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

April 29

Am I dumb? English as a second language

I've been living in Canada since I was in grade 3. I'm now 22 in university. Though I lived here for over 10 years, I still have difficulty with English, both spoken and written. All the people I know who came to an English-speaking country at a young age like grade 3 or below now use English naturally and easily. But why am I an exception? I always have to do translations in my head (writing this right now, I'm doing translations) as if I were someone who just came to Canada. In fact, people sometimes ask me if I'm new to Canada, and if I tell them I've lived here for over 10 years, they get surprised. I hate myself. I want to be able to naturally use English. I have no friends and I can't make any friends because English is such a big barrier for me. I'm unable to dialogue like a normal English-speaking person and this puts me at a serious disadvantage in many occasions. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 April 2010

Some people are better than others in learning new languages. It also depends how much you immerse yourself in the new language. Do you watch English language television or do you stick to the variety of multicultural channels we have offered here in Canada. Do you speak English with your friends, or do you mostly hang out with friends who speak your language? --Kvasir (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I speak my native language at home, and I have no English-speaking friends at all, as I said above. I watch English language television, of course, but I tend to miss many of what's said and my listening ability seems to have reached its limit, unable to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 April 2010

Unfortunately, after 10 years it's a bit late to start making English-speaking friends. It would probably have been easy when you were in elementary school. But, it's not too late. I'm sure there are many foreign students at your university who have made great progress even if they have just come here to study. Find a club on your campus and join their activities, mingle, make new friends which will force yourself to speak English. The best place to start is probably around other new Canadians, where their English ability is similar to yours and you wouldn't feel as intimidated. Slowly you would improve your confidence and be able to converse comfortably with others. You'll find if you don't improve by the time you finish university, you'll be pigeon-hole into the sort of working environment where you still won't be speaking English, and that will unfortunately limit your career opportunity. --Kvasir (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, you have better grammar than many native speakers. As for making friends, follow Kvasir's advice and join some English-speaking university clubs. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You might have a Specific language impairment, or suffer from Speech and language pathology. I have only experience with specific language impairment in children, and I don't know about adults, but if I were you, I would contact a speech therapist and ask for an assessment. If your problems with friends goes any deeper than being shy because of your language problems, I would ask for a neuropsychiatric evaluation. Sometimes language problems and social problems can co-occur in certain neuropsychiatric conditions.

By the way, if you've managed to get accepted at a university in spite of your language problems, you can't be stupid. My guess is that you have a high non-verbal intelligence. Lova Falk (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to not acquire a second language well but still be intelligent and not have any language impairment; some people just don't have much talent for acquiring new languages. It's not even only a matter of how much effort you make to get exposure; for instance, I have a friend who is originally from Hong Kong but has been living here since he was quite young, and all through middle and high school he hung out pretty much exclusively with American friends (we're from a small, non-diverse town) but he still has a noticeable accent and his grammar is not perfect. That doesn't mean he's stupid and doesn't mean he was too lazy to try; some people just have more difficulty acquiring new languages than others do. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising the section heading from "Am I dumb?" to "Am I dumb? English as a second language", to facilitate watchlist alerts and archive searches, and to apply search engine optimization. I am adding two "unsigned" templates, of which the first represents the fifth of five consecutive revisions without any intervening ones by any other editor. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)]

If you say what your first language is, I might be able to provide specific links to help you in learning English.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Learning a foreign language is difficult for most people and can be a slow process. For example: I lived and worked in France for over 2 years and although my French improved a lot I am still far from fluent. I put this down to the environment I was in: the working environment was English, all of my work colleagues spoke English very well, and when not at work we all socialised together speaking English. The few times I did have to speak French was when shopping, ordering drinks in bars and dealing with officialdom, and even then the French people I was delaing with picked up on my strong English accent and "helpfully" tried to speak English.

I think if you were to immerse yourself in an English speaking environment, seek out English speaking friends, and don't take the easy option of continuing in your native language when people try to help by speaking it to you, then I think you'll find your English would improve immesurably. Astronaut (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

On the question "Am I dumb", you only have writen a couple of small paragraphs here above, but just from reading them, I can assure you they are fully grammatical, they are explaining logically an issue with accurate level of details etc. So the answer is clearly: you are NOT dumb. However, it seems indeed you are one of these people who find spoken foreign languages very difficult to learn. It seems you are fully able to learn anything else, though, so I wouldn't be too hard on myself in your position. On the question of helping you, I second the club idea --Lgriot (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another option if you want to improve your English: Try to find a language partner whom you'll "teach" (or converse with in) your native language in exchange for her/him conversing with you in English. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in some countries there are even organizations helping students to find such partners. The advantage is that you'll have someone who's interested in improving your English; who's willing to cater to your needs (e.g., speaking slowly or repeating or waiting for your answers... if you wish); who will probably be fun to hang out with (and who already shares an interest with you, namely an interest in your native language), probably even connect you to further English-speaking friends... and besides, you'll realize that you actually have quite something to offer in return.

Because that's the other thing: How are your native language skills? If you still speak the language at home, they're probably quite good? While I understand your frustration about the second language (you have no idea!...), you may also want to re-think what you actually have achieved and can be proud of: Probably fluency in one language, plus very advanced skills in a second language. That's more than many other people ever achieve in their lives! And regarding translating: I've always been taught that it's "bad" to translate, and it's true that it doesn't work for myself at all. Yet I know someone who speaks English absolutely fluently (and yes, quickly), with a flawless American accent, and understands everything... and once he told me that he translates everything from and back into his native language! In other words: Try to appreciate that everyone's different, and if 99.9% of all people solve a problem one way, that doesn't mean that you're a failure if this doesn't work for you. Maybe you need a more creative strategy to "get there"... (BTW, do you know other people speaking your native language and acquiring English as a second language? Maybe even they can give you useful tips.)... or maybe, yes, getting fluent in foreign languages is simply not your individual strength. As others have pointed out, there are so many talents (incl. non-verbal talents) that you really needn't dispair if this one talent isn't one of yours.

Finally, I agree with those who've suggested also considering psychological/psychiatric support. Maybe your native culture and/or your current surroundings make you think that you need to be "crazy" before you seek such support... if that's true, try to get used to the thought slowly. :o) Maybe try to think about what psychology and psychiatry actually do: They help people with problems that you can't see "outside"/on their bodies, but which are very real nonetheless. And is it "crazy" if you can't see these problems? Not really: They are usually related to the fact that some neurons in our brains react differently than the neurons of others. (Our neurons all fire differently anyways. That's why we have different memories, different ideas, different talents, etc.--that's all in our brains!) So is that "crazy"? Or just natural science! Yeah, big deal! :o) So... looking for "psych" support does not mean that you are "weird" or anything, but rather that some people may have specialized in supporting people with concerns like yours, and that's probably more efficient asking them for help than figuring it out all by yourself. For example, you can ask at your university (probably even check it out online): Often you can get some psychological consultation for free, and they're usually very discrete. (They know what people think too :o)) So you could ask them for advice, and they will probably make some suggestions, maybe also offer that you can be tested for speech problems, etc. ... and then you can still decide if you want to follow them or not. So there's nothing to "lose" trying it out because you can always stop when you think this is not what you're looking for. ... ... ... Anyways, whatever you choose to do, don't forget to be proud that you do speak English as you do in addition to your native language and probably tons of other skills you have!! :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian

I opened a game room in a game I play online and a Russian player (whom I've played before) joined the room, said, "да ты монстр" and left. I understood this to mean "Yes, you're a monster", but checked on Google Translate just to make sure (as it was lacking a comma), and the translation given was "Do monster". Which one is correct and if the latter, what would 'do monster' mean? (Side question - "monster"!? It's a WW2 game...). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would understand it as somethling like "Oh, you monster!" No idea why they would call you that, though. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Could he have said "даты монстр"? That sort of means "dates are a monster" ('dates' here referring to the time things, not the edible things), but that makes even less sense ... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. I was wondering if it was some sort of idiom or something still in current use. I guess he was saying that he was scared of me (because I'm pretty high up on the leaderboard), but I thought it may be some sort of insult because he beat me last time I played him. Anyway, thanks, both of you. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge of Russian is indecently poor, but I did some searching right now. In advance, I apologise for uploading so much original research. I'm just trying to help. Google.ru gives as much as 127 results for "да ты монстр", only a couple of which have a comma between да and ты. About the comma itself, I can remember once reading a children's poem about Santa Claus by Agniya Barto in my Russian classes many years back in time. I found it halfway down this page. It contains the line "Да это наш сосед!", without a comma.

click on the "show" button to view it →

Here's the text (my bolding): А старший брат Твердит тайком: - Да это наш сосед! Как ты не видишь: нос похож! И руки, и спина! - Я отвечаю: - Ну и что ж! А ты на бабушку похож, Но ты же не она!

A mediocre translation by me. And my elder brother Claimed this: - This is surely our neighbour! Can't you see it: his nose looks like our neighbour's! And his arms, and his back, too! I answered to him: - So what? You look like a granny, But you're not one!

Analogously, да ты монстр could mean "You're surely a monster!".

About the meaning of the word монстр itself, ru:wikt:монстр doesn't help much, but ru:Монстр contains the following sentence:

Иносказательно как метафора может относиться к объекту физического или психологического доминирования со сверхъестественными силами (властителю, хищнику), а также реальному или вымышленному объекту природы или техническому устройству с выдающимися, в том числе надприродными качествами размера, силы, власти и т. п.

I can understand this, but I'm not sure how to translate it in English, since I'm just a learner of both English and Russian. Roughly, it tells that монстр could be a metaphor referring to something that dominates physically or psychologically by means of supernatural powers, and also to a real or invented natural object or technological device with outstanding/remarkable, or supernatural, size, strength, power, etc. Any corrections to this attempt of translation will be welcome!

Also, I googled монстр интернет сленг OR слэнг and found a page that is a glossary of the Russian language library of World of Warcraft. Here's that glossary. There монстр is given as a synonym of моб; моб is explained as "NPC, враждебно настроенный к персонажу" (NPC that is hostile to the character); and NPC is explained as "non-player character — персонаж, управляемый компьютером" (a character controlled by the computer).

