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 12

Definition of OP

OP is often use for query is fully mean Opt. What does op for query use for questions stand for and mean?--69.226.34.161 (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Original Poster", the one who posted the question originally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

For more terminology used in Wikipedia discussions, see Wikipedia:Glossary. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This question seems to turn up frequently. Should it be kept on the ref desk pages permanently somehow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so. OP is unfortunate jargon, and confusing, especially for non-chat-forum people, meaning 95% of Earth, probably. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought is stood for 'obtusely placated' --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think of it more like this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best no to use Internet slang here as much as possible. But let's take this discussion to the talkpage. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to read the article on Original poster. But Wikipedia is not a forum! ~AH1^(TCU) 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Temperature subjective feel

I'm not really sure if this is a science or a language question. Anyway, I know there's a word for the phenomenon where when we touch some substances they feel colder or warmer than others because of what they are made from, but their temperature doesn't change. What's the word for that? Example: If on a day at 20°f you step outside onto a towel that sitting out there, or onto a sheet of steel sitting out there, you'll immediately think the steel is colder. Same thing for touching a piping hot piece of bread verses a metal pan at the same temperature (ouch).--70.23.81.136 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it because steel is a better thermal conductor than towelling? Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Meaning that it's better at "drawing heat away from you". A similar phenomenon on a really cold day outside: an iron railing will feel a lot colder than a wooden railing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparent temperature is used specifically for the weather, not the situation the OP describes. However, the fundamental reasons for the existence of the concept of apparent temperature a probably the same - ie the different rates at which heat is transferred. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "accusee" acceptable?

I very recently wrote at WP:RD/E that allegations of "hacking" may simply be a result of the accusee being more proficient than the accuser. Now, Mitch Ames (talk · contribs) pointed out that the correct term is "accused", and I admit that I made up "accusee", based on similar words like callee. The person being called is "the callee". By that logic, wouldn't the person being accused be the "accusee"? Thanks, decltype (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Callee, eh? Oh boy. Maybe we should start talking about the victims of murder as "killees" or "murderees". Or about someone we like or love as a "likee" or a "lovee". Or about cattle that have been slaughtered as "slaughterees", and then eaten as "eatees". Maybe we should start calling our husbands and wives "marriees". Do you see how unproductive this appeal to logic would be? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Still, callee has somehow become a widely used term in computer science to denote a function being called (and can apparently also be used to refer to a person being called - I didn't know that). decltype (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's quite common to add the suffix -ee to a transitive verb to make a noun meaning "person being Xed", as in callee. What I find interesting is the less common habit of adding the suffix -ee to an intransitive verb to make a noun meaning "person who Xes", as in standee. It sort of suggests that ergativity has its place even in an accusative language like English. Back to the original question, I'd say accusee would be acceptable if the noun accused didn't already exist; since it does, there's no need to coin a new synonym for it. +Angr 12:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Even transitive verbs are sometimes made into agent-nouns by adding -ee, e.g. "attendee". (I think there may be other examples but can't think of any off-hand.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, shouldn't it be "attender"? Though I don't recall hearing that term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were writing an article, you should switch into a more formal dialect and use "accused". If you were writing on a talk page, it makes no difference. People will have no problem understanding you, especially if they know a little French, since accusee is a cognate for accusée. On the other hand, I didn't realize at first that you intended accusee to rhyme with "tree", if that is what you were thinking. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask whether this has something to do with French origins, but now I wonder if it has more to do with where the usage first occurred. Something ending with "-ed", such as "the accused" could be short for "the accused one". In contrast, you have "employer" and "employee", and you don't often hear "the employed (one)". Likewise with "caller" and "callee", you don't so much hear the term "the called (one)". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We have the word defendant. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The English suffix "-ee" clearly derives from the French "-é(e)" in the sense that it has been generalised from words like "employee" and "lessee" which were borrowed from French. But it is a slightly productive suffix in English, and gets added to words irrespective of their origins. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The words are accuser and accused. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(response to JackofOz). Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but "murderee" had quite a spree more than 100 years ago. New York Times archive 1892. Webster's 1913 edition lists it as someone who has been murdered, but I've also seen it used to describe someone who is the type of person who gets murdered. Wiktonary gives two citations, 1970 and 2001. Granta 25 (1989) has Martin Amis's "The Murderee" on the front cover. For some reason I can't get in to the OED, or I'd give you chapter and verse. And the next thing you know, we'll be calling a person who has been divorced ... a "divorcee". BrainyBabe (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. (Thinks: Is somebody I see called a "seeee"?) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of my favorite phrase in Manx, where "she will eat" is [eeee ee] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). +Angr 11:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Which in turn reminds me of the Cetacean language. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Michaelhouse

At Cambridge there used to be a college called Michaelhouse. Was it pronounced "Michael House", or "Micklehouse" as in Michaelmas? The Wednesday Island (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it ceased to exist before the great vowel shift the question is moot: the vowel in "Michael" did not meander to its present strange place in the mouth until later. The equivalent question at the time would have been whether the vowel was long or short (/mi:/ or /mi/ - roughly "mee" or "me"). I don't know if there is any record of how the name was pronounced. I certainly heard it referred to as "Michael house" in Cambridge thirty years ago, but it's unlikely there was any unbroken tradition. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

M/M: Lettering format

Waht does M/M: mean. Since When I apply to a Catholic school in orange county when mail letter home it said on top M/M:ABC then proper locale mailing format.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That means "Mr. or Mrs.", or, I suppose, Miss, and possibly even Ms. It's used when the gender of the recipient is not known. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or "Mr. and Mrs./Ms." —— Shakescene (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What's this sentence construction?

Consider these sentences, a and b:

a: The man who first ate an oyster was brave.

b: The man was brave who first ate an oyster.

Is there a term for the sort of construction found in b, where a relative clause follows the verb phrase instead of coming right after the noun it modifies? Also, do most native speakers of English find this construction difficult to parse? (I ask because I am one, and I do.) 69.111.79.27 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleft sentence. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More generally, I would call it "poetic". You often see sentence construction in poems and sayings and such which are a little unusual. "Frog he would a wooing go." That's almost German-like construction, I think. P.S. Oysters are good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't know of experimental examples off the top of my head, I am fairly certain English speakers find the cleft sentence (b) more difficult. For the seminal article on what types of sentences are considered hard to parse, see John Kimball's 1970 "Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language". I'm not sure exactly which of the 'principles' is relevant to this one, but it's something more or less along the lines of Minimal Attachment (an amalgamation of several of Kimball's principles) and Right Branching—the idea is that once you've already read "the man was brave" and closed it off (thinking it to be a complete sentence), encountering "who..." and trying to integrate it is difficult. You want to integrate it to the nearest word, but you have to backtrack a ways. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the oyster comment is a good illustration of the subtleties of English. Both sentences contain the same basic information. But the first is prosaic and unmemorable, while the second is poetic and catchy. I would say the second one has even more impact if read out loud, because you have to say it a certain way for it to be properly pithy and funny. Inflection something like, "The MAN was BRAVE... who first ate an oy-STER!" The first part with a little enthusiasm, the second part monotone except for emphasizing that last syllable, and ideally with a bit of a smirk on the teller's face. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So in summary, I say that although the technical term may be "cleft sentence", the more general way of looking at those sentences is prosaic vs. poetic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the reason these two sentences sound poetic is because they happen to fit the pattern of iambic pentameter. Maybe the second one also sounds a bit foreign, since Romance languages (and Latin) can start normal sentences like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(b) is not quite iambic pentameter, unless you're saying it in a pretty stilted way. When I say it, it's "the man was brave who first ate an oyster. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For iambic pentameters, one could say:

The man who first an oyster ate was brave.

The man was brave who first an oyster ate.

