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

March 8

ISO Code For The Manchu Alphabet

Is there a ISO code for the Manchu script / glyph set?174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use the Linguist List's search tool here to check, or you can search on Ethnologue. I snooped around a little and didn't find anything; I don't believe ISO codes are given for scripts (by way of example, Korean has an ISO code, but Hangul does not). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

List of ISO 15924 codes apparently does not mention Manchu alphabet. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Scripts without ISO 15924 code includes the Old Uyghur alphabet, "the prototype for the Mongolian and Manchu alphabets."

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification... now that I think about it, we're talking about different types of codes. The ones I was looking up were ISO 639, which are used for languages...the ISO 15924 that Wavelength found, however, is of more relevance here, since it's specifically for scripts. Nevertheless, it doesn't have Manchu. This may be because old Manchu, as far as I know, was based on the Jurchen script, and modern Manchu is pretty similar to the Mongolian script (at least, according to Ramsey, Robert (1987), The Languages of China, p. 229). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy vs. Over vs. Wilco

Back in my flying days, I always used "over" to mean that the conversation was over and "wilco" was meant as an acknowledgment that I heard everything that was said and would do as instructed. The word "copy" meant that I was about to copy back to you what I thought I heard you say to confirm that I heard it correctly.

I've noticed in movies that they've been using "copy" to mean "over" or "wilco". I know they've been doing it for some time but this usage seems to have increased over the years. And now, in today's crossword 1 Across is "CBer's acknowledgment" (four letters). The first thing I thought was "over" but the answer that they're looking for is "copy".

So, am I remembering things incorrectly? I realize that the clue asks about CBers and I was flying planes, so the lingo might be slightly different. Who's right and who's wrong and why? Dismas|^(talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The only use of "over" in this context, that I am familiar with, is to explicitly mark the end of one's sentence or statement so that the person on the other end of the radio can respond. Wiktionary would agree with me. See [1]. "Over and out" means that both your sentence and the conversation are over. Paul Davidson (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to somewhat parallel jargon in CB radio, "copy" or "no copy" refers to whether you understood the last transmission or not; "come on" in CB-ese equates to "over" which means you're done talking; "wilco" is short for "will comply", I don't know if there's a CB equivalent; "roger" equates to "10-4", which is pretty similar to "I copy" or I acknowledge and understand your last transmission. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Wilco" seems to be more obscure to the layman (this conclusion is based on the fact that I had only ever heard it in this context), so the more familiar "copy" would be used more in popular media for that reason. The voice procedure article doesn't seem to use the definition you gave for "copy" - maybe that is a usage unique to your school of flying. —Akrabbim^talk 02:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"CBers acknowledgment" is more likely to be "10-4" during normal conversation. "No copy" is "10-9". Works either way, though. Actually, while pilots say "I copy", CBers often use the amusing variant "got a copy" (or not). "Copy" is more likely to be used at the start of a conversation, or when there appears to be interference on the radio channel - or when you're trying to see if a particular user is on the channel, as in "Rubber Duck, you got a copy?" "10-4, this is Rubber Duck, come on." That kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Back when I got my pilot's license, in 1976 or so, "Roger" was the word that meant "I heard you", and it implied "Wilco" ("Will comply") if a controller were being acknowledged. Actually saying "Wilco" marked one as being old. In 1976. PhGustaf (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A CB variant on "10-4" and "Roger" is "10-Roger". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I have been known to use hand-held radios... and in our convention, if the conversation is closed the word used is not "over", but "out" (as in "over and out"). --TammyMoet (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to CAP 413 (the authoratitive guide on UK aircraft R/T procedure), "Copy" should not be used (para 1.12, page 13). "ROGER" is the approved term to acknowledge the receipt of a message, "OVER" signifies the end of a transmission when a reply is expected, and "WILCO" means "I understand your message and will comply with it." (para 1.6, Table 7, page 6). Tevildo (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah- kuk kuk kuk-kuk kuk-kuk.

What does "Ah- kuk kuk kuk-kuk kuk-kuk." mean? Is it onomatopoeia? Is so, of what? Is this norwegian?174.3.110.108 (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an attempt at phonetically representing Popeye's characteristic laugh. I don't understand what you're referring to in the "Norwegian" question. Deor (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kuk is cock in norwegian.174.3.110.108 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pirates Who Smoke?

Is there an etymology for pirate smoker?174.3.110.108 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this reference is likely to be the best (most accurate) you're going to find. Dismas|^(talk) 07:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a development of butt pirate. Apparently smoke has meant "to have sex" since the 17th century but only recorded as relating to felatio in the C20th. Pipe smoker has meant a gay man since the 1990s, pirate has meant a man looking for sex in austrailan slang since the 1920s. And if I haven't insulted enough people already, "a pirate's dream" apparently means a flat chested woman (she has a sunken chest) meltBanana 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel

The page on SS glosses the name in German as meaning "protective squadron." In the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, it's "protection squad." Is only one correct, or one more so than the other? I suspect there may be a BE/AE aspect to the "squadron" vs. "squad" but don't know German well enough (understatement) to evaluate the discrepancy of "protective" vs. "protection."-- Deborahjay (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of knowing German, just a matter of what sounds better in English. Schutz is a noun meaning "protection", but when it's the first part of a compound noun, sometimes the adjective "protective" sounds better in English. For example, I would translate Schutzbrille as "protective goggles", not "protection goggles", but (to my ear at least) "protection squad(ron)" sounds more idiomatic in English than "protective squad(ron)". +Angr 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to my German-English dictionary, Schutz means "protection" or "defense". And I agree with Angr that "protection" sounds better. So I wonder what the source is in the article for "protective"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And on the strength of the dictionary plus the fact that the translation given in the article is uncited, I have changed it from "protective" to "protection". As for the "Staffel" part, my dictionary indicates it means "team"; or "squadron" when used in a military sense. I'm guessing it's from the same root usage as "staff" in English. I don't know what English word, if any, would correspond to the "Schutz" part (other than the coincidental darkly-humorous near-homophone, "shoots"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I searched four terms on google books (to eliminate wikipedia mirrors, among other). The result is a bit inconclusive:

"Schutzstaffel" + ...

... "protection squadron": 42 hits

... "protective squadron": 107 hits

... "protection squad": 375 hits

... "protective squad": 70 hits

So protective is favoured in combination with squadron, while protection is favoured with squad. Regardless of this problematic sample, I agree with Angr's preference and Bugs's change to the article. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In a military context, the word "squad" means a team of about a dozen soldiers. "Squadron" is a larger sized formation, so is probably a better translation. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My German/English dictionary translates "squad" as "Gruppe", and translates squadron as the cognate "Schwadron", and also as "Staffel". "Staffel" does not seem to be directly connected with "staff", as that seems to be from Old High German "stab", which is also a modern German word for "staff". So much for my assumptions. Meanwhile, the English "squadron" is from Latin, so "Schwadron" is probably either also from Latin or borrowed from English. Getting a bit off the track here. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Baseball Bugs (14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)), the rational for making it an adjective is that when nouns are concatenated in German, the first noun qualifies the second (much as in protection squadron: a squadron for protection): in English this is often done by means of adjectives (though other means are used, too, as in protection squadron and philosophy of life).—msh210℠ 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I just wonder if the German word "Schutz" has an English cognate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of one, unless the Latin "scutum" (shield) is cognate with "schutzen", in which case "escutcheon" will be! --ColinFine (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a possibility. There's also a word Schützenfest which at first glance would seem to be related, except for the double-dot over the "u", so maybe not. In fact, my German/English dictionary indicates that "shoot" does not translate to "Schutz" as such. English word origins are typically given in English dictionaries. I wonder if word origins are easily available somewhere, for languages such as German, French, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As a total shot in the dark, I went to etymonline and checked out the [so-obvious-it-must-be-wrong] first candidate, 'shut', which gave me OE scytten and M.Dutch 'schutten' (I also got MHG schuzen from somewhere, not sure where). The meaning of 'shut' in OE was given as 'to close by folding or bringing together', which made me think of 'protect' (- the M.Dutch meaning is 'to shut up, obstruct'). A case of false etymology, possibly, but as good as I can think of. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Differences between I like singing AND I like to sing ?

Hello you all over the Earth. Please excuse my uneasy English, I'm a froggy. My wife is an English teacher and she recently faced a phrase (in a school book) that looks strange to her and her colleagues. This phrase is: "I like to sing".

When we were pupils then students we were explained that this construction is UNCORRECT though it is similar to a French constuction. We were taught that the correct phrase is "I like singing". So we have some questions for you native English speakers from many countries.

Q1) Is "I like to sing" correct in Great Britain, in the USA, in Australia or somewhere in an English speaking country?

Q2) If this "I like to sing" is correct, it must have some differences of meaning with "I like singing". What are they?--82.216.68.31 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say they are both correct and have the same meaning in UK English. I'm not an expert though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say the same, as an American. —Akrabbim^talk

16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the asker. Reading these 2 answers, I have an other question:

Q3) Is the structure "I like to sing" more recent than the other one?--82.216.68.31 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Bulgarian, and here's what I was taught. "Like doing something" means "enjoy something", e.g. She likes going to the cinema. "Like to do something" means "consider doing something is correct or appropriate", e.g. She likes to wash her hair every other day. What would you say about it? --62.204.152.181 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is one way to understand it, but it isn't necessarily the case for all uses of "likes to do". The example you gave is much more dependent on the "every other day", where "likes washing her hair every other day" makes sense, and means the same thing, but comes across as being awkward. —Akrabbim^talk 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that's right, or it's at least not how most people use "like to." "Like to" could mean that in the proper context, but my mind would definitely first go to the "enjoy something" meaning. I would echo everyone else and say that there really is no difference at all between these two constructions (with the exception of the small possibility of ambiguity in certain situations mentioned below). -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a potential difference of meaning. "I like singing" is ambiguous because it could mean that I like listening to other people's singing or I like to be singing myself or I like singing no matter who does it, whereas "I like to sing" means I like to be singing myself. In other words "singing" can be a verbal noun meaning "the thing that people do when they sing" or "the sound of people who are singing", whereas "I like to X" specifies that I like to do an activity X. --Normansmithy (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, "I like singing happy songs" is not ambiguous in the same way. --Normansmithy (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, Normansmithy. I suddenly realised the double meaning but you got there first. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of American English, and I think that there are subtle differences in tone between singing and to sing. As Normansmithy pointed out, I like singing by itself is ambiguous, whereas I like to sing is not. It is not ambiguous when there is an object (I like singing folk songs). However, I think that a person would tend to say "I like singing folk songs" in certain situations and "I like to sing folk songs" in others. To me, "I like to sing folk songs" seems like the more common, natural way to say it. This form can carry the implication of properness or correctness that 62.204 describes, depending on the context, but it does not necessarily carry that implication. To my ears, the form singing subtly de-emphasizes the verb sing. A speaker might be more likely to use singing in order to emphasize I, like, or folk songs. You can also stress those words in a sentence containing to sing, but I think the gerund singing tends to have a lower profile in a sentence or phase than the infinitive form in this case. Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Diazecloxmelofluroclizfpidizvralcoxibivir-CR and other pharmaco-nominative monstrosities

Are there rules governing how GENERIC drug names are assigned? They all give the impression of being unpronounceable compared to their brand names (would you like a Vioxx or a rofecoxib?). Why on earth do they do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.135.122 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Drug naming is a surprisingly complex topic. There's a difference between a drug's International Nonproprietary Name (aka generic name) (like "ibuprofen") and its IUPAC name (for ibuprofen, "(RS)-2-(4-(2-methylpropyl)phenyl)propanoic acid"), both of which are distinct from the brand or trade name (Nurofen, Advil and Motrin being brands of ibuprofen). Additionally there are other names, such as the British Approved Name and United States Adopted Name which usually are the same as the INNs, and Chemical Abstracts Service names are similar to IUPAC names but designed to be unique.

