Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

April 15

A word meaning misplaced nationalism

I can't for the life of me place it. I think it begins with a z, and Gordon Brown was once accused of it. In my mind, it connotes nationalism based on unfounded dogma, but in a predominantly harmless way. Much love goes to anyone who can nail this. And if I'm inventing this, then it's a great feat. Seegoon (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia? Jingoism is another possibility, but I'm not sure that I would characterize it as harmless. Deor (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Jingoism! Spot on. Yeah, my mental definition was obviously pretty misguided (begins with a z?), but still. You've filled in a niggling gap. Thank you! Seegoon (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also chauvinism. Gwinva (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zealot?--Sonjaaa (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultranationalism. StuRat (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navy SEALs

Why are US Navy SEALs referred to as "operators"? Dismas|^(talk) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing, but I think it's because they execute "special operations". Someone who carries out operations is an operator, right? Indeterminate (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only conclusion that I could come to as well but I came to it on my own and thought someone might have a reliable source for the final answer. Dismas|^(talk) 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

conjugation of the english verb come in the phrase "which must shortly come to pass"

I need to know what the conjugation of the verb "come" in the phrase "which must shortly come to pass" works out to beOneofHIS (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I would appreciate your help and your answers, as this is very important to me.[reply]

The conjugation of "to come" (verbs should always be given in their infinitive form) in the context provided is "third person singular". Only I am confused about why this is so important to you... --PS T 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I would think it's an infinitive...the third person singular of "to come," after all, is "comes"... -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you think you're the only one confused, Point-set? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly an infinitive, modified here by the modal verb 'must'.--92.41.192.138 (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is governed rather than modified by 'must'. —Tamfang (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modify means add/change the mode, I believe, and fits in well with the name Modal verb ('modal' also coming from 'mode'). Also, I would say it did, in fact, modify the meaning from simply happening to the necessity of it happening. I can't see how it governs it, as it does not alter any endings, as would, say, a noun for an adjective in Latin.--KageTora (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in linguistics, modifying is what grammatical modifiers do, and modal verbs aren't modifiers. But the relationship between a modal verb and its main verb does seem to be a kind of government. —An gr 10:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the etymological fallacy, KageTora. While 'modify' undoubtedly is derived from the same Latin root as 'mode', its meaning today is nothing to do with modes. (The word 'mode' occurs three times in the OED entry for 'modify': once in the etymology, and twice in the definition and examples of meaning 4b, marked as Philos. and obsolete.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2009

Awesome, I appreciate the info you've given. I am trying to discover a unused way to translate the actual meaning of text recorded originally by hand in old English from other ancient languages, I don't have the education to do it on my own. I am happy that each Of you have given me a good beginning...I hope to be able to acquire a better understanding of the text by using English grammar to clarify its meaning.( in particular, the conjugation of verbs) Thanks again,oneofHIS--(talk) 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows the most number of languages?

Just out of interest, who is it that knows the most number of languages? Are there particular statistics which give the average number of languages a person may know? What about the average of this data restricted to a particular country? Europeans in particular are known to be very learned in this respect; many usually know 3-5 languages. --PS T 04:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Multilingualism#Polyglots for some candidates. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you can generalise about Europeans. We British are infamous for being exceptionally poor at learning foreign languages, possibly because of our years of empire, which fostered the belief that rather than learning Hindi or Malay you could just shout loudly in English at your bearer or your amah and possibly hit them with a stick and they'd jolly soon understand you. In Europe (and this is my own WP:OR and WP:POV) it tends to be people from countries which speak less widely-spoken languages such as Dutch or Danish who are more fluent in the "commoner" languages (a case in point, a relative of mine is Danish and is trilingual in Danish, English and Romansh; she's brought up her children in the UK as English-only monoglot; her view is, "Who speaks Danish?" Please note I intend no slur on the Danish language or people here Tonywalton ^Talk 09:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bothering to learn the local language during the days of the Empire is a myth or false stereotype. I've read a fair amount of autobiographical accounts from those times, and being able to speak the local language was commonplace. It may have been that not being able to speak the local language was rare, but I have not done a statistical study. Usually the purpose of being in the colonies was to interact with the locals in some way, such as being a judge or planter for example, so knowing the language was essential. Many british people would have been born in the country and brought up by local nannies, so they often would have spoken the local language before they spoke english. See Rudyard Kipling. New entrants to the colonial service had to have a degree, although I'm not sure how far back that went, and I would guess they would be required to learn the local language otherwise there would be little point in employing them. I think I have a faint memory of reading about someone having to learn a local language before being sent out. Even common soldiers posted there picked up some of the local langaguage which in some cases became part of (now old-fashioned) British slang eg char for tea. 78.149.207.226 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can totally understand a Dane learning English, but Romansh seems a little strange. I would have thought that she would probably have learned German or French before learning Romansh as a second (third, fourth ...) language. Do you know the circumstances around her learning Romansh? -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: Born in Denmark, parents Swiss and spent a lot of time travelling for work, she spent a lot of time with her Romansh-speaking grandparents in the Arosa region. She does speak German, but freely admits mine is better. Tonywalton ^Talk 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In countries where the modern political boundaries (i.e. borders) were drawn up by colonial powers after they left, you will find that the majority of people will have at least a working knowledge of a number of languages in each area.--KageTora (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some of these areas, you might like to look at List of multilingual countries and regions. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the map on that article, Sweden has no official language. Is this true?--KageTora (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Somewhat paradoxically, it does have legally-recognized minority languages though. --Pykk (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In areas with a large number of tourists from various European countries, you will often find locals with amazing linguistic abilities. For example, in Marrakech, many of those working the tourist trade speak a Berber dialect, colloquial Moroccan Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, French, and one or more of Spanish, English, German and Italian. The really gifted ones will also know some Russian and Portuguese. These are small shopkeepers, waiters, guides, etc, who do not otherwise have much formal education. --Xuxl (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of an incident — I spent some months in Switzerland, where instead of soixante-quinze ('sixty-fifteen') they say septante-cinq ('seventy-five'). During that time I visited Tunisia, where a shopkeeper said soixante-quinze and then, seeing my mute distress, repeated septante-cinq. —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaniards who visit their supposed hispanophone cousins in Latin and South America often think they've come to the wrong country, due to the large amount of different vocab used in different Spanish-speaking countries. Also true in the anglosphere, but to a lesser degree. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Nepal, I found that most people spoke near perfect English, as well as Nepali, plus numerous other local languages, and Hindi. This included kids as young as 5, and beggars on the streets, who had had no education whatsoever.--KageTora (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Filipino-Chinese I know can speak Fokkien, Mandarin, Tagalog, and English fluently. bibliomaniac 15 The annual review... 03:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your comments! I am somewhat sure that most schools in Europe teach both Greek and Latin. Germans are usually likely to learn French as their second language (I think) but some choose to learn English also. I am very interested in linguistics but know not much about it. Going onto a different topic, are there common languages (apart from Esperanto, Ido and other man-made languages) whose grammar is very simple, and contains very few irregularities (irregular verbs, irregular formation of plurals of nouns, many distinct conjugations...). In my experience of language learning, I have seen Bengali and Afrikaans to have simple grammatical structure. Of course, the most common of languages tend to be more complex. Thankyou for any examples and comments! --PS T 11:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, in Germany, you would learn English as your second language (or "Erste Fremdsprache", "First Foreign Language"). I did French first, and that was followed by Latin and Ancient Greek (but that wasn't common 25 years ago, and is even less common now). Lectonar (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you dislike irregular words, any isolating language will be just what you're searching for, as these have no morphology that could ever be irregular. That doesn't always make them "very simple", however, as they tend to express a lot using all kinds of syntactic constructions. MuDavid

15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swahili and Turkish are known for having very regular grammar. However, their vocabulary can be challenging for the typical Westerner, and in the case of Turkish, the grammar may be regular but it features a number of concepts unfamiliar to most English speakers (case endings, unusual verb tenses, etc). Grammatical exceptions are only one of many possible sources of linguistic complexity.