I very much apologise for uploading such a lengthy amount of original research and I very much hope it would be of any help! --Магьосник (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, cheers. So, he was basically referring to me as being a hard player to beat? Makes sense. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a word meaning "What there is and how much there is of it"?

Is there an English word used for expressing, or whose use encompasses, the idea of "what is present in (location, time period, etc.), and how much of it is present there"? Basically for "type and quantity" of something? I'm asking because for the Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation article I'm considering renaming the tables' Abundance column, since it both includes how common a species is and what fossils represent them in the formation. Abyssal (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence? 86.21.204.137 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to think of a catch-all term covering the information given in the three entries currently in that column. Might Characteristics work? Deor (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Population? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If it helps any, I've used "Presence" in other tables for a column detailing geographic location, stratigraphic position, and abundance. Abyssal (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantity or inventory? Astronaut (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For the particular article you linked, I would use "occurrence". rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't for an article, I would make up my own word for it and tell everyone I know about it and maybe it would spread. After all the English language is one of the most flexible languages in the world and definitions of words are based much more on usage than actual people sitting around in a room, deciding what certain words would mean and how they should be used, and saying that if their way isn't used then it is not propper and thus not permitted. This word could be anything along the lines of "whow" to something much more complex like "typuantity". Filosojia X Non(Philosophia X Known) 00:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(In that case, you could try Frindle. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

You could rename the column "Materials and quantity"; or you could split the column into two new columns, "Materials" and "Quantity", either similar to the other columns, or shown as subcolumns of the original column, renamed "Materials and quantity".

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

manifestation ? Bazza (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nepali translation help

Hi, any help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Nepal#Nepali_translation_help would be highly appreciated. --Soman (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You can use Category:User ne to find Wikipedians who speak Nepali. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

science

discoveries and histories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.128.119 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The science reference desk is that way. Xenon54 / talk / 20:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

List of discoveries. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

April 30

Would be

I'm trying to find the form of "desu" that would be the equivalent of English "would be", e.g. "Who would he be if he were a fictional character?", "He would be the Cheshire cat." I have a book on Japanese, but it doesn't mention many forms of "desu", and the page on Japanese verb conjugation doesn't seem to have a form for "would VERB" listed. Filosojia X Non(Philosophia X Known) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You can use the so-called volitional form (だろう, でしょう, etc.) for that kind of expression. "チェシャ猫でしょう" Paul Davidson (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

thank youu! Filosojia X Non(Philosophia X Known) 00:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Translate the Latin Phrase: "Turn Quantity Into Quality"

One day, I will catalyze the process to found the Kansas Institute of Technology in Chapman and Lindsborg, KS. Tentatively, the motto will be: Turn Quantity into Quality

The reason why I chose this motto is because these two university campuses will have an open-admissions policy. The aim will be to turn the abundant quantity of students into quality graduates. In short, K.I.T. will turn quantity into quality.

Now as most university mottos are also said in Latin, how will this motto be said? (Google Translate does not have a Latin language option, and machine translating doesn't always return accurate results anyway.) --70.179.176.30 (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Literally Converte quantitatem in qualitatem. More elegant in Latin would be ex quantitate qualitas "from quantity, quality". --Ioscius ^∞ 11:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the more classical style would be "E quantitate qualitas". Marco polo (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. This is the original poster. Thanks for your responses. Which style do colleges use more often for their mottos? Ioscius's elegant style or Marco's classical style? --129.130.99.196 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Either is fine really, but Marco's "E quantitate qualitas" would raise no objection from even the most pedantic pedant. And colleges have some of those, I believe. So I would go for it. Andrew Dalby 20:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Qualitas is a technical term in philosophy, coined by Cicero to represent the Greek poiotes (Cassells), and quantitas is a medieval innovation. Perhaps more classical: e multis optimi. 71.178.54.201 (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But I would certainly read "e multis optimi" as "out of many, the best (ones)", which immediately suggests a process of selection, which was not present in the original (and, I believe, not intended). Perhaps a multitudo fiat optimum - "by means of many may be created the best (thing)". --ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case you would need "multitudine", of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ex/e all the same. E probably better. Esto ergo e quantitate qualitas.--Ioscius ^∞ 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

USA and Canada

A Brit asks... Are there any common informal/slang terms in use that a US citizen would use to refer to a Canadian, and vice versa? Terms that would be generally understood in North America, I mean? If so, what are they? --Hence Piano (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A Brit replies...Canuck? Also, Yankee can apparently be used as a general term for U.S. citizens (not necessarily from New England). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Canuck is a somewhat comical term that is used in the United States. (I once knew a guy who referred to himself as a "Canuckistani," which reliably brought chuckles.) That said, we normally don't use slang terms but refer to our northern neighbors simply as Canadians. I've never heard a Canadian refer to an American as a Yankee or a Yank, though I don't doubt that a Canadian has occasionally used the expression. Normally, they call us Americans. (One point about the expression Yankee or Yank as used within North America. Its most common use within the United States is by Southerners referring to Northerners. I think that this is a leftover from the American Civil War. I think that a Southerner might be offended or at least amused if he were referred to as a Yankee, particularly in a Canadian accent, which sounds like a Yankee accent to Southerners.) Marco polo (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. The other northerners, "yank" means a New Englander, to other New Englanders, it means a resident of New York State, and to other New York Staters, it means a resident of NYC. It also once meant the Dutch faction in NYC, but that meaning is pretty much gone by now. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not what Yankee says. There, the aphorism (attributed to E. B. White) is: "To foreigners, a Yankee is an American. To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner. To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner. To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander. To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter. And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast." +Angr 15:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I'd say "American" is the most common term for Americans here (Toronto area). You don't really hear "Yank" or "Yankee", although most people would know what you meant. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 13:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Having grown up in Texas, I'd definitely be offended (or at least pretend to be) if anyone called me a Yankee. Canuck is supposed to be offensive, except that I doubt anyone would seriously be offended by it; more likely amused. You can also refer to Canadians as a group euphemistically as "Our Neighbors to the North", but really the only common term is Canadian. +Angr 14:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything offensive about the team name of the Vancouver Canucks? Woogee (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Some refer to us as residents of Soviet Canuckistan. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

On a talk show once, Dave Foley said, "We're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is going a bit in the opposite direction, but you can also comically call their country Canadia. I've heard that, but it seems to get on Canadians' nerves more than Canuck does. Like the latter, it's "marked" and not normally used, it's playfully derogatory. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That like calling Americans "United Statians" or some such. I've honestly never heard that one, but it comes across as ignorant -- which is why it can probably be amusing. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(A friend of mine insists on "United Statesian", and corrects me if I say "American", because she spent some time in South America where they use the equivalent term in Spanish, estadounidense. There are some political issues behind that term... rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

"UnitedStatesian" simply doesn't work too well in the English language, but an alternative which achieved some degree of prominence in the mid-20th century was "Usonian"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WHAAOE - Names for U.S. citizens. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep we use "Yanks" and "'mericans", but usually that's in a demeaning way, ex: "those stupid/ignorant 'mericans." --Kvasir (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"'mericans" and not "merkins"? That's the slang version I meet most. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadian immigrants to the U.S. are occasionally jocularly called "snowbacks" (by contrast with "wetbacks").... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Yanks" or "Yankees" gained a vogue in Australia and the UK (and probably other countries) during WW2, from the U.S. soldiers stationed there. It's still used by people of my parents' generation in reference to them. There was a 1970s' film Yanks that reflected this terminology. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the country itself, Canada is also sometimes referred to as "America Jr." though I've seen Canadians take offense at this when none was intended. And then there's this shirt which, again, is meant as humor and not as an offensive statement. Dismas|^(talk) 04:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Captain Canuck. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Words spelled exactly the same way in different languages, but with entirely different meanings

This is somewhat related to false friends and false cognates, but here is what I am actually looking for:

A string of letters which exists as a word in various languages using the Latin alphabet, but has an entirely different meaning and, if possible, different etymology, in each language. Specifically, I'm looking for examples exceeding three different languages.

Example for three languages: "rot" (can mean purefaction (noun) in English, red (adjective) in German, or burp (noun) in French).

I don't care about capital letters (so, it can be a noun in German, e.g.), but it shouldn't use diacritics in any of the foreign languages. Thank you very much in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary is organized well for checking candidates. For example, it tells me that rot has different meanings again in Norwegian, Swedish, and Tok Pisin. Algebraist 11:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Algebraist! (no idea why I didn't think of it). I'm happy to see that "rot" seems to be a good choice. I will check more candidates on wiktionary. Still, if anyone happens to think of other examples, I'd really appreciate it! ---Sluzzelin talk 12:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

However, Wiktionary does care about capital letters, even if you don't: wikt:rot and wikt:Rot are different entries. +Angr 13:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Car means "car" in English, "cart" in Romanian, "because" in French, "dear" or "expensive" in Catalan, and "tsar" in several Slavic languages (e.g., Polish). — Kpalion^(talk) 14:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Only 2 languages, but dick means, well, dick in English and thick in German. Cracks me up. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cap means "cap" in English, "head" in some Romance languages (e.g., Catalan, Romanian), "male goat" in some Slavic languages (e.g., Polish, Slovak), and "seal" or "stamp" in Indonesian. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pies means "pies" in English, "feet" in Spanish, "magpies" in French, "dog" in Polish, and "(I) piss" in Dutch. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pole means "pole" in English, "field" in Polish, "he polishes" in Spanish, "isn't" in Estonian, and "slowly" in Swahili. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would more fun to try and find the longest word of this kind. So far I couldn't come up with anything longer than four letters. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one question, Sluzzelin: do you accept words written in other alphabets which look like words written in the Latin alphabet? Such as Russian сор ("garbage, dirt"), which happens to look like сор (English "cop", Catalan "hit", Czech "braid", French "pal").— Kpalion^(talk)

"cop" in Russian is the Cyrillic alphabet, so that wouldn't count, or it would be in a different category. The "c" is more like an "s", I think, and the "p" is definitely an "r", as with the Greek letter "rho". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's why I'm asking the OP if it counts or not. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Gift" famously means poison in German [1], but it does seem to be difficult to find longer words, though I can think of some homophones.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