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Describing this as a "cleft sentence" is precise. Describing it as "poetic" is subjective. Clefting, pseudoclefting, topicalization (as in Bugs' example "Frog he would a wooing go") are all cases where the normal sentence structure is disturbed, usually for rhetorical effect. Poetry is one reason why this might be done. --ColinFine (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"For rhetorical effect", yes. As Malcolm points out indirectly via the content of the link below, it is this effect that makes a phrase or sentence more interesting or "catchy". It's unlikely Yoda would be quoted or imitated so much if he talked the "normal" way. And with the oyster comment, the first way of saying it is mundane, and the second is much more likely to appear in Bartlett's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced conjecture aside, the construction in question is known as anastrophe. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Which sounds like it ought to be the opposite of a catastrophe. +Angr 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the iony of it all! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

January 13

Application

What is App.?174.3.101.61 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, apparently. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that, "Apparently, it means apparently", or "It means apparently, apparently"? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in a generous mood today. Please interpret it in any way that gives you pleasure.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it ever otherwise Jack? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Semivowel alternations

What I'm trying to do at our approximant consonant article is show examples where a semivowel alternates with its corresponding vowel. As you can see, I've got examples from Spanish for /i ~ j/ and /u ~ w/, a French one for /y ~ ɥ/, and an American English one for /ɚ ~ ɻ/. These alternations differ from arbitrary pairs of examples because they show a change the occurs upon suffixation. What's missing right now, though, is examples of /ɯ ~ ɰ/ and /ɑ ~ ʕ̞/ alternations. I'm not familiar with languages that have these pairs. Can anyone help? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In the Semitic languages I'm somewhat familiar with, a voiced pharyngeal often induces an "a" type coloring in an adjacent vowel, but I don't think a pharyngeal can be usefully said to "alternate" with [a], and I'm not sure what that would really mean... AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

An alternation with [a] would mean that when (nonce-affix) -oqe is added to (nonceword) ava, the result would be avʕoqe; the insertion of [ʕ] in hiatus (avaʕoqe or avoʕaqe) would be close enough, I think. Short of that, do you have an example where the addition of an affix triggers this a coloring? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any language in which an [a]-vowel is transformed into a voiced pharyngeal consonant by a phonological rule, and I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any. In the Semitic languages, only a restricted subset of consonants are allowed to appear in inflections, and pharyngeals are not in that set (though [h] and the glottal stop are). The typical situation where you get [a] coloring is when a non-[a] vowel appears in a form derived from a consonantal root without pharyngeals, such as "k-t-b" or whatever, while [a] occurs in the corresponding position of the form derived from a consonantal root with a pharyngeal consonant. By the way, in some languages for some purposes, the non-pharyngeal [h] can induce [a]-coloring in an adjacent vowel. AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Portray or depict?

I've been toying with the idea of submitting a move request for List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. As I see it, the article name should be "List of films depicting paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors". Characters portray, films depict. Is my thinking flawed or would there be general agreement on this point? Maedin\^talk 09:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'd support that, "depict" is more neutral. "Portray" has a slightly arty tone to it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say actors, not characters, portray. —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"re" case

(silly me, I'd posted this at the humanities desk)

Is there a name for a grammatical case equivalent to 'regarding, concerning, about'? As in a special case for X in "I have a message about X". kwami (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The prepositional case performs this function in some languages, but not in English. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mean in in English. But in place of a preposition: a form "message John-[re]" which would mean "a message re John". Which case would that "-[re]" be? I don't know that there even is a name, which is why I'm asking here.

Or it might be restricted to linking a noun to a predicate, something like "to fear X, be worthy of X, to talk of X, think of X", etc, but specifically with a relationship of "concerning X", not also as a general dative or ablative. Kinda like a topic marker, but a case rather than setting up a topic-comment construction. kwami (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

List of grammatical cases#Morphosyntactic alignment lists Oblique case and

List of grammatical cases#Relation lists Ablative case. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I doubt it's something we have a dedicated article on. At least, there's nothing in our case template, or on our list (closest maybe is causal, but that only covers some of the functions). kwami (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from case grammar, the available cases and their names and functions vary from language to language. While there is a degree of commonality, especially between related languages, the answer to questions like this will often vary from language to language. Offhand I can't think of a language which expresses this with just a case inflection, (but somebody will no doubt reply with an obvious instance), so there will be little reason to have come up with a name for one. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My Latin is extremely rusty, but isn't there a special use for Dative where it is like "X in reference to Y"? Falconus^{p t c} 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There probably is. But I'm looking for the word you'd use for a case that is dedicated to such a role, not a more general case that can also be used that way. kwami (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the "dative of reference", which indicates who benefits or loses from an action. Ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam afferentem semen super terram... ut sint vobis in escam. Look, I give you all seedbearing plants on the earth... to be to you for food. Marnanel (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ilaksh, a case-heavy constructed language, uses a "referential case", though this would probably be an invented term for that purpose and not an established term in linguistics. -- The Great Gavini 16:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. That's along the right lines, though I was hoping to find s.t. in a natural language. It seems rather odd, with the variety of cases in the world, not to have this. kwami (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation rule?

Is there a rule as to when the second syllable gets the emphasis? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In English? kwami (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

English probably has more exceptions than it has rules, but unabridged dictionaries sometimes have information like that; patterns to look for. There are some examples in the previous section. And "example" itself is an example. But that might just be coincidental, as it's often the next-to-last syllable that gets emphasized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Such a rule does not exist in any language, to the best of my knowledge. Some have a rule that the final syllable is stressed, some the penultimate, and others the first, but none that specify the second syllable. Why? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There are languages (a lot of Native American languages, for example) where the second syllable is stressed if the first syllable is light, but the first syllable is stressed if it's heavy. I don't know of any language where the second syllable is always stressed regardless of syllable weight. +Angr 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Languages with basic second-syllable stress are certainly uncommon,. but there have been claimed to be a few, such as Southern Paiute and Dakota.... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

When you record a record, the verb form has the stress on the second syllable, while the noun form has the stress on the first syllable. --Kjoonlee 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And this is true for most (though not all) English disyllables. A verb has final emphasis, a noun has penultimate. Steewi (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See Initial-stress-derived noun. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In English, emphasising the second syllable usually makes a sentence sound weird. However, in some languages such as the Mayan language, the second syllable is often emphasized, though not always, sometimes it is the last syllable. For example, Chichen Itza. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Translation

Can someone who speaks Arabic tell me what the following means: منيح منيح :) أنا مصري.

Thank you! Luthinya (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what منيح means (someone's name, maybe? what's the context?), but انا مصري means "I'm Egyptian." Wrad (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Google translate doesn't have a meaning specifically for منيح, but it says the trisyllable m-n-H has a meaning of "grant" (like the verb to grant something). Steewi (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"I'm Egyptian" is correct. منیح (manih) means generous; it should be a name here. --Omidinist (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are ships feminine in American as they are in English ? And why ?

Hello my dear Pytias. Please excuse my poor English, I'm French. I've some questions about the sexe of ships.

1) An English man explain me it's useless trying to understand why ships are femenine in English, but anyway if you have ideas about that I'm eager to get new ideas on that.

2) MAIN QUESTION : A friend of mine who says she is bilingual American-French because she had lived in the USA from 0 to the age of 8 didn't know that ships are feminine in English. Would that mean that in American ships are not always feminine ? ( In fact I think she shows off when she proclaims she's bilingual )

3) What about other English speakers : Indians, South Africans, and so on...

4) Do you use feminine for all kinds of boats, rowing boats, sailing boats, boats for children

P.S.: I wrote Pytias at the beginning of my letter because the equivalent of the reference desk in the WP:fr is "L'Oracle" referring to Delphi.--82.216.68.31 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, ships have been referred to as "she". This is, however, changing. The current recommendation of the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), which is widely used in the U.S., says "When a pronoun is used to refer to a vessel, the neuter it (rather than she or her) is generally preferred." As for the origins of the tradition of using "she" in referring to ships, CMS says "Pronouns enhance personification when a feminine or masculine pronoun is used as if the antecedent represented a female or male person (as was traditionally done, for example., when a ship or other vessel was referred to as she or her.)"

So the choice is she or it, and it remains a personal choice, with people advocating for their personal preferences with varying degrees of vigor. On the one hand is tradition; on the other, gender equality. Take your choice, and you've chosen your pronoun. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. since you seem to want help with English, it may not be too offensive for me to add the following points:

• You probably meant Pythias, an allusion which unfortunately too many English speakers won't recognize, but which is still nice :)
• It is probably better to refer to a ship's "gender" rather than "sex" - Nunh-huh 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably meant the plural of Pythia, not Pythias, Aristotle's wife. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It seems to me that two things are true for English usage of she for vessels.

