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

July 14

Cyrillic to Latin

бял

I tried three different online translators, and they gave me three different results: "bial", "byal", and "bjal". --138.110.206.101 (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are all different spellings of the same sound, [bjal] in IPA. Which spelling to use probably depends on what language this is (Cyrillic and Latin are alphabets, not languages; different languages use them in different ways). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian --138.110.206.101 (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then per Bulgarian language#Alphabet, it should probably be byal (using the official Bulgarian romanization standard). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary here [1] gives бял > byal. Note that japanese チェレン and ベル probably refer to generic slavic roots for black and white, instead of specifically Bulgarian. They are common to a lot of slavic languages: Bosnian: bijela, Croatian: bijela, Czech: bílá, Polish: biel, Old Church Slavonic: бѣлъ, Russian: белый, Serbian: бела, Slovak: biely, Slovene: bel, Ukrainian: білий.
Or Bulgarian: черно, Croatian: crna, Czech: čerň, Polish: czerń, Russian: чёрный, Serbian: црна, Slovak: čierny, Slovene: črn, Ukrainian: чорний. --151.51.156.20 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

бял is the masculine singular form of the Bulgarian adjective "white", and it's also its base form, so it is бял that one would expect to find against "white" in an English-Bulgarian dictionary. The official system of romanisation of Bulgarian requires that the rendering of the letter я should be "ya", therefore бял is byal. But note that this system is often not observed, especially in informal contexts, so bial and bjal could serve as transliterations as well. There is also an unstandardised Bulgarian chat alphabet, which is very widely used informally when sending Latin-script Bulgarian-language text messages when Cyrillic is not available, and which allows Latin characters, numbers, and various other symbols. It could serve as an analogy of the Arabic chat alphabet or Greeklish, and any language rules are barely observed when it is being used. It could give results for бял such as bql (most often), byl, b9l, or others, in addition to the above mentioned byal, bial and bjal. --Магьосник (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese name for...fashion designer?

Resolved

Hi folks! Let's see if anyone can help me out here. I've got a blurry text from a fashion magazine to translate, and one part of it has the name of a piece of clothing (it's a blouse) and next to it the price in JPY, then something in brackets which is hard to make out. By comparing with other parts of the text, I can guess it's the name of a fashion designer or company. Problem is, I can read all of it except the first katakana. So, what I see is, ＊ラミューム (where the ＊ represents the blurred kana I cannot see). Googling the bit that I can see doesn't help at all, because there is a plant called a ラミューム, and I just get a load of hits for that. Can anyone guess what it is? For those who can't read katakana, the above says '*ramyuumu'. Also, for various reasons, I cannot upload the picture, so we have to make do with my explanation. Cheers, folks! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

By a process of elimination, you can do a Web search for the string of characters, substituting each of the different katakana for the unknown character.—Wavelength (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of that, but while that takes a little time (time which I could spend actually finishing the rest this translation), I thought it might be easier to ask you guys. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be a brand name, Flammeum/フラミューム. I searched "ブラウス" and "Xラミューム" as Wavelength suggested. It took only a few minutes. Oda Mari (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mari. Oddly, I am sure I did search for フラミューム and got zero results, and now I search again I get 115,000 results.... Anyway, I suppose my question should have been 'what is the best wild card for searching in Japanese?'. Cheers, though, that was the one I wanted! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What did you use for the search? When you want to search something Japanese, you can have better results by using Google Japan or Yahoo Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I used Google UK the first time (yesterday) and got zero results. I then used Google UK the second time (today) and got 115,000 results. As I say, I don't know what I did wrong the first time (unless it suddenly became popular overnight :)). I used Google Japan just now, and got the same 115,000 results as Google UK. Anyway, thanks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

When the pronoun is the object of one verb and subject of another

I suppose the classic example is the Biblical one:let he who is without sin cast the first stone / let him who is without sin cast the first stone. The hypothetical innocent is the object of the verb to let, but the subject of the verb to throw: should the sentence therefore have an object pronoun, or a subject pronoun. What is it that determines the correct pronoun? Kevin McE (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It should have an object pronoun. It's the "who is without sin" clause that confuses people: if you leave it out, you get Let him cast the first stone which is unambiguously correct. No native English speaker would dream of saying *Let he cast the first stone. Incidentally, the actual wording in the King James Version is "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." +Angr 10:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be him. You could classify statements in the form "Let [direct object] [verb]" as a type of imperative or jussive in English. This expression is akin to "May [subject] [verb]". These two, I think, are really the only ways of forming a third-person imperative/jussive in English. Both of these expressions require the second verb to be in the bare infinitive form. In terms of the deep structure of the sentence, it is true that, in your example, him is really the subject of the sentence, even though it is in the objective case. However, in more traditional terms, the subject of the sentence is "you", supposedly implicit in the imperative form of the verb let. Marco polo (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, none of the common English Bible translations use the subject pronoun. Indeterminate (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 November 9#Ho hum he him, I smell the blood of a grammarian.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Similar expressions are found at http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-12.htm and http://bible.cc/revelation/22-11.htm

and http://bible.cc/revelation/22-17.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Human Resources Associate or HR Associate

Hello there, I am currently applying a job in a HR and management consulting organization. In this Link they are looking for fresh grad for the position of Human Resources Associate. At the bottom of that page they said to mention "HR Associate" in the subject line of candidates email. I want to keep resume subject precise. So I have written "Human Resources Associate of an established company". Is it grammatically correct or should I go for "HR Associate of an established company". Thank you--180.234.156.251 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to say "an established company"? The email address on that page is an "info@..." address so it would typically receive all sorts of emails. I think an appropriate subject would simply be "HR Associate" or maybe "Application for HR Associate position". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and plus why would you want to spell out Human Resources in full when the job advert already tells you that they just want you to put "HR Associate" in the subject header. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's likely that it's going to be automatically filtered, and spelling it out formally will just defeat their system and cause your application to end up in the wrong folder. 213.122.25.117 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Is there anything wrong with "an established company"? Previously, I wrote "......an established company" and it was successful though. So what can be the alternative ( of "an established company")?--180.234.145.206 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, there is something wrong with it - it doesn't fit in the subject line of an email that is sent to the company that you're talking about. It's just wrong. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep - it's just not necessary. They know they're an established company - the purpose of the subject line is to inform that the email is an application for the HR Associate position. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about resume subject, not the email subject.--180.234.145.206 (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it considered poor form in the US to use your name as the subject of the resume? After all, the firm knows what it is they have attached to the email, it's a resume. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I also thought it was a question about what to put in the subject line of the email to which the application will be attached, but s/he's actually wanting to know what to put as "the subject of the resume". Unfortunately I'm not clear what this refers to. If you're asking what to put in the space on the application form marked "Post applied for", then you should just put "HR Associate". If there's no form to fill in and they just want your CV (resume) and a covering letter, you should put "Application for HR Associate position" as the subject line of the covering letter. If you're asking what to name the file that will contain your resume, I'd go with Tammy's advice and call it "John Smith resume.doc" or similar - it will be easier for them to keep track of it. As for "Human Resources" vs "HR", they obviously know that they are one and the same thing, and I don't think you'd make a significantly different impression using one version or the other. Karenjc 18:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

world languages

How many different languages are there in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsen kohandel (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a quick browse through Language. I then defy you to come back and tell us you still want an answer, without defining far more precisely what you want to know. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnologue claims there are 6909 known living languages. I suppose that means there are 6909 ISO 639-3 codes in use tagged "living" (there are also codes for extinct languages, ancient languages, historic languages, and constructed languages). That's not unproblematic though as the assignment ISO 639-3 codes is often controversial. There are codes for entities that many people consider dialects of a single language rather than separate languages, while other entities do not have a code despite being considered a separate language rather than a dialect by many. The number isn't constant either; ISO 639-3 codes are constantly being added and retired. But maybe "roughly 7000, give or take a few thousand" will give you a ballpark figure you can work with. +Angr 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That averages at around 25 per country. Wow. 213.122.25.117 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Ranging from 2 for Uruguay (only one of which is spoken, the other is a sign language) to 830 for Papua New Guinea. +Angr 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That link for Uruguay only shows the official languages, though. What about the unofficial ones, by which I mean, the languages of the indigenous (pre-Columbian) populations? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly doubt Uruguayan Sign Language is official, and Ethnologue is generally very good about showing indigenous languages. If they don't list any for Uruguay, it presumably means that to the best of the editors' knowledge, no indigenous languages of Uruguay survive. +Angr 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnologue says there is a sole language spoken in the Falkland Islands, Saint Helena, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda. Also, Iceland like Uruguay has two, one of which being a sign language. --Магьосник (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Sign Language became an official language of New Zealand in April 2006, alongside Māori and English.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"All but"

The freshman entered the gym. He was all but four feet tall, but he could run like the wind.