INNs are regulated by the WHO, and IUPAC names by IUPAC. This page describes the procedure for INNs, which are chosen by the drug company and approved by the World Health Organization. The IUPAC name page has more information on its procedure, which is based on accurately describing chemical structure.

A page by Merck[2] describes how it sees the naming process: "Many generic names are a shorthand version of the drug's chemical name, structure, or formula. In contrast, trade names are usually catchy, often related to the drug's intended use, and relatively easy to remember, so that doctors will prescribe the drug and consumers will look for it by name. Trade names often suggest a characteristic of the drug." --Normansmithy (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sussex, Essex, Wessex, etc

What is the linguistic origin and meaning of the suffix -sex in the english counties? alteripse (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See Essex#Toponomy, for instance. Deor (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Saxons. From the OED, e.g.: "[OE. West Seaxe West Saxons.] " BrainyBabe (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I had spent more time searching toponymic articles without finding the answer than it took to get one here. Thanks. alteripse (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In order

Resolved

Resolved

What is the reason for the term in order in the sentence below:

"You must receive a passing grade on the Millberg and Jasonowicz assignments in order to pass the course."

I ask, because the term seems to ambiguously suggest that one must perform these assignments in the order specified. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If that were really the meaning intended, it would be something like "You must receive a passing grade on the Millberg and Jasonowicz assignments, in that order, to pass the course". But that suggests the assignments would be given out in that order to begin with, each presumably with its own deadline, so I can't see how one could pass the second before passing the first, hence the instruction is somewhat pointless. It's a bit like saying "You must breathe air while completing these assignments". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It means "to be able to". Vimescarrot (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual phrase is 'in order to'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See Definitions of in order to - OneLook Dictionary Search. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you speak these, but "in order to" is roughly the same as French pour and Spanish para. (The other Romance languages probably have these too, I just don't know them.) Not sure if that helps. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That was all great -- thanx! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's marked "resolved" and all, but one more thing needs to be said, and that is that "to" can have the meaning "in order to". So the question "why say 'in order'" also has to be asked from that perspective: if the two words were deleted, the meaning of the sentence would not change.

The answer to this is that the longer version is easier to understand, because "in order to" has a single meaning while "to" has many possible meanings. For example, an "assignment to pass the course" might (theoretically) mean an assignment existing outside of the course, which you would complete by passing the course. By saying "in order to", we avoid distracting the reader who might momentarily think that "to" was meant in that way. --Anonymous, 05:33 UTC, March 9, 2010.

This is, of course, the reason the OP was confused. Knowing that 'to' can be used here with the meaning of 'to be able to', he thought that 'in order' was separate from it and meaning 'in [a particular] order'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't confused -- I was actually wondering why such a phrase would be used if it could take on such an ambiguous meaning. Certainly, I didn't think that the assignments had to be done in order...but as Anonymous has given me an even greater appreciation for the answer, I've resolved it again :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Decorative Typographical Symbol

Hi all,

Is the symbol depicted here: [3], which looks like a stylised leaf on a branch, or possibly a heart or spade (as in cards), a standardised one? For some reason I have a feeling it's used quite often. If it is, what's it called?

Thanks,

Daniel (‽) 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it used (mostly in works of literature) as a decorative symbol as well, but I have no idea what it would be called either... Xenon54 / talk / 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See "Floral heart" at List of Unicode characters#Miscellaneous Symbols. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Typographers seem to call it an Aldus leaf or a fleuron. See here, scrolling down to "What does the Aldus leaf in the company logo signify?" See also File:Aldus leaf.svg, which is used in the article Fleuron (typography). Deor (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2700.pdf, under "Punctuation ornaments", 2766 is the code for "❦ FLORAL HEART = Aldus leaf".

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also known as a hedera (Latin for ivy)—see, for example, here, on page 20. Deor (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, the Romanian word for ivy is "iederă" Rimush (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is that funny? —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

At http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2700.pdf, under "Punctuation ornaments", 2767 is the code for "❧ ROTATED FLORAL HEART BULLET = hedera, ivy leaf". -- Wavelength (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You awesome people, thank you. Daniel (‽) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

March 9

Reforms of Russian orthography

"However, dialectal studies have shown that, in certain regional dialects, a degree of aural distinction is retained even today in syllables once denoted with ѣ."

Which dialects are theses? What is the degree?100110100 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a question for the article talk page. The {{clarify}} template can also help. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

sbd.

What is the meaning of "sbd." and "sbd"?100110100 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

[4]

Sbd. = somebody. Sth. = something. Deor (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhry/Uhersho vs. Maďarsko

The Czechs use "Uhry" or "Uhersko" to refer to Hungary before 1918 and "Maďarsko" to refer to it since then. Uhry is related to the exonym "Hungary" while "Maďarsko" is akin to the Hungarian endonym "Magyarország."

How and why was this change made? Did any other languages (other than Slovak) make a similar change after World War I?

Perhaps the Hungarians asked the world to use a derivative of "Magyar" to refer to Hungary after WWI, but I would find it strange if the Czechs and Slovaks were one of the few countries that complied with a Hungarian request considering Hungary and Czechoslovakia were not on good terms after WWI. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To the second part of the question: the same situation is in Serbo-Croatian, and pre-WWI state is referred to as "Ugarska" (hr:Austro-Ugarska), while the modern state is "Mađarska". I don't know when the change in language exactly took place though, but 1918 seems likely. My speculation is as follows: ethnic Hungarians have been even before referred to as "Mađari". When modern Hungary was formed after WWI, it was perceived as the first nation-state of Magyars, thus the new name got accepted. In previous incarnations, especially before the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, it was a supra-ethnic state, and the "ugar-" exonym was actually taken from Austrian German, which was the dominant constituent of the Monarchy. No such user (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In Romania, Hungarians apparently find the term "unguri" mildly offensive, so they prefer "maghiari" - IIRC "unguri/Hungarians" stems from Latin while "maghiari/Magyars" stems from their own language. Rimush (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Gulch of Terror

Is that a reasonable translation of وادي الهول Wādī al-Hūl? For هول I can only find "sphinx", though in Lane's dict there is a derivative that means "terrible". "Terrible Valley" wouldn't be so melodramatic, unless the Arabic is itself melodramatic. kwami (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, هول is vocalized hawl, and means "terror, fright, alarm" etc. It's abu-l-hawl which means "sphinx"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(For some reason, "Gulch of Terror" sounds to me like it could be the name of a locale in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Melodramatic indeed!} rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That could be a good name for what the Bridge of Death crosses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I just have to figure out whether s.o. transcribed it wrong, or if this is another (perhaps local) vocalization. kwami (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To me (in the UK) "Gulch" suggests something somewhere in the Wild West and nowhere else. "Valley of Terror" (or "Vale of Terror" if you want to be more poetic). "Valley of the Shadow of Death", anyone? --ColinFine (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also from the UK and agree "gulch" sounds wrong. I think wadi is quite widely understood here, but if you had to translate it I would go for ravine for a large one and gully for a smaller feature. "Valley" or "Vale" suggests a more gentle affair, like the Thames Valley or Vale of Evesham. Just an opinion though. Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "valley" in the Psalm 23 is a mistranslation. The original line goes: Gam qi elech be'gei tsalmavet, lo eira ra qi atta 'imadi. Here "gei" ("gai" when not in conjunction with another noun) means "a ravine" or "a narrow valley", but not a wadi. Wadi is mostly associated with (seasonal) water stream in the desert; "gai" (ravine) is a narrow passage. To the original poster: a wadi is a wadi, it is a valid English noun. --Dr Dima (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe hawl would be pronounced hōl in Egyptian Arabic.--Cam (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Difference Between Aggressive Skates And Inline Skates

Here, there is a difference between aggressive skates and inline skates.

Here's a picture of the aggressive skates.

Here's a picture of the aggressive skates with the inline skates.

I thought that the brake pad at the end of the skate was dangerous. Is this the difference?174.3.110.108 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aggressive inline skating#Skate description looks like it would have the info you're looking for. Brakes wouldn't work out too well for many things that a person might try on an aggressive skate...but support, durability, and having easier to replace parts appear to be the major differences. --Onorem♠Dil 02:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

fixed

When the font is gold, does it mean that it is edited? Is that why the post says "fixd"?174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cotton

Why is cotton called Long Staple, and Extra Long Staple?100110100 (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

These links may help: Staple (wool) (I know it's about wool but the disamb. page seems to refer to textiles in general)...here, here, and here.--Dpr (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

staple is a reference to the length of the fiber. Googlemeister (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

C20th.

What is C20th.?100110100 (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Twentieth century. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Linguistics - Th Sound -> F Sound

I have to analyse steve irwin's (australian icon) speech patterns. I have noticed that he replaces the th (θ) sound with f, eg: something -> somefing, Think -> Fink.

I was thinking ellison but the sound isnt really weakened its more replaced.

Full disclosure: This is homework for my English Language(Linguistics) class. I tried to work it out but i couldnt so im asking for help here.

~cheers Jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.8.240 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Th-fronting what you're looking for? ~ mazca ^talk 12:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether Irwin does this all the time or only in some words. Mazca, since this is a homework problem I imagine it has something to do with phonological rules.

Jake, what you need to do is look at the environments when th-fronting happens here. In particular, what do /f/ and /m/ have in common? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter-ish thing translated to Latin

Dear Reference desk

Can you please give me the translation on this quote? I want to know what "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure" would look in Latin, so please? 130.238.56.201 (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it actually from Harry Potter? That has been translated into Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is: [5].—Emil J. 14:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure all the Harry Potter books have been translated into Latin, though. +Angr 15:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Only the first two books have. I own both:) Wrad (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the quote seems to be from Order of the Phoenix which is, what, the fifth? Looks like we'll have to come up with an amateur translation of the quote into Latin then. +Angr 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But it won't rhyme? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the book and am unsure of the meaning or context of the English sentence, but would something like "Ingenium immodicum est hominis maximus thesaurus" work? Or is wit meant in the "humor" sense? Deor (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ingenium is right in the context; it's definitely wit in the sense of cleverness. I'd go with immensum rather than immodicum since the latter can imply "excessive". For "treasure" I'd use opes rather than thesaurus, which is more like a store room. So Ingenium immensum est hominis maximae opes. (Or sunt? I'm not sure what to do when the subject and the predicate nominative don't agree in number.) It still sounds awfully translated-out-of-English though, and of course a literal translation into Latin won't rhyme. What would Julius (Caesar) do? +Angr 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He would say "Veni, vidi, witti", don't you think? alteripse (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well "beyond measure" often connotes excessiveness in English; that's why I went with immodicum. As I said, I'm in the dark regarding the context. Deor (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "ingenium praeter modum est summum hominis commodum"? Then, like the English, it rhymes and has the same number of syllables on both sides of the verb (well, as long as you ignore the original vowel lengths). "Praeter modum" or "extra modum" are both "beyond measure", and although "commodum" is not literally a treasure, it does mean a reward, or something very pleasing or convenient. "Summum" is another word for "greatest". Adam Bishop (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Very clever. Deor (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ingenium lepidissimum homini pretiosissimum? Maid Marion (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, even cleverer. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not cleverer than your own elegant version Adam, but an option for the OP to consider if he is more interested in the pithiness and jingle of the original than in its strict sense. Maid Marion (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Phrase in German

My late father took a German language class in college. When we were growing up, when something happened that wasn't ideal, he said something like "Das ist abba shada". Something that was to mean "that's too bad" in English. Please tell me what he was trying say. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably Das ist aber schade. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What does that literally translate to in English? How do you pronounce it? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A truly literal translation would be "that is but [a] pity". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be the word-for-word translation, but it would mean something slightly different...I'd understand "that is but a pity" to mean something like "just a pity/nothing more than a pity". For the (ultimately untranslatable) "aber", see German modal particle -- Ferkelparade π 21:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A slightly more faithful translation is "But that's a pity." -Ehrenkater (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It just means "that's a pity" and you pronounce it pretty much as you said, but I'll defer to another editor who knows IPA... --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the OP is asking for IPA, but it's [ˈdas ɪst ˈaːbɐ ˈʃaːdə].—Emil J. 16:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you can't help enjoying someone else's "less than ideal" fortune, that of course is schadenfreude. alteripse (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Japanese question

Screenshots! Yay!

