Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

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.

August 6

Double adjectives following "a pair of"

A pair of Japanese and United States computer whizzes claim to have calculated pi to five trillion decimal places …

That says to me that both these people had dual nationality or dual citizenship. However, the rest of the story makes clear that one was from Japan, the other from the USA, and there is no mention of dual anything.

Are there any exceptions to the rule (I assume there is such a rule) that whatever adjectives follow “a pair of” apply equally to both members of the pair?

Is there an easier way to rephrase the sentence than “A pair of computer whizzes, one from Japan, the other from the United States, claim to have …”? -- (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very bad wording, but people make that kind of mistake all the time. You could say "A Japanese and an American computer whiz claim...", but it doesn't sound quite right. (I would never use "United States" as an adjective, either. As much as I hate it, the correct adjective form is "American".) --Tango (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like the "pair", you could say, "A pair of computer whizzes, one Japanese and one American, claim to have ..." and then maybe wonder what the point would be considering that each decimal place is only 1/10th the magnitude of the previous one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were talking about a couple (as in two partners in a romantic relationship), I think you could say "a Japanese-American couple", but somehow "a Japanese-American pair of computer whizzes" doesn't seem to work, perhaps because it's less of a unified entitiy than couple?---Sluzzelin talk 11:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A Japanese-American couple, Yuki Yamaguchi and Sarah Finkelstein, ..." would leave one in no doubt they were one of each nationality, and which one had which. But "A British-Australian couple, Mary Smith and Brian Jones .. " could easily mean they were both born British, got together in the UK, and moved as a couple to Australia; when the truth may be that Mary was British, and she met her Australian partner Brian while both were holidaying in Majorca. So, it depends. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Japanese-American" would usually mean an American citizen of Japanese descent (analogous to African-American). --Tango (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "American"

Oh, Bugs, if you think the five trillionth decimal in pi is a pointless thing to know, then I'm sorry to say you just haven't got what it takes to be a pure mathematician. Tango, side issue, but what's the objection to "American", apart from any possible confusion with other parts of the Americas (which isn't really a confusion at all since nobody ever refers to Canadians or Mexicans or Uruguayans using the contintental sense of "American")? The country is, after all, the United States of America, not the United States of Anywhere Else. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"American", by itself, refers to the USA. Regarding pi, I wonder if they found a "Hi There" message in the middle of it, as postulated in the book that was made into a movie called First Contact or something like that (a Jodie Foster movie). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the objection. "American" ought to mean anyone form the continents of America rather than from one country. (BTW, calculating pi to lots of decimal places has nothing to do with pure maths, it's just a way of showing off how good your computer is.) --Tango (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what business did the founding fathers have in using the word "America" in the name of the country? Whatever, but they did so use it. Hence "American". "USian" etc just don't wash. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, don't be sidetracked by sillinesses of the 4th kind. Focus on the number itself in all its glory, and be enrichulated. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

202.142 has a point. Off the top of my head I would say there isn't another country on the continent (nor anywhere else in the world) with "America" in its name. Rimush (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might not be at the moment. But if e.g. Myanmar suddenly decided to rename themselves the United Republic of Asia, would you then accept that the term Asian then would only apply to persons from there? Hardly. 88.131.68.194 (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that "American" only refers to people and things from the USA. Of course it can have wider meanings than this. But the USA is the only country whose demonym is "American". As well, context is everything. If a random person says "I am an American", then unless there is some context that indicates to the contrary, that is taken to mean by 100% of people that he is a citizen or national of the USA, not of anywhere else in the world in general, and not of anywhere else in the Americas in particular. This has never been a problem, so it amazes me that of recent times some people have tried to make a problem out of it. Words mean what they do mean, not what someone thinks they should mean. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've heard many Europeans refer to the USA as "America". It's common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And not just Europeans. See Coming to America, America, America, The Americanization of Emily, The American President, and numerous other native uses. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I wonder if the USA was the first nation in the western hemisphere to gain independence from its European counterpart? If so, it would have made sense to glom onto the "America" part. What else would they call it? Washingtonia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are people from the United Arab Emirates usually referred to? The article lists "Emirati" but also "Arab" as demonyms. This sort of corresponds with either "Statesian" (or something like that) and "American", doesn't it? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic reality is that there is no convenient English-language single-word true adjective corresponding to Spanish estadounidense, and as long as no such word exists in English, then some other word will have to be pulled in to fill the linguistic gap (currently "American" is used as the gap-filler). Frank Lloyd Wright advocated for the word "Usonian" to fill the gap, but it never really caught on... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no formal English-language single-word true adjective. Over here in Ukland, we generally use "Yank" as an adjective and noun in casual conversation, unless there are any citizens of the USA actually present :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being called a "Yank" by a Brit is a badge of honor. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've called ourselves "Yank" on occasion, as with Yank, The Army Weekly and "I'm a Cranky Old Yank in a Clanky Old Tank on the Streets of Yokohama with my Honolulu Mama Doin' Those Beat-o, Beat-o Flat-On-My-Seat-o, Hirohito Blues", but as a general-purpose "demonym" it's somewhat lacking... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soytenly! I'm also thinking of this patriotic American song that goes "Over there / over there / send the word / send the word / over there / that the Yanks are coming / the Yanks are coming / the drums rum-tumming everywhere ... and we won't come back till it's over / over there." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Yank" is fine as a noun and as a predicate adjective, but it's a little awkward as a prenominal adjective, or if you try to use it in the comparative and superlative degree... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? "American" a gap-filler? and a temporary one at that? What a load of rubbish, if I may speak bluntly. It is the permanent demonym of the United States of America, and has been since the inception of that country. It is as cemented in as it is possible for any word to be. It is not ever going to be supplanted by any other word, unless they change the name of the country to something that doesn't include the word "America". And is that likely to happen? Well, we don't do crystal ball gazing here, but NO. Get over it, get lives, and move on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about "temporary". However, if there had been a convenient English-language single-word true adjective handy in the 1770s, then "American" probably never would have come into use in that meaning in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but that's like saying we call those things we sit on "chairs" because there was no better word available. Isn't it? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Mexican States is Mexico, the Federal Republic of Germany is Germany but the United States of America has no name. I don't think it works like that. Rmhermen (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all are missing a key point. There is no other place that is also Mexico. There is no other place that is also Germany. There are many other places that are also in The Americas. Please try to address that in further responses.

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but how often are things outside the USA described as "American"? Well, let's see. There's the Organization of American States. And there are the adjectives for North, Central, Latin and South America, and the Americas in general. Probably a few other uses. But BY FAR the primary use of "American" is in reference to the USA. That is its default meaning, because you need a special context for it mean something else. That's in English. What other languages, particularly Spanish, might choose to do is their own affair. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. I always say the English word American and the Spanish word americano are false friends. They look and sound similar but have different meanings: the English word American corresponds in meaning to Spanish estadounidense, and the Spanish word americano corresponds to English phrases like New-World or Western-Hemisphere (with hyphens because they're being used attributively) or of the Americas. And anyone who doesn't believe that is invited to ask an English-speaking Canadian if he's an American and see what he says. +An gr 09:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does German amerikanisch mean? The German-speaking people use the attributive US-amerikanisch to strictly refer to something or someone of or from the United States. --Theurgist (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I tell Germans Ich bin Amerikaner, they know I mean I'm specifically from the U.S., not from just anywhere between Alert and Ushuaia. +An gr 09:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those other "American" contexts are where that handy coinage of mine, 'novomundane', would come into its own, if only someone would bloody well actually use it. The 'Organization of Novomundane States' does have a nice ring. But why stop there? To end the ceaseless confusion, they could rename North (etc) America as North (etc) Novomundania. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the common Spanish use of norteamericano for estadounidense is also technically inaccurate, and potentially insulting to the inhabitants of Canada, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"American" by itself refers to the USA. The Spanish americano means "American", latinoamericano means "Latin American, norteamericano means "North American" (or sometimes "American"), sudamericano means "South American", estadounidense means a citizen of or pertaining to the USA, and is really more like "United Statesian" or the Frank Lloyd Wrightism "USonian" as noted earlier. Maybe it shouldn't be this way, but it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but using norteamericano in Spanish to refer to an inhabitant of the U.S.A. is theoretically just as insulting to Canadians, Greenlanders, and St.-Pierre-and-Miquelonites as using "American" in English to refer to an inhabitant of the U.S.A. is theoretically insulting to inhabitants of the Americas outside the U.S.A... AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Theoretically insulting"? I don't know about the Spanish part, but as for the "American" thing: How about we wait for someone to claim they've actually been insulted by this, and then take whatever action might be appropriate (which would be none), before spending any of our precious worry time over it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here know whether if you told a Spaniard or an Argentinian or a Mexican, "Soy norteamericano", they would understand it to mean that you're from the U.S. or that you're from the U.S. or Canada? --Atemperman (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing a language back from extinction

What is the longest period of time in which a language went extinct and was revived later on? It seems Cornish was revived 150 years after it went extinct. Also is it possible to speak Gaulish the extinct language of the Celtic gauls of France, today, I'm not sure if it's a written language or not.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, by 'revived', do you mean that the language once again began to be spoken as an everyday means of communication, and taught to children as their 'mother tongue', rather than being intelligible to and potentially useable in conversation by just a few expert archeologists and historical linguists, like Sumerian? Also, by 'extinct', do you mean that it became totally disused in spoken form, rather than being preserved only as a liturgical language for a period before being reintroduced as a living language, like classical and Modern Hebrew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry for not signing. I usually do, honest! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

87.81 brings up a good point with the relative nature of "revived." The following doesn't directly answer the original question but I think shows why it's not all that easy to answer.

Linguist Geoff Pullum wrote on The Language Log in 2005 about efforts to revive Cornish. While the following is his (educated) opinion, I think it's a relevant one:

Let me remind you what is necessary for a language to be living: there must be little kids who speak the language with each other because it is their only language or else their favorite. Little kids who would speak it even if they were told not to. It is not enough that a community of grownups (squabbling or not) has learned it from books and reads to each other each Tuesday night in someone's living room...