1. Not everybody uses this pronoun, especially people unfamiliar with boats or sailing.
2. The usage is not exactly parallel to grammatical gender featured in Romance languages like French. It seems more like an attempt at anthropomorphizing the ship, giving it human characteristics and projecting a certain will to it. I suspect that only named ships are referred to as she.

This is coming more from someone with minimal experience with boating, so perhaps others could substantiate my claims more. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Seagoers are indeed far more likely to insist on she, and it is indeed for anthropomorphological purposes....for whatever reason, sailors are more likely to conceptualize their relationship with a ship as with a woman than with a man.

Seagoers are also more likely to insist on a "boat"/"ship" distinction, in which the former are small vessels, and the latter large. Some define a ship as a vessel large enough to carry a boat. Others might claim that ships are seagoing vessels, while boats are not. These folk would refer to "ships" as "she", but would be a bit less likely to refer to "boats" as "she". But these distinctions are not observed in the everyday speech of landlubbers. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it true, as per Rex Harrison in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (film) that "sailors" is "a landlubber's term" and that they prefer to be called "seamen"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I cannot say if Rex speaks true or no. But generations of punsters would be thankful if he is correct. - Nunh-huh 02:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that took over an hour. Where was everybody? As you may know, "seamen" are men who work at sea, while "semen" is from the Latin for "seed". Anyway, I'm curious to know, but I suspect no one here knows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bells are "she" to ringers, at least in the phrase "Look to; treble's going; she's gone." But I believe that this too is anthropomorphism. Marnanel (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are all bells considered feminine? I've only heard it in that phrase (and occasionally with "treble" replaced by "two" when there are insufficient ringers to ring all the bells). I wouldn't be surprised if the tenor was considered masculine. Big Ben has a man's name, after all. --Tango (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That may not matter. The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) has a man's name, and is nonetheless "she". - Nunh-huh 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember: I think I once rang backwards, and they said "tenor's going, she's gone" just the same. But of course this is anecdotal. Marnanel (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I liked the Pytias reference - perhaps the RD is being referred to as "da Big Cheese"? As for sailing vessels, I'm told that my grandfather (who sailed with the Merchant Navy all his life) averred that only two types of vessel could be referred to as "he"; gravy boats and mail boats.Tonywalton ^Talk 00:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To my (American) ear, calling any vehicle by "she" is acceptable, but not mandatory. That includes mainly boats and ships, but also airplanes, spaceships, and, rarely, cars. The only vehicle I can think of where "she" is definitely out of place would be a train. Falconus^{p t c} 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why leave out trains? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It just sounds wrong to me, though I guess with the actual locomotive it works fine. Falconus^{p t c} 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes... Buddy431 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. Falconus^{p t c} 04:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How does a train drive six white horses? --LarryMac | Talk 13:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To my (Australian) ear, it's much the same: 'she' or 'it' - but never 'he'. Funny that - another example of utterly unconscionable discrimination against maleness in all its forms. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, really! When do we get our turn to be thought of as property? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning, Will Robinson! In the current atmosphere, do not attempt to burn your boxers in a plane. - Nunh-huh 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I (Texan) drive an old Ford Econoline van, and it's got lettering on the side, left over from its previous career as a catering van. Since it's got a name, which everyone uses to talk about it, it's already a bit anthropomorphized. Thus, a lot of people - American people - when they ask me how (or whether) the van is running, refer to it as a "she". I think they're assuming that I do the same thing ship-captains do, in thinking of the vehicle as a woman, but I don't. I consider it an "it", and I think of myself as progressive-minded when it comes to gender issues. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I find it so weird when men who already have a relationship with their pickups that verges on romantic, add testicles to it. Weirdly homoerotic. But maybe that explains the embrace of the term "teabagger" by some of the tea party folks... Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They do what? O_o

As for my van, there are two stickers on the back, where you would expect sex parts. One is a band sticker for Ween, with their name emblazoned over their phallic-looking mascot, the demon-god Boognish. Next to that is a sticker from a feminist skit-comedy troupe that used to operate out of Austin. Their name was "Viva La Vulva", and the sticker says "Vulva", under the traditional woman silhouette that indicates women's restrooms. That way, I can point out to anyone who seems confused that it's got both boy and girl parts, and is hence an "it" (and probably disqualified from Olympic competition). -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Truck nuts. I thought you said you live in Texas?  :) Surely they're as bad an Oklahomans... Guettarda (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I live in a college town, and I guess I've got selective blind spots. Growing up here, they're useful.

As a Texan, I can't accept "as bad as Oklahomans" though. We're badder. :D -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone once told me, "A Texan is a wetback who never made it to Oklahoma." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Careful, it might be wabbit season 'round here. Texas is home to the world's largest fleet of pickup trucks with gun racks, and we're on the lookout for varmints!

There's an anecdote (likely aprocryphal) about a county in West Texas that used to have a law against driving around drunk shooting guns. Drunk driving was ok, shooting while driving is of course fine, and drunk shooting is good times. All three though? That's just irresponsible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't surprise you that there's a work of art that explores part of the subject mentioned in your first paragraph, starting at about the 2 1/2 minute mark.[1] Be aware that this film was made during the War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, as others have said, the use of she for ships is optional and is not the same as grammatical gender in French, but is instead a matter of personification. I can well imagine that an 8-year-old child whose family were not sailors or otherwise maritime would never have heard that some English speakers personify ships as women. Those people who do personify ships might also personify small sailboats, but to personify toy boats or rowboats, I think, would be considered humorous. Finally, I don't think that there is much difference between British English, American English, and other varieties of English on this question. I think that the personification of ships in all countries is optional and mostly practiced by people closely involved with ships and boats. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"). -- Wavelength (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

American English is not a distinct language from English, albiet a dialect, and English words do not automatically have any masculine or feminine identities, as they do in French. Usually, we refer only to humans and animals as male or female. Ships and veichles are not the only objects sometimes referred to as "she", some countries are also referred to as "she" or "it" (although some countries are self-described as the Fatherland), and hurricanes are often referred to as "he" or "she" depending on the name of the storm, but usually as "it". There are very few neuter nouns in French, but nouns in English are usually always neuter, meaning they have no identity applied to them. Ships often have a "gender" or "sex", but only by tradition. En anglais, les noms ne sont pas masculin ni féminin, parce qu'en français et espagnol les noms ont une sexe mais pas en anglais. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

January 14

Numbers in Hindi

The Hindi version of 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? is on TV at the moment, and the two contestants have just won 640,000 Rpees, but it came up on screen as '6,40,000'. Why would this be? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See Decimal separator#Examples of use. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Excellent! Thanks! That explains also why it's called Crorepati. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian numbering system might also help. Unfortunately, they decided not to use this system for the movie Slumdog Millionaire, when it's the only system that would have actually been used. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They didn't for the printed numbers, but even the subtitles talked about crores. I was pleasantly surprised by that. Steewi (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I once saw a newspaper article that mentioned crores of rupees and millions of dollars. —Tamfang (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"house" as a building and the family too

I have just submitted a hook at Template talk:Did you know, reading:

... that The Wodehouse, a country house near Wombourne, has twice produced individuals significant in British musical history?