As in the example provided above, it seems as though the term all but cannot be understood literally; on the contrary, if someone is only 4 feet tall, he would best be described as being "nothing but four feet tall." Is there a missing word in the idiom or something else going on here? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I would say that "but" should read "of". Doesn't make sense as it is. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You could also delete the "all". Perhaps whoever wrote this was mixing "He was all of four feet tall" and "He was but four feet tall". +Angr 15:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But then the repetition of 'but' is awkward. Actually thinking about this again, all but four feet tall does make sense, it means "very nearly four feet tall", but I still don't like it. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You can also read this: "He was - all-in-all - nothing but... :)". HOOTmag (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As with Waltz's second comment, it means "so close to four feet tall that you might as well call it four feet tall...but technically not quite four feet tall". It doesn't mean "four feet tall" as everyone else seems to think... Vimescarrot (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think everyone else does seem to think that. I think it would be an odd thing to say, since I usually hear all but used to emphasis how big something is, whereas this clause should really be emphasising how small he is (hence why it is surprising that he runs so fast). All of and but (as mentioned in the earlier comments) would emphasis how small he is. You might say "He was all but 7 feet tall, with feet to match, and buying shoes was a serious problem.", for example. 86.164.79.167 (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard this used a lot in the expression "all but finished" to mean very nearly finished. 81.152.252.72 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"All but four feet tall", if it means "nearly four feet tall", wouldn't be a very common way to say it in modern English, but I don't see anything wrong with it. And the only problem with the "but... but" is that it's repititious, and that's easily worked around. For example, "He was not even four feet tall, yet he could run like the wind." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"All but" is used to slightly exaggerate something, and often something that's already in some sense extraordinary. It would much more naturally apply to someone who's 6 feet 11½ inches tall, who might be said to be "all but 7 feet tall". Applying it to someone who's only 3 feet 11½ inches tall doesn't really make sense; that person, if an adult, is extraordinarily short, so an exaggeration of that characteristic would have the effect of making them even shorter. "All but 4 feet tall" is a slight minimisation of their shortness, not an exaggeration of it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be sarcasm, like "a towering colossus at four feet tall..." 81.131.22.238 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that could work, but it would have to be clear from the context or otherwise that it was being used in a sarcastic way, otherwise the point of it would be lost. Or all but lost. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It was said in the sarcastic -- I thought it was either obvious or didn't matter. Thanks all! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it works at all. "All but..." means "everything except...". It tells you little about what something is, it only tells you what it isn't. "He was all but dead" means he wasn't dead. We can infer that he was close to dead, but only because you can only be close to death from one direction. That's not true of height, you can be close to 4 feet tall either positively or negatively. "All but 4 feet tall" would mean he wasn't 4 feet tall but was some other unspecified height, which is nonsensical in that context whether sarcastic or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.23.2 (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me at all, at least not without further context. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

weird English grammar (or maybe not)

What's the name for a construction like this: "There's 25 moles in there..." (i.e. "there's" followed by some sort of plural)? No one would say "There is 25 moles", but it seems to work with the contraction. Is this correct grammar or not? Thanks in advance. Rimush (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, are you asking about the unit of measurement, or the animal, in your example sentence? 86.164.79.167 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was a bad example, it's from a joke that includes a biologist and a chemist. I don't think it matters, but let's say the animal. Rimush (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"There are" would be proper, but there's really no viable contraction for "there are" ("there're"? seldom used) which might be the reason people often say "there's" for plurals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For many people (in some registers) "there's" has become an invariable expletive. Consider "There's you and there's me". --ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I use there's as a contraction of there are all the time. I prefer to think of it not as violating subject-verb agreement but as a phonological dissimilation of /r/ to /z/ after a preceding /r/. +Angr 21:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"There're" (ˈðɛərə) is not uncommon in English English. Bazza (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

True but I imagine that this would be a bit of a tongue-twister in rhotic accents. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If by rhotic accents, you mean people who pronounce the R instead of rounding it off like Brits and New Yorkers do, there's no problem saying "there're". It would be a homophone of the surname Lehrer, for example. But it's two syllables, and "there's" is one, and "there's" is a little bit easier to say than "there're". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly a homophone, Bugs, but definitely a rhyme. Homophones are word pairs like "by/buy", or "groan/grown", which sound the same in all respects (at least in some dialects) and the only way to tell them apart is the spelling and/or context. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would, and have, said "there're" many times. I'm an American with a Midwest accent. Dismas|^(talk) 07:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

... as do I in northern England (except when I am using local dialect when "the's" is the usual contraction). Dbfirs 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"There's" with a plural referent is AFAIK still considered substandard in the US. You won't find it in formal writing. But it's extremely common, and is established usage in many spoken registers. — kwami (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"This is she"

Fran, when answering the phone and someone asks for Fran, responds with, "This is she." Is that proper? It sure sounds ridiculous! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What would you prefer to be said? "This is she." is grammatically correct, because the "she" is the subject or nominative form of the 3rd person, feminine pronoun. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

... However, common usage would be "this is her", regardless of how grammatically correct it is. See Objective pronoun#Examples of usage. Hayden120 (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I don't know any young people who would ever say this. I've only heard it from my grandparents and old TV shows. West coast USA. --mboverload@ 01:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See Subject complement#It is I/It is me. --Tango (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Common usage would be "That's me", wouldn't it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw in the New Yorker. A woman is standing just inside her apartment door which (stereotypically for New York) is locked shut with about eight different locks, and is saying to the person on the other side of the door, "I don't know anyone who says, 'It is I.'" +Angr 05:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is I, Leclerc --TammyMoet (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall Helen Hunt's character on Mad About You saying it once and I wouldn't qualify that as an "old" TV show yet. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I just say "Speaking", though not when someone asks for Fran. :) Matt Deres (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. "This is he/she" is indefensibly pompous. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's just old-fashioned and polite. "Speaking" as a substitute, even so, has been around for many decades. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given the amount of telemarketing nowadays, if someone whose number I don't recognize calls and asks for me (or anyone else in the house), my first response is, "Who's calling, please?" Also, in a work environment, we're typically taught to answer the phone with "This is [your name]" and answer the question before it's asked. That's also polite. (Where telemarketers are concerned, politeness don't enter into it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Politeness is never out of place and never goes out of fashion. Not even with telemarketers. A quick, assertive "No, thanks" is all that's necessary, then you hang up. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The point being that if someone you don't know calls and asks for someone by name, you need to exercise caution. Phishing is not just done over the internet, you know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand that. You can adjust your approach to people appropriate to the circumstances without ditching politeness. In extreme cases, it's not impolite to just hang up. I guess we're saying the same thing in different words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"It's me" reminds me of the way this is said in French: They don't say "C'est je", they say "C'est moi". -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I say "This is she" myself, if someone calls and asks for me. Of course, my father was an English professor and it was drummed into me that only "This is she" was correct. "Indefensibly pompous"? Sorry, but grammatical correctness is defensible even if you don't happen to be used to it. Yes, I know the language changes-- that doesn't make older forms wrong. I don't like to hear "Speaking"-- it sounds a bit low-class to me, I'm sorry. Wave of the future is "That's me" like French "C'est moi." Evangeline (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason for "she" not "her" is that the verbs to be, to seem, to appear and to become all take a complement (subjective case) not an object or so I was taught, many years ago . Dbfirs 18:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Evangeline, with your hang-up about low-class speech, I'm surprised at your reaction to "purchase" below. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In the French sentence “C’est moi”, “moi” is neither the nominative nor the accusative form of the pronoun. The French don’t say “C’est je”, but they don’t say “C’est me” either. The form “moi” is equal to the form they use after prepositions (“pour moi”, “avec moi”, …). Maybe the word “me” in the sentence “It’s me” is something like the French word “moi”, but maybe grammar specialists didn’t recognize that because the form of “me” is not different from the accusative form? And because there are languages where such forms cannot be found. In German, pronouns are followed by the accusative case or by the dative case, rarely by the genitive case. And the sentence “It’s me” would be “Ich bin es” or “Das bin ich” in German – there “ich” is the word for “I”, and “bin” is not the word for “is”, but the word for “am”.