Ask around the village and find the age of the youngest people using a language every day for all their normal conversational interaction. If the answer is a number larger than 5, the language is probably dying. If the answer is a number larger than 10, it is very probably doomed. If the answer is a number larger than 20, you can kiss it goodbye right now.

Pullum refers to a colleague who believes that "traditional Gaeltacht [Irish_language|Irish]" (Gaeilge) will be dead before the middle of the century. Jim McCloskey's thoughts are more nuanced than I can summarize here. He makes a case for second-language use while making clear that "what is ‘maintained’ or ‘revived’ in this process, is very different indeed from the language which was the original focus of revivalist efforts." --- OtherDave (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting article, thanks for the link. (One interesting thing about it is that as recently as 2004, Jim McCloskey still hadn't figured out how to put an acute accent over a vowel on his computer and was still using the vowel + slash kludge people were using in the early 1990s when only ASCII was available.) +An gr 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto was brought to life as a language which had never existed.—Wavelength (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a critical mass of surviving long connected texts in Gaulish Celtic, so if you were to try to make it be a full usable language, a lot of speculative filling in of gaps would necessarily be involved. The only language which has been fully resurrected from being the childhood language or birth tongue of nobody to being a well-established language with full recognition from at least one government in the world (i.e. not just the hobby project of a few individuals) is Hebrew. Cornish definitely does not qualify -- its enthusiasts can't even agree which of three competing spelling systems to use...

Wavelength -- There are a few people who grew up speaking Esperanto (since that was the only language which their mother and father had in common), but there are no real Esperanto monolinguals, and interestingly such childhood native speakers of Esperanto generally end up using a form of the language which is rather divergent from Esperanto as approved by Zamenhoff, so it's hard to say that Esperanto is actually a living language, in any meaningful sense of the term.

In any case, in censuses of India, there are always a few people who claim to be native Sanskrit speakers... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source regarding the non-standard use of Esperanto by "native" speakers? Not that I doubt you—I'd just like to read more about it. WP's Esperanto and Native Esperanto speakers say nothing of it.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My source was oral folklore among academic linguists, that native Esperanto speakers "creolize" the language to some degree, and that such departures are often looked down upon by those who learned Esperanto as adults -- whereas if Esperanto were a true living language, they would set the direction of future language change (as happened in the early 20th century when early native modern Hebrew speakers departed in some details from classical Biblical/Mishnaic Hebrew). AnonMoos (talk)

See Native Esperanto speakers. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the revival of the Hebrew language be the best example of this? John M Baker (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was already mentioned several times above... AnonMoos (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the revival of the Hebrew language, in its literary form with the Haskalah, and especially as a spoken language, through Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, is really interesting. It may be an example for the speakers of endangered languages. --Keguligh (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to go back to the original question; the last people who could speak Cornish died towards the end of the 19th Century[1], at about the time that the revival began. This page[2] refers to them as "semi-speakers". The initial aim of the revival was to give access to the Cornish literary canon, hence the strange mix of early and middle strands of the language in the "Unified Cornish" system. It would be like learning English which was a mix of Chaucer, Mallory, Shakespeare and the King James Bible. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Cornish? I smell a bad unicorn pun... -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Yugoslavia

What is the etymology of Yugoslavia? The article does not say?Ritta Margot Clantagenet (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if not, it should. Yug-, yugo- and similar terms are commonly found in Slavic languages, meaning "south, southerly". Yugoslavia was the land of the south Slavs. The tennis player Mikhail Youzhny might otherwise be called Michael South. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia#Etymology. I agree it should be moved/copied to the "main" article. No such user (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bundle! So fast!Ritta Margot Clantagenet (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a list of country name etymologies. (And a list of etymologies of country subdivision names.) --84.46.3.47 (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

http://www.gamefreak.co.jp/blog/dir/

Could someone translate the four most recent entries on there? I tried Google translator (which gave me a lot of gibberish), and the English version on the site is a year out of date. --138.110.206.102 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a lot you're asking for... I'll give you the last entry, because it's the shortest, somebody else might have more time on their hands and do the rest:

Game Freak is going on summer vacation from tomorrow.

Masuda will be in Hawaii from the 12th to the 18th for the WCS!

What country will be the first in the world?

Check out this site for more:

http://www.pokemonworldchampionships.com/2010/

Ciao!

Hope that starts you off. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"oly gyenge jellem, hogy mindent elkölt, az utolsó fillérig"

If you understand that, please help answer the question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#what_english_word_expression. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese help

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ds/irbj/index.html

Click the link under Reshiram (the left one). What do the labels on the map say? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only get an error message for that site. Maybe you could take a screenshot and upload it somewhere? TomorrowTime (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A screenshot can be found here. There are more labels (the map is scrollable), but you get the idea. decltype (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The couple is" or "the couple are"...

...expecting their next child? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that you use "is" or "was" when referring to the couple as a whole, but "are" or "were" when referring to individual members. For example, "The couple are getting married next week", but "The couple is expecting their next child". Regardless of which verb you use, the pronoun is almost universally "their", not "its". Xenon54 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hang on a minute there, Xenon54. The couple is expecting their next child - ?? That doesn't sit well in my brain. That's one case where I'd retroactively readjust the verb to agree with the the pronoun. The couple are expecting their next child sounds much more natural, even if it's a joint expectation. Same with cases like The couple is making their travel plans > The couple are making their travel plans, even if they're travelling together at all times. Technical correctness has to take a back seat in such cases. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, we would almost always use the plurals. American English tends to be a little more logical and use singular verbs and pronouns for singular nouns, even if they refer to multiple individuals. For example, in British English we would say "The government are doing a bad job." and in American English they would say "The government is doing a bad job.". --Tango (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Typical usage would be "The couple is..."; not "The couple are..."; although saying it the second way would not be the end of the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's typical usage in the US. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US usage is what matters. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you bloody mind? This is the English speaking WP and many others apart from Merkins use it! So the exclusive US interpretation of everything is not welcome!

BTW, verb should always agree with subject. Therefore: 'The couple is' is correct. Couple is a singular noun.--BrianSturgeon (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should, but in British English it doesn't. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But does it always work as a singular noun, Brian? Here are some opinions to the contrary. Sometimes it refers to the multiple individual elements of the set, rather than the set itself. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is common outside the USA for technically singular group nouns to be used to refer to the members of the group ("the members of the government ..."; "the individuals in the couple ..."). Whilst a singular subject must always take a verb in the singular, the "members of ..." usage is sufficiently common to many speakers of English that they automatically read a plural subject when they see a verb in the plural. This may sound odd to pedants, and to those who are unfamiliar with the idiom, but it reads as perfectly natural and correct as an idiom to those who see it regularly in print. In very formal writing, even in the UK, it would be preferable to re-cast the sentence for the benefit of pedants. Dbfirs 08:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I saw a couple of people along the road. It was jogging." Dbfirs 09:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The road was jogging? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly! We expect "couple" to be plural, so we automatically say "they were jogging", at the same time avoiding confusion. Dbfirs 08:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

Every other odd item in a set: part of speech?

Which part of speech is every other in this noun phrase? Friends are arguing that it's an adjective, but it looks to me that 'odd' is functioning as an adjective, and 'every other' an adverbial phrase. Am I right? If not, why am I wrong? Preferably in grammatical terms, so I could at least research on the topic.

Thanks in advance. -- 124.171.138.193 (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Every other" does not have any special characteristic separate from its component words. There are three adjectives in "Every other odd item in a set" - every, other and odd.

Adverbial phrases act as if they're adverbs: they answer the questions how?, when?, where?, to what extent?, etc, and they're associated with verbs (hence the name ad-verb). There's no verb in the phrase in question, no adverb, and no adverbial phrase. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is ungrammatical as far as I can see. What is it supposed to mean? Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can a phrase be expected to be grammatical? Few phrases make complete sense divorced from their contexts. That's why they're merely phrases, and not sentences. But I would say "other" means alternative (or alternate, for US-speakers), and it's referring to selecting every second odd number from some set of numbers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, every odd item = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19. Every other odd item in in bold. -- 124.171.138.193 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or more generally, 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 57, 74, 82, 93, 101, 137, 208, 316, 318, 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 328, 329, 330, 479, 614. I'm assuming here that "other" means you select the 2nd of each pair of odd numbers, not the 1st. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JackofOz. The precise definition of an adverb was confused, I discussed adverbs/adjectives further with a friend and came to predicative sentences, to which I need to pose another question: In predicative sentences (or in other cases, if that's possible), how is it determined which part of speech is used?

It is sad, there's no doubting this is a predicative adjective.
It is swimming, it's a present participle verb, sure, but why?
It is interesting, the distinction is less clear. I know it's an adjective, because it takes very. But my judgment is based on intuition.

Swimming and interesting can also be adjectives, but are there any predefined rules to determine which? -- 124.171.138.193 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare: "I love history because it is interesting", and "Murdoch's theory is interesting many scientists lately". Although both cases are based on something that interests (verb) someone, in the first case it's an adjective because it's used in exactly the same way as "the sheep is white". "Because it is interesting" can be rewritten as "because it is an interesting subject", but you can't do that with the 2nd sentence: "Murdoch's theory is an interesting subject many scientists lately" makes no sense. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I suppose that does clear up any confusion I had, but opens a few more questions... Are these phrases abbreviated forms of longer ones where an object is defined implicitly? Will words always, without regard to part of speech or word, follow the rule of its expanded phrase when used as an abbreviated predicate statement? Edit: This doesn't actually clear confusion, just makes things confusing. Analyzing this, you are suggesting we append a direct object to the predicative statement, and if it is ungrammatical as a verb then it is an adjective, and vice versa? -- 124.171.138.193 (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bad pun in here ... somewhere ... I think ...