On another point you made, the teaching of Latin and Greek is pretty much dead in the standard European curriculum. The advantage many Europeans have is that most EU countries encourage the mandatory teaching of two foreign languages to all secondary school students, which is usually English plus the language of a neighbouring country. --Xuxl (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.V. Narasimha Rao ([1]) knew 13 languages. Even though most of them are Indian languages he also spoke French, Arabic, Spanish and Persian.

I need help understanding two lines in an article.

I'm reading an article on retention that says:
"“Successful” retained students were significantly more ready than all retained students on their early readiness measures. (...) “Successful” or “highly successful” retained students did not appear to have initial scores on any of their early readiness measures, indicating that they were initially significantly delayed."
Is the following interpretation correct: - all retained students were initially significantly delayed on their early readiness measures, but the successful retained students were less delayed than all retained students.??? Lova Falk (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right. That looks like one of the most egregious examples of gibberish or possibly technobabble I've seen in a while. Tonywalton ^Talk 09:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it terrible! The whole article is written in this way. :( Lova Falk (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a Wikipedia article, or an article from somewhere else? —An gr 10:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it was a Wikipedia article, I could put tags and ask the editor.... This is the source: P. Ferguson, S.R. Jimerson and M.K. Dalton, 2001. Sorting out successful failures: Exploratory analyses of factors associated with academic and behavioral outcomes of retained students. Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 38(4). Lova Falk (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't pretend to understand what all (or even any of) these technical terms mean, but if "successful" or "highly successful" retained students did not appear to have initial scores on any of their early readiness measures, how can they be judged to have been significantly more ready than all retained students on their early readiness measures? If I don't have a score on some scale, how can you compare me on that scale to other people? —An gr 10:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were judged mainly on the "later" scores of the early readiness measures. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can infer anything about the delayedness of the retained students that weren't "successful" or "highly successful". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can though. "Successful" retained students were more ready than all retained students, therefore students that were not successful should be less ready than successful students. Lova Falk (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but that's not what I'm talking about. Given your extract, we can only compare "successful" (or "highly successful") retained students with other retained students regarding their readiness. We have no basis to compare them reagrding how delayed they were initially. If readiness is somehow related to the how delayed they were, you need to give us more information. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is mostly with that comma. I don't know if it's what they meant, but it parses better for me if I ignore it. The comment seems to be regarding the validity of the "initial scores". "Successful students did the best on the initial readiness tests. Successful (or highly successful) retained students did not have initial scores indicating any delays." The point appears to be that the initial test did a good job of identifying which students would become successful. Why they didn't just say that is a mystery. Matt Deres (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A completely different interpretation! Wow. Sigh. Lova Falk (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aim to please! My interpretation is based largely upon that comma being a typo, because the sentence makes no sense to me with it being there. "“Successful” or “highly successful” retained students did not appear to have initial scores on any of their early readiness measures..." seems nonsensical in itself. They had no scores? It doesn't work. Removing some of the jargon and peacock phrasing, we get "Successful students did not appear to have scores on any of their tests, indicating that they were initially retarded." Well, I suppose if they were so dumb that they couldn't figure out how to mark down answers on the test, that would account for them not having scores, but it doesn't explain how they later became successful ;-). Removing the comma makes the "...indicating..." portion modify the score, which then makes sense. In any case, that editor needs to be thrown down a well or something. Matt Deres (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "projected in a vertically-enhanced direction with reference to the prevailing plane surface within, a tube intended for the accessing of hydrological resources". Tonywalton ^Talk 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the passage makes more sense if you change the first instance of "early" to "late", and change "initial" to "initially higher". If you do that, it reads:

"“Successful” retained students were significantly more ready than all retained students on their ~~early~~late readiness measures. (...) “Successful” or “highly successful” retained students did not appear to have initially higher scores on any of their early readiness measures, indicating that they were initially significantly delayed."

This would mean that successful/highly successful retained students didn't stand out when first tested but showed much better scores in later tests. I suppose this could be due to some combination of natural aptitude or more effective teaching or better study methods. I don't know if this is what the authors intended, but rewriting it this way makes the passage more intelligible to me. You should try to find out if there was an error correction in a later issue of that journal. Loves Macs (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerund v. verbal noun

I've always understood a gerund (in English) to be any nominal usage of a verb ending in "ing". However someone has suggested to me that a distinction should be drawn between gerunds and verbal nouns, claiming that gerunds can take direct and indirect objects and can be modified by adverbs, as in this sentence:

"Constantly eating chips is good for you."

And that a verbal noun can only take prepositional objects, and is modified with adjectives and articles, as in this sentence:

"The constant eating of chips is good for you."

So is this person justified in making a distinction between gerunds and verbal nouns, or are both of those cases gerunds? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that a gerund is a verbal noun. Your friend may be confusing it with a participle with which it shares similar form in some uses. // BL \\ (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've misread my question. My friend is not confusing anything with a participle; he's suggesting a distinction (gerund versus verbal noun) between two things that I've considered gerunds. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's a good question. It's clearer in cases where the gerund and the verbal noun have different forms, like "destroying" and "destruction": "Constantly destroying cities is fun" vs. "The constant destruction of cities is fun" (cf. *"Constantly destruction cities is fun"). —An gr 17:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "destruction" a verbal noun (a description I have only heard before in respect of gerunds) or is it just a noun, or is it really a gerund? My grammar terminology is very old-fashioned and I may well have missed a lot of changes. Is "tion" a marker for something now known as a "verbal noun"? // BL \\ (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also say "the constant destroying of cities" though, although it sounds kind of weird. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BL, I wouldn't say verbal nouns are a different part of speech from nouns; they're a kind of noun. So yes, "destruction" is just a noun, specifically a verbal noun because of its semantics (it denotes an action) and its morphology (it's related to a verb). It's gerunds that are neither fish nor fowl - they're sort of like verbs (in being modified by adverbs and in taking direct objects) and they're sort of like nouns (in being able to be the subject or the direct object of a finite verb). However, having said this, it occurs to me that the verbal nouns of Celtic languages like Irish and Welsh are not exactly like English gerunds or English verbal nouns; they have some properties of both. So maybe the exact definition and properties of gerunds and verbal nouns differ from language to language. —An gr 21:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, I'm sure they (gerunds and verbal nouns) do differ from language to language. In Russian, for example, the so-called 'gerund' is not a noun at all, but a sort of indeclinable adjective. But I don't think there is any justification for claiming a distinction between the two in English. The distinction proposed above is in any case a syntactic distinction, not a classification of the words. (Peter Daniels, no doubt among others, denies a distinction between the 'gerund' and the 'present participle' in English: since they invariably have the same form, he thinks it absurd to give them different names according to their different syntactic roles. If you search dejanews for sci.lang, daniels and gerund you'll find something on this fairly quickly). --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "MRSA"

Should the name for these bacteria be pronounced "em are ess ay", with each letter sounded out, or is the quasi-phonetic "mere-sah" also acceptable? I'm planning to mention these bacteria in a speech, and which pronunciation will be more clearly understood? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I (in the south of England) have never heard any pronunciation other than the spelt-out one, and probably would not understand any other pronunciation unless it was explained. Algebraist 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In hospitals in southern Ontario (Canada), it is called "marsah", (where the "a" and the "r" are both pronounced) by nurses and doctors. (I have never heard "mer-sah".) Within a hosptital, context is not a problem. Those who have had it also call it "marsah" outside the hospital. You won't be misunderstood if you spell out each letter; you might be misunderstood if you don't. Going with the letters is safer then, unless your audience is an "inside" group that has a pronunciation. I would ask the sponsors. // BL \\ (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to say that I have no personal experience with this acronym, but I did see a TV report on it once, probably the one on 60 Minutes a few years back, where they pronounced it mer-sah. Until then I'd always assumed it would be pronounced as initials. In a speech, the obvious solution is to use all three forms -- the full name, the initials, and one of the "quasi-phonetic" styles -- at first mention, then go with one of the short forms afterwards. --Anonymous, 18:1 UTC, April 15, 2009.

