systematic variants (such as the different pronunciations of r) for each entry and that they don't show aspirations and other systematic features. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Duden's rule for coda R is that it is vocalized to nonsyllabic [ɐ̯] only after long vowels, but remains consonantal "[r]" (however you want to realize that) after short vowels. In real life, however, few Germans make that distinction. So while Duden says ['ɛtɡar], Iceager's guess of [ɛt.gaɐ] is actually closer to reality. If you want to be really pedantic (and who at this ref desk doesn't?), you'll add the glottal stop at the beginning too, and transcribe it [ˈʔɛtɡaɐ̯]. —An gr 15:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, my Duden (the 2005 edition, p. 54) has a slightly different rule: ‘Konsonantisches r [r], auch vokalisches r [ɐ̯] [n]ach den kurzen Vokalen [ɪ ɛ ʏ œ a ʊ ɔ] am Wortende oder vor Konsonant. Im Allgemeinen wird in der Lautschrift nur [r] verwendet′. Otherwise, you are absolutely right about the glottal stop; that was—along with the aspiration—one of the systematic features that are not given for each entry in the dictionary. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 21:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanations Daniel Šebesta and Angr, including the rule for coda R! Korean transcription of German names assume all final r that follow vowels to be vocalized, and I had wondered if that was consistent with German pronunciation rules. --Iceager (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a Classic Novel

What characteristics define a classic novel? 142.46.8.26 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it's all a matter of opinion. Some novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and The Portrait of a Lady, are sure to get into the list, but there really isn't a satisfactory definition of classic novel. Our stub at Classic book is a poor beginning, but to give you a start try Harvard Classics and Western canon. Strawless ^(talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has to have a pic on the front of a randy, bare-chested farmhand tearing at the naughty princess's bodice as they fall into the hay. That's how you identify classic literature. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it's literature, but it's classic. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A classic novel is a work of fiction that's been so widely recognized and praised by people of distinguished literary tastes that no one reads it anymore unless forced. - Aletheia "When I Write the Great American Novel, I'm Putting a Randy Farmhand on the Cover to Keep the Lit-Snobs Away" James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language death and Extinct language

The articles don't exactly do much to explain the difference between the two, and what they do say about it seems to imply they are basically the same thing. In fact, one part of the language death says that there is such a thing as "complete language death" (which from what gathered elsewhere in the article would suggestably be the same as language extinction). A look around the internet seems to show that whatever the "exact" meanings of these two phrases, they are used completely interchangeably. Thoughts on the matter? mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they shouldn't be used "completely interchangeably". Language death is the phenomenon whereby languages die or become extinct. An extinct language is a language that has undergone the aforementioned phenomenon. There's quite a difference in the meanings. One could write an article on language death without mentioning any particular language,but just explaining what causes languages to die. That would hardly be possible in any useful article on extinct languages. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not terms I have any great expertise with, but perhaps another distinction might be between a language which is no longer spoken and which no one is really sure how to pronounce, which still exists in some written form (I should call that a dead language), and a language of which not a word survives. Rightly or wrongly, I might refer to the second as extinct. Strawless ^(talk) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a distinction between a "dead language" and an "extinct language". "Dead language", which describes a language that is no longer viable, is not the same thing as "language death", which is about the process of languages going from viable to non-viable. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If 'language death' were plain English, which perhaps it isn't, it would surely mean the moment when a dying language becomes a dead language. In any event, 'dead language' seems to me to come into this. Strawless ^(talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought on the matter is the inapt (not to say inept) nature of the metaphor in "language death." It's understandable that many people want a nice, clean distinction -- like "Dolly Pentreath was the last native speaker of Cornish; she died in 1777." Is Cornish, which no one learns from childhood as his only language, dead? What does "dead" mean in this context, and are different groups of people (the general public, language specialists, language-preservation advocates) going to agree? --- OtherDave (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Strawless: Yes, these terms are obviously related. But not even non-plain English speakers could refer to a dead or extinct language as "a language death", any more than they could refer to Julius Caesar as "a human death". He's an example of a human to whom death has occurred, but he himself is not death, no matter how it's qualified. He's just dead. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he is a Roman death, perhaps? – Julia Rossi (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent pluralisation, and inconsistent spelling generally

I can understand why some people use an apostrophe to make a plural; it's a simple misunderstanding of the spelling rules. What I have never been able to understand, though, is why we often see commercial billboards etc that list products on offer, where some plurals have apostrophes and others don't. For example, we see restaurants offering "steaks, hamburgers, pizza's, sandwiches, drink's". Can anyone suggest why they feel the need to put apostrophes with some plurals and not with others.

