Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 5

Judeo-Yemenite

This is a bit of an odd question... but then again, that's what the RD is for! So, I'm working on a school project and I have a song that I've come across in Judeo-Yemenite - that is, the dialect of Yemeni Arabic spoken by the Temani Jews. However, it's written in Hebrew letters (not Arabic) without vowels, but translated into Hebrew. This means that a) I can't look it up in a dictionary and b) I can't transliterate it. I can guess at the transliteration, but here's my question. Does anyone know Arabic well enough that if I give you my attempt at transliterating the song and my translation of the Hebrew translation you could figure out how the original should be vocalized? Or, does anyone see another way around this? I figured I'd ask here before asking random Arabic speakers. Thanks so much! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you with the translation, but I can say your idea is the best course of action. If you translate the song (or have a translation), and supply the transliteration of the Arabic from the Hebrew letters, it should be fairly easy for an Arabic speaker to vocalize it for you, after all they are used to seeing everything written without vowels. However, I must point out, that if this is in Judaeo-Yemenite, it is likely that the vowels will be different from standard arabic. Practically every major dialect of arabic deviates from the standard regarding the vowels, vis-a-vis quality, length, ommission/addition thereof. But best of luck, anyway.--KageTora (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a well-developed medieval tradition of Jews writing the more or less standard Classical version of the Arabic language with the Hebrew alphabet according to fairly strict alphabet correspondences (i.e. Arabic ع always as Hebrew ע , Arabic ح always as Hebrew ח etc.), and furthermore, transcribing Arabic letters differentiated by diacritic dots with corresponding dots over the Hebrew letters (so Arabic ظ would be written by ט with a dot over it). Specialists in medieval Arabic have no difficulty in reading Hebrew-alphabet texts written in this way. However, when it comes to a modern colloquial dialect of Arabic written in an ad-hoc manner in the Hebrew alphabet, without special diacritics, and given that there's no real established way of writing Arabic dialects even in Arabic script, you would probably really have to know the language to make much headway... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

English language [lessons for Arabic speaker]

hi evry one ... iam from asia ... and i'am willing to learn english ,,, I dont know how to start ,,, and i need a web site that can help me with it. and some sort of practice ,,, thank you ,,? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.218.112 (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The best way is probably to find a site in your language, and we don't know what that is unless you tell us! :) Also, this should probably be moved to the language desk, but I'm not quite sure how to move properly, so I leave that up to someone else. -- Aeluwas (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

my native language is arabic ... thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.41.11 (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science" --Milkbreath (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to spam...and this site is oriented towards French students of English...but you can try www.anglaisfacile.com.. It's a free site.

Tons and tons of exercises here:http://a4esl.org/

Rhinoracer (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The OP would appear to be from Jordan, so I don't know what value a site in French might be. A quick search of 'online English course for Arabic speakers' doesn't turn anything up. However, for (apparently) free language exchange with native English speakers learning Arabic, the OP may want to go to this website. Good luck in your studies!--KageTora (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a web site that will help you learn English. Marco polo (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If your English is good enough to post here, and to understand our answers, then your level is high enough to benefit from the BBC's site for learners here. Have a good dictionary to hand and learn how to use it. For reading practice, use the Simple English Wikipedia. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arabic for "the sublime"

I wonder if there's anyone who might know, or be able to find out, what the best or most common Arabic translation for "the sublime" might be, as it is used in, for example, Edmund Burke's A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful and Immanuel Kant's Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Critique of Judgement. My best guesses would be something like عَلَّى and/or جَلَال, but I'd like to make sure.

Thanks for any help you might be able to give. Cheers. —Saposcat (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I got out my trusty الدّاليل قاموس انجليزي عربي

Hopefully this will give you some colorful expressions that you won't find on the Internet...

For "sublime", (adjectival form)

سَامٍ جَلِيل رَفِيع

and for "sublimity" (nounal form),

سُمُوٌُ جَلاَلَةٌ رِفْعَةٌ

Caution should be used that as such words can be, according to context, reserved for the divine.

Hope this helps, Nimur (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This biographical sketch translates Burke's book as تحقيق فلسفي في منشأ أفكارنا عن السمو والجمال. Hope it helps a little.--K.C. Tang (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As Nimur says, جلیل and جلال , adjective and noun respectively, are the best equivalents to the sublime . --Omidinist (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

relationship between sanskrit and hindi

Hi, I've checked the ref desk archives, and there are a lot of similar questions to this one, but I'm looking for a bit more clarification. How close are Sanskrit and Hindi in terms of grammar, vocabulary, historical relationship and mutual intelligibility? Is the Latin/ Italian analogy reasonable, or would we have to go, say, to Latin/ French, or even further like Latin/ English? I'm considering learning Sanskrit one day, so I guess I'm effectively asking how "dead" the language is. It's been emotional (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See Sanskrit, especially Sanskrit#Sanskrit's usage in modern times.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Sanskrit or Hindi, but as far as I know the relationship is best compared to that between Classical Latin and Italian. Unlike French, Italian is in a direct line with the Vulgar Latin without interference from any non-Latin substrate language or other seriously distorting influence. Vulgar Latin ("Latin of the people") was actually spoken in the streets while Classical Latin was the artificial standard cultivated in literature, political discourse, and by the elite generally. That's how it was with Sanskrit also. Though the details and motivation are disputed, the very word Sanskrit appears to mean "cultivated", "perfected", "confected", or "artificial". A Prakrit language, analogous to Vulgar Latin, is best taken as the true source of Hindi.

All that said, Italian (along with other European languages) has always turned to Classical Latin as a treasury from which to make new words. Hindi, along with other Indian and other South and South-East Asian languages (including even Indonesian), has had that same relationship with Sanskrit. Both Italian and Hindi have, however, borrowed from many sources.

Sanskrit is probably at least as "alive" as Classical Latin is: both are hugely important culturally in their respective spheres. There is a Latin Wikipedia, and there is active cultivation of Sanskrit in India. A few people actually speak it in everyday life. Both are, of course, core languages for major world religions.

Some specialist may well correct a detail or two here, and supplement with more specifics; but I think you'll find that's how things are in general terms. Nicholas Ostler's Empires of the Word deals well with questions like this one. I recommend it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Classical Sanskrit is basically the state of the language as standardized by Panini almost 2500 years ago (which was not really a fully colloquial vernacular even then), so it's linguistically somewhat remote from modern Indic languages, which are separated from it by about 3 or 4 cycles of language standardization, due to previous written languages becoming too remote from ordinary everyday speech (Pali, prakrits, apabhramsas, and then modern languages). As one simple comparison, most Hindi nouns have 2 or 3 distinct number/case forms, while a Sanskrit noun would typically have over 15. That said, there is much borrowing of Sanskrit vocabulary into Hindi, and many of the same sounds which are difficult for English speakers are found in both languages (aspirates, retroflexes, etc.). The overall mutual intelligibility is probably less than Latin and Italian (though definitely greater than Latin and English). AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindi, in relation to Sanskrit, is really not analogous to Italian, which developed in a relatively (but not completely) direct line from Vulgar Latin. Hindi has a strong component of Persian vocabulary, because under the Mughal Empire, Persian represented a superstrate. French might be the better analogy among the Romance languages after all, due to the substantial Germanic influence on that language. However, as AnonMoos has pointed out, all of the Romance languages have a closer organic relationship to Classical Latin than Hindi has to Classical Sanskrit. Classical Latin was formalized about 2,050 years ago on the basis of the actual spoken language of maybe only 50 years earlier. So the Romance languages and Classical Latin diverged from common ancestor only about 2,100 years ago. By contrast, Sanskrit was formalized about 2,500 years ago on the basis of a language actually spoken nearly 1,000 years earlier. So Hindi and Sanskrit diverged from a common ancestor 3,500 years ago, almost twice as long ago as the Romance languages. As a consequence, Hindi and other Indic languages are more remote from Sanskrit (apart from direct borrowings) than the Romance languages are from Latin. Since we have no record of European languages as ancient as Sanskrit with surviving descendants, there is no close analogy to be made to European languages. Marco polo (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice! I think that is pretty well argued, MP. We agree on the general model, but achieve a different result when we apply the principles it incorporates. I had neglected the significant effects of Persian, which do tend to make French a better analogue. I am not convinced concerning the time differences, since the rates and kinds of change are likely to have differed also. Compare the relative similarity of Modern Icelandic and Old Norse, next to the stark divergence between, say, Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.

I am also not entirely convinced concerning the formalisation of Classical Latin being restricted to taking earlier spoken language as a model. Weren't there always purely literary conventions that it incorporated, and wasn't there a good deal of pure artifice involved? Same for the Paninian standardisation of a kind of Vedic, I had thought.

It's all an approximate matter anyway. Why should we expect to find a close isomorphism between the histories of Indic and Romance? Fun though; and useful enough.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The conservativism of Icelandic is partly an illusion, since the basic stability of the orthography masks a number of significant sound changes which have occurred over the centuries. Anyway, classical Paninian Sanskrit is not really the language of 1500 B.C.; if anything is the language of 1500 B.C., it's Rig Veda Sanksrit. AnonMoos (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanskrit is alive (not dead); Sanskrit is a living language.

Thank you Wavelength. I didn't check whether there was a Sanskrit Wikipedia, though I suspected there might be. (So much work you put into these things! Too much, do you think?)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(Part 1) You are welcome, Noetica, even though my comment referring to Australia was addressed to the original poster, It's been emotional, who, like you, inhabits the same continent. (Part 2) I am not certain of whether your question is rhetorical, but I decided that this was something worth pursuing, and the ideas kept coming to me. Sometimes, in my comments on this page, I have explained how I found some information, showing how easy it was, and helping others to follow the same methods. I did Google searches for "sanskrit radio", "sanskrit newspaper", "sanskrit google", "sanskrit lessons", and "sanskrit australia". My Google search for "sanskrit bible" did not yield any results which I deemed good enough to include. (Part 3) Unfortunately, another editor, AnonMoos, has compressed some of my comments, making them more difficult to read, whereas I have been careful to avoid (a) splitting a link over two lines or (b) splitting my signature and timestamp over two lines.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your list of links took up a large amount of vertical space without containing any actual commentary or discussion on the questions raised (which is the real main purpose of these Ref Desks in the first place). If you can figure out a way to reformat your linkfarm more clearly without presenting it as 20 different paragraphs, all separated by double spacing, then by all means do so... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee whiz, rather good as always. Thanks folks, It's been emotional (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wavelength, I think this is another occasion for the use of navboxes (perhaps with drastic reduction in fontsize also), so that vertical space, understandably prized by AnonMoos, can be conserved. That would improve readability of the section and of the whole page. I think we should all use navboxes far more often.

I like the "linkfarms" you make a habit of providing, but I worry about the amount of time they must take you to produce. At least we should ensure that they are well labelled for retrieval from the archives. This can be done well by starting a new subsection – salient on the present version of the page, and in archives. So why why not adopt a compound solution? See below. The only difficulty I can foresee is that people will post contributions at the end of the new subsection, rather than in the main section where they belong. There might be ways around that, but I can't think of any that are as simple as we'd like. This should be taken up in Talk, along with the general matters of navigability and of labelling and structure that are friendly for archiving.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sample of a subsection with a navbox

[See discussion above.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)]

Noetica, thank you for your advice. I have applied a navigation template to a consecutive set of my past comments. An earlier comment is not included because it is immediately followed by comments from other editors. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I diversified the keywords, for search engine optimization.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I added links to a tutor web page, 6 online dictionaries, an entirely Sanskrit website, and a list of Sanskrit-speaking Wikipedians. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian accent on the word sorry

What is the merger going on when Canadians say sorry like sore-ry, while Americans say it like saw-ry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.123.216.47 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Detroit and don't say it either way. Mine rhymes with starry. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm initially from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. and pronounce it like StuRat does. Same goes for other words with the [or] cluster (AHrange, fAHreign, AHregon, FlAHrida...). I didn't make the switch to the "ore" pronunciation when I relocated to Southern California at age seven, though my four-year-brother (now a longtime resident of "OREegun") did. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry apparently is influenced by sorrow (cf. borrow, tomorrow). Something at North American English regional phonology#General_American. AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

February 6

Proper spanish translation

Hi, I wanted to get a critique of my translation of a sentence for an essay I'm writing for my Spanish class. I want to say, "For as long as women have existed, feminism has existed." I wasn't quite sure how to translate the exact sense of what I wanted to say. Here is what I have: "Siempre que hubieran existido las mujeres, hubiera existido el feminismo." I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct. For one, I'm not sure whether or not I need the subjunctive on that second use of "haber" and I'm also not sure if I'm using "siempre que" in the correct sense. Any suggestions or help is appreciated! 198.82.110.57 (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The siempre que clause sounds a little strange to my (non-native) ears, and Google translates siempre que as "whenever," so I don't think it works. I can't think of a good way for saying that first clause, though. Perhaps A través de la historia feminina, siempre ha existido el feminismo "Throughout women's hostory, there has always been feminism," but I don't really like that very much, either. Anyway, the second clause has to be indicative (i.e. ha existido el feminismo), and hubiera is pluperfect ("had done something"), not present perfect ("has/have done something"), which is what you want (he, has, ha, hemos, habéis, han).--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As El Aprel says, the subordinate clause must be built in the indicative mood, since the existence of women is a fact. I would go for the quite simple: Desde que existen las mujeres, existe el feminismo. Pallida  Mors 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

