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 28

Does anyone know the meaning of ....

Does anyone know the meaning of the French phrase "à la venue des cocquecigrues."

The English translation I have is About the coming of the cocklicranes

The phrase comes from Gargantua by Rabelais

I think it might be something like "when hell freezes over" in the sense of never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.222.9 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That phrase is all over google, and your literal translation is correct. A "cocklicrane" is a fictitious creature, presumably part-chicken and part-crane. "When hell freezes over" would be one way to put it. A close English equivalent might be, "When pigs fly." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Correct answers. I'm French. I checked, Rabelais created this word in 1534. It means a non existent bird. In this phrase it means never.Jojodesbatignole-Rheims-France---82.216.68.31 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian newspaper published in the UK

Is there a Russian-language paper published in London called (something like) Russkiy Misl'? I've googled it but not found anything, so the transliteration I remembered must be badly wrong. I'm beginning to learn Russian language, and someone told me this paper is a good way to practice reading. The papers I have found are Angliya (http://www.angliya.com/) and London Courier (http://www.russianuk.com/) so I will try reading them! Thanks everyone :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.13.107 (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Russkaya Mysl' (Русская Мысль, "Russian Thought"). You almost got it right, except that mysl' is feminine, not masculine, so the adjective must be feminine as well. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Robespierre (Or the "Incorruptable")

The WP article Robespierre has an epithet on the subject

(Or the "Incorruptable")

Since it is in quotes I want to confirm its validity. The correct spelling of course is Incorruptible. Why this anomaly is not explained in the article.--117.204.81.64 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It was most likely a spelling mistake. I removed it from the infobox altogether, as it's just a nickname. It's still in the lead, correctly spelled. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly a nickname he was often known by, particularly in english by Thomas Carlyle from his The French Revolution: A History as "the sea-green incorruptible" of which there is a discussion here, although as to if he was actually incorruptible is debatable. meltBanana 15:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Swedish island toponyms

Most "-holm-" islands in and around Stockholm end in "-holmen" (Kungsholmen, e.g.). Then there are rarer examples ending in "-holme" (Reimersholme) or "-holma" (Arholma). What is the linguistic explanation for these varieties? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Swedish grammar#Articles and definite forms gives at least part of the answer. --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It explains that the frequently occurring "-holmen" must be in its definite form. I still don't understand the variety or how "-holme" and "-holma" fit in. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right answer, but the indefinite form in Reimersholme might be due to the way it got its name: the island is named after a particular man called Reimers, and to my ear that, and the genitive, would require the word "holme" to take the indefinite form, as in Sergels torg vs. Hötorget, or Olof Palmes gata vs *Palmegatan. It's also a pretty recent name (1798, according to Swedish Wikipedia).--Rallette (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with North Germanic languages, but I guess many such variants might stem from the fact that language and orthography are not uniform over space and time. If you can't find explanations in 21st-century standard Swedish grammar, those may be dialectal or older forms. 84.46.65.115 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The indefinite/definite distinction for "holme"/"holmen" is correct (I speak Norwegian, not Swedish, but I do not think there is any difference between the languages on this account). This presumably authoritative dictionary has "holma" (and "holm") as archaic variants (if I have not misunderstood the abbreviations in the explanation). Jørgen (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Word for being taken in by your own phony image

Is there a word meaning something like "pretender" or "masquerader" with the particular implication that the person is fooling himself and believes in the image he projects? Best I can think of is pseud, but that tends to apply to writers and artists (not, say, a doctor or a politician), and the implication of self-deceit isn't very strong. 213.122.27.130 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a Walter Mitty character, although I'm not sure that's exactly what you're after. Mikenorton (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It only seems to describe harmless fantasists, not the dangerous ones, but that's not bad, thanks. Come to think of it "fantasist" is pretty good, but it implies the deluded person never does anything much. Doesn't fit very well with an insane dictator. I may be asking too much seeking a word that covers all the bases. 213.122.27.130 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Delusions of grandeur? A legend in his own mind? Believing one's own lies? To tell a lie so often that you begin to believe it yourself? Unrealistic self-assessment? I know — these are not single words. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Megalomaniac? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-delusion ? StuRat (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Believing one's own press clippings" is sometimes used for public figures. In the last chapter of The Way of the Weasel, Scott Adams states that while we're weaselly with others, we are also weaselly with ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Amour-propre 63.17.64.4 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Phony (noun) as used in Catcher in the Rye? (Excuse me for stating the obvious.) 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Poseur also comes to mind. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Rold?

What is rold?174.3.113.245 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A typo of roll ? StuRat (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a typo or something. I removed it. If anybody disagrees I will stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit the content of other people's posts like that, even if they are anonymous. And, in this case, it makes the link provided by the Original Poster useless for others trying to determine the meaning. So, I undid it. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes — I'm sorry. I wasn't aware I was editing on the Reference desk. I thought it was an article! Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Rold" is not a word in any language I can find. (Although Rold Gold comes to mind, I don't think food counts.) In other words, going to Google and typing "define:rold" only gives a Dutch Wikipedia article on a place in Denmark. Perhaps our anonymous friend meant "roll"? At least on QWERTY keyboards, however, "d" is nowhere near "l"; since his IP locates to Canada (firm QWERTY territory, even Quebec) perhaps he meant "role", as in a typo of "roll"? In any case, I read the post when it was newly written, and "role" was there, so that rules out any sort of vandalism. Xenon54 / talk / 20:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff of where it was added, along with the rest of the paragraph, which absolutely proves it's not vandalism to the post by another user: [1]. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I managed to find an obscure English meaning, it's a plant oncogene, spelled rolD: [2]. It seems odd that such a simple, single syllable word like this wouldn't have more English meanings. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Food counts (why not?), but trademarks don't. —Tamfang (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So, if we look up roll, we see that the 7th definition of it's noun usage is "...an official or public document; a register; a record; also, a catalogue; a list". In this sense the author used "leap year roll" to mean a list of leap years. Have we now officially beaten this Q to death ? StuRat (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(multiple ec) On the basis of what's clearly the intended sense, I'd say that it should have been rule. A slightly odd keyboard lapse, but I've seen (and committed) ones quite a bit worse. Deor (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was meant to be "rules". Not sure what my brain got up to there. I'll fix it in a few minutes. --Anon, 02:28 UTC, March 29, 2010.

Maybe you were eating pretzels at the time? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that explains why I was posting about "æ", too -- it looks like one, doesn't it? --Anon, 17:15 UTC, March 30, 2010.