Another example of inconsistency, one that I've seen time and time again on these pages, is a word in a header that's spelled differently in the text of the question. Usually, it's spelled the same way throughout the question where the word is repeated, but in hundreds of cases that I've seen, that same word appears differently in the header. What's going on here? Thanks for any ideas. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of dyslexia aside, I think the inconsistencies mostly spring from a very simple thing: people just don't care. It's not so much that they don't know the correct form or that they make a mistake, it's that they don't even think about what they're doing beyond the minimum effort required to communicate the message. It's like a guy painting the side of a house and not worrying about a few paint spills and splatters, as long as the the paint job gets done. And while I think that's kinda sloppy and stupid, and not a trend I enjoy, if all you want to do is sell some "pizza's" and really don't give a shit about whether someone thinks you're ignorant, I often find it kinda hard to fault that, as long as your sign gets the job done... except on principle. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the general and alarming apathy mentioned by Captain Disdain (which I certainly agree is a factor), there are the following considerations:

In fact the English use of an apostrophe for non-possessive plurals, especially of words ending in a and o, was common before the modern standard was settled on. OED, at "apostrophe²":

2. The sign (') used to indicate the omission of a letter or letters, as in o'er, thro', can't; and as a sign of the modern English genitive or possessive case, as in boy's, boys', men's, conscience', Moses'.
In the latter case, it originally marked merely the omission of e in writing, as in fox's, James's, and was equally common in the nominative plural, esp. of proper names and foreign words (as folio's = folioes); it was gradually disused in the latter, and extended to all possessives, even where e had not been previously written, as in man's, children's, conscience' sake. This was not yet established in 1725.

This is confirmed in David Crystal's Think on My Words (2008), a close study of Shakespeare's language. Apart from the general fluidity in early use of the apostrophe (still going strong in catachrestic practice), words ending in vowels other than mute e were and are less common in English, and their plurals tend to look unnatural, or to be mistaken for some other form. This was probably more the case earlier, when English was often interspersed with Latin. The English plural arenas, to snatch a quick example from the air, might easily be misread as a Latin accusative plural (meaning "sands"); but arena's could not be so mistaken. (I've just been editing at Apostrophe, in fact; I keep meaning to incorporate some of these points there. Next time, perhaps.)

Our modern practice, such as it is, was gradually established during the 18th and 19th centuries; but it is still not thoroughly settled, as the variant guidelines surveyed in Apostrophe amply show – even in formal, regimented use. And we, who are sensitive to such matters and cleave to such norms as have been settled on, continually underestimate the complexity of the sometimes arbitrary rules, and the consequent difficulties that others have in following them – or indeed in taking them seriously.

As for the variation in spelling between headings and the text that follows them, here on this page, I speculate that the task of making a marked-up heading is one to which many of our "clients" are unaccustomed. That might account for a certain self-consciousness, and therefore a lapse in their performance.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more like "it's" as in it has it's food. People were never taught the correct way, for nowadays, "English teachers" do not teach grammar,spelling, anything that smacks of work. They "teach" the students to "emote" and somehow that will make it all correct.

I very much doubt most English teachers would agree with that assessment. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt as you will, CD. I agree with the anonymous editor that standards of English teaching are low – at least in Australia, which is the scene I know best. In my experience many teachers at secondary and tertiary level give low priority to these matters, and are often enough woefully ignorant themselves. Many could not remedy their students' errors even if they wanted to. Beyond the most glaring errors, most do not attempt to fix punctuation even sporadically.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like my response to CD was censored. Why, pray tell?