According to my dictionaries, the German for "to give" is "geben", which makes sense, but the word for gift is "Geschenk". I wonder about the etymology of "Gift" (verb form "vergiften") and "Geschenk". I can't think of any English cognates for those two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gift is a wonderful example of what we're collecting right now, because it means both "poison" and "married" in all Danish, Faroese, Norwegian, and Swedish; "poison" in German; and "donation" in Dutch. Note that all of those languages belong to the Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family, exactly as English does. --Магьосник (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about chore, five letters, but it seems to mean different things in only three languages (English, Polish and Portuguese), not above Sluzzelin's threshold. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a conjugated Latin word looks like a different English word; one that springs to mind is "emit", which means "he bought". The English word comes from Latin, but from a completely different word. Also "dies", which means "day", and has two different meanings in English. (There are more, maybe some longer than four letters, but I'll have to think about it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Some others - "grates" is a word for "thanks" in Latin, and the English word comes from a different Latin word ("cratis", where we also get "crate"). A good one that is purely Germanic is "reddens". In Latin that means "giving back". Also "dares" which in Latin is "you might give". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(Of course, now I see you were looking for three or more languages, sorry...but to add to the "pole" list above, it is also the vocative of "polus" in Latin, if for some reason you wanted to address the sky.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A good one (though rather short): baba means "father" in Albanian and Turkish; "old woman" in Polish and Serbian; and "drool" in Portuguese and Spanish. --Магьосник (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A five letter one, baste, with five languages, English, Dutch (part of the verb bassen to bark), Sami (spoon), French (either an interjection, or something to do with card games), Spanish (part of the verb bastar, to suffice) and Norwegian (bind or tie - at least in my 1964 edition dictionary). Mikenorton (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We have for some reason forgotten about inflected forms. They may give a lot of examples. English surrender means "surrender", but German surrender is a present active participle meaning "buzzing", as in ein surrender Bienenschwarm, "a buzzing swarm of bees". Turkish emerim means "I suck", but Latin emerim means "I may/should/would have bought". I'm sure many, many more ones could be found, one just has to know enough languages well enough. :P --Магьосник (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your wonderful suggestions! Responding to Kpalion: I hadn't even considered Cyrillic variations. I guess I originally would not have allowed them, but this makes for a wonderful twist. I will be weaving a lot of your suggestions into a puzzle I am preparing for my Dad, a logophiliac whose 70th birthday is coming up. Thank again! ---Sluzzelin talk 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just found one more: aber can mean "monkeys", "but", "estuary" or "submerged river valley". — Kpalion^(talk) 08:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

grammar

Is the sentence "The river runs deeply" grammatically correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboi7 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be, but wouldn't make much sense. What you probably want is "the river runs deep". rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason being that "deep" modifies "river", not "runs", correct? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have said 'the river gets deep', because the actual flow of the water is not what determines the depth of the river. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have simply said, "The river is deep." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Using a rivery verb like "runs" makes it a bit more poetic-sounding, even though the technical meaning is just "the river is deep". Compare to (pardon my nerdiness) "the trees are strong, my lord; their roots grow deep", which means the same as "their roots are really deep". Or something like "the water there flows cold" or whatever, which means the same as "is cold". rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare "Still waters run deep", which is slightly different. That's saying it appears to be still or calm on the surface, but down below there's stuff going on. Just like me, really. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Like all of us, really, especially after too much Thai food. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

what is an emergency door cock?

in a bus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.185 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably vandalism of the letter L in "Emergency Door Lock"; the lock for the emergency door at the back of a bus (where it is easier to carry out such vandalism without the driver seeing you). Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. A cock is a type of valve. If the bus has pneumatically powered doors, this is probably a control that modifies the action of the driver's door controls, for use in an emergency. It might allow the door to be opened by hand, or it might allow the door to remain closed when the driver's control normally opens it and another door, or possibly it might allow the bus to be driven with the door open when ordinarily that is not possible.

Here in Toronto the subway trains have hidden controls to be used in certain situations. At one time the positions of two of these controls were marked with the initials DIC for "door-isolating cock", which took that door out of service in case it was malfunctioning, and TCIC for "tripcock-isolating cock". The tripcock was part of the train stop mechanism, but only the one on the front car of the train was supposed to be active; so when a train was put together, the TCIC would be used on the middle cars to deactivate their tripcocks. Then someone apparently got sensitive about the word "cock" and all the DIC and TCIC stickers were changed to DIV and TVIV! --Anonymous, 17:18 UTC, April 30, 2010.

Cock is also another word for handle, but it's often found in Chinese signs, etc. from machine translation. I was thoroughly amused to find a fire hydrant in Shanghai marked "Fire Cock". Steewi (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Native language

How many native languages is the most that one can have? I know that some linguists and language enthusiasts can learn a lot of languages, but I was wondering about native languages. I was thinking about 4, like for a Swiss person, but do Swiss people even learn all four simultaneously? THNX 76.199.144.250 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

See our article on Multilingualism. --Kvasir (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is interesting but doesn't directly address the questions. A more relevant article would be First language. It is very unusual for a person to have more than two native languages. Occasionally children may have three (or conceivably more) native languages. Most people, including most Swiss people, have only one native language. This is the language spoken by one's parents and by most people in one's community. Even in Switzerland, this will be a single language for most people in most communities. People who have more than one native language are typically people whose parents speak a different language than the language dominant in the community and/or who live in a community where there is more than one widely spoken language. I think that few Swiss learn all four official languages of the country. Swiss schools teach in a single main language. Students typically study at a school that teaches in the official version of their native language (or one of their native languages). In primary school, Swiss students study a foreign language in addition to their native language. This is often English. In secondary school, Swiss students study two foreign languages in addition to their native language, one of which must be a foreign language that is one of the official Swiss languages. So most Swiss speak only two of the national languages. They may not be fluent in the second national language, and it is usually not a native language. (This is complicated by the fact that the most widely spoken native language of Switzerland is actually Swiss German, which is not easily intelligible with Standard German, and which some linguists consider a separate language. So most Swiss Germans speak Swiss German natively, Standard German more or less fluently, and two other languages (often French and English) with varying degrees of proficiency.) Marco polo (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is also complicated by the issue of heritage languages: languages that a person may have spoken in the first few years of life but has given up in favor of the dominant language in his community. (For example, a Korean family moves to the US with a 3-year-old baby; he was a Korean speaker as a baby but starts attending US schools and English becomes his primary language, to the point that as an adult he may only be able to speak a little bit of Korean.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found references, but I believe that the comments about Switzerland above are rather Europe-centric. In many parts of Africa and also in Papua New Guinea, I believe that many children grow up fluent in at least three languages - often those of the two parents and a national or regional language. --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "As a child, Charles [ Berlitz] was raised in a household in which (by his father's orders) every relative and servant spoke to Charles in a different language: he reached adolescence speaking eight languages fluently. jnestorius^(talk) 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

May 1

Hospitalised

People taken to hospital and admitted for treatment are "hospitalised".

• But people admitted to an asylum are not "asylumised".
• And people admitted to a clinic are not "clinicised".
• And people sent to prison are not "prisonised" (although they are "imprisoned")
• And children who go to school are not "schoolised".
• And people who attend university are not "universitised".
• And children who live in an orphanage are not "orphanagised".
• And those who spend time in a monastery or a convent are not "monasterised" or "conventised".
• And workers who spend a third of their lives in an office are not "officised".

What's special about hospitals? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is "institutionalise". I'm actually surprised here, the etymology, according to my source is hospital + ise. That doesn't give much scope for being special. [OOI, first use recorded is 1901.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's only a matter of time before those words are in common use, unfortunately. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy game can be played with many parallel words but language has no requirement that a single word expansion must be immediately applied to any others that seem similar. Hospitalization is a word that was invented in the 20th century because it was needed for medical context communication: noting previous hospitalizations is a standard part of a medical history. While hospitalize is only a minimal improvement over admit to hospital, there is no single word equivalent for the noun hospitalization. alteripse (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Romanian also has spitalizare, with the same meaning as hospitalization, and none of the others (except for instituţionalizare). Rimush (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian, which to my regret abounds with foreignisms, has the noun хоспитализация (hospitalizatsiya) and the verb хоспитализирам (hospitaliziram). Luckily, the others don't exist in English, otherwise we would have borrowed them as well! --Магьосник (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In the UK this term is regarded as a frightful americanism. We usually say 'admitted' to hospital. Younger doctors with a viewing history that includes House and ER may use the term. Incidentally, are young Jewish boys taken to a 'circum'? Caesar's Daddy (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Infant Jewish males are traditionally taken to a Mohel (circumciser) where they are circumcised in the ritual called brit/bris milah (covenant [of] circumcision). As with KS's description below, an infant would be very unlikely and unwilling to do this to himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a (poor) joke for Chrissake!!! (learned explanations not required!!) Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hospitalized" has 4 syllables and "admitted to a/the hospital" has 8 syllables. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And? "I'm sorry, I really like you, but I've been thinking a lot and think it might be better if we spend some time apart" has 29 (?) syllables and "Go away" has 3. Doublegood! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The first one is used because the second one could end up with someone being hospitalized. :) I'm talking about the British tendency to shorten things rather than lengthening them. Like pronouncing "forecastle" as "folks'll" instead of "forecastle". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of these verbs are actions the person takes him or herself, so a transitive verb wouldn't really fit. (He was officised? By whom?) However, typically a physician admits a patient to hospital (the patient cannot hospitalize him or herself), so the physician is the one hospitalizing the patient. I'm not sure what admitting to a clinic would mean. Being sent to prison is the other notable action that is taken by a third party, and so it has its own verb as well (imprison). An asylum would also fit the pattern, though the term asylum isn't often used by doctors, at least not where I'm from. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Jarry1250 makes a good point. We add -ise to 'hospital', but -alise to 'institution'. Odd. Probably part of the medical fraternity's tendency to always use a long word, and if one's not available, to make one up. Like the sesquipedelian monstrosity "symptomatology", which is used instead of what they actually mean, "symptoms".
• Caesar's Daddy: I can see your objection to 'hospitalise', but the word isn't just about the fact of being admitted; it extends to the treatment provided there and the length of stay. One can be said to have been hospitalised for 3 months, whereas the admission part takes 15 minutes.
• Knowledge Seeker's point is key: it's about actions taken by a 3rd party, so anything one chooses to do is not a case of being -ised. Kids who hate school, won't go without being forced, and have to be driven there to make sure they actually attend - this might be a case of being "schoolised". Otherwise, there's no real scope to make these words up.
• Thanks, everyone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The "at" in "symptomatology" is in the combining form from Greek. See http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/symptomatology.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we add '-alise' to 'institution' or '-ise' to 'institutional'? I suspect it is the latter. Incidentally, in what way does 'symptomatology' have one and a half feet? --Tango (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to be consistent, you're saying we add -ise to the adjective "hospital", not to the noun "hospital"? Interesting idea. Alternatively, if do we "-ise" the noun 'hospital', why not do the same with the noun 'institution' (> instutionise)?