Japanese Onomatopœia

I'm looking for a list of Japanese onomatopœias regarding insects. The Japanese language is rich of terms that imitate sounds (for example: Japanese sound symbolism). I'm searching for words for: the humming/buzzing of bees, droning of beetles, singing of cicadas, buzzing of flies, the sound of mosquitoes, hornets, ... I'd like expecially to find the equivalent for the sound of cicadas.--151.51.45.45 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many dedicated dictionaries on this topic. It is impractical to duplicate all of that here. But for your specific request, the sound for cicadas is min min. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Various kinds of cicadas makes different sounds. Minminzemi (lit. 'minmin cicada', Oncotympana maculaticollis) sings as minmin, hence the name. Tsukutsukubōshi (Meimuna opalifera) sings as tsukutsukubōshi. Higurashi (Tanna japonensis) sings as kanakana. --Kusunose 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The buzzing of insects are usually described as "bun bun" or "būn". The sound of cicadas varies a lot. It sometimes varies from person to person. There are "jī jī", "shan shan", "gī gī" , etc. As for minminzemi, it is also described as "mīn minmin"(mean min min). You can hear some sounds of cicadas here by putting your mouse on the images. The pink one at the bottom of the page is minminzemi. Oda Mari (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Opposite of Empowerment

Someone can go through a process of empowerment. What word would describe the opposite of this process? Thanks 78.149.251.99 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Disenfranchisement ? (The Wikitionary def doesn't seem to include this figurative usage of the word, but only the literal meaning "to block from voting".) StuRat (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Castration ? (Again, the figurative meaning.) StuRat (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Repression or subjugation? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply disempowerment? Grutness...wha? 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Or also disembowelment, which tends to be rather disempowering. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling your dog by your kid's name

Is there a term for the mistake of speech in which you accidentally call your dog by the name of your child, or call your child by the name of your dog, or call your infant by the name of your 4 year old, or call your child by the name of your younger sibling? I have seen this error of speech repeatedly over the years in parents, and have always assumed that the particular name accidentally spoken was determined mostly by the social hierarchy — the error is never across genders and I don't think it is often backwards in age — that is to say, I wouldn't expect a parent to accidentally call their child by the name of the parent's older sibling, but I've seen a parent call a child by the name of the parent's younger sibling. (Not a philology question but I think this is a question for the Language desk anyway.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My Mom regularly called us kids by each other's names. She once called me by the cat's name, too. Since then, whenever she calls me by the wrong name, I say "I'm Felix" (the cat's name), just to rub it in. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an example of automaticity. I'm not sure about the social hierarchy assumption. I suspect that we have more automatic responses for people (or pets) we don't respect so much (those who annoy us), so we are more likely to hit the cues which trigger these. A friend of mine tends to call me by her husband's name when I do something oafish; he's not exactly beneath her in the social hierarchy, except when being told off for something. It's just that her long familiarity with him has bred certain habitual reactions. 213.122.37.153 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ISTR an interview where Sam Neill said the greatest compliment he'd been paid during the making of Jurassic Park was when co-star Sir Richard Attenborough accidentally called him David. It's a type of parapraxis, I'd assume... Grutness...wha? 02:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My spouse's grandmother just used to run through the names of all "her" men (husband, son, grandson) and whoever was handy would reply. If the wrong man answered, she's just say, "Not you; the other one." (And, yes, I know there were two "other ones".) My spouse is still called "DavidMichaelDoug" by his three children when he confuses their names. Bielle (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the age difference theory. One of my brothers and I are often referred to by the other's name by several family members. We look about as different as brothers can and there is a 15 year difference in our ages. The only pattern that I've noticed is that it's only the women in my family that get our names confused. Dismas|^(talk) 06:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's called morphemic metathesis, it's a normal human speech error, not necessarily or even provably a Freudian slip.Synchronism (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to challenge that; I was asking about a whole-word substitution and not a substitution or rearrangement of morphemes, which seems entirely different. (And "morphemic metathesis" gets 66 Google hits, which casts extra doubt on your answer.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but with metathesis involving words, you rarely switch the entire word, affixes and all, so if you wanted to say "the dog's bone" you might accidentally blurt "the bone's dog", but you'd be unlikely to say "the bone dog's".Synchronism (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've derailed the thread; from the look of the metathesis article, that's not what I was asking about in this question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How exactly? Please know, my intention was not to derail the thread. Let me tailor some better examples. You might say, "Spot, clean your room", or "Is Spot's room clean yet?" Or you might say "I put the ovens in the bun". You would be less likely to say , "Dog, clean your room"", "Is dog room clean yet? or "I put the oven in buns". The substitution involves a comparable morpheme typically, in your case two names, not just any word. While these errors (which are most common during rapid, spontaneous speech) may indicate what someone is thinking, it's ambiguous; it is not necessarily the expression of a subconscious urge or desire.Synchronism (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list of common speech errors [3], while "morphemic metathesis" is not mentioned verbatim it is an accurate description of some of the substitutions they do describe.Synchronism (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way of explaining this: people grow into speech habits, repetitive behaviors. Let's say the only infant they talked to very much is now their four-year old, when new baby Bar comes along it's easy to slip back into the old habit of addressing infants as Foo. If Spot is the only creature that usually gets called by its name or instructed in the home, when Foo is able to walk into the other room, it's easy to slip into the old habit of calling out to Spot. The unintended names are readily available in the mental lexicon for substitution, even if they weren't part of the planned utterance.Synchronism (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't correctly parse what "morphemic metathesis" means; I struck my claim about derailing the thread above; I apologise. Thanks for the references. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Condoleeza Rice refer to her boss as "my husband"? She is of course married to the job. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

March 29

Could you please remind me...

... what was the term for words that inflect for gender, as lion and lioness do? I couldn't find the answer while glancing down the Grammatical gender article. Thanks. --Магьосник (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Masculine and Feminine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["-ess" gender suffix] and the closest I can find to a term so far is "feminine suffix". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.)-ess is not clearly an inflectional suffix. It's similar to inflection in that it does not often change the syntactic class (consider: 'temptress'), but more like derivation in that it does not apply to an entire syntactic class (nouns, verbs etc). It has rival forms (-a, -ette), it's often optional, as it is in this case, there's often a different word (dog/bitch, bovine/bull/cow) that can be used. Where grammatical gender is relevant, such as Spanish, all nouns are either feminine, masculine, or some other gender. Words that inflect for gender are often adjectives. English nouns do not have arbitrary grammatical gender, this suffix specifies something different, sex. As far as a word for the set of words that can take this suffix, I'm stumped. Synchronism (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned "derivation". I saw "derivative" in one of the googled items. I'm not so sure that's the term the OP would be looking for, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out Derivation (linguistics). Most English suffixes are derivational, there are only four inflectional suffixes -s, -s, -'s and -d.Synchronism (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You left out "-ing", "-en" (of strong verb past participles and a few irregular plural nouns), and "-er", "-est" (of adjective comparative/superlative forms). AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the possessive 's is generally considered a clitic nowadays, not an inflectional suffix. +Angr 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, syntactically it's a clitic but it has the regularity and productivity of an inflectional morpheme. @Moos Yeah, I left those out for simplicity they behave like derivational suffixes sometimes, I shouldn't have said only though.Synchronism (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs you're right that OP wasn't probably looking for derivation, but it helps to explain why we don't speak of grammatical gender and English together that often. Feminine affixes in English are typically applied to animate nouns, living ones usually. There are exceptions though: suffragette, cigarette, seamstress, governess. There are also words that would be just rude or funny by today's standards if they took the suffix: *lawress, *officerette, *captainess, *Teamstress, *arbitratress, *colleaguette. From a different perspective, 'widower', I think, is by itself, alone that is, in being suffixed for masculinity. I wonder, is fembot a portmanteau?Synchronism (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How does the less common (and male) drake vs. the more common (and either non-gender-specific or specifically female) duck go? Probably not any kind of affix to the root d- but a different word altogether, no? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymonline gives this for 'duck' and this for 'drake'. It appears that the words are unrelated, and that 'duck' is actually the more recently 'adopted' word, replacing earlier OE 'ened'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for a term for a word that is capable of changing for gender or a term for the words' capability of changing for gender. I can remember once knowing such a term that applied mostly for words indicating the name of an animal, job, or nationality, and a few days ago I was asked about it. I couldn't find anything in An Introduction to Common Linguistics by Zhivko Boyadzhiev either. That book only mentions the ways of forming the feminine - by means of affixation (waiter/waitress, Latin victor/victrix), adding a word or particle meaning "male" or "female" (he-wolf/she-wolf, Khoekhoe aoré zkoab/tararé zkoab), and heteronymy (brother/sister, French bouc/chèvre). --Магьосник (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