Ditto Algebraist. I was 38 minutes into an episode of House before I cottoned on! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I heard /ˈmɝsə/ sometimes, but far less often than /ˌɛmɑɹɛsˈɛɪ/, when I worked for a hospital in California. (I'm bookmarking IPA chart for English dialects!) —Tamfang (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in the UK or Commonwealth, you'll need to spell it out. I've never heard it pronounced as a word, and never knew until this thread that anyone did. Gwinva (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the states I've heard "mer-sa." bibliomaniac 15 The annual review... 22:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As have I: mur-sah. Grsz¹¹ 03:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ferry... cross the MRSA..." —An gr 08:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not funny, Angr. I am actually a scouser, living very close to the Mersey (you can see it from my bedroom), and my Aunt recently died of MRSA in Warrington Hospital. And to recount the OP's question, it is only ever spelled out in the UK.--KageTora (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Arschgeburt"

~~Is this newly created article correct? 3DES, on behalf of decltype (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)~~ Update: Apparently not, but still, what does it mean? 3DES, on behalf of decltype (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion summary 'ass birth'. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that, but I did some initial research, and found this de:Arschgeburt. So I figured there was something more to it. 3DES, on behalf of decltype (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were several texts that were deleted, the first said that 'An ass birth is a creature that is born in the ass (anal)' but were deleted for similar reasons. I have no idea if that's an actual used street definition, though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it used in German slang, but I doubt it would ever be intended literally. If it exists at all, it's probably just an all-purpose insult. I have heard Arschgesicht (ass-face) and Missgeburt (literally baby born with a birth defect, but used colloquially as a general insult), so this could be a portmanteau of those two. —An gr 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the de WP we also have deleted edits containing (to paraphrase) "similar to a pukebirth except that's through the mouth" and a later deleted edit offering "National Socialists" as a definition for this. Looks like what new pages controllers call pure vandalism. Tonywalton ^Talk 19:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I might have heard it applied to ideas, rather than humans. As in a dumb thought you pulled out of your ass. But superficial googling didn't yield any examples of this usage. On the other hand, googling "Arschgeburt eines" ("of a ..." <masculine or neuter>) and especially "Arschgeburt einer" ("of a ..." <feminine>) gives some colorful examples of apparent usage. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I did find a few examples online, where "Arschgeburt" refers to an idea or concept, rather than a human being: In this metaphorical sense, I found mostly political "ass births", such as a blogger's characterization of how Schlingensief perceives the German reunification in his movie The German Chainsaw Massacre, or referring to the European Union ("Die gesamte real existierende Europäische Union ist eine Arschgeburt.") and the Third Reich ("Das sogenannte “Dritte Reich” war eine Arschgeburt der Weimarer Republik"), but also the Universal Media Disc as an example of a techonological "ass birth". Songs such as Rhymin Simon's "Arschgeburt" (featuring Mach One and Frauenarzt), or the rhyming title "Kurt, die Arschgeburt" mean it as an insult toward specific people, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, very nice explanation, thanks. decltype (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Arschgeburt" (like Angr, I have never heard it) may be a parallel term to the German word "Hirngeburt", which, again, describes a concept and does not apply to any living organism. As far as I understand it, a Hirngeburt is a - somewhat theoretical - idea born out of dissatisfaction with some status quo. It is generally used in a critical sense, or, at least, implies that the concept needs significant development and improvement. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cookatoo, I was passively looking for the original but couldn't place it, and now it all makes sense. "Arschgeburt" must be an Arschgeburt of "Hirngeburt". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

Need greek translation

My professor has a tattoo and I asked him what it says and he said its ancient greek pronounced "low tie, sof tongue." Anyone knows what this means?

It sounds like γνῶθι σαυτόν (gnōthi sauton), "Know thyself". —An gr 07:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian pronunciation

I must give an oral presentation on Leo Tolstoy, and I'd like not to pronounce things as correctly as I can. If someone would be so kind as to provide correct pronunciation for Ivan Ilych (as in The Death of Ivan Ilych) and Yasnaya Polyana, I would be much obliged. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, all Russian speakers around still asleep? Let me give it a try: Иван Ильич, IPA: ['ivaːn 'ilʲitʃ] (you mistyped the surname, because "ilych" would be a transcription of Илыч, pronounced ['ilɨtʃ]). Ясная Поляна is IPA: [jaːsnaja pɐ'lʲaːna]. Shouldn't be too difficult for an English speaker; a schwa is a good replacement for /ɐ/, while /lʲ/ is roughly as in liaison. No such user (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

['ivaːn] is impossible. Russian has no phonological vowel length, it is only one of the features indicating stress. Both Иван and Ильич are stressed on the second syllable, actually. There's a pronounced [j] in Ильич, that's why it isn't written Илич. Here's my take: [ɪˈvaːn ɪlʲˈjiːtɕ], [ˈjæːsnəjə pɐˈlʲæːnə]. — Emil J. 12:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

['ivaːn] is impossible. Indeed, it was a typo. Thanks for the correction. No such user (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd "like not to pronounce things as correctly" as you can ? StuRat (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd transcribe them as [ɪˈvan ɪˈlʲjitɕ] and [ˈjasnəjə pɐˈlʲanə] (assuming the stress others have indicates is correct). Since this includes a number of sounds difficult for non-Russians to pronounce correctly without lots of practice, the closest English approximations would probably be /ɪˈvɑːn ɪlˈjɪtʃ/ and /ˈjæsnəjə pəlˈjɑːnə/. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never ˈjæsnəjə, always ˈjɑːsnəjə. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. Sorry for the misspellings and incorrect phrasings. Things you miss in a hurry :) seresin ( ¡? ) 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer in French

Does the word 'computer' or do the words 'com puter' mean 'rotten' or 'evil-smelling' in the French language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.39.227 (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Computer" in French is a verb meaning "to perform calculations", and is out of use. Neither "com" nor "puter" are words in French. Equendil Talk 09:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comme putain' could mean 'like a bitch', but slightly grammatically incorrect, without the 'un' in there.--KageTora (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comme putains ("like bitches") is pronounced the same and is grammatically correct. (Isn't it? Or does it have to be Comme des putains?) —An gr 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "com" in computer is pronounced the same as "con", the French equivalent of cunt. The "puter" part (pronounced "puteur" in French) is phonetically close to pèteur (one who farts). The correct French word is "ordinateur", by the way. --Xuxl (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But, Xuxl, does the pronunciation of 'con' and 'puter' have anything to do with the French preferring the word 'ordinateur' to computer? Are the French conscious about 'cunt' and 'one who farts' when they hear the word 'computer'?

Are you worried about being improper when you use the word "country"? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is that the correct word is "ordinateur", not "computer". As someone said earlier, the verb "computer" is basically obsolete in French, whereas "ordonner", from which ordinateur is derived, is very common. "Computer" was used frquently when the devices became ubiquitous in the late 1970s early 1980s, but there has since been a concerted effort within Francophone countries to promote the correct French terms for information technology. Today, ordinateur is used by basically everyone, and other terms like "software" (correct is "logiciel") are also being phased out. Any connotations such as "con pèteur" is limited to pre-teenage boys. --Xuxl (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

郵便書留

Does anybody know what a 郵便書留 is? Is it a 'Postal Order'?--KageTora (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called registered mail. See ja and en for more info. Bendono (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic Board

Like the title says. I'm searching for an (semi)-scientific board (well, or sth similar) about linguistic topics. Google, Yahoo & Co. could not help me.

thx in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.16.175 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See LINGUIST List. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going to the bathroom

Does anyone have insight as to how, when, and why the terms "number one" and "number two" came about as euphemisms (if that's the correct word) for urination and defecation? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

They are both recorded in Slang and its Analogues (1890-1904) by J. S. Farmer and W. E. Henley. As to why and how I suspect some clever victorian nanny assigned totally arbitrary labels to something unmentionable and they, err, stuck. It might be related to the phrase "take care of number one" meaning to look after oneself. meltBanana 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to back this up, but I always assumed that it was from teachers telling students to hold up different numbers of fingers to communicate different messages to them during class. That's what one of my older elementary school teachers did anyway... --Falconus^{p t c} 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take was always that 'number two' rhymed with a certain bodily function. And 'number one' was kinda recursive in... severity. Judging from the range of answers, any which one might be a folk etymology, mind. Seegoon (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate the input. Many thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

arabic translation

با سلام و احترام آيا مي شود حسابي را كه به ادسنس معرفي مي نماييم در هندوستان باشد و آدر س دائم در آلمان ؟ با تشكر لطفا به email adress پاسخ دهديد. mokaramirgmail.com

i saw this on a google forum what does it say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.192.120 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Persian. He/she respectfully askes whether his/her bank account (?) for AdSense can be in India while his/her permanent address is in Germany. And he/she wants the response to be sent to his/her gmail box. --Omidinist (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

Is There A Word For Stories That Are Different But Have A Simlier Thing?