The first comment this received is that it isn't idiomatic usage. But I mean "house" as in "the house of Capulet" as well as the bricks and mortar. So two questions:

a) Am I right, or is that usage now archaic?

b)Since it doesn't matter whether I am right or not if the "Did you know" team don't like it, can you suggest a better phrasing? BrainyBabe (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As "the house of Capulet" actually were named "Capulet", whereas "Wodehouse" is specifically the name of the building, and the family residing therein is named "Hellier", I find using "Wodehouse" to refer to the family to be odd. If you were referring to the family, I'd probably say "the house of Hellier". A better phrasing might be

... that the families living in The Wodehouse, a country house near Wombourne, has twice produced individuals significant in British musical history?

with families, as "more than once the family has died out" -- 70.90.187.65 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"the family ... has" or "families ... have" depending on the facts. --ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people named "Wodehouse" are probably originally named after Woodwoses... AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that it's quite bizarre that that article links to Galton–Watson process in the lede. Marnanel (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Because twice the family became extinct, as genealogists would have it (i.e. the men died "without issue" -- no legitimate offspring). Women didn't count, because if they married they took their husband's name and if they didn't marry they weren't allowed to procreate. The first few sentences of the Galton–Watson process mention "Francis Galton's statistical investigation of the extinction of family names.[...] There was concern amongst the Victorians that aristocratic surnames were becoming extinct". BrainyBabe (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

latín hispánico

What is the RAE referring to in its entry for 'estepa' when it says "Del latín hispánico stippa"? I've never heard of 'Hispanic Latin' before. 70.162.3.214 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it means the Latin spoken in Hispania during the days of the Roman Empire, i.e. the variety of Vulgar Latin that the Iberian Romance languages are descended from. +Angr 06:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the RAE? Woogee (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Real Academia Española. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fear liath

How do you pronounce Fear Liath? --Dr Dima (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Approximately "fair Leah". In IPA, [fɛɾ ʎiə]. +Angr 10:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dr Dima (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

He came home to find a friend and his girlfriend using his bed

From context is evident whose girlfriend it was. However, how could such sentences be expressed without ambivalence? 80.58.205.99 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

With a system of grammatical switch reference or with separate reflexive pronouns as in Scandinavian, German and Dutch. In English they can only be disambiaguated by adding extra words such as "own" e.g. "He found his friend and his own girlfriend" would make it clear that the girlfriend was not the friend's.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) To answer this we need to know whose girlfriend it is. Is she the girlfriend of the "he" or of the friend? If it's the former, then you can say "He came home to find his girlfriend and his friend using his bed." If it's the latter, then it's harder to remove the ambiguity. You might have to say something clumsy like "He came home to find a friend of his, with his (the friend's) girlfriend, using his bed." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't really need to know that since he is basically asking what possibilities there is to disambiguate between the two possible readings. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then you can strike out the first sentence of my reply. The rest of it answers the question. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The best way to avoid ambiguity in English in a case like this is to replace ambiguous pronouns with nouns:

1) He came home to find his girlfriend and his friend using his bed. (In this case the pronouns are not ambiguous.)

2) He came home to find his friend and his friend's girlfriend using his bed.

Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Or somewhat more formally:

2) He came home to find his friend and the latter's girlfriend using his bed.

— Kpalion^(talk) 15:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course if his friend is female, it's clear whose girlfriend was in bed with her. +Angr 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Errrr, no. Not at all. --LarryMac | Talk 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No? "He came home to find a friend_fem. and his girlfriend using his bed." Unless the "his" is looking outside of the sentence for its coreferent, it can only refer back to the subject "he". +Angr 17:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

right, lost sight of the initial question, as sometimes happens. --LarryMac | Talk 17:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

'...to find his friend and his friend's girlfriend...' is also ambiguous. Is it the friend's girlfriend, or is it the girlfriend of the friend's friend? --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 16:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Or indeed the girlfriend of another friend of the original "He". I suppose you'd have to say 'his friend and that (or another) friend's girlfriend...' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Have we considered that she could be the girlfriend of his friend and his other friend? :) Marnanel (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We should note that the ownership of the bed is also ambiguous: his male friend could be his flatmate. Ian Spackman (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also not clear how many people are using the bed, or which ones: ‘He came home to find his friend, and [to find] his girlfiend using his bed’. Or indeed, ‘He came home to find a friend and his girlfriend, [by] using his bed [as his means of transportation].’ Ian Spackman (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the sentences I constructed do not rule out the ambiguities suggested here. However, I think that in English there is an implicit understanding that pronouns refer to the person most recently mentioned in the discourse, unless otherwise specified. Therefore, while those sentences are theoretically ambiguous, I think that their meaning is clear and unambiguous in practice for most native speakers of English, assuming these sentences stand alone. Also, unless the context indicates otherwise, a native speaker of English would not interpret the sentence to mean that anyone was using the bed for transportation, since that is not a normal use of a bed. (The mere use of the word "girlfriend", with its sexual connotations, would lead an English speaker to assume that the bed is being used for sex unless otherwise specified.) Of course, if the sentence does not stand alone, the context could change its meaning in any number of ways. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous in practice, because of real-world knowledge, but there's still a formal ambiguity. (I think the canonical example is "I saw a man on the road wearing a hat". English speakers will puzzle over this if you tell them it's ambiguous, but only because their real-world knowledge will not admit the concept of a road wearing a hat.) Marnanel (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Have we considered "He came home to find his girlfriend and his friend using his bed" versus "He came home to find his friend, whose girlfriend was with him in his bed"? Marnanel (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Without further explanation we have no real sure knowledge of in what way the bed was being used.--KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

'Someone came home to find a friend and his girfriend using his bed' seems to be better example. 'He' requires coreferent itself: usually 'John's girlfriend' insted of 'his' perfectly fits. --95.84.241.53 (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

：：Whose bed?　--KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 15:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A bed of somebody [else?]:) I mean, sentences starting with 'he_i' refer to some John_i in outside. With 'one'/'someone'/'somebody' we may get rid of this John. --95.84.241.53 (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Equi-"height"?

Is there any adjective meaning "of the same height"? Something like "equidistant" only meaning equally tall instead of equally distant. 96.244.43.203 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Indubitably

There is the Latin "aequialtus" (not a classical word, but Renaissance/neo-Latin). In Greek there is apparently "isohypses"; that leads me to the English word "isohypse" which is a redirect to contour line. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is the less specific word commensurate. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In Esperanto, new words can easily be formed from existing roots (see Esperanto vocabulary#Word formation). Therefore, we have the following derived adjectives.

• samalta ("of or having the same height")
• samlarĝa ("of or having the same width")
• samlonga ("of or having the same length")
• sampeza ("of or having the same weight")
• samgranda ("of or having the same size")
• samvalora ("of or having the same value")
• samtemperatura ("of or having the same temperature")
• samlatituda ("of or having the same latitude")
• samlongituda ("of or having the same longitude")
• samlingva ("of or having the same language")
• samproksima ("of or having the same nearness")

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese IME on Vista

OK, not necessarily a language question, but I figure I've more chance of getting someone who uses the Microsoft IME language bar seeing this question here than on the Computing RefDesk, so I'm posting here. Is there any way to switch between English Input and Japanese Input using a keyboard shortcut? The method I have been using for the last few years is unsatisfactory. Cheers! --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a Japanese made PC? Those usually have an extra key (labeled 半/全 if memory serves me, between the ESC key and F1) that changes input modes by pressing ALT+<said key> (or was it CTRL? wait, I think there was another separate key between ALT and CTRL... Anywho, it's there, somewhere...). If not, I'm not sure a shortcut is possible, unless you have a compwiz friend who can create a MSWord macro or sth for you. Me, two laptops ago my laptop was a Japanese-made, and I had to use awkward MSWord shortcuts for "š", "č" and "ž" (rather common in my language, unheard of on a Japanese keyboard) when I translated a 700 page book, so I feel your pain :/ TomorrowTime (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Cheers! The PC I am using here is British, so, no. My Japanese WinXP laptop has the key you mention, of course, but I'm asking about this PC. Sorry, I should have clarified that, and that's why I came back here just now, before seeing your answer. :) --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 22:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If the Japanese IME is similar to the Korean IME, then it would have a Japanese input mode and a plain QWERTY input mode, at least. Instead of switching from JA input to QWERTY input, you could switch from the Japanese IME to the English IME, by installing them both and pressing Alt-Shift. If you weren't using that already, that is. --Kjoonlee 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neat, thanks for that. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And to answer the original question, I think Alt-CapsLock and Ctrl-CapsLock might work. --Kjoonlee 05:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. ALT+Caps Lock just switches to katakana from hiragana. CTRL+Caps Lock has no effect. ALT+Shift works, though, thanks. The only problem is that after switching from Japanese>English, when I want to switch back I have to go through Korean, Chinese (simplified) and Chinese (Traditional) first. No worries. It's better than using the mouse! Thanks! --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 15:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Toggling between Japanese and English in the Japanese IME may be done with Alt + ~. As for switching between multiple IMEs, besides the already given left Alt + Shift, you can give each a key sequence to activate. Open up Text Services and Input Language. Switch to the Advanced Key Settings. Click on each IME, then the Change Key Sequence... button. I use Ctrl + Shift + 1 through Ctrl + Shift + 7 for my various IMEs. 61.121.241.17 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

January 15

Spanish subjunctive tense

I know that the subjunctive tense in Spanish is used for hopes, desires, doubts, emotions, but am confused about the use in two particular examples:

Me gusta que ella sepa la verdad.