To the right are a couple of screenshots from a game project I'm currently working on. The level I'm currently creating is set in Japan, and I'd like to have a couple of shop signs etc in Japanese. My knowledge of Japanese doesn't go far beyond using a dictionary, so I'd appreciate if someone who actually knows Japanese could have a look at them and tell me whether or not they are correct. Here's what the signs are supposed to say:

• Top left: Four Dragons (the name of a bar)
• Top right: Cheater's Guild (I know the sign is ugly, but these buildings just exist as a convenience for my beta testers and will be removed before release...still, I'd prefer the sign to be correct)
• Middle left: Ninja Academy
• Middle right: Jungle/Forest (it's the legend on a map of a jungle area)
• Bottom left: Shuriken (tattoo)
• Bottom right: Chiba (tattoo)

Thanks in advance! -- Ferkelparade π 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically kanji are correct. But a little bit strange. Four dragons in Japanese is 四匹の龍 or 四頭の龍. 四龍 looks like Chinese. I have no idea what it actually is in Chinese and it's understandable to Japanese though. 詐欺師ギルド is OK. But you can use 組合 or 協会 instead of ギルド, if you want kanji. The detail of two kanji, 忍 and 者 are wrong. 忍者大学 is Ninja University/College. Is that what you want? Might be 忍者学院 or 忍者道場. What kind of school do you have in mind? 森林 is OK. Or just 森. The kanji of two tattoos are correct. But they are unrealistic to a native speaker. Oda Mari (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll change the "Four Dragons" sign to be Japanese instead of Chinese. When you say the tattoos would be unrealistic, do you mean the words would not be written with the Kanji I used, or it would be unrealistic for someone to have a tattoo like that? If the latter, that's intentional - it makes sense in the context of the game's story :) -- Ferkelparade π 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A tattoo of Sonny Chiba would be better :P Rimush (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I went into dragons. Sorry, if you meant Dragon King, it's 四竜 and OK. But the kanji is 竜, not 龍. I found a fictional Chinese mafia 四龍 in two manga, Hunter Cats and Sheif by Hiroshi Aro. As I do not know about your game, it's not easy to advice what is the best translation. Thinking about it's a game and fictional, you can use 四竜 as a name of the bar. As for tattoo, it's the latter and OK. Oda Mari (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what Mari means is that it is faux pas. Like what I think she means is that if the player sees that, they would be embarrassed for you.174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I need some help with Hebrew please

Could a speaker of Hebrew add niqqud to the Hebrew script names of the following Israeli football players? Thank you.

Name	Hebrew script	With niqqud
Yossi Shai Benayoun	יוסף שי בניון	יוֹסֵף שַי בֵנָיוּן
Elyaniv Felix Barda	אליניב פליקס ברדה	אֵלְיָנִיב פֶלִיקְס בַרְדָה
Amit Ben Shushan	עמית בן שושן	עָמִית בֶן שׁוּשָן
Ben Sahar	בן סהר	בֵן סַהַר
Shimon Gershon	שמעון גרשון	שִמְעוֹן גֶרְשׁוֹן
Omer Golan	עומר גולן	עֹמֶר גוֹלָן
Idan Tal	עידן טל	עִידָן טַל
Barak Yitzhaki	ברק יצחקי	בָרָק יִצְחָקִי
Aviram Baruchyan	אבירם ברוכיאן	אֲבִירָם בָרוּכְיָאן
David "Dedi" Ben Dayan	דוד "דדי" בן דיין	דָוִד "דֶדִי" בֶן דַיָן
Rahamim 'Klemi' Saban	רחמים 'קלמי' סבן	רַחֲמִים 'קְלֶמִי' סַבָן
Salim Tuama (Toama?)	סלים טועמה	סָלִים טוּעַמָה

--62.204.152.181 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Computing Information (Penn State) might be helpful. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's really no need. Modern Hebrew is written without niqqud and to add it would be superfluous, not to mention peculiar. The romanized transcriptions (with a correction I made) indicated in the page names are perfectly adequate, with the exception of the Israeli Arab player, Salim Tuama (Toama?). You'll see I've added a query which you might want to post here if no response is elicited on that Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I added niqqud as you requested. HOOTmag (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, HOOTmag. I intended the last column for the names with niqqud and the second one just for the everyday-used names, without niqqud. I filled in the second column so the third one wouldn't remain empty. But I spotted something (which could be completely OK, however). You have only added a dot above the letter shin in one case - in the name שִמְעוֹן גֶרְשׁוֹן. All the other ש's are bare or with a vowel-indicating niqqud below. I thought shin couldn't exist without one of the two dots above - the sin dot (שׂ) when it represents the sound /s/, and the shin dot (שׁ) when it stands for the sound /ʃ/. Is that really so? --62.204.152.181 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to techinical problems in Wikipedia (and in Wikipedia only), I couldn't add the dot above "ש"s which have vowel-indicating niqqud below. Anyways, all of the "ש"s here should have a "shin" dot (because they're pronounced "sh"). Note that even regular Hebrew texts with niqqud - don't always add the "shin" dot (although they must always add the "sin" dot). Note that also the letter Ш in Bulgarian - which is pronounced "sh" - has no dot above, although it has stemmed (historically) from the Hebrew ש. Note also that - due to the same technical problem in Wikipedia - I couldn't add dots inside the ב,ג,ד, although most of them should have a dot inside (excluding the ב in אליניב and in אבירם, the ד in עידן, the second ד of דוד, and the second ד in דדי). How come that a Bulgarian speaker is interested in Hebrew and/or in Israeli football players? HOOTmag (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC

It wouldn't suprise me if some of the problems are due to the fact that the Unicode "combining classes" for Hebrew diacritics are completely wrong, which means that Hebrew letters with multiple diacritics will almost always display incorrectly, except for a few people who have access to rather specialized and high-end fonts. The original mistake occurred around 1991, but the Unicode gods have decreed that all the errors are set in concrete, and absolutely nothing can be done to change them now, so that everybody will have to work around the errors which needlessly complicate things until the end of time (according to the Unicode Consortium, apparently)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have any specialized or high-end fonts, in fact, I have only the handful of free fonts shipped by default with (a rather outdated version of) Fedora Core, yet it works just fine: דָּוִד, שִׁמְעוֹן.—Emil J. 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work fine: when you tried to put a "shin" dot above the right hand of the ש, it was replaced in Wilipedia by a "sin" dot, i.e. the dot moved to the left hand of the ש. Also דוד (when written with niqqud) is not displayed well in Wikipedia: The dot should be inside the ד, but Wikipedia displays it behind the ד. HOOTmag (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to do with it, it's your browser or font (though AnonMoos suggests that it's not really their fault). I can see the shin dot on the right and the dagesh inside the dalet, as expected.—Emil J. 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, realy? I couldn't think of that option, untill you told me what you see! HOOTmag (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, it is the fault of the browser. According to the normative principle P5 in the Conformance chapter of the Unicode standard: Nonspacing marks with different, non-zero combining classes may occur in different orders without affecting either the visual display of a combining character sequence or the interpretation of that sequence.[6] The relevant Hebrew diacritics have each a different combining class, hence their relative order should not matter: 05D3(dalet)+05BC(dagesh, c.c.21)+05B8(qamats, c.c.18) and 05D3+05B8+05BC are canonically equivalent character sequences. If the browser displays them differently, it is broken, irrespective of which of the two forms is the normalization form (which happens to be the second one, which indeed follows a counterintuitive order; this is also what Wikipedia outputs). This does not require any specialized technology with Hebrew-related exceptions, it simply follows from a straightforward interpretation of basic principles of the Unicode standard. And since dagesh and qamats do not typographically interact with each other (they are placed in quite different positions), the standard is correct in assigning them different combining classes, it's not an error. I can see that there are some dubious aspects of the c.c. assignments, but this is not one of them.

On the practical side: the standard suggests that one can prevent normalization by inserting U+034F "combining grapheme joiner" between the diacritics. HOOTmag, do דּ͏ָוִד ‎(05D3+05BC+034F+05B8+...) and שׁ͏ִמְעוֹן‎ (05E9+05C1+034F+05B4+...) display correctly for you?—Emil J. 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Unicode standard can say that theoretically it supposedly shouldn't be a problem (in some ideal metaphysical world other than the one we live in) -- but the simple fact remains that in the real world, it creates actual real difficulties for the creators or programmers of fonts and text display programs which have to deal with multiple languages / scripts (of which Hebrew is only one among many). The fact that the diacritic combining classes enforce a completely wrong order of diacritics is a purely needlessly pointlessly negative thing, which has no compensating advantages or justification other than a declaration by the Unicode authorities that stupid errors made in 1991 can never be fixed, no matter how many problems this creates for other people... AnonMoos (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand how the system works. The combining classes do not enforce any order, on the contrary, any order is valid. In the hypothetical case that the Unicode consortium decides to change the classes so that the normalized form puts dagesh before other diacritics, it will not have any effect on display programs: both orders will still be valid inputs, and they will still be equivalent, hence the browser above which displays them differently will still be broken. The only purpose of normalization is to have a well-defined unique representation of each character sequence so that two texts can be compared for equality, and for this purpose it does not matter what the actual order is, only that it is unique. If you misuse the normalization order for other purposes, you can't blame Unicode if it turns out not to work. This seems to be just another instance of Unicode-is-evil bashing by making Unicode responsible for errors of others, a popular sport indeed.—Emil J. 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be another case of something which sounds good in theory -- but what happens in the real world is that characters representing diacritic are moved into a linguistically/orthographically/typographically "unnatural" order by normalization (Wikipedia seems to strictly enforce normalization, by the way), and then multilingual software programs and fonts (which are intended to deal with many languages besides Hebrew) have more difficulty in dealing with the diacritics in this unnatural order than they would if they were in a more natural order. It isn't calling Unicode "evil" to point out that it's kind of stupid to leave unfixed an error which only creates problems (and has no compensating advantages) for over 18 years and counting... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only is the niqud unnecessary, but it makes some of the names pretty hard to read in Hebrew - see how the floating vowel breaks up the name Omer? --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It breaks up the name - in wikipedia only, due to some technical problems existent in Wikepdia only. HOOTmag (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What I see in the name Omer is that the vav of the unpointed text has been deleted in the pointed text. That shouldn't oughta happen. +Angr 15:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I missed that! --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In a pointed text, the vav of Omer ought to be deleted! HOOTmag (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Israeli friends have the vav - and no niqud. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That there is a vav in unpointed text (ktiv male) does not imply that there is one in pointed text. The same goes for Ben Dayan's second yod, btw.—Emil J. 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

HOOTmag, thanks very much for recognising my being Bulgarian from my individuality-lacking IP-address. You encouraged me to create an account. After four years of actively reading Wikipedia, several months of contributing to the RD and once being asked to do so, I finally created one. I chose a meaningful English word for username so I can be more easily recognised, but I'd like to sign as "магьосник", which is the Bulgarian for theurgist or magician. Let me answer you. It's that my two major interests are football and languages. I know the Hebrew alphabet; all I need to be able to pronounce a Hebrew word is niqqud. Without it I can still recognise names of countries, cities, famous people, etc. The Israeli players listed above are all goalscorers for Israel in the qualifying campaigns for Euro 2008 and World Cup 2010, except Argentina-born Roberto Colautti and Nigeria-born Toto Tamuz. Now I will complain about a problem that I consider quite important, but seemingly no one else in Bulgaria cares about. In Bulgarian you write what you hear. For example the name Michael should be rendered Майкъл if it is borne by an Englishman and Михаел if it is the name of a German. But the names of foreign people (especially sportspeople), foreign football teams, etc are constantly being Anglicised or Germanicised by the mass media in Bulgaria due to the journalists' lack of knowledge about the rules of pronunciation of rarer languages. Famous people from the Netherlands, Scandinavia, the Arab World, India, (and especially) Eastern Asia are widely known by the Bulgarians with wrong names, thanks to the media. If you talk to a Bulgarian and mention a characteristic Swedish name as it should sound, they will typically look on you amazed, and maybe will not understand what you are talking about. To my opinion, that's quite disturbing. What would a foreigner think of us if he knew what we've done with their name (and the reasons for that)? There is an eternally ongoing dispute among the Bulgarian Wikipedians about naming the articles. Generally we choose the correct names, but some insist that in some cases we should use the widely-spread ones, because they have already been established in that form or the correct ones are too strange for a reader to recognise. I am quite worried about that. I thought if we some day decide to create an article like this, we would need the proper Israeli names. That's why I posted this request (the other reason is my pure interest). --Магьосник (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you'd probably be interested in knowing the following facts:

1. The first player in the table, appears - with his formal name - on the Hebrew column, and with his nickname - on the English column. He never uses the formal first name, unless when he has to show his passport, and the like.
2. Two players' names include (in both columns) both the formal name and the nickname: דוד דדי (the word on the right is the formal first name - never used in daily speech, and the name on the left is the nickname - never used in formal contexts), and the same is with רחמים קלמי (I really don't know why you decided to use apostrophes when you wrote the nicknames, and why you decided to use different kinds of apostrophe).
3. All of the names are stressed on the final syllable, except for the following words - stressed on the next-to-final syllable: פליקס, עומר, דדי, קלמי, טועמה. Note also that the word יצחקי is stressed on the final syllable - in formal context only, and is stressed on the next-to-final syllable - in the colloquial speach only.
4. All of the first names (excluding the nicknames) are purely Hebrew names, except for סלים, whose mother tongue is Arabic. Most of the last names are purely Hebrew names, except for the following: בניון, ברדה, ברוכיאן, סבן, טועמה.
5. Regarding the problem in Bulgaria (and actually in every other place in the world) with pronouncing foreign names: The Hebrew speakers who don't read Arabic have the same problem with the name סלים טועמה (Toama/Tuama), which is originally written in Arabic rather than in Hebrew (In Arabic it's formally pronounced Tuama).

HOOTmag (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I'm usually very glad when I see such profound explanations. I used two different kinds of apostrophes for the nicknames just because I copied all the names from the respective Wikipedia articles. My computer doesn't have a Hebrew alphabet layout (and I don't know how to supply it with one; whenever I wish to write something in Hebrew, I have to either copy and paste it, or, if unavailable, copy and paste the letters one by one). I copied דוד "דדי" בן דיין from here and רחמים 'קלמי' סבן from here. I didn't know which of those is preferable in Hebrew, so I decided not to change them. And, by the way, פליקס does not seem a purely Hebrew name to me. Is it? --Магьосник (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When referring to the purley Hebrew first names and last names, I didn't intend to refer to middle names. Felix (which is realy not a Hebrew name) is neither a "first name" nor a "last name", but rather is a middle name. By the way, Felix is the only middle name in the table (Note that בן is a part of the surname, except in בן סהר - where בן is the first name) HOOTmag (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Death's head - what?

The page SS-Totenkopfverbände explains that Totenkopf means "Death's head" but doesn't give a definition for the entire term. What would be the best English-language rendition of Totenkopfverbände? (Queried on its Talk page; kindly reply there or here). -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Some pretty good responses on that talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled [Totenkopfverbände] and one of the items claims it means "Death's Head Batallions". I'll check my German-English dictionary and see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Toten is a prefix meaning Death, to various words include Kopf, which is head, hence Totenkopf is a skull, or skull and crossbones. The prefix Ver is a commonly-used German construct, I'm not sure exactly what it denotes. Verband, when used in a military context, means formation or unit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Google translate doesn't have anything for the word as a whole, but when it's split up as Totenkopf verbände, it gives "skull associations" — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In military usage, it means "units", which is a bit more specific and fits this particular subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

From Leo Online Dictionary: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.15.240 (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Totenkopf simply means (a dead person's) skull. Pitke (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be the literal meaning. However, I (= Original Poster of this query) was referring to the term in its emblematic usage in the SS context, both as the adopted name of a particular subset of the SS forces and its insignia displayed on uniforms and paraphernalia (e.g. rings).The idiomatic English-language term "Death's head" strikes me as entirely suitable as a context-dependent translation. More difficult was how to represent verbände – and while the meanings, derivations, and equivalents are helpful to know, I'm aiming for a canonical usage (if such exists). -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just an aside, that the "skull and crossbones" badge has a long history in connection with cavalry units in Germany; particularly in the armies of Brunswick and Prussia. The British 17th Lancers adopted the emblem on the death of General Wolfe with the "Or Glory" motto and it's still worn today by their descendants, the Queen's Royal Lancers. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Deborah, Verband is a very general term that can refer to any organized group of people. If you look up the singular at LEO, you see its meanings include "alliance, assembly, association, collective, confederation, federation, syndicate, union, organization". The German Wikipedia article de:Verband (Militär) is linked to our redirect Formation (military), so "Death's Head Formations" may be closest, although to English-speakers unfamiliar with military terminology that may sound like it refers to groups of people standing in such a way as to form the shape of a death's head (like a macabre pep squad), so maybe "Death's Head Units" would be better. +Angr 10:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 10

Online Dictionary

There was a definition linked to an online english dictionary, in a post maybe a a week ago.

(The original poster posted after me about a week ago, so this link may have appeared several days afterward.)

I am curious which dictionary this was. I am not sure if this was on the humanities desk, or language desk, or possibly entertainment desk.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say without knowing what the context was. Have you tried looking in the Archives or searching them using the box near the top of this page? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a transparent proponent of Wiktionary -- always a good place to start...--达伟 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Or if you prefer professional lexicography, several dictionary companies have made their dictionaries accessible online, although free access may not include their largest dictionary. Several of these free dictionaries and other reference sources can be searched simultaneously using the site www.onelook.com. --Anonymous, 17:47 UTC, March 10, 2010.

List of online dictionaries. --Normansmithy (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The first 8 or so volumes of the 12-volume Oxford English Dictionary as published in 1933 are out of copyright, and some work has been done to get scans online. I'm not sure how many are up right now. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Congo

When referring to The Congo, as in the Republic of the Congo, does this refer to:

• the river
• the basin
• something completely different?174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The country (usually the Republic of the Congo. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And what is: "The Congo"?174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The country (usually the Republic of the Congo). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Versus "Republic of Congo"? Why the determiner?174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the country formerly known as Zaire changed its name to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Actually I wouldn't be so sure about which country "Congo" refers to these days. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So we have no etymology for "The Congo"?174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it refers to the Kongo people, their language, and their kingdom, if that's what you mean. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But you don't say, the republic of the france.174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In French, the full name is "French republic" (République française). The article isn't part of the name either. --Kvasir (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But we do say 'The Sudan', which refers to the region or the country. My belief FWIW has always been that these were names given to areas of Africa in the exploratory days of the 19th century and have stuck for whatever reason. Originally they referred to a diverse group of aboriginal people that it was inconvenient to refer to separately so the region rather than the people were named. Then there is 'The Lebanon'. . . Richard Avery (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Bonaparte call himself Emperor of the French? —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know why there's a "the" in there. Other countries include "the" as well: the Gambia, the Netherlands; island groups, like the Philippines, the Maldives, the Comoros, the Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands; most countries whose name is "descriptive," like the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic; and formerly the Ukraine, the Argentine, the Sudan, the Ivory Coast, the Lebanon. (And perhaps El Salvador counts too…) I'm sure there's a name for this phenomenon, but I don't know what it is. —Bkell (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, The Ukraine is incorrect.174.3.110.108 (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Ukraine" is falling out of use indeed. "The Gambia" can be easily explained. Originally it referred to the river Gambia. "The Netherlands" is such because "Netherlands" means "low lands", so The Lowlands make sense. (In French it's the same: Les Pays-bas, never just Pays-bas by itself). As for island groups it's because the name is "descriptive" like Bkell mentioned. --Kvasir (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very worthy entrant for our FAQs. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not just countries but other geographical features - the Peloponnese, the Crimea, the Wirral, the Levant.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See our article on this issue: The#Geographic_uses. --Kvasir (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappointingly, a paragraph rather than an article - and it doesn't shed any light on why the "the" is used for some places but not others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Ukraine" is not incorrect, it's just old-fashioned now. The Congo has a "the" for the same reason the Gambia does, because the country is named after the river. "The Yucatan" is another example that is probably old-fashioned nowadays. +Angr 08:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP answered his/her own question in the question: "When referring to The Congo, as in the Republic of The Congo...." In this case it unequivocally refers to the Republic of The Congo, because this is specified using the words 'as in'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they did. They unequivocally refer to the use within the country's name. The question could (I think) be rephrased "The Republic of the Congo is the republic of which geographical feature or other thing named 'the Congo'?" Regions can be named after people (e.g. England, France) or things (e.g. Rhineland) that can be found there. It's not obvious, I think, to the OP (or me) what this country is named after. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after this long roundabout discussion it eventually became more clear what the OP was trying to ask. He could have saved a lot of trouble if he had just said "What does 'the Congo' in The Republic of the Congo refer to?" rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP's question seemed pretty clear to me. It's hardly any different from your rephrasing of it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Rjanag:Maybe because your interlanguage borrows from many different languages?174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Proper noun which takes an article (such as Internet) are referred to as "weak" proper nouns, I believe. Here is a discussion on language log about them. This post from today, notes that the presenc eor absence of an article might be an arbitrary feature, like gender: "Now, my default hypothesis is that this is a genuinely arbitrary syntactic distinction. There's no explanation; the functionalists who (doubtless) will run around in circles trying to find a subtle semantic link between all strong proper names, and a subtle distinction between them and weak proper names, will be wasting their time. "The Internet" is a weak proper name, so the definite article is obligatory. End of story." Circéus (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "language log".174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Language Log. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget Bongo Congo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Four different pen names

Dear colleagues, The British author Anthony M. Daniels, better known under his pen name Theodore Dalrymple, wrote an article 'Where nobody knows your name' in the Globe and Mail on 16 february 2008. In it Daniels wrote: "In a way, I am an expert om pseudonymity. In my time, and for a variety of reasons, I have written under four different pen names." He is a prolific writer and he writes both under his own name and under the pen name Theodore Dalrymple. In the past he has written under the pen names Edward Theberton en Thursday Msigwa. So he has published under four different names, including his own name. Strictly speaking, I think, there must be a fourth pen name (a relevant sentence in the current article is based on this strict interpretation), but I doubt whether this is intended in the phrase quoted above. My guess would be that when he wrote it Daniels thought of his own name as one of his pen names. Does this guess sound plausible in a British or American ear (I am Dutch)? Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To my British ear, it (his counting his real name as a pen name) sounds like a perfectly plausible minor slip or deliberate variant usage of the term, but it's equally plausible that he was obliquely alluding to a fourth pen name in the strict sense, making five published names in all. The ambiguity cannot be resolved without direct evidence (such as identifying a fifth name, or asking Mr Daniels directly). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the usage is the same here in North America. Incidentally, if anyone thinks that four pseudonyms is a lot, they should take a look at John Creasey. --Anonymous, 17:53 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Or R. L. Fanthorpe. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. Though I do think that four or five names is quite a lot, I didn't expect anybody to be surprised at it; I just wanted to know how many. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience as a long-time book collector, former bookseller and former book editor, anything up to half-a-dozen is not particularly unusual. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

March 11

Catholic and Katholic

Is Katholic a misspelling, or is it a proper variation of Catholic? Or do they have separate meanings? Shadowjams (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is a mispelling; "Catholic" is always spelled with a "c". However, in some languages the word for "Catholic" begins with a "k": cf. de katholisch, nl katholiek, pl katoliki, but fr catholique. Where did you see this particular spelling? Xenon54 / talk / 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

German spelling, except it's Katholik. German often uses a K instead of a hard C. A couple of other examples that come to mind that are cognates are Klasse and Dokument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the Latin catholicus comes from the Greek katholikos ("universal"), so one could argue that the Germans are the ones spelling it the right way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c with above) "Katholic" is not a German word, although the noun for "a Catholic person" is der Katholik. I would still guess it's a misspelling, however this question probably can't be answered for certain without context... Xenon54 / talk / 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the original article that prompted this, but here are some other examples: Katholic School Etten-Leur (part of the name so slightly different), Twello (a good example of a typo, if that's what it is), and Neuhofen (listing x number of "katholics", which is the original context I saw it in).