'Symptoms' is readily available and has only 2 syllables; 'symptomatology' has 6 syllables and any use of it to mean 'symptoms', unless absolutely necessary, is inherently sesquipedelian, not to mention monstrous. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you agreed with my point, though I think your characterization of the medical profession is somewhat unfair. (Bias: I am a physician, but perhaps this gives me a perspective into reasons beyond just wanting to create long words.) In the case of institutionalize, I don't even think the primary definition is the medical one. In any case, it wouldn't make any sense to add -alise to hospital, since it already ends in -al. I don't consider symptomatology and symptoms to be synonymous. If I were to use symptomatology, the sense I'm intending is perhaps "the symptoms or symptom complex typically associated with a disease". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Seeker (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right that "hospitalalise" would be a dumb word. But adding '-alise' to institution looks like the person is being made "institutional", rather than simply being admitted to an institution. What's the -al- doing there? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

The article refers to him as "Leonardo", but shouldn't his surname, "da Vinci", be used instead? In formal writing, a person's surname is supposed to be used to refer to him after his initial introduction. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Da Vinci" is not Leonardo's surname. It's not a name at all; it simply means "of Vinci", Leonardo's birthplace. The Leonardo da Vinci article details this here. --Магьосник (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit like me. Were I a real person, my surname would not be "of Oz". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew we had bots working on Wikipedia but not an AI!! Are you the only non-real person on Wikipedia, Jack? Dismas|^(talk) 23:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heavens no! We've been here for millennia, watching, waiting .... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, this shows how extremely little Dan Brown knows about the topics he writes shoddy novels about. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Juliusz Machulski went even farther in his comedy movie Vinci (about a painting by Leonardo). One of the characters in this film asks his friend, "Why do you always say Vinci and not da Vinci?" The answer: "What, you want me to say da like Russians?" — Kpalion^(talk) 02:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, we have every reason to refer to him as "Leonardo of Vinci", just as we refer to Leonardo of Pisa, Augustine of Canterbury etc. On the other hand, we do talk about "Joan of Arc", when we should really be calling her by her actual name, Jeanne d'Arc, because "d'Arc" was her surname, rather than an indication of where she was from. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Most "comlpex" ("complicated") Chinese character. Any suggestions?

By "complex" I mean "having too many strokes". I'll be more satisfied by an answer considering all four categories: 1. useful characters. 2. rare/ancient charactes. 3. simplified characters. 4. traditional characters. However, partial answers will be appreciated as well. 80.230.208.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

See Chinese character#Rare and complex characters. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The most commonly cited example in the mainland is this one; see the article biáng. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And have a look at the discussion page of biáng for some other suggestions. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you use  ? It looks more impressive:) 80.230.208.205 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all. 80.230.208.205 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nihongo translation please...

Hi. Um... what is the bunny girl on the right saying on this page? (Maybe you need to wait for the animation to load.) Thanks in advance... ^_^; Kreachure (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

She says "The 84th Kasou Taishou will be aired on May 4. The special pre-program will be aired on May 2 in Kantō region. Don't miss them!" Oda Mari (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Doumo arigatou gozaimasu. m(_ _)m Kreachure (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked this before recently, and I answered it....... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Another thing about hospitals...

An American friend once asked me why English people go to hospital, whilst Americans go to the hospital. We also go to church and go to school but go to the theatre, the cinema and the pub. Can anyone explain this please? Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe for the same reason we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are similar discussions from the Archives (search each page for "hospital").

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 April 16#An
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 April 4#"In bed"
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 19#The dictionary
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 23#Leaving out the word "the" when English is not one's primary language
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 March 31#Usage of definite article with noun

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of those are directly relevant (the only one that seems close is the "in bed" discussion). I don't have an answer to the original question, but I can offer some observations:

• The two that can appear article-less in both varieties ("go to church" and "go to school") both refer to habitual activities with regular start and end times. (School is every weekday from something like 7:30-2:30; church is every Sunday morning. Of course, this varies depending on the person, but you know what I mean.) "go to hospital" seems to be an exception. Theater, cinema, and pub are things that are not habitual and regular (of course, they might be for some person, but culturally they are not) and perhaps don't have specific and regular start and end times.
• The article-less ones have article-d equivalents ("go to the church" and "go to the school"), which emphasize the building rather than the activity. The article-d ones have no article-less equivalents (*"go to cinema", *"go to pub"). So it seems that "go to the..." is the 'default' for English, and the article is dropped in some culturally common activities that are discussed a lot.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference is not always about habitual activities. If I worked in a jail, every single working day I would "go to the jail", but I would never "go to jail". But a person who is frequently imprisoned often "goes to jail". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could say the same about "go to court". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Go home vs. go to the home (the old-folk's home). — kwami (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But there's no intermediate option: go to home. Aside: It must be terribly confusing for elderly folk when told they're being taken from the home they've lived in for 65 years, and are being put into a home. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I will tell you what I was taught in my English classes. A noun of that kind without the definite article refers to the institution and a noun with the definite article refers to the particular building. Thus, go to hospital means "get/be hospitalised" (no matter in which hospital); go to prison means "get imprisoned" (no matter where); go to school means "be a student". On the other hand, go to the hospital means "physically go to the [particular] hospital [that is known from the context]" (no matter for what reason), analogously go to the prison/school. What would you, as native English speakers, say about this? --Магьосник (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That does seem to be the general idea (cf. watch TV (a show) vs. watch the TV (make sure no-one takes it), go to bed (to sleep) vs. go to the bed (to say goodnight), etc.). But it's not 100%: it doesn't explain e.g. why we say 'to hospital' in the UK but 'to the hospital' in the US. I think a lot of it is just lexicalized, even if what you were taught was the original motivation. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Then there are clubs: "I'll see you at the club" would be used in reference to a gambling/eating/drinking establishment, but "I'll see you at club" would be about a political/professional group. Nothing to do with how often one attends either of them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., I don't think "I'll see you at club" would ever be correct. I'm not even sure what exactly that signifies — perhaps the equivalent would be "I'll see you at the meeting" or just "I'll see you at the club". In response to the original question, you're asking why there's a difference between the way Americans and the English use the phrase differently? I doubt there's any identifiable reason — the dialects just evolved differently. (I am not a linguist!) — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(UK) I'd say "I'll see you at music club", and at a stretch I'd say "I'll see you at club" if club had become the word we used to refer to a particular political/professional group. To say "I'll see you at the music club" would suggest either a particular location (as opposed to the activity), or that going to the music club wasn't something we usually did. Are these not options in the US? 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Rjanag is onto it: "Go to [church, school, court, home, etc.]" indicates an activity more than a place, as such; "Go to the [hospital, pub, theater, office, etc.]" indicates a place. Regarding clubs, the phrase seems to be to "go clubbing" (not to be confused with activities concerning baby seals). "Go to hospital" or "In hospital" seems to be a British oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Go clubbing" is talking about a completely different sort of club than Jack and I were discussing with "I'll see you at club". That sort of club would be strongly indicated by "I'll see you at the club". As mentioned everywhere upthread, "In hospital" refers to the activity more than "In the hospital", and thus fits the pattern. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(US) "I'll see you at music club" sounds correct to me. "I'll see you at club" sounds a bit off, especially without the context to know that you're not talking about a club as in a disco. Rckrone (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies - seems to be the institution / location split plus a bit of "British oddity". Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

atweene

There's a word, an old English word, "atweene", that i can't find the meaning of. First I thought it may be an old version of 'between', but having now seen it in a number of other contexts I'm almost certain it's not that. Any help you could provide would be most helpful. Thank you. 86.177.7.170 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of the context that you've seen it in? It might help us help you. Dismas|^(talk) 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The OED says "atween" or "atweene" means "between" as a preposition, an as an adverb it is "in between" or "between whiles". For the latter it quotes a couple of Edmund Spenser's works. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaching

What does the word "breaching" mean in the following sentence? "Only after raising the floor of one of the pools, breaching the whale, were trainers able to extract Brancheau from his mouth." The context may be found in paragraph 12 of the following article: Report Reveals New Details of Fatal SeaWorld Attack. I read the Wikipedia article on Whale surfacing behaviour, but I am still confused as to what the sentence in question actually means. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

When a sea creature breaks the surface, it is called "breaching". Usually that's a voluntary behavior. In this case, they raised the pool's floor to force the orca to the surface. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that they pushed the floor of the pool upwards ... and this caused the whale to leap out of the water into the air ... as in the first picture on the page entitled Whale surfacing behaviour? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

I think they're saying that they raised the floor far enough to force the orca to break the surface whether he wanted to or not. FYI, EO indicates "breach"[2] is derived from the same root as "break", and is a special case meaning "to make a hole in something", hence terms like breaching the surface, or the Enterprise suffering a "hull breach". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here is my confusion. In this context, does "breach" mean: (a) that the whale is jumping up into the air (like the photo mentioned in my previous comment); or merely (b) that the head of the whale is simply above the line of water? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

The reason they raised the floor was to retrieve the woman's body and render the orca mostly immobile, as I interpret it. I'm not really certain they used the term in the normal way, as it usually has to do with leaping out of the water. In this case, they pushed the orca out of the water by raising the floor under it (presumably the floor is flow-through). The question would be answered if you could see the video, but it's a "snuff film" in a sense, so it probably won't see the light of day for awhile, maybe not ever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a guess...I'd bet that they drained the pool to a very low level. Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article says they raised the floor. But it could be a combination of both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely people can't 'breach' a whale, the whale can breach the surface or it can 'breach' - period. But I have never seen the verb used like this. Coincidentally it is very close to 'beaching' which means originally to push a floating object onto a beach to gain stability, later it took on the meaning of being stranded for lack of water to float on. If the floor of the pool was raised(!?) it would beach the whale. So maybe it's just a typo. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. It was very helpful. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