English word for (normal) pigment spots on skin

What is the English word for a small (normal, non-pathological) pigment spot on skin? Do you call it a mole even if its not raised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.11.130 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Age or liver spot. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly also freckle. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Or blemish, or beauty mark. "Spot" works, too, though. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Spot" might not work for a British person, for whom it might mean "pimple." See the theme song to Life of Brian. 63.17.65.73 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But a mole doesn't have to be raised. A big one might be a birthmark. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Angry FAce

What is the meaning of this phrase and its etymology: chewing on this wasp?174.3.113.245 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"chewing" (eating / enduring / tolerating / participating in) on a "wasp" (something you wouldn't want to eat / endure / participate in | something that would in fact likely sting you and cause pain). Etymology: long, long, long ago some guy in a moment of original thought or based on actually witnessing the literal act (less likely, I'd wager :p) spat it out. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This has many forms: the one I'm most familiar with is "a face like a dog chewing a wasp". Imagine what a dog chewing a wasp looks like (especially a bulldog) and then try and transfer that to a human face! It's used to describe someone struggling to hide anger or another strong emotion. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This only vaguely relates, but I just have to bring up the ballplayer Hank Bauer, whose face[4] was said to resemble "a clenched fist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Even farther astray: Bugs, your post suddenly made me recall that the baseball glove I used in my youth was a Hank Bauer signature model. I wonder whether any manufacturer ever dared to market a Dick Stuart first-baseman's mitt. Deor (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If they did, it would have been a strange glove. Probably would have had stone fingers. Or maybe a hole or two in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A related phrase used in London is "face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle" which means disgust more than anger. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

'Bulldog licking piss off a nettle/chewing a wasp/trying to lick its ear' are all terms used up North to mean 'ugly', not angry/disgusted, etc. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, you can use it that way down here too - so either pulling a disgusted face or having a face that permanently looks that way. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's a personal attack?174.3.113.245 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's more like he's saying, "This is y'all's problem to deal with; I won't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Films 'shot on location in'...

Resolved

Why do articles about films say they are 'shot on location in' a place. Why not just say 'shot in'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"On location" specifically means "An actual place or natural setting where filming takes place, as opposed to one simulated in a studio." (quoting SOED). See also Filming location. By contrast, "shot in" could just refer to the location of the movie set. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just what I thought. So the article on the film Red Mist is not accurate when it states that although the film was set in the USA, it was shot on location in Northern Ireland? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's not enough information in that statement to tell whether or not it is accurate. It's entirely possible that the plot takes place in the USA, but filming took place in Northern Ireland. --Onorem♠Dil 12:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article amended. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the filming took place outside of a film studio in Northern Ireland (in the countryside, in pubs, in people's houses, whatever), it's still "shot on location" in Northern Ireland even if the film isn't set there. Many scenes in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy were shot on location in New Zealand even though the films certainly weren't set there! +Angr 12:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, if anyone wants to revert my amendment to the article, feel free to do so. I asked here first because I wanted to make sure before I did anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that that setting of the story is a red herring here. The "on location" bit means it (or parts of it, at least) was filmed outside a studio, e.g. in a city street, on a highway, in a desert, among hills, on a river, etc. So, "filmed in Ireland" means it was filmed in a studio in Ireland, while "filmed on location in Ireland" means they went to some rolling hills or some city location or wherever in Ireland to do their filming. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of the filmmaker or producer who had a yacht that was named "On Location". When someone would call his office looking for him, his secretary would tell them that he was, well, on location. 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one. :) I may be wrong, but I think the term "on location" is typically used to mean it was filmed where it was set, as opposed to simply a generic "exterior" shooting location vs. studio or maybe backlot. I'll look into that further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, looks like I'm wrong and Jack's right. I googled ["on location" exterior] and one of many sites that came up was this interesting one [5] which uses the term "location shooting" the way Jack is using it. Principle filming can be done in a studio (i.e. on a soundstage), possibly with background screens allowing for post-production effects like mattes and CGI; on a pre-constructed backlot; and/or on a location that's not necessarily built for the movie, although often there is some construction done to make it fit. A good example that includes all three approaches is Blazing Saddles, which parodies not only the western genre but also filmmaking itself, near the end when the camera pulls back to reveal that all the street scenes were done on the Warner backlot. A great example of location shooting would be Monument Valley, the exterior for many a John Ford western. On and on it goes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm always right ... unless otherwise indicated, naturally. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, being right is your "default value"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can have complete faith in everything I ever say and do when it comes to anything that matters in the slightest. I'm rarely if ever wrong, and then, only in matters that I retrospectively deem to be exceedingly unimportant. You really should model your whole life after me. Well, it's up to you, naturally, but I strongly recommend it, I really do. I can't imagine how Wikipedia ever got by before I deigned to honour it (her?) with my presence. Nohting can poisibyl go worng if you do as I yas.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ...

Texts in German, Spanish, Italian and Japanese with mouse-over pop-ups featuring translation or grammatical information

Does anyone know if such websites exist? I am thinking of an interface much like that of John Dyer's Reader's Version of Greek and Hebrew Bible.

Thank you in advance,

148.60.182.153 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See VoyCabulary.com - Online web dictionary & thesaurus word linking lookup reference tool. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Passivization

Please explain how to transform the following sentence into passive form.

• " The kingdom needs you "

My doubt is about the preposition 'BY ' or To ' something other than these.Kasiraoj (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are needed by the kingdom. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Illustrious 14 Romans

Petrarch's last "Illustrious Romans"

Who are these men?

The first is obviously Scipio Africanus.

Caesar is Julius Caesar.

Pompeo is Pompey.

Octaviano is Augustus.

Vespasiano is Vespasian.

Can someone give me the names of the others.

What does the very last line say?

Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The very last line says, "And finally Trajan". +Angr 16:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthiocore de Asiae may be Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, although calling him "Roman" is a stretch - he lived in Rome for a time, and was recognized as a client king of Syria.

Quintus Caecilius Metellus is any one of the 10 or so members of the Caecilius Metellus family with the same name.

Marco Porcio Catone is probably Cato the Elder.

Mario Arpinater is Gaius Marius, known as Marius and born in Arpinum.