I'm thinking of writing an AWB rule for this but wanted to be sure first. Also, it might be useful to know if there are other, legitimate uses (like the school name). Shadowjams (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I went searching for "katholic" and also found Katholic School Etten-Leur, which if correct would suggest that is the Dutch spelling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Google it's "Katholiek" in Dutch, and it looks like that article has it mis-spelled. More research needed to be certain. Google Translate does not find "Katholic" as being a valid word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The Dutch words are katholiek (adjective) and de katholiek (masculine noun). Googling doesn't bring up anything useful so I'm pretty certain it's a misspelling. Xenon54 / talk / 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is the place, either the article should be titled with the Dutch Katholieke Scholengemeenschap Etten-Leur, or a proper English translation ("Etten-Leur Catholic High School", or similar) should be used. Is the place even notable? Deor (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was created over 3 years ago by this editor [8] who has a grand total of 6 edits, all on that same day. I'm guessing he was or had been a student of that school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've moved the article to Katholieke Scholengemeenschap Etten-Leur and requested speedy deletion of the resulting redirect, so some of the links above may be turning red. Deor (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why to delete the redirects. There are countless examples of misspellings in redirects that are entered or retained purposely, in order to lead the casual speller to the right article. A good example of that is Nucular. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of redirects from plausible search terms. In this case, with the misspelling of "Catholic" and the unlikelihood that anyone would enter that exact sequence of characters as an English version of the school's name, I don't think it's a plausible search term. Some random admin will decide. Deor (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of making things easier for the reader. The usual justification for deleting redirects is when they are a gross violation of the rules, such as BLP violations or blatant POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Shadowjams (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What was the meaning of the word "amend" when the US Constitution was written

When the founding fathers penned the United States Constitution they had an understanding of the words they used and were very particular in their useage. I have read that the word "amend" in their time meant "to add to or remove from for the purpose of clairification without changing the original intent". I have a copy of the 6th printing of Black's Law Dicitionary and the word "amend" simply say "to change". I am fairly sure that I have read a copy of the 1st printing from 1861 where I think I got the first definition I quoted. After having had a kidney transplant and experiencing the related drugs my memory is now shy of what it used to be and am hoping for further light on this topic. thanks, SterlingSterlingangle (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The word itself comes from Latin ēmendāre ('to correct, free from fault') and its meaning in the 13th century (when it was borrowed into English) was "to free from faults, rectify." The meaning of "to add to legislation" is basically novel to the process of constructing the American constitution and its first use that way is in 1777. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I need to amend :-) Aeu's American constitutional reference there. In the OED 1st edition, the oldest cite for this sense of "amend" is indeed from 1777, but it's Edmund Burke talking about a bill being amended before being passed by the British House of Commons. The definition given, by the way, is: "To make professed improvements to (a measure before Parliament); formally, to alter in detail, though practically it may be to alter its principle, so as to thwart it." So this may still have been a new-ish sense when the US Constitution was written 10 years later, but the constitution certainly did not originate it.

The next older sense in the OED is the one the original poster was thinking of: "Law. To correct (an error committed in legal process) or rectify (a legal document)." This is cited as far back as 1429. So yes, at one time an amendment did just mean a correction, but the newer meaning was in use before 1787. --Anonymous, 04:57 UTC, March 12, 2010.

Thanks, anonymous. FWIW, remember that it's the constitution itself which is being amended, and as a constitution is a document that sets out the powers of government and rights of citizens, we could consider that a single amendment would really work more to tweak or correct the way a society/government operates. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So when certain politicians some years back were belittling the Bill of Rights as "just some amendments", they were inadvertently saying, "just some corrections"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That would explain why there was virtually no discussion on the bill of rights, though I imagine it was also because the content in the BoR was considered assumed by the original drafters of the US constitution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The "discussion", as I recall from history class, was that without the first 10 amendments, the Constitution would have been rejected by enough states that it would have failed. There were actually 12 items in the proposed Bill of Rights, of which one of the remaining two was never passed; but the other, having to do with Congressional compensation, quietly worked its way through 2 centuries of approval processes and was finally passed a decade or two ago. That kind of thing is why amendments nowadays have a built-in statute of limitations for approval, which is how the ERA was defeated. But the original BoR had no built-in limitations, and while some questioned the appropriateness of counting ratification votes from generations earlier, Congress was not so dumb as to realize that vigorously opposing it was bad politics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution did pass ratification without the BoR, though if I recall correctly, when people said they wouldn't ratify it without one, there was a promise by federalists to include it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Had the BoR not been offered fairly promptly, likely some of the States would have revoked their ratifications (sooner than some did). —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The other lost clause of the BoR, by the way, became irrelevant (by its own terms) when the population reached ten million. —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the OP is asking whether the Constitution's authorization of amendments to itself was an authorization merely "to add to or remove from for the purpose of clarification without changing the original intent." That this is not so is demonstrated by the fact that the Constitution forbids unequal representation in the Senate (absent the unequal state's or states' consent) even if an entirely new constitution is drafted (much less an amendment). If it were understood that amendments (again, much less entirely new constitutions) were simply for "clarification" and could not change "the original intent," there would be no need to explicitly state (in a relatively short document) that the Article One requirement for equal representation in the senate cannot be changed without consent even if the entire Constitution is scrapped and a new one written. This is a basic legal conclusion based on the rules of construction. 63.17.64.195 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Allegheny

How do you pronounce "Allegheny" as in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania? I can read IPA, by the way. Yuunli (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[.ælə'geɪni]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And for those of us who can't, it's "al-uh-GAY-nee": As in Capone's first name; a hesitation when talking; not-straight; where your leg bends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way to describe it is: the first three syllables are the same as in "alligator", and the last is like "knee". The pronunciation at [9] is OK, but I put more stress on the first syllable than that speaker does.

Of course the schwa in the second syllable can have different sounds. For my somewhat-Pennsylvania accent, the "uh" is more like the vowel in "lip". The same thing is true for "Appalachian"; I don't have a true "uh" in either one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

About the stress: it's the opposite for me, I put primary stress on the "ghe" (and, hence, it doesn't quite sound like "alligator" in my pronunciation). As for the schwa, I agree, whatever I produce is more ɨ-ish, I was just doing a broad (read: lazy) phonemic transcription ;)rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I put more stress on the third syllable in "allegheny" than "alligator"; just the vowels are the same. But I am pretty sure that I put a little more stress on the first syllable then the audio recording I linked above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. When I say it out loud, it's really more like "alligainy" than "alluhgainy". If you were to say "alligator" with emphasis on the third syllable instead of the first, it would be about the same. Key question: app-uh-LAY-chun, or app-uh-LATCH-un? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a "key question", but an "off-topic question". However, since such beasts are not exactly unheard of around here, I'll counter that I've always heard 'Appalachian' pronounced exactly like 'appellation'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"AppuhLATCHun" tends to be considered a 'redneck' pronunciation, at least in my experience. (And I'm from Appalachia myself.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, the ch in Appalachian is always pronounced [tʃ] rather than [ʃ], so its pronunciation differs from that of appellation by one consonant (cluster). Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not "always"—in fact, not usually. I, and most people I know, including many thru-hikers and people who work at the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, pronoounce it [æpəlɛɪʃn̩]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your pronunciation guide looks like little boxes on my old PC. So are you saying "latch" or "laytch"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't say either, I say roughtly "laysh". That is the standard pronunciation. The "latch" pronunciation is the one I was referring to as being considered somewhat rednecky. "laytch" to me just sounds like what someone from far away would say (i.e., someone who's never heard "Appalachian" before); I have not heard it pronounced that way very much. 129.237.62.53 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Rjanag editing while logged out)

When I was a kid in a northern school, it was "laytch". When I lived in the south for awhile, it was "latch". I have very seldom heard "laysh" (or "lash", for that matter). I've become convinced over time that "latch" is correct, as it's consistent with other geographical features with the same root as "Appalachian". Although that doesn't necessarily prove anything, given that "Arkansas" has two different and equally valid pronunciations for different features. In any case, Appalachian State University is pronounced "latch". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack, how appropriate: when Eric Idle in his monologue about Australian wines mentioned an appellation contrôlée (a term unknown to me on first hearing), I thought he was talking about an Appalachian variety (though he didn't pronounce it quite as I'd pronounce either Appalachian or appellation). —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original question, it occurs to me that an even closer parallel is "allegation(s)", whose first 3 syllables, along with the stress on the third syllable, is well nigh the same as with "allegheny". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, although the third syllable in Allegheny is a bit more nasalized (because of the following [n]). If you pronounce just the ge/ghe from each word, you can hear a slight difference (in my dialect, at least). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Observing that fine of a differentiation certainly requires a cunning linguist. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare!

The word nightmare references to mythological/folkloristic figures in a lot languages.
For example, are related to Mare: English (nightmare), Dutch (nachtmerrie), Danish (mareridt), Norwegian (mareritt), Swedish (mardröm), Icelandic (martröð), French (cauchemar), Romanian (coşmar), Lithuanian (košmaras), Polish (koszmar), Russian (кошмар). A lot of them seem to have just borrowed from French.
From Elf: German (Albtraum, Alptraum), Anglosaxon (ælfādl).
From Incubus: Latin (incubus), Italian (incubo).
From Will-o'-the-wisp: Hungarian (lidércnyomás).
From Ephialtes: Greek (εφιάλτης).
Now, my question is, what's the etymology of Arabic (kaabuus), Urdu (kābūs) and Turkish (kabus)? Are they related to Incubus?
And Czech (noční můra), Serbian (noćna mora)? Are they related to Mare?
And Irish (tromluí), Welsh (hunllef), Hebrew (סיוט ), Albanian (ankth), Occitan (cachavièlha), Basque (amesgaizto)? --151.51.61.156 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Slavic, "Croatian Language Handbook" [10] says that "mora" is an Old Slavic word meaning "plague" or "pest", and is a cognate with Latin "mors" and Sanskrt "maras", meaning "death". "Košmar" also exists in Serbo-Croatian in the same meaning, but it is a borrowing (as in other Eastern European languages) from French "cauchemar". Note that there also exists Mora in Slavic mythology, so it is a relative with Mare, and they share the same root. No such user (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For a non-mythological root, haveFinnish painajainen, which refers to a physical or spiritual feeling of pressure or weight, or that of being held down. Pitke (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kabus كابوس derives from a verb root meaning to "press" or "squeeze", and I would assume it comes mainly from the traditional folkloric belief that a malicious being comes in the night and sits on your chest and presses on it... AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite understandably, since the sleep paralysis that is sometimes experienced in the hypnagogic or hypnopompic state (as I have) feels exactly like this. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish tromluí means literally "heavy lying" ("lying" in the sense of lying down, not in the sense of telling a lie). +Angr 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And the Spanish and Portuguese words for nightmare (pesadillo, pesadelo) are derived from weight, and refer to the same folkloric belief (according to their wikipedia articles). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

<sub<It's actually 'pesadilla' Caesar's Daddy (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Basque amesgaizto looks straightforward enough: amets means "dream", and "gaizto" means "evil". Esperanto knows "koŝmaro", "inkubo", and "premsonĝo" ("pressure" + "dream"). The pressing image is sometimes used in German too, in combination with mythology: "Alpdrücken". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about the etymology of one of the Rumantsch words for nightmare: "dischariel". Normally, the prefix "disch-" corresponds to "dis-" in English. Perhaps a reference to Ariel's more malicious side, or simply a bad spirit? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And they say Chinese are superstitious. Nightmare in Chinese is simply 噩夢 / 噩梦: bad dream. --Kvasir (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But then, sleep paralysis is 鬼压身: ghost pressing on body. :) Indeterminate (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but other forms of nightmare in Romansh are: derschalet (Sursilvan), darschalet (Surmiran) and dischöl (Puter&Vallader). Surmiran has also fulet and ischier. Fulet is similar to Italian folletto (Imp, fairy). Moreover, in Friulian (a sister language) it's čhalčhut (probably from čhalčhâ, to press). In Ladin(Fassano) it's strassomech (is it related to 'strassomeèr, to disturb?) and trota--151.51.61.156 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, dischöl is of Gaulish origin and is a cognate of Walloon dûhin, dûhon, goblin, Basque tusuri, devil, Cornish dus, devil, Breton diz devil, Irish dásachd madness, rage. From [11] --151.51.61.156 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing special about the origin of the Bulgarian word. It's кошмар (koshmar), a derivative from French. It also has a figurative meaning - "a bad or terrifying experience". The English word has this meaning too, but I can say nothing about the other languages. --Магьосник (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What's a wittle?