May 2

Telephone (song) video

In the video for Telephone (song), in the scene in the diner, Tyrese Gibson gets up and slaps a woman on the butt. Her reaction is presented in Japanese script subtitles. Can somebody tell me what the subtitle says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.215.71 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be "One Piece! ( ワンピース! )" I don't know what it means in this context.--Cam (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can verify that's what it says, however as to what it's supposed to mean here, I have no idea. The word in Japanese can either mean 'dress' (garment) or it can be the title of a Japanese manga/anime. This is all I can think of off the top of my head. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Classical Arabic and Egyptian Arabic

What is the difference between them and show me examples. Goat999 (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Egyptian Arabic article you linked to has a lot detail about that. What else would you like to know? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Junk food

Are Americans as conscious or as alert to the idea of phrase "junk food", and their unhealthyness, as much as people are in the UK for example? I have to admit that even in the UK, a lot of people scoff down junk food without any qualms. Thanks 89.242.97.110 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they are aware, it's just that some don't care, many of them similarly smoke despite knowing it's risks. Also, a lot of those who play the lottery seem to fall into the same group, who either don't believe in statistics or think that those probabilities don't apply to them. StuRat (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Then there's "stealth" junk food, which is disguised as something healthy, like granola bars with extreme amounts of sugar, and, my favorite scam, "vitamin water". StuRat (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right Reference Desk for this kind of question. Your question specifically asks about the "idea" of junk food rather than terminology. -- the Great Gavini 19:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is about how much the phrase "junk food" is used, and the meaning and affect it connotes, so I'd call it Language. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in America "junk food" is a commonly used and understood phrase. Rckrone (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Minimum Sound Range for Human Language

Is there a minimum sound range for human language? By which I mean, certainly it's possible to construct a language without, say, using a "th" sound, or the vowel sound from "boot". But is there a point at which a language simply lacks enough phonemes to be intelligible? I can imagine a hypothetical language with just one sound that uses rhythm to communicate (like Morse Code) -- but would humans be able to use that as a replacement for daily language? I know this is kind of a weird question, but I'd appreciate any insights. 69.120.0.81 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonus sub-question: Is there a human language that uses an especially small amount of phonemes? 69.120.0.81 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Some notable examples of languages with small amounts of phonemes are Hawai'ian and Rotokas. Note, however, that there's quite a bit of allophony for these languages' phonemes. It may be the case that a language with less phonemes is possible but, by the accident of history, doesn't exist. There may be something standing in the way of a two-phoneme language developing naturally so the only way I can think of to test if it's usable is to develop it as an artificial language and then teach it to children in isolation to the exclusion of other languages. Good luck getting a grant for that! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This source says Rotokas is the language with the fewest phonemes, 11. However, the Rotokas language article says Pirahã has been claimed to have even fewer sounds. According to Pirahã language#Phonology, Pirahã can be understood to have as few as 10 phonemes, or as many as 13, depending on how one counts them. --Магьосник (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Solresol words are made up of only seven different syllables. In some sense, they (the syllables) might be considered to be phonemes.

In the usual sense, the phonemes are five consonant sounds and four vowel sounds. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

[I am inserting a parenthetical clarification. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)]

The main disadvantage of a low number of phonemes will be that words and sentences must then be longer, to convey the same amount of info. I can picture that, during a war with a people who use a more advanced language, this inability to communicate quickly on the battlefield could lead to defeat, and thus the adaptation of the more sophisticated language of the conquerers. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at how little you need language to organize groups of people for tasks. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bring the tanks over here. Yes, the ones with the postmodern daisies painted in an off-yellow. Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

translation

en 1663, il épouse Thamar, sœur de Titia, autre fille de Constantin Ier de Moukhran, qu'il enlève à Léon III de Mingrélie (Lévant III Dadiani) et dont il doit divorcer en 1678, pour la rendre à son mari, dont : en 1679, il épouse à nouveau Thamar. Une fois veuve, Thamar se remarie dès 1683 avec Georges III Gouriéli, qui divorce de Daredjan, fille de Bagrat V. Thamar meurt en couche la même année. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Into English? If nobody more linguistically gifted does so in the next half hour, I'll do it with my school-girl French. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You can always give it a start at URLs like babelfish.altavista.com or translate.google.com ... If that isn't good enough, we're happy to help further. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

QEII's Little Spy, can you at least sign your questions, just as a basic courtesy? Anyway, it's "In 1663 he married Tamar, sister of Titia, another daughter of Constantine I of Mukhran, whom he took from Leo III of Mingrelia (Levant III Dadiani) and whom he had to divorce in 1678, in order to return her to her husband" (then it lists their children in the French article where this is from). Then, "in 1679, he married Tamar again. When she was widowed, Tamar remarried, after 1683, George III Gourieli, who had divorced Daredjan, daughter of Bagrat V. Tamar died giving birth the same year." Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

APA Style

I'm looking for (if possible: sourced! thanks!!!) answers to any or all of the following questions:

1. In which order do you cite the following within the text, i.e. if they should all be in the same parentheses? Al-Masri, 2000; Al-Masri & Al-Masri (2000); Al-Masri et al. (2000); Al-Masri & Zinnowitz (2000) ... i.e. where does "et al." go alphabetically?

2. Usually, if you've already cited Al-Masri, Zinnowitz, & Johnson (2000a), the next time you'd cite them as "Al-Masri et al., 2000a" ... but what if now you need to cite both this article and Al-Masri, Zinnowitz, & Johnson (2000b)? "Al-Masri, Zinnowitz, & Johnson, 2000a, 2000b" - i.e. ignoring that you've already given the full citation of 2000a?

3. If you have already used Al-Masri, Goldstein, & Johnson (2000) in a) a footnote or b) an endnote... how do you cite him for the first time in the main text? As "Al-Masri et al., 2000" or writing all three names in full ("Al-Masri, Zinnowitz, & Johnson, 2000")?

4. Reference section: Which part of an online reference (i.e. a reference including a URL) needs to be incursive if the reference is not about a book?

5. Reference section: If you use an unpublished dissertation (i.e. you've read and cited from the full text), which has also been published in Dissertation Abstract International (DAI) - do you mention the DAI reference or not? If so, how?

6. Similarly to the above: How about newspaper articles (New York Times) which are also accessible online? Mention the online reference as if you had never used the original?

Thanks so much!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC) [expanded by Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)]

1. Frequently Asked Questions About APA Style: How do you cite two or more references within the same parentheses? says order the "et al" where the reference would fall alphabetically if written out in full.

6. Frequently Asked Questions About APA Style: How do you cite a newspaper article? implies that you should cite the version, archive or electronic, that you yourself used, but it doesn't say that outright so you might want to dig some more.

2.3.4.5. APA Style Help gives an email address to send questions you can't find in their tutorial, blog or FAQ. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 3

Purpose of colon in IPA?

Someone added colons to several IPA pronunciations (example) for articles on my watchlist a few days ago. Since I can't use IPA, I'm confused — what's the point of the colon? Does it separate syllables? I can't find a colon used in this way in any of the examples found at Wikipedia:IPA for English. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It indicates a long segment. It's not technically a colon, but two small triangles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense; thanks. I can see the triangles when I change to 200% zoom. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(Question hijack!)If it has to be so zoomed in to be able to discern, what's the point of it being triangles? Vimescarrot (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Different people view screens at different sizes and with different fonts. Also, the text should be semantically correct even if the difference between two characters can't be discerned by the naked eye (for the sake of searching text, etc.). This is why we carefully use Cyrillic letters like а, е, ё, ѕ, і, ї, ј, о, р, с, and х when writing Russian, Macedonian, Ukrainian, and Serbian words at Wikipedia, even though the shapes of those letters are identical to the Latin letters a, e, ë, s, i, ï, j, o, p, c, and x. +Angr 09:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe VimesCarrot is referring to an oft-forgotten time back in our distant dark ages when screens and search engines didn't exist. The character in question was originally two triangles to differentiate it from a colon, presumably. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, although in practice, most phonologists can't be bothered to make the distinction, and regularly use the normal typewriter colon (:) to indicate length. In fact, I had to break myself of the habit of using : to indicate length when I started editing Wikipedia. +Angr 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a colon. However, it is not U+003A COLON (:), but rather U+02D0 MODIFIER LETTER TRIANGULAR COLON (ː). See here. 12.53.165.6 (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Short for 'Jeremy'?