I have a thing for elements, so all my stories deal with elemental things. Like, one story talks about elelemental wolves, another is elemental crystals, & more. I want to know if there's a word that will go to it. Like there are books that have series, (ex: The Earth Series). Like a title for my group of stories, but have a smaller title, (ex: The Earht Series: The Birds). Well, something like that. If you can't answer my question, I understand. I'm confusing. Thanks for your help anyways! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.1.253 (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean stories that contain a similar object. This is somewhat related to the work of Vladimir Propp, who wrote the classic study Morphology of the Folk Tale, which tried to find the common structures of different stories. Some of these structures he identified involved objects in a similar way to how I think you mean, although I do not think there is a word for them. See also narrative structure or plot. 78.146.249.32 (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "elemental." How are the wolves and crystals different from plain old wolves and crystals? My guess is that you want a series title like "The Archetype Series," but I think you need to make yourself clearer. Deor (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Aarne-Thompson classification system. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Morphology (folkloristics). -- Wavelength (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motif (narrative) says: "In a narrative, such as a novel or a film, motifs (pronunciation) are recurring structures, contrasts, or literary devices that can help to develop and inform the piece’s major themes." -- Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beanz meanz Heinz

In this advertising slogan, are these three words meant to rhyme in British English? Rmhermen (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just an ?amusing repetitive use of the letter 'Z' Richard Avery (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also different types of rhymes. The slogan lies somewhere between a half rhyme and an eye rhyme. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which article (eye rhyme) may be an example of itself. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I commonly heard "Heinz Beans" pronounced "Heenz Beans" (as "Heinz" would be in German, were it spelt "Hienz"); whether the mispronunciation of the name came from a misapplication of the slogan, or whether the slogan came from a then-common mispronunciation of the name, I couldn't say. Tonywalton ^Talk 09:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the three words have the advantage they're similar in syllabic length (I mean in the words themselves) and hence the rhythm works. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mother always assumed that Formula One drivers sponsored baked beans. She still called him Beans up until he retired from F1. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are "Heinz"'s last two consonants pronounced in English, by the way? "-nz" as in "loins", "-ndz" as in "friends", "-ns" as in "rinse", or "-nts" (the way it is pronounced in German)? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's phonologically /nz/ as in "loins", but phonetically, and depending on dialect, there may be a short [d] sound between the [n] and the [z] (which is true of "loins" and other words in /nz/, too). —An gr 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It (unsurprisingly) rhymes with the -ns from "beans" and "means". Bazza (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a series of TV ads about 20 years ago, featuring Robert Morley, who used what sounded like the German pronunciation, with the "-nts" ending. It sounded odd to Australian ears, which are used to hearing (and the mouths of their owners speaking) the "-nz" ending. The name Heinz has become anglicised into Hines. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say what?

Can somebody come up with a more understandable section title than "Contemporary vitae" in Pierre Terrail, seigneur de Bayard? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary biographies? —An gr 08:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Contemporary accounts"? (The stuff about his appearance in modern novels doesn't belong in the section, though.) Deor (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all contemporary (unless he lived into the 1800s), so I think the best solution is to stick most of it into a Bibliography section and the novels elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA transcription of centralised Scottish short I?

Hello there, everyone:

I've noticed that in many Scottish dialects, the short i, /ɪ/ in GAm or RP, is not pronounced as such, but as what appears to me to be a more centralised vowel. Does anyone know how to transcribe it? If necessary, I can try to find a recording in which it appears.

All the best

--134.151.34.100 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of ways of transcribing the near-close central unrounded vowel, which has no dedicated IPA symbol of its own. Your primary choices are [ɪ̈] and [ɨ̞]. See the article for details. —An gr 13:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I always felt that it was somewhat like ɘ but closer. I've been wondering about it for quite some while, so thanks again. --134.151.34.100 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing e-mail subject lines

What are some useful guidelines for choosing e-mail subject lines? -- Wavelength (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this and this are useful. Pallida Mors 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I found them both to be very useful. I especially appreciate this recommendation mentioned on the first linked page: "Make the first word an important, information-carrying one." Some of the e-mail subject lines which I have previously chosen could have been improved by a rearrangement of the words. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing section headings on Wikipedia talk pages and on Wikipedia Reference Desk pages

What are some useful guidelines for choosing section headings on Wikipedia talk pages and on Wikipedia Reference Desk pages?
-- Wavelength (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages what you want? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the following point: "It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article you wish to discuss." Is there a set of guidelines specifically for section headings on Wikipedia Reference Desk pages (which, I acknowledge, might be considered to be a subset of Wikipedia talk pages)? -- Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section headers on the desks are determined by the questioners and they are advised to choose meaningful titles (see the header at the top). Are you referring to the practice of editting the section headers after the questioner has posted? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I checked there after I read your last response and saw the advice to "write a few words that briefly tell the volunteers the subject of the question". I was referring to the choices made by the original posters (the questioners), but I am indeed uncertain about the practice which you mentioned. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally frowned upon to change any part of another editor's post, but when it comes to headers, if the OP just writes "Question" (which happens all too often), there should be carte blanche for any other editor to convert it into something meaningful. After all, on the Ref Desks particularly, all original posts are questions; that's what we're here for - to answer questions. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

Graduating

Ok, I've always thought the proper way to say that someone has completed their schooling at a particular institution was to say that they had "graduated from" whatever school they had attended. Lately, I've been noticing that people say and write that someone has "graduated highschool" or "graduated college" or whatever. To me, graduating something, like a beaker, involves putting tickmarks down the side of it so you can measure the volume of whatever you put in it. My question is: which is more correct, to graduate from something or to simply graduate it? Thanks 208.65.223.146 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 'from', but there is an increasing tendency to drop this preposition and just say 'graduated high-school'. I lived in Japan for ten years, and I found a lot of Americans using it like this. One bizarre usage that I can't get my head round is that they also said 'graduated kindergarten', which is just comical.--KageTora (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone "graduated (from) kindergarten" isn't nearly as comical as actually holding a graduation ceremony for those leaving kindergarten, but alas that happens all too often. —An gr 08:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct by whose standard? In British usage, you don't graduate anything, or from anything: 'graduate' means 'take a degree', and you do that from a University or equivalent institution.

