Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 2

Thair leirit he tonis proportionat

May someone please write that Scottish line (?) in English for me. Many thanks in advance. --Omidinist (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't risk a translation, but the line is more often quoted as "Thare lerit he tonys proportionate". It's line 226 from Robert Henryson's Orpheus and Eurydice, and the whole verse and poem can be viewed here. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"There he learnt proportionate tones" - "proportionate" in the sense of "harmonious" rather than "appropriate". The verse goes on to describe Orpheus learning the Music of the Spheres. Tevildo (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The verb lere in Scots means "teach", not "learn". My source is The Dictionary of the Scots Language. So that would be "There he taught proportionate tones." Marco polo (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the verse describes Orpheus _learning_ the music, though, rather than _teaching_ it:

In his passage amang the planetis all

He herd a hevynly melody and sound
Passing all instrumentis musicall
Causid be rollyng of the speris round
...
Thare lerit he tonys proportionate
As duplar triplar and emetricus
Enoleus and eke the quadruplate

Epodyus rycht hard and curius

(The last three lines would require a disquisition on fifteenth-century musical theory that I am not competent to undertake). :) Tevildo (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand those to be rhythm styles - double, triple, extra-metrical, ?, quadruple and ?. Enolean and Epodean rhythms are Latin poetic rhythms, but I don't know their specifics. Steewi (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Dictionary of the Scots Language, lere can mean either "learn" or "teach". Warofdreams talk 12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that "learn" is often used for "teach" in contemporary demotic English - "What's today's special?" "Fillet of anteater." "That'll learn it.". cf "lend/borrow". Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Potato/Potaato?

1. I've always thought when you are referring to a person from Argentina, you say (And I hope I'm not offending anyone)an Argentine, but some people say Argentinian which sounds a bit incorrect to me at least. Which is correct?

2. I've also thought that saying invite instead of invitation sounds a bit dodgy. Again which is correct or is it a matter of, in what context?

Thanks, NirocFX --41.193.16.234 (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For the Argentina question, there is a forum discussion on this here. In my personal experience, foreigners (i.e., people not from/in Argentina) tend to use "Argentinian" more...on the other hand, when my girlfriend was living in Argentina she switched to a hardcore "Argentine" user, which suggests to me that people in Argentina (or, at least, the ones she was hanging out with) use that. Judging by the length of that forum thread, though, it seems there is no correct or incorrect, they're both allowable. If what you're interested in is which one is used more, the best way to go about that would be to look into linguistic corpora and do searches for both "argentinian" and "argentine" to see which is more frequent. (Google searching is not likely to be helpful here, because there are too many synonyms and false positive, and the way Google's software works means that hit counts this high are not reliable anyway). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is of little help, but my Spanish-English dictionary gives argentino/a as the proper Spanish for both "Argentinian" and "Argentine" (note capitalization). Meanwhile, as I suspected, my old Webster's says that "argentine" (note lower case) means "of or pertaining to silver". Interestingly, in the gazeteer it gives "Argentine" as noun and adjective, then "Argentinean" as noun and "Argentinian" as adjective. "Argentina" derives from the Latin argentum ("silver" - chemical symbol Ag), and to me calling yourself "Argentine" suggests that you're made of silver. But common usage apparently says otherwise. The word actually used for "silver" in Spanish is plata, and "silver-colored" is plateado/a. Hence Río de la Plata which borders Argentina. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Argentinean/Argentinian thing is strange...I had always heard that the spelling was a US/Brit difference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the "-ean" version is essentially obsolete. That dictionary is from ca. 1960. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging by these search results, I would say -ean is probably still around, although it may be dispreferred in more formal writing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Argentina" is short for "República Argentina", which translates into English as "the Argentine Republic". So "Argentine" is already an adjective, making it unnecessary to create a new one from the country name, and making "an Argentine" the simplest noun. Personally I have never seen "Argentinean", so perhaps it's a North American thing, based on such as "Chilean" and "Salvadorean".

"Invite" is similarly unnecessary as a noun created from the verb, as the word "invitation" already exists and is unambiguous. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness gracious, and the world would end if a language ever got more than one word for the same thing! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Argentina" part of "República Argentina", translates as both "Argentine" and "Argentinian". My old Webster's (ca.1960) lists "Argentine" first, implying it's the preferred. It gives "invite" only as a verb. The noun form, shortening "invitation" by a syllable, is apparently a more recent construct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

or to put it another way, "invitation" is no longer necessary as we now have the word "invite", coined as many English nouns are from a verb. Or to put it a third, neutral, way, both 'invite' and 'invitation' are in use, but 'invite' does not get used in formal contexts. --ColinFine (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that some use the term Argentine for the demonym, and Argentinian for the general adjectival form. That's how my OALD defines the terms. However, pondering all the previous references, I don't want to pretend that this is the correct usage. Pallida  Mors 12:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading all of this I'm awarding top prizes to Argentine and Invitation. However if there are still some folks who disagree with me, I'll just point to all of you guys and say... It was him and him and him and him and him!!!

Thanks guys, --NirocFX (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

English Grammar: -

Why do Englishmen write

• late 19th century but
• mid-20th century

From the late 19th to the mid-20th centuries, investigators used early tracking technologies to assist their observation, in a research climate that ...

— Eye movement in language reading

217.228.69.145 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Late" is a standalone word, "mid" is not. "Mid-20th century" is a shorthand way of saying "middle of the 20th century". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, some people don't accept "mid" as a standalone word. (I'm one of them too.) Others are happy to write "mid 20th century". --Anonymous, 06:42 UTC, January 3, 2010.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary lists "mid" as a stand alone word, although it does say "(Freq. with hyphen.)". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The same logic applies to the stand-alone word "then", in such phrases as "his then wife" or "the then president". There's no need to hyphenate it, but it's often seen hyphenated. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be called "creeping hyphenation". Originally it was base ball, then base-ball, and then baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Creeping hyphenation" is common, but that is not quite what we are talking about here. I would never write "then" as a stand-alone word in this sense (except possibly in parentheses, and in informal writing). In formal writing I would always use "former" or "at that time". Similarly, I would always hyphenate "mid" because it is short for "middle", though the hyphen is sometimes lost in short words such as "midpoint" (following BB's "creeping hyphenation" rule). According to the OED, "mid" has very rarely been used as a stand-alone word (except in poetic or archaic style) since the spelling was standardised several hundred years ago. Dbfirs 15:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyphenation seem to be used less and less in UK English; perhaps it should be "creeping dishyphenation". Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Using "former" instead of "then" is a common error in some contexts. If the text was about something that happened in 1951, referring to Harry S. Truman within the text as "the former president" would be quite wrong. He was the incumbent at that time, and only became the "former president" after his term finished in January 1953. He should be referred to within that context as "the then president" if necessary, or just "the president" - but definitely NOT "the former president", because that would be referring to any one of Truman's predecessors, such as FDR. If the form "the then president" is chosen, I've never seen any case for making it "the then-president". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that "former" is wrong in that context. I would prefer "the president at that time" in formal writing, or "the (then) president" informally, but I would never use then as an adjective. (I'm also starting a campaign to preserve the English hyphen, so that I don't have to wonder how one can ork a cow!) Dbfirs 00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To each his own, but I wonder where your aversion to the adjectival 'then' comes from. My trusty 1974 edition of the Hamlyn Encyclopedic World Dictionary lists this adjectival use of 'then', with the example "the then prime minister" - along with 8 adverbial meanings and 1 nounal meaning of 'then'. So it's not as if it's some neologism. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can't deny its use in the past. The OED has this usage from 1584, so it is nothing new. Would you use "now" adjectivally? For example, the now prime minister. Is this where my aversion derives? Dbfirs 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Very possibly, but that's not an appropriate comparison. 'Now and then' - they're both adverbs in that sense. 'Now' is never used as an adjective (well, not properly, anyway; I'm sure I've heard journalists coin new usages, but the things they come up with ... don't get me started). But 'then' has an honoured place as an adjective and can be used with abandon as such. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it not a parallel? If we are quoting dictionaries, the OED allows "now" as an adjective, and cites the Daily Telegraph (UK) of October 21st 1998: "the now Trade and Industry Secretary" (but this was presumably written by a journalist, so it doesn't count as good writing, even in a prestigious newspaper. I'm in agreement with you there!) I think we are disagreeing on style, rather than on grammar. Dbfirs 08:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mm, probably. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing

Will somebody help me to write this sentence correct?:

"These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists and are meant to support the talents."

Maybe this is more correct:

"These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists and are meant to be supporting events for the talents."

Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

These competitions and festivals are meant to support the talents of gifted young pianists. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, Rtganag. These sentences are correct, but you hid few words to fix the sentence. Please read my additional post here. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So what? The words were redundant and not performing any significant function in the sentence; editing very often involves removal of unnecessary words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The only real _error_ in the original sentence is "the talents" - it should be "their talents". However, it's a bit of a run-on sentence as it stands, which is a problem with style rather than grammar. I would rewrite it as "These competitions and festivals for gifted children and young pianists are meant to support the participants' talents." Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, Tevildo. But it's not a run-on sentence. A run-on sentence is one "in which two or more independent clauses (that is, complete sentences) are joined with no punctuation or conjunction", such as, for example:

• These competitions and festivals are for gifted children and young pianists they are meant to support the talents.

That would be a run-on sentence. Putting a comma before "they" would have made it a comma splice, which, for my money, is a type of run-on sentence and just as loathsome. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I would consider the two clauses of the original sentence as being independent - they just don't have the subject expressed explicitly. Is "I got up and had my breakfast and went to school and had my dinner and went home and had my tea and played on the computer and went to bed" a run-on sentence? If not, what is it? Tevildo (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just poor style. It is a list of actions. Lists need only one "and", before the last item (e.g. "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"); however, putting in extra "and"s may be superfluous and irritating, but not ungrammatical. It certainly "runs on", and on, and on - but lacks the defining characteristic of a run-on sentence. A run-on sentence version of it might be something like:

• "I got up and had my breakfast I went to school, I had my dinner, I went home and had my tea I played on the computer and went to bed". There are many ways of making that a run-on sentence; this is just one possibility. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The minimal amendment I can suggest (and in my former capacity as a textbook editor would therefore employ) is to place a comma after 'pianists' and change 'the' to 'their.' 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That's sufficient to make the meaning perfectly clear to me (though I suppose that some pedants might quibble about what "their" refers back to). Dbfirs 09:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If the goal is to make the minimal edits, I agree with 87.81.230.195: first sentence, change "the" to their, place a comma after "pianists" (I think the comma is optional, but improves the flow of the sentence).

If the notion of "supporting events" is desirable, I would rewrite the second sentence: "These competitions and festivals are meant to be supporting events for the talents of gifted children and young pianists." A fairly significant edit, but the most clear in terms of what describes what.