Es imposible que yo sirva la comida a las ocho.

To me, they both seem definitive. Am I missing some usage? Grsz¹¹ 04:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In the first example, using the subjunctive implies to me that you're not sure that she knows the truth, i.e. there's a situation where she might know (and you like that she knows), but it's possible that she didn't find out. In the second example, you're talking a) about a future event - it's not yet eight o'clock, and b) an event that the sentence has described as impossible. An impossible event also merites the subjunctive. Steewi (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Subjunctive mood#The subjunctive in Spanish. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

THE WORD CELTIC

WHY HAS THE FOOTBALL TEAM CELTIC AND THE GROUP OF PEOPLE CELTS AS IN CELTIC'S HAVE THE SAME SPELL BUT ARE PRONOUNCED DIFFERENTLY

YVONNE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.232.133 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Names of the Celts#Pronunciation. Grsz¹¹ 05:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The natural way to pronounce an English word starting with CE is like it were SE. My old Webster's indicates "seltic" as the preferred, and "keltic" as the British pronunciation; but that was 1960, and as the article notes, "keltic" is heard more and more often when used in reference to the Celts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, those Celts and their annoying spells... Seriously though, how are those two pronounced? If anything, I'd pronounce them both with "s". Which of the two is pronounced with a "k"? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The group of people. I'm not sure what's governed the variation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As the linked article says, the /k/ pronunciation was formerly used only by scholars, but has been gaining ground everywhere except in the popular field of sports clubs. --ColinFine (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Though that doesn't explain why. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps scholars were more influenced by Greek Κελτοί and German Kelten. Back in the 19th century and early 20th century it was common for English-speaking scholars to spell Kelt and Keltic with a K, too. +Angr 09:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer pronouncing the word the same way as the basketball team. The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations recommends pronouncing it like an 's' when it's spelled "Celtic", and pronouncing it like a 'k' when it's spelled "Keltic". Paul Davidson (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who, like me, identify as members of the Celtic community, virtually universally call themselves "kelts", not "selts". That is our right, and it behoves others to respect that. As for football teams and the like, they can call themselves whatever they like as long as they don't purport to represent the mainstream pronunciation. Those transliterators who gave us the C spelling where the K version was preferable also stuffed up words formed from kephalos, which are usually spelt -ceph- and consequently pronounced "sef". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably why we also say "bi-sycle" rather than "bi-kycle", yes? Pronunciations evolve. I'm reminded of something Will Cuppy said about Attila the Hun: "Attila does not rhyme with vanilla, as it did in my day. It's thought that if the first syllable is stressed, things will turn out better somehow." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Boston Celtics also use the 's' sound. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Names of the Celts#Pronunciation supposed to read "the initial ‹c› can be realised either as /k/ or /k/" - the two look identical to me! /s/ is referenced in the next paragraph, maybe it should be one of them (which would make sense to me). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That mistake was made in this edit:[2] It was corrected about 7 minutes after you posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying that there is no "soft C" in any of the Celtic Languages. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, but it's a different kind of soft. (See also Italian.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RE CELTIC

THANKS TO ALL WHO ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS ON WHY CELTIC AND CELTIC ARE SPELT THE SAME BUT PRONOUNCED DIFFERENTLY THANKS AGAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.235.214 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this persons name spelled?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8451000/8451264.stm At about 24 seconds in, how would that persons name be spelt? The other name mentioned, at about 2.21, sounds as though it would be spelt Roy Baumaster to me. Thanks. 78.147.233.120 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you Google for Stanford "fruit salad" "chocolate cake", the first hit will tell you that the person's name is Baba Shiv. Deor (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The other guy appears to be Roy Baumeister. 78.147.233.120 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelled or spelt?

Are they both correct, or is one to be preferred to the other? 78.147.233.120 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Spelt" is not used in American English (as a past tense of spell), but I believe it is perfectly acceptable in British English. I don't know which is preferred. --LarryMac | Talk 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian's style guide draws some kind of distinction as to what circumstances their writers should use each one in: she spelled it out for him: "the word is spelt like this" [3]. Marnanel (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally, at least, in American English the use of a trailing "t" instead of "ed" seems to be associated with verbs whose present tense has a long "e" sound and the past tense has a short "e" sound: deal, dealt; feel, felt; keep, kept; kneel,knelt; sleep,slept; weep, wept; etc. However, there's also dwell, dwelt - although that's not such a common verb anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

With weep, keep, and sleep, the voicelessness is triggered by the /p/, though you may be right that the orthographic use of t is associated with the vowels. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also dream, dreamt. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of those words we hear both ways. I've heard "dreamed" frequently, "dreamt" is maybe more poetic. And maybe I've heard kneeled. But not feeled, keeped, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also Spelt, the grain. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaped, leapt, lept. But not sleeped or steept or stept. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lept? Really? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Leapt, actually. Leaped is given as the preferred, and leapt is also given. And of course it's pronounced lept. English drives non-native speakers crazy. It's like a language with its own built-in IAR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, pwn becomes "pwned" or "pwnt". ~AH1^(TCU) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

One wonders why words like "slipped", "slapped", "slopped", "stopped", "kissed", "missed", "bossed", et al, which are pronounced with a final /t/, are not spelt "slipt", "slapt", "slopt", "stopt", "kist", "mist", "bost" etc. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Of your list, at least two ("slopt" and "stopt") have been used, with "stopt" having been common into the nineteenth century. Algebraist 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And many are spelt with that style in Scots translations, i.e. kilt for killed. Steewi (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mean becomes meant (pronounced "ment"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Antithetical opposites

Consider this pair of sentences:

While both are notable, she is far/much more widely known than he is

While both are notable, he is far/much less widely known than she is.

There, 'more' can be converted to its normal opposite 'less', and vice-versa, without breaching idiom. That's because 'more' and 'less' are being used to create the comparative of the adverb 'widely' (or possibly of the adjective 'widely(-)known'; let's not quibble).

But compare:

While both are notable, she is far/much better known than he is, with

While both are notable, he is far/much <???> known than she is.

We don't use the word 'worse' in this situation, but 'less'. And if we started out with 'less', it would not become 'more', but 'better'. In my idiolect, anyway.

Are there other cases where the standard opposite (good/bad, better/worse, more/less ...) simply does not work and we have to know what the idiomatic expression is? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Lesser" known, probably, although that fits better with "greater". "Not as well" known. Which brings up, do you feel "good" or do you feel "well"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really say so-and-so is far or much lesser known than someone else? That sounds pretty wrong to me. Without the 'much', lesser would fit ok. But once the 'much' enters the picture, it would have to be something weird like "much more lesser known' to be able to use 'lesser' at all. No? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "much less known" or "lesser known". Less likely "much lesser known", as that's like saying something is "more better" than something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

speech act theory; perlocutionary act

is a Perlocutionary act (or p. effect?) identical with the intended effect or with the actual effect of the utterance? A perlocutionary act (or perlocutionary effect) is a speech act, as viewed at the level of its psychological consequences in Perlocutionary act seems to mean actual effect. However, I seem to remember that someone important (Searle?) meant rather intended effect. What is the common use? --92.225.74.11 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

January 16

Please explain this simile

Sir Henry Wooton's famous description of the fire at the Globe Theatre in 1613 contains the line: "...it kindled inwardly, and ran round like a train, consuming within less than an hour the whole house to the very ground." What does "train" refer to? There were no railway trains then, and wagon trains and the trains of dresses don't move quickly. 87.194.239.235 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Train", as in the train of a dress, was used for the tail/trail of a comet or meteor, for example in Hamlet: As starres with traines of fier and dewes of blood, Disasters in the sunne.

But per the OED, at the time a "train" was also "a trap or snare for catching wild animals; also fig." (this sense from the French traïne "ruse") They give, from 1624, I seek my peace, but seek my peace in vain; For every way's a trap: each path's a train. And from 1697, Caught in the Train which thou thyself hast laid.