Scipioneafricano emilianae is Scipio Aemilianus

Tito Vespasiano is Titus.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last one that hasn't been mentioned (Pavlo Emilio) is Aemilius Paulus. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there also is "Tito Quinto Flimmio", who probably is Titus Quinctius Flamininus. You are in a maze of twisty Latin names, all nearly alike ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What language is that anyway? Italian? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Petrarch wrote primarily in Latin, but also in "Italian". I'd guess that in the 14th century the difference between vulgate and Italian is not that big, especially not in spelling. "Classical" Latin always was a bit of an artificial language, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was most helpful. I think I may be misunderstanding one: SCIPIONENifict, which is probably one you gave me. Can you tell me who this one is again. He is between Anthiocore de Asiae and Pavlo Emilio. I see Scipioneafricano emilianae (Scipio Aemilianus) is between Quintus Caecilius Metellus and Mario Arpinater. Muchos gracias.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we missed that one so far (because, counting Trajan, there are 15 illustrious Romans on the list ;-). I don't know who that is. The Scipiones were a very old and important family, so there is no lack of candidates. See Scipio_(cognomen)#People_of_known_relationship. A lot of them apparently had pointed noses ("Nasicia"), which might be a source of that "N". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess, with what little knowledge I have on this, is that SCIPIONENasiae is Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, the younger brother of Scipio Africanus (the hero of the epic poem Africa).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking again, it might actually read "Scipio Nasica" (with a very small "a"), which probably indicates it's Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, as all the other candidates have additional nicknames. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Scipio[ne] Nasica" is what it says. Deor (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take your recommendation on this - as I certainly don't know.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you guys are so good at this, can you give me your best "guess" what this says. It an introduction to Petrarch's 36 "Illustrious Men." --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Repertorio" woud normally mean "collection", in context it's probably best to translate it as "index". I'm also not quite sure if "miser" is an old variant spelling of "messer" or if inclito miser is meant as an ironic paradox. I'd translate the whole sentence as "INDEX of the book here present where will be shown the chapters on 36 leaders/important men whose deeds are extensively described by the honorable poet, Sir (or miserable/poor, depending on the translation of "miser") Francesco Petrarca, and beginning as appears below." --Ferkelparade π 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be something like: Repertorio del presente libro ove seranno signati i capituli di xxxvi Capitani li facti de quali sono diffusamente descripti per lo inclito poeta miser Francisco petrarca et primo cominzando come qua di sotto apare:.

Given the fact that it's in convoluted old Italian, it's somewhat difficult to translate (I'm Italian). I'd say something like: Repertory of this book, where will be marked/noted down the chapters of 36 Captains, whose facts are widely descripted by the illustrious poor ("a form of humility I suppose") poet Francesco Petrarca, and the first one starts as it appears here under. Sorry for my broken English...--151.51.45.45 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the split "mi-ser" be some sort of spelling of "messer" rather than meaning "poor"? Deor (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the great translating work.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of words in English sentences

May I ask that which of the following forms is/are correct?

1. "The request shall be submitted to the court by the party."
2. "The request shall be submitted by the party to the court."

And

1. "The party shall submit the court the request."
2. "The party shall submit to the court the request."

(Generally, it is written "The party shall submit the request to the court.")

Thank you so much, just confusing about word order. Sorry if I am disturbing anyone.

— 118.172.78.246 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No disturbance, that's what we're here for. As a native English speaker, I would prefer 2 in the first set, although I wouldn't immediately think anything was wrong with 1. English doesn't really have strict adjective/adverb ordering rules like some other languages. The difference between the two comes down mostly to emphasis. In the second set, however, I strongly favor 2. In English, indirect objects are only used for certain verb, and "to submit" is not one of them. In general, you'll find that the dative case is rarely used implicitly, and is most frequently signaled by prepositions. Overall, I think that "The party shall submit the request to the court." is the best (active voice rather than passive voice) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the second group, No. 2 is definitely better; but I'm not sure there's any point in choosing between the better of 2 poor options when a best 3rd one ("The party shall submit the request to the court") is readily available. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As a native speaker and professional editor, I agree completely with Jack. Both options that you have offered in the second group are awkward to the point of being incorrect. Jack's phrase is the only one that is idiomatic. In the first group, neither option is incorrect, but I strongly prefer the second option. The reason is that in English passive constructions, it is best to keep the passive agent ("by the party") as close to the verb as possible. This also sounds more natural. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To amplify what 140 has said: with some common verbs like "give" and "show", either

1. give the letter to him, or

2. give him the letter

would be normal, but not

3. *give the letter him, or

4. *give to him the letter.

With "submit", 2 would not be idiomatic either, leaving only 1. --ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out (just pro-forma) that legal jargon tends to make very, very heavy use of constructions like this because they try to make everything appear as though it were the action of the law itself, not the action of a court or a person. Thus "the request shall be submitted to the court by the party" is shorthand for "it is ordained by law that the request shall be submitted to the court by the party". It's ritualized language, not much to do about it. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

May I further ask that it should be ("which" in "of which" refers to "printed form."):

1. "The party shall use such printed form while the cost of which shall be designated by the Minister of Justice." or
2. "The party shall use such printed form the cost of which shall be designated by the Minister of Justice." or
3. "The party shall use such printed form of which the cost shall be designated by the Minister of Justice."

With thankfulness ^ ^ (Ludwigs2 is right. I am a third-year law student and attempting to cope with the complexity in rendering legal "jargon".)

—118.172.69.117 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct version is #2, but there should be a comma after "form". Marco polo (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But not in legalese, which tends to avoid commas entirely, in case somebody bases an argument on the presence or absence of a comma in a particular place.

No. 3 is less natural than no. 2; but I would not be at all surprised to find it in a legal document (I suspect lawyers would prefer it because it keeps the 'which' close to its antecedent and the 'cost' close to its verb).

No. 1 is certainly not normal English: you can't use a subordinating conjunction and a relative pronoun in the same clause.

However all three are odd in their use of "such". "Such" can refer back to a previous description (i.e. the form has already been defined), but usually then takes "a" in the singular ("such a printed form"). "Such" without an article is common in legal writing, but is always followed by a defining clause introduced by "as": "such printed form as the Secretary of StateMinister of Justice shall direct". --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely #1 makes sense in certain contexts? Ludwigs pointed out the implicit "it is ordained by law that...", but we could also have:

Q. Who shall submit the request to the court?

A. The request shall be submitted to the court by the party. 81.131.39.254 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that you're answering an active question with a passive answer. A better answer would be "The party shall submit the request to the court". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

""Such" can refer back to a previous description" That's correct, but I don't herein mention some previous sentences ("In the case where a printed form...."), that's why the word "such" is there. However, thanks everyone.