If the goal is the most straightforward and clear sentence possible, I like Rjanag's approach, amending to "support the talents of gifted children and young pianists" if distinction between the groups is important. If condensing the groups is not a problem, you could also go with "These competitions and festivals are meant to support gifted young pianists' talents." What is most desirable depends on the context in which the sentence is to be written as well, of course. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Noun form of cretinous

What is the noun form of cretinous? In other words, what word means "the state of being a cretin?" Is it cretinousness or something else? 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cretinism. Deor (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Homophone of, and unrelated to, "Cretan", a citizen of Crete. "Cretin", believe it or not, is a French dialect variation on "Christian", according to my old Webster's. What that has to do with the thyroid ailment called cretinism is unstated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely not homophonous: 'cretin' rhymes with "let in", and 'Cretan' with "tree-tən" in my ideolect. The OED backs the article's existing suggestion that 'christian' was intended to emphasise that the sufferers were indeed humans rather than 'brutes.' 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My old Webster's gives a long "e" and then says "especially British", short "e". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would distinguish 'cretinism' for the medical condition from 'cretinousness', pejorative or mildly insulting term for stupidity or foolishness. --ColinFine (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the OP (whoever that might have been) needs to clarify what he's asking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know it was a medical condition! The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Klick

the vietnam era distance measurement "click" how far is one click? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorunr (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See Klick. Answer: one kilometer. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We still use that in Canada, at least, but more for speed than distance (like the speed of a car, or the wind). Adam Bishop (talk)

In other words, meaning one kilometer per hour. I am also in Canada but do not remember ever hearing this. Presumably it is regional or limited to some specific milieu. --Anonymous, 06:44 UTC, January 3, 2010.

I hear it in southern Ontario. I would expect to hear it from my rural relatives more than my urban ones, but I think I've heard meteorologists say it on the news too, about the wind (maybe someone from the Weather Network?). I'm not certain though. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My brother has used the term to mean both speed and distance several times in my presence. I believe that he picked it up from being in the (US) military. Dismas|^(talk) 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also from Southern Ontario and I hear it used both ways (distance and speed). "He was doing twenty klicks over the speed limit" or "The cottage is only about twenty klicks away." This makes sense as kilometers per hour is often shortened to just kilometers in speech anyway. I only ever hear it (rather than see it in print), so while the initial k makes sense, I don't know if I would have spelled it that way off the top of my head. Matt Deres (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it varies by milieu, then. I'm also in southern Ontario. Although not next week... "see" you all later. Anyway, thanks. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, January 3, 2010.

Yeah, me neither! I thought it was "click", and must have meant the little lines on an odometer, or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I only "knew" it had an initial k from these refdesks. In fact, it was probably this question from a few years ago that twigged me to it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's understood in the UK too - amongst hillwalkers anyway (although miles are universally used by motorists, walking scale maps were metricated more than 30 years ago - so much easier to calculate distances in kms) Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 3

Antonyms of "virgin"?

In English, is there a word that means the opposite of "virgin" (either as a noun or as an adjective) that is

• free from or neutral in connotations,
• not a euphemism,
• not a derivative of "virgin" or a synonym (so "non-virgin" doesn't count), and
• not a participle (i.e. not an adjective derived from a verb)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.16.188 (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Those restrictions rule out the obvious: non-virgin, experienced, woman-of-the-world, etc. Under those restrictions, it would be equally hard to find an antonym for "pregnant". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I googled [virgin antonym], and the first site that came up was this one.[1] They don't list a "direct" antonym, just the "indirect" term, "unchaste". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Sexually mature". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That might be considered a euphemism, like "[sexually] experienced". Ironically, "virgin" itself is somewhat of a euphemism, as with its synonym "maiden". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How is "virgin" a euphemism? What's its literal meaning, if not "someone who's never had sexual intercourse"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the OP, then: No, there is no such word in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A person might be "sexually mature" biologically, ie post-pubescent, but still a virgin. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The other option is "sexually active", but that implies that they're active right now or regularly, whereas someone might be a non-virgin but hasn't had sex in 10 years. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Those folks are usually just called married. Matt Deres (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses so far. I understand that there may not be a word that satisfies all the restrictions—I tried and couldn't come up with any. I noticed that people use the clumsy phrase "losing (one's) virginity" to refer to a person having his/her first intercourse. It dawned on me that the whole concept of being sexually experienced is at its core built on the concept of virginity—so much so that there doesn't even seem to be a non-derivative word for it. It seems that virginity is somehow viewed as special, while being sexually experienced is not. This is quite surprising because people also use euphemisms like "becoming a man". That euphemism suggests that being sexually experienced is a status to be attained and it's something positive. You'd think that it merits its own set of words in English—and if that's true—including some neutral in connotation. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Beyond virginity?" I'm making that up. I don't know if it's used. But I think if I heard it I would immediately understand what was being implied. But I also think "not a virgin" is fine. I don't quite see virginity being implied as something "special," but rather something "simpler." The absence of an activity leaves the simplicity of a void. The presence of an activity quite correctly corresponds to a state relatively more complex. Also, chronologically virginity always precedes "non-virginity," so the derivation of the second term from the first has the logic of sequence to it. To crown a new term the designator of the state beyond virginity would be to put the cart before the horse. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also point out that at many times and places - perhaps most - in human history non-virginity is the normal state for adults. There aren't distinct words for 'not bald' or 'having both legs' either. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hairy" and "bipedal"? Vimescarrot (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen it used before, but "beyond virginity" sounds like some marketing slogan. I don't think having a separate word for being sexually experienced is putting the cart before the horse. In other contexts, you have different words for the "before and after" statuses, like "childhood"/"adulthood", "minority"/"majority", "junior"/"senior". --173.49.16.188 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Vimescarrot: no. While "bald" has a general use to which "hairy" is an antonym, "bald" used of a person invariably means "bald-headed": "hairy" does not mean "with a normal head of hair", unless perhaps a special context has been established by talking about baldness. And "bipedal" means "having two legs" which is a very different thing from "having both legs". --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea. I keep seeing stuff about the USA being "post-imperial" and "post-Christian". How about "post-virgin(al)"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On one hand, I like the creativity of it. On the other, "post-virginal" sounds like some kind of medical condition (perhaps because of its similarity to "post-menopasual"). --173.49.16.188 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound like a marketing slogan. Funny, that. No, it is not the same as putting the cart before the horse. I over-spoke. But do you really think the language is sending some kind of message that virginity is "special?" Are you making a distinction between the male status and the female status as regards virginity and non-virginity? You also say that the phrase "becoming a man" has a "positive" implication. "Special" and "positive" equate, in my mind.

It is an interesting point that you raise. The only explanation I can imagine for the absence of the sort of term that we are looking for is an absence of a need. Why wouldn't a word serving the defined purpose have arisen if there was a need over long periods of time up until the present, in the English language? Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I suggested an answer to that above: 'not virgin' is in most societies no more needed than 'not bald': it's the normal state of affairs. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with that analogy, in that baldness usually comes after the state of having hair on one's head (not bald), whereas virgin comes before the state of being not virgin. Besides, there is inevitably going to be a transitional period consisting of at least a few years, in any society, during which it is both "normal" to be virgin and "normal" to be non-virgin. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a transitional period for baldness, too ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

True. I didn't think of that. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. I've heard "Oh, I knew her before she became a virgin" said of people such as Doris Day and Grace Kelly.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone trying to stuff a keyboard instrument into a mailbox. Tonywalton ^Talk 12:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DEFLOWERED. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a word I considered, but it's not neutral. I sounds negative as it suggests that the pristineness of something or someone has been destroyed. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's neutral enough, but it's a euphemism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Deflowered is hardly gender-neutral. It does relate well to what happens to a maiden's hymen. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What can happen to a hymen. It's a myth that loss of hymen implies loss of virginity, and indeed vice versa. Marnanel (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, we're all assuming that the adjectival use of the word is being used for a chaste woman - in other uses of the term (e.g., virgin sunflower oil), the opposite would be "refined". This is not, of course, to suggest that a refined woman is not a virgin! :) Grutness...wha? 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Or man. Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What about simply sexed or fucked? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Try asking someone whether they're "fucked" or not. You're likely to get your face smashed in. No wonder there isn't a parable about "The Seven Virgins and the Seven Fucked People". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a pretty personal question. Are you saying I'd get my face smashed more often than if I asked if they were virgins? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But also, it seems to have women in mind mainly. For most males, ceasing to be virgins does not involve them personally being fucked, but the person they're with being fucked. Both parties might be said to have "been laid", though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also "sexed" actually means (according to SOED) "having a gender, ie not neutered" or "having sexual desires", neither of which is the same as "has had sexual intercourse". (Although SOED does list "sex" as a verb meaning "have intercourse", from which one might derive "sexed" to mean "(has) had intercourse".) "Fucked" is problematic - aside from its offensiveness to some people - in that the word is overused so much that it could be ambiguous. Eg: virgin male is making out with girlfriend of Hells Angel (or other large aggressive and possesive male). Things are hotting up when the Hells Angel boyfriend sees them. Now he's fucked!

There is the y-word, which I shouldn't even confess to knowing - but, it's not English, and, in any case, it's a participle. There's "y***ee" (by analogy with "employee"), but I don't think that's recorded anywhere. Tevildo (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexually active is a phrase I hear often in this context. It's not completely accurate, because it assumes that the person is not only 'not a virgin', but also having some form of occasional sexual activity. Thus a person who had sex once and then became celibate may be excluded. Steewi (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Sexually experienced" may be the closest adjective phrase available. John M Baker (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this can shed some light on this issue. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to archived answers: Google has quite a few hits for nookied. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.

"to" or "for"?

Is it to or for?:

"The company is delighted to provide a piano to/for the ceremony for John Johnson."

Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For would be more idiomatic. Deor (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What if the sentence is:

"The company is delighted to have provided a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson."?

I think that "to have provided" sounds incorrect. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's correct, if they're at the ceremony and the piano is already there too. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rewrited the sentence ("The company is delighted to provide a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson.") because the ceremony is over. Therefore it was wrong of me to write the sentence in present tense, the sentence should be in past tense.

In past tense it is: "The company is delighted to have provided a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson."?

And yes, the piano was in the room before the audience arrived. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is correct now. I think English speakers might say "to provide" even if they mean to use the past tense, but if the ceremony is over, then it would definitely be wrong. They might use a different construction ("the company is delighted that we provided the piano"), just because the passive infinitive sounds slightly formal. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "The company was delighted to provide a piano for the ceremony for John Johnson" is better. "To provide" is fine even if the ceremony is over. And by the way, it's "rewritten" not "rewrited". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop, there is no passive here. What there is, is a "perfect infinitive", and that is indeed rather formal. In ordinary speech people are much more likely to say "that they provided" than "to have provided".

I would write "The company were delighted to provide ... ", or if I want to emphasise that they are still delighted, "The company are delighted that they were able to provide ... ". Two grammatical notes: 1) I am British, and it is natural for me to say "the company were": American writers generally insist on "the company was". 2) I'm not quite sure why I prefer "that they were able to provide" to "that they provided", but I definitely do. I think it is because "delighted that they provided" sounds more self-congratulatory, and British writers are often uncomfortable with such expressions. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, sorry, that's right. I was thinking "past infinitive". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Identifying the passive agent in ‘precede’ and ‘succeed’

I struggle often to identify the doer and receiver of the action in words ‘precede’ and ‘succeed’, e.g. Mr. X is preceded by Mr. Y, or followed by, or succeeded by. So if Mr. X is an incumbent president, who is the doer of the action? How can these be explained? —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like any other active verb in English. If your sentence is "Mr X is preceded by Mr Y", then Mr Y is the doer (which we call the agent. They don't need any explanation, they work the same as other verbs. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Doer" and "receiver" are not always helpful words for analysing grammar, which is perhaps why linguists don't use them. There is no "doer" with these verbs, because they are stative verbs. The agent is the one who precedes, succeeds or follows, and the patient the one who is preceded, succeeded or followed. When the verb is active the subject is the agent; when it is passive, the subject is the patient. --ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a live example.