The Pearls Before Swine (comic strip) comic for today, August 7th, presumably contains yet another really bad play on words, I think :-). It's banging around in the back of my head, but won't come out.

(After the link rolls over to Sunday's page, you'll probably have to click one of the links under that page's SEARCH graphic to get back to Saturday's strip.)

Need the help of more literate Wikipedians than I seem to be today. Thanks! DaHorsesMouth (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not necessary, but I've taken the liberty of changing the URL in DaHorsesMouth's query to a more permanent one (and have restored his/her sig). Deor (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just an Oliver Twist reference? Or am I missing something? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The somewhat odd phrasing of both Rat's and Pig's remarks does suggest a more specific allusion than that, but I'm unable to identify the reference. Deor (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to think it's a ref to some old Beatles tune. There's also something (ooh, a clue perhaps) about Pig's eyes.

And, if any of that turns out to be true, it marks a sea change for Stephen Pastis -- up to this point his "bad pun" strips have had all the subtlety of a brick wall. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old enough that current comics frequently make references to items of pop culture with which I'm unfamiliar. The only Beatles tune that seems relevant is their cover of "Please Mr. Postman", but aside from the title, there's no similarity in the lyrics. Deor (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of the phrases "Please Mister Policeman" or "Please Mister Peace Man" along with "One day more", but I'm not coming up with the song. Unless that in fact is from Oliver Twist? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour

Why is it that this word almost invariably means bad behaviour? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That's not my impression. Looie496 (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In family contexts, the topic of a child's behaviour is usually raised when said behaviour has not been up to scratch. I mean, a parent does not sit a child down whose behaviour has been exemplary, with "I want to have a serious talk to you about your behaviour lately. It's been perfect". Maybe they should acknowledge good behaviour more often, rather than just taking it for granted and only focussing on behaviour when it's been less than great. Is this the sort of thing you're talking about, Kitty? In other contexts, police talk of both good and bad crowd behaviour. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the phrase "your behavior" almost always has negative overtones - why would anyone want to single out some aspect of your behavior for conversation unless they wanted to change it? Occasionally you'll see it used positively: "Your behavior on the court today was impeccable; that's good sportsmanship", but that's usually to reinforce good behavior (a different kind of change). the word 'behavior' is by itself neutral. --Ludwigs2 21:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found it used in divorce proceedings by the narcissist to belittle and reduce their opponent. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Blind men and an elephant and http://www.exemplarybehavior.com/. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.buzzle.com/articles/behavior-charts-for-kids.html and http://www.buzzle.com/articles/behavior-charts-for-teachers.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same with "attitude". Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://refbible.com/b/behavior.htm, http://refbible.com/b/behaviour.htm, http://refbible.com/a/attitude.htm, and http://refbible.com/a/attitudes.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one spends much time with negative news and negative entertainment and negative people, one is more likely to encounter those words used in negative contexts. Someone who spends much time with positive news and positive entertainment and positive people is more likely to encounter those words used in positive contexts.—Wavelength (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See National Day of Encouragement and Praise in the Classroom. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Corrective feedback (permanent link here). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The attitude of an inanimate object is its physical position, and its behavior is its physical movement or change of state. The attitude of an animate being is his/her/its mental position (in relation to someone or something), and his/her/its behavior is his/her/its physical activity. Behavior#Psychology (permanent link here) says that behavior can be acceptable or unacceptable.Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about an early parole from prison, on account of "good behavior"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Fitzgerald sings "Why Can't You Behave?" at Ella Fitzgerald - Why can't you behave? Lyrics.Wavelength (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Japanese

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEJJFuSmGpE

This video's subtitles are missing what Dento and Prof. Araragi say. Could someone translate those parts? Thanks! --138.110.206.99 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would be better off finding a Pokemon fan forum for these requests. I don't think there are any Pokemon fans among the regulars here (at least, none who also understand Japanese). You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. Also, please don't troll the Science desk. -- BenRG (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bravery vs courage

What is the difference? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the same thing as, respectively, between the words:

lucky and fortunate
earthly and terrestrial
motherly and maternal

bravery is Germanic whereas courage is Latinate. The former word has a smell, the latter one a scent. 92.230.232.141 (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they mean the same thing. It's a characteristic feature of the English language that we have a lot of synonyms due to our mixture of Germanic and Latin origins. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/brave), brave (and the German term brav) is a French derivative and goes back to a word in the Gaulish language. Related terms exist in Irish and Breton. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that bravery is a property of behavior, but courage is a property of one's state of mind. Bravery is physical, courage is mental. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Courage, mon brave!" Attributed to Voltaire. Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that definition. I don't see how an action alone could ever be considered "brave", without consideration of the situation and subject's state of mind. For example, take the action of entering a burning building. When someone with full knowledge of the situation and potential consequences to themselves takes the decision to do this it could be described as brave. If they are mentally impaired (perhaps due to age, a medical condition or intoxication) they may not be aware of the danger. Even if they are fully cogent they may be unaware of the fire. In such circumstances it wouldn't really be meaningful to say he was brave. I agree with the previous statements that bravery and courage are essentially synonymous.

However, even perfect synonyms can cause different reactions based on the subjectivity of the listener/reader. For myself, I would say that the word "courageous" is more evocative of heroism than "brave". As I said, though, that is a subjective reaction and will vary from person to person – some people will see it the other way around. AJ Cham 15:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=bravery&ls=a and http://www.onelook.com/?w=courage&ls=a. Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help coming up with a short phrase for a company value?

The Chinese company I work for has asked that their catchy Chinese values be translated into English. The first 3 went ok: "Champion employees", "Embrace customers", "Quality, always", but the fourth is a bit tricky. Essentially, it means that the company always keeps its promises, meets all its deadlines, fulfills all its commitments. If it was a person, you'd say "he's a man of his word" or "his word is as good as gold" or what have you. That's the idea they want to convey. This is concise and lovely in Chinese, but I'm having a hard time thinking of an equally concise English equivalent. "Fulfill Commitments" is not very stirring! 174.34.144.211 (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "dependable" is the word that occurs to me. Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also reliable and trustworthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity? 129.67.37.143 (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Common law principle underpinning insurance contracts is "Uberrima fides" usually translated as "Utmost Good Faith". The motto of the London Stock Exchange is "Dictum meum pactum", or "My word is my bond". Alansplodge (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like 129.67's suggestion; "Integrity, always" would pair nicely with "Quality, always". Dependable, reliable, and even trustworthy are somewhat ambiguous—they could refer either to the company or to its products (the latter of which readings would make the fourth "value" seem redundant with "Quality, always"). Something like "Be accountable" might also work. Deor (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "deliver on promises"? --71.185.169.212 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

Chinese coiffure or turban

Does anyone have access to the book History of the Qin and Han Dynasties (秦汉史) by Jian Bozan? Page 198 of the work supposedly mentions the dress and appearance of the Dayuan people. The author of a book I am reviewing states the Chinese character used to describe the headdress of the people can mean either "turban (diadem) or a coiffure." With my limited knowledge of Chinese, the only character for the Chinese coiffure I know of is Jiu (鬏). What other possibilities are there?

I have a secondary question regarding whatever character that more knowledgeable editors may come up with. Even though the character can be used to mean coiffure and turban, has it ever been used to describe any other type of headgear other than turbans? If so, please give examples (preferably from around the Han Dynasty if possible). Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around and found another character that might fit: Jin (巾). Most of the online Chinese dictionaries I've consulted just say it means towel and or turban, but I found one on google books that says it also means coiffure. But unless someone can look up that specific page from the above book, I won't know for sure if this is correct or not. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

盤頭 also means coiffure or turban, but it is not the single character I am looking for. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have the book at hand, but I get a glimpse of it through Google Books. However, I find its Chinese version only, so I’m not sure whether we’re reading the same page. In the Chinese version, the reason why Han invade Dayuan and two attempts of invasion led by general Li Guangli are mentioned. Besides, a description of a desert by Marco Polo is cited. If these clues are confirmed, I think what we see are the same.

If so, I’m afraid Jian Bozan only mentions the appearance of the Dayuan people, not dress. Well, at least in the Chinese version. He says Dayuan “used to be the last shelter for those Greeks with ‘deep eyes, high noses’ and ‘lots of beards’ in the Northwest of Central Asia”. The character he uses is “鬚”, which is simplified to “须” in simplified Chinese. And this character means beard. So I think the translator just confused “鬚” with “鬏” or “鬓”. Well, they look similar, don’t them?--Certiffon (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of phonemes