Another word spelled "train" (apparently from the Italian traina) is "A line of gunpowder or other combustible substance laid so as to convey fire to a mine or charge for the purpose of exploding it. Also fig." From 1548, The Frenchmen [...] made traynes of gunpouder from strete to strete, and from 1677, A Mine was made, and Train was laid hereby for blowing up the Gospel it self.

kwami (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the original meaning of a "trained" animal, i.e. one that was captured? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, per the OED, as a verb that word "train" means to lure with bait, as in falconry. (But in figurative usage the two nouns "train" were often conflated, so perhaps the verbs were too?) The other "train" as a verb meant to drag > to lead > to train a vine or branch > to train an apprentice > to train an animal. kwami (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So then, is the idea that a trap snaps shut quickly? Woogee (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Could be a snare that encircles. Or [edit conflict on additional defs] a trail of "fire" like that of a meteor, or like a burning line of gunpowder. The last would certainly convey the idea of speed, as would the second if it evoked the image of a meteor rather than of a comet. The first would convey the idea of entrapment—I don't know which was intended. Speed seems likely, but given the context, were people trapped inside as well?

And a "train" could also mean the gait or course of a horse, which could also work. kwami (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I think that the gunpowder meaning is best, but the other possibilities are very interesting. 87.194.239.235 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a different meaning of "train" (although at the moment I'm too lazy to look it up in my OED). For example, "train" can also mean "following" or "retinue" in some contexts, and is still used to describe the end of a very long bridal veil (think of pages holding up Princess Di's) or coronation gown (ditto for her mother-in-law's in 1953). It's something (as in the comet's tail example above) that follows something else. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dutch help

Can I get a translation of the description for this image? Thanks. bibliomaniac15 03:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Javaanse jongen, Gangsar, poseert met een leguaan van 1 meter 77 hoog en een gewicht van twaalf kilogram, Ngandong

Javanese boy, Gangsar, posing with an iguana [sic] 1 meter 77 long and weighing twelve kilograms, Ngandong

kwami (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've added it to Commons. bibliomaniac15 06:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the "[sic]" after "iguana"? Don't you believe it is an iguana? +Angr 16:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty big. It could be a monitor lizard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Iguanas live in the Americas and the Caribbean, not in Java. Also, it doesn't have the frilly head. --Kjoonlee 01:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The description of the water monitor on Wikipedia seems to fit very well with the description of the lizard in the photo. Even if it's not a water monitor, it could very well be a monitor lizard, I guess. --Kjoonlee 02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume Bibliomaniac had no problem with "1 meter 77", but we don't say that with metric units in English where I come from, even though we do say "1 foot 7" for 1 foot + 7 inches = 19 inches. So to complete the translation to English: here the meaning is obviously 1 m + 77 cm, which is 1.77 m. --Anonymous, 19:27 UTC, January 16, 2010.

hoog doesn't mean 'high'? —Tamfang (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

January 17

Question/answer

What is the difference in comparison between "the original question remains unanswered" and "the original answer remains unquestioned"? Are they opposites, anecdotes, analogies etc. or something else? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"The original question remains unanswered" means "the question has never been answered since it was first posed;" "The original answer remains unquestioned" means "the question was posed, and then answered, and that answer has never since been challenged as false." Was this the response you wanted, or am I misunderstanding the question? Xenon54 / talk / 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If no one had responded to your question, the first quoted statement would be true and the second quoted statement would be meaningless because there would have been no response. Now that someone has responded, the first quoted statement is no longer true, and the second quoted statement remains true because I am not challenging it. It would become false if someone disagrees with Xenon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to compare whether making one true falsifies the other. By the way was this an unintentional self-reference? ~AH1^(TCU) 02:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In the words of Horton, "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant; an elephant's loyal, one hundred percent." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This question brings up the thorny problem of whether or not something that doesn't exist can still have properties. See Alexius Meinong, for starters. It's arguable that the second statement is true if the first one is, assuming that "being unquestioned" is a property (or a non-property?) that a non-existent answer can have. Making the second statement false would (again, arguably) falsify the first, if we can say that, for an answer to be questioned, it has to exist. On the other hand, it's certainly possible to question a _refusal_ to give an answer (see the Ref Desk talk page discussions on medical questions), which would mean the second statement could be false and the first statement true - if a non-existent answer is still an answer. At least, the two statements aren't logically identical or logically inconsistent. Tevildo (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Let logician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson explore the issue

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'

`It is the same thing with you,' said the Hatter...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese have a useful verb "unask". Kittybrewster ☎ 10:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They also have unuseless objects. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

True or false?

"Self-references make everything permissible". Or is the statement itself a self-reference? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

First, translate that axiom. What is it trying to say? It doesn't make obvious sense to me. However, I got D's in literature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link to "self-reference". ~AH1^(TCU) 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the statement is valid as it stands: "This statement is true" just sits there, not generating any particular logical difficulties, although its truth-value isn't obvious, and "This statement has five words" is a simple (analytic) truth. The Latin phrase is Ex falso quodlibet - "From a falsehood everything follows". "Contradiction makes everything permissible" would be a more accurate statement. Self-reference can generate falsehoods, as in the liar paradox, but one can deduce that every statement is true just by using a false premise, without having to use self-reference. See Material implication. Tevildo (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"the well"

why is a part of the courtroom near the judges bench called "the well"? many judges prohibit lawyers from " entering the well". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.155.74 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You can see the transference of meaning through the following definitions of 'well, n.', all from the online OED:

• 1. a. A spring of water rising to the surface of the earth and forming a small pool or flowing in a stream; a pool (or, rarely, a stream) fed by a spring.
• 3. a. A pit dug in the ground to obtain a supply of spring-water; spec. a vertical excavation, usually circular in form and lined with masonry, sunk to such a depth as to penetrate a water-bearing stratum.
• 7. A shaft or pit bored or dug in the ground. In various specific applications.
• 8. a. The central open space, from roof to basement, of a winding, spiral, or elliptical staircase; the open space in which a lift operates.
• [8] b. The space on the floor of a law-court (between the Judge's bench and the last row of seats occupied by Counsel) where the solicitors sit.

--ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of an orchestra pit. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The omissio of "to"

Why not "We ought not to suppose that love is necessary for marriage," instead of "We ought not suppose that love is necessary for marriage"?

--68.219.47.248 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See Modal verb. In English, modal auxiliaries are followed by bare infinitives (without to). Deor (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely "ought" isn't really a modal verb? "We ought not to suppose.." sounds right to me, and "We ought not suppose.." sounds wrong, in parallel with "We ought [to] suppose..". Contrast "We should [not] suppose..", where "should" really is modal. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why "We ought not suppose.." sounds wrong. It is just like "Mark ought not drink so much." (Notice there is no "to.")--68.219.18.169 (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that English modal verb does not list 'ought'. It does, however, list 'ought to'. That suggests that the negative must be 'ought not to'. But 'ought not' (without the 'to') has a long history. That says to me that the real modal is simply 'ought', which (unlike all other modals) almost always takes 'to' in the positive, but may safely do without it in the negative. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses without prejudice against any future responses that might fine-tune the prior ones. --68.219.18.169 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark ought not drink so much: I don't think I've ever heard anyone use such a construction! I'm rather fascinated. Marnanel (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One more data point: to me (native British English speaker) "ought not to suppose" sounds better than "ought not suppose", though the latter does not sound totally wrong. Tinfoilcat (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the case of ought is similar to the cases of dare and need discussed in the last paragraph of Modal verb#List, where the verb is used both modally and nonmodally, although nonmodal negative constructions parallel to "he doesn't dare to" and "he doesn't need to" don't occur with ought in standard Modern English. (In some U.S. dialects, however, statements like "He hadn't ought to do that" are quite frequent.) Deor (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In Ruddigore, W.S.Gilbert has Dick Dauntless say "Ought you to ... ?" ... "No, ... you did not ought ... " ... " and I won't ought, accordin'". But many things mark Dick's speech out as non-standard, and I believe that this sequence is intended to be comical.