• Obama succeeded Bush. (active)
• Bush was succeeded by Obama. (passive)

In both cases, the agent is Obama and the patient is Bush.

• Bush preceded Obama. (active)
• Obama was preceded by Bush. (passive)

In both cases, the agent is Bush and the patient is Obama.

Does that help? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the concept of "patient" is applicable in successor/predecessor relationships. The words "succeed" and "precede" are not dynamic verbs, they express relationships between entities but they don't involve any actions. --173.49.16.188 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Our (very weak) article patient (grammar) says you are right, and I should have said "theme"; though it also says "A theme is denoted by a stative verb, where a patient is denoted by a dynamic verb. At the very least, there is debate to this effect". In my experience "patient" is used for stative as well as active verbs, and Thematic relation says that 'patient' and 'theme' are sometimes used interchangeably, though it does not give any reference for this. This is an example I found by Googling of 'patient' used with a stative verb (in this case an intransitive). --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Liliane Haegeman (1994), Government & Binding Theory, basically uses patient & theme interchangeably (it explains what the difference is, but then says she thinks that difference is trivial). That is more like a textbook, though, so I'm sure she cites another source in there, which I don't remember offhand. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Schtroumpf

How is schtroumpf pronounced in French? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that German? As I recall from the "German Week" episode of Are You Being Served?, it means "socks".--Nricardo (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of "Strumpf, (pl. Strümpfe)", German for stocking(s). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the French name of the Smurfs. I'm not sure about the IPA but it is pronounced "shtroomf", pretty much how it's spelled. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam is right. The "p" is silent in French. --Xuxl (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See and hear http://www.forvo.com/search/schtroumpfs/ (eleven letters, one syllable). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See List of the longest English words with one syllable. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

January 4

Of a [period]

For some reason, I go all queasy when I hear people using expressions like "I like to do such and such of an evening", "He regularly does blah blah of a weekend", etc. Putting my queasiness aside and subjecting it to close scrutiny, what's going on with this expression? "Of" doesn't answer the question "when" in any other contexts, does it? How long has it been around, and is it associated with any particular groups of speakers? Could one say "of weekends", or is it always "of a weekend"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Or "of a morning". It's a very old expression. My grandmother used it a lot. I suppose it's shorter than "during the morning" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Another midwestern expression that would probably drive you crazy is what could be called the "dangling with". Example: "I'm going to the store." "Can I come with?" and/or "We were going to return this item. I'll take with." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OED says "51. a. At some time during, in the course of, on.

App. taking the place of the Germanic and Old English genitive of time. Now only implying regularity or repetition (as also in sense 51b), e.g. in of an evening, of a Sunday afternoon. Now chiefly regional" and gives examples from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to 1999. --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

... so would it be considered "non-standard" by some? I can't imagine anyone using the expression in formal writing, but it is common in my own (regional) speech (northern England). Dbfirs 10:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See also wikt:of a.—msh210℠ 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, not obsolete here, but probably becoming so. Dbfirs 08:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so of a <singular> seems to be a fossilised form, and it can't be adapted to of <plural> or of the .... Is that right? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of non-specific, contrasting with something like "in the morning", for example, which implies tomorrow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by that, but thanks anyway. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Of the morning" sounds wrong to me, and I do use "of a morning". I'd say it's specifically indefinite. Steewi (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard "of the morning", at least not in this context. I was thinking of examples: "I like to go jogging of a morning", vs. "I'll be getting up at 6:00 in the morning" (i.e. tomorrow, or whichever day is being referenced). "of a morning" almost sounds like "every morning", and it's possible there's some connection there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis

What's the biggest possible emphasis you can put on a word? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When writing a word. Bolding it, italicising it, writing it in all-caps, making it bigger... how else can you put more emphasis on it? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Colouring it, decorating it, having flashing lights surround it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. The question effectively doesn't have an answer - maybe you could hyperlink the word to an audio file of the word being shouted in a very loud voice, or being sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Or illuminate the word in gold leaf? Or … The question does make sense in certain contexts; many publications (including WP) have a "Manual of Style", which is an attempt to ensure that a set of standards are maintained for publications by a specific organisation (such as a newspaper or online encyclopædia). Such a guide will commonly specify how emphasis is to be achieved and may prohibit certain combinations ("do not use both bold and italic", for example). The WP Manual of Style is to be found here, and states that italics should be used for emphasis. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Print it in a bold color? Example: A newspaper announces that we've declared war on somebody. The entire front page, occupied solely by "WAR!" printed in blood-red, or maybe international orange. There's really no one right answer. It all depends on what you're printing, what you want to emphasize, that defines what you want to be an attention-getter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Or as I saw in some bit of satire, "WA-" in huge letters, with small print saying, "Headline continued on page 2." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On an ordinary computer with the same font and size, UNDERLINING it. If you're not using a browser or word-processing program that offers a button to do so, you can enclose it between the HTML tags "<u>" and "</u>". —— Shakescene (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One question does strike me (prompted by BB's suggestion of using colour): What techniques are used in Braille to provide emphasis? I see the Library of Congress Braille Transcription Manual specifies the "italic sign" (⠨) and there's also a "following letter is a capital" sign (⠠). Are there other Braille idioms which are commonly used to provide emphasis? Tonywalton ^Talk 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>LIKE THIS?!<<< --Kjoonlee 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

very funny! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mac/Mc surname questions

And before I begin, a happy new year to the Language forum :)

Two ickle questions about Mac/Mc surnames, if you please.

a) What is the etymology or origin of "MacQueen" or "McQueen".

and partly related, I guess, b) Why has there been no "assimilation" of the adjacent "hard c" in such versions as "McKenzie" or "MacCulloch"? By which I mean, why not "MacUlloch" or "McEnzie" ?

Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 09:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For (a), McQueen (surname) gives some possibilities. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll take a look! doktorb _words^deeds 11:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's said that "Mc" (as in McNamara) is more Irish, and "Mac" (as in Macdonald) more Scottish. But I don't think that's hard and fast. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly in Scotland both "Mac" and "Mc" are now used with little obvious preference, though of course any individual family now only uses one form or the other for their own name: they are largely orthographic rather than etymological variations. Also, bear in mind that the Scots originally were Irish, so the different spellings probably occurred by chance when spelling was a matter of individual choice by each writer, and began to be fixed only after the advent of printing.

Rarer and old fashioned, but not unknown, is the third form "M'" where what I have represented with an apostrophe is (or was) actually a "turned comma" which in some typefaces may differ a little from an apostrophe proper. Some of the novels by the SF writer J. T. McIntosh printed in the 1950s and '60s appeared with his name in the "M'Intosh" form. When I worked in Scotland in the '70s and '80s, the frequency of Mac/Mc/M' names meant that for manual filing and other alphabetisation purposes some organisations treated Mac/Mc/M' as a separate letter falling between L and M (the -ac/-c/-' were not distinguished between: secondary alphabetisation commenced with the next-occurring letter).

As far as assimilation with following C/K goes, this is already complete or near-complete in pronunciation, but is presumably retained in spelling because the Mac/Mc/M' is still widely understood to be a distinct semantic element (meaning, of course, "son of"). Note however that in many individual family names, the capitalisation of the element following Mac/Mc has already been lost. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When I first encountered the M'Naghten Rule (governing criminal insanity), I had no idea how to pronounce it. Is a "turned comma" the same as an inverted comma? —— Shakescene (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, Mc is often written M^c, which not only emphasises that it is a separate semantic element (and still alphabetically considered before M in a lot of systems in the UK), but also seems like halfway between Mc and M'. 86.178.73.74 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that reply. doktorb _words^deeds 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Scots "were" Irish? That seems dubious at best. Rimush (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the original Scots were probably from Ireland. Briefly, here is the history. There was a tribe called the Scots that lived in Ireland and began spreading to the Inner Hebrides in the first centuries of the present era. This tribe conquered much of what is now western Scotland, merged with the indigenous people (perhaps Picts) through intermarriage and founded the Kingdom of the Scots. The Kingdom of the Scots conquered the Kingdom of the Picts, covering the eastern Highlands. In time, the people of the Highlands, whether of Scots or Pictish descent or some combination, came to be known as Scots. During the 9th and 10th centuries, Norsemen settled along parts of the coast and even dominated some areas, but they, too merged with the already mixed local population and their descendants came to identify as Scots. During the 10th and 11th centuries, the already mixed Scots people conquered what are now the Lowlands of Scotland. Even though most of the people in the eastern Lowlands spoke a Northumbrian dialect of Old English (the basis for the modern Scots language), the Lowlanders, too, came to be known by the late middle ages as Scots. So the Scots who were Irish are not the same as the Scots of today, though they are one of the many peoples among the ancestors of present-day Scots. Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) The mainstream historical view has long been that a tribe of Gaels, in Latin the Scoti/Scotii, from the north of Ireland invaded the west of what is now "Scotland" bringing their Gaelic language (with its "Mac-" element) to a hitherto non Gaelic-speaking area, establishing the Kingdom of Dál Riata aka Dalriada in opposition to the then-indigenous Brythonic-speaking Kingdom of the Picts. In time the two peoples were united by force under Kenneth MacAlpin as the Kingdom of Alba, and for various reasons the Gaelic language and patronymics subsequently became predominent. The Kingdom was in time renamed the Kingdom of Scotland, and also acquired a substantial admixture of "Anglo-Saxon"-derived and -speaking population. So while the modern Scots are indeed far from solely "Irish" in ancestry, in a purely linguistic discussion of the use of a Gaelic-derived term the statement is, I submit, not misleading.