This question (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Do_humans_have_a_natural_language.3F) at the Humanities RD let me thinking: Is User:Ludwigs2 right?--Quest09 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the ~~libery~~ liberty of emending the link in Quest's query. Deor (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of emending the spell in ~~Dear's~~ Deor's query. Quest09 (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of emending my name in Quest's liberty-taking message. :-) Deor (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of not emending anything. Rimush (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've ~~tasen~~ taken the ~~liserty~~ liberty of ~~emensing~~ emending a few ~~wosds~~ words in this ~~sost~~ post. Eliko (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e-mending, like e-mail? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberties aside, Ludwigs2's claims sound convincing to me, except that I think the restriction on phonemes begins earlier - some claim that it begins in the womb! I haven't time to cite references just now, so perhaps someone else can find some? Dbfirs 12:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but if the heading is a guide, you're perhaps asking about Ludwigs2's statement that the "phonemes of human speech" number "80-some". As far as I know, the term phonemes is applied to significant distinctions within an individual language or dialect; and even for single speech communities, different scholars will come up with different numbers, depending on how they conduct their analyses. See the discussion on pp. 118–124 here, which mentions languages with as few as 11 and as many as 141 phonemes. If one wanted to count the different sounds used in all languages, the number would be enormous but would again depend on how one went about drawing the distinctions. Deor (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection, I think Deor is right with many hundreds or even thousands if one makes fine distinctions and includes the clicks of Khoisan languages etc. Our IPA chart has only 53 for all dialects of English, but there are many subtleties within the vowels, as in the questionable homophones taught, tort and taut. Dbfirs 15:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it only me who finds referring to the Khoisan sounds as "clicks", and discussions about including them as sounds or not, offensive? They're consonants like all others, aren't they? And keep in maaaai (Wiseau reference), this is coming from an anti-PC kind of guy Rimush (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to imply that they are not consonants, just that we often forget about such sounds from "exotic" languages. My own dialect has some very strange consonants that sound like clicks (as in bottle), and the k in standard English and many other languages is a click is it not? I've never heard anyone speak in a Khoisan language. Are there any sound files available? Dbfirs 16:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xhosa is not a Khoisan language, but it features click consonants too, and you can hear some Xhosa clicks for example here, here or here. See also click consonant. --Theurgist (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. It sounds quite tricky to learn! (Harder than Welsh and Gaelic) Dbfirs 17:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a click in "bottle"? Do you just mean a plosive consonant? --Tango (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a click - certainly a double plosive. I try not to use it! Dbfirs 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no one has a click in "bottle". You probably are referring to a glottal stop. And there's nothing politically incorrect about referring to "clicks" – it's a class of consonant, just like "plosive", "fricative", "ejective", and so on. 65.242.43.102 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "glottal stop" like the way Eliza's father says "little" in the song "With a Little Bit of Luck"? As in "li-ul"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In American English you can hear it in "uh-_oh" and replacing the "t" some pronunciations of words like "Latin" and "kitten". +An gr 15:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not a glottal stop, but perhaps not quite a click either. The sound is made at the sides of the tongue like the click one makes to tell a horse to walk, but is not usually a full click, perhaps just a combination of plosive and fricative . Do we have a formal definition of a click? Dbfirs 06:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's actual question: of course I'm is right. That goes without saying.

--Ludwigs2 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too late! You already said it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Peelers"

I have recently re-read the Eddie Dickens Trilogy by Philip Ardagh, a certified Brit. However, he likes to write confusingly, a la Lemony Snicket, and I think he may have misled me. In the book, which takes place in Victorian England, policemen are called "peelers". Ardagh claims that this is because they were named after the (real) Prime Minister Robert Peel, who set up the police force. However, I learned shortly after that British police officers are called "bobbies" for the same reason. Could somebody who is British tell me if I've been had? Has "peeler" ever been a legit term for an officer of the law?? 98.240.190.197 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not British, but the answer to your (final) question is yes. See here. Deor (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much the terms was actually used, but yes, it features commonly in "life in Victorian London" exhibits, and that sort of thing. I remember being taught the term when studying the Victorians. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both are UK slang terms for policeman, and both derive from the name of Sir Robert Peel. Bobby is still in current use (though it would be regarded as dated by some). Peeler is no longer in use, but is generally understood because it can be found in older literature. Dbfirs 15:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you had to get certified to be British. +An gr 16:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peeler is still in widespread use here in Northern Ireland, but then I suppose that's also true for many other words. -- the Great Gavini 17:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any recent non-historical NI books in which "peeler" is used? If you can, then we ought to change Wiktionary's entry. In many parts of England, some younger people might assume you were referring to a stripogram! Dbfirs 21:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of instances quoted in this 2003 report on policing (PDF) (pp 59 and 61). I must say I've never heard the strip-o-gram use. -- the Great Gavini 08:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think most English speakers would think of this when they hear "peeler". To "peel" is also a cute way of saying "strip", as in removing cloths (not skin, except if you were sunburned a few days ago). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That confirms that the word is still in colloquial use in Ireland. It sounds very dated on this side of the Irish Sea. Dbfirs 13:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the English use of "peeler" certainly came from Sir Rbt Peel, the Irish use predates Peel's 1829 reforms: the OED has an 1817 Irish quotation. The OED does attribute this also to Peel who, it claims, set up the Irish Constabulary. Neither Peel's page or the RIC page note this, that I could see. On a further note, they have a 1993 citation in reference to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Gwinva (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word does seem to be in occasional current use. Would you accept "dated" rather than Wiktionary's tag of "archaic". If so, I'll change the Wiktionary entry. Dbfirs 23:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... (later) ... I've made small additions to the articles you mention to redress the omissions. Dbfirs 02:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belonging to someone else

What is the correct possessive of "someone else" or "Everyone else"? For example a problem belonging to someone else. My instinct is always to write "someone else's problem", but that is always tagged by spelling checkers as wrong.

Is there another, more correct way of writing this? Or is this a case where the spell checker is leading me astray? APL (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly say "someone else's" and the spell checker in Firefox that is checking this as I type it doesn't complain (it does, however, complain about the word "Firefox"...). --Tango (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that, logically, it should be "someone's else", but I've never heard anyone say that. Microsoft's grammar checker changes "someone's else" to "someone else's". Perhaps one should re-cast the sentence in very formal writing. Dbfirs 21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO, a thousand times NO. Leave it as the perfectly correct "someone else's", and the spell checker be damned. Do NOT be a slave to spell/grammar checkers. Learn the basics, and be confident with your use of them. That principle would apply in any other field of human endeavour, wouldn't it, so why not in one's own language. Imagine a surgeon relying on a crappy computer program to tell him whether to make the next cut near the heart or the brain, or the balls. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle with JackofOz, but, in practice, I find Microsoft's spell checker (together with a custom dictionary compiled over twenty years) moderately useful. It would be even more useful if it allowed words to be deleted. The only major error was the spelling of liaison, and they eventually corrected that around the turn of the millennium after many years of apparently not noticing their mistake. The grammar checker is less useful, but the most annoying aspects can be disabled. "Someone's else" would be hyper-correct and just sounds wrong (as I intended to imply above). It's rather like "majors general" where everyone actually says "major generals", and have done for the last 200 years. Dbfirs 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful or not, if your gut is telling you your spelling of a particular word or phrase is correct and the spell checker disagrees, then either go with your gut without further ado, or do as APL did and check it out independently, but do not just abandon your own gut instinct. Majors general? Does any grammar checker actually require that? Being a rank or title, it's different from 'attorney-general' or 'governor-general', which are offices. They pluralise the first element only, but "lieutenant-colonel", "major-general" etc are pluralised in the normal way. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Gazette of 1710 had "The Brigadiers Juel and Daa were created Majors-General", but I agree that the correct spelling now has the "s" at the end. It won't be long before "attorney-general" and "governor-general" follow suit. I was really contrasting logic with usage, not claiming archaic plurals as correct. Some spell checkers evidently need someone to check their spelling. Dbfirs 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one's a bit complex, because to us a Major General is a type of General, but originally it was short for Sergeant Major General, which was a type of Sergeant Major. So the noun-adjective roles have switched over time. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see Judge Advocate General (United Kingdom) refers to “Assistant Judge Advocate Generals” rather than “Assistant Judge Advocates General”. That surprises me, I must say. Judge Advocate General (Canada) nicely side-steps the issue with: Eight Assistant Judge Advocate General (AJAG) offices; and Ten Deputy Judge Advocate (DJA) offices.

Which reminds me: is it "Pedantry-Enforcers-General" or "Pedantry-Enforcer-Generals"? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "Pedantry-Enforcers-General" were a dying breed - very near to extinction! As I tried to show above, the "s" is gradually moving to the end in all of these compounds, and in very formal writing it is often preferable to re-cast the sentence to avoid the controversy. Dbfirs 07:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hope they are extinct. That doesn't stop us talking about them forever. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the correct form is in fact "someone else's", and "someone's else" is in absolutely no way correct. English possessive -'s always comes at the end of a noun phrase, which may or may not the noun actually doing the possessing. It's not like a traditional genitive case. 65.242.43.102 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was what we all said in the discussion above, but thanks for clarifying. Problems sometimes still arise when the head of the noun phrase precedes other nouns or modifiers. In cases that sound clumsy, it is usually preferable to re-cast the sentence. Dbfirs 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. So I'm right and spell checkers are wrong. Good. Thanks all. APL (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your spell checker wouldn't like "The boy I gave the puzzle to's mother" or "The man I kissed's hat" either, but they're both right. +An gr 14:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a matter of interest, which spell checker gets it wrong? Microsoft's makes the correct suggestion in the case of "someone else's", but it can't cope with Angr's examples. Dbfirs 08:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to put the 's is after the last word in a noun phrase, otherwise the meaning is unclear. For example, if you said that Vegamite sandwich belong to Jack of Oz, you wouldn't say "Jack's of Oz sandwich", you would say "Jack of Oz's sandwich". The example "majors general" is different - that's a plural, not a possessive, although it's more likely to be heard as "major generals" as noted above. However, the plural of "court martial" the last I heard is still "courts martial", as "martial" is still an adjective. However, the discussion has clarified one thing for me: In the American south (and increasingly elsewhere) the most commonly stereotyped expression is probably "yawl", as in "y'all", for "you all". The possessive of "yawl" is "yawl's" or "y'all's". If "you all" is taken to be a noun phrase, then it works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Than there's that horror, "she and I's car" instead of "her and my car", or "the car is hers and mine". It's trying to possessivise the expression "she and I" by adding an 's to it, but that's a bad, bad error. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend "the car of her and me".—Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "The King of Spain's daughter" is used at http://www.rhymes.org.uk/a35-i-had-a-little-nut-tree.htm, but I do not endorse that usage.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has a long history, e.g. William Byrd's "The Erle of Oxfordes Marche" from the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible stew

The article brunswick stew, currently linked from the front page, contains a sentence that makes no sense to me. I was going to fix it, but first I need help decoding it:

Also, North Carolina natives have been known for their own unique concoction, leaving the tomato base and thickness but divering between meats with chicken breast chunks or pulled Eastern Carolina style bbq.