This observation is of course not directly germane to your question, but points up that your question presupposes that there is an answer to 'which is more correct', or indeed that 'correct' is meaningful in this context. The fact is that many people referring to American and other educational systems do say 'graduate <name of institution>'. Some will avoid this construction, or will use it in speech but not in writing; some will no doubt judge you if you use it; but 'correct' makes sense only if there is some ultimate authority, which there is not. See Linguistic prescription. --ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, the use of "graduate" without "from" has been cited as an error by usage commentators dating back to 1957. The guide also notes that some older critics argued that "graduated" should only be used transitively, as in "he was graduated from college," but disagrees with this view. John M Baker (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Question

I am moving to Korea in a few weeks and I would like to know if my nickname (which is actually 'Kage' - pronounced as it would be in Latin or Japanese, or whatever) would mean something in Korean. I don't want to be walking around with everyone calling me 'pumpkin-head' or something silly. Can anyone inform me if 'kage' has a meaning in Korean?--KageTora (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah actually your name does mean something. It sounds the same as the very common word "가게" (shop, store). There are also some rarer words that sound the same as well -가계 which could be "(family) lineage" or "household/family expenses". I'm not certain but I think these two are just homophonic words, not different definitions of the same word. Anyways, as you might guess those ones are much rarer. The one meaning store however is the most common word used for a store, so I think you should probably pick a different Korean name. --66.188.129.61 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I thought as much. My nickname is Japanese 'kagetora' which means 'shadow tiger', so how would that be in Korean?--KageTora (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Korean people say "가게" it will sound like "Kage" to your ears (assuming you speak English/Japanese but not Korean), but when you say "Kage" it will sound like "카게" to Koreans. Consequently, I can assure you that people won't be confusing your name with "shop/lineage/household-expense". Shadow Tiger will be something like 그림자 호랑이 geu-rim-ja ho-rang-i but that's a bit long. "Geu" is pronounced a bit like Japanese "gu", but the lips are not compressed, and the lips are not rounded. --Kjoonlee 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could go with 영호 (影虎) yeong-ho, where yeong sounds like "young" and ho sounds like Japanese "ho". --Kjoonlee 14:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the name 영호 that Kyoonlee proposed. This both sounds like a Korean name, has the original meaning you wanted, and doesn't have the potential to be confused. I do think that "Kage" could be confused-- If the K is pronounced as it would be in Japanese, my understanding is that Japanese ks are mildly aspirated (and not heavily aspirated like ㅋ). Our VOT article Voice onset time even places them into the tenuis category (unaspirated - which would mean it would be easily confused).--66.188.129.61 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with Latin translation

A recent edit to the article Galileo affair added the following unsourced quotation, allegedly penned by Galileo in a letter to Kepler:

"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"

A google search establishes that the quotation was given (again without a specific source) by Giorgio de Santillana in The Crime of Galileo—which would appear to pass Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources with flying colours. But a search for the source in Antonio Favaro's Edizione Nazionale of Galileo's works seems to indicate it was a letter dated August 19, 1610, with the relevant Latin text being:

"Volo, mi Keplere, ut rideamus insignem vulgi stultitiam. Quid dices de primariis huius Gimnasii philosophis, qui, aspidis pertinacia repleti, nunquam, licet me ultro dedita opera millies offerente, nec Planetas, nec

, nec perspicillum, videre voluerunt? Verum ut ille aures, sic isti oculos, contra veritatis lucem obturarunt."

I have substituted the word "lunam" in the text for a little picture of a crescent moon, which is what actually appears in Favaro's transcription—and presumably also in the original—of the manuscript. My schoolboy Latin is now so rusty that I would barely be able to tell my ablative from my pluperfect subjunctive, and my lessons only covered classical Latin anyway, not any mediæval or renaissance Latin. Nevertheless it appears to me that the above English quotation is an extremely loose translation of the Latin. I can't see anything at all in the latter that would appear to be translatable into "or shall we cry", for instance. Can anyone provide an accurate translation?
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could laugh at the remarkable foolishness of the public. What would you say about the principal scholars of this academy, who, although I have gone out of my way to offer a thousand times, with the pertinancity of the adder have wanted to see neither the planets nor the moon nor the telescope? Truly, as it [i.e., the adder] stops its ears, so they their eyes, against the light of truth." The allusion to the "aspis" is to Psalms 57:5 (in the Vulgate; 58:4 in the King James Version): ""Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear." (I suppose that it would be OR to use my translation in the article; there must be a more accurate one out there in a reliable source, though. It seems a notable enough passage that there would be.) Deor (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" I want, my Kepler, that we laugh at the enormous stupidity of people. What do you say about the main philosophers of this Gymnasium, who, full of the obstinacy of the serpent, never wanted to see the Planets, the Moon, the telescope, although I was offering facts, expressly for them, for a thousand times. Really, they closed their eyes against the truth in the same way as that one closed his ears" .

"Aspidis pertinacia" clearly refers to Psalms 57.5 "furor eorum sicut furor serpentis sicut reguli surdi obturantis aurem suam", as also the subsequent verb suggests. If you remember it [2], it means that Galileo was quite enough pissed off. Then maybe this "obturarunt aures" reminded Galileo of Odysseus and the episode of the Sirens: few lines below, in the letter, there is an ironic reference to the AEneid and the Odyssey (the idea is: "these guys think to read the book of Nature as they read classic texts"). --pma (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that PMajer and I were apparently working on this simultaneously. I had the edit window open for a goodish time, while I consulted my Bibles and such (and I'm a very slow typist), but for some reason the WP software put my response above his/hers, with no edit conflict, despite the time stamps. Deor (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's an intelligent software, your translation is nicer! ;-) --pma (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Many thanks to you both. Even with my rusty schoolboy Latin and a pocket dictionary I did manage to get the first two sentences pretty much right (but without any real certainty that I had done so). I went a little astray in the third sentence, giving both the eyes and the ears to the philosophers instead of only the former to the philosophers and the latter to the asp.

The section of the verifiability policy on non-English sources seems to indicate that an editor's own translations of foreign-language sources are acceptable if there is none available in any reliable source. The problem here, of course, is that by Wikipedia's criteria, de Santillana's book is a reliable source. Nevertheless, his translation is so poor that if I can't find a better source, I would be inclined to replace it with a composite of those you have provided. On the whole, I think Deor's version reads a little smoother, but I prefer pma's placement of the clause "although I have ... etc." at the end of the second sentence, and also the way he has cast the third sentence. What do you both think of the following version:

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable foolishness of the public. What do you have to say about the principal scholars of this academy who are fully as obstinate as an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have gone out of my way to offer them the opportunity a thousand times? Indeed, just as the latter stops its ears, so do the former shut their eyes to the light of truth."

I realise it is somewhat less literal than either of your translations. I am trying to produce a version in more idiomatic English (but hopefully without departing too much from the proper meaning).

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Ultro probably means something like "voluntarily" here, and dedita opera means "designedly," which I sort of smushed together in "gone out of my way to," but your translation reads well and doesn't distort the meaning. I'd say go with it. (I say this, however, as one who unashamedly provided his own translation of two lines from Alexander of Villedieu in an article I wrote (Maximianus (poet)) because I simply don't know whether an English translation of the Doctrinale exists.) Deor (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too (of course, I'm not the right person to judge the English; I made it as literal as I could, leaving to you the task of giving it a proper final form). I agree about ultro and dedita opera. I was a bit embarassed about how to return volo ut rideamus in English. That subjunctive is certainly more exhortative ("let's laugh/we should laugh") than optative ("I wish we were in a position to laugh"); but "let's laugh" is maybe too confidential. Here volo ut has also a nuance of optative due to a courtesy form, so "I wish" sounds very appropriate. --pma (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm only lurking here, I just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoy reading a congenial collaboration such as this. Volo ut hic videamus plurem talis harmoniae. — Sebastian 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sister's hobby (in Chinese)

How would I correctly say "My older sister's hobby is fighting with me" in Chinese? I can only come up with "Wo de jie jie aihao shi ...... wo" --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wo3 jie3 jie1 de4 ai4 hao4 shi4 gen1 wo3 da3 jia4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.233 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostexorcist, your request is pretty hard to translate. I'm pretty sure you're trying to make a joke, or to refer humorously (or graphically) to your sister's behavior. The translation you and the other person provided are literal. However, I'm not sure if this is how a native speaker would say it--they would get the basic jist of what you were saying, but it would probably feel awkward. I'm not a native speaker, but I've got a decent background in Mandarin and I'm afraid a native speaker might simply say something like, "My sister fights with me constantly," (Wo jiejie tian tian gen wo da jia -- Wo jiejie bu duan de gen wo da jia.) or "My sister loves [likes] to fight with me" (Wo jiejie zui yuanyi gen wo da jia -- Wo jiejie tebie xihuan gen wo da jia). --71.111.230.71 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience I would say making jokes when you are learning a language is likely to lead to embarrassment or offence and is best treated with caution. Richard Avery (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking this way to serious Richard. My Chinese class is very informal. I've served in the military, so I know there is a time for jokes and a time for seriousness. I'm not going to be cracking jokes to the wrong people. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spanish translation for Q-tip

how do you say q-tip in spanish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.192.120 (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of good answers are provided here. The short answer, if you can't read the Spanish in that thread, is, there's a wide variety of terms, depending on location and such. Since it's a brand name, one "translation" is just Q-tip (my guess is this would be most likely to be used and understood by Spanish-speakers in the US). Other Spanish brand-names are used in some places, like Curitas and Cotenetes, and other terms are hisopo, aplicador, and bastoncillo de algodón --Miskwito (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The brand name is actually ~~"Qtips"~~. For legal reasons they want you to use it as an adjective and say "Qtips cotton swab" to refer to one of them. Of course nobody does. --Anonymous, 05:25 UTC, April 19, 2009.