I am aware, as a former Scottish resident, that the history summarised above has a good many complications, some details of which have come under challenge, but I am not aware that the overall picture (no pun intended) is seriously in question. If it is, please direct me to appropriate Wikipedia or other references. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To further complicate things, some of those modern Scots then moved back to Ulster, which is part of the reason why Northern Ireland is somewhat distinct from the south. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have heard preachers referring to Robert Murray M'Cheyne as Robert Murray Mmmmmcheyne. Marnanel (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Plural vs. singular possession

I've been thinking about a (potential) grammatical ambiguity. Compare "They should make it a top priority in their life" with "They should make it a top priority in their lives". The first is ambiguous because it could mean either that the collective shares the object (the life) or that each in the collective is assigned a life. The second is ambiguous because it doesn't make clear whether each in the collective is assigned one life or more than one life. Is there an ambiguity, or am I just thinking about the construction too mathematically? Furthermore, which would be more correct in the case that I wanted to mean "Each person, in their life, should make it a top priority"? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This happens to be vigorously-debated topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (several current threads). In the second sense, should one write "Each person in their life", "Each person in his or her life", or (using the older convention that's now rather deprecated of including both sexes within the masculine) or "Each person in his life" (cf. Shakespeare's Seven Ages of Man)? Even if someone could show that your logic is faulty (which I doubt), the emphasis and nuance are important rhetorically. Using the singular exhorts each person individually, while the plural suggests a common goal, achieved by common effort. ¶ However, as a matter of style, I'd try to find something fresher, sharper and more forceful than the overused (if sometimes unavoidable) "make it a top priority". —— Shakescene (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the many cases where real language is more robust than many people give it credit for. Yes, there is a formal ambiguity, but very little risk of actual ambiguity. --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were to stress the individual aspect (one on one), it might be better, if possible, to find some unclumsy way of saying "each person in his or her life". "Their" almost always reduces the force of an individual imperative, exhortation or description. For example, "each man enjoys his moment of peace and quiet" or "every woman must face her moment of truth" have more impact than "everyone enjoys their moment[s] of peace and quiet" and "everyone must fact their moment[s] of truth". Unfortunately, English vocabulary doesn't make it easy to do this grammatically and gracefully without making invidious choices about gender. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since, generally speaking, there's no limit to the supply of new words and expressions, why does the demand for a new pronoun not result in a new one? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Some have tried, with a construct like "s/he" or "xe", which may work OK in writing but not in the spoken word. Ultimately, "the people" decide what the language is. More than 20 years ago, an English instructor told us that "they", "them", "their", etc., like it or not, were destined to be used as third person singular - and it's coming true. I do it myself a lot. It's much less awkward and, frankly, much less annoying than the constant "he or she" stuff. And why don't we alternate between "he or she" and "she or he"? Why does the man come first? Using "they", it's a non-issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See Gender-neutral pronoun, Dennis Baron (author of "A Chronology of the Word That Failed"), Spivak pronoun, etc. "Thon" was actually listed in a respectable mainstream late 19th-century or early 20th-century dictionary of English... AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea, some tea and a tea

What do you make of it when people, for instance, ask their hostess for tea and say "Can I please have some tea?" vs. "Can I please have a tea?" Seems to be that the former is more correct, as it would be for coffee and anything else in a cup, whereas asking someone for "a Snapple" is appropriate, because the Snapple drink is in a discrete volume within its bottle. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Can I please have a tea?" is "Can I please have a cup of tea?". A cup is a discrete object, so the indefinite article makes sense. "Can I please have some tea?" sounds more correct though. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See Measure words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is the activity one is suggesting then "a tea" seems appropriate. If the reference is focussed on the liquid then "some tea" seems like it might be best. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "some tea" is only appropriate if the tea will be poured from a teapot; you are, therefore, partaking of some of the tea already brewed. Otherwise, you're not really having "some" of anything, rather an individual cup of tea. Maedin\^talk 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid"? If I haven't misremembered the lyrics, three lines were "Will you feel free/To take some tea/With me?" —— Shakescene (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it might make a difference whether the singer was inviting Rita to drink tea with him or eat tea with him. Marnanel (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea and oranges that come all the way from China can be good, too. PhGustaf (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're talking about carry-out, I'd associate "take" with drugs, rather than food or drink. Thus I'd be more likely to wonder if he was inviting her to smoke/snuff/chew/mainline it, rather than eat it. -- 128.104.49.12 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to use "a tea" if I'm talking about a particular amount - for example, ordering a cup (if I wanted more, I'd ask for "two teas", etc). If I'm asking for an amount which is not actually or notionally specified, I'd use "some tea" - for example, if I'd like a pot to share, or an urn for a meeting. Warofdreams talk 23:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Modifiers also make a difference. Personally, I would never say "a tea"--it just sounds awkward on my lips. But "could I have a green tea" or "I'll take a oolong tea, please" are fine, and I'm pretty sure I've said them before. (In fact, with modifiers, the awkwardness reverses itself for me..."some green tea" or "some oolong tea" sound terribly stilted to me.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So if you're in line at a Chinese restaurant, would you order some chicken and garlic sauce, even though there is obviously a predetermined size of c&gs (probably in the form of a specific size container), or a c&gs? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was with you until the last example. Rjanag is right, "I'll have a Long Island Tea" is the ONLY way to order it!

And, in the interest of completeness, I think the preferred option in most of the cases where your hostess has asked what you will have to drink, the best answer has been overlooked. It is simply, "I'll have tea".

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Either one is grammatically correct; technically, if you order some chicken and garlic sauce, you are asking for some quantity of chicken and sauce to be spooned onto your plate; whereas if you order a chicken and garlic sauce, you are using "chicken and garlic sauce" as the name of the dish, so you are asking for one particular dish. If the latter is advertised as a dish that includes side dishes or a drink or something, then asking for a C.A.G.S. is unambiguously asking for the entire dish as advertised; whereas if you ask for some C.A.G.S., then it is a little uncertain whether you are asking for the entire dish as advertised, or just for the scoops of food. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The expressions "a tea" or "a coffee" seem to be Britishisms. Americans seem more apt to say "some tea" or simply "tea", as Horse notes above; typically in an amount that's understood, based on the menu. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If I was to ask for "a tea", I'd be referring to a Snapple or some prepackaged container of tea. If I was to ask for "some tea" or "a cup of tea", I'd be asking for 'fresh' or recently poured/brewed tea. Asking for "tea" could be either. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-packaged tea? Quelle horreur!! What will they think of next? Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Column

In the column "Tone letters" the ipa symbol is followed by a number in parenthesis. What does this mean? Hakka_(language)#Tones174.3.123.13 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the link in the "Tone letters" column heading, the section Tone contour#Transcription in the article you wind up at seems to explain the significance of the numerals. Deor (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It indicates the contour of the tone. e.g., 53 starts high and ends mid; 44 starts high-mid and ends high-mid; 213 starts low-mid, dips low, and rises back to mid. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple version - 1 is low, and 5 is high; 3 is mid. It's a system invented by Yuenren Chao, one of my heroes. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

simper

If a person smiles for the camera, is the smile a simper? Thanks.Rich (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Wiktionary: simper. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The simper answer is sometimes, but not necessarily. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's Rogers Hornsby smiling for the camera and pointing to his Chicago Cubs logo, one of the many teams that would eventually can him, but he kept smiling.[2] The question is, does that smile qualify as a simper, or is it superior to a simper? I think he's at least trying to present a real smile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rogers Hornsby it may be but he is neither simpering, smiling or pointing in my link. Richard Avery (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This: [3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a simper in my personal estimation (too much genuine humour in the eyes?), but it's hard to judge from a photograph because, I suggest, an element of simpering lies in the subtle timing of its changing and holding of facial expressions, which a still photo can't capture. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's probably just a matter of (1) timing and (2) how talented they are at smiling for the camera. I initially went looking for Ty Cobb, because I've seen photos with him grinning broadly, but all I could find looked more like a simper, i.e. a "weak smile". Babe Ruth's smile looked a little more genuine. But it could be like I said in the first sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's kind of a parody of this situation in A Hard Day's Night. George is close-up to a photographer, and with each quick snap, George is changing expression. The supposed end result is a bunch of photos displayed on-screen, each with a totally different expression, all taken within about 30 seconds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wiktionary says it's to smile in a frivolous, self-conscious manner. There seems to me to be something more negative in its connotation:phony, smirking. I think this negative connotation is (correctly) reflected in your answers above.But many very nice, likable people are selfconscious and frivolous, at least sometimes. Since smiling for the camera, or saying "cheese" at the request of a photographer is selfconscious and not wholly genuine, I guess it's simpering. But since it's so traditional in the USA anyway to smile in that situation, it seems to me to be incorrect to call it simpering. Does simper get its negative connotation from similarity to simp? Because I wonder if it's a device by fiction writers to get the reader to dislike a character for having a facial expression, simply by it's simpilarity to the word simp. Thanks for all your replies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.160.248 (talk)04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Rich (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My old Webster's does not have an etymology for it. It just says, "v.i. To smile in a silly manner. n. An affected, silly smile; a smirk." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Webster's? Doesn't anybody have a Funk_&_Wagnalls any more? PhGustaf (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I swapped mine for a mayonnaise jar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

January 5

Good Korean Language Textbook/Website

I know a very small amount of korean and am interested in learning more. Are there any people here who know of a good method to learn/any good books or websites? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How much Korean do you know right now? There are many different textbooks available at the beginning level, though I would recommend choosing one from a University series that you could continue if you wanted to move up to more advanced Korean later. Probably one of the best series (and easiest to get) is the University of Hawaii's "Integrated Korean" set. There are at least a dozen books in it covering all levels that do a really good job of making things clear and using pretty modern Korean. Seoul National University has a very good series of books for colloquial Korean, and Yonsei Uni has a great one for grammar/more literary Korean, though I don't know how easy these would be to obtain at Amazon or other American book sites.

Books not to get: Anything from a publisher that makes guides to many different languages, like "Teach yourself Korean", "Korean for Dummies", "Teach me Korean" (unfortunately many of the books you'd find if you went to a physical Barnes & Nobles store). Korean is unique enough that you are best off with textbooks that were designed specifically for Korean and not as an offshoot of a more generic language learning curriculum. Oh, also, don't touch the "Korean in Plain English" books.

Some websites for learning online: http://korean.sogang.ac.kr/ (Beginning to Intermediate level), http://www.language.berkeley.edu/Korean/10/index.htm (Intermediate level). I've lost my bookmarks to some of the beginning-level sites, but I'll see if I can find some more.

Hope this helps~

--24.196.81.86 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, mostly just words/conversation stuff. Time to get some verbs etc. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Email Etiquette - replying to an individual AND a group

For formal business emails in which only one person is to be in the TO- field and multiple people are to be in the CC- field, how should one address the message?