—118.174.67.111 (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I recognised that possibility; but then I would expect 'such a form'. Maybe not in legalese. --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

March 30

Goal, aim

What is the difference between a goal and an aim? Thanks 84.13.173.45 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's like the difference between a target and a trajectory, an end and a means, or a destination and a direction. But they can also be used synonymously, "Our aim/goal is to please". It depends on the context.Synchronism (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A business context is what I'm interested in. They may have more defined meaning than in general use. 84.13.180.45 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In my company, at least, "aim" would be more qualitative (kind of like a mission statement or marketing plan), whereas a "goal" would be more quantitative (e.g. a unit sales goal). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the connotation of a "goal" is that it is somewhat more achievable than an "aim". If you have a goal, the idea is to meet it; but if you only have an aim, that's implicitly an acknowledgement that you may miss the target. Of course this can be used rhetorically: one can call an unachievable aim a "goal" in order signal commitment to it, e.g. the goal to end world hunger. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding, a 'goal' is a quantified 'aim'. For example, a factory's aim might be to significantly reduce waste emissions over the next two years, while its goal might be to reduce them by 25% over 2009's figure by the end of 2012. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Coteries

What is the etymology of "coterie"?174.3.113.245 (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition

What is "gross breach of trust"?174.3.113.245 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See Position of trust. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

144 times. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rimshot! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't speak English as a first language, Clarityfiend's making a pun on Gross (unit), a different definition that has nothing to do with this usage. Buddy431 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the two meanings of "gross" have a common etymology.[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, they both come from the same Late Latin "grossus", probably not used for 1500 years or so. The meaning in this case (flagrant) was forked from another meaning (total) in Middle English, while Clarityfiend's usage came to us from the Old French; that is, they came to us through different languages from the same Latin root. So while the words might have a common etymology, so too do cows and humans share a common ancestor. None the less, I do not consider old Bessy my close family. Buddy431 (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think of "gross" as "something big or heavy", the commonality is clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A "breach in trust" is an offense committed by someone in a position of trust. Depending on the context, it could have a legal meaning for an act carried out by someone in an "official" position of trust, or it could simply mean that someone, who should be someone that can be trusted, did something wrong. Gross in this context means "blatant" or "excessive". If my parents trust me to look after my little brother, and I give him to my drug dealing neighbor to look after while I go party, I could be said to have committed a "gross breach of trust".Buddy431 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Must and can

I have been studying French, and in French there are two verbs devoir and pouvoir. These correspond (roughly) with English "must" and "can". But to say "to must" or "to can" is rediculous. So what part of speech are must and can in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.215.163 (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See Modal verb. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another translation of devoir is "to have to". For example: "J'ai du manger le pamplemousse." translates to "I had to eat the grapefruit." caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Might be your keyboard, but I'd just like to point out that it's j'ai dû -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with to can ? "I'm going to can those peaches." :-) StuRat (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see defective verb - English "can" and "must" are typical examples of verbs that are lacking an infinitive form (and a couple other forms, too). They are still verbs in every other respect, though. -- Ferkelparade π 16:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When I was first taught French back in the late '60s, our teacher explained 'devoir' as meaning 'to must' with the supplementary that although this literal usage did not actually exist in English, the concept was understandable and in context useful. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was taught that "devoir" (and its Spanish equivalent, "deber") and "pouvoir" (and Spanish "poder") mean "to have to" and "to be able to," respectively. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

March 31

British English?

Is "Hepititus" 'British' spelling?174.3.113.245 (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Gross misspellings are the stateless persons of the lexicon. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha! This warrants further analogy: clichés are stock characters... -- the Great Gavini 07:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In particular, this looks like an example of the fallacy that all Latin-based nouns ending in -s end in -us. The -itis ending, which in modern medical English indicates an inflammation of the named organ (in this case, the liver) is especially prone to this. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no common dialect variation providing any exception. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

-itis is originally Greek though, no? I wouldn't call it "Latin-based". -- the Great Gavini 07:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Greek is originally Proto-Indo-European language, though, no? :p Inclusion into "English" is via (:p) Latin (by way of French [AKA bad Latin]). The direct influence Greek had on Latin is surely less significant (to modern "English") than the direct influence Latin had on English. OR: most Greek influence on English is via Latin, no? ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you've written: if you're saying there is no real ultimate etymological origin (except possibly PIE) since languages are derived from others, then yes, I suppose you're right. But I meant that the sense is original to Greek, being derived from -ītis, feminine form of adjectival suffix -ītēs, then borrowed in Latin with that sense, thence to English [8] [9]. That Latin has had more influence on English than Greek is utterly irrelevant - it is original to Greek in its sense, I meant. -- the Great Gavini 13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not from Latin at all anyway, it's a modern medical term taken directly from Greek roots. Some Greek influence on English is through Latin, but not all of it. (Also, French is not "bad Latin") Adam Bishop (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but it does have vulgar origins... *giggle* -- the Great Gavini 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct spelling, in British or American English, is hepatitis. Marco polo (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Translation from Guadeloupe Creole to English

Hi language experts,

What does this mean in English?

I photographed this sign in a small village in Guadeloupe today. I think it says something like "Take care. Children are playing." It is written in Guadeloupe Creole (I presume), a dialect of Antillean Creole. I would like to add a more precise English translation to the File page though, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, --Slaunger (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly something like that: ti (=petit) moun must be "little people" or "children", ka joué la (=qui jouent ici/là) "who are playing", ni probably = il y a "there are". The first bit looks like "lift your feet" (levez, pieds) but "take care" sounds much more euphonic. Is your sign near a road or something? -- the Great Gavini 07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the sign is placed by the side of a small road in a residential area, and there are families with kids in the houses nearby, and they usually play on the road, especially in the evening, where they, e.g., make word games using chalk-like stones found by the side of the road. So it seems like it is mostly the first line, which is not entirely translated yet. --Slaunger (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So the first line probably means. "Lift your foot" (from the gas pedal)? --Slaunger (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lever le pied is a standard French phrase which means "to slow down". — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's connected, but there's a character called Ti Moune (a young girl) in the musical Once On This Island, which is set in the French Antilles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ti Moune is standard creole for child. A standard translation of the sign is "Slow down. Children are playing here" --Xuxl (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I also asked at the French wikipedia, and there the answer is the same [10]. Thank you for your help. --Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

French

How do I say "x to the nth power" (xⁿ) in French? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

x (à la) puissance n, i think —Tamfang (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Related: "squared" is x au carré. Not sure if there's a way of saying "cubed" without using (à la) puissance. -- the Great Gavini 08:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In French we can say x (à la) puissance trois or x (au) cube or if there is no ambiguity x trois. — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See fr:Exposant (mathématiques). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Usage of definite article with noun

British English.

I am reasonably confident that it is correct to write;

Thirty members of 1st battalion went up the hill.

as opposed to;

Thirty members of the 1st battalion went up the hill.

...but I don't know which rule of grammar explains it. I shall be grateful if anyone could elucidate.  Chzz  ►  04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the term is in layman grammar, but in theoretical syntax I assume this is explained by saying that some proper names are treated as full determiner phrases (e.g., "30 members of [NATO]") and some as noun phrases which still need a determiner (article) added (e.g., "30 members of the [UN]"). In American English we don't say your first sentence above, which suggests to me that in American English "1st batallion" is treated as a noun phrase, whereas in British English maybe it's treated as a proper noun and full determiner phrase. (If you wrote out "1st", in your sentence would it be "First Batallion" or "first batallion"? That would also suggest that it's being treated as a proper noun.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm British and both sentences look correct to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like our old friend American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement again. Nanonic (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually when I read texts written in British English I feel like "the" is missing from a lot of phrases. Rimush (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouble at mill [11]. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too, Rimush. It's enough to put one in hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.136.131 (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

British English speaker with a family military background reporting for duty. I opine that either version could be more correct, depending on context: the ambiguity is increased by the (correct) use of "1st" rather than "First" or "first", and "battalion" having been written with a lower-case 'b'. Specialist (British Army) usage has here complicated the underlying grammar.

If the actions of several battalions was being described, and "first" referred to, say, a sequence of events or a previously specified physical array, then "Thirty members of the first battalion went up the hill" would be grammatically correct, and "Thirty members of first battalion went up the hill" would be wrong, as would (on stylistic grounds) " . . .the 1st battalion . . .".