No, it's "Q-tips". The dash is there. Or hypen. Or whatever. --13:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. "Q-tips". Sorry. Anyway, my point was that the S is there too. --Anon, 19:11 UTC, April 19.

clear and deep understanding the problem?

the person who has made the remark has a clear and deep understanding the problem.

The fragment is from an [3] English Language Column in a news paper. My instinct says there should be a preposition (of) before the problem. What do you think? --Sundardas (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would probably be better without the first 'has', too. Algebraist 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like nothing more than a typo. It is very unlikely that he or she would have left out the "of" in speech. The "of" is absolutely required because 1) there is the article "a" (a clear and deep understanding) and 2) the idiom (the person...has...understanding) requires "of." Note that "understanding" can take the direct object "the problem" in some other types of sentences, such as "His understanding the problem did not help him succeed," although "his understanding of the problem did not help him succeed" is also possible. The first version (without the "of") is analogous with "His reading the book did not help him succeed." It is not possible to write, "An understanding the problem did not help him succeed," but the sentence would be grammatically correct as "An understanding of the problem did not help him succeed."75.89.29.255 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"His understanding the problem ... " has no relevance to this question whatever. It is a different construction, in which 'understanding' has a different meaning ('the act or fact of understanding' as opposed to 'what is understood'). --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

IPA of my name

Could anyone fluent in IPA help? It's pronounced "deckel-type" decltype (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its IPA would be dɛkɛltaɪp. --Omidinist (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! decltype (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I challenge that to dɛkoltaɪp.68.148.145.190 (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: dɛkoltɑɪp.68.148.145.190 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's closer to /ˈdɛkəl taɪp/. That's phonemic transcription. Phonetic transcription can be a lot more fun (as you can see with my signature). It could be something like [ˈd̥ekˡ tɑɪ̞ˤp̚]. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know the geographical origins of these responders, one's accent is likely to influence how you pronounce words, isn't it? Richard Avery (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I (a speaker of General American) would say [ˈdɛkl̩ˌtaɪp]. —An gr 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical origins affect Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who replied. Very interesting. So far people have proposed: dɛkɛltaɪp, dɛkoltɑɪp, dɛkəl taɪp, and dɛkl̩ˌtaɪp. I am not sure I understand the distinction between phonetic and phomenic transcription.

If I read these correctly, it would seem that the second "e" sound is the most "disputed", but saying these out loud, none of them sound terribly wrong. As a matter of fact, "decl" is an abbreviation of "declared", so I suppose one could even argue that it should really be pronounced something like: dɪkltaɪp decltype (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that nobody but your good self would know it's an abbreviation of "declared". Specifying exactly how you would prefer other users to pronounce your username, in a medium that's written and not spoken, seems curiously ... well, pointless, if you'll forgive me for saying so. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. It's a term from C++, and not my invention. I acknowledge that most people wouldn't know this, and also acknowledge that some people would still consider it pointless, but hopefully, marginally less so. decltype (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See phoneme. Roughly speaking, a phonemic transcription only marks enough to make the sounds unambiguous to an speaker of the language (here, English), but ignores details which are not significant for that language, though they might be for other languages. Another consequence is that phonetic transcriptions of a word from speakers with different accents will always be different, whereas phonemic transcriptions of the word will often (though not always) be the same. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent explanation, thanks. I had a look at the articles, but I was hoping someone would give me the cliffs notes. decltype (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French translations : 3

Resolved

I am unsure about the following translations:

1. Should "I am going to school" be translated to "Je vais pour l'ecole" (with an acute accent on the "e" in "ecole") or "Je vais a l'ecole" (with a grave accent on the "a" in "a" and an acute accent on the "e" in "ecole")? I am unsure, but I have learnt to translate, "I am collecting my things to go to school" to "Je ramasse mes affaires pour aller a l'ecole" with the accents put in as before.

It is à l'école. --Lgriot (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it correct (with emphasis) to translate, "Are those pupils listening?" to any one of "Ces eleves-la ecoutent-ils?" (with an acute and grave accent on the first two consecutive "e's" of "eleves" respectively, an acute accent on the first "e" of "ecoutent", and a grave accent on the "a" of "la") or "Est-ce que ces eleves-la ecoutent?" (same placement of accents)? I am unsure about whether both are correct.

Both are correct.--Lgriot (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. To translate "I am listening", would it be "J'ecoute" or "Je ecoute" where in each case there is an accute accent on the first "e" of "ecoute". Would it be "T'ecoute" for "You are listening" with the same placing of the accent (acute)?

J'écoute is the only accepted form. T'écoutes is possible but a little colloquial, Tu écoutes is the most common in writing. --Lgriot (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you asked for help before (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 9#French Translations), I provided two external links to help you with foreign characters, but maybe you found them to be unsuitable for your needs. Maybe you would prefer to use the option provided by Wikipedia, which involves a drop-down menu below the edit box. Selecting "Latin" makes available an array of characters which can be entered individually into the edit box by being clicked. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the tips but I am not too worried about it. If I were editing the French Wikipedia - maybe. But now I am only a beginner and I will probably learn it as I go along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be too worried about it, but you are asking for help from us. The harder you make it to read your question, the less likely it is that people will want to help you.

On the subject of your first question, please think a little. If you translated your example sentence literally, you would get 'for to go to school' - not current English (though perfectly good English a few hundred years ago as it happens), but you can see that the 'pour' is outside the 'go to school'.

Please don't think I am trying to put you off asking: I am delighted that you are trying to learn French, and asking here when you are not clear; but a little thought and effort on your side will make me, for one, more willing to answer you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being a bit lazy. The text I am reading so happens to be published in 1901 so actually it is indeed correct a 100 years ago! The other thing which seemed contrary (I did think but this translation contradicted my belief) is "I am on the way to school" was translated as "Je suis en route pour l'école" which literally gives you "I am on the way for school" which is not exactly what you would say in English. Languages are often not comparable and I am afraid of learning wrong information (especially prepositions can be highly complex - the use of pour for example). That is why I ask even for the most obvious things (you see I am learning French on my own so I don't have anything to consult except for my 100 year old textbook). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more sources and references, see http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/Languages/Natural/Indo-European/Italic/Romance/French/Learning/. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I see how 'en route pour l'école' might have confused you (note, though, that while we wouldn't say 'on the way for school', we might say 'which is the road for Manchester'). And you are right that prepositions or their equivalent often have subtle traps. (Even between dialects of English: for me, and I think most British speakers, 'in school' would be an odd thing to say, and I would probably only say it if I meant 'physically in the school building'; whereas in American speech it appears to be the norm). But your first example actually contained 'à l'école'. Thanks for using the accents. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the word coon (as a racial slur)

Is there any connection between the anthropologist Carleton S. Coon, with his controversial work on racial types, and the epithet coon? The article doesn't mention it, or say what race Coon himself was. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 18:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'coon' is an abbreviation of racoon, or possibly barracoon. Its use as an ethnic slur considerably predates Carleton S. Coon. I do not know the etymology of Coon's surname. Algebraist 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the picture on this Web site, Coon appears to be white. [4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

A variant of the name 'Kuhn' perhaps? --130.237.179.182 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Web site[5], '"The insulting U.S. meaning "black person" was in use by 1837, no doubt boosted by the enormously popular blackface minstrel act 'Zip Coon' (George Washington Dixon) which debuted in New York City in 1834, and is said ult. to be from Port. barracoos 'building constructed to hold slaves for sale.'" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That kinda stinks of hooey (as the next sentence in the article suggests.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Plural of French Nouns

I am given the following rules for forming plurals of French nouns:

In general, the plural of a noun or an adjective is formed by adding s - example: crayon - crayons.