Dear John, (ignoring the other secondary recipients)

Dear John and All, (awkward, but acknowledges their presence)

Something else entirely? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The first one, since it's only John you're actually writing to. The others are included for information only. Sometimes it's necessary to refer to one of those people in the text of the email, in which case I put "...Jane (copied in this email for information)" just to acknowledge their presence. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rarely put a salutation in an email. --ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I would say you're in the minority. If it's a formal work-related email then you definitely need some form of salutation, although saying "John" works just as well as "Dear John". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pet peeve here: if you do decide to reply to all the people in the circulation, please don't just put "All," as the salutation. I find this very rude. Is that just me? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree – that's bad. "Dear all" is fine, though (I would drop the capital A). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree too - "All" on its own as a salutation annoys me, as does "Best" as a sign-off. If the email also includes the phrase "going forward" at least once then my cup runneth over, but not in a good way. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Andrew, be proactive! Think outside the box and embrace the paradigm shift! -- 128.104.49.12 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic flags

I'm searching for some linguistic/ethnic flags. The ones I'm trying to find are: Ancient Greek, Cimbrian, Gothic, Istroromanian, Low German, Megleno-Romanian, Norse, Yiddish. I know that it may sound bizarre, but many other minority languages have their own flag, for example:

• Ladin => [4]
• Livonian => [5]
• Rumantsch => [6]
• Ruthenian => [7]
• Sami => [8]
• Sorbian => [9]
• Walser German => [10]

--151.51.19.249 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Those groups are self-conscious linguistic minorities within a modern nation-state; the ancient Greeks weren't (and their era predates the existence of national flags in the modern sense). AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, AnonMoos's prescription for the Ancient Greeks -- they existed before national-type consciousnesses (see Nationalism) and the concept of national-type flags (Timeline of national flags may be of some interest) -- applies equally to all the other groups you list except for Yiddish, which originated in the 10th-century Germanic-Jewish Ashkenazi culture and is still a living language, though in decline. It seems not completely unlikely that at some time in the last few centuries a Yiddish/Ashkenazi flag has been conceived, but if so it will never have been widely recognised or used. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can ask one or more of the members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly doubt whether they could come up with any substantial concrete information there beyond what has already been said here. The whole concept of "flags of languages" is somewhat problematic in any case -- languages do not generally divide neatly along national boundaries, and many of the flags linked by the original questioner above are flags of ethnic identities as much as (or more than) they are strictly flags of languages as such. If you look at commons:Category:Flags of languages and its subcategories, the only accepted flags which are strictly linguistic in nature there are the emblems of artificial languages (Esperanto, Ido, Novial, Lojban, "High Icelandic"). The other images in the category are ad-hoc combinations of different national or quasi-national flags, ad-hoc animated GIFs which flash sequences of flags, flags of ethnic or regional identities -- or are without wide usage and official status. If people can't even agree on a standardized icon to click on to access the English-language version of a website, then it's not necessarily too realistic to expect there to be an established flag of the ancient Greek language (though I guess you could cheat and use the wreath emblem of some versions of Hellenic neopaganism)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For some languages, I've seen other sites use the modern flag of the area where the language was spoken or the primary modern descendent of the ethnic group. It's not always possible, though. For Yiddish, you might be able to use the Israeli flag, but it's not correct, and some might take offence. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some might consider that to be slightly perverse, since Yiddish is distinctly a minority language in Israel today, and some prominent Yishuv leaders of the 1920's and 1930's were actively anti-Yiddish... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Chump

What is the etymology of "chump"?174.3.123.13 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=chump&searchmode=none rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I went to that link, and am not convinced. In usage, it appears to be similar to churl. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Failure cognate

Failure is to fail as ______ is to ail (as in a dental implant that's not doing so well, but is not at the stage of irreversible failure). We can speak of "implant failure," but can we say "implant ailure"? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not comparable. Fail is a verb that takes a complement (either a noun phrase, as in "I failed the test", or an embedded clause, as in "I failed to get the scholarship"). Ail also can take a complement ("what ails you?"), but in this case the verb and its complement are in a different relationship than they are in fail. As far as I know, there is no noun that means "the act of 'ailing' something"; the only noun derived from ail is ailment, which is different. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned, "ailure" isn't a word ("ailment" is the nearest noun). Also, the verb "ail" is generally applied to living things, rather than dental fittings (in contrast, fail in the sense of "to fall apart"/"disintegrate"/"cease to be of use" normally applies to inanimate objects and would not be used of human beings). If a living thing ails it probably has an ailment (or illness). However, "ail" sounds old-fashioned and would not be used by many English speakers, and "ailment" also seems a little old-fashioned. "damage", "impairment", "wear and tear", or "malfunction" probably have the sense you are looking for.

If you have a specific sentence you want people to comment upon or suggest a word, post it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous famous writers like Salinger and Pynchon

If they really wanted to be anonymous, why didn't they use a pseudonym? --Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a language question. Try asking at the Humanities reference desk. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Question moved to the Humanities RD.--Quest09 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The silent majority

Is there a single word or two that encapsulate the point (which comes up surprisingly often) that the silent majority are often overshadowed by the vocal minority (9 words)? Feel free to fire words at me :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Demagogy comes to mind, but that's more to do with a vocal _individual_. "Squeaky wheel", similarly - and that's just an abbreviated proverb. There's a Chinese proverb "Three men make a tiger" - but that's four words in both languages. Tevildo (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure the tiger proverb applies in full, but demagogy is pretty close, and at least useful in such debates. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked every word in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary that ends with "ocracy" and couldn't find one that means "rule by the vocal majority". (But I did find some other bizarre words, like strumpetocracy - government by strumpets.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The rate of Language change

Has there been any research on the respective rates that different languages change? I'm not, of course, referring to how fast the writing system or a dead language may change -- these often don't change at all, and don't reflect the natural course of language change. But are there any cases of two different natural languages, maybe spoken ones, that change at different rates? I've only heard of this once, on some Internet website, that Japanese has changed at a slower rate than Western languages like English, for Japanese children can still understand old, thousand-year-old Japanese literature while modern English speakers can't understand thousand-year-old English. But I'm hesitant to believe this until I hear more. For all I know, Japanese children are taught old Japanese from infancy... is it concievable that the languages of societies which are more traditional and elder-based change slower than those of Western, independence-based societies? Or maybe it has to do with the amount of borrowing between different languages. Jonathan ^talk 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at glottochronology; but its basic assumptions - which are really what you are asking about - are somewhat controversial. It's often assumed that Icelandic has changed relatively little over the last thousand years because Iceland was so isolated, but I'm not sure if this idea has been tested. --ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard that claim before, but I'm not surprised--it does sound rather ridiculous. A lot of people (first one that pops into my mind is John McWhorter) that languages change just as much, if not more, when isolated and left to themselves. Claiming that "language X changed little because it's isolated" tacitly assumes that the only source of language change is borrowings and language contact, which is certainly not true. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's important not to be misled by highly conservative orthographies. If Japanese children can understand 1000-year-old texts, it's because the kanji haven't changed since then, but whether or not they could understand spoken Japanese from 1000 years ago is an entirely different question. The same is true of Icelandic: the orthography hasn't changed much, but the pronunciation of modern Icelandic is wildly different from that of 11th-century Old Norse, so even if modern Icelanders can read the Eddas with little difficulty, they'd probably have a much harder time understanding it spoken. Indeed, conservative orthography is what makes Chaucer as understandable to modern English-speakers as he is; if English orthography had changed along with the pronunciation during the Great Vowel Shift and other changes, Chaucer would be much more difficult to read than he is. +Angr 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Angr about orthography--in particular in the case of Japanese. When laypeople say "you can still understand thousand-year-old Japanese", they are often just saying that the same set of kanji is used...but not only has the pronunciation changed (as Angr pointed out above), but the grammar has changed as well. This same issue comes up with Classical Chinese, which uses almost the exact same characters as Modern Chinese, but is for all intents and purposes a foreign language. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Japanese, I heard it's very difficult to understand Kabuki. Even the actors have difficulty understanding their own lines. --Kjoonlee 23:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly implausible that Japanese children can understand 1000-year old texts. Kanji were little used for writing Japanese 1000 years ago. For formal purposes, men would write in what they thought was Chinese, using Chinese characters, but often with a very strange approach to Chinese grammar; while for less elevated purposes they would write Japanese in kana. The two great works by women, the Genji Monogatari and the Pillow Book were both written in kana. So an ancient text in Kanji will most often be written in a mixture of Japanese and Chinese grammar (and Japanese inflections are always written in kana today anyway). A text in kana might actually be easier - kana spelling is quite conservative; but the grammar has changed significantly over the years --ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You've already worked out that languages change at different rates. There are a bunch of factors that come into play here. Literacy and language standardisation are two (see Dennis Ager's Motivation and Policy in Language Planning). Language contact is another - not just which languages are in contact, but their respective typologies, the status given to each by the speakers, what domains each language is used in etc. This can affect languages at different levels - lexical diffusion (i.e. borrowing), syntax, morphology, phonology and semantics. Sometimes it happens in odd ways - see mixed language, Michif language, Monguor language, Media Lengua. Languages tend to go through periods of slow change, and sometimes go through areas of strong language change (such as the change between Old and Middle English over about 200 years, or the change from Vulgar Latin into the older versions of modern Romance languages). Steewi (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

While language change isn't removed with isolation, borrowing is certainly reduced. That, along with conservative orthography, may factor in the ease of reading old texts; with more limited borrowing in a language's more recent history, a greater number of cognates could create easier comprehension. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Japanese: Classical Japanese is taught in junior and high school. Kanji have very little to do with it. The grammar and vocabulary is significantly different that serious study is required to make any sense of the texts. On the other hand, 17-18th century texts are fairly readable to a native Japanese speaker with minimal difficulties. Of course the same is true for native English speakers as well. Elementary students read Shakespeare (early modern English) with only minimal aids and never needing to learn special grammar or much new vocabulary. 124.214.131.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Very true -- a language engaged in language contact will change faster than an isolated one, I'm sure. And I guess you're right that some languages have undergone periods of intense change (I know that for the Old English to Middle English change that happened between 1100 and 1300 AD, it was fueled by the social upheaval caused by the Norman invasion.) Here's something I'm really interested in: is there a difference in the rate of language change between a conversative culture and a modern culture? If the culture tends to pay more attention to the old people than to young people, do new words have a harder time being created? Or, if we lived in a hypothetical communistic society with no class structure where there was no such thing as formal and informal speech, would new words come faster or slower? I'm starting to think not. I'm starting to think that a conservative culture will change a language just as much as a modern culture, and you can't really stop the language without stopping the life of the culture. Jonathan ^talk 15:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as Icelandic being isolated, I think we can disagree with that. Iceland has been in constant contact with Denmark for much of its history and the Icelandic language didn't change as much as the language of the Faroe Islands, which was in constant contact with Norway (and Denmark). I cannot give another reason for its apparent conservativeness, but I would disagree that it was isolation, or, at least isolation on its own, that caused it. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan, re: your question and conservatism - here in Slovenia there is lately a strong populist approach to the Slovene language (by some linguists, but mostly politicians), namely that our vulnerable, tiny languagette is on the brink of extinction, being pushed out of existance by the major languages and that them youngsters are actively participating in bringing about the downfall of the language by mixing English words into their spoken language (they do this when they are not loitering on peoples' lawns, I suppose). It's all a load of bullshit, IMO, but hey, this position is pretty strongly represented in the media and politico-speak. So, the atmosphere could be called pretty conservative, at moments even hostile to foreign language influences, but the Slovene language itself will have none of it and rolls on, changing along the way nonetheless. What I find amusing about this "ZOMG the language is being backstabbed by our young'uns" movement is that the proponents of it seem to have conveniently forgotten that when they were young themselves, they used borrowed words from English, German, French or Serbian as well, and not a lot of their slangisms held on, and the ones that did are now unblemished parts of the language. I see no reason why the youngsters of today should have more "language-destroying power" than the youngsters of, say, ten or twenty years ago.