De toda la historia de la mujer, ha existido el feminísmoTroyster87 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gender and color vocabulary

My English professor claims that women have a larger vocabulary of color terms than men, and that this may be related to both cultural factors(women being more encouraged to care about colors) and the higher incidence of colorblindness in men. Is there any truth to his claim, or is this just one of those spurious "factoids" like the one about Eskimo words for snow? And if this claim about color vocabulary is true, do we know if it's because of cultural factors, differences in color vision, or both? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The daddy of aniline dyes, William Henry Perkin was no girl. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the genes coding for the cone cell opsins in humans are on the X chromosome, so women (normally having two distinct X chromosomes) are often better off than men (who normally have only one X chromosome). Also, having two X chromosomes, some (probably very few) women are thought to possess 4 distinct types of cone cells, all functional; see tetrachromacy. Normal humans - both male and female - have only 3, and people with genetic color blindness have even less. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To rephrase what I just wrote in simple terms, vast majority of both men and women perceive colors in the same way, and none of the two genders is better than the other. However, among the minority of people whose color vision is not normal, there are significant gender disparities. I do not know if that could have possibly affected the language; that seems unlikely to me. I personally think that historical gender inequality, and traditional gender roles in particular, are a much more likely cause of such a phenomenon. Please see the article on Gender differences in spoken Japanese for a somewhat extreme example of that. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably true. I'd put that one down to cultural factors. I read an article recently in a Swedish popular-linguistics magazine ("Språk-tidningen") on how they designed the Swedish SAT tests, where a vocabulary test is a significant portion. They test the tests to smooth out gender differences and other biases. Unsurprisingly, men did better at sports terms, for instance. But what was interesting was that they also tend to encounter a good number of words with marked gender differences with no obvious explanation at all! It's a mystery. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The stereotype is that women (and gay men!) are more likely to know a larger number of names for non-basic shades, like "mauve", "periwinkle", "taupe", "chartreuse", "fuschia", "ecru", "russet", "heliotrope", "puce", etc. I really doubt it has much to do with color vision. According to our article on Mauve, "Television host David Letterman once stated jokingly that `you know somebody is gay if they know the difference between mauve and taupe'"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See List of colors. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) / See Color analysis. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the "greater number of color terms" observation was made by linguist Robin Lakoff, although I don't remember the name of the source text. At any rate, Lakoff's explanation had to do with social norms rather than physiology. 128.148.38.26 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's on pages 9 and 10 of Language and Woman's Place ISBN 0-06-090389-9 (a 1975 book which isn't really all that great in itself, but played a significant role in catalyzing the whole modern field of linguistics and gender): AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...imagine a man and a woman both looking at the same wall, painted a pinkish shade of purple. The woman may say "The wall is mauve," with no one consequently forming any special impression of her based on her words alone; but if the man should say [it], one might well conclude that he was imitating a woman sarcastically or was a homosexual or an interior decorator. -- Robin Lakoff

I suspect it has more to do with use of language than color perception. If shown "mauve" and "taupe" I'm sure I could tell them apart. However, if asked if a given color is one or the other, I wouldn't have a clue unless there was a color key provided. For some reason women (and maybe some gay men) seem to put more importance on learning words for colors. The relation to fashion is one obvious reason. I had the Crayola 64 pack of crayons as a kid, but was thoroughly dissatisfied with the names for the colors, which I found confusing. I would have preferred something more like compass point headings ... red, red-orange-red, red-orange, orange-red-orange, orange (and then repeat with either "light" or "dark" in front of each). StuRat (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"ALL POINTS BULLETIN ON A 1932 STUTZ BEARCAT, MAROON."

"Hey chief, isn't that 1932 Stutz Bearcat ?"

"Yea, but it's more of a burgundy than a maroon, really. Keep looking." - Police Chief Clancy Wiggum, The Simpsons. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Way to abbreviate "greats" in describing ancestors...

Is there a way to abbreviate the repetitive "greats" when you're describing your relationship to an ancestor? For example, let's say someone wanted to claim that Ethelred the Unready was their great-great-great-great-great...-grandfather. Would that person really have to fill in the appropriate number of "greats", or could he just say something like, "Ethelred the Unready is my 100 times great grandfater" (number and phrasing as an example only)? I suppose he could say, "I am descended from..." but that doesn't really specify the exact relationship between the person and the ancestor. Any ideas? 12.43.92.140 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In genealogical circles, there are two informal conventions: either 5x great grandfather, or ggggggrandfather, which tends to confuse spellcheckers no end! So for example, I am descended from Cornelius Dancer, who was my 4x great grandfather, and also from Charles Henry Wheway, who was my gggggrandfather, both on my father's side. Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

One disadvantage of terminology which counts the number of occurrences of the prefix great is that it is misaligned from the number of generations represented by a difference of two. Thus, it is similar to the short-scale system of English numerals, where the meaning of the Latin numerical prefix in the etymology is misaligned from the number of triplets of zeroes by a difference of one.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that's nonetheless the way it's done, and so it's the way you have to do it if you hope to be understood, rather than formulating your own idiosyncratic terminology. If you want to avoid the misalignment, you might say you are a 7th generation descendant of your 5G-grandfather. This is sometimes (particularly in Scottish pedigrees) abbreviated as "seventh in descent from". - Nunh-huh 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My five-times-great-grandfather's five-times-great-grandfather is my twelve-times-great-grandfather (actually, one of 2¹⁴ ÷ 2 = 8,192, if there are no duplicates). One trillion multiplied by one quadrillion is one octillion. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[I just remembered to divide by two because only half of my ancestors are male.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)]

All these pages are similar to each other as to the information which they have.

• Serbian kinship
• Wapedia - Wiki: Serbian kinship
• Serbian kinship: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See wikt:en:battologism. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the second and third are from Wikipedia mirror sites, and so are presumably merely versions of the Wikipedia article (possibly outdated ones). AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've heard "great-to-the-third" or something similar, but that was in fiction. --Kjoonlee 06:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered numerical superscripts somewhere (e.g. great³ or whatever), but I couldn't say where... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My Google search for the exact wording "times great grandfather" yielded 7,440 results. I found the same exact wording in these articles: Rathfriland and Outlander (novel). -- Wavelength (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My Google search for the exact wording "greats grandfather" yielded 13,100 results. I found it with various hyphenations in these articles: Charles II of England, Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, and William Mitford.

-- Wavelength (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

February 7

Verb tense?

Here they talk of verb tense consistency. Not verb and tense consistency but verb tense (with 'verb' serving as qualifier). I am not familiar with this collocation. Is is usual? Isn't tense alone better? Apart from verb, what else can have tense? 59.91.254.107 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your problem, and I'd say drop the "verb" as a rule, and they should have done so after the title. Yes, there is nothing else that has tense, just verbs. It doesn't really hurt anything to say "verb", though; it's not wrong, just clumsy. They kind of had to do it in the title of the page, "Verb Tense Consistency". They could hardly have made it "Tense Consistency"—nobody would know what it was about. Only verbs have tense, but other things are tense, if you know what I mean. The word "verb" before "tense" goes away as the page progresses, so it looks like somebody less expert wrote the introductory paragraph. (By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary shows a quotation from 1875 that uses "verbal tense-making", but there is none with "verb tense".) --Milkbreath (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To make explicit what I think is Milk's point: if you write "tense consistency", tense looks like the adjective corresponding to "tension". Throwing in "verb" is redundant if you were already going to get the noun sense of "tense", but it avoids that possible misreading. --Anonymous, 03:40 UTC, February 7, 2009.

Sequence of tenses is the term of art missing from the page referred to. See especially the section of our article that deals with English tenses.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Need an explaination of a Quebecois/French word

Can someone explain what "Pisseur" means? thanks, nat.utoronto 04:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And I don't mean someone who urinates a lot. nat.utoronto 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the context in which it was used? DuncanHill (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the cross-acculturation between Quebec and New England, it could be a Quebecois version of pisser or "pissah", as something that is really freakin cool. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just remember my friend saying it. He would say "What a pisseur". The way he said it definitely has a different connotation something is awesomely freakishly cool. nat.utoronto 10:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In real French, it can mean bedwetter, pisser (i.e. one who pisses), or pissing. DuncanHill (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Could this be what you were looking for Pissoir? - 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the word is more of a description than a thing. nat.utoronto 10:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is the term "pisseur de copie " which describes a writer who tends to use verbose language. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it is a Québecois appropriation of the New England pisser. And I would object to the description of Québecois French as something other than "real" French. It is every bit as real as Parisian French, even if some Parisians have an inflated opinion of themselves. Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly won't disagree about some Parisians :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Every "French" is the "Real" French, but there are different dialects. It is said that Tours has the purest of them all. But back on topic, I did say that the way it was use did not have the same connotations as the New England word. I think it might be closer to the "pisseur de copie ". To think of it now, when my friend says "What a pisseur." I think he might be saying, something similar to "What a showoff". nat.utoronto 00:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be poseur? (Although the spelling/pronunciation may change in Québécois.) -- 76.201.145.29 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The British say "what a pisser" when referring to a situation that is negative; perhaps the accent or the spelling makes it look like "pisseur" when it is actually a take-off of British slang for "what an unfortunate occurrence". I don't know if you heard him say it or if you saw it written? Maedin\^talk 13:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bezier Curve

How do people (Americans, in particular) usually pronounce "Bezier curve"? Black Carrot (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm Canadian. To me it looks as though the obvious way to pronounce it when speaking English is "BEZZ-ee-yay kurv", and that's what I say. --Anonymous, 06:21 UTC, February 7, 2009.

I work in computer graphics, and I hear BEH-zi-er and BAY-zi-er in about equal measure.

So it usually is pronounced with the R sounded? Black Carrot (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I'm not entirely sure, actually. I speak with a rhotic accent myself and I'm naturally used to allowing for non-rhotic pronunciations, so maybe subconciously I still "hear" dropped Rs even when I shouldn't. It doesn't matter most of the time, but in this case you've rather stumped me. I tend to think that my initial reaction was correct and that I am hearing BEH-zi-eh, an English non-rhotic replacing of the R with a schwa, rather than BEH-zi-ey, a French pronunciation where the R is vestigal and is simply not pronounced at all, but I'm really not certain. Note that I'm talking about how I hear the word used every day rather than how it "should" be pronounced (presumably however Mssr Bezier chose to pronounce it).

Could you ask around? I'd be interested in hearing whether people intentionally drop the R because it's a french name, unintentionally drop it because that's the way they talk, or pronounce it. Black Carrot (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I emailed three computer-oriented friends. Rendering their replies in the style I used above, the one in the US said "beez-ee-yay or maybe sometimes bezz-ee-yay" and the one in England said "bezz-ee-er or bezz-ee-ay", where "er" is as in (how he pronounces) "her" but less stressed. The one in Canada has not answered. said "bezz-ee-ay". --Anonymous, 05:45 and 18:51 UTC, February 10, 2009.

Verbs and prepositions

I often have a problem in using the correct verbs and prepositions. Am i correct on using the correct verbs and prepositions on the following sentences: - 1. Did you play the violin at about nine last night? 2. Did you hear? George had an accident yesterday. 3. The passenger left his bag on the 1:00 airplane before he met the immigration officer. 4. The conference has been started five minutes before she reached the conference hall. 5. If you have finished your assignment, please submit it now. 6. The students are free to go to the film if they want. 7. She was ill a lot last year. 8. I have not seen Moses recently, have you? 9. As usual, Osman phoned while i was trying to get some work done. 10. Henry always lives in Washington.

           Prepositions

1. I often suffer from a bad back. 2. What time did you arrive at bangkok? 3. They insist for knowing what happened. 4. This article refers to you. 5. How dare you interfere with my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.102.42 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but just to comment:

Number 4 in the first list: it's more usual to say "The conference started five minutes before she reached the conference hall". The "has been" is not required.

Number 10: the word "always" is not required. "Henry lives in Washington" to refer to the present, or "Henry has always lived in Washington" to say that he has never moved from Washington.

Number 3 in Prepositions: "for" is wrong, it should be "on".

Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would add that for numbers 4 and 10, not only are the elements mentioned by TammyMoet not required, they are incorrect. Marco polo (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Marco Polo, but to elucidate a little:

• As it does not say in Perfect aspect, in English the perfect (with 'have') is incompatible with an adverb or phrase of time, except for one that denotes a period (not a moment) that includes the present. So "I have seen him today" ("this week", "since I spoke to you") but not "*I have seen him yesterday" ("*at three o'clock", "*while you were talking"). So "I have not seen Moses recently" is fine.
• I'm finding it difficult to explain why "He always lives in Washington" doesn't work. Generally, we use 'always' to refer to many separate occasions, not a single continuing state, but I don't think that's quite the whole story. "I will always love you" sounds like a counter-example, though that is perhaps poetic or an idiom. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe because "he lives in X" is taken to mean that that's his normal place of abode. It could mean he's always resided there, or it could mean that's now his residence but maybe he resided somewhere else previously. But regardless of history, that is now where he resides, and so where he lives. When you live somewhere, you just "live" there, you don't "always live" there, even if you've always lived there and intend to live there until you die. If you want to state that you've always lived there, it would be "I've always lived there". If a special context was comparing a homeless person Fred with a non-homeless (is there a better adjective?) person Bert, it might be "Fred never sleeps in the same place two nights running, but Bert always lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue". But normally, there's no need for "always lives". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

About number two, "What time did you arrive at Bangkok?", "at" is certainly possible, but "in" is idiomatic in the usual sense where I come from. I would say "I arrived in Bangkok just before midnight", never "at", if Bangkok had been my destination. If I was talking about one leg of an itinerary, "at" would work: "I arrived at Bangkok at 8:00, and at Singapore 5:30 the next morning", but that's straining "arrive" to the limit. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Test to pass

Basic test to pass for the requirement to quilify for a position in the company states as:

• 1. Comprehension
• 2. Precis writing

i have a test tommorow with about 500 odd colleagues across cities, how do i create an impact. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'precis' means ' summarizing, but it doesn't mean 'giving as little information as possible'. Could you clarify your question a bit more? --KageTora (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it's literally "precis writing" (described by KageTora, directly above)? Or is this perhaps a typo for "precise writing"? If so, it seems the test may provide a text passage to read in which your response (to questions about it) is supposed to demonstrate your understanding (= reading "comprehension") and your skills in writing precisely. That could mean: clearly and accurately, according to the rules of grammar, and without mistakes in spelling and word usage. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And if his message here is any indication, he's screwed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, relatively speaking: it might depend on how odd those 500 colleagues are, no? (Hint: hyphenating "500-odd" would solve that particular problem.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Active & Passive forms

The following article is written using active and passive forms. If there is a mistake in using these forms please try to correct me. My mother arrived at the port of Harwich some time in February and was immediately apprehended by the British authorities for having filled up her landing form with undue accuracy. To the question: Where born? She has answered St. Petersburg. To the question: where educated? She has answered Leningrad. The immigration authorities were convinced that she made light of the questionnaire, and i feel bound to add with a certain pride that it was only my presence that saved her from further unpleasantness. This tendency to answer official questions too literally seemed to run in the family, perhaps owing to the many frontiers we all crossed since such encumbrances were invented. Once she was released by the pernickety British authorities, my mother travelled to London by train through a thick industrial murk, which was culminated in a swirling yellow fog, impenetrable choking and claustrophobic. She records that she has nevee seen or smelt such unadulterated filth in her life. Before the names of the stations were entirely obliterated towards the end of the journey, the impression of Kafkaesque horror was increased by the fact that every station was seemed to be called Bovril. It is necessary to explain the uninitiated that Bovril was, and has been, a most excellent beef-tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.102.42 (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about active and passive forms, but you seem to have misspellings ("pernickety", "travelled"), typos ("nevee"), missing capitalization ("i"), extra words ("was culminated", "was seemed"), wrong forms of words ("impenetrable"), missing words ("explain the uninitiated"), and improper hyphenation ("beef-tea"). Some of these might be OK in British English, however. Is that what you're going for ? StuRat (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither 'pernickety' nor 'travelled' is a mis-spelling (since this is avowedly about a British experience). 'Was culminated' and 'was seemed' are in my view the only examples of what the OP is asking about: inappropriate passives. 'Culminate' and 'seem' are both intransitives, and so do not normally form passives.

There are a few oddities of tense and prepositions (I think you're the same person as was asking about these):

• "She has answered St. Petersburg" - 'has' is unusual there (it is an event in the past, with no particular present relevance)
• "She records that she has never seen ... " on the other hand, is right
• "Bovril was, and has been ... " - a little odd. "Was" normally implies that it is no longer, while "has been" implies that is was in the past, and either still is, of there is some present relevance to the fact of its former existence. Actually, the idiom that is most appropriate here is "was, and is".
• Forms are generally "filled in" or (particularly in N. America) "filled out", but not "filled up".

But apart from those, it is fine. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Bovril thing straight from When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit? Karenjc 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember that as the advertising slogan "Take Courage", for the beer. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"She has answered St. Petersburg" - 'has' is unusual there (it is an event in the past, with no particular present relevance) - I agree it's unusual. And I would normally say this is plain wrong. But it's becoming increasily seen in Australia, particularly, but not exclusively, among police officers. Last week I was reading a report of a court case about a murder that happened at least 5 years ago. A police officer giving evidence was reported as saying something like "The defendant has taken an axe and has struck the victim". It read as if the event happened only this morning. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that the police officer was reading aloud the evidence that he or she recorded ("on tape" or in writing) on the day of the murder? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. He was describing what happened on the day, 5 years previously. I alluded to this in a question I raised here a while back (can't find it now). I'm hearing it more and more. It comes up when someone's relating a (usually humorous, sometimes dramatic) real-life story, such as:

"Did you hear what happened to us last week? We were backing out of a parking bay at Aldi, when this other driver's come through and has hit us. I've got out of the car and I've gone over to him. I've told him to drive more carefully, but he's told me to piss off. So we've grabbed him and taken him to the cops. etc etc".

Had I been relating the same story, it would have been:

"... this other driver came through and hit us. I got out of the car and went over to him. I told him to drive more carefully, but he told me to piss off. So we grabbed him ...".

The police are well-known for their propensity to avoid plain speech at all possible times and to use what they think are "appropriate" words. (I heard one recently referring to a jailed mass-murderer as "I had a discussion with the gentleman to see if he was prepared to admit to any of the other outstanding cases". When describing an incident on TV, they will use this odd (in this context) form of the past tense (maybe because it seems less blunt and direct than the simple past) not just for things that happened today, but at any time in the past. And sections of the general community seem to have picked up on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard this, but it immediately makes me think of the historic present. I wonder if it is used in the same way, to make the events more immediate and vivid? --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wāli = viceroy, governor, or ?

In the page on Muhammad Ali of Egypt, his title of "Wāli" is translated as "Governor;" on the Muhammad Ali (disambiguation) page it's "viceroy." Is this is Arabic or Turkish, and which (or yet another translation) would be correct? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Chambers Dictionary has wali same as vali, which is a governor, especially of a vilayet, and it is Turkish in origin. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks convincing! I'll resolve the discrepancy on that dab page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And we have an article Wāli. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...which is lacking some crucial content, but certainly a relevant place to start! -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, he is more famous as the Khedive of Egypt (see [1]). In a period of his life, he was wali of Egypt; and this word was translated as 'viceroy' in European sources, because he was actually the viceroy of the Ottoman Sultan. And, by the way, wali is an Arabic loan word in Turkish. --Omidinist (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm bewildered, then, that the title Khedive doesn't occur on the page for Muhammad Ali of Egypt. Are we talking about the same man? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The same man, Muhammad Ali of Egypt, has had different titles simultaneously or in different times. These two pages ([[2]] and [[3]]) are about one single person. --Omidinist (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The original source of this word is Arabic والٍ, but linguistically this word is a little complex -- the Classical Arabic pronunciation of the basic nominative-genitive indefinite form is wālin, but the accusative indefinite is واليا wāliyan, the nominative-genitive with definite article is الوالي al-wālī, and the accusative with definite article is al-wāliya. In colloquial Arabic, or when borrowing into other languages, it's generally just simplified to wali (Qadi is the same). AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

'governor' is more accurate. Wāli means ruler. Here's a source: administrative officer , provincial governor , governor , chief , leader , ruler. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) //Note: Retrieved from Talk:Muhammad Ali of Egypt; discussion redirected here.//

No dead horse left unflogged

Can anyone provide a Latin translation? BrainyBabe (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No horsemeat left untenderized. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nullus equus mortuus relictus non flagellatus? (Very literally...as usual there is probably a pithier way of rendering it in Latin.) Adam Bishop (talk)

'Relictus' is surely not appropriate: 'left' does not mean 'abandoned', but 'omitted' or 'not attended to'. Somehow an ablative absolute seems to be called for: 'nullo equo mortuo inflagellato' perhaps? --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "relictus" as an individual word seems OK here, since the verb relinquo can mean "to leave unchanged, to allow to remain". However, the syntax of "relictus non flagellatus" does seem like it might be a little suspicious to me (though I have nothing better to offer). As for the ablative absolute, it's strongly associated with subordinate clauses... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, nullo equo mortuo non flagellato would translate into English as "No dead horse being unflogged, ..." (with the expectation that something else will follow). AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I actually meant to say "reliquus". It doesn't help the syntax, but, at least in medieval Latin, it does mean "remains" or "stuff left behind" (especially the corporeal bits of a saint, hence "relic"). (Of course both words are ultimately from relinquo and are probably interchangeable.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me just point out that idioms like this don't really translate very well, unless there's already a comparable saying in the other language. I mean, if I were to tell you that someone is not the son of yesterday's black grouse, you're probably not going to get it, but the original is clear to a Finn. (It's the same thing as saying that somebody wasn't born yesterday, essentially.) Now, of course, Latin probably isn't anyone's first language these days, but if you're trying to communicate the actual meaning behind the idiom of flogging a dead horse, a direct translation probably isn't going to do the trick unless the reader also knows English. (I realize that you may be well aware of this already. I may just be a spoilsport here, I know! But I figure it's worth pointing out, just to be sure...) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CD. Yes, I do realise. There is a certain pleasure in literal translation, especially used as an in joke. (Now I want to find people I can use your black grouse line on.) One of the uses, I won't say advantages, of literally translated Latin is that people who have any acquaintance with that tongue, or any Romance language, can have a stab at translating what they see before them, e.g. on a coat of arms. But I would welcome an idiomatic translation as well. (Sez she greedily. ) BrainyBabe (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

hey BB - I'm exceedingly curious where you're going to use this! 82.124.81.87 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey 82.124, get an account and I'll tell you on your talkpage! BrainyBabe (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We've had questions like this before and we've found actual Latin idioms with similar intended meanings, so maybe it's possible here as well. But first we have to decide what exactly this idiom means in plain English, since it is kind of two English idioms stuck together. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sticking the two together: "No stone left unturned" -- no possibility left unexplored, i.e. searching everywhere for an answer. "To flog a dead horse" -- to continue to pursue something (e.g. an argument) when any chance of success is long past. "No dead horse left unflogged" -- I would take this to mean, no lost argument left unpursued, no lost cause not chased after, with great effort and to no effect. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then how about "petere rediturum saxum", "to attack the stone that always returns", which is how Ovid refers to Sisyphus in Book 4 of the Metamorphoses? He also mentions Tantalus and Ixion in the same verse but I suppose Sisyphus is the most recognizable name today. To include Sisyphus' name we can say "Sisyphus petens rediturum saxum." Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha, look, we have Beating a dead horse, which references Dryden for "thrice slay the slain" and says that a similar idiom is given in Latin by Libanus. Well, unfortunately Libanus actually wrote in Greek, but there must be an equivalent Latin phrase, which I haven't found yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that article! Clearly the refdesk needs no flogging! A real expression used in Roman times would be amusing, but don't overstrain yourself. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Walrus"- Dutch

I have reason to believe that in Dutch, the word "Walrus" has a meaning other than the animal. I would be glad if someone could tell me if there is another meaning, and what it is Chaosandwalls (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Whale horse, according to Chambers. DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The nl Wikipedia has (apart from the obvious), an entry on "Walrusklasse", this being a class of submarines deployed by the Royal NL navy. See also Walrus class submarine. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article Walrus explains the etymology. 'rus' doesn't mean anything in Dutch, but 'ros' as well as German ruß are archaic words for 'horse'. The article mentions "wal" - "shore" and "reus" "giant", in modern Dutch. So a Dutch-speaker could easily assume the word was originally 'shore-giant'. That's what's called a Folk Etymology, since it's actually of Norse origin. I don't think the word 'walrus' has any immediate meaning in Dutch other than the obvious though. In Icelandic though 'hval-hross' still means whale-horse. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In Dutch walrus solely refers to the animal. I am not aware of any folk etymology, but if people would nowadays consider it as a native composition with any meaning at all the word would probably be split up in wal, shore, and Rus, Russian, which is patently nonsensical. The connection with ros (an archaic word used in medieval poetry) is not immediately obvious to most modern speakers. Iblardi (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

February 8

What word...

Is there a word for an exaggeration that isn't meant to be taken literally/seriously? --RMFan1 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole? — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: Don't exaggerate! - that's hyperbole. Yet how often do we see media reports about "literally millions of people have been affected by ...", where the numbers may be only in the thousands. That turns out to be hyperbolic, not to mention grossly misleading and inaccurate, but the writers often think they are simply writing in a vivid style where any form of added emphasis is fair game. We also see it in comparisons between things: one example is "the greatest ... in the history of the universe" and the other is "shit". There appears to be no middle ground; but almost all things reside somewhere in the supposedly non-existent middle ground. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just say "humorous exaggeration". --Anonymous, 06:56 UTC, February 8, 2009.

But it isn't necessarily humorous. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You could try synonyms like "embellishment" or "embroidery". In the right context, it could be apparent that these "amplifications" are not meant to be taken seriously. Maedin\^talk 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Avoidance of "an"

I've seen various examples of a noun starting with a vowel, where the form of the preceding indefinite article is "a" rather than "an". See this for just one recent example. I also hear it in the speech of youngish persons:

"Why didn’t your teacher explain it better?"