"Divering" is probably meant to be "diverging," yes? Even so, "diverging between meats with" baffles me. I imagine the North Carolina natives running some kind of race, all grouped together, reaching a landmark which is a pair of tables laden with meats, and then running between the tables and diverging, and all the while they are "with", that is, holding onto, chicken breast chunks or pulled Eastern Carolina style bbq. What is that last item, anyway? The term "pulled" is something I don't know about, and barbecue is not an actual meat type. Perhaps "divering between meats with" means "diversifying the meats with"; but the problem with this is that chicken was already mentioned as a common ingredient. What is the sentence trying to say? 213.122.64.99 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Divering" may also have been meant to be "differing", but the syntax would still be messed up. How about something like "... their own unique concoction, similarly thick and tomato based, using either chicken-breast chunks or pulled Eastern Carolina–style barbecue as the meat". I also think that the "Also" at the beginning of the sentence could be dispensed with. (I'd worry more about the lack of references for anything in that section, myself.) Deor (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and pulled in this context basically means "shredded", and Carolina barbecue apparently is pork by definition. Deor (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, thanks. 213.122.64.99 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might dithering also have been intended? Although that wouldn't be terribly encyclopedic. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the specific differentia of Eastern Carolina barbecue, see the first paragraph of North Carolina#Famous food and drinks from North Carolina, which could be linked to at the appropriate point in this article. Deor (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared on February 24th from this rather poorly-constructed edit by a one-shot IP: [3] (or two shots, technically) so getting an answer on his intentions might be difficult. I would recommend rewriting the sentence in a way that seems most logical and don't worry about precisely what word the IP intended. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad vs. Good words query

I mean, Positive and Negative words. I want to know why horrible and terrible describe ghastly things, and then the word horrific also is bad, but terrific is taken to mean something is great. The root words are horror and terror, right? Could somebody give an answer or their best guess? 2Ð ℳǣ$₮ℝʘ ^{talk, sign} 22:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrific" needn't necessarily mean 'something great.' Just like "great" it can mean good, bad or indifferent. Like "there was a great/terrific bang," or "the great/terrific mountain range." Terrible and terrific both have the same stem, yes, but different suffixes. "-ic" and "-ible" both form adjectives, but they are "a form or instance" and "causing," respectively. So the two words' forms give insight. Hope this helps! schyler (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other good ones for the collection are awesome, awful, and tremendous. These words definitely change over time; I remember reading an old novel which described a statue as "awful", meaning it was imposing. Nowadays we would assume that meant "badly made". 213.122.64.99 (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even "bad" itself can be positive when used colloquially, just like "wicked" (and probably others more). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I just came back to edit that in, you got there first. :) Colloquially, and in the 1980s. 213.122.64.99 (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

(after edit conflicts) Until at least 1899, terrific was used in its original meaning of terrible, horrible, but it also came to be used as an intensifier, as mentioned by Schyler, from the mid-1800s ("A terrific storm", but also "A terrific sunset".) Terrible is also used as an intensifier in my local dialect (and probably elsewhere). From about 1930, the slang usage of "terrific" meaning "very good" came into use (The equivalent use of terrible in my local dialect probably came earlier [4]). It was a gradual development, as with many changes of meaning. Dbfirs 00:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

words like this are referents to the causation of an emotion: e.g. horrible means 'instills horror', adorable means 'creates adoration', etc. some of these emotions are ambiguous: awe and terror in particular have implications of religious ecstasy which need not be negative. --Ludwigs2 00:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there were any religious connotations in this case. It was through the intensifier usage, as with lots of similar words. Dbfirs 00:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad" and "wicked" were already mentioned; there's also the modern slang usage of "sick" to mean "great". The word "awesome" also once had a negative meaning. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would ever now be given the epithet "The Terrible", as Ivan the Terrible was, because it no longer means menacing, threatening, or terror-inducing. It just means crap quality now, or it can also mean highly inappropriate ("That's a terrible thing to say"). "Ivan the Highly Inappropriate" - nah, I don't think so. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(... except in dialect, where it is a synonym of terrific, as in my link above.) Dbfirs 07:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In pre-Vatican II days, my school choir sang Terribilis est locus isti ("how terrible is this place") as part of the dedication of a new church. The phrase comes from Genesis 28:17, when Jacob, awakening from his dream, says, "How awesome is this shrine! This is nothing else but an abode of God, and that is the gateway to heaven!" --- OtherDave (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of how "sensible" once meant "aware" (I am sensible of your interest in this matter), where now it means "demonstrating common sense". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seyran (name)

Can you tell me the pronunciation of the Turkish name "Seyran"? Thanks, Irene1949 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is pronounced like the combination of two English words "say" (tell) and "run" (jog). --Omidinist (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With IPA for Turkish, it would be represented thus: [sejˈɾan]. --Theurgist (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, according to the note on that page, "In Turkish proper, excepting certain unstressed suffixes and stressed verb tenses, proper nouns are typically stressed on the 2nd or 3rd last syllable, and other words on the last syllable" (emphasis added; see also Turkish phonology#Sezer stress), so perhaps it's actually [ˈsejɾan]. +An gr 15:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Irene1949's thank-you post below) Probably. But all examples here to support that are placenames. Among the proper names of people, we have [ɾeˈdʒep taˈjip ˈeɾdoɰan], [dʒeˈmaɫ ɟyɾˈsel], [adˈnan mendeˈɾes], [meˈsut jɯɫˈmaz]. Besides, many Turkish anthroponyms are directly derived from common nouns, for example Gül means "rose"; Güneş means "sun"; Yıldırım means "lightning"; Yıldız means "star". The "Sezer stress" section of the Turkish phonology article begins thus: "Proper names (of both places and foreign people) follow a different stress pattern, known in the linguistics literature as Sezer stress (after the discoverer of the pattern, Engin Sezer)." [emphasis added] This biographical article would suggest that the name Seyran might have Kurdish origins, and a Kurdish speaker has recorded a pronunciation here, stressing the ultimate syllable. I'm not saying I'm in all senses right, but my very passing (lack of) knowledge of Turkish wouldn't let me rely on the penult and antepenult stresses in all cases of proper names. :) --Theurgist (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whens

While in deep thought with my friend we were discussing the nature of language. In particular we came to the past- and future-tenses. I queried how past means past and future means future and how We came to understand what had happened and that something can happen that yet hasn't. In answer to "how does past-tense means the past" my comrade responds, "because someone took the time to create it." This was enlightening, to say the least. I would like to pose the same question again here. Have at it Wikipedians! Thanks! schyler (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, allow me to point out that PWS (Posting While Stoned) may not be illegal the way that DWI is, but it is still discouraged in most civilized nations.

Second, I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but I can crib an answer from New Age material. Past and future don't exist: past-tense and future-tense are simply linguistic referents to current-time mental events that we interpret in temporal/causal terms (in other - possibly less clear - terms, we imbue our thoughts with pastness and futureness, the same way that we imbue a well-crafted pencil drawing with 3-dimensionality). put that in your pipe and smoke it.

--Ludwigs2 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While deep-thought occurred in that state it is now an issue of general mental health why I no longer consume.
New-Age material is nice, but as you point out it's an interpretation of temporal terms that is the key in that viewpoint. While some may argue about reality, as an old teacher taught me "it is what it is." As we interpret IS reality.
So I will pose the question differently: How did we come to understand that "happened" meant it was in the past, linguistically. schyler (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have memory, and we probably learn the concept from cases where things that are said to have "happened" are things that we remember. The future is more problematic -- the explanation must somehow be that we learn patterns of causality and thereby learn how to anticipate some events; this gives us the ability to draw a connection in situations where we anticipate something and where somebody says it "will happen". (I hope this explanation was not too incoherent!) Looie496 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looie: yes, it was coherent, but it seems to be answering a different question. We have memory and that means we learn the concept of past, but how did the language represent that? I guess it's a question, like I said earlier, about the nature of language in general. schyler (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking when in the evolution of language past and future tenses appeared, and what caused this? If that's the question, then the answer is that we don't know, since it probably happened over 100,000 years ago. If that's not the question, you'll have to be a bit clearer (unless somebody else gets it). Looie496 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it couldn't have happened like that at all, since the categories of "past" and "future" (and indeed, "tense") do not exist in all languages. For example, Germanic languages don't have a natural future tense, although German and English at least have created them by using other verbs - so obviously this was "invented", in a way, within recent human history. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the case, though, that 'older' Indo-European languages ('older' meaning 'retaining earlier characteristics') such as Latin, Greek and Sanscrit, do feature inflected future tenses, suggesting that the Germanic branch dropped these and subsequently invented a replacement system? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin's future tense was a later development too, I think...it was mostly adapted from the subjunctive (and sometimes the future and subjunctive are the same). According to Proto-Indo-European verb there was no future tense. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Indo-European didn't have a future tense as such, but it had an -s morphological stem derivation which (with variations) formed the basis of the future tense in four separate Indo-European branches (Greek, Indic, Baltic, and Celtic). AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many languages have distinct irrealis forms, which depending on the language might include future reference, possibility, hearsay, counterfactuals. In some cases these forms have given rise to more specifically future forms. --ColinFine (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

That … and which

In a recent post on the Humanities desk, I wrote:

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and moreover defies all logic and reason.

I wasn’t entirely happy about it, as the clause after the comma sounded incomplete. But the imperative of the moment called, so I saved it. But I keep coming back to it. When I was drafting my post, my first instinct was to use 'which' after 'and':

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and which moreover defies all logic and reason.

But then, I thought, I can't use 'that' in the first clause but 'which' in the second. Not sure why, but it seems to violate some rule about parallel constructions.

But I couldn't write:

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and that moreover defies all logic and reason.

because there's something about 'and that' that just feels unnatural to me, while 'and which' does not.

But I couldn't have 'which' in both clauses either:

They still have room in their lives to believe something which nobody could ever prove – this already fails my sound-good test, regardless of what comes later.

I seem to have exhausted all the possibilities: which-which, that-that, which-that, that-which.

Seems a better approach would be to write:

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, and moreover something that defies all logic and reason.