What I find more disturbing, though, is that this same movement is also working hard to expulge all words of Croatian/Serbian origin (trying hard to erase from the collective memory that we were once brethren with those nations, I suppose), and in their purifying zealotry tend to even brandish as undesirable words that only sound like they might be Croatian/Serbian in origin but are really leftovers from the common ancestor, Old Church Slavonic, i.e. completely legit, old-school Slovene words. As far as I'm concerned, that borders on lingustic crime. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also in response to Jonathan, I don't think it's true that one can make generalizations about language change like that. There are a few languages that we can think of t hat didn't change very much while isolated and there are a few languages that we can think of that did change a lot while isolated. The reasons and manners of change perhaps differ. Language change has too many variables for one or two things to be considered the main instigators of it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is completely OR, but I've thought about this a fair bit, and I think that the rate of language change correlates strongly with the rate of social and/or political change. The way that this happens is that, in a given social order, the language of the prestige group is seen as the standard, of which other variants of the language are seen as nonstandard "dialects". When an existing prestige group loses power to another group, the new group's variant becomes the standard. Indeed, the new group may accentuate features of its speech that are distinctive so as to increase the distance of the new standard from the previous standard. For example, I can't prove this, but I suspect that the loss of rhoticity in England was a matter of the speech of the well-to-do middle classes of the towns of East Anglia and the East Midlands (which evidence suggests was already non-rhotic, perhaps through contact with Dutch or Low German) replacing the more conservative rhotic speech of the cavaliers as the prestige dialect of England during the 17th century. Marco polo (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess one test ground for this hypothesis would be nations that had Communist revolutions in the 20th century, and land reform and other stuff that caused class upheaval--did these revolutions coincide with major linguistic changes? (The only one I know much about is China, and in the case of China there are confounds anyway because in the mid-1950s, right around when they were doing land reform and other Communist-y stuff, they were also implementing some large-scale language standardization stuff.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo's hypothesis (which sounds plausable to me, BTW) would to an extent explain what I mentioned in my post earlier - the drive by Slovene linguists to purge words seen as being of Croatian/Serbian origin from the Slovene language. Granted, Communism in Yugoslavia wasn't the monstrous oppresive regime it had been in many other countries - it was seen by the people as a sort of humane Communism, and there is still a lot of Yugonostalgia around, so it's hard to say that the above mentioned drive for language change by expulsion of perceived Croatian/Serbian words is solely because of an intended distancing from anything Communist-y. It has more to do, IMO, with the perceived financial injustice commited to the Slovenes by the centralised Serbian government - Slovenes in Yugoslavia felt like they were working their (culturally essentily middle European/German) asses off to support the less-developed (culturally essentialy Ottoman) regions of Yugoslavia. A popular saying was that the Slovene worker is flushing their money down the Danube (i.e. in the direction of Belgrade).

Well, to be fair, I myself was only a wee un (early teens) when Yugoslavia fell apart, so all of this is second hand knowledge, and may be fundamentaly flawed.

Another Yugoslav example would be something I already mentioned before on this board - Croatia instituted traditional, pagan names for months, to distance its language from the Serbian language which uses the standard denominations (Januar, Februar, Mart, etc). These new (well, old, actually) denominations didn't stick with the general public, and nowadays regular Croats (i.e., anyone who isn't an anouncer for the national TV) refer to months as "first month", "second month", etc. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Russian? I haven't heard of any major changes that occured in Russian this last century despite three major wars and a game-changing revolution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I gathered from TV documentary, that when Hirohito made his first radio broadcast to announce the surrender of Japan in 1945, that most ordinary Japanese could barely understand the archaic language spoken at Court. True? Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article: Humanity Declaration. While the text excerpt looks daunting it's actualy fairly understandable and not too heavy on archaics. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind my previos answer. I looked into the whole text of the declaration, and it is indeed written in a fairly rigid Japanese with quite some archaicisms. I can imagine that the average Japanese person would indeed have had some trouble understanding the text in entirety (even if they undestood what was basicaly said), at least without having it in written form. Meh, let's have one of the natives on this RefDesk confirm or deny this. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

January 6

A Polish toast

Folks,

I am in need of a toast -- Na Droswie, Prosit, Skål, etc -- (1) in Polish, and (2) which does NOT translate to anything having to do with long life or good health. ("To old friends" might be a candidate, for example.) Any experts on THAT subject here?

Thanks in advance, DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question - I can't offhand think of any "general" toasts in English (as opposed to specific "to Jane and John, may their troubles always be little ones", "Her Majesty, God bless her" or "to the success of our endeavour"-type toasts) that aren't about long life or good health. The only one in English that gets anywhere near is "a toast to absent friends", but since that's effectively a remembrance of friends that have passed away (in other words died) that's probably not appropriate either. My Polish friends have always used "Na zdrowie". My uncle, a Scotsman, used to toast "Here's tae us, whae's like us? Gey few, and they're a' deid" but that may be a little difficult to translate. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit more explanation is in order. A long-time colleague is retiring -- with a terminal illness. Long life and good health would be in bad taste, and more importantly would make me look irrecoverably stupid. Hence, I need another idea or two :-). DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not translate the lovely Irish blessing:

May the road rise to meet you,

May the wind be always at your back,

May the sun shine warm upon your face,

The rains fall soft upon your fields and [optional for atheists and agnostics],

Until we meet again,

May God hold you in the palm of His hand. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood that blessing. What does it mean for a road to rise to meet you? It makes me imagine someone falling over flat on their face. Marnanel (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are heavy drinkers. 'Nuff said. HalfShadow 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In English you can make up any toast by saying "to..." plus almost anything that comes to your mind. It works the same in Polish: you use the preposition za followed by anything (often some abstract concept) in the accusative case. To you I would suggest Za przyjaźń! (Polish pronunciation: [za'pʂɨjaʑɲ]), "To friendship!" Please let me know if you need more suggestions or more help with the pronunciation. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Before someone asks: Na zdrowie! ("To health!") is the only exception where you use the preposition na instead of za. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but just to mention: "May the road rise to meet you", while the conventional wording in English, is actually a mistranslation of Irish Go n-éirí an bóthar leat. A better translation would be "May the road (i.e. the journey) be successful for you". +Angr 19:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions from an English friend of mine who has a Polish wife and runs a Polish restaurant staffed by Polish people:

As a regular drinker with the Polish, a few spring to mind, although most toasts are same as in English ie health related. The only other ones that I know relate to *serious* drinking...

There is this one from the villages:

Top, bottom, middle, table - Góra, dół, środek, stół (gora, dough, shrodek, stow)

As you may infer this related to touching glasses at top, bottom, middle and then to table before drinking.

Drink to your stupid head - Siup w ten głupi dziub (shoop vten gwoopi joop)

Drink before we fall asleep - Chluśniem bo uśniem (hoolooshniem bo ooshniem)

Hope this helps

Tonywalton ^Talk 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

These are good, but just to clarify: normally you'd only use these expressions when drinking shots of pure vodka. You certainly wouldn't use any of these to propose a toast to someone with a glass of champagne. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll drink anything that stands still long enough, me ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mynedfa derivation

What is the derivation of this word that means entrance in Welsh? Does it have connection with the verb 'mynd' (To go)?--79.67.75.108 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably; "myned" is an earlier form of "mynd" (the suffix "-fa" indicates a place).--Cam (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Spatial and spacial

What is the origin of the word spatial? I can guess how spacial came about. 78.146.51.13 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

From Latin spatium according to Wiktionary. "Space" came from the same source via French. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The OED lists 'spacial' as a variant spelling of the head-word 'spatial'. I do not recall having come across 'spacial' before. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only used on, ahem, spacial occasions. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

religious texts

which is the oldest religious text in this world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaaits (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably something in the Sumerian or Egyptian languages, as those are the oldest writing systems in the world. The oldest attested text which has been continuously revered by a still-existing religion might be the Rig Veda... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Humanities reference desk would be a better place to raise this question. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Epic of Gilgamesh is over 4,000 years old, so that's probably the oldest well-known religious text, but there likely are earlier Sumerian texts extant. John M Baker (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I would classify that as a "religious text", though. It examines some religious themes (mostly in a philosophical light), but isn't a text one could easily base a religion on. Matt Deres (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends also on your definition of 'religion.' According to Judaism, there are no other religions, and the Old Testament would therefor be the oldest religious text. Even without such a strict view of the definition of 'religion,' the Old Testament still ranks as an ancient text, having been received at Sinai in 2448 (it is currently year 5770 in the same sequence, making the OT 3220 years old.) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DRosenbach, those first two sentences are ridiculous here on the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree -- they establish that from a particular POV, the question has a much narrower focus. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What the Bible says was received at Sinai was the ten commandments, not the "Old Testament" as a whole -- and some books of the Bible make references to such things as Persian emperors (e.g. Ezra-Nehemiah, the book of Esther etc.) and so are manifestly much less than 3,220 years old. Mainstream Biblical scholars tend to doubt that anything other than a few small archaic "lyrics" (mainly the song of Miriam, perhaps the song of Deborah) survive substantially unaltered from before ca. 3000 B.C. AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

3000 BC? If this is Hebrew year 5770, then Hebrew year 2448 is only 1313 BC. +Angr 08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I had the two alternative phrasings "Before ca. 1000 B.C." and "Before ca. 3000 years ago" in my mind, and I unfortunately combined elements of the two in a way which led to a factually incorrect assertion... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes wish we could all agree to switch to the Julian Day system. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as we could all agree on which alternative we would all use. Seems the users of the system have as many sects as Christianity. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it silly to rely on the "Bible," as a fundamentalist reading of it provides a quite silly and absurd collection of snippets of laws that give no detail whatsoever -- you are right, however, in picking up an error I made...I was referring merely to the Five Books of Moses as being from that date. The entire FBoM were gifted at Sinai (not merely the 10 Commandments), except for a few passages here and there (e.g. on the topic of Shabbat) that were given prior to Sinai and Merivah. And to think that mainstream biblical scholars who neither read nor understand Hebrew and Aramaic so as to grasp the subtle nuances of the Torah and its commentaries can have substantial claims to make is bizarre. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of either of your postings to this thread really has been (and especially unclear on the reason for your switch from apparent ultra-fundamentalism in your post of "23:37, 6 January 2010" to ultra-skepticism in your most recent post), but in any case the main point remains -- it's unlikely that there's any lengthy connected passage in the Old Testament which (in the particular form in which it's found in the Old Testament) substantially predates the Rig-Veda. AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You take a very hard-line approach towards me, as though you suspect me of evangelism while I surreptitiously pretend to answer questions. The purpose of my posts was to highlight the fundamental question being asked by the OP: one regarding religious texts. What is a religious text? Any text that mentions God? Any text that is written by someone who claims to be religious? Certainly both of these suggestions would be met with criticism by many (including me). What makes the Rig-Veda a religious text -- the fact that it was written by someone as a form of prayer? The Rig-Veda differs from the FBoM in that the latter possesses claims of divine origin, while, from what I could deduce from a quick read of the former, it does not. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- you misunderstood and mischaracterized my religious perspective twice -- one in the form of ultra-fundamentalism and another in the form of ultra-skepticism. The Orthodox Jewish perspective is neither. (But this is not the place to discuss it. If you'd like to carry on a separate discussion, I welcome you to my talk page.) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I really have very little idea what the purpose of most of your posts here is, and have very little interest in pursuing this discussion further other than to observe that I was using a rough-and-ready operational definition of a religious text as one which is revered by a religion... AnonMoos (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In case the OP bears a perspective distinct from your own, I offered an alternative understanding. Settled it is, then. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DRosenbach, since your definition strikes me as somewhat arbitrary (no offense meant), I looked up our article on religious texts, and the definition in the heading is: "Religious texts, also known as scripture, are the texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred, or of central importance to their religious tradition. Many religions and spiritual movements believe that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturally inspired.", so at least according to our article, a body of text doesn't necesarily have to claim divine inspiration to be considered scripture. Incidentaly, the article also has an answer for the OP: "The oldest known religious texts are Pyramid texts of Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE." TomorrowTime (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I gave no definition for you to be struck by arbitrariness :) My assertion that the Rig-Veda might not possess claims of divine inspiration should not allow the extrapolation that I assert that all religious texts must possess divine inspiration. I can write a text tomorrow with no divine inspiration, but if I am writing an explaination, elucidation, elaboration on, etc. a previously defined work of scripture or body of religious thought, my work would indeed be a religious text. My purpose was to inform the OP that his or her question of "the oldest religious text" is nearly if not exactly as contentious as any other question on comparative religion. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish question

From the Finnish translation of a Lucky Luke album, I recall a Mexican gun shop owner telling Lucky Luke (and this is as close to verbatim as I can get, from memory):

"Dice que Billy the Kid dijo '¡Soy Billy the Kid! ¡Billy the Kid! ¿Tu entiedes eso? ¿Y eso? ¿Y eso? ¡Pum! ¡Pum! ¡Pum!'"