No response from you appears in the page history, so I'm guessing some sort of technical error occured. Why not post it again? Algebraist 03:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, we can't see what you mean. All we see are two unsigned contributions from you: the one immediately preceding what I am writing now, and an earlier one: "I think it's more like "it's" as in...[etc.]". Was there more, and was it somehow deleted? It will help if you do things the standard way. Sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your contributions; indent, using the appropriate number of colons (:). See how other editors do these things, OK?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone mentioned Greengrocers' apostrophe yet? Wait for the section to turn up after clicking on the link. There was an Australian joke that you could tell a (school)teacher by their spelling mistakes. ;) (There's also this thread from last year.[5]) Julia Rossi (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's close to the mark, Julia. Near me is a cafe that proudly advertises "Sandwich'ez and hamburger'z". It's getting worse. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is painful on the eyes (eye'z?), Jack! Aleta ^Sing 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that article could be retitled "Greengrocer'z apostrophe's" to bring it up to date? Building on someone's warning in the former thread, it can now mean: Look out! Here come's a Thing and it'z trailer's. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some responses. Captain Disdain, your theory would work better for me in explaining why so many possessives these days are apostrophe-free. We see "Americas/Australias/Gippslands favourite <whatever/whoever>", "mens and womens clothing", and so on. Apathy and ignorance explain why they don't bother to write the required apostrophe. But writing it where it doesn't belong actually takes some effort. Hence, it surprises me that "it's" as the new way of writing the possessive pronoun "its" has become so widespread; the pronoun is somewhat more common than the abbreviation "it's" (short for "it is" or "it has"), so people end up writing many more keystrokes than they need to. If every plural were apostrophised, I'd give them props for trying, and further props for consistency. But this theory still doesn't explain for me why they make an effort (however misguided and unnecessary it may be) in some plurals but not in others. Noetica, your theory would ring more true if we were talking about people who have an above-average knowledge of English and who are deliberately trying to write in a pre-18th century style. But, sadly, the perpetrators I'm talking about generally have rather less English skills than that. Stereotypically (and unfairly in some cases), they wouldn't even know the difference between a noun and a verb, let alone the finer points of how spelling has varied through the ages, and why. Nevertheless, what you say might have a germ of truth in it. Plural nouns that you can just about guarantee to see apostrophised in these parts include "pizza's", "foccaccia's", "calzone's", etc. These are "foreign" words in the sense that very few native English nouns, or even French, end in -a (or, as you say, -o). So, maybe, without ever realising it, they're applying an 18th century solution to what they see as a 21st century problem. It may also be as simple as copying what others do (which explains a hell of a lot, including "alot"). And since English teaching was abolished some decades ago (well, it may as well have been), there's nobody around to show them the right way, except for us ageing fogies who, by definition, are deserving of less respect or being taken notice of than worms. A young fogey who knows (or, dare we even hope it, cares) about these things would be a rare and wonderful discovery indeed. But, CD, you're right in saying that they don't care. Whenever I pluck up the courage to comment on these things to their perpetrators, I get blank stares, shrugs of shoulders, and similar reactions. So I don't do that anymore. I just sit sipping my coffee while grinding my teeth, with my chalk or my marker pen kept securely tucked away. But I have been known to annotate table menus with a biro, in the (probably forlorn) hope that someone in authority will notice my irreverent scribblings, see what I'm on about, twig to the issue, and make changes in the next print run. What a cross it can sometimes be to have been born with editorial genes into a world that doesn't want to be edited but still doesn't notice even while it's being done to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I say people don't care, that has little to do with the effort it actually takes, I think. I mean, whether or not you hit an extra key when typing, or even dab a little extra paint if you're painting a sign by hand, we're not talking about an appreciable expenditure of time and energy here. It's pretty much a non-issue. I know that there are people who love to point out that when they type "u" instead of "you", they're saving time, but that's like saying that you can save wear on your shoes if you take just a little bit longer steps. Technically, that may be correct, but you'll never notice the difference. I don't think that affects the situation at all; mostly, it's just that a lot of people don't know the proper usage, and they don't care enough to learn or to even pay attention to what they're doing -- either because they're just that lazy, or because it just isn't at all important to them.

And trust me, I don't like that any more than you do... but at the same time, I have to admit to a certain pang of guilt. I mean, my own attitude towards mathematics, beyond a certain pretty basic level, is pretty much comparable to this profound lack of interest in the written language, and that has been known to elicit reactions that are entirely comparable to how I feel about people who should know the basics of English (or Finnish), but obviously don't, at all. But I have no real use for that math and no interest in it, so I really don't give a damn. I mean, I do think that this kind of basic understanding of the language is more important than that of mathematics, the language being such an important part of the communication we depend on just to get through the day... but perhaps that's just because the language is what I earn a living with. I can live with the occasional misplaced apostrophe or typo, though. What sets me off is the blattant disregart for speling and grammer borderring on ilitteracy the internets particlurly ful of... which is to say, all the time.

And Jack, my brother in the struggle, clearly that same editorial blood runs in both our veins, as I also have engaged in the occasional spontaneous clandestine copyediting. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you misread my "theory" if you take it to suppose familiarity with earlier English practice among current folk. I did not say or suggest any such folly. All I sought to show, as a closer reading would reveal, is that the same sorts of uncertainties as affect modern use of punctuation also affected the very first uses (first uses for the apostrophe, anyway). I gave the example of Latin; you added current examples like pizza's and foccaccia's, and called this an application of an "18th century solution". But there is nothing 18th century about it (17th, more like it, if anything). It is essentially the same use, with the very same pressures bringing it about. Only the provenance of the foreign words has changed. There may have been a period in which schooling produced more uniform regimented usage – covering a long stretch somewhere between 1800 and 1950, to take an educated guess. But the same sorts of "aberrant" practices probably lurked even during that period, with the same sorts of "errors" needing correction to a conventional and pedagogically imposed standard. We all agree – don't we? – that schooling has dropped that responsibility; and the results are plain to see. I omitted to mention the other chaotic uses of the apostrophe that Crystal remarks upon: its and it's used in the same sentence, both as possessives; possessive forms of proper nouns randomly with or without apostrophes; and so on. In fact, none of that has to do specifically with Shakespeare, or even with his time. It has to do with the underlay of chaotic usage that has always been with us – a tide that has intermittently been dyked back by imposed countervailing norms. Just now, our schools are not imposing those norms as they used to (in Australia, at least). As I have said, the teachers themselves are often not even versed in the norms. We'll see how things unfold, as the world is swept further into the web-vortex, and people develop yet another set of technology-driven attitudes to traditional text and its values. We ain't seen nothing yet.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you may be seeking a logical explanation when much of human behavior is not logical. the answer is more like the question of whether ignorance or apathy is more widespread: most people don't know and don't care.