But here Chzz is referring to a particular battalion, whose name is written in full "The 1st Battalion of the Welsh Guards", not "The First Battalion . . . ." (where the regiment of The Welsh Guards could, and formerly did, also have 2nd and 3rd Battalions). However, British Army parlance generally omits the 'the' and refers to "1st Battalion, the Welsh Guards" or sometimes "the 1st Battalion, Welsh Guards" in full, more shortly "the 1st Welsh Guards" or (in writing) "1 Welsh Guards" and just "1st Battalion" where the Regiment is already understood. In this case, "Thirty members of the 1st Battalion went up the hill" (note capital 'B') would be acceptable (particularly from a civilian), but "Thirty members of 1st Battalion went up the hill." would be more usual. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical rules, English, British, soldiers, for the use of. 213.122.13.116 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the responses. 231.122, perhaps if you have a moment you could check over William Windsor (goat) to see the full context, and possibly correct my capitalization.  Chzz  ►  11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a beautiful article (or perhaps just a beautiful goat). I see "the" is used inconsistently, but it seems to help with prose flow, being omitted in brisker phrases. Is it harmful for a goat to eat cigarettes? 213.122.49.139 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Column-row order

Is there any multidisciplinary standard order of columns and rows when reporting data from a table? For example, in

	1	2
1	A	B
2	C	D

would I call item B "2-1" or "1-2"? Thank you. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually the columns are labelled with letters and the rows with numbers*, so your "B" would be B1. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's not what the questioner asked. I would call B "1-2", in keeping with the general order of reading English (across then down). But I would avoid relying on this assumption if possible. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any standard. If you can't relabel as 198 suggests to remove the ambiguity, I would either refer to "row 1, column 2" or declare your own standard (if it will be used many times in a document, say). 198.161.238.18 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Matrix (mathematics)#Notation says: "The entry that lies in the i-th row and the j-th column of a matrix is typically referred to as the i,j, (i,j), or (i,j)^th entry of the matrix." -- Wavelength (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's row first. Backwards from what seems logical. No wonder I hated matrices. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems logical to me, for the reason I gave. But I do have to think about it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Reading across then down" would suggest (row 1, column 1) (row 1, column 2) etc. as with Excel, except Excel wisely uses letters for the columns so there's no ambiguity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And it appears I contradicted myself. If you think of the rows as "records", certainly you would process them a record at a time. So you're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I can't change the numbers because they have meaning, and I will report which number is which, but I didn't want it to look backwards. I'll go with the math standard. Thank you. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fissioning / Fissionable linguistically correct?

I've been reading up on various topics related to nuclear fission, and keep coming across "fissioning" to describe the process as it happens, and "fissionable" to describe something capable of undergoing fission. I'm no linguist by any stretch, but this seems wrong when I compare to other words of similar structure. E.g. "compression" describes the process, but the object is "compressing" not "compressioning", and so on. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.211.43 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no rules about the form of verbs (back-)formed from other parts of speech in English: there are common patterns, but no more than that.

"Compressing" is not formed from "compression" but from the extant verb "compress". There is no English verb '*fiss' (at least the OED doesn't record that one has ever been used), so "*fissing" was not available ready-made. While I can't think of any other verbs ending in "-ssion", there are plenty that are pronounced as they would be if they had that ending (eg "ration", "fashion", "cushion"), so "fission" was perhaps more obvious or attractive than "*fiss". --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

According to my Webster's, the root noun is fissus, from which the word "fissure" comes; or fissio, from which "fission" comes. The verb is findere, which doesn't appear to have an English cognate. Hence the inventiveness from "fission". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You can add "transition" (triple ugh!) to that list of verbs, Colin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Or commission. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Commission" comes from "commit", although "commissioning" has a somewhat different nuance. Likewise with "transition", from "transit". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fissile" appears to be a synonym for "fissionable" in this context... It's slightly more elegant, and has an parallel to "mission/missile". (Although I'm not familiar with "missile" ever being used as an adjective.) caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

April 1

Desert planet in Japanese

What is "desert planet" in Japanese? I know Kasei is Mars in Japanese: is that its meaning as well? Desert planet? Or is it something else? Thanks in advance. Peter Greenwell (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's "砂漠の惑星"/sabaku no wakusei. Kasei is 火星 in kanji and 火 is fire and 星 is star. Oda Mari (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Greenwell (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll add in passing that all five Chinese elements are assigned to planets: Mercury 水星 'water star', Venus 金星 'metal star', Jupiter 木星 'wood star', Saturn 土星 'earth star'. —Tamfang (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Holmes, homes

Are they pronounced alike in all parts of the English-speaking world? All comments are appreciated. --Omidinist (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I (General American) pronounce the L. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Here in Detroit, we also pronounce the "L", but, judging from the rest of the responses, we Americans are about the only ones who make the effort. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm British and I don't pronounce the L. I know I should but I can't be bothered. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lazy Brits! rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't pronounce the L in Holmes...I don't think I pronounce it in Swedish words either, like Stockholm. (I'm Canadian.) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Even for people who don't pronounce the l, the vowels are often different. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Michael Howard seems to be trying to pronounce the L even in words that haven't got one. That's what a Welsh Romanian Cambridge accent does for you, I guess. 213.122.49.103 (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As an Australian, I don't pronounce the L either. Peter Greenwell (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I pronounce the L, but I don't pronounce the M. +Angr 09:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that I hint at the "L" in "Holmes" - it doesn't sound the same as "homes" but I don't fully pronounce the "L" either. Many people hereabouts (London) make it sound the same as "homes" though. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I pronounce Sherlock Holmes' surname identically to "homes" /həʊmz/, but when I encounter anybody else with the name "Holme" or "Holmes" I say something like /hɒʊm(z)/, with a vocalised 'l' and a different vowel. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I speak RP and I don't pronounce the <l> in "Holmes." I co-articulate the <l> and the <m> in "realms," though, I think. --Kjoonlee 14:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Check my signature. When asked, I always tell people that my surname is pronounced "homes". As far as I'm concerned, there is not even a hint of the l sound. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right on, Phil. I've never heard anyone pronounce the l either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronouncing the L is fairly common in the US. However, the TV show called House implicitly acknowledges that many do not pronounce it, as it's a play on Ho[l]mes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are those who dispute this connection, arguing that a House is not a Holmes. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just another data point, not that this adds much to the discussion. I was born in 1978 and raised in New York City and only know the word as /howmz/. Msh210 on a public computer (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The larger woman