I just started reading Great Expectations and I've been wondering what a wittle is? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you've read wittles, which would be Dickens's representation of a dialect form of victuals, meaning food and drink. Does that make sense in context? Maid Marion (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Vittles" with a v was widely used in a jocular or pseudo-dialectal or pseudo-Wild-West way in the United States through the mid-20th century (not sure how many young people would understand it today, though). AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Though there was still a pet-food brand "Tender Vittles" until a few years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's eye dialect, though; victuals is correctly pronounced "vittles". +Angr 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be eye dialect if it didn't actually feature a pronunciation change. I believe a work that might help out in desciphering some of Dickens's use of dialect is Stanley's Sound and symbol in the dialogue of the works of Charles Dickens (1967). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wittles" isn't eye dialect, but "vittles" is. +Angr 23:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And what does 'sumever' mean? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And this would be a dialect form of 'soever', eg howsumever would be equivalent to howsoever. Maid Marion (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

a wittle is wess then a wot. Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The shift from [v] to [w] was apparently typical of a Kentish dialect in the time of Dickens. See this source. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes perfect sense in the context. Kayau Voting IS evil 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Slavic equals slave?

A friend of mine tried to argue that the term Slavic (as in the people) is related to the word slave. He told me about slavery in the Middle East and it seemed plausible, but I want a second opinion. I read the article about Slavic people and the origins of the word, but it left me a bit confused. 129.3.179.87 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true. The word slave is derived from the Medieval Latin word for "Slav".[12] +Angr 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The way that you word the question leads me to assume that your friend was trying to argue that the term slavic came from the word slave, when it was the other way around, as Angr says. —Akrabbim^talk 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Just to reiterate, the word slave is derived from Slavic, not the other way around. See also our article on slavery, particulary the Etymology section. Coreycubed (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know the origins of the word Slav, this entry suggests that it comes from a Slavic word meaning word and ultimately from an Indo-European word meaning fame. So the name may originally have meant something like "people of the word" or "people of fame". Marco polo (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's indicates that "Slav" came from the name of a tribe, and that "slave" came from "Slav" - as Angr and others have said here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course that's right, though Slav or Slovene probably referred to an ethnic identity that encompassed more than one tribe. I was offering a source on the roots of the ethnonym. Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally, at least, it seems that in many cases a people's name for themselves is basically "the people". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In one of the Czech courses I took, I was told that the root for "Slavic" was the same as the root for "slovo", the Czech word for "word" (as Marco polo pointed out), and also that the Czech word for "German" (německý) shared the same root as the Czech word for "mute" (němý). Presumably this is because the Czechs had a reasonable chance of understanding other Slavic speakers, but German was very different and incomprehensible. —Bkell (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Russian word for German (in different senses) is similar - немец (n'emets), немка (n'emka), немецкий (n'emetsky). I always assumed it was cognate with 'nemesis' - enemy, but немой (n'emoy) = mute is also plausible. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So, in essence, those terms come down to "people whose language we do/don't understand"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's more like, "people who can't speak properly". Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For the names of Germany, please have a look here: Names of Germany. Apart from the languages listed there, I can think of at least two more that use a word derived from the same root, though for the language and demonym only. In Bulgarian, the country is called Германия (Germaniya), but the language is немски език (nemski ezik). There is also the word немец (nemets), feminine немкиня (nemkinya), which could mean "a German person", but the same word, and especially its plural form немци (nemtsi), could be used as a collective name of all peoples who speak German, that is Germans, Austrians, German-speaking Swiss people, etc. The other language I have in mind is Romanian. It is not a Slavic language, but has experienced a considerable Slavic influence over the history of its development and uses a lot words of Slavic origin in its modern form. The country's name in Romanian is Germania, but there are neamţ for "a German man" (cf. Piatra Neamţ), nemţoaică for "a German woman", and limba nemţească for "German language". However, in modern contexts the words german, germancă and limba germană instead are preferable. --Магьосник (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard a native Romanian use the word "germancă" Rimush (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But it exist somehow, doesn't it? hu:wikt:germancă, lt:wikt:germancă. --Магьосник (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In Hungarian, the word for "German" is nemet, so it's presumably a borrowing from a Slavic language. Romanian likely works out the same way. 66.127.52.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

March 12

Hung or hanged?

In German the verb hängen (to hang) has two past tense forms:

Er hängte das Bild an die Wand. (He hung the picture on the wall.)
Das Bild hing an der Wand. (The picture hung on the wall.)

hängte indicates there was motion, while hing does not. (This is important in German because it determines in which case the preposition an takes its object -- accusative or dative.) Recently, I was told that the same difference exists in English. "hanged" indicates motion, while "hung" does not, and the first sentence should read "He hanged the picture on the wall" in order to be grammatically correct. However, in Wiktionary, not an actual dictionary, nor a Google search, I cannot find anything to support any usage of "hanged" outside of "executed". Has anyone else heard of this difference? Xenon54 / talk / 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Related questions seem to have been discussed at [13] and [14]. Not sure if any of these will help answer your question... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a hung man is certainly a different thing from a hanged man - if he's hung he is "well-hung", that is to say, he has "good things hanging from him", referring to admirable genitals. A hanged man was executioned by hanging. When talking of objects and other stuff that can be hung on something, I'd always use hung since hanged gives such a strong feeling of the gallows. I've never heard that in English hung and hanged would contemporarily have any sort of difference between "motion" and "non-motion". Logically thinking, if you want to make clear that there is motion (or there is none), you'll need to add adverbs or similes to make the point. From [www.dictionary.com]: "Hang has two forms for the past tense and past participle, hanged and hung. The historically older form hanged is now used exclusively in the sense of causing or putting to death: He was sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead. In the sense of legal execution, hung is also quite common and is standard in all types of speech and writing except in legal documents. When legal execution is not meant, hung has become the more frequent form: The prisoner hung himself in his cell." Pitke (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

From Blazing Saddles: "They said you was hung!" "And they was right!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What you are describing as a difference of motion is described by linguists as a difference of valency. "Hang/hing" is an stative (intransitive) verb, "hang/hängte" is a transitive verb (and its weak conjugation suggests it is a derived form as opposed to the strong root verb). English has many examples of verbs which have both stative and transitive meanings (besides 'hang', there is for example, 'stand', 'sit' and 'rest'), but I cannot offhand think of one where the two forms have different past tenses. "Hang" certainly does not. At some time in the last three hundred years, the past forms "hung" and "hanged" have become distinguished in meaning but in a different way, as "hanged" is only used in the sense of "executed by hanging". The latter form is necessarily transitive, but "hung" is used both statively and transitively. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hanged in English basically always refers to execution by hanging. "I hanged the prisoner at dawn" is a correct sentence but "I hanged the picture on the wall" is ungrammatical. The poem A Visit from St. Nicholas mentions "The stockings were hung on the chimney with care", if that matters. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's, somewhat surprisingly, says that either one is correct, but that the conventional usage is as you say. I like to say that the rope itself was hung, and the prisoner was hanged. Kind of like, the ball flew out to left field and was caught for an out, hence the batter flied out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever "I hanged the picture on the wall" is, it is certainly not ungrammatical. It uses a word in a sense that is not usual today, and those who get their kicks from judging other people's use of language may well call it 'incorrect' - but that is only the choice of word, not the grammar.

In The Language Instinct, Pinker discusses "flied out" at length, arguing that the "weak" inflection ("flied vs flew") is because the verb is taken from a noun phrase, which blocks its connection with the normal verb "fly". (It read oddly to me, who knew nothing of baseball, and wasn't familiar any of the terms). --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

When you hear "flied out" for the first time, it does sound kind of funny. If you hit a fly ball for an out, you have flied out. If you hit a ground ball for an out, you have grounded out. And if you take a third strike for an out, you have third-striked out. No, you haven't - you've struck out. That's where the analogy breaks down. d:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but "I hanged the picture on the wall" still sounds ungrammatical to me (native US English speaker). Not "wrong choice of words", but "syntactically wrong". I would say I'm interpreting "hang" (what you do with a picture) and "hang" (a way to execute prisoners) as homonyms--different words with related but differing meanings, spelled and spoken the same way--that I'll distinguish by writing "hang1" and "hang2", where hang1 has an irregular conjugation while hang2 does not. The preterite (simple past) of hang1 is "hung" while for hang2 it's "hanged". I do not hear the sentence as "I hanged the picture on the wall" as erroneously containing the verb hang2 where it should instead have hang1. I instead hear it as containing an incorrect conjugation of hang1, which is to say I hear it as a grammatical error. However I guess it can be taken as iffy, since apparently not everyone hears it that way. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't be arsed

Firstly, review my expostulation here on the uses of the word 'arsed'.

Now, it seems to me that 'arsed' in "I can't be arsed" is the passive form of the putative verb "to arse". This is never used in the active form in the way that 'trouble' or 'bother' can be used. Examples:

• "I can't bothered to get up" cf. "Could I bother you for a match"
• "He is a troubled youth" cf. "Could I trouble you for the time"

But

• "I can't be arsed looking this reference up" has no active counterpart such as "I'm really hoping this new project arses me somewhat. I'm rather tired of being unable to be arsed".

What's this called, when a verb is used only passively. Are there any other examples?

Also, it seems that the expression "can't be arsed" uses the British/Commonwealth spelling "arse" exclusively, and never the US version "ass". Maybe it's just not used much in the USA; but if it were, it'd be "can't be assed". Maybe? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not an expression used in the US as such, more likely to be "can't be bothered to get up off it", which I assume is what it implies in British/Aussie English? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Arse can be used actively, as in "stop arsing about!", but that doesn't have the same sense as "being arsed." More than that, I can't be arsed don't have time to think about at the moment. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur, it's not an American expression, although I've started using it since hearing British co-workers use it. And when I do, I do say "can't be arsed" with my rhotic pronunciation of arse, a word I otherwise never use. I've read somewhere (don't remember where, so I can't provide the source) the hypothesis that the phrase might have originated as "can't be asked" which in non-rhotic "broad-BATH" accents like Southern British sounds practically the same (/ɑːskt/ undergoing consonant cluster reduction to /ɑːst/). I don't know if there's a term for verbs that occur only in the passive; could it be a rare English-language example of a deponent verb? +Angr 13:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It might relate to "buggered" as in the idiom "I'll be buggered if I do that" which means there's no chance of me doing that - but in that case the verb makes sense as "I'm as likely to do that as I am to engage in homosexual intercourse". "I'm buggered if" is "used to show that you certainly will not or cannot do something"[15].