"Well, I asked him to but he didn’t give me a <glottal stop> explanation".

Is this happening widely throughout the anglo world? What explains the spurning of "an", which exists in order to make speech flow more easily and naturally? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As a youngish person myself (from Florida, US), I recall a few instances where I've heard people use a for an, but with no degree of regularity (that I've noticed) or consistency. I've previously just attributed it to saying "a" then having a mental pause and saying a word the begins with a vowel sound and the speaker not correcting themself, and until now never gave it much thought because of the infrequency I've encountered it. FWIW, the dialogue above sounds horrible to me and the first time I read it out loud, it was difficult to suppress the /n/ because it makes it so much more natural.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This has to be learned behaviour, but who's doing the teaching? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it just fine, it sounds like this: weh, eye axe Tim to buh he dih int give me uh explanae shih (though it would be more correct as weh, eye axe Tim to buh he dih int give me no explanae shih)

If you want even farther off, In the southern US "..he didn't not give no explanation" would not be uncommon. Lisa4edit (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph of A and an#Discrimination between a and an may be relevant to your query, but I don't think the phenomenon is necessarily recent. I seem to recall this being used in old movies and such (for some reason, the expression "a ape" [pronounced "uh ape"] comes to mind—perhaps uttered by Stanley Kowalski?) to mark the speech of uneducated, dimwitted, or excited characters.Deor (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling brought up the line from A Streetcar Named Desire: "And wasn't we happy together? Wasn't it all OK? Till she showed here. Hoity-toity, describin' me like a ape." Deor (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"The law is an ass" was "The law is a ass" in Dickens' original (when the character Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist is informed that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", Mr. Bumble replies "the law is a ass — a idiot")... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I recall reading that people used to refer to a fruit as "a napple", but the "n" moved over and it became "an apple". I don't know why.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "apple" was ever "napple", but "adder" (the serpent, not the one performing a mathematical operation) was "nadder". Conversely, "newt" used to be "ewt". I forget the name given to this process, but when I remember it I shall return. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here we go - A and an#Juncture_loss. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"An" only makes speech flow more naturally in a certain range of accents and dialects. Skipping the n doesn't necessarily cause problems. Black Carrot (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

what words are you allergic to?

what normal, upstanding words -- not dialect, slang, jargon, etc, just normal "SAT words" -- are you allergic to?

I mean you know the meaning, you see it from time to time the same as any other word, you might run across it in the New Yorker or a New York Times column, yet it has never sat well with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.81.87 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a ready-made list - see User:JackofOz/Favourites#The worst words in the world. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Puce"; I hate the word "puce". I am not even sure how anyone could know the colour of a flea, but the very sound of the word makes me want to "puke" -and that's almost as bad a word, but not quite. ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, Bielle with the signature that is pretty well unreadable on my system. I dislike those words also, and I cannot abide crépuscule in French or crepuscular in English, which also have -pu- in them.

I am desperately sensitive to several words in fact, and therefore cannot bring myself to discuss the matter any further.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of color words that make one want to puke (a wonderful word, look what can be done such a minor interchange between two letters that can sometimes substitute for each other). Mauve. Hate the word, but I admit that I love to say it. --KP Botany (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Never liked the word "guinea" for some reason... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Problematic", an inelegant, useless pustule of a word. I'd rather listen to somebody dragging their fingernails across a blackboard. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Legendary, used to denote something other than "pertaining to legend", or perhaps nothing at all. It generally seems to mean "at least moderately well known", but then if the referent weren't at least moderately well known then it wouldn't occur in the kind of columns (or, all too often, Wikipedia articles) that are written with gushy words like legendary. Or then again perhaps the subject isn't even moderately well known: vanity articles about terminally obscure guitarists tend to say that they "gigged with" this or that "legendary" if Z-rated band from which both the public and the critics stayed away in droves, pardon the cliché. ¶ Albeit, a pompous word now just as it was decades ago when lampooned by Fowler (an overrated exponent of a dreadful genre, but occasionally worth a glance). I've just finished Tony Judt's Postwar, a superb and for the most part superbly written book that repeatedly uses albeit where it could just say if instead. -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pucker --KP Botany (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with that, if I may ask? Algebraist 22:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it's inexplicable my loathing of the word pucker. I like "puke" as a word, and I like "ruffle," and "sucker," and "rip-rap," and "huckster," and "crinkle," is lovely, and "buckle," must be one of the all-time great words in any language, put pucker, well, I just don't like it. At all. It's just wrong. --KP Botany (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Much of this discussion concerns matters of unaccountable taste, Algebraist. That's how it is with allergies. A doctor does not reprove a patient like this: "Pollen? What's wrong with pollen, if I may ask?"–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but sometimes taste can be accounted for. Algebraist 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed, the discussion below tends toward cases of that sort.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's some words for you. "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, yes, so many good words to choose from. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bush administration created an aversion to the word "leadership" because it was usually followed shortly thereafter by some major screw up in the area concerned. "Paradigm" is a bit worn, but still good for a cringe or two. "Competence" these days also seems to describe something that one pretends to have rather than someone's actual ability. "Competency" definitely goes on my list. Lisa4edit (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Facilitate, empower, take ownership, proactive, and management-speak in general. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how many responses included "pu". "Pustule" (a horrid thing in itself) is attested on Language Log as an eggcorn: pus jewel. Now that's yucky. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Two entertainment examples make me vomit. Helm as a verb - These films were all helmed by director Joe Bloggs. Shocking! And the ubiquitescent garner: it's now being used to refer to the winning of a single award (She garnered an Oscar for her performance in "<name of film>"), where it actually means to collect many things. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reaching out to is another. eeuuuurgh. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically when used to mean 'in a not-false sense' rather than 'in a technical sense'. Algebraist 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Funnyman in place of "comedian" bothers me to no end. The IMDB's news service uses it constantly and it annoys me to no end. Utilize in place of "use" qualifies 99% of the time as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Moot used to mean no longer of importance or relevance e.g. "the point is moot now". DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thank the IP for having gifted us with this question, but may we say we've already obtained closure here? -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not by a long shot. Some place names fail to do it for me - Gritjurk, for example. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. OK, here goes: ‘pretty unique’, impact (for ‘influence’), problematical (for ‘problematic’), incentivize (for ‘encourage’) and incent (for ‘reward’).

Touch base when used by British people. DuncanHill (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading this and thinking all along that I really have nothing like this, no word to set me off. But I was wrong; I just realize that even though I don't think I'd describe my relationship to this phrase as "allergic", when someone says that they could care less, I always wince. It's like a little boot to my brain; it's got nothing to do with how it sounds, it's just that it's the complete opposite of what they mean. I'm just too pedantic to completely ignore that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I agree. I'm like, "What are they thinking"?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When I was younger I couldn't get my head round 'Caucasus' (or however it's written) in the US elections. I always wondered when they said such-and-such a candiadate had won in the caucasus, why were they having US elections in Azerbaidjan? I also thought it might be a reference to the fact that only caucasians get to be president, but, thankfully, I have recently been proved wrong. Anyway, for both of those reasons, I began to dislike the word immensely.--KageTora (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the word "caucus" since I first encountered it in Alice in Wonderland, reinforced later by the Capitol Steps rap "When you caucus with Max Baucus, your caucus will be too raucous..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Allergic does it for me, when it's used in a figurative rather than literal sense. - Nunh-huh 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, indeed, 'allergicked'.--KageTora (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The worst sounding word in English is undoubtedly gusset. As for words whose usage bothers me, I nominate impact as a verb when what is really meant is affect. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz wrote this, above: "Yeah, no, I agree. I'm like 'What are they thinking'?" But I don't understand. I think he must have meant this: "Yeah, no, I concur ... ", per WP-Talkpagesprache.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that better now?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes. I really did understand.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can't stand people who use "utilize" and "fiction novel" as words. The first is an overcomplication of "use" and the second is a pleonasm. Novels are fiction by default. If it's not fiction, it's a book, not a novel. (That's one of the reasons you should take care to hyphenate science-fiction novel) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• What about arguably (which usually means "perhaps")? N.B. @ Hoary: the Concise Oxford defines "albeit" as "literary though". de:Benutzer:Idler writing under 91.36.126.219 (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)l

• Lake Superior State University, in the American state of Michigan, is famous for its Banished Words List.
  (See http://www.lssu.edu/banished/.) -- Wavelength (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I intensely despise, abhore and deplore the general trend of of turning virtually any noun into a verb. Top of the list is transition. Then there's conference - We'll conference about it later. And medal - I medalled in Beijing but not in Athens. And so on. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite an established move in all English, Jack; but American does it with a ferocity to be marvelled at. To birth, and especially birthing as in "birthing center", is the one they that makes me want to curl up and hibernate until Chinese takes over.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How would you propose they rephrase that unambiguously in only two words without using rather esoteric Greco-Latin technical medical terminology? AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth center, perhaps? Of course its tricky, since we have no common, simple verb whose meaning is "give birth to". Bear will not do, since it means so much else; engender, beget, and others like them miss the mark; drop is horridly colloquial (used outside Australia?). Nor do we have a simple verb equivalent to Latin nascor, Italian nascere, or French naître: "to be born". Why not? The American people have a right to know.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Got you back for my abhore. Have a nice day.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Curse this Broca's aphasia Wernicke's aphasia!–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Craft. Measles. Clot. Loam. Yogurt. How can anyone eat something where the y comes before the g in the name? I do like crepuscular, though - and corpuscle. Matt Deres (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Logically used to mean 'according to an obviously unsound argument'. Algebraist 01:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Beastorn? Gwinva (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, now. I agree about clot, Matt. But I quite like Yggdrasil. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, easy. Any word or name mispronounced on TV. Examples: Béthanie, Václav, détente. Vltava 68 12:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Who said this?

"Everybody likes to be told the truth. It's only that particular ass that tells us so that we can't stand"

I know that's not the exact wording otherwise I would have found it through google. Can anyone tell me who said this and what the exact words are? ExitRight (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but it sounds a lot like shooting the messenger. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cripple" - ca. 1940

Am considering whether this word might have been used around 1940 to describe, say, lame individuals, mobility impaired in their lower extremities. In particular, to title this drawing by Marcel Janco: "....... in a Detention Camp." Webster's Collegiate online marks it as "sometimes offensive" usage. Was that always the case? At what point did it become "usually offensive" as I would say it's currently regarded politically incorrect"? Are there dictionaries or other lexical reference works that indicate such considerations?-- Deborahjay (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a process called the "euphemism treadmill", that our article describes as a form of pejoration, whereby a term becomes offensive and is replaced by a neutral term that in turn becomes offensive, and so on. "Cripple" is the ordinary English word for a lame person, and that is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. There is no warning note in the OED's entry for "cripple". Just to check, I looked up the "N-word" to see how they handle such things, and there they have a few sentences of usage notes about its offensiveness. Dictionaries are unreliable for those who want to stay on top of the latest trends in social engineering through language distortion, and the best dictionaries will try to steer a straight course whichever way the wind happens to be blowing this month. I am sure that a person writing in 1940 would put "two cripples in the foreground" without batting an eye, because that's what he meant. That is not to say that I think there is no value in the current tendency to protect people's feelings by careful speech. In this case, to use the noun "cripple" instead of "crippled person" defines a human being and labels him unfairly, and children are especially susceptible. And to call a person over by shouting, "Hey, you...cripple...come here" would have been deemed offensive, at least by the cripple in question, in any age, I would imagine.