I would not use "ought not drink" without 'to', and would stumble over it if I encountered it in writing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I speak British English and would always use ought not to suppose. Kittybrewster ☎ 03:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This completely disagrees. Also, see my response to Bielle @ User talk:JackofOz#Ought not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has yet mentioned the fairly common (UK?) usage "Didn't ought..", as in "you didn't ought to do that". In my experience the "to" is always included, to that extent that it's as if the phrase was "you didn't oughter..". (this link says that "didn't oughta" is cockney rhyming slang for "daughter", which is news to me.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of random recollections: a song - "There's a little white duck sitting in the water / A little white duck doin' what he oughter"; and a tobacco ad done by the players of The Beverly Hillbillies - "Winston tastes good... like a cigarette had oughta!" The colloquial pronunciations both standing for "ought to". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And this timeless gem from Dizzy Dean, describing a batter swinging at a pitch that he should have laid off, as it was not a good pitch to hit: "He shouldn't hadn't oughta swang!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what friend Fowler has to say:

• You didn't ought to have done that is a not uncommon colloquial vulgarism. 'Ought', the past tense of 'owe' (now used as present also) is the only surviving form of that verb in its sense of be under a duty to, or be expected to. An auxiliary cannot therefore be used with 'ought' as though it were an infinitive, and it must be negatived with a bare 'not' in the old-fashioned way;

all fine so far, but he then gives the somewhat paradoxical (in view of the preceding) example:

• you ought not to have done that.

I just don't know what to make of that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I presume he means you should say "you ought not to.." ('bare "not"') rather than "didn't owe". In another context the "old-fashioned way" would be "I spoke not" as opposed to "I did not speak". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

English grammar

In reply to previous differently-worded version of query:

First example,

We ought not suppose that love is necessary for marriage.
   
Meaning=We don't have to suppose that love is necessary for marriage.   
   

Second example,

You need not call me.
   
Meaning=You don't have to call me.   
   

Which article on WP explain the grammar of the red text? If WP doesn't have an article for it, please refer me to some Website.--68.219.47.248 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think the not is in the "wrong" place with respect to the logical meaning, then that would fall under what linguists "negative scope". However, the real explanation is that "ought" and "need" are used as quasi-auxiliary verbs here, and so take the negative in the same place that auxiliaries do (e.g. "needn't" like "haven't" etc.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.--68.219.18.169 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As AnonMoos says, the construction is the same in every case: "ought not", "should not", "would not", "need not", "have not", and "do not" are all following the same pattern. In fact, this was once how all negatives were expressed: "she loves me; she loves me not", for example. However, over time, things have evolved to the point where pretty much only auxiliary verbs are negated, and we simply use a throwaway "to do" if we want to negate anything else - so "she does not love me" sounds more natural to a modern English speaker, although the "does" has no real function.

Incidentally, your meaning in the first example is incorrect - although it's actually rather hard to find another way of phrasing "ought not"; I think "It is our duty/We are obliged not to suppose that love is necessary for marriage" is roughly what I would understand by that statement. (Note that, to my ears, it is not saying "It is not our duty...") - IMSoP (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the first example could be ambiguous (as you say, it could be interpreted either as "We don't have to suppose that love is necessary for marriage." or as "We have to not suppose that love is necessary for marriage."), but in practice I think the second meaning is rare and would be phrased differently. I think the meaning given by 68.219 is the main/most common by far, although it's true that "I ought to" is not strictly equivalent to "I have to" (It's a bit of a shall/will difference, for those of us that make that distinction). 86.178.229.168 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gah! And now it's flipped on me and the ones that sound right have completely reversed. Must. Not. Overthink. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I often think that cases like this are a good argument in favour of split infinitives - there is a clarity in "we ought to not suppose", for instance, even if it does sound a little clumsy.

I definitely think "ought not" is more likely to indicate "ought" + negated verb rather than a literal negation of "ought", though - I guess the more common analogue is "must not", which definitely means "compelled not to", rather than "not compelled". (In modern English, at least; it occurs to me that the King James Bible used "thou shalt not" in its commandments...) - IMSoP (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

YOu don't need to make an argument for a split infinitive, as there was never a good reason why they should not be used. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about, "To carelessly oppose is something we ought not to"? PhGustaf (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The original question ought to be answered in English modal verb, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be. --ColinFine (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Repetitions?

What does reps mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.106.27 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To give someone reps (or, more emphatically, mad reps) is to give them praise or kudos. It started out as a clipped form of "reputation", although you could never say *"I'll give you reputations". I think it's originally skateboarder slang. +Angr 12:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, what does 'giving props' refer to and what is it short for? I've seen it written here and there, and all I can imagine is people giving someone items to be used in some sort of stageshow or musical. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It refers to giving credit or giving recognition ("I did all this great work and didn't get props for it..."). I don't know what it's short for, though. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this, it's either meant literally, in the sense of "support" (as in "prop up" or "clothes prop"), or it's short for "proper respect". Tevildo (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In his time, this guy got a lot of props for his great work. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mac or Mack

Where does the slang term "to mac", meaning to hit on someone, come from? Black Carrot (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it comes from the older meaning of "to mack," to be or act as a pimp, and the related noun "mack," a pimp. "Mack," in turn, is a shortened form of either "mackerel" or of French "maquereau," each of which means a pimp. John M Baker (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Another slang definition of "to mack" that I've heard of means "to make out with". ~AH1^(TCU) 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell that to Mack The Knife! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be a more general example of the way that violent terms end up becoming sexual ones. e.g. "I'd hit that". --129.11.12.201 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

January 18

Bitch

Is this a black insult? Kittybrewster ☎ 02:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What's a "black insult"? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Bitch" a black insult? Kittybrewster ☎ 03:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's generally an insult regardless of race or creed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, depending on context. "You're a bitch" (i.e., directed directly at someone) is definitely an insult, but "I'm cruisin' with mah bitch" may not be. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be used affectionately, regardless of race. When directed at someone you don't know well or don't have that kind of relationship with, it's typically quite offensive... regardless of race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have to ask whether it's an insult, yes, it's an insult. I can't imagine any situation where it wouldn't be an insult when used towards a person, although I suppose if you life your life in a microcosm based on The Wire, it might be affectionate in an ironic, "this is how we talk in the Hood" sort of way. Of course, when referring to female canines, the word is perfectly acceptable to use. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not in my vocabulary, but evidently some women find it affectionate or even erotic in the right circumstances. In that way it's like other words considered sexist, racist or obscene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "Is this an insult if directed at black people", or "is this an insult that is commonly used by black people", or "is this an insult used by black people more than anyone else", or do you mean something else entirely? Marnanel (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking if there's an ethnic/racial basis to this being an insult, the answer is blatantly "no". Black people in different continents are as likely or unlikely to share attitudes towards insults as white people. As this is such an obvious impossibility, I assume you're asking if it's a "black as in terrible" insult, in which case the answer is surely, "it depends on cultural sensitivities, context and the personality of the insulter and insulted". --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Motley

What is the etymology of motley?174.3.106.27 (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll find it here: [4]. --Omidinist (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation card

In an invitation card for a dinner, what is to wriiten in the invitation card, "you are invited " " For Dinner" or " At Dinner". Which is the correct usage?Can you please clarify? sumal (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

British English speaker here: I'd say "to dinner". "For dinner" means you will be eaten by the guests, and "at dinner" means you will be the entertainment which takes place at the dinner. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the USA also, the best way would be to say "to dinner". "For dinner" is often used colloquially, but there's no point in inviting jokes. "At dinner" would not be used in an invite. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

American here also, and "to dinner" is definitely the best. "At dinner" is confusing, and "for dinner" is potentially funny (think cannibalism), though interestingly enough it is used in spoken English. But stick with "to dinner" for a written invitation. Moncrief (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"At" typically only comes into it when describing where and when the event is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, "We're having dinner at the club at 8pm" is great. But the asker's question wondered about the construction "You are invited at dinner," which doesn't scan at all. Moncrief (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The "for" ambiguity is pretty common here; a common joke is something along the lines of "We're having the Joneses for dinner tomorrow night". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also Lecter's last line in The Silence of the Lambs: "I do wish we could chat longer, but... I'm having an old friend for dinner. " AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And then there are those who know how to serve man. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ways to refer to use of sign languages in English

Hi, I have a question regarding how sign languages are referred to in academic English. For example, if someone is a native speaker of BSL is it correct to say "they speak BSL"? Or is it more accurate to say "they sign BSL"? Or do we be as vague as possible and just say something like "they can communicate using BSL"? Is there a consensus on this in linguistics literature, or on the English Wikipedia itself regarding the correct terminology? --129.11.12.201 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, the article you link to uses the verb "to use" throughout, pretty consistently. The infobox uses the verb "to sign". So looks like "they sign bsl" or "they use bsl" is the consensus in this article, haven't looked at any others though. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From memory, the BBC programme "See Hear"[5] often uses the verb "to sign" instead of "to speak". Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked about academic language, and there I agree that something like "sign" or "use" is probably best; but informally, I have no problem saying that someone speaks a sign language. And I certainly have no problem - even in academic writing - referring to someone as a native speaker of a sign language. I'd never say "native signer". +Angr 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Subordinate clause, or complete sentence

Resolved

Which means you no longer have to carry both a camera and a camcorder, if you're happy with average video quality.