If the noun ends in s, z or x or if an adjective ends in s or x, the plural of a noun has the same transcription as the noun itself - examples: bras - bras, voix - voix, nez - nez, bas - bas, and vieux - vieux. My question is if adjectives ending in z remain the same in the plural form or not, because the text specifically does not mention such adjectives (as above).

Nouns and adjectives ending in au, nouns ending in eu, and a few nouns ending in ou, add x instead of s to form the plual - examples: couteau - couteaux, beau - beaux, jeu - jeux, bijou - bijoux, caillou - cailloux, and a few rarer nouns ending in ou. My question is how do you know which nouns ending in ou, add x rather than s? The other noun I know is genou - genoux. My other question is how is the plural formed for adjectives ending in eu? The text specifically excludes mention of such adjectives but what is the plural form of blue - bleu? Is it bleux or bleus?

Nouns and the commoner adjectives ending in al change al to au and add x - examples: général - généraux, rival - rivaux, exceptions: bal - bals and a few rarer nouns (wavelength - I took your advice on the accents). My question is which are the rarer nouns? My other question is which are the commoner adjectives and which adjectives don't follow this rule?

Lastly, are these all the rules I need to know?

Wikipedia has been a great help to me so far and I am very grateful for the help I have recieved. I am more than happy if I get any help, however minor. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just visited the top ten web pages in a Google SERP for "plural french nouns" and I suggest that you visit them also. At least one of them lists the only seven French nouns ending in ou which form their plurals by adding x: bijou, caillou, chou, genou, hibou, joujou, and pou. Much of the information is the same on those pages, but, by visiting them all, you can benefit by: (1) reinforcing learning by repetition, (2) learning from some pages what other pages omitted, and (3) learning, from preferably more pages, correct information that contradicts incorrect information (if there is any) on preferably fewer pages. You can research beyond the first ten search engine results. I very much doubt the existence of any French adjective ending in z.

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected my comment by inserting the underlined text. Away from the computer, I was having doubts about whether I had remembered to include that detail as I had intended to do, and was hoping to correct it (if necessary) before anyone else mentioned it. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[6] was helpful to me where all the exceptions were given. Thanks for that! I am still unsure of the plural of bleu - is it bleus or bleux? I am also unsure about how the plural is formed for adjectives ending in eu? Apart from that you have answered all of my questions - thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest those 7 nouns are restricted to nouns that end in -ou. The words eau, gâteau and bureau, and some others ending in -eau, are pluralised by adding "x" too. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search for "yeux bleus" and "yeux bleux". "Yeux bleus" is over 13 times more common than "yeux bleux", but "yeux bleux" itself gets 61,500 hits, so my guess is that "bleus" is the correct spelling and "bleux" is a very common misspelling. —An gr 05:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! I did some searching and it seems that the correct plural of bleu is bleus so thanks for confirming that. Thankyou very much JackofOz for your comment but I am still a bit unsure what would be the plural form of adjectives ending in eu.

Would, "I am listening to the teacher." be translated as "J'écoute le maître." or "J'écoute à le maître."? Basically I am unsure whether the verb "écouter" has to be followed by "à". I know I'm asking questions as they come (!) and thankyou very much for your answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.138.117 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need "à" with "écouter," so your first option, "J'écoute le maître," is correct. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it would have been "au maître" any way, as it is masculin. Lectonar (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French adjectives ending in eu are extremely rare. The plural of bleu ("blue") is bleus. The plural of hébreu ("Hebrew") is hébreux. At least one web page gives the plural of peureu ("fearful") as peureux, but the singular seems to be incorrect because other sources give peureux for both singular and plural (masculine, of course). Incidentally, as a noun, bleu means "bruise", and its plural is formed in the same way that the plural of the adjective bleu is formed.

Some color adjectives have forms identical to those of nouns and are invariable for both gender and grammatical number: cerise ("cherry-colored"), orange ("orange"), olive ("olive[-green]"), marron ("brown"), crème
("cream[-colored]"), paille ("straw-colored"). Other color adjectives have forms identical to those of nouns but follow the usual rules regarding inflection for gender and grammatical number: écarlate ("scarlet"), mauve ("mauve"), pourpre ("crimson"), rose ("pink"). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Pun?

Can anyone figure out a good pun for an advertisement poster on a new soccer boot? Maybe you could play around with the word "boot"?--220.233.83.26 (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be risky. I don't know how widespread it is, but "to boot" something can mean to make an error or misplay, which probably isn't the image you want. How about "The Pro Shoes the Pros Shoose"? Mmm. Maybe not. Matt Deres (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds suspiciously like homework. Or if you are in advertising, workwork. What do you need this for? Livewireo (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name Jiverly

Where does the name "Jiverly" come from? Is it Vietnamese? Apparently Jiverly Wong was born "Linh Phat Voong" and changed his name to "Jiverly Wong" upon his naturalization as a U.S. citizen (source: [7]). Where did he get the name "Jiverly" from? Mike R (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a misspelled form of "jewellery", doesn't it? pma (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, he used the middle name "Antares", which is also kinda weird. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know no Vietnamese, but I can tell you without fear of contradiction that it is not a Vietnamese word. They are all one syllable, and their alphabet does not contain J. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's common for people from East Asia with names that are difficult to pronounce by Western speakers (particularly English-speaking) to choose a more pronounceable name to go by. The selection of these names isn't always in harmony with English speakers' concept of an appropriate name. It's not uncommon recently for people to choose their 'English' names from World of Warcraft or other fantasy stylings (Dragonforce, Hania, etc.), combinations of names (I know someone who goes by Shukham, as he is a fan of Beckham), objects (Snow, Orange, Apple, etc.), and aesthetically pleasing combinations of sounds. Steewi (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in school I knew two brothers whose parents had immigrated from East Asia (can't remember where exactly now) and they had taken English names from the Old Testament. Now some OT names are unremarkable, like Adam, Seth, David, and Jonathan; but one of these boys was named Enoch and I can't remember his brother's name, but it was also a very unusual OT name that, like "Enoch", was likely to get him beaten up on the playground. But for people who didn't grow up in an English-speaking environment, of course it's almost impossible to get a feel for which Biblical names are customary and which are just downright weird. —An gr 05:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of my HK friends in Toronto had very old-sounding English names, most commonly recent royalty: Andrew, Harry, William and also a generous spattering of rarer sounding names like Rudolph, Constantine, Clement, Roderick, Frederick, Sherlock, Leslie (a guy), etc. All of them came to Toronto after they were born, or were born in Canada (on *holiday*) and then lived until high school in HK. We always assumed that when they arrived in Canada the customs officer gave them a chance to choose an English name to put on their passport, and handed them a really old name dictionary, which they opened up randomly to select a (usually archaic sounding) name. I know now that's not exactly what happens but I would be suprised if name dictionaries weren't to blame here. There were also girls "fresh" from HK in my school named Snoopy, Happy, Winnie (2 of them, actually), and Rainbow. No idea where Jiverly comes from though, hah. 124.154.253.25 (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't know the person's surname was Wong, I've have said Jiverly sounds like a name an Indian might use. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you

Another editor has claimed that "humourous" is incorrect for British English. Is this right? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is spelled humorous. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually. Nevertheless, various dictionaries list humourous as a possible (though rare) alternative: [8][9][10]. — Emil J. 15:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what threw me. The dictionaries I consulted defined it, but didn't mention its rarity. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the word for that feeling in teeth..