By the way, when I answer the phone and someone asks for me, I say “am Apparat”, meaning “at the apparatus”. There, “Apparat” is not the usual word for “telephone” – the usual word is “Telefon”. -- Irene1949 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of the nominative case after a preposition is Latin, not AFAIK native English. But English doesn't really have a nominative case anymore. "me" and "her" are used not just after prepositions and copulas, as here, but colloquially even after conjunctions such as "but" and "and". Usage after "and" is disparaged as 'incorrect', but is very common and quite persistent. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

July 15

need russian speaker

hellow everybody. I know that this is Wikipeida and not wiktionary but there doesn't seem to be a refdesk on wiktionary so I'll just ask here. look at the pages in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Russian_phrasebook Can someone give me a key on the pronounciations that are provided (by for example http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%8B_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8) Personlly I like the other way you transcribe better since I recognize it from my OED. why did you stop and can you switch them back? Thanks. --Kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.108.68 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you’re looking for a basic pronunciation guide I’d ignore both of the versions available in the history of that page (the transliteration given looks fine to me as a Latin letter equivalency of the Cyrillic letters, but if you don’t know the Cyrillic alphabet very well it won’t tell you more than the broadest basics of pronunciation). I would give the pronunciation as VIY gahvahrEEtye puh-anglEEski, accent on the capitals. The letter ы is not so much a simple i or ee (like in sheep or feed, as much as a diphthong whose component parts are a short-i (like slip or pit), plus the long i or ee, for a total effect something like "-iy". And in Russian, most any letter O that is not the main accented syllable of a word is pronounced more like A. I don't really have the time to hammer out a comprehensive pronunciation guide for all of those phrases, but I hope this helps. ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 15:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Purchase or buy

Hello, what's the differences between purchase and buy?

• Let me buy you a glass of beer.
• Let me purchase you a glass of beer.

thanks.--180.234.153.23 (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no real difference; they simply have different origins. Purchase descends from Anglo-Norman and buy descends from Old English. Sometimes Latinate words (such as purchase) are considered "more formal". See English language#Vocabulary and List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents in English. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the second of these would never be used in normal conversation, unless the speaker was trying to sound ironically formal and buttoned-up. Come to think of it, "a glass of" would not be used either. "Let me buy you a beer" would be said. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

...unless it's equally likely that "a beer" refers to a glass or a can or something else. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hayden. Purchase is just a more formal version of buy - in this case the formality is not appropriate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my observation is that purchase is rarely used with both a direct object and indirect object, while buy is. E.g., "purchase him a gift" is rare, but "buy him a gift" is more common.--达伟 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Near-synonyms quite often subcategorise differently. "Purchase" doesn't take an indirect object, while "buy" can (of course either can take a prepositional phrase such as "for him".) As another example, consider "eat", which can take a (direct) object or be used intransitively; "dine", which cannot take a direct object (though it selects a PP with "on"), and "consume", which must take a direct object (in the literal sense, at least. It is now also used intransitively in the sense of "be a consumer"). --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The typical company has a Purchasing Department which buys stuff for the company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion: "purchase" = pretentious word used by people who think long words must make them sound more intelligent. "Where did you purchase the vehicle?" = "Where did you buy the car?" "buy"= exactly the same meaning, but good old Anglo-Saxon, shorter, older, better. The only excuse for using "purchase" to mean "buy" is if you're talking about the Purchasing Department and it actually has that name. Evangeline (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a not-uncommon reaction to the use of Latin/French-based words vs. Anglo/German-based words. The former tend to have several syllables, and the latter often have just one or two, and appear to be more crisp and direct than their Latin-rooted synonyms. Longer words sound more bureacratic and PC. (Then mix them with passive voice and you've got an unreadable memo.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

flat earth language

I recently did this tour http://www.astrotours.net/ASTRO_TOURS_-_the_Ultimate_Journey_to_the_Stars.html

The guy Greg Quicke told us we still talked flat earth language. We were, of course, skeptical. Then he asked us who had ever watched the sun set/rise. Of course we all had. He made the obvious observation that the sun doesn't do anything; us earth mob do. So.... we've known this for over 400 years...why hasn't language caught up. We tried making statements to reflect what truly happened...clumsily! My questions are: why hasn't language caught up with scientific knowledge; and is there any other area where language has lagged behind knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moirabroome (talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This very example is used by the author Gene Wolfe in his 1980 novel The Shadow of the Torturer. Early in the story (so not really a spoiler!) the protagonist Severian observes a sunrise and thinks of it as the horizon dropping: this is one of several oblique clues that the story, though set on Earth, takes place so far into the future after spaceflight had become commonplace that language has caught up with the post-Copernican viewpoint. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question! I had noticed the sunset/sunrise thing but didn't look for more. There must be dozens, or hundreds if you leave English, but I can only think of these:

Health

• Are the names of the four temperaments (“choleric”, “phlegmatic”, “melancholic”, “sanguine”) derived from body fluids, or were the body fluids named after the tempers? Either way, empiric science has abandoned that AFAIAA.
• “Common cold” and similar terms in Germanic, Slavic and Romance languages are a bit misleading; Mandarin and Japanese apparently use terms that don't have “cold” in them.
• I think “lunatic” also qualifies. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• And "hysteria"! Ignore her, it's just her womb playing up again... 81.131.66.254 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Animals, plants, food

• Ziegenmelker “nightjar”, from the superstition that they milk goats. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Barnacles are named after the barnacle goose which they were supposedly the young of. 81.131.66.254 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Latin lyncirium “amber”, from the speculation that it's hardened lynx urine. 84.46.4.183 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a matter of convenience. Whether you choose a heliocentric, a geocentric or a topocentric (which puts a place on the earth's surface in the centre) or even an egocentric reference frame doesn't matter from a physical point of view: Everything can be described in any reference frame. However, the description in some frames may be simpler than in others; this is the case if the reference frame is somehow adapted to the symmetries in the process you are trying to describe. Mathematically speaking, this amounts to a choice of a coordinate systems, and coordinate systems are what's "relative" in special and general relativity. Since there are no absolute reference frames (although Quicke seems to imply wrongly that there are), there's no wrong or right here. For sunrise and sundown, a topocentric description is well suited because it holds your standpoint fixed. In other frames you would have to take your movement into account, which complicates matters. Astronomers use topocentric descriptions when they talk about the visibility of stars, e.g. in preparing observations. If the pros do it, everybody else can do it, too; no need for language to catch up. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentions many more misnomers. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There might be something relevant at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_idioms. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See Sun#Motion and location within the galaxy (permanent link here). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bible spoke figuratively of the four corners of the earth (http://multilingualbible.com/revelation/7-1.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/revelation/20-8.htm), centuries after it revealed that the earth is round (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-22.htm).