In women's fashion, it's quite common to hear euphemistic phrases like "ladies with a fuller figure" or "these blouses are designed with the larger woman in mind". Why euphemistic? Because they're using the comparative form of the adjectives in a way that's designed to downplay what they're talking about, which is anything from having a naturally big frame all the way to obesity. To refer to such a woman as "large" seems to be too blunt; but calling her "larger", which is even bigger than just "large", paradoxically seems to soften it somewhat. Is this what's going on here? How does the brain know not to treat the comparative as a comparative, and to discount the surface meaning? Or is it that the comparison is between a woman of unspecified or average size and a larger one; the second-named person would be comparatively "larger", but still not necessarily "large" in absolute terms? Except the message that comes through is that these women are large, just not necessarily obese. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of instances in which a comparative adjective sounds smaller than its positive counterpart, not just body size. We speak of "older people" to avoid calling them "old people", for example. In some languages like German and Latin, the comparative form of an adjective is regularly used to mean "rather X", "X-ish" (so in German größere Gewässer can mean "largish bodies of water", implying bodies of water not really large enough to be called große Gewässer). The comparative can also be used to mean "more nearly X", i.e. "closer to attaining X-hood but not there yet": if a schoolchild writes an essay and gets a grade of 40/100 on it, and is told to rewrite it, and gets 60/100 on the second attempt, the second attempt is better but still not good. Likewise, where the U.S. Constitution speaks of "a more perfect union", it doesn't mean the union is already perfect and is going to get even more perfect (which would be impossible given the definition of perfect); it simply means "a more nearly perfect union", "a union closer to perfection". +Angr 09:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Fuller than average", "Larger than average", are what's implied. "Large", or "Obese" or (goddess forbid) "Fat" are not nice. A large woman knows she's large. To counter such, you have Big beautiful woman or plus-size woman or the term used by Lane Bryant, "Real woman". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there's voluptuous and the -esque words, like statuesque and Rubenesque. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are good positive terms. There's also zaftig, which is a little more obscure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all, but particuarly to Angr for helping me see the bigger picture, something I'm always interested in. (Or is that the "larger picture"? :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WHICH ONE

1. You are needed to the kingdom.
2. You are needed by the kingdom

Which one of the above two forms of passive forms is suggested for the active form : " The kingdom needs you " Kasiraoj (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Although this almost sounds like homework, #2 is correct. #1 doesn't make sense. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been answered above.—Emil J. 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. I'm glad my response only took 25 seconds or so... -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More interestingly, does simple "passivization" in English ever not use 'by'? —Tamfang (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Has the answer been given to you? :P No such user (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific writing in journals (at least bioscience) is one place where the passive voice is preferred. In such writing you will see, "the temperature was observed to increase..." Perhaps the OP saw something like that, which led to the question. Of course the phrase "by us" is implied. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No such user, "you" in your example is not the subject of the active form, so your example doesn't show anything. Compare: has the answer been given to you by the teacher? rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2

'All female band' or 'All-female band'

Should the phrase "all female" in "all female band" be hyphenated? Hyphen#Compound modifiers and Compound modifier#Hyphenation of elements suggest that it should be, but the main article was moved in 2008 from All-female band to All female band, with the reason: "non needed hyphen, bad grammar". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-needed move, bad grammarian. --Kjoonlee 07:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on what sort of grammar you're talking about - prescriptive or descriptive. Prescriptively, words like all-female, semi-sweet, French-born, multi-coloured (and, indeed, "non-needed", because there is no such word as "non") et al must be hyphenated:

• "Gaston Leclerc is a French born Peruvian astrologer" tries to mean that he is French, and he was born, and he is Peruvian. But it can't mean that: that he was born hardly needs stating, and he is no longer French. So it's obvious that French and born cannot be interpreted as independent facts about him; they are connected to each other to make a quite different and indeed contradictory fact (viz. he was born in France but doesn't live there any more and is no longer French), and must therefore be hyphenated.

That's prescriptive. But descriptive grammar will back up that bad grammarian because the hyphen is often dispensed with these days, unfortunately. Reasons include ease of reading, modernity of style, and avoidance of fussiness or "pedantry". (They then shit in their own nests by inserting hyphens where they're actually not required, such as in "the then-president". What a laugh!) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Without the hyphen, I can imagine it to mean "a band comprised of all females (in the world)". Paul Davidson (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, your responses were most helpful. I reversed the move carried out in 2008 and added an explanation to the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why modern writers hate hyphens? When I first glanced at the phrase "all female band", I assumed, just for a split-second, that the "s" had been missed off "bands". For ease of reading, some hyphens are essential. Dbfirs 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad Friday

Why is Good Friday called "good"? Surely it was a bad friday for Jesus and his supporters. 78.146.86.6 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See the third paragraph here. Deor (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A slightly different take here[12]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Another" and "other" in legal provisions

I have seen the following provisions of the "Japanese Code of Civil Procedure" (JCCP):

"Where it is found to be difficult for a party to appear due to living in a remote place or any other grounds, if the party has submitted a document stating that he/she accepts the proposed terms of settlement presented in advance by the court or an authorised judge or commissioned judge, and the other party has appeared on the appearance date and accepted such proposed terms of settlement, it shall be deemed that both parties have reached a settlement."

I wonder why the word "other" is used, while it should be "another". Because:

1. In facts, there are always two parties in an action.
2. Both are in the same action for sure.
3. The determiner "another" means "one more, in addition to a former number; a second or additional one, similar in likeness or in effect."

So, when we have mentioned to any party first, the rest should be mentioned by "another," isn't it? Please see a similar case in the following provisions of the "Civil Procedure Code of Thailand (CPCT)" where the word "another" is used:

"A party may adduce another party as his witness."

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding in using English determiners "another" and "other". Thank you for directing me to the light,, ^^

— 118.174.66.131 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the rules for legal language, but in everyday English the word "another" is usually used when the second party has not previously been mentioned or implied, whereas "the other" is used when the second party has been mentioned or implied. The difference between "another" and "the other" is similar to the difference between the articles "a" and "the", if that helps. —Bkell (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the use of "the" is correct in the Japanese document precisely because there are only two parties to a legal dispute. There is one party and then the other party. This calls for the definite pronoun, because there is only one other party. As for the Thai document, "another" is correct, because we don't know which party that might be. Therefore we need the indefinite pronoun. Marco polo (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of suits with many more than two parties. Typically they are incrementally simplified by separate settlements of some plaintiffs with some defendants. For simplicity let's consider Haight and Page v. Stanyan and Ashbury. If Haight proposes a settlement with Stanyan, the agreement of another party, which could be anyone, is irrelevant; what counts is agreement of the other party (to the settlement), namely Stanyan. —Tamfang (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Thai example, as you can perhaps see, is not parallel. It is equivalent to saying "Parties to a case are not excluded from acting as witnesses for other parties." A defendant is unlikely to call a plaintiff as witness, or vice versa, so the provision is relevant only mostly in complex cases – that is, where there are more than two parties, and thus "the other party" is not well defined. —Tamfang (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

April 3

Clash of ofs

In my editing adventures, I came across this bit of text at Adrian Boult:

• In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, which included important recent British works, among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony, of which he gave the first performance of the revised version ...

The meaning's clear enough: there was the original version, and later there was a revised version, and Boult gave the first performance of the revised version. Although, whether that first performance occurred in the same 1918 series of concerts is not stated, and indeed, it happened some years later. So it's trying to get across 2 ideas: (A) Boult conducted the original version in 1918 (but was not the first to do so), and (B) he was the first to conduct the revised version (but this did not happen in 1918). Maybe it really needs separating into different sentences.

As for the grammar, it feels like a clash of "of"s; the first one's referring to the symphony in general, the second to the revised version specifically.

I tried the pedantically correct way and inserted a "later" for clarity:

• ... among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony, of the revised version of which he later gave the first performance ...

but that sounds just that, pedantically correct. Nobody would ever talk like that, not these days.

I could try the parenthetical approach:

• ... among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony (he later gave the first performance of the revised version) ...

which works best for me if we keep it as one sentence.