On Top Gear, James May will often call Jeremy Clarkson something that sounds like "Jesser" to my American ears. Am I hearing this correctly? Is it short for Jeremy? Dismas|^(talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not short Jeremy in the conventional way, that would be Jerry or Jem. Jezzer is a laddish (schoolboy) way of 'shortening' the name. In the UK people called Barry are occasionally referred to as 'Bazzer'. The most famous owner of this style of name was Paul Gascoigne who was widely known as 'Gazzer'. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. I noted that Clarkson has 3 given names, whose initials are J. C. R. I wondered if he was called "Jay Cee Ar" when he was a kid, and that slurred into "Jesser". But if what you say is true, that's probably it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If what he says is right (and it is), that's definitely it. These nicknames are also common in Australia, but we spell them differently: Bazza, Jezza, Gazza ... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As we also do in the UK. Bazza (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, C. Daddy! I'll add this to the list of things, along with rhyming slang, that I don't understand about slang from that area of the world. Dismas|^(talk) 10:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Replacing /r/ with /z/ seems to be common in the formation of British nicknames. Another example is the character of Gary in The Full Monty, who was called "Gaz". Other sounds can also be substituted for /r/; e.g. /l/ in the name Sally, which was originally a nickname for Sarah, though I wonder how many women called Sally nowadays are actually named Sarah. +Angr 10:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mary -> Molly -> Polly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone named Jeremy will commonly be called Jez in England. The Oxford -er is kind of what's going on when Jez becomes Jezzer, note the mention of Gazza at the bottom of that article. Tinfoilcat (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Top Gear website spells it Jezza. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

[Incidentally, Jerzy is the Polish version of the masculine given name George. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)]

I didn't know that. I always wondered what New Jerzy was named for. +Angr 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was named for Old Jerzy. Hope that helps. Oh, and do you know what rhymes with Orange? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't bank on anyone pronouncing it "noo yezhy".  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Blorenge. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sporange is the usual answer. What rhymes with 'purple', though? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nurple, of course! Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So how do you get from Charles to Chuck (US) and Chas (UK)? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Chuck, but I assume Chas is from the abbreviation "Chas." that used to be common, like "Wm." for "William". +Angr 10:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have heard Chazzer! Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

All Australian Sharons eventually get called Shazza. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd've thought they'd all eventually get called Sheila. +Angr 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's extraordinarily outdated, Angr. I have an aunt (dead; she'd be 90 now if she were still kicking) and a cousin (aged c. 65) named Sheila, but they're the only Sheilas I've ever known. Seriously. The only notable Australian Sheila on our list was born in 1916. It's as completely obsolete these days as Archibald, Ethel or Myrtle for actual people's names; and it's virtually never heard in reference to generic or random or anonymous women. It's part of the lore of how Australians express themselves and it may once have reflected reality, but certainly doesn't any more. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Regular parlance on Neighbours, though, 20 years or so ago..... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I sort of rest my case. Those people and their counterparts on similar shows like Home and Away all seem terminally addicted to milkshakes, which in the real world have become more or less as obsolete in Australia as Sheilas and cobbers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But you say that and you ruin the whole idea behind Sheilas' Wheels. "Australia is one of the only places in the world where one woman's name is an expression used to refer to all women." How could you bust the myth! :D Maedin\^talk 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My quest for Truth overrides all such petty considerations. If you caaan't haandle the Truth, you cannot come with me. In the interests of international fairness and acknowledging that not literally 100% of them are actually like this, I'm even prepared to ditch the image of the fat, camera-toting, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing, loud-mouthed, crass, vulgar, ignorant American tourist.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that one's not true, either?  :-/ Clearly time to rearrange my perceptions then!  :) Maedin\^talk 22:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Arabic name of the Mossad

I am looking at http://www.mossad.gov.il/Arabic/AboutTheMossad.aspx, which states the Arabic name of the Mossad. I cannot tell which string of characters is the official Arabic name of the Mossad. Which one is it? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

الموساد (which includes the definite article al-). +Angr 19:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) الموساد --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. What about the full name of the Mossad (in English it is "Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations")? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for that you'll need someone who actually knows Arabic, instead of someone (like me) who merely recognizes the letters of the alphabet! :-) +Angr 19:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's Arabic: الموساد للاستخبارات والمهمامّ الخاصّة. It's interesting that it's still called "al-Mossad", since "mossad" is a Hebrew word, not Arabic. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm trying to transliterate it, but my Arabic is extremely rusty and I'm not sure how the word for "operations" is pronounced. The rest of it is "al-Mossad" or I guess more accurately "al-mūsād li'l-istikhbārāt wa'l-(mahmāmm?) al-khāṣṣa." Adam Bishop (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Adam :) - I added it to the Mossad article. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason that one word looked so unusual is because it is apparently a misspelling on the official Mossad website. There are other Google results with a spelling that looks like a proper word, and is actually in the dictionary: الموساد للاستخبارات والمهام الخاصة, in which case the word is "مهام", "mahāmm". Adam Bishop (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this Dutch?

I can almost understand this! http://www.mindz.com/plazas/Getting_Things_Done_%28GTD%29/blog Is it mainstream Dutch, or perhaps Fresian which I understand is closer to English? Thanks 92.28.253.63 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's Dutch. Xenon54 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Arabic names of some Israeli subjects

Here is another request for Arabic names of Israeli subjects

This time there is no official website for the official names. This question needs someone good at Arabic.

The following need their Arabic names:

• Israeli cuisine
• Eilat Airport
• Ovda Airport
• Sde Dov Airport (for this name and the Dov Hoz Airport name)
• Arkia Israel Airlines
• Israir Airlines

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

مطبخ إسرائيلي is Israeli cuisine. Arabic has no article about it, but it is listed at their Middle Eastern cuisine article. Based on other airport articles the airports should be easy; مطار إيلات is Eilat. We'll have to find Arabic spellings of the other places and names before we can figure out the rest (I'll keep looking when I have more time). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that اوفـدا‎ مطار is Ovda Airport. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

مطار سدي دوف is Sde Dov Airport - they didn't bother translating "field" into Arabic. There is even an Arabic article, it's just not interwikied anywhere. There is one Google result (from an Israeli government site) for Dov Hoz Airport, مطار دوف هوز. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, the Arabic article about Ben Gurion airport lists some airlines: خطوط إسرإير is Israir Airlines and خطوط أركيا is Arkia Airlines. That didn't take as long as I thought it would. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing them out to me - I added the Arabic, and I interwikied the Arabic article. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Colon

What is the proper usage of this punctuation mark ':'? please give me examples of correct usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.230.67 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See Colon (punctuation). Algebraist 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 4

Specially and especially

I don't understand the difference between the above two words?? --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

'specially is a truncated form of especially. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It can be that, but typically, especially is the adverb from especial, while specially is the adverb from special. These words are related, but are not quite synonymous. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but no one says "especial". Likewise, no one says "specially" in its 'special' sense ("in a special way", as in "I sang the song really specially"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes special is used. Furthermore, what is the difference between special and especial. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course "special" is used; the only words I said are not usually used are "especial" and "specially".

As for your question, see wikt:special and wikt:especial on our sister project, Wiktionary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Buy our product in these specially marked packages." Is that really a contraction of "especially"? I don't think so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't thought of that. Especially is typically used to modify adjectives ("he's especially tall"), not verbs. so I guess this is a legitimate, albeit rather fossilized, use of specially.

But I still maintain that people don't really say especial. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone say "especial", aside from a native speaker of Spanish trying to say "special" in English, but that's a separate issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And "specially" is not all that "fossilized". Here's a cereal ad that uses it,[3] in fact cereal is what I had in mind when I brought it up. So I wonder if it's used for anything other than advertising? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(That's what I meant by "fossilized"—I can't think of any other contexts where it's used productively. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

If you google ["specially marked"] and then ["specially"] by itself, you'll get tons of references, many of them, though not all, connected with advertising; and some of them, though by no means all, being used where "especially" would make more sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To further muddy the waters, here are EO's lookups on "special" and "especial": [4] [5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fowler's says "(E)special(ly). The characteristic sense of the longer adjective and adverb is per-eminence or the particular as opposed to the ordinary, that of the others being limitation or the particular as opposed to the general". The first example given is "He is my especial friend" which would mean "bestestest friend ever and ever" whereas "special friend" merely means a good friend, perhaps one of a number of good friends. It depends a lot on context but "especially prepared" is most likely wrong as something might be specially prepared for a situation but the preparations probably are not totally unique and unprecedented while "a specially critical situation" sounds really not as critical as an especially critical one. Fowler's notes though that special is largely taking the place of especial. meltBanana 12:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Especially prepared" could easily be correct, depending on the context. Maybe someone packed way more stuff than necessary for an overnight trip or for camping in the backyard—he's not just prepared, but especially prepared. Specially prepared, on the other hand, has a sense more like "I prepared this meal just for you", although personally I don't hear it used like that and I certainly don't hear "specially critical situation". I think these are dictionary words that no one (at least no one in my dialect) uses. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the specially + verb construction is actually a misused word in place of specifically. As in, "The cereal boxes with the free toy inside have been specifically marked to note the giveaway." kind of thing. Matt Deres (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. That conveys no more information than "The cereal boxes with the free toy inside have been marked to note the giveaway" - so 'specifically' is tautologous here. But 'specially' has a role to play, particularly in a marketing context. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I take "specially marked" to be equivalent to "marked uniquely", i.e. marked differently from other boxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all OR, but if someone told me, "I made this meal especially for you.", I would understand it to mean that they made the meal with me, as opposed to anyone else, in mind. If they told me, "I made this meal specially for you", I would understand it to mean that they made the meal in a special manner, and the meal is for me. In the second case, you could just as easily put "specially" in front of "made"; if you put "especially" in front of "made", it would be odd, but I guess it would mean that someone made, rather than bought, the meal, and you would probably hear them emphasize "made".

Specialness is something inherent to an entity or process. The fallacy of "special pleading" occurs when someone argues that x, which is a member of X, should not be subject to rules that apply to X because of a special property of x sets it apart from the other members of X. Especialness, on the other hand, requires a relation between the entity or process and something else that is unique or distinctive or noteworthy. Often, the something else is implicit, as in "I especially want to visit Paris" (as opposed to other places, or, if "visit" is emphasized, as opposed to living there or changing planes there). So, while "I made this meal specially" makes sense, "I made this meal especially" doesn't make sense, unless "this" in emphasized and what's meant is that the speaker made this particular meal rather than some other meal, and in this case, even, it is unidiomatic. If the speaker made several meals but devoted extra effort to this meal, then he or she could say, "I worked hard on this meal especially"; if he or she said, "I worked hard on this meal specially", it would sound odd, maybe even ungrammatical, and would, to me at least, be interpreted to mean that he or she worked hard on the meal and the work was special (in some other way than what "worked hard" indicates).--Atemperman (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To my ears especially is a cutesy version of specially. Specially is for standard use. Especially is for use when one wants to add flair to the word. But please correct me if I am wrong. I did no research. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. In my idiolect at least, I can say "X is especially good" but certainly not *"X is specially good". Like I said above, especially goes with adjectives (for me at least), and specially with verbs if anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. So, I guess there are areas of overlap and areas in which only one of those two words will do.

I made this cake especially for you.

I made this cake specially for you.

I think in the above two instances either word will do. So I would think the above usage illustrates an area of overlap. To add flair to the statement, one would choose especially. Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd generally hear a difference in those sentences.

"I made this cake especially for you." - I made this cake for you in particular, putting in an effort so that you might have cake.

"I made this cake specially for you." - I made this cake in a special way, for you. This would be an odd thing to say.