I think that any dictionary worth its salt will give a little guidance in the use of words that can be expected to be taken ill, but I doubt there's a dictionary dedicated to tracing the changes words have gone through over their lifetimes in that regard (do you think there'd be a market for one?). I guess you'd have to look at the entry for the word you want in several dictionaries from several periods of history. The entry for "cripple" in Webster's 1828 Dictionary at OneLook carries no warning, nor does the American Heritage Dictionary of 2000. If you mean to ask whether there is a current lexicon that lists words considered offensive nowadays, you might find the Maledicta Press interesting, though that's not exactly what we want here. The Global Language Monitor puts out a list of the top politically (in)correct words, but I was unable to find a broadsheet. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The market for such a reference work would certainly include my ilk: contemporary translators of historical texts, likewise authors (screenwriters, playwrights, et al.) of period works. I sorely lament its lack! -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

you can bet that in a few years what today is "what are you retarded" will be "what are you differently abled". That's the euphimism treadmill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "What, are you retarded ?" is trying to be offensive. The treadmill only applies when people try to avoid giving offense. Thus, "crippled" becomes "paralyzed" then "handicapped" then "disabled" then "differently-abled". Similarly people go from "retarded" to "cognitively impaired" to "mentally challenged". We also have the generic term "special", which now seems to mean "there's something wrong with them, but we're not saying what". Personally I think the current terms are a bit much, as everyone is "differently-abled" and "special", and we should all strive to be "mentally challenged" each and every day. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Off tangent, but: In German, the term cripple ("Krüppel") is an example of a reversed euphemism treadmill. The German term for such a reversal is "Geusenwort", the en term is "reappropriation". Both mean that previously disparaging or insulting terms are embraced by the respective societal group and are invested with neutral / positive meaning. In the 1970s disabled people convened the "Krüppelbewegung", a network of self-help groups which has been successful in removing many of the barriers (mental and physical). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all off-tangent, but rather a usage trend of which we'd do well to familiarize ourselves. (Nice pro-active concept, that "reappropriation"!) -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the english term for that is "taking it back", as Randal tried to do with "porch monkey" in Clerks II. I also heard it used in a stand-up routine, by a black woman who wanted a brand of chips named after the N-word. The idea was to make people see the word in a more positive light. One especially good line was, "Crackers?! You can't have a party with crackers! Get some n****rs in here!" Black Carrot (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a usage trend well-established in English, sometimes known as reclaiming a word. As with queer, now a badge of pride to many (oh, pun alert, just saw that); and indeed "black" -- "Say it loud, we're black and we're proud"; and there are cutting-edge disability activists who refer to themselves as "crips". The gay/queer divide is a useful one here: assimilationist vs challenging or overthrowing the system. While the words are still powderkegs, they can only be safely used within the community, not by outsiders. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I bothered to look it up and found people "playfully" (according to the New York Times) referring to themselves as bedpan crips; there is criplit and the cripchick blog; "queering the crip" and "uppity intellectual crip"; crip activism, crip theory, and crip culture. My, how the language changes! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as noted above, they still get upset if anyone outside their group uses the word. So, if you call somebody a "cripple", they may roll right over you. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - and a queer crip would be a quip? --91.36.77.66 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

French-saxon

I have seen here San José de Suaita#People the expression french-saxon is it correct ? In France we use anglo-saxon but never anglo and french-saxon.Regards --Doalex (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No help, but: The term (which is unknown to me) is also used in the French version of the article, which says: Principalement le peuple de José de Suaita San vient du peuple espagnol (65 %) les temps de l'installation d'industrie ont laissé des descendants Anglo-et Français-saxons (10 %) et ont apporté (25 %) de métis de départements plus proches comme Boyacá et même Tolima. There does not seem to be (I am not from Barcelona) any mention of this in the Spanish article.

One guess would be that the writer (in the original (?) French version) wanted to say "descendants of French and Anglo-Saxons" and mixed up the terms. The Spanish WP (I am just guessing here), appears to mention Germans and Americans, which is not quite the same, either. --62.47.129.184 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I saw all the differences, the french version is a bad copy of the english version (translating machine ?) and in fact the good version is the spanish version.My question is here because, it seems, the english version is more old that the french version.For me, also, this term don't exist.(sorry for my bad english language)--Doalex (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I should add that the en version is certainly not written by a proficient speaker of the language and may very well be a sanitised machine translation itself. I did not think to check the respective dates (French vs English version), so maybe the author of the en version is the culprit. Greetings from un autre chien. Sorry for my doggerel. --62.47.148.29 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Ooops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The term makes no sense to me. Anglo-Saxon refers to the Germanic tribes, some of which were from Saxony, that invaded and settled present-day Britain. Saxons are Germans (now) and a Germanic tribe (historically), so 'French-Saxon' makes no sense unless there was some Saxon settlement in France (which subsequently moved to Colombia?). I've not heard of any such thing. Another guess is that perhaps the author was thinking about the Normans (French who invaded Britain later) and turned Norman/Anglo-Saxon into French-Saxon. OTOH the easiest way to say 'Norman-Anglo-Saxon' is 'British'. :) --130.237.179.182 (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I have changed both versions with Germans and Anglo-saxons.The French presence in Saxony is more probable that the opposite (18th and 19th century).--Doalex (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In French, the word "anglo-saxon" in a non-medieval context basically means "English speakers", and a reader of a French newspaper who happened to glimpse the word in a headline would naturally assume that it meant that those Brits and Yanks were up to something again... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Coquet vs Coquette

I can't understand the difference in pronunciation between these two. Is there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.117 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In the masculine form (french) the final t is a silent letter, see also [4].--Doalex (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

February 9

what do you call a person with no sense of smell

blind people can't see, deaf people can't hear, mute people can't speak, but [blank] people can't smell, and [blank] people can't taste.Troyster87 (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe such words exist in English. Certainly no such words are in common use. Algebraist 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anosmia is the term for inability to smell, ageusia for taste, so anosmiac and ageusiac? Catchy, no? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The OED has anosmic (not anosmiac), and Google Scholar shows it's in fairly common academic use. Nothing similar to ageusiac is in the OED, and it gets no Ghits. Ageusic seems to see some use though. Algebraist 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Breezeway?

Imagine a house and a garage being separated by 6'. In order to stay out of inclement weather when traveling between them, you create a hallway of sorts with a roof which spans between a door of the house and a door on the side of the garage. What is this enclosure called? Dictionary.com says that this would be a breezeway if there are no walls but what if you enclose this thing? Would it still be called a breezeway? Maybe an "enclosed breezeway"? Dismas|^(talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Corridor"? AnonMoos (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am currently house hunting. I saw a house with such a structure in Massachusetts, and everyone called the structure a breezeway, even though it has no breeze. Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never encountered the word "breezeway" until this thread, and would not have known what it was otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

More as a joke, I hope, my spouse calls ours "The Cloister". However, it is fully enclosed, though with multiple windows along its south face. Cloisters are usually open along one wall with archways. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all! I thought there was another word since there is no 'breeze' to an enclosed breezeway but I guess that the term includes those without breezes. Dismas|^(talk) 07:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the follow-on question below, there's a link to dogtrot house, in which the "dogtrot" seems to refer to an enclose breezeway. --LarryMac | Talk 14:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

an & h

I'm sure this question has been asked numerous times before, but as the only terms I can search the archives for are "an" and "h", I didn't think I'd have much luck, so here goes. Should you say an before words beginning with h? "An house" sounds alien to me, but it seems common, especially in American literature and translated works. Is it just an English/American thing? Or am I just wrong to say "a herbivore"? Thanks in advance 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See A and an#Discrimination between a and an (as well as the rest of the article). Deor (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If the h is sounded, than use a. If it is not sounded (as in some accents, or by poseurs when they talk about hotels), then use an. DuncanHill (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Americans wouldn't say "an house". In fact, the phrase "an house" looks really, really British to me. I hear John Cleese saying "An 'ouse?!" when I read it. That's probably one particular, stereotyped dialect. But clearly there are some people somewhere who say it, because it gets hundreds of thousands of Google hits.

Americans would say "an herbivore", because Americans don't pronounce the h in "herb". If you pronounce the "h" at the beginning of "herbivore", then you're right to say "a herbivore". So even though the stereotype is that British people drop h's, here it's only the Americans doing it.

Then there are weird cases, like "a historian" and "an historian". Americans use both. Even though Americans generally pronounce the "h" in "historian", they pronounce "an historian" as "an 'istorian", for some reason. I just say "a historian" like any other word with an h sound. The "an" form strikes me as an affectation used by, as Duncan puts it, poseurs. I don't know where it came from; is there a British or American dialect where the h in "historian" is silent? rspεεr (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Inspector Harry "Snapper" Organs routinely dropped all his h's ('Allo, 'allo, 'allo, wot's all this then?) , so I presume he'd have done so with historian. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I say "an historian" because the stress is on the second syllable, not the first. (That is, I say "a history book", for example.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I found Phonological history of English fricatives and affricates#H-dropping which sorts a lot of this out. rspεεr (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In my dialect, Scouse, we drop 'h' all the time at the beginning of words. There is only one time when we actually pronounce it, and that is in the name of the letter 'h' (we say 'haitch' which is, of course, incorrect, but our dialect does everything the opposite to standard english anyway). We also add 'h' after voiceless stops (p, t, k) and short vowels at the ends of words (which changes to 'r' before a following vowel).--KageTora (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No no no. My dears, the definitive treatment of this topic is here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Within my lifetime (60+) the use of 'a' or 'an' before hotel or history has changed here in the UK. In the fifties it was almost universal that people said 'a historian' or 'a hotel'. nowadays it is much more common (but not universal) to hear people, especially the media, say 'an historian' or 'an hotel'. _{This is anecdotal evidence and should be disregarded for scientific studies} Richard Avery (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't noticed this change in the UK (except for a possible desire to "speak proper" and introduce an unneccesary "n" by some in the media). Surely the rule is simple: if the "h" is sounded, then use "a", but if the "h" is not sounded then it needs "an". Of course, this just moves the discussion on to whether the "h" should be sounded in "hotel" and "history". The modern tendency is to sound this, but then erroneously keep the formerly necessary "an" under the delusion that this is "proper". Fifty years ago "a hotel" was standard in the North, but "an 'otel" was standard in RP. Both were correct. Modern speakers seem to confuse the two. Dbfirs 17:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to say "an 'otel" in a neutral (that is, non-regional) accent then you should write it "an hôtel". DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers and Hyphenation

Concerning this sentence: "I worked with a group of twenty 5-6 year old children."

Is it wrong to write out "five to six", since it's preceded by the word "twenty"? Is it better to leave the numerals to avoid confusion? I would prefer to write them out but...

Also; if it is okay to write them out, should it be hyphenated as such: "five-to-six-year-old"? As it stands now, should it be hyphenated "5-6-year-old"? Thanks, 69.16.91.138 (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What about rewriting it to read "I worked with twenty children aged between five and six years"?

--TammyMoet (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"I worked with a group of twenty children, ages five and six." This is how I would write it. What is between five and six?--KageTora (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Points to note:

1. It is not always helpful to suggest rewriting. Sidestepping an issue like that misses an opportunity to sort out a genuinely interesting issue. And it may not be be an option anyway. What if someone spoke those words, and your task was to write them down?
2. The close range 5 to 6 is merely incidental, so it may not be helpful to ask what can lie between those two ages. (In fact, fractional ages lie between, expressed in years and months.)
3. Several distinct issues converge in the example we are given. Let's deal with them one by one:

• A range of years expressed in speech with the word to is best written with the word to. This is especially so when from is also used, but it applies generally:

The children were aged from five to ten.

Five to ten is a period of latency in the child's development, for Freud.

• Opinions differ widely about using figures or words to express numbers. In the examples above, all the numbers are lower than ten, for which most authorities prefer words. Some authorities take ten as the dividing line: lower numbers in words, higher numbers in figures. (What of ten itself? Opinions differ!) But if comparable numbers are below and above ten in the same sentence, choose just one way for both numbers:

The children were aged from five to ten.

The children were aged from 12 to 14.

The children were aged from five to fourteen.

The children were aged from 5 to 14.

• If any numbers with different uses occur in the sentence, it is normal to present them in contrasting ways, like this:

There were six children aged 5, and eleven children aged 10.

There were 6 children aged five, and 11 children aged ten.

• Some say that a figure should not occur at the start of a sentence, so this would be good:

Six children were aged 5, and eleven were aged 10.

But not this:

6 children were aged five, and 11 were aged ten.

• Hyphens are standard in these forms:

Five-year-olds are so dependent!

Five-year-old children are so dependent!

• A "hanging hyphen" is standard when we add another option:

Five- and six-year-olds are so dependent!

Five- and six-year-old children are so dependent!

• Putting all this together, here are two standard acceptable written forms of the sentence we were asked about:

I worked with a group of twenty 5- to 6-year-old children.

I worked with a group of 20 five- to six-year-old children.

These might look awkward; language in the real world is like that! Rewording may indeed be best; but to do that well, we had better be sure of some underlying principles, like those we have unearthed above by considering a hard case.

• Finally, many authorities advocate an en dash (–) instead of a hyphen (-) when the compound has components that already include hyphens:

An Anglo-Saxon–Danish skirmish was inevitable.

So if you really wanted to have hyphens in five-to-six-year-olds, you might be tempted to try an en dash instead of the last-added hyphen (or hyphens); but identifying such a candidate for replacement is quite hard in this case: five-to-six–year-olds? I don't think so.