Now my question is, is this grammatically correct Spanish? JIP | Talk 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Another question, from another Lucky Luke album: Apparently Spanish for "when is it time to eat?" is ¿Quando se come, aqui? Is this grammatically correct Spanish? If so, can someone provide a direct word-by-word translation? JIP | Talk 18:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems fairly close. I read it as "He says that Billy the Kid said, 'I am Billy the Kid! Do you understand that? And that?' Bang!" I think the second one, "When does one eat, here?" is also fairly close. Do those translations make sense in context? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except the ¡Pum! is part of Billy the Kid's quote in the first one. It was Billy the Kid who fired the gun, not the gun shop owner. Thanks for the reply. JIP | Talk 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some spelling corrections: ¿Tú entiendes eso?, ¿Cuándo se come aquí?. +Angr 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My Spanish isn't strong enough to be confident about whether a given expression is grammatical or idiomatic, but I'm fairly certain that "entiedes" in the embedded quote in your first question should be "entiendes". Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. I saw it as entiendes, but it was missing the second n. Also, I suppose the Pum part would more literally translate as "Boom". Either way, imitative of a gun being fired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

need a 14 letter word with E A N A D N H T O I D M U I

need a 14 letter word with E A N A D N H T O I D M U I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.15.30 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there is one, at least in English. (DETAIN HUMANOID!) Marnanel (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And in other languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.15.30 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but a subset of your letters is adeimnot, which seems to have a lot of anagrams in Italian (as well as a couple in English and a couple in French). (The rest are adhinu, FWIW.)—msh210℠ 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out sites such as anagrammer.com which can solve puzzles like this. The closest word that it picks up, which is 11 letters, is "deanimation". ThemFromSpace 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that link! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.15.30 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SOED on CD doesn't list any anagrams of E A N A D N H T O I D M U I. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The anagram site I use found thousands of multi-word combinations, but when I restricted it to 1 word, it found nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

January 7

What does the word Nazi, mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.26.81 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See Nazism#Terminology for details. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 03:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From the top of this page: "Is there a way to get a faster answer? Yes, you can search first. Please do this. Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal names in poorly attested languages

Reading articles about ancient dead languages, I often find that a large part of their corpus is made by inscriptions listing personal names.
Now, I'd like to find some references, as complete as possible, about given names expecially in Etruscan (it would be amazing to find a list of Latin/Etruscan correspondences), Vandalic (≈140 names seems to be attested) and Burgundian ("Some proper names of Burgundians are recorded").
I'd also love to find informations about: Oscan, Ligurian ("Very little is known about this language, mainly place names and personal names remain"), Faliscan and Messapian ("Messapian and Illyrian is based mostly on personal names found on tomb inscriptions and on classical references"). --151.51.19.249 (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this is, but here is a list of Etruscan names. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, because of the close association of the Etruscans and Romans over centuries, Latin certainly borrowed/adopted a number of Etruscan words (e.g. anima), probably including some personal names, and the reverse may well have occurred: in some cases it might be quite hard to determine which, if either, has occurred. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with rewriting this

I found this in the article Black powder in gas pipelines: "Black powder collects in gas piping that is mostly mill scale, from new sales gas pipeline, flash rust from hydrotest water, post internal pipeline corrosion, and could be carryover from gas gathering lines." I'm not sure how best to improve it, would anyone like to have a go please? 78.146.234.221 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's too many ideas being crammed together. Dividing them into several sentences (and then editing accordingly) might help. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Before the edit conflict I added that it is disturbing because grammatically speaking the phrase "mill scale" refers to the gas pipe, but context indicates that this phrase refers to the black powder. The succeeding list of attributes is ambiguous - it is unclear if it refers to the powder or the pipe. 78.146.234.221 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian in Assassin's Creed 2

So, some background for those of you linguistically-inclined types who aren't also into video games: this game takes place in Renaissance Italy and there's a fair amount of spoken Italian dialogue thrown in throughout.

One of the things that I've wondered about is how accurate the Italian is. I don't speak Italian at all outside of a few musical terms, so I have no way to gauge. However, some things about the dialogue did strike me as a bit ... strange. My guess is that the writers actually did some research into the Italian language during the Renaissance, but I don't know if that's really true or not.

The big thing that jumped out at me was the use of the honorific "Messer" and (I assume) its shortened version "Ser". For example, the hero, Ezio, is often called "Messer Ezio" or "Ser Ezio". I've looked up this word and I can't find any evidence of it currently being an honorific in Italian (the article on Italian honorifics makes no mention of it at all), and other searches I've done don't turn up anything about it having been one in older times.

Can anyone shed some light on this? Were these honorifics actually used during the Renaissance, or did the writers just make up some crap?Dgcopter (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Messer" is the shortening of "Messere". It's actually a legitimate Italian word. It means "honorary title once given to jurists, judges and often extended to other people". It comes from Old French and ancient Provencal "mes sire" (XIII sec.), meaning "my sire/lord". (From "Dizionario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana - Zanichelli")
  It's extensively used in the Decameron (messer Ricciardo da Chinzica, messer Can della Scala, messer Ermino de' Grimaldi, messer Francesco Vergellesi, messer Guiglielmo Rossiglione, messer Guiglielmo Guardastagno), which take place in 1348.
  I think it's usage was common during all the Renaissance. It's very common to heard this title in Italian movies set during the Renaissance. (PS:I'm Italian!)
  "Ser" can be considered a shortening of "Messere", but it has a different history. It's the shortening of "Sere", that comes directly from Latin "senior" (from "senex", old), just like in modern Italian "Signore"/"Signor". The Old French "sire" (in "mes sire") has the same etymology.
  By the way, Ezio is a real Italian name (still used). It comes from the Latin name Aetius, probably derived from Greek aetos, eagle.--151.51.19.249 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In modern French, "monsieur" and "messieurs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it was the "Frenchiness" of the Italian honorifics that stuck me as odd, I think. But 151's very helpful response has cleared things up. Bonus points for the extra info about the etymology of the hero's name -- very appropriate in context, it turns out. Thanks, all! Dgcopter (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Presumably the Spanish "señor" and the English-from-Latin "senior" are also related? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Note also the modern Italian title Monsignor. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Older forms of French and Italian were still pretty similar (of course there is a sprachbund, so Provencal and northern Italian dialects are very similar, especially back then). By the time period of the Assassin's Creed game, there was also a lot of French influence in Italy, and the French invaded at the end of the 15th century, so Italian could have picked up French-ish words and phrases then. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The above has answered a question I've often been puzzled about. In the series CSI:NY there is a character named Danny Messer who has Italian antecedents. I'd always wondered why someone of Italian extraction has what appeared to me to be a German surname (from Messer, meaning "knife"). That's cleared that one up. Thanks, all. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Provided "Messer" is actually used as a last name in Italy and not just as a (now obsolete) title. It's possible Danny Messer's ancestors come from South Tirol and thus have a German surname (just like the Italians Werner Heel, Christof Innerhofer, and Isolde Kostner). Or maybe he's (say) seven-eighths Italian-American, but his father's father's father was German-American, supplying him with a German last name. +Angr 00:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Assassin's Creed 2 is set in Venice. Venetian is really it's own dialect, and was certainly different in Renaissance times. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that an Langue d'Oc word like Sire would likely have a cognate in Veneto. Steewi (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Kau

In the article it mentions Kau being an "Asian last name" with a {{fact}} next to it. From a search on the Internet, it appears that the character is 丘. "Kau" is certainly not the Mandarin Chinese pronunciation; I would like to know what language/dialect Kau is in. bibliomaniac15 19:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

wikt:丘 gives transliterations for Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese. The Vietnamese looks the closest to what "kau" might be; Korean and Cantonese are kinda-sorta. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Transliterations can be quite varied. The Putonghua version of Kau (if it is originally from Wade-Giles) is Gao (高), as in Gao Gang. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Combinations of sounds that are hard to pronounce

I'm talking English here. And native speakers.

I had occasion to use the words "plinths" recently, and it struck me how difficult it is to get to the end of word fully pronouncing each element. (I suppose one could cheat and say "plin-ss", but let's assume we're all purists here.) The singular "plinth" is relatively easy, but as soon as the -s is added, it turns it into a challenge. It seems to be that "th" and "s" are not good friends: "The two Ruths studied Thoth the Goth's myths about the deaths of moths" - shudder. Is there any other combination of sounds that's as hard for native speakers to pronounce as this? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That sort of thing isn't really objectively qualifiable, but of course you can make it harder by adding more consonants on either side of the "th"+"s" cluster. Try saying "Sixth Street" ten times without dropping any consonants. +Angr 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of 'sixth', it has always annoyed me when newsreaders on the BBC pronounce it as 'sickth'. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You might find some other combinations at 1st International Collection of Tongue Twisters. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the consonant clusters in syllable coda position--no languages like having clusters there. "Sixths" is, as pointed out above, an example of that--it has four consonant sounds in the end, but many people don't actually pronounce all of them. (I think there is some example in English with 6 consonants on the end, but I don't remember it off the top of my head.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Borschts", although that's only debatably English. "Rhythms", typographically, has seven consonants at the end (and indeed at the beginning), but it only has four real consonants. There are quite a few common English words with five consonants at the end - "strengths", "lengths", etc. Tevildo (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean phonemes, though, not letters; "strengths" and "lengths" only have three. Whatever I'm thinking of that had six, I remember it was just a pretty cheap variation on "sixths" or something like that (and also something that was only debatably English). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And again those examples include the -ths- cluster. It may go some way to explaining why certain countries say "math" instead of "maths". -nths- is even worse; rhythms, borschts and sixths are all pieces of cake to pronounce compared to plinths, not to mention creme de menthes (only tossers would say cremes de menthe). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And fortunately there's not much call to use the word "sevenths". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You really think "plinths" is harder than "sixths"? Are you pronouncing all the consonants in "sixths"? (/sɪksθs/) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Musicians talk about sevenths all the time. As for "rhythm", it has no consonant cluster in the pronunciation at all: don't be misled by the spelling, it's pronounced [ˈrɪðəm] with a definite schwa between the "th" and the "m", so its plural [ˈrɪðəmz] is no more challenging than "bottoms". +Angr 00:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what it is. Sevenths, elevenths, thirteenths, and Corinths are all hard, but plinths and menthes are harder because the stress is on the immediately preceding vowel. Why this should make a difference escapes me, but it seems to. Thirteenths could be stressed on either the first or second syllable, but it's easier for me to say when stressed on the first. All these -nths- words are an order of magnitude harder for me to say than sixths (including all the consonants: sik-s-th-s). Jack of Oz = 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet we use the word "months" all the time and never bat an eyelid. Maybe it's just a psychological barrier, but plinths is definitely more difficult to pronounce than months. That's me, anyway. (Good exercise for a speech pathologist to dish up: Three months worth of Corinthian plinths.) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you surreptitiously recorded 10 (or however many you want) American English speakers saying "months", I'd bet my house that they tend to pronounce it [mʌns]. (that is to say, they drop the "th".) I know I do. There are some coarticulation effects of the "th" (for me, the [s] is pulled forward a bit and is "toothy"), but it's not actually pronounced. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Another American (Brooklyn, specifically) handling of the -ths group is shown in the scene in My Cousin Vinny where Pesci uses the word youths and Fred Gwynne asks "What's a yute?" Deor (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But th-stopping is part of the stereotypical New York accent even when the th isn't next to an s. In other words, Pesci's character presumably would have pronounced singular "youth" as "yute" as well. +Angr 13:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In London, it's common for people to say "heightth" instead of "height" (I suppose so that it conforms to "breadth"). Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You get "heightth" in Australia sometimes, too. But nobody ever says "weightth". Funny how the ordinal 8th is spelt "eighth" - as if it were pronounced ayth rather than its actual pronunciation ayt-th. I guess I should never be surprised by English spelling, but that one always struck me as particularly odd. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The hardest combination I know to say repeatedly is "toy boat". Standing alone it's no problem but try saying it many times in a row at any speed. It's impossible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have too tough a time with that one. But how about "she sells seashells by the seashore". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear Samples of Spoken Languages Online