Is this my only pedant-safe option, or is there another, shorter way? -- (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find commas to be troubling in speech and writing. I would say this phrase by deleting all commas. Thus: "Some people defy logic and my powers of reason by accepting something they could never prove." schyler (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you may have misinterpreted the meaning of the sentence, Schyler. Here's the full context. It's not people that defy logic and reason, it's the claimed occurrence of transubstantiation that I was talking about. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about ditching "that" and thus avoiding the conflict(?) with "which": They still have room in their lives to believe something nobody could ever prove, and which moreover defies all logic and reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, the only improvement to your original sentence I would make is to remove the comma before "and". Otherwise, it sounds perfectly fine to me with a single that introducing two clauses joined by and. +An gr 10:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to do this, I would write:

They still have room in their lives to believe something that nobody could ever prove, something that defies all logic and reason.

Parallelism is your friend! -- it makes the meaning clear. But what you should really worry about is not this minor point, but rather "room in their lives to believe", which is seriously bad writing (sorry!). Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip about parallelism. But sez hoo that expression is seriously bad writing? And why? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in what sense does a belief take up room in a life? How much room does it take up? It might be reasonable to say that activities take up room, in a metaphorical way, but beliefs? Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the full context, you’ll see I was talking about scientists, mathematicians and other left-brain people, for whom reason and logic are paramount (nothing wrong with that) – but some of whom nevertheless accommodate a belief in something that their reason and logic would tell them is absurd. That’s what I meant by having “room in their lives” for such beliefs. Of course it’s metaphorical, in the same way that “There is no place in my world view for a belief in the Easter Bunny” is metaphorical. I welcome any and all feedback on my writing, but in this case I stand by my choice of words. Thank you. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, what sounds best to my (American) ear among which-which, that-that, which-that, and that-which is that-which. Or go for one of the options that repeats "something". Both are totally clear, and that-which doesn't violate any parallelism rules AFAIK. Even if it did, those stylistic rules are rules only of thumb, which can be disregarded if doing so is in the interest of clarity, flow, or beauty. --Atemperman (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atemperman. I'd be rather loath to mix my thats and whiches in mixed company. Which film did you dislike less: the one that went for 5 hours, or the one which had the music playing continuously? - I wouldn't be caught dead writing something as blatant as that, for example. I doubt you'd find any general stylistic support for mixing thats and whiches, but maybe it could be got away with in some cases. In my case above I don't see the need to go to such lengths, as there are more elegant solutions available, such as the repetition of 'something'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's the right thing to do: "I married the girl that I loved, which was a big mistake". "Which" is necessary here because the mistake was marrying -- using "that" would imply that the mistake was the girl. Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it would create a comma splice into the bargain. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya

What is the etymology of combie? The quotation is from the first line of the song Land Down Under by Men At Work.199.126.224.156 (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combie comes from German Kombi, which is an abbreviation for the horribly clumsy "Kombinationskraftwagen" (meaning "combination vehicle", because the things are essentially a combination of people-carrying sedan and cargo-carrying truck). How the word ended up in Aussie slang I don't know - maybe due to the popularity of the VW Bully? -- Ferkelparade π 08:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Der Bulli ist aber kein Kombi :P Rimush (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. A Kombi is what's called a station wagon in American English and estate car in British English. +An gr 10:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but some versions of the Bulli were marketed under the name "Kombi" internationally (I think those built in Brazil). As far as I know, a combie (as opposed to a Kombi) is a van/minivan, not a station wagon -- Ferkelparade π 11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The word "kombi" is widespread in Slovene, and it means precisely a van/minivan, and the underlying notion is that the back space is either open or has benches for passengers. If you asked a kid here to draw one, they'd probably sketch a caricature of the VW Bully :) On the other hand, a "kombi" for us is decisively not the same as a station wagon. Just thought I'd throw that out, might interest someone. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions for you, OP. What is the connection between the title of this thread - "Ya" - and the content of the question? What is "Ya" anyway? Is it some reference to the German "ja", meaning "yes"? If so, what is the relevance of that to the question? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian youths famously arrive in London, buy a clapped-out VW Kombi (widely called a "Camper" in the UK[5]) and drive round Europe in it; finally selling it to newly arrived Ozzies before leaving for home[6]. Perhaps this is relevant to the words of the song? Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no "ya" in the song lyrics. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, Alansplodge is having a crack at the OP's question there, not yours. An indentation issue I fear. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK so what's the word immediately before Combi in that line? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fried-out". +An gr 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "clapped-out" before I read "fried-out" - I suspect that they mean the same thing though; well-worn mechanically. Also, apologies for the clumsy indentation. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

zh:官商勾結

Could anyone please tell me what 官商勾結 is in English? I'm doing a Wikinews article. It means that the government is on the businessmen's side and do what they can to help them, even though it means reduced privileges for their people etc. Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 10:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In one word, the closest I can get is collusion or nepotism. Is that what you want...? I kind of know what it means, but it's hard to translate concisely. sonia ♫ 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of collusion, but the CALD defines it as 'agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone', which sounds a bit nastier than it's supposed to be. :) Nepotism? Probably not, because it refers to family members, which is suitable for Donald Tsang's fluorescent light bulb controversy but not for the article concerned. Also, the ref is here. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cynic would say the phenomenon of the government being on the side of the corporations against the ordinary people is simply called "business as usual". +An gr 11:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>And, to anyone else reading this, 官商勾結 is kind of similar to the situation after the death of Emperor Xuan of Han and before the Wangs took over. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)Gah, can't read traditional. :P I'm not sure how much better I would be able to word it than "favouritism toward corporate bodies", to be honest. sonia ♫ 11:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has any idea, I guess I'll go with yours, 'favouritism toward corporate bodies', which is a lot better than any other suggestion. Thanks. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the parties involved are understood from the context, "collusion" will be a perfectly good translation. --71.185.169.212 (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it translated as "collusion between business and government". 121.72.194.59 (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Curb or kerb?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-10914836

In the above 'news' article, the word kerb is used. Another American English/Britain English spelling difference reveals itself, as Americans spell it curb. Does wikipedia have a list of these kind of different spellings?

Thank you for your help, The Reader who Writes (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See American and British English spelling differences. +An gr 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Given that a common pastime on Wikpedia is quibbling and sniping about such differences, we have several such articles:

Hope that helps. -- 174.24.200.206 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five articles. Isn't that just great? Rimush (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: British English has both spellings for both noun and verb. "Kerb" is used exclusively for road edges, and "curb" for all other senses of restraint. Dbfirs 08:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid

Is the "O" in Ovid pronounced like the short "o" in oxen ... or the long "o" in open ... or either ... or both? I always thought (perhaps assumed?) that it was the former. I recently went to a lecture in which it was pronounced as the latter, which startled me. At first, I thought the speaker not to be knowledgeable on the issue. Then I thought that perhaps I was the one lacking knowledge on this issue. Any thoughts? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've always heard it pronounced with the "short O" (in John C. Wells's terms, the LOT vowel), but perhaps the "long O" (the GOAT vowel) is an acceptable alternative. +An gr 16:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've heard both. I suppose the original Latin way was probably more like the "long O", but without the diphthong that exists in that vowel in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I posted the original question, this thought later dawned on me. When his name is written as Ovid, I have only heard it pronounced with the short "o" (of oxen). But, when his full name is written as Ovidius, then I have heard it pronounced with the long "o" (of open). (64.252.34.115 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"Ovid" isn't in the OED, but for "Ovidian", they have /o'vɪdiən/ (GOAT vowel) as the only pronunciation for American English, and as primary pronunciation for British English, with /ɒ'vɪdiən/ (LOT vowel) as the secondary. The only time I think I've ever heard his name spoken aloud was by my oboe teacher in high school, who said it with the GOAT vowel. She is clearly as authoritative a source as the OED. --Atemperman (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard the name pronounced with a short "o". (I would think of an egg if I heard the long "o".) However, I'm not a Latin scholar, so I'm only judging by the pronunciation of those whom I would expect to know (e.g. BBC etc). Since there are no surviving speakers of original Latin, I suppose we can take our choice without it being possible to prove us wrong! Dbfirs 07:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed the rule of thumb that people who say (for example) alto with a long initial vowel also say Ovid and some other words with a long initial vowel. I had some other examples, but can't recall them at the moment. It seemed to work for most people I heard say these words, unless they were encountering the words for the first time and echoing another speaker. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wells's Longman Pronunciation Dictionary says that the name of the Latin poet is pronounced with the LOT vowel in both UK and US English, but that there is also an American place name and personal name Ovid (see "Places in the United States" under Ovid (disambiguation)), which is pronounced with the GOAT vowel. As for Ovidian, it says that both vowels occur in both varieties, but that the LOT vowel is preferred in UK English and the GOAT vowel is preferred in US English. +An gr 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Chinese ingredient

I've recently inherited my grandmother's recipe book and I've decided to try my ahnd at some of the dishes. My grandmother was Chinese (and so am I, but I'm first generation) and consequently the book is also in Chinese. While I've been able to understand most of it, most of the recipes I'm interested in call for something called "味精" (wei4jing1), which I have not been able to translate. WHat is it in English and where can I buy it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.228.193 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling Wei4Jing1 tells me that's monosodium glutamate. 213.122.69.96 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Ajinomoto. See also zh:味精. Oda Mari (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

味精 is MSG; Ajinomoto is particular brand of it. I'd not treat the two as synonymous. --71.185.169.212 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Ajinomoto is a genericized trademark for MSG in some places. +An gr 22:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

definition and usage of indmerence

I ran across the word indmerence in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and can not find a definition or the histry and usage of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomboyd31 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you have it spelled right? The ending "-ence" usually means that a word is comes from Latin, but "indmerence" doesn't look like it could be derived from Latin roots, and the first page of Google hits all seem to be obvious OCR errors... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The Google hits on "indmerence" are optical character recognition errors misidentifying the actual word "indifference". Are you by chance reading some sort of optically scanned version of Atlas Shrugged? Could you please type in the whole sentence so we can have some context? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Chinese character 必.