It mentioned figuratively the foundations of the earth (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-21.htm), after revealing that the earth hangs on nothing (http://multilingualbible.com/job/26-7.htm).

It spoke of the sun being made to stand still (http://multilingualbible.com/joshua/10-13.htm) and also of a shadow being made to go backward (http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/38-8.htm). It speaks of the sun rising (http://multilingualbible.com/matthew/5-45.htm) and it speaks of the sun setting (http://multilingualbible.com/ecclesiastes/1-5.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My argument did not refer to the Bible but rather to the OP's comment about our current physical knowledge. I claimed that the common usage of language does not contradict our physical knowledge. How does the Bible have anything to do with my claim? HOOTmag (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

HOOTmag, I indented my post in reply to the original post, and not in reply to your post.—Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But you've put your post under my post. Now I re-ordered the posts, so that yours be under your previous posts. HOOTmag (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Bible it's more than figurative. In Genesis it talks about a "firmament" separating "the waters above from the waters below". That "firmament" was a fancied "dome" over the flat earth, separating it from the waters above (except when "the windows of heaven open", i.e. it rains). In general, we anthropomorphize nature even though we know it's not true - referring to a storm as having "angry" clouds, for example. And while we know that the sun doesn't really rise and set, it looks to us like it does, so it's a convenient reference. I would go a little farther and say this is all, at its root, connected with "folk" religion a.k.a. "pagan" religion, which has been displaced but has never totally died out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That which some translations call a "firmament" is called an "expanse" by other translations. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/1-6.htm) Contrary to the idea of Biblical teachings evolving from paganism, the Bible itself gives the credit to God. (http://multilingualbible.com/1_thessalonians/2-13.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, I try not to be a dick, I really do, but the only possible response to that is "no shit!" Why do you keep quoting the Bible anyway? It has nothing to do with anything but you bring it up like every other thread. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using profane language? It does not help communication. I have repeatedly had to see it on these pages, and it is not pleasant, and I have often turned away because of it.

I quote the Bible because I am familiar with it, and I do so in some of the discussions where I see a relevant connection with it. Maybe you would prefer me to quote from Aesop or Shakespeare, but I am much less familiar with them.—Wavelength (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What 87.81 describes is sometimes called "phenomenological language" (our various phenomenological articles don't seem to say much about this usage directly). I don't feel competent or comfortable discussing this question philosophically, but the Scripture is full of phenomenological language and it is also a reference for modern day English. That is a relevant link for context, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Scripture quite literally includes the false mythological beliefs in question, so it's irrelevant to the OP's original question. The question was about language not catching up with knowledge. The numerous authors of the Bible didn't have any knowledge about whether the Earth was round, had four corners or anything else, so their use of expressions wasn't figurative either. The Bible is full of stuff that is scientifically wrong, and Wavelength is speaking like a Biblical near-literalist who believes that it's consistent, "reveals" scientifically correct things, and is the literal word of God. Seriously, this kind of attitude may belong in a church, but it is quite misplaced on a Reference Desk, which should inform and not dis-inform people.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking it all in a different perspective, despite our knowledge that the Earth is rotating around the sun and doing the moving part of the equation, it's still a matter of subjectivity. Although we know that the sun is not actually moving, because of the huge difference in magnitude between a person and the earth, and the earth and the sun, and the great distance involved, the perspective is still there that the sun appears to our eyes as the one that is moving relative to us. Despite reality, it's important to consider that perspective will still be the prevaling area from which we look at it and refer to it. It makes less sense to refer to the horizon falling than to the sun rising, because we cannot perceive the horizon falling. From our position, everything is stable and the sun is moving; the reality of relative movement is immaterial. Steewi (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, astronauts in space and on the moon talk of 'earthrise', just as we talk about sunrise and moonrise. Steewi (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because all astronauts have been raised in and have spent all of their lives, bar very short periods of adulthood, in the same subjectively-seeming geocentric milieu (to which you rightly refer) as the rest of humanity, and therefore retain the mental habits of the languages and viewpoints that have developed over centuries and millennia in that milieu, despite their extra experiential confirmation of our common intellectual knowledge that "E pur si muove!". Such linguistic and cultural conventions can be very entrenched - consider that English speakers still use day names commemorating Norse gods despite widespread worship of those gods having been dormant for over a thousand years. If (as postulated for example in the Wolfe book mentioned above) humanity were to achieve routine spaceflight, and large numbers of future cultures were to live much or all of their lives off-planet over centuries or longer, the underlying cultural assumptions and individuals' thinking might shift. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have studied physics, mainly Kinematics, you should have known that every movement is relative, so it's impossible to decide which object moves and which one rests. In your case, it's still possible that Earth doesn't move at all, while the sun rotates around itself (the other planets rotating around themselves and moving around the sun as well). To put it more intuitively, just imagine yourself stand in a room, and suddenly you see the room start to rotate around itself: then you won't be able to decide whether it's you - or the room - which rotates around itself: both options result in the same way... HOOTmag (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rotating frames of reference can be distinguished by using Occam's razor. If one explanation requires fictitious forces then it is usually preferable to use the frame in which fewer forces are needed to explain motion. (However, we ignore this principle when measuring local gravity.) Dbfirs 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

strange habit

hey all. I was in France (Alsace) at a small, family-run lodge last week. There were only two English-speakers on the staff, and when I arrived both of them were out, luckily my party could all speak passable French. There was this other person who was clearly American, and who clearly did not speak any French. He was trying to indicate by signs to the desk clerk that he needed a room, but for some reason he was also speaking very loudly in English and emphasizing his mouth movements to the clerk as if she were hearing-impaired, even though she made it clear that she didn't speak English. I knew that this wasn't because he himself was hearing impaired because he talked in a normal voice to his wife but very loudly to the clerk. Why do people do this? I also saw this when I was in Mexico and when people interact with the Deaf (not hearing-impaired, but completely deaf). 76.229.183.71 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Thanks

See Ugly American. Matt Deres (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No I don't mean Americans in particular, I mean why do people talk loudly to people who can't understand the language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.183.71 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Can't understand the language" is not a binary distinction. Even if the clerk is not able to converse in English, she may recognize some basic words (especially since she's French, just like a sizable part of English vocabulary). Speaking clearly, slowly, and in not too many words can help to get the point across in such a situation. Speaking very loudly is pointless, but for many people all these properties come in one package.—Emil J. 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(OR alert) In addition, it seems to me that part of this phenomenon is nothing more than habit, as you titled this thread yourself. Most everyday life situations of not being understood (on this basic level) are caused by acoustic problems (perhaps combined with slurred lazy speech). Repeating it louder and with clearer enunciation is a common way of handling such a situation. Add the fact that not being understood can be a frustrating experience. I have observed this frustration within myself and also with others in foreign language classes taught by someone who doesn't (or pretends not to) understand any other language. It is a good teaching method, but initially it can be very frustrating when you can't get you point across, when you want to communicate, but can't. We often don't think rationally, but raise our voices, when frustrated. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking unsuccessfully for discussions of this, but "talk louder to the foreigners and they'll damn well understand you" was a British stereotype before the US acquired the confidence to take over the role. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In my family of origin, it was a long-held tradition that the younger you are, the louder adult members speak to you. But it's not just my family; has anyone ever done the stupid "kootchy-koo" thing to a baby in a pram at normal speaking volume or softer? No, it's completely unheard of. Always at a raised volume. Babies and young children are not, generally speaking, deaf, but you'd never know it the way some adults operate around them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is normal and instinctive. Whenever anyone attempts verbal communication and fails, they will often (usually unconsciously) try again using various tactics to improve the communication - slower speech, better enunciation, simpler phrasing, louder volume, stronger eye-contact, physical contact or descriptive gestures. most of the time this is an effective and useful strategy, but when it falls through it looks really, really stupid. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a famous Saturday Night Live skit from the 70s about this kind of thing. At the end of the fake newscast, Chevy Chase says, "And now, news for the hard of hearing." Garret Morris appears in an oval in the corner of the screen, like sign-language translators in the days before mandatory closed captioning. Then, the following:

Chevy Chase: Our top story tonight:
Garrett Morris: [cupping hands around his mouth] OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT!!!
Chevy Chase: President Ford flew to Paris for a summit conference, and boy, are his arms tired!
Garrett Morris: PRESIDENT FORD FLEW TO PARIS FOR A SUMMIT CONFERENCE, AND BOY, ARE HIS ARMS TIRED!!!
Chevy Chase: Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Garrett Morris: GOOD NIGHT, AND HAVE A PLEASANT TO-MOR-ROW! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of habits of speaking which are useful in many cases, but sometimes we speak in the same way when it isn't appropriate at all. An example from my experience: When my father in law had lost his voice because of laryngeal cancer, he soon learnt use an electrolarynx for speaking. But he spoke slowly. One day, when I spoke to him at the telephone, I suddenly noticed that I was speaking slowly too. I apologized, I said that I hadn't done that on purpose, and that I knew that that didn't make sense because I knew that there was nothing wrong with his hearing. He answered that I wasn't the only person who spoke to him more slowly than usual. -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See "complementary schizogenesis" at http://www.scribd.com/doc/27178621/Paper-2-Lang. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Beware that link, folks. It sent my computer off in its worst tail spin in years. And not in a good way, either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had known that it would adversely affect a computer, I would have refrained from providing that link, or at least I would have provided a warning.—Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Wavelength. I'm sure there was no premeditation involved. It's all OK now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Prefix "un."

I must admit, I'm very much amused. My friend just e-mailed me the following:

I'm at starbucks and I ordered a coffee, and the Batista asked if I would like it sweetened or unsweetened. Wouldn't unsweetened imply that sweetener has been removed? The way unleaded gasoline has had the lead removed? Thoughts?

Now, first of all, what's a Batista? As for the question, I'm guessing un can be used either to mean lacking x substance (let's call it definition 1) or with x substance removed (definition 2), no? Doesn't seem to me like either one is used incorrectly, though if one is, I would assume the prefix de would be preferable for gasoline (i.e. deleaded gasoline).

Cheers and thanks in advance. 65.13.61.125 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Batista usually refers to Fulgencio Batista, the dictator of Cuba overthrown in the Marxist revolution there. though (as I'm sure you know) your friend means a barista. and 'un' can legitimately be used to mean 'removed' or 'not', so unsweetened coffee is not 'de'-sweetened but simply 'not' sweetened.. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) A barista is a person that serves coffee in a coffee shop. I agree that 'de-' is preferable when something has been removed. 'un-' just means it doesn't have it. Also, I don't think unleaded petrol has the lead removes. Leaded petrol has lead specifically added. --Tango (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why the coffee may be un-sweetened and de-caffeinated, but not the other way around. Matt Deres (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)::I think your original assumption is wrong. Both cases have the "lacking" meaning. Unleaded petrol is petrol which has not has tetra-ethyl lead added (it has other things instead). I can't think of any examples where "un-" refers to taking something out. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See wikt:un-, which mentions "undress".—Wavelength (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also "unscrew" a light bulb. It does seem much less common for a chemical process than "de-" but it does have some uses in this sense. The American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition (hardcopy) also has "uncurl," "uncover," "uncross" (as legs), "unglue," and "unhand," and I've definitely seen "unmanned" as a horrific euphemism for "castrated"... ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all the answers. I guess it's another "use as you see fit" word in the English language. Cheers, 65.13.61.125 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The two meanings of the prefix "un-" are actually etymologically distinct, and so they are sometimes considered different prefixes that happen to be spelled the same. See [2], for example. —Bkell (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Un" generally means "not". If you feel like getting into a hopeless quagmire, you could stop by the talk page at the Circumcision article and weigh in as to the proper usage of "uncircumcised", among other related issues, which has been schlepping along for 2 or 3 weeks now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Giggity giggity goo Rimush (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that's one reason circumcision is done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Lee Whorf wrote an essay on 'cryptotypes', (his neologism - I'm pretty sure it's in Language, Thought, and Reality) for groups of words that share some grammatical property which all native speakers are aware of without consciously knowing. One of his examples was verbs which can take the prefix 'un-' - nearly all the words are about closing, wrapping, sealing, rolling up.

Some Klingon wrote an essay, big deal. Rimush (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, some fire inspector for an insurance company wrote an essay, big deal. +Angr 16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What, we've gone back to grammar school now? anyone for a rousing chorus of 'neener neener neener'? --Ludwigs2 16:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@Angr: So observations by non-professionals are of no value and only fit for mockery? Most of us had better stop editing Wikipedia then. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't engage in original research, publishing silly and insulting hypotheses about the way Hopis perceive time. At least, if they do, they don't do it on Wikipedia. +Angr 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ommitted pronouns?

Hi everyone. I know that in Latin, the subject (if a pronoun) is often omitted. This persists in its major descendants of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese (not sure if Romanian does this ornot). So why is it that French always uses pronouns? For example if I were in Portugal I could say "Vou para a loja" but in France I would probably draw confused looks saying "Vais au magasin". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.221.98 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(We have an article Pro-drop language.) One important reason is that the French verb forms in any particular tense cannot be relied on to be to be unique in pronunciation (as opposed to spelling), except for the 1st plural and the 2nd. plural. E.g. in the paradigm "je parle, tu parles, il parle, vous parlez, nous parlons, ils parlent", the forms parle, parles, and parlent are all pronounced exactly the same... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, adding "il" or "ils" to "parle" or "parlent" won't disambiguate the grammatical person in speech either. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Romanian omits pronouns too, but this isn't very obvious with the verb "to go" because it's reflexive: "Mă duc la piaţă" ([I] am going to the market) instead of "Eu mă duc la piaţă" (I am going to the market) - the phrase still has a pronoun, the first person singular reflexive pronoun "mă". The lack of the pronoun-as-subject is more obvious with non-reflexive verbs: "Mănânc fasole" ([I] am eating beans) instead of "Eu mănânc fasole". Here there is no pronoun left. Rimush (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

French could omit pronouns when it was still pronounced like it is spelled (many hundreds of years ago), so presumably it does have something to do with the ambiguous pronuncation as AnonMoos said. Also, some verb forms now mean different things without the pronoun. "Nouns allons au magasin" means "we are going to the store", but "allons au magasin" means "let's go to the store" (i.e. without the pronoun it becomes imperative). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be "nous", not "nouns". --Магьосник (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is there a word for dropping "I" or even "we" in English, as it is sometimes done on postcards or in letters. Is this also considered telegram style? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. Good question. Have wondered the same myself. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nat King Cole sings "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" at YouTube - NAT KING COLE - DON'T GET AROUND MUCH ANYMORE.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

July 16

Turns the accusation around

I am looking for a word that describes the tactic of accusing someone else of doing what they are not, in fact, doing, but you are doing yourself. Children use it a lot. Bielle (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)looking for word

Well, there's "the pot calling the kettle black". --Anonymous, 19:16 UTC, July 16, 2010.