I recommend WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH for further reading that is relevant to improving our editing practice, class.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the proximity of 'five' and 'six' is purely incidental, and I was going to say it would be different if the ages were, say, five and ten, as you would then have to point out whether the children in question were either of two separate age groups (i.e. five and ten), or within the range of five and ten, but I couldn't be bothered, because that was not relevant in this case. I did, however, have the sneaky suspicion that someone would be pedantic enough to pick up on that, as you did. Hook, line, and sinker, as they say. Also, in my opinion, paraphrasing is fine, as long as it gets the point across better than the original. Language is a tool to be explored and used, and while your argument that it misses a perfectly good opportunity to explore different ways of expressing the same idea using different punctuation or whatever, paraphrasing is just as good, if not better, as it can even be more visually pleasing than having a morass of hyphens and dashes all over the place.--KageTora (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So we agree? Good!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this reminds me of a conversation I had with my father a while back. I was telling him about a kindergarten class I taught a few years ago, and I said to him, 'So, I was teaching this class of thirty 5-year-olds at the kindergarten,' and my dad replied in shocked disbelief, 'What are 35-year-olds doing at a kindergarten?!?' This is why I prefer to paraphrase! (True story!)--KageTora (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What you should have said, to avoid ambiguity, is "Thirty head of 5-year-olds". —Angr 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ridulous, ridulousness

Recently I came across the word "ridulousness" (in a text about the Plessy vs. Ferguson case a colleague gave to me) and first I thought it was a typo for "ridiculousness". Although there are a number of Google hits for ridulous/ridulousness, the word is not in my Collins and I'm not quite sure about the meaning and the register. (I'm not a native speaker.) -- 93.132.128.192 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When I put "ridulousness" into Oxford, I get a message: "There are no results: The nearest alphabetical match-point is displayed in the side-frame", and the word highlighted is "basso-relievo, rilievo". I'm not sure why in the world that is the result, but I'm sure that "ridulousness" is an error. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Google hits mean nothing; you will always get plenty of Google hits for misspellings, but that doesn't mean there really was somebody called "Virpin Mary", for example.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But 'Virpin' would be the possessive form of the Finnish name Virpi. If Virpi had a daughter named 'Mary' she might be referred to as 'Virpin Mary' :) --130.237.179.182 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Don't yah just love this place Shant, come on, think of another one. . .;-)) Richard Avery (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem in writing spellcheckers because there are often lexemes which are both a misspelling of a very common word and also a legitimate but very rare word. (One of my favourites is "incudes", which is a possible plural of incus, a bone in your ear, but if you see the word anywhere it's very probably a typo for "includes".) I'm pretty sure that what your note meant was "ridiculousness". Marnanel (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

18th century English pronunciation

As part of a college class on novels, I'm reading Fielding's Tom Jones, in which there are a few characters by the name of "Blifle". During our first lecture, the professor expressed ignorance about how to pronounce this name, so we've gotten to pronouncing it "bliff-ful". Any reliable sources on how to pronounce this name? Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert, but I would say your pronunciation was correct (or, at least, as close as we can get). Modern spelling would require an extra 'f' for the 'i' to be pronounced short, but early modern English was not very consistent with this usage.--KageTora (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that one could pronounce the second syllable of "blifle" as one pronounces "soufflé". The spelling of blifle probably doesn't follow the rules of French (I don't really know), but "bli-flay" could possibly sound less silly than bliff-ful! Maedin\^talk 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether there are alternative versions of the book published, but as far as I'm aware the character's name is not "Blifle" but "Blifil", which may make the pronunciation more obvious. Karenjc 20:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't paying attention when typing before. To be sure, this is "Blifil" in my edition, not "Blifle". My intended question was basically after the first syllable: is it natural for it to be pronounced this way, or would "bligh-fill" be an option? It's primarily a question of vowels; I'm aware that the Great Vowel Shift was centuries before this time, but I'm still not very well read (or "well heard") in the pronunciation of the English of this period — is it generally the same as today? Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to watch the film version.--KageTora (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The professors under whom I studied the novel (I had it in several classes) all pronounced it with a short i (BLIHF-uhl), and that's also how I recall it's being pronounced in the film. Deor (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

two latin questions

1. In Latin poetry, if you have a syllable that ends with two consonants, then it is considered a long syllable. Can anyone tell me if this rule is sustained across consecutive words? For example, in "et cetera," is the first syllable long because it effectively ends in "tc," ignoring whitespace?

2. The word "nemo/ neminis" is basically a third declension noun that can be used as an adjective. Can you use nouns from other declensions as adjectives, remembering that each of them lacks at least one gender for the purpose of inflection. For example, if "bellum" were used adjectivally (="warlike"), there would be the second declension form "bellus" available for the nom. masc. singular, but no apparent feminine form. This ought to prevent it being used as an adjective, but Latin can be strange. Thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

First question, basically, yes. There are numerous exceptions, depending on what comes after the vowel; if it was "et radices", the combination of t+r would not make the e long. See Latin poetry. For the second question, I don't think Latin can do that. There are words like "rosa" which is a rose and the adjective colour, and there are coincidences ("bellus" and "malus" for example are unrelated as adjectives and nouns), but you can't regularly do that with any normal Latin noun. It does, of course, work the other way, adjectives can be used as substantive nouns (and also as adverbs, sometimes). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Latin nouns can occur in a syntactic "apposition" construction (which in some cases can be somewhat functionally equivalent to being an adjective), but the nouns do not change their declensional category or gender as a result... AnonMoos (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

following on from breezeway

What are those excessively narrow houses called, that are created by roofing over the passageway between two existing buildings? There are several that are a bare couple of meters wide. I seem to recall a name such as "spite corridor", but not useful Ghits for that term. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The description reminded me of Shotgun house, but that's not quite the same. However, that article did lead me to List of house types, which might be useful. --LarryMac | Talk 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The description reminded me of dogtrot houses, but I've never thought of them as "excessively narrow". —Angr 20:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question reminded me of a recent NY Times article about one in Alexandria, VA, and it is indeed called the Spite House. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And we have an article on spite houses, usually but not always narrow. (I.e., once one knows the name, looking for it is much easier.)BrainyBabe (talk)

Railroad apartment seems closer to the OP's intent than either Spite House or Shotgun House. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Spite house is definitely closer to the concept I was looking for, in that it designates a building constructed where no one thought one could fit. The houses I am thinking of are not always done out of spite or negative emotions, but they are always narrow, between two existing structures, which not all spite houses are. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Old English perfect aspect

What are the most likely ways that speakers of Old English would refer to something that is completed or finished? I get the impression that they didn't use the construction "have" + past participle that we use today, as in "I have eaten". Or did they? I know that the prefix ge- for verbs (and sometimes nouns) connotes a sense of "process or result". If an Old English speaker said, "ic geæt", would that mean "I have finished eating" as opposed to the simpler "ic æt", "I ate"? Or would you always use the simple past for those situations? Jonathan ^talk 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else has picked up this one, so I'll give it a go. Unfortunately our perfect aspect is rather poor. However, the OED gives a pretty complete answer (s.v. 'HAVE', II):

This use arose directly from sense 2b, the object possessed having in agreement with it a passive participle of a transitive verb as attribute or complement; thus, I have my work done = ‘I possess or have my work in a done or finished condition’, whence, by inference of antecedent action from result, the actual sense ‘I have done my work’: cf. the series ‘have you the article ready?’, ‘have you the article completed?’, ‘have you completed the article?’ In some dialects the distinction between the original and developed forms, e.g. ‘He has the house built’, ‘he has built the house’, is still in regular use; with some past participles, as begun, completed, done, finished, etc., it is recognized generally. With transitive verbs the developed use was already frequent in OE.; the pa. pple., which originally agreed in number and case with the object, was sometimes left uninflected. In early ME. the usage is found with verbs of action without an object, whence it was extended to intransitive verbs, especially, at an early date, to the verb to be (as in French and other Romanic languages, and in opposition to continental Teutonic use), as he has been, had been, will have been, etc. (cf. F. il a été, Ger. er ist gewesen). Verbs of motion and position long retained the earlier use of the auxiliary be; and he is gone is still used to express resulting state, while he has gone expresses action.

--ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of of

He was well known for his sign-off line of "May your news be good news". (see Brian Naylor (broadcaster)).

vs.

He was well known for his sign-off line: "May your news be good news". (or perhaps a comma instead of a colon).

What function does "of" serve in the first version (and various similar examples)? Is it supported by those who speak authoritatively about such things? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The "of" in your first example is not really necessary. Your second example is better, and a comma would be preferred. Since the article is about an Australian broadcaster, perhaps the useage would be different than American English. --Thomprod (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Thomprod. I believe I've seen it in various Englishes. A similar example might be "He was born Mervyn Smith, but for his astrological writings he used the name of Tarquin Spiffingworth" (rather than just "... the name Tarquin Spiffingworth"). It's common enough, but I don't know if it's a proper use of "of". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's on the same spectrum as the unimpeachable use of of in "the city of Rome". The city doesn't belong to Rome, the city is Rome, yet the "of" seems to be almost indispensable. —Angr 10:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a related case, indeed. But I see a slight difference. Take Gerald Ford: he was born Leslie Lynch King Jr, but was given his adoptive father's name. It could be said that he took the name of Gerald Ford, where Gerald Ford refers to his father - in other words, he took his father's name. It could also be said that he took the name Gerald Ford, with no reference to how that came about. Cities, counties and similar places are usually, formally, "The City of ..." - and even informally. The "of" there is a pointer, and is a shorthand way of saying "the city (that is) called Rome". But when it comes to tag-lines and similar things, we're not talking about labels, names and titles; they simply exist as utterances. Another one would be "I explained that I'd done everything I was asked to do, and he gave me the unbelievable response of 'It doesn't matter, we've changed the rules in the meantime'". In speech, it seems to highlight that what's about to come next is worth hearing, something unusual, something unique, something shocking, etc. - and there's often a slight pause after "of", and sometimes "you're not gonna believe this", or "wait for it", or the speaker uses air quotes. In writing, the effect can't be reproduced with anything like the same power by merely using the word "of". I'm getting the feeling that it's a colloquialism, and not particularly appropriate for writing of a certain quality, unless it's part of a quote. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Puzzling question. The locution seems OK at first glance, and I'm sure it would pass unnoticed in speech, at least by me, but there is something unusual about it. I think the "of" is like the one in phrases like these from a googling on "with a cry of":

• People emptied chamber pots out of bedroom windows with a cry of gardey loo!, which is said to be a corruption of the French ....
• With a cry of “Allah is great”, an underage killer shot an Italian priest ....
• ... he leaps into the air with a cry of “Dosukoi!” ....

The function of "of" there is definitive, similar to "of" in "teeth of wood", meaning something like "being". Neither Fowler (1965) nor the OED on line treats it (I skimmed through the OED entry twice, and a damn fine entry it is). I think that this use of "of" (in "cry of") is normal and not of low register at all, and I'm beginning to think the same of yours. You can't say a colon, and your "of" takes up that slack in speech. Personally, I'd probably go with a comma in formal writing, and "of" in speech and more casual writing, only because it sounds vocal to me. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Compare use of de in French, and similarly in other Romance languages: quelque chose d'étrange: "something strange". One would never say *quelque chose étrange. For goes by the name of X, compare a usage that turns up more than once in the surpassingly witty film O Brother, Where Art Thou?: the main character introduces himself with the elliptical sentence "Name of Ulysses Everett McGill".

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

February 10

the letter H in Scrabble

Why is the letter H worth four points in Scrabble? I mean, this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/English-slf.png graph shows the frequencies of the letters in the English language, and H is more common than R and L, which are worth 1 point, as well as all the letters that are worth two and three points. It seems that Scrabble tile points are based on letter frequencies, given that Z, Q, X, and J are worth a whole lot while E and A are worth just one point. The letter frequency rule is normally followed in the letter tile scores, with some minor discrepancies, plus the major discrepancy of the H.

Why would this be? H is a very easy letter to play: it is in many short words like ah, eh, he, ho, hi, ha, the, etc. If scoring is based on the difficulty of the letters, then C should be worth a lot, and H should be worth little. Has usage of the letter H proliferated since Alfred Butts invented Scrabble in 1938? I am confused. --71.227.1.59 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It probably has to do with the fact that most good "H" words require the "H" to be paired with other letters, usually "C", "S", or "T". Its certainly not as restrictive as having a "Q", which nearly always requires a "U", hence its 4 points rather than even more. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Random contribution: You forgot CH - a very useful word (the only 2 letter word starting with C. And Q is not always "nearly always" used with U - almost every time I play a Q it's in the word qi. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes use "qi", too, but I generally prefer to use Q with a U, where possible. I think what Jayron meant was that Q nearly always requires a U in the real world, which is what Butts had in mind when he devised the points system. He'd probably never even have heard of "qi" (or even "chi", which is its most usual spelling). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Belt

What are the fastening holes in a belt called?96.53.149.117 (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that I've ever heard them called is a "notch". Dismas|^(talk) 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We call them 'holes' where I am from. A notch is different. A notch is usually something that is caught by pegs, or something on a cogwheel, for example.--KageTora (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dismas. You tighten your belt a notch.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The pointy bit that passes through such a hole is tongue, tang, fang, or pin. The hole itself may indeed be called notch. These are all just special uses of the words in question, and do not have separate dictionary entries. SOED, "notch, n.":

1 A V-shaped indentation or incision made, or naturally occurring, in an edge or across a surface; spec. (a) each of a series of holes for the tongue of a buckle etc.; ...

Despite the dictionary entry, I would argue that the holes are not "notches". I would argue that because some devices have different settings implemented by putting a part into one or another notch, the word "notch" has been extended to refer to one of these settings whether implemented using notches or not. So if you tighten your belt a notch by moving the buckle from one hole to the next, you are changing the belt from one setting to the next, and which is changing it by one "notch" in this extended sense. Similarly if you increase the speed of a machine by pushing the next button in a low-medium-high series, you might say you have turned it up a notch. The holes in a belt are still just holes. --Anonymous, 19:02 UTC, February 10, 2009.

Strangely, nothing so specific is to be found in OED (unless the online version has something updated in "notch"; I'm using a version on my hard drive).