So I would end up agreeing with Rjanag, since the uses of "specially" mostly do not apply to my life. But I would probably parse "specially" in the second sentence as intending "especially", if that was what you seemed likely to mean. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

German question

I came across this kind of German sentence:

A muß als B kürzer sein.

The intended meaning is "A must be shorter than B". But does it mean that? To my ear, it sounds like it means instead "as B, A must be shorter" and the correct way would be A muß kürzer sein als B. Am I correct here? JIP | Talk 05:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it does mean "A must be shorter than B", but it's definitely an unusual word order. The expected word orders are A muss kürzer als B sein and A muss kürzer sein als B. But despite its unusual word order, it doesn't wind up meaning anything different. +Angr 05:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If the sentence were Latin, this would be a most expected word order. I know it's pretty improbable, but could the author of the sentence have been somehow influenced by Latin? --Магьосник (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A big mistake of mine. A Latin sentence would probably look something like this: A quam B brevior esse debet, which when translated word by word into German, gives A als B kürzer sein muß. Anyone, please correct me if I'm talking nonsense! --Магьосник (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite agree with Angr. Consider the following variation: "Ihr müsst als Polizisten besser sein" versus "Ihr müsst besser sein als Polizisten."

To me, the second version means "You must be better than policemen", while the first one can mean something like "As policemen, you must be better" meaning "In your function/position as policemen, you must be better (than normal civilians)" or "Being policemen, you must be better." So, I guess "A muß als B kürzer sein" can also mean "When A is perceived/acting as B, it must be better shorter (than when it isn't)." No references for the moment, but this is what my gut tells me. I would certainly pick A muß kürzer sein als B or A muß kürzer als B sein to lose ambiguity. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're a native speaker and I'm not so I'll defer to your judgment. I do think it depends a lot on what A and B are, though. If B is something that A can't act as / be perceived as, then the sentence probably would be interpreted as a weird word order meaning "A must be shorter than B". But if A can act as / be perceived as B, then you're right. And I'd certainly interpret "Ihr müsst als Polizisten besser sein" as you did (either "As policemen, you must be better [than civilians]" or "As policemen, you must be better [than you have been up till now]"). +Angr 10:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if I wanted to express the "as policemen" phrase unambiguously, I'd write "Als Polizisten müsst Ihr besser sein." The word order suggested by JIP should perhaps be avoided altogether. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, native speaker here. A muß als B kürzer sein would mean something like A must be shorter when used as B or As B, A must be shorter. Might make sense on some kind of assembly manual, like, trim part A to not exceed size nnn when used in place of B. ;-)

A muß kürzer sein als B would be the most common way to phrase A must be shorter than B. -- 78.43.60.58 (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally agreed with those saying it means "(perceived/used) as B, A must be shorter." BTW, in that meaning it's a very common word order (compare Sluzzelin's example), and I daresay it's even more common than introducing the sentence with "als B" (unless that aspect should be stressed of course, but that's another topic). It only sounds odd because it uses the placeholders A and B instead of "real words."

There is no way this sentence means "A is shorter than B" (= comparison) in German. Don't ask me for a grammatical reason, but German doesn't allow to express a comparison of A and B with that word order. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

After thinking about this some more and going through other examples, I think "als" has to follow the comparative adjective ("kürzer als") in order to to mean "than" in the comparative sense. It doesn't have to follow immediately ("kürzer [...] als" is possible too), but it cannot precede the adjective. (I'm sure there is a more linguistically or grammatically sound way of phrasing this). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Als Martin bin ich kleiner, als Johann nicht. Is that grammatical in the meaning "I'm shorter than Martin but not than Johann"? +Angr 08:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'd understand it as "When I am (being) Martin, I am shorter/smaller. When I am Johann, I am not." It could be said by an actor referring to different roles, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The dual meaning of "als" ("than"/"as") makes this a bit trickier. I'm trying to come up with an analogous example where the prepositioning would simply render the sentence ungrammatical, without any other meaning, but so far I couldn't think of anything. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I was hoping it would be possible to topicalize "als Martin" by fronting it (the way you can topicalize a direct object by fronting it, e.g. Martin mag ich gerne, Johann nicht), but I guess it isn't. My nonnative intuition of German is good enough to know that *Martin bin ich kleiner als, Johann nicht is ungrammatical. +Angr 09:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now I must ask you. Is the following sentence grammatical in English:

"Than Martin(,) I am shorter."

? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but "Martin, I am shorter than" is. +Angr 10:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, wow! I wouldn't have guessed, though now I can sort of hear it with a strong emphasis on Martin (As in your example "Martin, I am shorter than, but not Johann.") Learned something new, thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 10:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To topicalize "als Martin", you'd have to say "Kleiner als Martin bin ich, kleiner als Johann nicht" (you'd differentiate between topicalizing "kleiner" and topicalizing Martin by stressing the one or the other). I'm not entirely sure about the rule for that, but Sluzzelin seems to be right about "als" having to follow "kleiner" -- Ferkelparade π 11:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What if you use denn to mean "than" rather than als? How do things like "A muss denn B kürzer sein" or "Denn Martin bin ich kleiner, denn Johann nicht" sound? I know that using denn in the meaning of "than" sounds pretty odd anyway except in ...denn je and when what's being compared already starts with als (e.g. "Putin ist erfolgreicher als Premierminister denn als Präsident"), but putting that aside, are these sentences better than their equivalents with als, since denn can't mean "as"? +Angr 11:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

people speaking hindi alone

May i please know how many people speak Hindi ALONE (exception: hindi + english) and what percentage of the people speak Tamil alone (exception: tamil + english) or Tamil including other languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.50.214 (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you are looking for. Do you want numbers of people who speak only Hindi or only Tamil as monolinguals? Or do you want numbers of people who speak Hindi as monolinguals as well as those who speak Hindi and English, but no other language; and those who speak Tamil as monolinguals as well as those who speak Tamil and English but no other language? A further area of uncertainty is how broadly you want to define Hindi. Do you want to include only those who speak Standard Hindi, or do you want to define Hindi more broadly to include speakers of all variants based on Khari boli or Hindustani (which would include Urdu)? Or, do you want to include people who speak any of the dialects often considered dialects of Hindi, even though many of these are much further from Standard Hindi than is Urdu? It is difficult to get reliable numbers just for speakers of Hindi as a native language because of differences in the definition of Hindi. I am not aware of any statistics on those who speak Hindi (however it is defined) alone, or just Hindi and English. Nor am I aware of such statistics for Tamil, or just Tamil and English. The statistics that exist give 1) numbers of people who speak either of these languages as a first or native language and 2) total numbers that speak either of these languages, including those whose first or native language is not either of these languages. Both sets of numbers would include people who speak other languages in addition Hindi or Tamil without identifying what those other languages are, so that we can't isolate those who speak only English in addition to Hindi or Tamil. Marco polo (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he is asking about:

• How many people can speak only, Hindi or Hindi+English, no other formulas.
• How many percentage of people (out of total world's population) can speak only, Tamil or Tamil+English, no other formulas.

--Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 09:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I need to know the Total number of people speaking hindi (either alone or combined with english but should not include other languages). Total number of people speaking tamil (either alone or combined with ANY language). I think it is clear now. Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.50.214 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello 125.21.50.214. The question is actually complicated to answer, because it turns out statistics on second languages are hard to find. I can get you started, though.

* Our article on Hindi says Hindi is the first language for 490 million people and the second language for between 120 and 225 million people. There are slightly different figures given in the Census of India article. It's going to be difficult to find any statistics that get to the level of detail needed to figure out how many of these speak no other language or only English.

* Our article Tamil language says 66 million people speak Tamil as a first language (again the Census of India article has a slightly smaller number). You will need to keep looking, however, for statistics on how many people also speak Tamil as a second language.

So, very very roughly, your answer is going to be probably less than 500 million for Hindi and more than 65 million for Tamil. You might want to check back for a couple of more days in case anyone else has better luck searching. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Phonetics

What's the difference between a word that's written in phonetics /like.this/ or [like.this]? ChrisDHDR 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, it's a distinction between a broad transcription (virgules) and a narrow transcription (brackets). See Phonetic transcription#Narrow versus broad transcription and International Phonetic Alphabet#Brackets and phonemes. Deor (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference is between phonological underlying representations and surface pronunciations. For example, the underlying representation of bank is /bænk/, but it's pronounced as [bæŋk]. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, slashes are also used to indicate broad phonetic transcription and brackets narrow phonetic transcription, so that bank is broadly /bæŋk/ and narrowly [b̥æ̃ŋkˀ] or the like. +Angr 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To make it more confusing, broad phonetic transcription can also be given between brackets. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true. The difference is not set in stone—people adopt ad-hoc transcription conventions for the task at hand. When in doubt, it's always best to check what the standard in a particular article is (in the cases where it's important, the author will usually mention it early in the article with something along the lines of "in this article I use square brackets for X and slashes for Y). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

active voice passive voice?

In a MA thesis, a student who is writing in english as a second language, writes the following:

"It is investigated which measures both parties agreed upon to resolve their conflict. Furthermore it is analyzed to what extent these measures have in fact been implemented. Finally it is explored in what ways unresolved conflict issues continue to impact the lives of Nicaraguans today."

This seems awkward to me in regular english, but I'm not sure how to explain what is wrong grammatically, or how to correct the text. Any suggestions? Thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.238.113 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of an "impersonal passive", which is fine in Latin, but a little bit dubious in English (especially when it calls attention to itself as a kind of constantly-repeated stylistic tic). AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is awkward but I think not quite "wrong". I agree with AnonMoos that this kind of structure should be avoided and certainly not repeated. I would recast this as "This thesis investigates ... It analyzes ... Finally, it explores ...". The student has probably been told to avoid first-person and second-person pronouns in academic writing, but hasn't been shown the kinds of structures that work. Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Marco polo. Rather than "it is..." and a past tense - which is a construction I found occurred a lot in the North of England - use the present tense, active voice. (No doubt someone with more current grammatical expertise will be along to tell you the exact terminology, but hey I finished teaching English 15 years ago!) --TammyMoet (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As Marco polo says, this construction is not actively incorrect, but does seem more awkward than it need be. Some academic establishments are, or used to be, quite rigid about required styles in theses and similar papers. If the one concerned here still insists on the passive voice, one (of several) minimal but more natural way in which the passage could be recast more naturally is as follows:

"The measures that both parties agreed upon to resolve their conflict are investigated. Furthermore, the extent to which these measures have in fact been implemented is analyzed. Finally, the ways that unresolved conflict issues continue to impact the lives of Nicaraguans today are explored."