Is there an even better way? I'm not wanting to change it for the sake of change, but I would need some convicing the current text is OK. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

...the revised version of which he gave the first performance? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's missing an of, Rjanag. One gives the first performance <of something>; one does not give the first performance <something>. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you can add it: ...the revised version of which he gave the first performance of. Or, even simpler, ...the revised version of which he was the first to perform. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You could just leave the "of which" out and start a new sentence: ...which included important recent British works, among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony. He gave the first performance of the revised version, a performance "rather spoilt by a Zeppelin raid". Oh wait, you already said this. I agree. 81.131.55.149 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider the cited text to be correct, and a parse tree might convince you that it is. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain further, Wavelength?

How about:

• In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, which included important recent British works, among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony, the first performance of the revised version of which he later gave. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ack! Ptui! Burn that last monstrosity. (Brushing up on your bureaucratese?) I'd split it into two sentences. The parenthetical version would be my second choice. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am avoiding spending the time to design a parse tree, so here is a parallel sentence.

• In 2009 Xavier hosted a smörgåsbord with his family, which included seafood dishes, among them lobster roll, of which he supervised the first use of the revised recipe the preparation of the revised version. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising my sentence, because recipe is used with for (as in recipe for lobster roll). -- Wavelength (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)]

Grammar aside, the last Zeppelin raid on London was on 20 October 1917, which rather spoils a good story. Alansplodge (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But when was the last false alarm? Alternatively, maybe the LSO had a gig in Birmingham. 213.122.26.30 (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After a bit of research, the date of the performance was 18 Feb 1918[13], and on that day there was a Gotha Raid which failed to penetrate the London anti-aicraft defences[14]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Like Wavelength, I see nothing wrong with the original. A phrase X, of which he complexverbed can be transformed to and he complexverbed of X, even if the expansion of complexverb contains of (give the first performance of the revised version). Overlapping scopes do sometimes bite one, but this is not such a case. —Tamfang (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First, there's nothing all that wrong with the original, but "of which" is a phrase that's usually best avoided. If you want to keep it close to the original, I suggest that the obvious improved version is:

• In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, which included important recent British works, among them Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony, whose revised version he gave the first performance of.

But one or more people above said that the intention was obviously to say that he later gave the first performance of the revised version, but that doesn't fit with the article about the symphony, which says it was revised in March 1918. So I think the meaning is that in this concert series he gave the first performance of the revised version. In which case the sentence can be simplified considerably:

• In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, including the first performance of Vaughan Williams's revised A London Symphony as well as other important recent British works.

--Anonymous, 03:54 UTC, April 3, 2010.

Wow, Anonymous. Leaving aside the factual/historical issues, I'm still a little flabbergasted by "whose revised version he gave the first performance of". It would be a bold editor indeed who inserted that form of words into an article and expected it to survive for long. I know that the proscription against ending sentences with prepositions was never ironclad, but there are still times when doing so is a bad thing, because it sounds ugly, and this is one of those times. Also, isn't "whose" confined to humans? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See Definitions of whose - OneLook Dictionary Search. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That sent me to the Wikipedia article Whose [sic] Afraid of Virginia Woolf. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Computer art scene groups' names

I was going to ask this at the Computing desk at first but after browsing through some of the posts there it looks like that place is strictly for technical questions, so I thought this page would be more suited to ask this; something that I've always wondered about since I started BBS'ing in the early 1990s: Why did the computer art scene groups back then, such as ACiD and iCE and many others, feel so compelled to lower-case the letter i in their names?? From what I can guess it has something to do with leetspeek, but why the letter 'i'? why not 'h'? or 'g'? or 'p'?? and exactly when and how did this custom start? The leetspeek article does not address this. -- œ^™ 03:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of ACiD it matches the capitalization pattern of the full name, and they probably liked the way it didn't look so much like "acid", which sounds nasty. If they were a particularly important group, perhaps others just copied the lower-case i from them. But this is just conjecture -- perhaps someone has a source that gives a better explanation. --Anonymous, 03:59 UTC, April 3, 2010.

In some sans serif fonts, I (the capital letter) and 1 (the numeral) look the same. Likewise with O (the capital letter) and 0 (the numeral). There is therefore a convention for computer people (especially older computer people) to emphasize the differences. Using i vs. I may have been a way to do that. The other option is that they went the e e cummings route and thought that alternative capitalization schemes were "cool" (see also leetspeak). That survives today, in some respects iPod, iPad, and iMac all use a lowercase "i" to be "hip", despite the fact that it ultimately derived from an abbreviation for "the Internet", which most traditional sticklers insist on capitalizing. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation

I was reading (the book) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and in the narrative the following sign is observed: "5,000 new homes: no dwn. payment required for vets". Assuming "vets" means "veterans", this still leaves me at a loss to explain why "down payment" has been abbreviated like that. I can't imagine "dwn." is much shorter that "down". Can anyone shed any light on this? One plausible answer might be to fit it neatly onto lines (in the "fictional" world, i.e. on the poster/sign), but as I say it's hardly shorter at all. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another commonly seen example is 'til, short for until, but no shorter than till, which is synonymous. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A period (full stop) takes up a lot less space on a line (except in monospace) than an o. 79.183.136.131 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Verb usage

What is it called when a verb is used once in a sentence but in two different manners, eg 'The children went off in a bus and in high spirits.'? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.43.155 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Syllepsis, or semantic zeugma, as in Charles Dickens' "[She] went straight home in a flood of tears, and a sedan chair". Dbfirs 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is my favorite example of it, and online. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I was going to quote Flanders and Swann in "Have some Madeira, my dear", but he stole my thunder. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. This was beginning to get on my nerves so tonight I shall sleep easy. 92.11.43.155 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are penises called "cocks"?

This may look like a trolling question, but it is not. Where does the association of chicken with male genitalia come from? Interestingly, not only English seems to do so; Castilian Spanish uses "polla" (literally "cock" and a slang term for "penis"). So, why is that? --Belchman (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

At a guess, male chickens (cocks) typically display what is generally considered to be arrogantly masculine behavior (strutting, fighting over hens, aggression towards anyone that interferes with their 'turf', calling out challenges to rivals). They are much more obvious about it than other domesticated animals. The comparison with certain kinds of men - and the extension to male genitalia more generally - would be natural. --Ludwigs2 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what about the association of chickens with mechanical devices, as in "half-cocked" and "stopcock"? 81.131.48.116 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The cock of a flintlock firearm bore a resemblance to the head of a cock[15]. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it was a reference to a cock's erect head. Online Etymology Dictionary seems to confirm it: "cock (v.), seeming contradictory senses of "to stand up" (as in cock one's ear), c.1600, and "to bend" (1898) are from the two cock nouns. The first is probably in reference to the posture of the bird's head or tail, the second to the firearm position. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The OED says of the penis sense, "In origin perhaps intimately connected with sense 12", where sense 12 is "A spout or short pipe serving as a channel for passing liquids through" (German Hahn is also used in both these senses.) With regard to the "spout" sense, the OED is dubious about its connection with the "male chicken" word, noting that "the origin of the name in this sense is not very clear". Deor (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So the connection between spouts and chickens is unclear, but also exists in German where the word sounds totally different? Odd. 81.131.48.116 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)