I was just wondering out of pure curiosity, does the Chinese character 必 (meaning to have to, should, must, etc.) have anything to do with the expression "cross my heart"? Or is that just purely coincidence? — Trevor K. — 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a semi-obsolescent reference work here ("Chinese Characters, Their Origin, Etymology, Classification, and Signification: A Thorough Study from Chinese Documents" by L. Wieger) which claims that the basis for 必 is an drawing of an arrow, and that it has nothing to do with radical 61 ("heart"). AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why the stroke order is nothing like the stroke order for 心. Paul Davidson (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. The stroke order of 必 is the same as that for 心, save for the additional stroke. --71.185.169.212 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "cross one's heart [and hope to die]" comes from the verb cross as in to make the sign of the cross, making it even more unlikely. 68.76.158.13 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Korea, the stroke order is not the same for 必 and 心. The strokes go center dot, diagonal from top right to bottom left, diagonal from top left to bottom right, left dot, right dot for 必. For 心, the strokes go left dot, wide stroke, center dot, right dot. --Kjoonlee 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the seal forms often provide a convenient clue as to whether two characters are related:

File:必-seal.svg
File:心-seal.svg

-- AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Chinese stroke order of 必 and this is the Japanese stroke order. AnonMoos is correct. According to the ja wikt 必 page, the original meaning was sandwiching a branch between splints and then squeeze and stretch. The meaning "certainly" and "surely" comes from "shaping the branch exactly". The character 心 originated from the shape of heart. Though the two characters look similar, the origin is different. Oda Mari (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The shape of a heart? Maybe I just have a dirty mind, but the seal form of 心 looks much more like a penis than like a heart to me. +An gr 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you. Steewi (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

According to the semi-obsolescent reference work: "On the top, the pericardium opened; in the middle, the organ; at the bottom a summary delineation of the aorta." -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The La Tène culture" or just "La Tène culture"?

I think terms like La Défense lose the definite article in English, but what about (the) La Tène culture. Since "la" refers to Tène, my feeling is that "the" is required as an article for the whole "culture" term, but I'm uncertain and the article uses both versions in the lede. Which is correct or preferable? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on context, really. There is a store near my home called "The Tienda." Similarly the cosmetics company L'oreal is called The L'oreal Group, although that doubles the article. It depends on 'flow.' schyler (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's consistent for that term throughout the article, it won't make too much difference. Steewi (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the name of the la brea tar pits actually means the tar, making the la brea tar pits the the the tar tar pits. --Kjoonlee 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of tautological place names and List of tautonyms. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

Japanese honorifics and military language

In the US military, common honorific titles have specific meanings. That is, sir is used specifically to address officers, not as a general sign of respect. Japan, on the other hand, has a far more complicated structure of honorific titles (a description of which I have read, but not fully understood, at Japanese honorifics). How do these rules apply to the specific rank relationships in the Japanese military? Specifically, how does one address an officer, and how does one address an NCO? Is this different now, with the Self-Defense Forces, than it was with the Imperial Japanese Army? Thanks for any insight. EDIT: Replacing IP sig with logged in sig. gnfnrf (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting my hand in the fire for this, but I'm pretty sure they just use the rank - similar to the use of "sensei" that is described in the article on Japanese honorifics. So, when addressing a colonel (on land) or a captain (on sea), you'd just call them "taisa" (大佐). Similar with names - assume you have a captain Yamamoto - he'd be referred to as "Yamamoto-taisa" instead of "Yamamoto-san", at least in his official capacity. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. You may wish to watch 男たちの大和 - a film about the Yamato battleship of WW2. Although set in WW2 and therefore being the Imperial Japanese Navy, I am pretty sure there will be no substantial difference in the way the JSDF address officers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese words for grains

I know maybe 3 words in Mandarin Chinese, so I'm asking for some expert help. Does anyone know the words in Mandarin for the cereal grain known as "corn" in America and "maize" in Europe? Is it a transliteration of one of those two words, or is it a totally different word? In English-style phonetics, please? I'm asking because there is an ongoing debate about whether "corn" or "maize" should win out, and someone mentioned Chinese. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, 玉米 yùmǐ, literally "jade rice". Not sure why it would be expected to be a transcription from English, since the plant apparently reached China through semi-obscure trading channels at a time when the British did not have a major presence in the far east. AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why they would call it "rice", because "rice" was their dominant cereal grain, so the qualified it, just as Europeans qualified American Indians' cereal grain by calling it "Indian corn", since they used "corn" for other grains. But why the "jade" part? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

米 does not mean rice specifically, at least not in its original meaning. The name of the rice plant is 稻. The dictionary I consulted says 米 refers to the seeds of grains with their outer part removed. --98.114.98.57 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the "outer part", are you referring to the green leafy husk that protects the ear, or are you referring to the layer of cellulose that each kernel contains? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means white rice, as opposed to brown rice or rice that hasn't been processed at all. --Kjoonlee 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. 옥수수 (Korean for sweet corn) can be analyzed as 옥 + 수수, jade/marble + cane. Jade (Chinese jade) can be yellow, white, or green in Asia, and jade marbles are fairly common as well. Maybe they looked as yellow as yellow jade marbles? Or maybe the grains looked like marbles, compared to rice? --Kjoonlee 14:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a quote, possibly by Sun Tzu

The Art of War lists "Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful." What I'm looking for is something along the lines "A battle not fought is a battle won." Does anyone remember a quote with a similar meaning that comes from Sun Tzu or maybe from the field of martial arts?

Basically, what I'm looking for is a quote explaining that going to battle is only the second-best option, and that there are "honorable" ways of avoiding a battle, rather than running away like a coward. Like, say, deceiving the opponent into believing he is outnumbered.

And yes, I'm aware that running away like a coward may still be the best choice in some situations. ;-) -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, please re-post your reply - Quote #1 and #3 were pretty close to what I was looking for, so it is well possible I just ran into a different translation when I heard that quote I'm thinking of. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it just seemed too close to the very first quote in your post .. :-)

From Chapter 3 according to wikiquote:

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

Variant translations

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting."

---Sluzzelin talk 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were key in finding the solution, pun intended. ;-) -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax of "Doctor Livingston, I presume?"

Hi, what kind of question, syntax-wise, is this question?

Doctor Livingston, I presume?

Could you say this is a tag question? Or is it just a yes-no question? Do you think it involves left dislocation? Thank you in advance. :) --Kjoonlee 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume Vocative phrase + Main clause (no dislocation). AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "Dr Livingstone" is vocative. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the lingo to name what I think it is, so I'll try to explain it instead. I think "Dr Livingstone" is elliptical for "You are Dr Livingstone" (or some similar sentence), the main clause of the sentence~~, and the rest of it is a tag question~~. (If the main clause were "I presume" and the rest merely vocative then the whole would mean "I presume?" (with an addressee named), without specifying what Stanley presumed!)—msh210℠ 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Modifying in light of Kjoonlee's comments below.—msh210℠ 15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, such apparently extremely vague questions are in fact often met with if the general overall conversational situation provides appropriate context (e.g. "Do you think?" etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's not this case AFAICT.—msh210℠ 15:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best described as a "declarative question" as it isn't really much of a question more a declaration said in a questioning way. meltBanana 21:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting one. I've heard this a thousand times without ever questioning its structure, so well done, Kjoonlee. The "I presume" isn't really part of the question - Stanley was asserting that he was presuming the person he's talking to is Livingstone. The only question was his wondering if this presumption was correct. It's a more elegant way of saying, "I presume you are Dr Livingstone. Is that correct?". We don't have a punctuation mark for indicating only a part of a sentence is a question, and we're forced to use the question mark at the end, even if the real question came to an end some time before the end. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at some other samples as well:

"I presume" questions
1. Doctor Livingston, I presume?
2. Fresh fruit, I presume?
3. Enjoying your stay, I presume?
4. We will be having dinner after that, I presume?
Tag questions
1. You're Doctor Livingston, aren't you?
2. This is fresh fruit, isn't it?
3. You're enjoying your stay, aren't you?
4. We will be having dinner after that, won't we?

This has made me think "I presume" questions are a bit different from tag questions, but still, I think they're mighty similar. --Kjoonlee 07:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag questions are always, by definition, questions, but "I presume" utterances need not be. One could just as well state "Dr Livingstone, I presume", without a rising tone denoting a question. If the other party is indeed Dr L, they might feel no need to say anything; but they might; or they could make a denial/correction if they're Barbara the midwife. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tag questions are similar, if you consider these lines from Groundhog Day:

These sticky buns are just heaven.
Aren't they. (falling intonation)

--Kjoonlee 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that usage really a tag question? Is it even a question at all? It has the form of a tag question (apart from the lack of a question mark), but its meaning is outright strong agreement, whereas a tag question admits the possibility, however slight, that the statement might conceivably be untrue. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes. In Ultraviolet episode one, Jack Davenport's character (and his friend's former fiancee) uses falling intonation tag questions (complete with the first part and the tag part), with no possibility of it being conceivably untrue. Maybe this is British/regional usage? --Kjoonlee 17:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about the question mark? Shouldn't that always appear in something that has the form of a question? Or is it omitted in these cases (a) because it would mislead readers for starters, but also (b) in implicit acknowledgment that these are not actually questions, regardless of their form? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refining

Why, when both are refined, is unprocessed sugar 'raw', but unprocessed oil 'crude'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.203 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because sugar is food. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as refined pork chops or heads of lettuce, so how does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.203 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncooked or unprepared food is often "raw", as in raw meats, raw vegetables, or raw sugar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so is unprepared coal. There is also a term "raw crude oil"[7], which means it still has brine and stuff in it. 213.122.22.8 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And probably a lot of dead fish, nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely Bugs, unless you are referring to cans of sardines. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill gag, innit. 213.122.47.23 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppir. How quickly a crisis seems to become yesterday's news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of the English subjunctive? (example)

I'm wondering if the following sentences are grammatically correct. I am a native speaker of English, but also recently become aware of the way we use the subjunctive mood in English. Sometimes my initial reaction is to not put something in the subjunctive, and other times, yes, to put it in the subjunctive. Essentially, I'm wondering if my natural instinct is correct or incorrect for these cases. Anyway, here is the sentence I was first debating about: "I hope it continues." However, since this is an expression of hope, I was thinking that one should use the subjunctive (as stated by this site that I was looking at for reference). When I put the optional "that" in, using the subjunctive seemed more feasible to be grammatically correct. "I hope that it continue." seems more likely to be correct than "I hope it continue." Basically, I'm wondering what form of the verb "to continue" would fill in the following blanks: "I hope that it ___." and "I hope it ___." Thank you! :-) — Trevor K. — 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakeyglee (talk • contribs)

To a linguist, the only absolute criterion for validity is the judgement of native speakers. If all native speakers without exception say that something is wrong, then it's wrong, regardless of any other patterns that may exist in the language. That's clearly what is going to happen here: no native English speaker is going to say "I hope it continue".