It might be useful to consult some recent past theses on similar topics in the establishment's library to see what has lately been deemed acceptable. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing is a style issue which will depend on what subject or publication you're writing for. In technical writing, the impersonal passive is sometimes required as standard. A thesis is clearly not supposed to be written in "regular English", but rather in the accepted style of the people who will be marking it. It is entirely possible that this is the recommended style: if this is an excerpt from the summary, I'd think this style was quite appropriate. I'd check what guidance they had been given before recommending changes: they surely have a style guide, if only a couple of pages in a larger booklet. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of style, this sentence is questionable at best; I'm not even sure if it's grammatical to use an expletive with this verb. We can say "it is known that...", "it is said that...", "it is shown that...", etc., but not *"it is eaten that...", *"it is played that...". In generative terms, this is explained by positing that only verbs that take a CP (or proposition) as their argument can be in this construction. Investigate is only marginal in that sense (the only way I can use it grammatically like that is "this experiment investigates whether X can Y". rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is presumably a thesis submitted to satisfy the requirements for a degree. I suppose that someone at the institution where the thesis will be filed could have created a requirement that theses must use this kind of awkward and opaque structure (though I doubt it). If so, the requirement is deplorable, but it will have to be met. However, at the institution where I completed my postgraduate degrees, my committee would not have accepted such contorted prose. Marco polo (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What seems most likely to me is that it's a thesis from a foreign institution in the department where they write their theses in English. I see this sort of thing a lot in, for example, psychology or neuroscience (or English departments) in Taiwan where part of the exercise is to write your thesis in English; in many of those the committee also is composed of non-native speakers, so some errors slip by. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(Of course, when I say "foreign" I mean "not in the US, UK, Australia, or another English-speaking country". Bad, I know, but you know what I mean... rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Normally, I'd have said the tortured structure was a clear error, and unlikely to be mandatory. However, notice that each sentence has clearly been arranged to bring a highly specific verb ("investigated", "analysed", "explored") to the front in the same form. Given the particular verbs used, it seems plausible that this is a required style: this should be checked before suggesting they change it. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1.) Ask what's common in the field. Fields differ in whether they allow first person usage, and yes, some may consider "weird" structures normal (jargon). 2.) Context and tense: There's a difference (I believe) between "It is analyzed" (= this study does it; there's actually an identifiable actor) and "it has been analyzed" (= some other people out there have done so; you describe the general situation, not stressing the actor(s)). At least in my own field, the latter seems to be quite common. Maybe if you point out that difference, the author of the thesis will understand when to avoid such structures and when it's okay? Just my 2 Nicaraguan centavos... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is not a second-language issue but simply the author trying to avoid using the word "I," which he/she may have been told does not belong in academic writing. The use of the passive voice would sound just as awkward in Spanish, I think, assuming that's the student's native language. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May 5

Countries ending with -stan

What's with all the countries ending with -stan? (Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) --75.33.219.230 (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You may find the answer you need by taking a look at the -stan article. --Магьосник (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent article on which to land. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

flowery toast

"At large banquets characteristic of the time, flowery toasts were proposed to the president, to the Republic, and to its democratic ideals. ..."

Somebody please tell me the meaning of "flowery toast". Thank you in advance for your kindness.210.66.171.178 (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Ann

In this context, flowery means elaborate or grandiloquent, using very pompous language. A flowery toast thus means an elaborate, verbose, or grandiloquent toast. Intelligentsium 02:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you need an even simpler answer than that: the toast use a great many more words than were necessary. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And remember that a toast here means a speech, not food. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that a flowery toast uses more words than necessary, but I think not just any words. The toast would use lots of flattering, positive, and praising words. The toast would also aim to be pretty, like flowers. (However, to our ears it might sound more bombastic than pretty.) Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

http://eupa.ca/

The comment on May 04, 2010 mentions "boat race". Is this some kind of clique? In any case, what is its etymology and meaning?174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See Boat race (game). caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Old Latin verses New Latin

Is "Old Latin" and "New Latin" that much different? Is there other versions of Latin? What was the Latin last used? Approximately when were these various versions of Latin in use?--LordGorval (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You can click on the links in the table below to read about the various periods into which Latin usage has been divided. You may want to start with History of Latin. Deor (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Dost thou know a website whence Shakespearian prose cometh forth from the tongue of our times?"

Does anyone know where there is a good translating program that translates modern english into old english, like Shakespearian? Google Translate does not have that and I couldn't find any websites that actually have such programs. Also, which do you think would be the easiest to learn: Kanji, Katakana, or Hiragana? 64.75.158.193 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Shakespearean English is not Old English. It's Early Modern English. As for katakana, hiragana, and kanji, which one being the easiest to learn would largely depend on you, your learning methods, and your reasons for learning. If you are learning because you want to learn Japanese, I'd do them all, because you'd have to in the end anyway. Generally, though, the path taken would be to learn by concentrating on hiragana, katakana, and kanji in that order (but of course, doing them all to varying degrees at the same time). Some people, though, learn katakana first, because this is used for foreign loanwords in Japanese (as well as writing your own name) and would therefore make it easier for you to read stuff on a menu (in a restaurant serving non-Japanese food). As I say, though, it depends on your reasons for learning. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering what an abysmal job machine translation services translating into Modern English do, I wouldn't trust the results of one designed to translate into either Early Modern English or Old English, even if one exists. +Angr 13:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Angr, I think we should be thankful that machine translation services are so bad. In fact, they do a great job - keeping some of us IN a job! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I wasn't thankful they do such a bad job translating. After all, translating English for a living is the only thing keeping me from having to (shudder) teach English for a living! +Angr 13:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

KageTora -- Katakana and Hiragana both have only about 50 basic characters each, and in modern usage, each kana or kana+modifier combination has one constant phonemic sound value (with very limited exceptions); while with kanji, basic Japanese literacy requires knowing almost 2,000 of them, and many kanji can have multiple radically divergent sound values. I really don't know of any reason why learning kana wouldn't be vastly easier than learning kanji for English speakers (unless they have already learned to read Chinese)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, AnonMoos, but which part of "concentrating on hiragana, katakana, and kanji in that order" and, in fact, the rest of my post do you find confusing? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The part where you said "As for katakana, hiragana, and kanji, which one being the easiest to learn would largely depend on you, your learning methods, and your reasons for learning". I really don't think that's true -- kana is much easier to learn than kanji for ordinary typical English speakers. AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that single sentence in isolation does not represent the posting as a whole. I then went on to recommend an order that most people generally follow when learning. I decided that it was unnecessary to say that it was easier that way, as it's common sense - why would most people follow a more difficult pattern? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dang, I ask a question, then wait for a day for an answer, and I almost get an argument! You guys are awesome! quite entertaining. Anyway, I guess I will take katakana and hiragana lessons first, then learn kanji later, based on your advice, because I do believe that kanji was used in early Japan while the other two are mainly used to add new characters to translate foreign words, and is therefore slightly easier to a degree for english speaking people, correct? 64.75.158.193 (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Table about Concerns

In this table there are items where I am not sure what they include: Only concerns about things which have already begun, or also concerns about things which are likely to happen later, and which the person in question is afraid of.

On the second page, under the title "End-of-life Concerns", I find the item "Inadequate pain control or concern about it". I assume that here they found it necessary to mention both: inadequate pane control which a person has already experienced, and inadequate pain control which a person may experience later but which the person has not yet experienced. Did I get it right?

Another item is "losing autonomy". There they did not make such a difference. Do you think that here "losing autonomy" refers only to persons who already have begun to loose their autonomy, or do you think that this includes persons who have not yet begun to loose their autonomy but who have reasons to believe that they will begin to loose their autonomy soon?

Then there is the item "Losing control of bodily functions". Do you think this includes any bodily functions which a person wishes to control? For example the bodily functions which enable him to move a cup of tea to his mouth without spilling any tea? Or do you think it is a euphemism for "beginning to become incontinent"?

Thanks in advance. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The last one is generally a euphemism for incontinence. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, any reference to "bodily functions", in any context, is most likely to be about the elimination of waste products, rather than, say, the use of the hands to shuffle cards, or even the use of the genitals to have sex. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers to my last question.
There are still my other questions:
Do you think that the item "losing autonomy" includes concerns which are only concerns about the future,
or do you think it is only about losing autonomy which has already begun? -- Irene1949 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In that table, "losing autonomy" is the same as the other concerns in that section: it refers to losing autonomy more and more as time passes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A E I O U

There are, in English, some words that contains all five vowels: a, e, i, o, u (I know that sometimes Y and W are considered vowels too). For example: abstemious, arterious, facetious, anemophilous, sacrilegious (and, if you consider Y, facetiously)... Now, I know that the shortest possible English all-vowels word is eunoia. In French is oiseau (bird), In Italian aiuole (flowerbeds). Do you know their equivalents in other languages (Dutch, Swedish, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Polish, Hungarian...)? --151.51.60.165 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What about compound words? A sort of famous Finnish one is "Hääyöaie", loosely translated as "wedding night intention". Hää = wedding, yö = night, aie = intent/intention. Worth noting that "y" is always a vowel in Finnish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.87.134 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. There's no "u" in that. I just always found it amusing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.87.134 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow... In the case of Finnish, the umlauted vowels are counted as indipendent letters? However, I forgot to say that words must have each vowel exactly one time (no repetitions). This [6] page seems to state that in Spanish the words are euforia, aguiero, aquenio, euboica, eubolia and eufonía, a letter more than English/French/Italian. --151.51.60.165 (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in Finnish the umlauted vowels definitely are independent; they have different names, and in the alphabet they come after Z, as in "...XYZÅÄÖ". In speech they are also always pronounced differently from the "un-umlauted" ones. "Å" which is Swedish (our other national language) has a diacritic ring, not an umlaut, so I'm not counting it here. Anyway, I'm not helping... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.87.134 (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)