Hypocrisy? Googlemeister (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In psychology, it's projection. L. Ron Hubbard said that the proper response of any criticism of Scientology was to always accuse the critics of being criminals.[3] -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting, AnonMoos. It is possible that the person who is doing this is involved in Scientology. If that is true, it explains a lot. Thanks to all of you for your suggestions. Bielle (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So projectors are necessarily accused of projecting projection? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Running a car race

Does one run a car race, or simply race it? Should it be "I'm going to run the Dakar Rally" or "I'm going to race the Dakar Rally"? AdamSommerton (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In my idiolect, neither. 'Run' to me would imply running on foot, and I wouldn't use 'race' transitively, except perhaps with a rival as an object. I would say "enter", or "compete in", or "drive in". Others may have different answers. --ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If someone told me that they were going to run the Dakar Rally, I'd be impressed that they were organising such a major event. If you're taking part then I reckon you can only run things like marathons, otherwise I might say that I was 'doing' something like the rally. Mikenorton (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec #2) : I agree. If there's a person who's in charge of organising the whole event, he/she might say "I run the Dakar car rally". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the American South (North Carolina). I would easily know what you were talking about, even if it would be slightly unusual. We use "run" in the context of cars all the time, although running the NASCAR race would sound a little odd. If my mother (okay, she's from the Northern US), says "I'm running up to the store to get milk," it is implied that she is not physically running to the store, but driving. In terms of a race, I'd probably say "racing" or any of the others that ColinFine suggested. Falconus^{p t c} 01:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would understand "running to the store" as walking to the store. Then again, I guess no one really drives to the store in Manhattan. Rimush (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Word that means goods and services

Is there a single word that means goods and services?--92.251.133.213 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In business-speak product or offering might work, depending on the context. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There can be, but it wouldn't apply in all contexts. I might talk about my "purchases", referring to both the goods and services I've bought. But a provider of goods and services can't use that word. "Commodities" sometimes applies to both, but just as often means physical things only. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Offering"? Really? Just yesterday my co-worker asked me what I thought of the phrase "software offering" and I said it sounded like someone was going to lay a piece of software on an altar and stab it with a knife as a ritual sacrifice. +Angr 07:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See The Musical Offering. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not quite relevant. It's the name of a musical work, not a collection of goods and services. But I can confirm "offering" or "product offering" is used in business, to refer to exactly what it is that the customer gets, or potentially gets, for their money when they buy a particular product. I've only ever heard it in the health insurance industry, whose products are typically services, not goods (the services being payment of monetary benefits to cover or partially cover the cost of medical treatment). They sometimes provide goods such as mountain bikes, CDs etc as a gimmicky incentive to take out membership, and these are all part of the "product offering". Now, does this mean we can use "offering" as a generic collective term for goods and services? I'm not entirely sure. It's only ever used from the perspective of the seller, not the buyer, so I can't see it being used in non-business contexts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot will depend on context. In economics, "exports" can mean both goods and services. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In economics, "goods" might in some context refer to both goods and services (in terms such as "public goods", for example) Jørgen (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Photon

I noticed that the Japanese word for photon is 光子 koushi, while each other language listed on the Wiktionary page uses a word which is phonetically similar to "photon. Where did this discrepancy come from? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that it is common in Japanese (and Chinese) for borrowed concepts (or theoretically, native concepts which also overlap with non-native terms) to use a meaning-based substitute instead of a phonetically-based substitute. That said, Japanese uses a lot of phonetic borrowings in general (at least relative to Chinese, due in significant part to Chinese's lack of a phonetically based script like Katakana). However, note that other languages often use meaning-based borrowings as opposed to phonetic borrowings:e.g., German and Icelandic.--71.111.229.19 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What does koushi literally mean? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Light particle (particle of light). --Kjoonlee 02:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

An excerpt from a Bulgarian-Japanese phrasebook. The Bulgarian is given translated, and the fourth column contains the respective Icelandic terms, just for comparison.

computer monitor, display mouse keyboard printer hard disk file password modem hardware software server window icon to copy Internet site email

コンピューター モニター マウス キーボード プリンター ハードディスク ファイル パスワード モデム ハードウェア ソフトウェア サーバー ウィンドウ アイコン コピーする インターネット サイト E メール

konpyūtā monitā mausu kībōdo purintā hādo disuku fairu pasuwādo modemu hādowea sofutowea sābā windou aikon kopīsuru intānetto saito E mēru

tölva skjár mús lyklaborð prentari harður diskur skrá lykilorð mótald vélbúnaður hugbúnaður miðlari gluggi táknmynd afrita Internetið vefsíða tölvupóstur

By the way, コンピューター, konpyūtā, fails to match the Japanese Wikipedia interwiki for the computer article, which is コンピュータ, konpyūta. Why so? --Магьосник (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can read Japanese, see ja:長音符#長音符の省略 (Omission of Chōonpu). It has been common practice to omit ending chōonpu in engineering and IT related writings and there is a general rule for the omission of chōonpu defined in JIS Z8301:2008; in a nutshell, you omit chōonpu if a word is longer than two morae. The Japanese article for computer follows it. Also note ja:サーバ and ja:サーバー are different topics and server (computing) links to the former. --Kusunose 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't read Japanese, but I'm certainly hoping this will change soon. So, could we say my phrasebook is wrong in the case given, in addition to being quite scanty as a whole? And yes, I noticed what Japanese article Server (computing) linked to, but the leading sentence of ja:サーバ gives both サーバ and サーバー in bold; I assumed they could be used interchangeably, and chose what the phrasebook was recommending. --Магьосник (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your phrasebook is not wrong. They are interchangeable and unless you are writing for specialists, in which case it is better to follow the standard, it is fine to add chōonpu. In fact, Agency for Cultural Affairs recommends the use of chōonpu for English -or, -er, -ar and such as a general principle.[4] --Kusunose 12:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

July 17

"eruditional"

Can one give examples how "eruditional" is used in a sentence?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

One way to find examples is doing a google books search for "eruditional". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried googling for eruditional -dictionary -encyclopedia, to exclude definitions, and found these:

"Laden with eruditional prowess" -- from a review of a Nigerian play

"The conceptual assembly of a menu or the eruditional aesthetics of farm to table" -- from a blog about food

"This project is not about tapping into eruditional efforts or well-traveled elitism, but enjoying a rendition of eastern music" -- from a review of an album.

It seems to be used mainly by critics. I also found a few people using the similar word "erudical", though I can't find it in a dictionary. 213.122.0.218 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The OED has eruditional but not erudical. The latter seems to be used in places like facebook as a "made-up" word. Dbfirs 17:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Erudical turns up in a couple of Scots documents from 1812 where is seems to be used as a synonym for erudite. I can´t find any recent / current example. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese honorifics

Which would a crew member of a ship use to address the captain? What about the other way around? What about with the captain and the admiral? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a crew member of a ship would address just 船長/senchō/captain or xx(name) senchō. As for the other way around, I have no idea. Probably just name: xx san or with title like xx 機関長/kikanchō/chief engineer. There is no rule what to address. It depends. Sorry, but I have no idea with captain and the admiral either. Oda Mari (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that would be the same for a starship? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no starships have yet been created and crewed (and likely won't be for some considerable time, if ever), we can have no idea of how their hierarchical relationships might be designed: they could be based on Naval customs, on Air Force customs (if different), on some other existing customs, or be totally novel. You can therefore assume whatever you like so long as (preuming this is for fictional purposes) you make it plausible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The question of how it would be on a starship is, in fact, very valid. After all, Star Trek and numerous other sci-fi programs/films have been and continue to be translated into Japanese for the audience in Japan. The OP may want to check out episodes of these programs (either dubbed in Japanese or with subtitles) to compare. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be the same for a starship. Captain of an air plane is 機長/kichō or キャプテン/kyaputen. Additionally, as for warship/軍艦/gunkan, it would be 艦長/kanchō. As for submarine/潜水艦/sensuikan and destroyer/駆逐艦/kuchikukan, the captains are called just 長/chō. Because they do not use 船/ship for their name. As for yacht, it would be 艇長/teichō or スキッパー/sukippā. Oda Mari (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