Or it might be just a typical swearword thing. "fucked" is sometimes used in a similar context "I can't be fucked to do that", and in numerous expressions like "get fucked", without meaning anything in particular. Sorry I can't find any more information at the moment. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a short section on "Passives without active counterparts", giving the example of rumored. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The info in the urban dictionary may be of interest:[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating how it's been highjacked for so many different meanings. Tks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a modern invention - I had to ask for a repetition when I first heard it in the 1990s. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Normansmithy: I get what you're saying about the literal meaning of "I'll be buggered if I do that". But funnily enough, when someone who is into receptive anal sex (e.g. some male homosexuals) utters this expression - and they do - it means the exact opposite of what it would otherwise mean. In those cases, they engage in buggery on a regular basis, but are expressing a very negative attitude to whatever this other thing is.
I also just realised that if you go off half-cocked, you're likely to do things half-arsed. Funny that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the above explicit comment is any less offensive than my harmless (and implicit) comment about menstruation that created such a brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Translate poster

I would like a translation of the text on this poster: here. As near as I can make out, it says "El angel de La Paz de los fascistas!" and "Las juventudes libertarias lo Sabran destruir !". (It's really in all caps, but I know how people here hate that, so I changed it to mixed case.) The first part, I believe, translates as "The angel of La Paz of the facists!". I have more trouble with the 2nd part, though. The best I can come up with is something like "Youths, it is up to you to liberate or destroy Sabran !". Also, any interpretation of what they're talking about would be helpful. There's a swastika in the picture, and it was suggested it might be about Spanish collaboration with the Nazis, but La Paz is the capital of Bolivia and Sabran is a region in France, so I'm fairly confused. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess Bolivia is not involved, "el angel de la paz" means "the angel of peace".—Emil J. 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And a quick Wiktionary search confirms that "sabrán" is not a proper name either, "lo sabrán destruir" apparently means "will know how to destroy it". I'll leave the rest to someone how actually knows Spanish.—Emil J. 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I only speak intermediate Spanish, but here goes: the first phrase translates to "the angel of peace of the fascists", while the second phrase is something along the lines of "the Juventudes Libertarias (Libertarian/Anarchist Youths, members of the Federación Ibérica de Juventudes Libertarias, I would guess) will know how to destroy it". I don't know what they're referring to. Rimush (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a propaganda poster from the Spanish Civil War. The poster is clearly meant to encourage support for the FIJL, which in turn would have supported the Popular Front Republican government in its conflict with Francisco Franco's Nationalists, whom the Republicans labeled Fascists. The poster draws on fears that the German Nazis (notice the swastika in the poster), who were providing military support to the Nationalists, would bomb Republican cities with poison gas (note the gas mask). Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Calgacus' ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. Deor (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak Latin, so you'll need to translate that into English for me. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The last eight words of the quotation in the article I linked. Deor (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"...they make a solitude and call it peace" ? What does that have to do with this poster ? StuRat (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• More traditionally translated as "They make a wasteland and call it peace." - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fascists' idea of an angel of peace. Deor (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Or rather what the Federación Ibérica de Juventudes Libertarias claim is the fascist's idea. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Greek letter that looks like an "L"?

I'm stuck, does anyone know what this letter is? It looks sort of like a capital L with an apostrophe or something next to it. It's in Ptolemy's 'Geography' in the original Greek, and appears quite a lot throughout the book in the coordinates given. (Go to Claudii Ptolemaeus: Geographia and type the page "xxiv" into the page no. box at the top. It's in the list on the bottom of the left hand page.) Zooming in also helps. According to the 'Index numerorum fractorum' in the book, the L on it's own means a half. But what letter is it and what is the name of the letter? Can I find it on Unicode? Your's thankfully, Yazmyn (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that mention of the character can be added to Greek numerals. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely related to the Greek numerals, but it is not one of the standard symbols, apparently. I also don't really get why the symbols are fractions instead of having their normal values. Rimush (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See A Manual of Greek Mathematics - Google Books, page 20. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

At http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10140.pdf, the official name by Unicode is "GREEK ONE HALF SIGN" and the hexadecimal code is "10175". Apparently, it does not correspond to a letter. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent! :) Thankyou, I also found a book here explaining it, and I'll add the signs to that Wikipedia article, but does anyone know how to get a picture of the letter in an article, the link for quite a few ancient Greek numbers no-one has done is here and there are three versions of the half sign: 1, 2, 3. Only comes in Cardo font though :/ Yazmyn (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You can look for Greek numerals in Character Map in Windows, and in a similar program on a Mac computer.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Leave on the computer"-- ungrammatical or just odd?

I find the following two sentences equally acceptable:

(1) Turn the computer off

(2) Turn off the computer

I also this sentence acceptable:

(3) Leave the computer on

But this one strikes me as questionable(it also gets about half as many Google results as sentence 3, for what that's worth):

(4) ?Leave on the computer

What underlying rule could be behind my grammatical intuition? Or is it just that I haven't heard the construction from (4) nearly as often, if at all(I don't think I'd heard anything like it before I came up with it)? 69.107.248.69 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that "turn (...) off" is a phrasal verb, and "leave" is not (it's a normal verb that can take all sorts of complements, like "leave the computer in my room"). Phrasal verbs, in many situations, allow the object to come either in the middle ("turn [the computer] off") or after the particle ("turn off [the computer]"). Since "leave" is not a phrasal verb, it doesn't allow that; "on" is not part of the verb so the only structural position where it can appear is after the object. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The missing corresponding statements would be, for (1) Turn the computer on; (2) Turn on the computer; (3) Leave the computer off; and as you note, (4) doesn't work, unless you're literally leaving some object on the computer, such as a sticky note. In this case "turn" is a colloquial synonym for "power". "Turn on" or "turn off" is also a mild double entendre: "Did you turn on the computer?" "Yeh, and what a night we had!" or even, "Yeh, I got my revenge!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of a pun from Canadian Bacon: "It's time to turn off that war machine and turn on our children! I mean...turn on our children...". 22:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite correct to say "turn" is a colloquial synonym for "power." The OED gives citations for "turn on" starting in 1833, and my impression from reading them is that this phrase had already been in colloquial use for some time. It seems likely that the first uses of "turn on," used with gas, steam, etc., were referring to the literal action of turning a valve or knob, and then this phrase was applied metaphorically to other situations (the third citation, from Mark Twain in 1866, refers to turning on "honest snickering.") The OED's first citation for "power up" is from 1925, and "power down" apparently didn't appear until 1962. So it's "power" that's the newcomer, not "turn." —Bkell (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the suggestion that "turning on" a switch or function derives from turning a knob before, but I don't believe it. Deciduous trees "turn green" in the spring, and the fall weather "turns them yellow"; this type of use is equally sensible as a possible origin of "turn on", and is old enough. --Anonymous, 00:23 UTC, March 13, 2010.

"Turn" is not really a synonym for "Power", it's just used that way in this context: "Turn on" = "Power on". You're right, "turn" has many diverse uses in English, as with other words like "up" and "down" and so on. One good "turn" deserves many others. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See the Tao of programming item 7.3, about using a fancy workstation as a platform for new programs (i.e. by stacking listings on top of it). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "on" here function as a shortened form of "turned on". In other words it is better analysed as an adjective (which dictionaries do agree it can be, even without the "clipped" analysis that gets me there), so the construction is the same as "leave the window open" -> "?leave open the window". Trying to analyse it as an hypothetical "leave on" phrasal verb is just going to lead to a lot of hair-pulling. Circéus (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like it is a faulty translation by a person whose first language is not English, more likely one of the Romance languages where the syntax is different from English. "Déjalo enchufado, el ordenador" - literally "leave it plugged in, the computer" Caesar's Daddy (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 13

is it possible to give most male readers an erection with 20 English words?

Is it possible to compose 20 English words such that reading them would give most male readers an erection? What would be an example? (You can blank out some words so they are still unambiguous, but leaving the sentence without the erectory effect). 82.113.121.104 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is aroused by different things, indeed at different ages, and depending on degree of sexual self-awareness, what specifically turns them on, etc. Women are stereotypically more likely to be aroused by the written word, as opposed to men stereotypically more likely to be aroused by the visual, but that is not always true or that narrow. Have you done any research on this in Google? The internet is like hog heaven for purveyors of porn of all types, so I should think there would be no problem finding a flood of opinions on the matter, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Although this also sounds a bit like a sequel to Monty Python's "funniest joke in the world" sketch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If the blanked out words are unambiguous then surely they would have the same "erectory effects"? It will be the meanings of the words, not the letters that make them up, that arouse people. As Bugs says, arousing someone with written words is more likely to work on women than men. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This one is from Henny Youngman: "A scantily-dressed young woman came up to me on the street the other day, and said for a hundred bucks she would do anything I could describe in three words or less. I gave her the hundred and said, 'Paint my house!'" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

XD...Anyway, afaik there must be a reason why guys watch porn and girls read it. So probably not... but then, I'm not a guy. I can, however, vouch for the effectiveness of the written word over visuals on females. Go on, read into that. I dare you. :) SS✞^(Kay) 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You write porn. *gasp* ...Now that we've got over that, how do you know girls read it while guys watch it? Most of my females friends admit to watching it. And the one I live with has a list of websites in a small book next to her computer. (Why she can't bookmark them, I don't know.) Anyway, I always thought that girls simply didn't admit to things like watching porn. The numbers on this would be nigh-impossible to find; everyone lies. Vimescarrot (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I frequent parts of the Internet where women talk pretty openly about their kinks and sexual practices, as well as their fantasies. The general thing seems to be that they don't watch porn, although they do watch things that turn them on. These things are often the sort of thing that can be broadcast fairly openly, almost dog whistle porn, when there is reason to believe the creators intentionally played up the 'hotness' of the scene (for example, gratuitous use of bondage imagery, as seen in the llatest installment of Doctor Who). But this is not because they do not have a taste for more explicit stuff: much fanfic is most fandoms is pornographic, frequently very explicitly. These women read porn fics, they might even look at pornographic fanart, but they don't tend to look for straightforward porn to wach. Non-fen clearly read things like Mills and Boon, or their personal favourites from 'normal' books: there are some who are turned on by Heathcliff, some by Mr Darcy. I do wonder if it's a question of characterisation: in my personal experience, women are more open about crushes on entirely fictional characters, and often enjoy porn (or porn-a-like) featuring these characters who already have established characterisation and motives. Even Mills and Boon give some characterisation and outside motive, some emotional context for the sex. That's probably easier to achieve in writing: it's certainly easier to achieve in a fanwork that relies on the reader bringing context from the main work. There is an increasing trend for teenage girls to watch porn online, but surveys I've seen indicate it is driven by curiousity and a desire to see what normal grown bodies look like (sadly, porn is a poor source for this). 86.178.167.166 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by the latest instalment of Doctor Who? Different episodes are shown at different times in different places. The most recent one shown in the UK (which gets them first) was The End of Time, which I don't recall having any bondage imagery. --Tango (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See, you didn't even notice: it was nowhere on your radar. Meanwhile, the Internet is full of screencaps of and squeeing over The Doctor being tied up and gagged, The Master in his dog collar, etc. Yes, in The End of Time. It looked very deliberate, and Rusty is quite attuned to such things. To many women, those scenes were pornographically hot: personally I thought they were rather overdone. You didn't notice them, as was the intention. Do we have an article on fanservice? This is a textbook example of one definition of that. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I noticed people being bound. I wouldn't consider every binding to be bondage imagery, though. It's not like he was bound with a studded leather belt or anything, was he? --Tango (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend rewatching. Notice the ridiculous use of an actual dog collar and chain on the Master. Note not only that the Doctor is bound and gagged, but the way the Master is interacting with him at the time. I wouldn't normally recommend rewatching those episodes (they really were awful), but it really is there. You can google with the right terms and find endless women saying variations of "unf" in response. Endless icons and avatars from those scenes, endless motivational posters, endless picspams. This is how a certain target demographic received and interpreted those scenes, and Russell T. Davies is very familiar with this group, frequently playing with them. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question; you could probably give a fair number of males an erection with twenty words quite easily - in the right settings. It's embarrassingly easy to do. Five words would probably be enough. But I doubt anyone has done studies of this for us to reference. Um, have they? Vimescarrot (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a specific study through a quick Google (for some reason I'm grateful that I didn't...), although I came across this Telegraph article: All men watch porn, scientists find. I think that is a leading candidate for "Most Obvious Study Finding Of All Time."