I used to know what to call the little crimp at the end of a shoelace that made threading it easy, and stopped it from fraying. Anyone know that one?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We have got an article on everything. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

THAT's what I had in mind: aglet, or aiglet. Thanks. Now, let's see if we can work it up into a featured article. Then let's do Brass fastener and Castellated nut.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a punch hole, according to CLOTHING &#38 ARTICLES :: CLOTHING :: MEN&#8217S CLOTHING :: BELT image - Visual Dictionary Online. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ------- They are punch holes [to agree in grammatical number with the original question]. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Things "are" what we habitually call them, regardless of how various observers might be offended by some supposed irrationality in the choice of words. Those lacunae in the material of belts are holes, punch holes, and notches, since these usages are well enough established to be recorded in dictionaries. Anonymous has written above that "the holes in a belt are still just holes". Well, they are "just" holes and not notches if you insist on a certain restricted meaning for notch; but the rest of the world does not insist, and the rest of the world wins. The rest of the world is the court of final appeal on usage in the world, as opposed to usage in the idiolect of Anonymous.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, when referring to a finely crafted belt from Iberia, you may call them Buenas Notches. And, no, I am not from Barcelona! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a belt would go nicely with boots of Spanish leather. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

what's not feeling called?

what do you call someone who has no sense of feeling? (like touch/tact) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyster87 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Originally it was called anaesthesia, as our article acknowledges. Here is OED's first citation:

1721 Bailey, Anæsthesia, a Defect of Sensation, as in Paralytic and blasted Persons.

But not so likely these days, since the word now usually means an induced temporary loss of haptic sensation; or of consciousness, in the case of a general anaesthetic. SOED:

Absence of sensation; esp. artificially induced inability to feel pain.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has no sense of tact is tactless. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Paralysis can also cause a loss of feeling in the affected area. Livewireo (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Paralysis and anaesthesia may often occur together; but this is from having a common cause, rather than from either causing the other. If anything, anaesthesia (construed broadly) will "cause" something resembling paralysis, because it may lead to neglect and therefore to absence of voluntary movement.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nerve injury like e.g. in Leprosy can cause loss of sensation. Any damage to the Somatosensory system can prevent the sensation of touch being processed. I'm not sure there is an overall term, if there is folks here [6] might be able to help you. There are terms for separate elements of the pathway being disrupted or non-functional. Hope this helps. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 3 of Oliver Sack's book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat is called "The Disembodied Lady". Sacks describes a woman named Christina who, in her 20s, suffered from a near total, whole body loss of proprioception. Proprioception is usually said to be the sense of "where your body parts are relative to each other". The loss of this "sixth sense" for Cynthia meant the near total loss of physical feeling. She retained a "superficial sensation" of light touch", such as the feeling of the wind on your face while driving a convertible car. Sacks writes that there is no common words to describe this rather rare type of state. The word that comes up the most in the chapter is "disembodied". As for what it is like--at first she could not stand, hold anything in her hands (her hands "wandered" on their own without her noticing, unless she watched them with her eyes), she could not reach for something or feed herself without overshooting wildly. She could barely sit up. Speech was effected too--she lost "vocal posture". Her words on it include: "I can't feel my body. I feel weird--disembodied".

As for neurological terms, Sacks writes "there seemed to be a very profound, almost total, proprioceptive deficit..." Loss of the feeling of body position, muscle, tendon, or joint position sensation. She also had lesser degrees of loss of light touch, temperature, and pain. (In short, the question of the "someone who has no sense of feeling? (like touch)" brings up the issue of just what the sense of touch is. It is not a single thing, of which proprioception is a major type.The near total loss of proprioception apparently quite rare, so standard terminology has not developed, it seems. Sacks writes about the causes that resulted in this kind of loss, which are several. In her case it was a form of "acute polyneuritis" that cause the sensory loss. For the condition itself, Sacks tends towards the word "disembodied" and "pithed".

The chapter goes to describe Cynthia's slow adaptation to this condition and its profoundly disturbing psychological effects (feeling "dead" and such). Reading Sacks, I get the sense that there are no regular English words for specific kind of things. Even in neurological jargon one can only get vaguely close with words about general sensory losses. At least, that seems to have been the case when Sacks' book was published in 1985. Pfly (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well observed, Pfly. And thanks for your caution: "Proprioception is usually said to be the...". As we may see from what precedes your post, there is much uncertainty with terms relating to the "somatic senses": those other than smell, taste, sight, and hearing, which themselves are sometimes called the "special senses". The word proprioception etymologically means "perception of self", but this is usually narrowed to perception of positions of the body's parts (with or without awareness). It competes with the term kinaesthesia, which etymologically means "perception of movement", and therefore of movements of the body's parts (with or without awareness). The logical relations between these two terms are contested, if they are attended to at all. Any survey of textbooks in psychology, physiology, and medicine will confirm this. It's a bit of a scandal, in my opinion. These two contrast with interoception, also unaccountably and without much rationality. In fact our articles need to be sorted out and brought into harmony, for these three terms. Might do it myself.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Watch out when sorting out Somatosensory system. It's already creating trouble because animal parts like whisker and antenna (biology) link there but editors only consider humans. We either need lots of new pages or sections need to be kept separate for articles that concern multiple applications. Cockroaches may not have interoception, but they do locate their bits and pieces with relation to other bits and their environment. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A more common use of insensate corresponds well with the OP's request, although technically it refers to the loss of all senses. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

it's and its

Why is it that so many native English speakers have trouble telling "it's" and "its" apart? Non-native speakers seem so much better at this, it really puzzles me. Heck, I've even seen the veteran Reference desk dweller SteveBaker mistake them. So, why is that? --Taraborn (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because people are used to possessives ending in 's, so they write "it's" for a possessive the same way they would write "John's". The opposite mistake, writing "its" for "it is" or "it has", is much rarer (unless the person generally avoids apostrophes and would also write "hes" for "he's", etc.). —Angr 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, people are familiar with "it's" as a short form of "it is", so confusion can creep in from there as well. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a mystery. Some people who can write C++ with their eyes closed and never a semicolon out of place can't spell English to save their lives. I'll never understand it; you'd think it was the same talent, but no. It is a simple matter of spelling; some people can spell, and some can't, and it's not an important skill except for an editor. Bear in mind, too, that there is plenty of English writing from times past lying around where "it's" was the possessive form of "it". If you read too much of that, especially as a kid, it'll burn a hole in the retina of your mind's eye so you can't see apostrophes any more. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your compiler will refuse to compile your application with a missing semicolon, paper doesn't have a similar restriction. Even modern Word processers and Web browsers that display a red squiggly line won't refuse to let you print your document or send your e-mail if there's a grammatical or spelling error. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Whatever you do, don't let your children read books, or they'll never learn to spell properly! :-) —Angr 13:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's to keep language prescriptivists in business, and Lynne Truss in spleen! BrainyBabe (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Then there are people like me, who are aware of the "proper usage", but choose to use "it's" as a possessive form, anyway. Why ? It seems more consistent with other possessives, like "Joe's". Then people ask about "his", "hers" and "theirs". I'd be fine with "her's", meaning "belonging to her", but "hi's", would mean "belonging to hi", so that's no good. I can accept "his" as a strange English substitute for "him's", and just leave it at that. "Their's" is a bit iffy, as it means "belonging to them" not "belonging to their", but at least "their" is a word with a similar meaning. In a perfect world it would be "Joe's", "it's", "her's", "him's", and "them's", but I'll settle for "it's" (for now). With enough small steps we may eventually fix this screwy language of our's. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

<Marge Simpsonesque grumble /> In a perfect world, we would excise the blackheadlike apostrophes and hyphens from our writing, so it would be "Joes", "its", "hers", "his", and "theirs" (the last two because your suggestion would change the language itself rather than just the spelling). —Angr 17:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the problem with doing what StuRat suggests - adopting your own bloody-minded system in spite of accepted usage - is that most people will assume you're illiterate. Try using it's as a possessive in a job application or in another professional context and see how far it gets you. I could choose to write tits instead of its if I wanted, but I would find it difficult to persuade people that I was trying to change the language single-handed, rather than just being puerile or making a typo. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could always use "proper" English in such a case. However, job interviewers are just as likely to not know the "proper" usage (or not care), as anybody else. StuRat (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's no reason to adopt the lowest common denominator and be governed, sheep-like, by the illiterati. Where are your standards, man? The problem with your approach is that you start by assuming there's a problem that needs fixing. Making everything logical and neat is just not the way to go when it comes to English. Being absurd and illogical is one of its greatest strengths, imo. What would happen if the French did the same with their spelling? Words like (I've made these up to make a point, but there are doubtless real-life examples) "pouler", "poulez", "poulet", "poulé", "poulés", "poulée" and "poulées" are all virtually identical in pronunciation, but there's no move to spell them all differently. Language change is something that happens, whether we like it or not. But it doesn't happen by someone just deciding that there's a better way than the norms that have been accepted for a long time, and that we have to simply memorise. There is no general consensus that the pronoun "its" can now be spelled "it's", so you're swimming against the tide. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What's more, if they do know the correct usage, you lose. They either think you're barely literate, or they discover your real reason for writing its this way, and conclude that you think you're special and the rules don't apply to you. The simple matter of inserting an apostrophe makes you appear either underqualified or a spoilt little brat. Neither trait is particularly desirable. So what have you achieved? Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, they could take it as a sign that you "think outside the box" and don't just automatically do things the way they've always been done because you fear change. Admittedly, these aren't attributes they are likely to look for when hiring someone to fry burgers, but any interviewers hiring for a job I'd want, at a company that's likely to survive, would be looking for those attributes. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

They won't, though. I've never encountered anyone who reacts to a misuse of "its" and "it's" in this way. Algebraist 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What really puzzles me is that some native speakers seem to assume that there is actually a system in the ridiculous absurdity known as English spelling. — Emil J. 17:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Great replies! Thanks to all! --Taraborn (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Another explanation is that there are some of us who know the difference but whose brains are not well-connected to our fingers. I find that I almost always seem to reverse them when typing. While I may leave a dozen other typos in a posting, I'll often go back to fix a wrong "its/it's" so I don't look uneducated. I seem to have the same problem with "their/there/they're". I reliably type the wrong one.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Another explanation is that it's not being taught properly any more. It might be mentioned at school, but do people leave school confident about this? or about a whole host of other language matters? The evidence suggests that a lot fewer school-leavers are confident these days than was the case in days gone by. If they're not confident - or simply don't care as long as they can communicate minimally - then there's something amiss with the teaching. It's one thing to take the logical approach (à la StuRat et al) and make what is in fact a possessive (its) actually look like one by adding an apostrophe (it's). It's another thing to not use the apostrophe where it's required - and this doesn't only affect the abbreviation "it's", it affects the entire class of possessive nouns. I see it in advertising and media generally all the time ("Its the service that counts"; "Gippslands whatever"; "Victorias worst disaster" - ok, I haven't actually seen that last one, but it's gonna happen sooner or later). So, there's a bigger picture, of which its/it's is but one symptom. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, is this considered a grammatical error or a spelling error? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, it's a spelling error. But if the "writer" doesn't know the difference between an abbreviation and a possessive pronoun, and cares less, then it could well amount to a grammatical error. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a spelling error and nothing to do with grammar, and like many (though not all) spelling errors it has little effect on communication, other than communicating the social message "I am somebody who does not know, or does not care about, or chooses to ignore, this particular social rule". It is very little different from eating with the wrong utensil, or wearing a combination of colours that is not in fashion.

Note in particular that it is quite hard to construct a piece of connected text (not isolated words or headlines) in which misplacing an apostrophe causes genuine ambiguity. The reaction (of those who notice) to "it's" for "its" or vice versa is nearly always "that's wrong" not "I misconstrued that". Of course those who do not notice are at an advantage because their sensitivities don't get in the way of their understanding. --ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Which is worse, then: to have the sensitivity and find yourself troubled by these things (anywhere from mildly to severely); or to never even notice because you lack the sensitivity about such matters (and possibly more important matters, of much more moment than how we dot our i's and cross our t's and where we place our apostrophes)? An eye for detail is a very useful skill, and if you lack it about these sorts of things, there's a good chance you'll lack it about some matters of life and death. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