July 18

Swiss Standard German pronunciation

Is Swiss Standard German (NOT Swiss German) pronounced more or less the same as Hochdeutsch in Germany? Are there any notable or interesting differences? I ask because there's no phonology section in our article. Lfh (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Helvetism may be of help until user:Sluzzelin comes around. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As the article Helvetism and its section on Pronunciation correctly convey, Swiss Germans have a very recognizable accent when speaking Standard German. I'm not good at recognizing accents, but I can identify a Swiss German after a few seconds of hearing him speak. Rimush (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rimush is correct, though it has to be pointed out that there is a gradient of more or less Swiss-sounding spoken Standard German. Basically the phonology follows that of the individual speaker's native Swiss German dialect. So the spoken Swiss Standard German will retain some of the characteristics mentioned under Swiss_German#Pronunciation. The phonology varies among dialects, and it is often possible to guess the speaker's particular dialect (Bernese German, Basel German, etc.) from hearing their spoken Standard German. At school we were taught to lose the distinct Helvetic (and, to many ears, ugly) voiceless velar and uvular plosives (the "k" and "ch"), but other aspects, such as non-aspirated [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ] prevail with most speakers. As I said, there is a gradient. There are people who even use the "horrible" "k" and "ch" when speaking Standard German, while, at the other extreme, there are those who try to imitate German speakers, often with mixed success. Most are somewhere in between, distinctly Swiss-sounding, as observed by Rimush, but without the "Stallgeruch" ("barn smell") cultivated by some populist politicans, who want to sound as Swiss as possible in defiance of anything non-Swiss, also in defiance of anything that has to do with education </soapbox rant>. Katja Stauber, a Swiss television news anchor who grew up speaking German Standard German with her parents, originally read the news with a very German sounding pronunciation, but, because of critical comments in the media, de-germanized her speech and started ending her presentation with "uf Widerluege" (Swiss German for "auf Wiedersehen", "good bye")

Another, perhaps the most important, give-away is the Swiss prosody and melody of speech. Put simply, we speak in trochaic verse. An American friend said it all sounds like "YUffen DOOffen DUffen" (spelled "JAffen DUffen DAffen", in German, meaning nothing in either language).

You often hear German comedians (official and self-proclaimed) speaking Standard German sentences with their impression of Swiss phonology and prosody, pretending they are speaking Swiss German. I remember Harald Juhnke doing this, and it was doubly hilarious. The only American actor I have ever heard do an accurate impression of a Swiss German accent in English is Robin Williams. Often, when a film shows a Swiss character (such as a banker :-), they choose a German accent, which really is quite different. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You can usually tell if someone is Austrian when speaking Standard German as well, although I have trouble (as I said, I'm not good at recognizing accents) identifying if he/she is Austrian or Bavarian. What's interesting is that (from my experience at least) people from Vorarlberg speak Standard German neither with a Swiss nor with an Austrian accent. I would've expected a Swiss accent, but they have a sort of own way of speaking, which shows the based-on-specific-dialect-of-speaker-accent thing.Rimush (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sluzzelin has already mentioned prosody – it might be a wrong stereotype, but I'd suspect that, on average, Swiss Standard German is pronounced more slowly than Germany Standard German. Perhaps somebody can refute or confirm this. --84.46.66.247 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could do worse than listening to some clips of German-speaking Swiss speaking Standard German on youtube, to get an idea of the spectra (across different dialects, and across different degrees of Helveticness). I currently have no way of listening to stuff, but I'll try to compile something for you later on. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this is all interesting information. I was curious about the extent to which speakers were influenced by their particular Swiss German dialect. The pronunciation section at Helvetism seems to sum it up quite well, but (as the article notes) it is in the wrong place - shouldn't it be at Swiss Standard German, under a "Phonology" or "Pronunciation" heading? Perhaps with one of those tables of phonemes, like at e.g. German phonology. Lfh (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as promised but with some delay, here are a couple of soundbites. (I have to admit that , perhaps fittingly, I had trouble finding exactly what I was looking for in terms of typical markers within the spectrum). Former Federal Council Adolf Ogi's New Year's speech here. His native dialect is that of the Bernese Oberland, a Highest Alemannic German dialect. Of course this is a televised speech (and an Ogi speech to boot) - no one speaks that way in conversation, but the phonology is still typical. Same with Doris Leuthard in this clip. Her dialect is from a part of the canton of Aargau. With a few differences, it resembles Zurich German quite a bit, and to me her Standard German speech could almost be that of a native Zürcher (though there is a clear difference when she speaks dialect). A bit more academic, in the sense that you hear no Chuchichäschtli "ch"s or hawking "k"'s, but still very recognizably Swiss, this time from Zurich is Christoph Mörgeli's "personal remark" here (Here too, it has to be pointed out that Mörgeli's style of pausing and emphasizing so frequently is entirely his; he talks that way in Swiss German too.

For some older generation examples, Friedrich Dürrenmatt who had his very own, sloppy, but still very Swiss and audibly Bernese way of speaking Standard German in this famous speech (Just for fun, though he doesn't say much here, he does light a fire in the studio in this old clip, and his speech contrasts with the German moderator's, and Marcel Reich-Ranicki's often imitated accent - MRR also blows at the fire, making things worse). Max Frisch speaks about his relationship with Dürrenmatt here in a fashion typical for academics and intellectuals of his generation. It sounds educated (and these days pretentious, reflected in his gestures). For example, he does use the typically German final obstruent devoicing; he pronounces übrig as "übrich", while most Swiss would say "übrig". Yet he too sounds unmistakably Swiss.

Finally, for a caricature, but an entirely realistic and not at all unheard of one, Emil Steinberger translated his Swiss German sketches into Standard German (pronounced with about as strong a Luzern phonology as is possible) in order to reach German audiences, as can be seen in this clip, for example.

84.46 is correct that Swiss German speakers generally speak Standard German at a slower pace than Germans do, with regional and individual exceptions of course, but even people from Zurich, notoriously fast speaking as opposed to the stereotypically slow Bernese, on average speak SG more slowly than Germans do. The speech melody is quite a bit more pronounced, with more ups and downs, than average German speech. People from the cantons of Bern, Obwalden or Uri, for example, have real sing-songy way of speaking, which often carries over into their Standard German too. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. I don't know about the OP, but I'm definitely gonna listen to these (for the lulz, if not for anything else). I love it when people provide Utube videos and not videos from some obscure site that looks unsafe. edit: After listening to Ogi, it seems that Swiss Standard bears some similarities to how Transylvanian Saxons speak Standard German. They do it with a Romanian accent, but not like an average Romanian who learned German as a second language - Swiss probably sounds similar because the "r" is pronounced similarly to the Romanian "r". Rimush (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Days

A lot of Scandinavian/Nordic nations have Name days:
Sweden > (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_%C3%B6ver_namnsdagar_i_Sverige_i_datumordning),
Denmark > (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danske_navnedage),
Norway > (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_norske_navnedager),
Finland > (http://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/Faroese_Name_Days),
Faroe Islands > (http://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/Faroese_Name_Days),
Estonia > (http://www.happynameday.info/country.php).
Is Iceland an exception? I can't find any Icelandic name calendar in the web. --151.51.156.20 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was nordicnames.de, but I see that you already checked it. Rimush (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Icelandic Wikipedia has alphabetical lists of native men's names and native women's names. Additionally, there are pages with given names by number of bearers: 10+, 3 to 9, 2, 1 (A-J), 1 (K-Ö). All of them are linked, and many have an existing article behind them. A few minutes of browsing could not help me find a single name with any name day date specified. There are also articles on every date of the year, but none of them seems to be mentioned as someone's name day.