Sometimes when we eat lemon, or probably any citric fruit, our teeth become "rough". This happens when drinking concentrated lemonade, or even raw mango juice. There is a strange feeling developed in the teeth, as if the friction between them increased a lot.. The feeling goes away on drinking water or after some time. Is there any word in english for that feeling in teeth? Thanks. --RohanDhruva (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tea and red wine are well-known for containing tannins, which react with proteins in the mouth to produce a rough-feeling texture. The article suggests that tannins are also present in some other fruit juices, so that may be what you're experiencing. (I don't know of an English word for the feeling, specifically, but wines with lots of tannins are said to be "tannic".) -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

astringent mouthfeel? --Digrpat (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) astringent... Oh... you beat me, Digrpat.... Now I have a bad taste in my mouth... Pallida Mors 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise known as "having clean teeth" :-) Matt Deres (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They might be "clean" in a technical sense, but one of the best ways to remove the feeling is to clean your teeth with toothpaste. In other words, cleaning removes the "clean". Odd. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about English, but in my native Slovene, that morning-after-drinking-binge feeling is usually described as 'having hairy teeth'. Describes the feeling fairly accurately, don't you think? No? You freaking weirdos. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We talk about having a mouth that feels like the bottom of a budgerigar/parrot's cage. Not sure how anyone knows what that feels like, but it seems apt. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've never had anything crawl in your mouth and die? 124.154.253.25 (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could write a book about "The Things I've Had in My Mouth", but they don't include the crap-infested bottoms of bird cages. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

Santa Claus

Consider the act of a parent telling a child that Santa Claus (or the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy, etc.) exists. Even though it's not the "best" word ... would the verb "lie" (in its literal sense) be accurate and applicable? That is ... technically / literally speaking ... are the parents lying to the child? Also, what are better words to use to accurately describe this situation? (A word from any part of speech is fine ... noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc.) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lie is fine. Other words off the top of my mind: deceive, trick, mislead, dupe, hoax. The fact that the parents wishes aren't necessarily deceitful doesn't change the truth that it is a lie. But honestly the whole Santa Claus thing probably teaches kids how to deal with "truth" itself, and hopefully they learn that you can't always take things at face value. They are going to get lied to a lot worse when they get older, so it's about time they got used to it. 124.154.253.25 (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cajole? --59.182.39.66 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

"White lie" might fit, as it usually denotes a lack of malicious intent. It's not quite right, though, as it's usually about a trivial matter, not a big hoax like Santa Claus. --Sean 13:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather say Santa Claus is a fable, though of low quality and soaked in consumerism. But saying that inventing stories is lying, recalls me too much of Vergerus, the severe bishop in Fanny and Alexander. Children like fables, and usually distinguish them from reality even better than grown-up people do! --pma (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White lie wouldn't be accurate because that's a small lie that you tell to protect someone's feelings. The idea that there's a magical man who will give them presents is hardly small and, although fun and relatively harmless,^{[dubious – discuss]} is not designed to protect someone's feelings Lie to children might apply. Although that applies specifically to oversimplifying explanations to children in ways they can understand, you could argue that that's what Santa Claus is. Since it's designed to keep kids in line, it might even be called a noble lie. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESL "essential English phrases list"

Hi, I'm looking for an ESL "essential/most common English phrases list", something like the "most common English words" lists that start with "the" and "is" hanging around the nets. I assume it would start with phrases like "Nice to meet you" and "How are you", "How tall are you", and maybe harder phrases like "Where are you going?" and "Do you know him?". I basically need a lot of basic words in their most useful contexts, for lipreading practice and learning about how the pronunciation of words changes in different contexts. Thanks for any help! 124.154.253.25 (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Why do people say "I don't/can't speak (language)" instead of "I don't/can't understand (language)"? The latter makes more sense in the context people use the former in. 58.165.23.195 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible to puzzle out languages that you can't speak. I can (with difficulty) read limited Spanish, but I don't know enough vocabulary/grammar/etc. to frame a decent sentence. Therefore, I "understand" but do not "speak." 168.9.120.8 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also sort of an idiomatic phrase. It's generally assumed that if you can't speak it that you also can't understand it (though as the above poster alluded to, language acquisition usually begins with a certain degree of understanding before production comes in to play. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of parenthesis in quotes like "[W]hen blah blah..."

For example, in the following

[W]hen anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance — Brian Klug

I don't get the [W]hen.. Why do we have transcriptions like these? Was Brian Klug saying hen here!!! I am naive ... I know it. --59.182.39.66 (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was saying "when" in lower case, because "when" wasn't really the first word in the sentence; there was some more before that, but (we're being assured) it didn't affect the sense of the portion quoted.

By the way, those are "brackets" or "square brackets", not parentheses. Parentheses are round brackets (this kind).

--Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, April 21, 2009.

Thank you! --59.182.121.216 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the use of brackets, the customary use in philology is: square to modify, angle to integrate, round to expand. Had the original a "hen", an overzealous wikipedian would have written "⟨W⟩hen" in the quotation. That said, I just think those square brackets are there after a typo. The original article in Nation, and all other quotations I found by googling the sentence, have just "when". PS. Now I've read better the anonymous post: he's right, the brackets were used to pass from lower to capital case (btw, then why not simply: "... when" ?) pma (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... because it's weird to start a sentence with an ellipsis? --Sean 13:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birds and animals

Why do people say "birds and animals" when birds are animals? 58.165.23.195 (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that they did. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

539,000 Google search results for "birds and animals". Jay (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary's third definition of animal. —An gr 09:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And 286 found on en:wikipedia! I suppose it's a non-scientific usage that's been around for a while: See also animal, the third definition, "any land-living vertebrate (i.e. not birds, fishes, insects etc)".

Yes, I just mentioned that. My pocket-size Merriam-Webster's 2nd definition of animal is: "a lower animal as distinguished from human beings; also : MAMMAL", which suggests some people may use "animal" even to the exclusion of reptiles like snakes and lizards. —An gr 10:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Angr, I didn't notice your (new to me) post when I added mine to the bottom, without checking or previewing. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course birds are not happy with this old-minded biblical legacy. Google has also 353,000 s.r. for the ornithologically correct "birds and other animals", which hopefully indicates that things are slowly changing. --pma (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should also have a word with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. --Sean 13:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German translation help needed

I am wondering what the text side of the railroad car in this picture says. In the upper left I think it says "Trip to Paris" and below that "See you later on the boulevard", confirmation of this would be nice. To the right it says something about fighting something with the point of the sword, at least that's what the web translation page I used said, I can't make out the word after "Kampf mit". Also, if someone can make out the word that's partially obscured by the flowers it would be great.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Trip to Paris" and "See you later on the boulevard" are correct. On the right it says "[???] in den Kampf" (probably "Ab in den Kampf" - "off to the fight") and "mir juckt die Säbelspitze" - "my sword tip is itching". —An gr 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the help! :)--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing on/at/? a Steinway piano

This is regarding the text under a music file.

Is the text correct, or can't you say "... on a Steinway concert grand piano..."?:

"Sergei Rachmaninoff playing on a Steinway concert grand piano the first 4 minutes of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 composed by Steinway Artist Franz Liszt, recording from 1919."

Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"On" is fine, although personally I would put commas (or brackets) around the "on a Steinway concert grand piano" bit. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest word using specific letters

A bit of an odd question, but what is the longest English word that can be made using only the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, M, N, O, P, R, S, X, Y? Chaosandwalls (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them at the same time, one presumes. Copyreading and pyromancies, both 11 letters, will be hard to beat. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The A/Effect of A on B?

I am really confused with the difference between affect and effect. I've had a look on a load of websites and the refdesk archives, but I'm not sure which to use in the following scenario:

Suppose the title of a paper is "Road Safety: The a/effect of speed on accident rates", which is correct?

I'm thinking that it is probably correct to use effect. However, the dictionary defines effect as "a change that is the result of something else" and "The change of speed on accident rates" doesn't make sense. Whereas affect is "make a difference to", and (slightly changing the sentence) "The difference made to accident rates by speed" seems more correct.

As you can probably tell I'm pretty confused, so your help would be very much appreciated! 86.142.117.156 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]