Only a small percentage of the English-speaking population attended school prior to the 19th century. Our evidence of writing practice is skewed; we've got more from people who did more writing. Even at that, documents like diaries kept by soldiers during the U.S. Civil War suggest that expression was then, as today, more important than form. In spelling (and punctuation), they could be downright Shaxperian.

So-called norms can be skittish. Imagine the fulmination around 1860 as American practice shifted from "the United States are" to "the United States is." What were the schools not doing? It wasn't the fault of schooling (or schooling's fault, or schoolings' fault, or sc'ho'ol'in'g's fault); it was one small shift among many in the flowing current of one major stream of English.

That's not to say there's no such thing as standard practice. But where and when the hypothetical standard applies is hard to say; how far its writ runs, even harder. Trumpeting Fowler, Strunk and White, or your high-school grammar text is mostly harmless and probably produces an endorphin rush in certain trumpeters. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the "mens and womens clothing" mentioned above, this gracefully morphed a few years back—at least in English department stores—into signs reading “Menswear” and “Womenswear”. And it’s true. They do. —Ian Spackman (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we have them too, Ian. But we still see "mens clothing", "childrens apparel" etc advertised. As for "im", "dont", "mightnt" (for I'm, don't, mightn't), etc, I think this is a cunning ploy to create new words for Scrabble. Currently, being abbreviations, they can't be used, but removing the apostrophes turns them into words that can be used with gay abandon. So to speak. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

joke / allusion

Hi, could someone please explain that joke to me? It seems to me that he discovers "a corpse in the cupboard", but I don't understand the reference to dating or marriage. Thanks, Flipote (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is just that Asok is so desperate for a girlfriend that even a skeleton with a wig will do. And Wally is also so desperate for a girlfriend that he considers a skeleton with a wig a "babe". —An gr 07:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, can you please explain the next one?[6] Julia Rossi (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think the suggestion is that Asok chipped his tooth while kissing the skeleton. Dismas|^(talk) 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dismas, that makes sense now. I felt it wasn't quite right that the skeleton wouldn't be attracted by his chipped tooth. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might think also of a macabre oblique reference to the film Psycho, and Norman's skeletal but still hair-topped mother. (The horror...)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When dating a skeleton, one never has to worry about her gaining weight. Hmmm.... StuRat (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or about her complaining about one's own weight (or any other aspects of one's appearance or personality). —An gr 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For other advantages, see Necrophilia#Research. —An gr 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Lightning-globe

What was the word for that spherical glass thing in museums that generates tiny purplish streaks of lightning inside it when touched? I know it had a name. 96.233.7.70 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Curious[reply]

Plasma lamp. Nanonic (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! You beat me! Dismas|^(talk) 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the name was a lot simpler than I thought it would be. Thanks! 96.233.7.70 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Curious[reply]

I thought it was a Van de Graaff Generator?--TammyMoet (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different thing. (Van de Graaff generators are made of metal instead of glass, for starters.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese!

I found an interesting article on this website: http://www.tsuyama-ct.ac.jp/kats/papers/kn7/kn7.htm but because I don't know any japanese, I don't know if the article is written by an evening course student (and if so, if the article is approved), or if it's written by a teacher. Any japanese wiki-editors who can help me? Lova Falk (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is written by a teacher. Oda Mari (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

I have 2 younger brothers - help!

Actually, this is a grammar question! I'm the oldest in a family of four children - two brothers and two sisters. The difficulty arises when situations arise in which I find it convenient to talk about my siblings without using their names. My sister is easy - she's just "my sister" or "my younger sister." My brothers pose a difficulty, however, since they're both younger and there are only two of them. I can't refer to the elder of the two as "my elder brother," since he's actually my younger brother. Referring to the younger of the two as "my youngest brother" feels wrong to me since I only have two brothers, and therefore it's grammatically incorrect to refer to one as "youngest" relative to the other. Calling them "the elder of my two younger brothers" and "the younger of my two younger brothers" is frightfully wordy even for me, and "my older younger brother" and "my younger younger brother" is just weird. Short of selling one of them on eBay, which might not be a bad idea actually, does anyone have any ideas? - AJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]