Regarding the actual question, though, I have to agree with you, Vimescarrot: I think pretty much any man, especially younger men, could be aroused by a sentence or two, but exactly what that sentence contains may have to differ -- it might have to be a full 20-word description for some, but for others a name of a woman they found or find attractive might suffice. Xenon54 / talk / 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How about 7 numeric digits and zero words. I get an erection if my phone rings and a certain number is on the caller ID. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I once (unintentionally) gave my boyfriend an erection by saying just three words: "I love you". +Angr 10:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to that expression, as with anything else, depend on the individual. To many, the response to that statement is, "Run away! Run away!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To Vimescarrot above: Um... let me rephrase. I think girls are more aroused by reading that sort of stuff, than looking at porn, from personal experience. To me, big deal. It's just another picture/clip. In general, guys are more straightforward; girls have to... feel some kind of connection, I think. But then I'm not exactly average, so yeah. SS✞^(Kay) 07:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld once said that for men, sex is like being a fireman - they can be ready in a few minutes; whereas for women, it's like fire - they can get very excited, but the conditions have to be right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A word that denotes the concept of incorrectly claiming (illegal) discrimination

I'm looking for a word that denotes the concept of incorrectly claiming (illegal) discrimination when some other (legitimate) factor was the cause. Consider these scenarios of legitimate discrimination claims:

• An Australian Aborigine applies for a job but the white caucasion boss doesn't give him the job simply because the man is black. This is racism.
• A woman applies for a job, but the male boss doesn't give her the job simply because she is a woman. This is sexism.

Now consider these cases (and assume that no affirmative action policies apply):

• The Aborigine applies for a job as an engineer but doesn't get it because he only has two years experience. Instead, a white applicant with ten years experience (ie better qualified) gets the job. The Aborigine claims racism, incorrectly assuming that he did not get the job because he is black.
• A woman applies for a job as an accountant at a large bank, but does not get it because she only has experience with a small family business. The job goes to a male applicant with several years experience at another large bank (ie better qualified). The woman claims sexism, incorrectly asserting that she did not get the job because she is a woman.

Is there a word (or phrase, if there is no single word) that describes these erroneous assumptions or claims of racism? The claims of racism/sexism may be honest (the failed applicant genuinely believes s/he didn't get the job because of colour/gender) or they may be deliberately "fraudulent" (applicant knows s/he is not the best for the job, and thus not entitled to the job, but attempts to get the job anyway, by shaming or taking legal action against the employer). Is there one word covering both (honest and fraudulent claim) situations, or a different word for each? Political correctness occured to me, but I don't think that this is correct. PC would describe the scenario where the employer hired the less qualified black/woman so as to avoid the claim of discrimination, but I'm looking for a word to describe the erroneous claim itself (or the concept thereof). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Claiming victimhood" (Google search) seems to be fairly frequently used, but perhaps most often by people who are assuming that the claim is self-serving or inaccurate. Deor (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's such a specific concept with little enough public discussion on it that I'd be surprised if there were a single phrase that was commonly used. "(Actions) misconstrued as racism/sexism" might work well to clearly articulate what you're talking about, for example:

• A pygmy applies for a job as a police officer but doesn't get it because he has a DUI on his record. Instead, a Swedish applicant with ten years experience and a congressional medal of honor gets the job. The pygmy misconstrues this as racism, thinking that he did not get the job because he is black."

Incidentally, one could argue that systemic racism contributes to fewer opportunities for people of color so that, even if one actually is less qualified, the lack of opportunities for them to become so would itself be characteristic of a racist system. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It could just as easily be "heightism" in that example, unless there are specific regulations about policemen having a minimum height. The various "isms" apply when the nature of the job does not justify the "ism". For example, Queen Latifah might be a reasonable candidate to play in a film bio of Aretha Franklin, but would probably not be the first choice for a film bio of Brooke Shields. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More generally, List of fallacies mentions Appeal to probability. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lenny Henry did a number of sketches on this theme. Here's one: [17]--TammyMoet (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've heard making complaints about racism when there isn't really any evidence of it being called "playing the race card". --Tango (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparative in English

Is it always correct to form the comparative by using the word "more"? For example: "Anne is more pretty than Jane" instead of "Anne is prettier than Jane." I realize that many adjectives do not add "er" or "ier" in the comparative, such as "beautiful", so the word "more" is necessary. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I meant comparative, not plural!!208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in some cases, using "more" rather than "-er" sounds quite odd, if not absolutely ungrammatical. For example, I don't think a native English speaker would ever say "My brother is two years more young than me." I'm hesitant to call it flat-out ungrammatical, but it's definitely unidiomatic, and I wouldn't recommend saying things like that if you're learning English as a second/foreign language. +Angr 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Offhand I think you would use "more" when you're dealing with something that can't end in "-er". Example: Applicant A is more qualified for the job than applicant B is. You could say "more pretty", but it sounds funny to a native speaker. Then there's the clearly ungrammatical, "That woman is more prettier than her sister is". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I think I messed up the title when I tried to correct it. What I meant was: If an adjective can form the comparative with "er" or "ier", is it also usually acceptable to use "more" with the positive form? I agree that it sounds strange to say: "My sister is three years more young than I". I also agree that some adjectives, such as "qualified", must use "more." But how about these examples: fast, strong, silly, ugly? Thanks. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a spectrum of acceptability. There are some adjectives, like "stupid" and "clever", that sound fine with either "more" or "-er", and there are others, like "young", where using "more" sounds distinctly odd. I'd say the examples you gave fall somewhere on the spectrum between "young" and "stupid". To me, "more fast" and "more strong" sound fairly odd, and are worse than "more silly" and "more ugly", although those themselves sound worse than "sillier" and "uglier". My answer to your question is: If an adjective can form the comparative with "-er", it is usually unidiomatic (to varying degrees, depending on the adjective in question) to use "more" with the positive form, but not flat-out ungrammatical. +Angr 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my sense as well. Also, I think there is some drift over time. For example, I think that "commonest" sounds very strange, but I think someone with a more classical education would probably have been taught that "most common" should be avoided. The same goes for "cleverer". Also see [18] — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that I read somewhere that "er" and "est" are used with adjectives of one syllable, "more" and "most" are used with adjectives of three or more syllables, and adjectives of two syllables can form the comparative and superlative forms by using either of those two methods.

(Of course, "er" and "est" can not be used with participial adjectives, which end in "ing" and "ed".) Unfortunately, I do not have a source.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a learner of English, and I can tell you what I was taught. Monosyllabic adjectives always take -er and -est. Adjectives with more than one syllable take "more" and "most" unless they end with -y, -ow, -er, -el, -le and maybe a couple of more endings that I can't recall now. And the adjective "stupid" (and maybe some more) can take both: "stupider, stupidest", or "more stupid, most stupid". About the examples you suggested - following that rule, they should be "faster", "stronger", "sillier", "uglier". --Магьосник (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid trying to learn such rules for English and just learn how each word works. There are so many exceptions to the rules that it is actually easier just to learn each word separately. --Tango (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, for your help. Seems to me that here in northern Ohio we use the "more" method quite a lot. BTW, people here often pronounce "both" as "bolth"; just for your amusement. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My Google search for "adjective comparative superlative er est more most" (without the quotation marks) found http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv268.shtml. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting case is that some people now seem to prefer "more well known" to "better known". - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The expression "well known" (or "well-known") is ambiguous, because it can mean "widely known" or "favorably known".

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard "well known" used to mean "favourably known". I would say "well regarded" or something if I wanted to say "favourably known". Wiktionary says (wikt:well-known) that it can also mean "renowned", which has connotations of favourableness, I suppose. --Tango (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Italianate

'Italian' seems to be the only demonym to which one can add the suffix –ate to make a different adjective ('Italianate'). There's also 'German-ic' and 'Frank-ish', and perhaps a handful of others, but only 1 example of an –ate adjective formed from a demonym.

How did this word arise, and why don't we talk about things being Hungarianate, Russianate, Romanianate, Americanate, Canadianate, Australianate, etc? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Because we mainly use the "-esque" suffix in such cases, I would guess... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there's supposedly an old Italian saying which goes something like Inglese italianato è diavolo incarnato ("An Italianized Englishman is the devil himself")... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

-esque? Can you give me an example of an -esque word that relates to a country or a people?

Btw, "Italianate" can be used as a verb, a synonym for "Italianize". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanesque? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's one. Wiktionary tells me that most –esque words are named after people, such as the extraordinary word Schwarzeneggeresque! Hollywood, London and Rome are apparently the only places that have recognised –esque forms, but the last one is about Roman kinds of things, not necessarily specifically about Rome herself, and hence R/romanesque can appear with or without a capital r. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Italianate" is a slightly fancier way of saying "Italianize(d)". Where I've heard it in reference to Italianate architecture, a very popular 19th century style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - "Italianized" would describe something that had been made "more Italian" than it had previously done, whereas "Italianate" implies something initially made stylistically Italian. Not really germane to the OP, though. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're disagreeing with Webster's, which redirects the reader from "Italianate" to "Italianize". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary agrees with Baseball Bugs here. Something can be Italianated, meaning made into an Italian style = Italianised. But these are very uncommon words, and the predominant meaning of Italianate is the adjective. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found Genevate, Hispaniolate and Spaniolate in the OED but these are verbs, the only adjective was Tegeate. The choice of suffixes is often more to do with which are popular, and Italiante probably less meant "in the Italian style" and more likely meant "in the finest style of the time" which happened to be Italian when it was coined in the late C16th. Italianated is actually recorded earlier. The OED lists various cacophonous -esque words such as Americanesque, Greekesque and Japanesque. meltBanana 04:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Latinate? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PIGS

Why is the term “PIGS” offensive? --84.61.135.112 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Because pigs (the animals) are considered dirty. See Cultural references to pigs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But it probably relates more to "greedy" than "dirty", another connotation of "pig". - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen to the Beatles song about "Little Piggies" for a good analogy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

March 14

r̝̊

I thought diacritic marks are only below the letter unless there is a descender. How come r̝̊ violates this rule? Maybe the chart should be amended?174.3.107.176 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What you have said is certainly wrong for diacritics in general. Our article says "Sub-diacritics (markings normally placed below a letter or symbol) may be placed above a symbol having a descender" (my emphasis) This is subtly different from what you have said, but I haven't a copy of the IPA Handbook to check the authoratitive text. Unless the original has the prescriptive language you use, then it seems to me entirely reasonable to treat "r̝" like a symbol with a descender - though I guess it would not be wrong to put the "raising" diacritic on top instead of the "voiceless" one. And I don't know why you are suggesting on Wikipedia that somebody else's chart be amended! --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

what are the synonyms for "encasement"?

What are the synonyms of "encasement"?174.3.107.176 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

:Wiktionary gives emboîtment.166.216.130.80 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wnd

What is "wendo-croat"?174.3.107.176 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I found this article: Wends. It refers to a type of Slav, so it stands to reason that Wendo-Croat is the version of Croat spoken by some Wends. Hopefully someone else will give a more conclusive answer! --Tango (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I also find this odd, because as far as I knew "Wend" was another name for the Sorbs. The article Tango links explains that its use was much more varied than that - but there is no reference anywhere in it to the word's having been used for any group of South slavs. Since the writer talks about Slovak "forming the transition from Czech to Wendo-Croat" I find myself wondering whether he might mean Slovenian, which is at least geographically intermediate between West-Slavonic (sometimes formally collectively called "Wends", according to the Wends article) and South Slavonic languages such as Croat. But I admit that this is mere speculation. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "Wends" is also used on page 4 of the same book where is appears to be synonymous with "Slovenes". It's one of the meanings disussed at Wends #Other uses. I suppose the author uses "Wendo-Croat" to mean either Slovenian and Croatian treated as a single language or some transitional dialect between Slovenian and Croatian. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If Kpalion is right, then I think the author means Slovenian-Serbian. These south slavic languages are similar, and in many language books, they treat languages in a group.174.3.107.176 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)