I presume this is not a proper sentence (such as in an article), even though people would use it when speaking, but I may be wrong. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a complete sentence but it's fine for informal writing. The kind of writing where you use the contraction "you're". Itsmejudith (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does that mean? Certainly, you can send your friend an email containing this sentence...but to publish it in a monthly magazine? Are you equating informality with incorrect grammar at will? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It means what it looks like, it would just only be used in a certain context (specifically, after some other statement of fact). For example, this camera has the ability to record video bla bla bla bla bla..... Which means, in effect, you no longer have to carry both.... It's exactly the same as saying "This means..." or "...therefore", which likewise are not stand-alone sentences even though they are full sentences. (That is to say, they have subjects and predicates, but they wouldn't mean much if said in isolation.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This means we're done. :) Thanx so much for that! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

'Must not' in past tense?

This is something that's been bothering me for some time. Is it grammatical to use "must not" when referring to something that someone had to do in the past? For example, if I am telling a story about someone who crossed a wobbly bridge over a raging torrent, I might write "he must not fall". But "must" normally sounds to me like a present state and therefore incorrect in this case. Is there an alternative? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Must" is a defective verb. You had to say something like "you had to say something like this instead" instead. Marnanel (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But in my example, I need the negative element as well. What do you suggest? "He had not to fall"? That doesn't sound very good. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He had to not fall" is what I would use. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He couldn't fall" (or "he absolutely couldn't fall") often works if the context is appropriate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't sound right since it literally means "he was not able to fall", i.e. that the bridge was sufficiently strong to prevent him from falling. Although, as you say, the context would probably make it clear. I'm looking for a lexically and grammatically correct way of saying this in the past tense; maybe there isn't one? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Using "must" as the past tense of itself used to be more common than it is now. I remember the first time I encountered it was in a Little Nemo cartoon from the early 20th century. It said something like "Nemo woke up in the middle of the night and was so thirsty that he must get up and get a drink of water." Nowadays we'd say "...that he had to get up...". For your example, I don't really like either "he had not to fall" or "he had to not fall" and would probably recast the sentence, perhaps as "he had to be careful not to fall" or "it was essential for him not to fall" or something like that. +Angr 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong though it may be, I'm sure I've seen it in fiction – more recent than Little Nemo! You get some latitude when you're expressing the character's thoughts, even in third person. —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But then in my head, it doesn't sound like past tense - the scene goes wavy and the reader is transported back to that time, and then in that dream world, the "must" is in present tense. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He knew he must not fall." Past tense. It works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"up to the age of", or "until"?

Some people write "up to the age of 6", other people write "until the age of 6". I'd like to know if there is any difference between the two possibilities.

• Is there a difference of meaning?
• Is there a difference in the use of these possibilities? E. g., does it make a difference whether the chief interest is in the time before something changed, or in the time when it did change?
• Is there a difference in style (standard English or colloquial English)?
• Or is there merely a difference in individual or regional preferences?

Thank you in advance. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the meaning is identical, with "until the age of 6" a smoother and more readable construction (to me at least). As an American, I wonder if British contributors would say the same thing. "up to the age of 6" strikes me as slightly more British English. But, yes, "He was a happy child up to the age of 6" and "He was a happy child until the age of 6" have the same meaning. An even more concise way to say it would be "He was a happy child until he turned 6" (or, "until his sixth birthday," if you wanted to be that precise). Moncrief (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Finnish: Original Book Titles

Sometimes the translation of a book is published with a title which is not the translation of the original title. Evidently the title of the German translation of Leena Lehtolainen's book "Tappava Säde" is not the translation of the original title (as Säde is the name of the first-person narrator of the book, and it is not in the German title). Can you tell me what "Tappava Säde" means?

And can you tell me what "Luonas en ollutkaan" means? (It is the title of Leena Lehtolainen's most recent book, as far as I see.)

Thank you in advance. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Killer Ray" and "I wasn't with you after all" should give you the basic meaning. The word säde means ray, as in a ray of light. Thus the first title tells you directly that the book is about Säde who kills, while evoking the idea of a "lethal ray" (as in a sci-fi ray gun) to anyone who doesn't know the name of the narrator. The second title is in familiar, informal words, but the grammatical form is poetic. All in all, translating the titles directly appears to be difficult, so it's no wonder the translator went with something else. 85.156.181.43 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Texting

What is the past tense of texting?

He texted me. (an hour ago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.242.71 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

wikt:text#Verb says "texted". I have heard "text" used as the past participle, but it is less common. --Tango (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also heard "text" used in the past tense. My theory is that people do this because it sounds like a verb in the past tense: "texed", so to speak. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility of North American dialects of French

If I put together four adults — one from Paris, one from Port-au-Prince, one from Cajun-speaking areas of southern Louisiana, and one from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon — who knew no language except the version of French that they had learned as children, would everyone be able to understand each other? I expect that the Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon native could converse with the Parisian without difficulty, but (1) am I correct with that, and (2) what about the others? Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For Port-au-Prince, are you thinking of a speaker of French, or a speaker of Haitian Creole (which is based on French)? Haitian Creole would not be intelligible to French speakers. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that a Parisian could communicate easily with a resident of Saint Pierre et Miquelon. "The local accent and many of the words used are similar to the Norman language," in the words of the Saint Pierre et Miquelon Wikipedia article, but children learn standard French there in school, and in any case, even if they never attended school (which they all do), with their access to French-language mass media and since their language is basically standard French with some Norman-derived words thrown in, intelligibility with Parisians would not be an issue. As stated above, Haitian Creole would be unintelligible to a Parisian (it's an entirely different language, after all), although upper-class Haitians (admittedly a tiny minority of the population) also generally know standard French. Louisiana Cajun I don't know enough about. Moncrief (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm pretty sure Parisian French, Canadian French, and Cajun French are mutually intelligible. I as a non-native speaker at least have no difficulty understanding the lyrics of Cajun French songs based on my knowledge of European French. (But be aware that in addition to Cajun French, there is also Louisiana Creole French, which is not a dialect of French but rather a French-lexified Creole, which probably isn't intelligible to Parisian French speakers, though it may be intelligible to Haitian Creole speakers.) +Angr 21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I forgot to look at the article on Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon; sorry. I know that Montréal and Paris can converse easily, but I wasn't entirely sure that this similarity continued to the small islands. As far as Haïti, I meant an average person, not someone from the educated élite; I went to college with a native of Port-au-Prince, but I never thought to ask her about this. And finally, I meant to say Cajun, not Louisiana Creole, as I'd looked at the latter article and observed that they were quite different. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

В in Russian

When I see written Russian, I'll often see the word "В", which I guess to be a preposition — e.g. the main page of ru:wp says "Добро пожаловать в Википедию" and "Сейчас в Википедии 483 362 статьи на русском языке". Is this pronounced like I'd pronounce the sound of the letter "V" (a voiced labiodental fricative), without a vowel? Or is there a vowel included in the pronunciation but not in the spelling? I don't see the answer at Ve (Cyrillic). Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just /v/ without any vowel. But that's not too bad because as a preposition it's always followed by another word, so it just attaches to the beginning of that word, creating a consonant cluster. Before a voiceless consonant, it becomes devoiced to /f/. However, before certain consonant clusters, it becomes во, which does have a vowel (in both spelling and pronunciation). +Angr 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)