Where can I hear spoken samples of world languages, online? - Vikramkr (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If all you want is individual words, you can try Peter Ladefoged's Sounds of the world's languages, which has files organized both by language and by sound (i.e., words with /d/, words with /x/, etc.). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are four relevant links.

• Logos Dictionary
• LOGOS - Multilingual Translation Portal
• Forvo: the pronunciation guide. All the words in the world pronounced by native speakers
• LanguageGuide: Foreign Language Vocabulary, Grammar, and Readings

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes 56

In footnotes 56 "hochchhe" is mentioned. What does it mean.174.3.101.61 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading the section correctly, where it was referenced, it means "is". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the footnote says that the copula surfaces as 'hochchhe', meaning that the verb 'to be' (which is essentially the copula) is shown by the word 'hochchhe'. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Corollary to the Spanish question

So, I saw that in yesterday's Spanish question that "quando" was suggested as being fixed to "cuándo", which seemed interesting to me - I'm learning French as a second language, and "quando" reminded me of the French quand (when). This begs the question: in Spanish when does one use "qu" and "cu"? Do we know how it would've been like in earlier stages of Spanish? --134.117.182.175 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't say about early Spanish, but "when" in Latin is quando, which of course feeds both the French and Spanish terms. The Spanish "c" is pronounced 3 ways: as a hard "c" (like "k") when followed by a, o or u; as a soft "c" (like "s") when followed by e or i; and in combination with "h" is pronounced pretty much like the English "ch". That leaves a gap, which is how to form the "k" sound before e or i. The solution is "qu". As with English, "q" is used in combination with "u" and is typically followed by an "e" or an "i". In fact, my Spanish dictionary under "q" shows only "que" and "qui" words, nothing else. So "que" for "that" or "what" is roughly pronounced "kay"; and "quien" for "who" is roughly pronounced "kee-en". So why not just use the letter "k"? Like German, which always uses "k" for a hard "k" sound. The reason is that "k" does not normally occur in Spanish, except in words of Greek origin, such as "kilometro". In fact, my Spanish dictionary gives "quilo" as an alternate spelling of "kilo". So, as you say, "quand" in French, but "cuando" in Spanish. Seems like "quando" would have worked in Spanish, but they went with "cuando" for whatever reason. That was all kind of long-winded, and I hope it makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I found an interesting one: The normal Spanish word for "question" is pregunta, but the word "cuestion" also exists, apparently taken back from English or French. Note that it doesn't start with "q", though, because that would be pronounced "kay-stee-ohn", whereas with the "c" it works out to something close to the English pronounciation. Other switches include "cuanto" for "how many", obviously from the Latin from which we get "quantity"; and "cuatro" for four, which again comes from Latin "quarto" or some such. That also raises the question as to why Latin doesn't just use "c" instead of "q" in those cases. Some cunning linguist will have to answer that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It has mostly to do with historical sound shifts. In Latin, using made sense as it helped indicate the phonemic distinction between /k/ and /kʷ/. The latter consonant was lost in Latin's daughter languages (that is, Romance languages) but in different ways. From what I can tell, in early Spanish, /kʷ/ became /k/ before front vowels and /kw/ elswhere. Meanwhile, what was /k/ (spelled <c>) before front vowels palatalized to become /ts/ (eventually becoming /θ/). This meant that /k/ was spelled with <qu> before front vowels and <c> elsewhere.

I don't know the specifics about the processes, and spelling reforms complicate the matter so that, eventually, Spanish orthographers decided <qu> was only good for indicating /k/ before front vowels and indicated /kw/ with <cu>. Also, like I said, the merger operated differently in the different daughter languages. In Romanian, /kʷ/ became /p/ before /a/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the reason Spanish always uses cu + vowel to stand for /kw/, never qu, has to do with the diphthongization of Latin ŏ to /we/ (spelled ue) in Spanish. A word like "body", was corpus in Latin, which regularly became cuerpo in Spanish, with c mapping to Latin c and ue mapping to Latin o. Words like that would establish the precedent that /kw/ was to be spelled cu, so it was regularized both to cases like quando → cuando and to learnèd re-borrowings from Latin, like frecuéncia and cuestión. In other languages that didn't have the o → ue change, there was no motivation to spell /kw/ cu, so it stayed qu, e.g. in Portuguese, where those words are spelled quando, freqüência, and qüestão (Portuguese uses qü before e and i to indicate /kw/ rather than /k/). +Angr 09:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Portuguese convention is similar to Spanish use of ü to differentiate between /g/ and /gw/ before front vowels (agüero vs. aguerrido). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 11:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese does that too, of course. However, according to Portuguese orthography, qü and gü are used only in Brazil, and not even always there, and according to Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990, qü and gü are to be abolished in BP as well, with the result that spellings like que, qui, gue, gui will be ambiguous as to whether /k ~ g/ or /kw ~ gw/ is meant. No problem for native speakers of course, and it's one less letter for them to have to worry about (will it free up a key on Brazil computer keyboards?), but it's hard cheese on foreigners learning the language, who will lose a pronunciation hint in the spelling. +Angr 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually, in Spanish, if a word is pronounced /kw/..., then it probably starts with "cu" (like cuando), if it's pronounced /kj/... or just /k/... then it probably starts with "qu". L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's actually too specific a rule. In that context, the [j] is actually phonemically an /i/ that has become a semivowel. That's the source of Spanish [w] as well. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"kj"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as in quiere /kjere/ or quién /kjen/. +Angr 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a "ky" sound. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In IPA, /j/ is the 'y' sound... L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA must have been designed by Germans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, French and Britons for the most part. — Emil J. 17:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironic, since neither language pronounces "j" that way, in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really ironic, is it? Not in the generally understood sense of the word. Or are you Alanis Morrisette in disguise? 87.113.122.165 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, statistically speaking, nobody understands IPA, and nobody uses it, and it's a shame that it's a standard on Wikipedia instead of remaining in the Linguistipedia ghetto. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And, as has been pointed out many times, it's understood by far more people than any other system of phonetic transcription. (Shavian alphabet or Visible Speech, anyone?) The only alternative to IPA on Wikipedia is having no phonetic transcription at all. What's a shame is that some people spend so much time badmouthing IPA instead of spending the 45 minutes required to learn it. +Angr 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a dictionary of these pronunciations, or is it based on original research, i.e. on what a given editor thinks a word sounds like? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, neither language pronounces "x", "q", "c", or "ç" the IPA way, either. There are only so many letters to choose from, and they apparently deemed "y" more useful to serve for the close front rounded vowel. — Emil J. 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much to add to previous answers. Let's just point out that we do have es:Qatar. And that es:Gonzalo Correas seems to have been the first to try to reform the c/qu ortographic issue (though he apparently wanted them to be merged into k. Anyway, by 1815 the question became completely settled by the Real Academia Española. Pallida  Mors 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Cuestión" means "question" in the sense of "matter", as in "the matter at hand". You wouldn't ask a "cuestión".--Atemperman (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, as in "issue", like "What is the issue?" A narrowing of that term "question" to a specific meaning. You would ask a "pregunta". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The name of a door

Hello, could you please help me? I'm looking for the name in English of this type of door. It's a metal door which can be rolled up and down, much like a blind. Here is another picture: [11]. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.148.222 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a roller shutter.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

nl:wiki problem

Hi. Could someone with a grasp of dutch please do something to resolve the page http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Trains - the problem being that since it was moved from "Angel trains" to "Alpha trains" the text is now almost completely inaccurate - (see Angel Trains for details).

• Alpha Trains - european mainland
• Angel trains - UK
• Both separate companies
• Alpha trains not a player in UK.

Thanks.10:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nihongo translation please -.-;

Hello. This is gonna sound weird, but... what is the bunny girl saying to the right of the stage in this page? (You need to wait for the animation to load.) Thanks in advance~! :3 Kreachure (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

「欽ちゃん＆香取慎吾の第８３回全日本仮装大賞　　　たくさんの応募ありがとうございました　　放送日が決定いたしました♥　　2010年1月10日（日）夜7時～」。 It means 'Kin-chan & Katori Shingo's 83rd All Japan Dress Up Grand Prix Thank you for so many applications The date of broadcast has been decided From 7pm 10th Jan 2010 (Sunday)'. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Doumo arigatou gozaimasu. m(_ _)m Kreachure (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Good luck! :) --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question About Facemarks/Emoticons

Resolved

Can anyone tell me what this means: （；´Д｀）ﾊｱﾊｱ

I've searched google but I can't find the answer, and goggle translate just returns and load of gibberish unicode characters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's 'face characters' or 'facemarks', a type of text-based emoticon used mainly in Japan. You can find a site with a huge list of them here. Yours may be there. Basically it's a smile or something. PS I've changed the title to your question, as simply 'Question' is harder for you to find in archives. \(>..<)/ --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 19:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it. Yours is in our article on List_of_emoticons#2channel_emoticons. The ﾊｱﾊｱ after it just says 'haahaa'. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That makes sense with the context

Knighting sword

What is the best term for a sword used in a knighting ceremony? Knighting sword? Dubbing sword? Accolade sword? Something else? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have a special name: descriptions of knighting ceremonies just describe it as a sword. Queen Elizabeth II uses one of her father's old ones [12]. Karenjc 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)