The Icelandic for "name day" seems to be nafndagur. --Theurgist (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The link gives no indication that there is any use in Iceland, rather it refers to name days as a Catholic tradition. --Soman (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

...and [5] gives almost no results at all. It seems that Icelanders don't celebrate name days. If you consider how un-Christian most the names at the at icelandic wiki lists are, it is not so strange. --Soman (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Icelandic is an inflected language. --Theurgist (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Swiss German (and Swiss French)

The question above (about Swiss German) made me realize that this might be a good place to ask this. I am a French major at NC State University (in the US) and I wish to do a study abroad in French-speaking Switzerland (likely Lausanne). I am also planning on minoring in German, and have taken the first couple levels of that. Part of my reason for choosing Switzerland over the more common option (France) is that they also speak German there, and I was looking at studying in Fribourg, right on the Linguistic Border. I then realized that Swiss German is very different than the High German (from Germany) that I'm learning in class, and realized that it may not be all that useful for my German (I would love to know Swiss German, but I'm not sure that I could follow it with my current level of High German). I know that French French and Swiss French are quite similar, with some differences (the numbers 70, 80, and 90 for example), and should not be a problem, but in terms of getting practice with German, are there any suggestions? Is it a lost cause or would it be worth it to consider going to Fribourg instead? On that vein, does anybody have any personal experience with either college? Thank you, Falconus^{p t c} 16:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the Swiss wouldn't mind speaking Standard German to you, but from what I know, Swiss German is used widely in Switzerland, to the extent that you probably won't get much Hochdeutsch practice from everyday life in a Swiss town (im Gegensatz to Austria, for example, where mostly everybody speaks Austro-Bavarian but you rarely encounter anything written in dialect, and you very rarely hear people speak in the dialect on TV or in radio shows, and where living in z.B. Vienna would give you a lot of Standard German practice). French also seems to outweigh German in Freiburg, according to our article. Rimush (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, the Swiss know that Swiss German is a bit of an in-group thing, and if they have you pegged as a foreigner (which will happen as soon as you open your mouth, if not before), most Swiss will use Standard German with you, rather than Schwiizertüütsch. (That's also a bit of linguistic politeness. Swiss are notorious polyglots, and tend to speak the language which is easiest for the person on the other end.) A bigger issue is that on the Francophone side of the Röstigraben they're rather reluctant to speak German, even when their knowledge of it is excellent. I've heard recommendations that, for non-German-speaking foreigners dealing with a Francophone Swiss, it's better to muddle through with imperfect English, rather than "insult" them with perfect German. But, as with all things, it'll vary based on who, exactly, you're interacting with. (And due to the fantastic train system, it's quite straightforward to travel from Lausanne to German-speaking Zurich/Bern/Appenzell/etc. if you do want to interact with German speakers.) -- 174.24.196.51 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the responses. Would the classes conducted in German at Fribourg be in Swiss Standard German or Swiss German? Thanks, Falconus^{p t c} 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Standard, I would think. Rimush (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I found it curious that language courses teaching Swiss German (not talking about classes conducted in Swiss German) as opposed to Standard German were apparently unusual enough in Switzerland to appear on television for their novelty value a few years ago. There had been some demand from immigrants who said that learning (or knowing) Standard German is not enough to fully integrate into Swiss German speaking communities. --84.46.72.26 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 19

Not only... but (also)...

I was reading something online about a recent College Board Official SAT Question of the Day, which went as follows: "Tantra paintings from India are not only beautiful but _____: in addition to their aesthetic value, they are used to facilitate meditation." The answer here was "functional". However, I have a question on the correlative conjunctive (at least, I think that's what it's called) in the sentence. It seems that, per web searching, "not only... but also..." is more popular and common than simply "not only... but...". But when is it appropriate to omit the 'also'? Are there any special grammar rules one must follow which determine whether or not to include 'also', or does it boil down to whichever sounds smoother? Are they interchangeable, and if they are, in what type of situations? Any examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! 141.153.217.214 (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's one usage where you couldn't dispense with the 'also'. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WHAAOE! hydnjo (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend using "not only X but also Y" whenever you can, that is to say, whenever both X and Y are valid.

• "not only a scholar but also a gentleman"
• "not only a spouse but also a parent"

I recommend restricting the use of "not only X but Y" to situations where Y is valid but X is not valid.

• "not only an amateur but a professional"
• "not only a middleweight but a heavyweight"

—Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wavelength, I find your latter examples deviant: to me "not only X" implies X, so I would find those confusing. My answer to the OP is that there is no grammatical rule relating to the "also" but that rhetorically and prosodically it balances the two terms. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Experience might be limited to usage where X is valid, not only in your case but also in my case, but there is nothing inherent in the words and their definitions that would restrict us from using them where X is not valid.

• "not (only/just) an amateur but (even/rather) a professional"
• "not (just/only) a middleweight but (rather/even) a heavyweight"

—Wavelength (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a logic flaw there? "Not just/only a middleweight ..." says to me that, whatever else this person can be said to be, he is still a middleweight. But if he's a heavyweight, how can he simultaneously be a middleweight? Isn't this like saying "He's not only poor, but also rich"? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Inflection of hyphenated adjectives?

I'm curious about forming the comparative and superlative of hyphenated adjectives in English.

Would one do so by declining the first word?

    well-known   better-known  best-known
    true-to-life truer-to-life truest-to-life
    ill-suited   worse-suited  worst-suited

Or would he do so by declining the whole adjective —as a unit?

    well-known   more well-known   most well-known
    true-to-life more true-to-life most true-to-life
    ill-suited   more ill-suited   most ill-suited

I, for one, prefer the former in my writing style; nevertheless, I keep encountering the latter quite often. Does any rule exist in Fowler, Oxford, or any other respected authority regarding this? Thus far, my search for one has turned up fruitless. Pine (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google search for comparative and superlative of hyphenated adjectives, and I found answers on the following pages.

• http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/426348/2805.htm
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv140.shtml
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_adjectives
• http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/compounds.htm

—Wavelength (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in http://www.onlinestylebooks.com/home.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese video translation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2jVpPDXcac&feature=related

Can someone be kind enough to translate what the characters are saying? Thank you! 64.75.158.194 (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Town in Cyprus

Could someone confirm whether the authentic Greek pronunciation of the Cypriot town of Peyia, that is Πέγεια, is [ˈpejia] (3 syllables) or [ˈpeja] (2 syllables)? I need this so I can most accurately render the name in Bulgarian Cyrillic. Thanks. --Theurgist (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Still me, decided to give up my old sig.

July 20

Opposite of exaggerate

I've been wondering about this for a while... what us the opposite of exaggerate in a) English and b) Chinese? Kayau Voting IS evil 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly 'understate' or 'minimize'. Sorry I don't speak 'Chinese' 86.4.183.90 (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Meiosis (figure of speech) might be a linguistic antonym of exaggeration. Also Litotes has a Chinese example, but these are not quite what you were asking. Dbfirs 08:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

vitirinaire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margho (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dutch name: In' t <-- meaning?

A guy at my company is (first name) In' t (rest of family name) and I was wondering what that stands for/means? It's not an easy thing to google, what with the apostrophe and all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.189.63.171 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

't is a contraction of het.—Emil J. 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a combination of two tussenvoegsel (in het, in 't = in the): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tussenvoegsel#Combinations Rimush (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In 't is short for In het, meaning In the. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Dutch wikipedia suggests names with tussenvoegsels are often nobility, so you better curtsey your co-worker :-) . 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Syntax: How can one use a possessive relative pronoun for combining a conditional clause with the main clause?

The following pair of sentences:

• 1. "I met a person".
• 2. "That person's nose is purple".

can become one sentence, using the possessive relative pronoun "whose" - as following:

• 3. "I met a person whose nose is purple".

How about combining both clauses (by a possessive relative pronoun as before) when the second clause (no. 2) is conditional, e.g.

• 2. "If that person's nose were green, the world would look better".

Note that the main clause is as before, so the new sentence must begin with: "I met a person...". Additionally, note that the new sentence is obligated to preserve the original list of nouns ("person", "nose", "world") and to preserve also the original list of adjectives ("green", "better") and to preserve also the original list of verbs ("to meet", "to be", "to look"), so no addition of new nouns / adjectives / verbs (e.g. the verb "to have" etc.) is permitted.

I ask all of that, because such a combination of two clause (the second one of which is conditional) by a relative pronoun - is possible in other languages.

HOOTmag (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

French language

Hello everybody! A while ago I read about a Francophone area where the k sounds turned into x, so the paradigm sacrebleu changed from sɑkʁəblø to sɑxʁəblø. What area is this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.147.33 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)