im sb who nows how to right but i jus don rly care if i make it ez for yall to to read wat im ritin as long as i now yu can gues wat im rightin its only importnt to me that i dont need to think much wen im typin this is the msg i wanna comunicate — Kpalion^(talk) 12:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And you've made your point. I understood what you wrote, so your message got through. Is that all that's important, though? If you don't really care to make it as easy as possible for your reader, if you don't write with your reader in mind, what's the point of writing? Writing conveys more than just the basic meaning of the text. It also says something about the writer, personally. We're all encouraged to be professional in all sorts of ways, to be efficient, to strive for higher standards, to excel. Why wouldn't this also apply when it comes to the written word? I'm not suggesting that everyone should strive to be a Shakespeare or a Dickens, but why use faulty bricks to build your linguistic house when good bricks are just as available, and come at no cost? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That was really in response to what ColinFine wrote. My point, and what I wanted to show, is that careless writing does not only make you look uneducated or nonconformist like using a steak knife for eating fish. It also makes reading what you wrote more difficult to read and is a sign of disrespect for the reader. I may be able to guess from the context whether the author had "it's" or "its" in mind; but I would prefer if they didn't make me stop and guess. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Kpalion. I didn't bother reading your previous post. It's too hard. Correctly spelt and constructed English can be read and understood quickly and easily. If a writer cannot be bothered to write properly, they cannot expect me to bother reading it. It's rarely worth the effort. Thus, the communication has failed. The fact that I might understand them if I work at it is irrelevant. If one wants to be heard, it's courteous to make it as easy as possible for the hearer/reader. Gwinva (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that "it's" as a possessive was used by careful writers-- such as Thomas Jefferson-- well into the early 19th century. It's a recent convention. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When I was first learning to read and write, I was taught that apostrophe s was used in two places - to show a contraction (eg. it's = it is) and to indicate posession (eg. John's saxaphone). I don't recall any mention of an exception for posessive it. Maybe it was bad teaching, or maybe I just forgot that small bit, but until quite recently I would happily use it's to indicate posession (eg. it is rough on it's right-hand side). It is only once I started contributing to Wikipedia that various pedants have corrected me on this point. However, I would really appreciate a reference where this rule exception is written down. Astronaut (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Try any dictionary or style guide. Random examples: [7], [8]. Algebraist 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another here. —Angr 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeeze, Louise, it doesn't take a "pedant" to notice doofy othography. Your average, decently educated half-wit will go hmmm when he sees "it's" for "its". When you write that it's like giving a speech with your fly unzipped and a booger hanging out of your nose. I'm trying to let y'all know once and for all, and by "y'all" I mean those of you who make that mistake, that the rest of us can tell. Get it straight, it's not a hard one. Take the trouble to learn the language you govoreet, and people won't point and whisper behind your back so much. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for a fraction of a second an unfortunate image was conjured by "fly unzipped and booger hanging out" DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil in your replies Milkbreath. Astronaut (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, and civility is the kiss of death for comedy. I was trying to be funny, in case you couldn't tell. I'm not a pro, so cut me some slack. The technique is overstatement, perhaps rather clumsily applied here, but a staple of comedy writing. To give offense is necessary for the frisson. They say explained comedy is failed comedy, but that ship has sailed, at least as far as you are concerned, so what the hell. You'll perhaps take note that in my first reply to this question I said that spelling is not an important skill. And do work on your apostrophes, won't you? --Milkbreath (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But it raises an interesting subject. Depending on the context, pointing out that someone's omitted an apostrophe, or put one in where it's not needed, may be pedantry. However, when you have guests coming for dinner, you make efforts to make the house as lovely and welcoming as possible, with all the masses of papers that normally accumulate all over the living room table removed to a locked dungeon, and the toilet smelling unusually fresh, etc. Is this pedantry? Certainly not. When you're going for a job interview, you take extreme care to dress appropriately and have no hair out of place. Is that pedantry? Again, no. Some people take the same sort of care when writing. Some, on the other hand ... -- JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia writing is a good place for pedantry. The entire exercise is pedantic.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella term for hair, fur and feather?

Is epidermal growth the correct or most frequently used umbrella term to understand the commonalities between hair, fur and feathers? --Sonjaaa (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be keratin. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bodily insulation? Iblardi (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that fur and hair are essentially the same thing, just along a continuum between soft and stiff. Feathers, however, are something with an entirely different structure. So, there might be a term for the first two, which excludes feathers. Scales are also a similar skin covering, so perhaps they should be tossed in there, too. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the right term for the "commonalities". There is an ordinary word that covers animals, pun intended, "coat", and one for both plants and animals, "integument", but these aren't exact synonyms or anything. Just throwing that out there just in case it's useful. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Integument includes the skin entirely, so that won't do by itself. Keratin is what hair, fur, and feathers have in common, but then you'd have to include rhinoceros horn, and a few other horns. Keratin comes from Greek κέρας (kéras), meaning "horn" and cognate with English horn and Latin cornu. (Rhinoceros is from Greek meaning "nose horn" or "horn nose".) I suggest keratinous integument, which takes the intersection of keratin and integument, and excludes living skin on one side and horns on the other. This book looks like a fine resource.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

..and we have a page Epidermal growth 76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want a term that means what it does rather than what it is, "covering" might do. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

February 11

about .net language

what is the basic requirement to learn .net....somebody told me to have knowledge of dbms before learning it.is it true?please answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nareshrohra (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're wanting to write programs that access databases (e.g. for web applications) with .NET, it would be very useful to have knowledge of the basics of relational database architecture, SQL, etc, whatever framework or language you are programming in. However, if you're not working with databases, I can't see any need for that. The main languages for .NET are Visual Basic and C#; the former is sometimes taught as a first language for people unskilled in programming, and was designed for non-programmers, so it would have few prerequisites. Knowledge of C++ (or possibly Java) might help with C#, since C# is based largely on C++, but in some ways C# is simpler than C++ (e.g. memory management). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To learn software development, I recommend going to school and earning a degree in Computer Science. Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to understand relational database theory. That is to say that it is possible to write applications that don't use a database. However, most business applications use databases to store data so for most situations, it is necessary.

BTW, the Langauge Reference Desk is for human languages (English, French, Latin, etc.). For computer programming languages, you'll probably get better answers from the Computing Reference Desk. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Question for Londoners and other H-droppers

In the h-dropping dialects of England like Cockney and Estuary English, does the h get dropped in words like huge and human, i.e. do they sound like "yooj" and "yooman"? Because to my ears those pronunciations sound typically American (but only a minority in AmEng) and not British at all. —Angr 11:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To my ears, the H is just about hanging on in those words but is very short and very soft. - X201 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A Survey of Modern English by Stephan Gramley and Kurt-Michael Pätzold says "there are no limits in Cockney on the words beginning with <h-> which may sometimes occur without /h/", so potentially dropping can occur on any h-word. However, speakers tend to pronounce H's sometimes but not other times, so you will hear both "human" and "yuman".[9] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Newfies pronounce human as yuman too.--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

shakespeare

theories of shakespeare tragedy ?classical,medieval,renaissance,and modern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.206.196 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a question or were you looking for something like List of Shakespeare's works? Livewireo (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you wanting general theories of tragedy, or specific writing on Shakespeare? (I doubt Classical Greek or Roman writers would have much to say about Shakespeare.) Have you seen Tragedy#Theories of tragedy? It seems a pretty good overview. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

albert camus

Albert Camus, how do you pronounce that? Mike said that 'CAM ISS' was incorrect and said, since it was French, it's like CAM O or CAM UU. Evaunit♥666♥ 18:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

According to our article, the proper French pronunciation is [albɛʁ kamy]. Those exact vowels don't exist in most dialects of English, but CAM UU (where UU is the vowel of boot) is pretty close, especially if you're Scottish. Algebraist 18:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The final vowel is this sound, see: Close front rounded vowel. There's a sound sample on the right side --130.237.179.182 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronuncation of "Australia"

I happen to have an Australian co-worker who lives in Finland. The way I hear it, he keeps pronouncing "Australia" by swallowing the "l", making it sound like "Austraya". Am I just imagining this, or is this normal for Australian speakers of English? JIP | Talk 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Strine ? Of course, in afferbeck lauder they come before my neck of the woods.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, he talks in normal English, not in an exaggerated Australian accent. He just keeps pronouncing "Australia" that way. JIP | Talk 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is - unfortunately, imo - very common in Australia. Miyyons of Austrayans speak like that. It's something that's very often commented on in the media and in general debate in the community. Some of our lawmakers are the worst offenders - Anthony Albanese, for example. Pauline Hanson (Pauline who?) was another. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Parallel to Spanish, in which in many dialects, the double-l sound is pronounced as Y instead of LY. (Sorry, I'm IPA-illiterate). See Yeísmo. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And, in English, the Philadelphia dialect displays the same trend, for example, when the name of the city is often pronounced "Phee-ya-def-ee-aa" or something like that. The relevent article for this sort of pronounciation, BTW, is L-vocalization, which discusses the trend in detail. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Further confirmed from me. I often call my country ''Straya. Another common feature of Australian English is to realise initial /θ/ to [h] in lax speech (as in "'Hanks, mate"), although few will notice that they do it until you tell them. Steewi (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You can usually pick a South Australian by their tendency to swallow l at the end of words - like "school" (which sounds like skoow). They insist they're pronouncing the l, but the rest of us can never hear it. That's different from the "(au)straya" thing, though; those speakers (generally) don't even try to say the l. Then there are those who try too hard - and it comes as out as "Əstrahlyə". My mnemonic is simple - it rhymes with "failure" (although, there are some who say "fayya", so we'd be back at square 1). -- JackofOz (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

@Steewi - the replacement of /θ/ by other fricatives seems to be quite common cross-linguistically - not just London /f/, but in Irish, lenited <t> is written <th> (and presumably originally /θ/) but now /h/.

@JackOfOz - many speakers of non-rhotic English are quite certain that they are pronouncing the /r/ in words like 'car' and 'care'. --ColinFine (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates of Joining letter

Hello there, I am having trouble with dates mentioned in this sample joining letter. At the top of the page the date is 27 February, 2007 but in the body, it is 25 April, 2007. As far as I know the person is joining today (27 February 2007) but he has stated appointment letter dated on 25 April, 2007. Appointment letter supposed to be received before 27 February. Correct me if I'm mistaken?--115.127.16.11 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S One more thing, if they send acceptance letter, then should it be acceptance letter dated.... instead of appointment letter... in the body of the letter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.127.16.11 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The date at the top is or should be replaced with, the date this letter is being sent (e.g. today). The other is the date of the letter that they sent you (assuming this is personal) so that they can get hold of the records of it. This should be replaced with the date of the letter they sent you. If you're replying to an acceptance letter, it won't make any difference - you should probably use the term they used on the last letter they sent you. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From the address it's clear that the sample letter is aimed at an Asian audience, and it may meet your need. By UK (and I would guess US) standards it's old-fashioned and over-formal to an almost absurd degree. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

vietnamese translation huong tra

i saw a restaurant called H'uo.ng T'ra. (periods for dots under letters, apostrophes for accents) what does that mean and how do you pronounce it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyster87 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese alphabet, Vietnamese phonology to start with. AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a Sino-Vietnamese compound word, meaning "fragrant tea" (Hương Trà 香茶).--K.C. Tang (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

spanish translation slither, thrust

how do you say slither in spanish? how do you describe the movement of snakes/worms? and how do you say thrust as in i thrusted deep inside her ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyster87 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to check out various internet translators such as InterTran or Babelfish. They generally do an OK job on individual words, but for phrases and idioms, they don't often get it right. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, while Wikipedia is not censored, you probably could have chosen a less prurient sentance as your example for "thrusted". Merely because you can do something does not always mean that it is in your own, or others, best interest to do so... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the standard past tense forms of to thrust are not thrusted, but thrust (in both American and British English). Like set, right? You wouldn't write I setted the whole thing up, would you? So:

She thrust and pulled the banana till it was free from the bunch.

We have thrust swords at each other long enough, Conan.

And Jayron32 is right: save gratuitously confronting language for the gutter, Anonymous.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Deslizar is a good all-purpose word for slither (and slide). For thrust, try clavar or hincar as in Hinqué en su culo, or Clavé en su culo. You can also use meter, but it's not forceful. You should specify what you're thrusting though, or it doesn't sound right. In colloquial Spanish, I've heard it simply as "Le daba en el culo." Steewi (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

When describing the movement of a snake, I think you'd usually use the reflexive form of the verb - deslizarse (La serpiente se deslizó ...) --NorwegianBlue ^talk 09:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

February 12

Heckling in a movie theatre

This question had come up in the humanities reference desk. Is heckling applicable only for a live performance? The heckling article at least doesn't mention about movie theatres. I guess the purpose of heckling is to get the performer's attention, not just to impress/disgust the audience sitting nearby. Is booing a better word for "heckling" in a movie theatre? How have these words adapted to the movie and televsion media which are virtual performances, and distracting the "performers" is not possible? Jay (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it heckling, but talking back to the screen is more popular for some movies (like The Rocky Horror Picture Show) and in some locations, like urban centers ("Don't you open that door, girl !"). StuRat (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

From the article on heckling it appears the heckle is to let the performer know your thoughts - like you say at a virtual performance that's futile. I can't say i've ever heard heckling at a cinema screen - i've heard 'witty' remarks, but really it's not like being at a comedy gig where you're going to get a retort/something extra from the performance so seems a bit pointles to me. Anyhoo from a language perspective I imagine people will still call it heckling even if it means that the word ends up having to have a further meaning added to its list. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Film critic Joe Queenan has a book called Confessions of a Cineplex Heckler[10]; if anyone would know about being rude in cinemas, it's him. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that often the heckler's main purpose is to draw attention to himself, in which case it wouldn't matter if Tom Cruise didn't respond. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ch sound

Exactly how is that "ch" thingy pronounced in languages such as German or Czech? Vltava 68 12:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean orthographic "ch", predominantly as IPA [x] and [ç]. AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For Czech, see voiceless velar fricative. For German, it may also be a voiceless palatal fricative or a voiceless uvular fricative depending on context and dialect. — Emil J. 13:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Antihomophonym?

The Polish man applied polish to his shoes. Is there a name for a word like "polish" that retains a single spelling but has two different meaning which are also pronounced differently? Can anyone give me another example? I can think of many words that have multiple meanings but I can't think of any others that have both different meanings and distinctly different pronunciations like Polish/polish.--70.19.73.184 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)