But to explain it anyway, a sentence of the form "I hope that X" or "I hope X" is only valid if X standing alone is a proper sentence. "It continue" is not a proper sentence; "It continues" is. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely: in those versions of English which still use the subjunctive, and excepting a few fossilised expressions like "Long live ... " and "Be it ... ", it is used only in contrafactual conditional clauses ("If I were to go ... ") or in subordinate clauses with an explicit 'that' after verbs of requesting or stipulating ("I demand that it continue"). I don't think any modern variety of English would use it after "hope". --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing through the instances of "hope that" that Google finds on Wikisource in the King James Bible, the works of Shakespeare, and the Canterbury Tales, I can find no case where "hope that" is followed by a present subjunctive. It usually takes some sort of modal verb like may, might, shall or will. If your inner pedant balks at using an indicative in "I hope it continues", then you can in good conscience write "I hope it may continue" or "I hope it will continue". +An gr 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "I hope it continue" is used at http://ciberweb.msu.edu/success/?InstituteID=3. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by someone who, before his comment was edited, apparently wrote "It would not have happen" and "This program has really open my son's eye". +An gr 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish name of state agency

Page 4/5 of this document stated "Michigan Department of Community Health" as "Departamentu Zdrowia Komunalnego stanu Michigan"

But I understand that words in eastern European languages have different forms depending on use. How would the name be translated in a hypothetical Polish Wikipedia article about the department? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is the citation form of this phrase; in this case specifically the nominative case. I think you just drop the -u from the first word: Departament Zdrowia Komunalnego stanu Michigan. +An gr 22:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the form Departament Zdrowia Komunalnego stanu Michigan also occurs in the document you linked to, e.g. in about the middle of page 4 just below the bold-face question "Jakie kroki zapobiegawcze przeciwko dżumie są podjęte w stanie Michigan?" +An gr 22:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see it says Komunalnege rather than Komunalnego there, but I think that's a typo. +An gr 22:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was what I was looking for. Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eastern European languages"? Is that some sort of euphemism for "Slavic languages"? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - it could refer to a unit of areal features found in many languages of Eastern Europe, Balkan sprachbund-kind of thing, rather than unfamiliarity with language families. -- the Great Gavini 08:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This "different forms depending on use" thing seems like a Slavic thing to me, and I'm not aware of some "Eastern European Sprachbund". Rimush (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is neither Slavic nor Eastern European, for a trivial example. It really puzzles me where this misconception that declension is something specifically Slavic comes from. For one thing, Slavic languages inherited it from Proto-Indo-European; for another thing, many non-IE language families are inflecting or agglutinative too.—Emil J. 12:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes from the fact that of the modern Indo-European languages, only the Balto-Slavic languages and Albanian still have a well developed system of noun declension and a relatively large number of cases. The most familiar Romance and Germanic languages except German have all given up declension, and even in German declensional marking on nouns themselves is minimal (most declension is shown on determiners and adjectives, and there are only four cases). The one Romance language that does still have traces of declension is Romanian - an Eastern European language. So the only modern European languages most English speakers encounter that have full blown declension of nouns and more than three or four cases are Slavic languages like Polish and Russian and other Eastern European languages like Finnish and Hungarian. +An gr 12:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Icelandic and Modern Greek, both of which decline nouns pretty much in the same ways they did 1,000 and 2,000 years ago respectively. I would regard Greek, at least, as being a language many people are familiar with in one way or another. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic has only 4 cases and Modern Greek only 3 (loss of the dative case is one way Modern Greek is quite different from Ancient Greek). And Greek is also Eastern European anyway. +An gr 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek also has four, if we count the vocative case, which, by the way, is there in Bulgarian and Macedonian too. --Theurgist (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For completeness' sake I'll mention that Irish has 3 or 4 cases (nominative, vocative, genitive, and sometimes dative) and Scottish Gaelic has the same 4 cases too . Manx has traces of a genitive. +An gr 12:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian, and the closely-related Macedonian, are Slavic languages too, but they are exceptions to that rule. They have eliminated the case declension system. Nouns only inflect for number and definiteness, and some traces of the Proto-Balto-Slavic case system can be observed in certain archaic phrases still in use today. Bulgarian and Macedonian are the most analytic Slavic languages. --Theurgist (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exception in the other direction is Basque, which (according to our article Basque grammar) apparently has 12 cases despite being a Western European language. It's probably not familiar enough to most English speakers (even linguistically educated ones) to do much to counter the stereotype that Eastern European languages tend to be heavy on declension. +An gr 12:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic name of the state agency

Based on the names stated in http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Botulism_Fact_Sheet_in_Arabic_142566_7.pdf - what is the Arabic name of the agency?

The name should be in Page 4 or Page 5... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Michigan Department of Community Health is إدارة ﺻﺤﺔ اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺑﻮﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﺸﻴﻐﺎن ("Department of Community Health in the state of Michigan").--Cam (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

The origin and myth of the 'dude' language use

Hi,

I have a heated debate with many people about the use of the word 'dude'. It has been widely believed, used and postulated by Australians that the word dude somehow means camels dick or foreskin. I wonder where this idea orginated, given dude has many other colloquial meanings in the USA and in England.

Can you please help resolve this historical and/or slang usage.

Thank you kindly,

Emma Crichton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaseeks (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative data, but I can tell you that the 1971 edition of the Complete Oxford English Dictionary gives no meanings of the word other than the primary one of (brutally summarizing) a slang term for a young man, which emerged in New York in early 1883 and initially referred to (in the context of the "aesthetic" craze of that time) a "swell" or "dandy" (its precise origin being unknown). Coming from a land which has some reputation for inventing humorous falsehoods to gull visitors (e.g. the Drop bear), this story might be suspected of being another such, though given Australia's historical use, and feral population, of camels, it could be a valid local coinage. (Note to fellow Wikepedians: I have made a considerable Assumption of the OP's Good Faith in answering this query :-) .) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Etymological Dictionary confirms that it started as 19th century New York City slang (of unknown origin) for an "aesthetic" young man. +An gr 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The camel thing looks like a folk etymology. The folk etymology in the US (at least when I was in middle school) was that "dude" meant a cow's anus or something like that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The folk etymology in Canada when I was in school was that it meant a wart on a horse's butt. Paul Davidson (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mistaken etymologies, but I don't see how they're folk etymologies. +An gr 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I heard it (also in Canada) was "a pimple on a donkey's butt". Adam Bishop (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern California, late 80s: "hair on an elephant's butt". Someone needs to get the Dictionary_of_American_Regional_English folks on the case.--Atemperman (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK, late 90s, "elephant penis". I think the joke is to get people to repeat the definition: it's a memetic prank. 213.122.18.70 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angr: they are not folk etymologies. What they very plausibly might be are "joke etymologies", i.e. these stories of unflattering meanings might have been circulated as jokes and eventually, taken out of context, believed. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember looking it up in my Hans-Wehr Arabic Dictionary, and found something like ضوض that meant something bad, but I don't remember what. Of course it's more pronounced [do:d] than [du:d], but it was amusing. Steewi (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, ضوضاء means "noise, uproar, hubbub"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lane's lexicon says "duwadiyah" means "a camel excited by lust". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that adds strange new layers of meaning to Do Wah Diddy Diddy. meltBanana 13:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

Pronunciation of "anti" and "semi"

Please give an insight into the pronunciation of anti and semi. I've heard some people say "an-tie" and some people say "an-tee". Why the variation? And how semi should be pronounced? --Galactic Traveller (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://ask.antimoon.com/questions/1214/how-to-pronounce-anti-and-semi. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americans say "antie" whilst we Brits say "antee" - same goes for 'semi' 194.223.35.225 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC) (But it is Gurumaister not signed in)[reply]

E.C. Since anti and semi both are from extinct dialects of Greek, it is hard to know what is "correct." See Dead_language#Consequences_on_grammar for more detail. Also, I can't agree with the overgeneralization above of American English and British English. I use "antie" and "antee," the latter for emphasis. Same goes for "semee" and "sem-eye," the hard pronunciation of the 'i' for emphasis. schyler (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have ben known to say "anee" schyler (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In AE, sometimes sem-ee as part of a word but always sem-i when refering to the truck. Rmhermen (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And oddly enough, "hemi" is pronounced "hemee" standalone (never "hem-eye") as with Hemi engine, and in combination as with hemisphere is pronounced with a short i; whereas "demi" is usually "demee" and is pretty much always a prefix, not a standalone. Ain't English grand? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's de-MEE Moore. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Americans say it either way, depending on how it makes the sentence flow, and also whether you're saying it as a standalone word or as a prefix. As with a semi-trailer truck, which we might well pronounce "sem-ee" but as shorthand, ie. just "semi", we would likely say "sem-eye". It might be less common for Americans to pronounce "anti" as "ant-ee", because that's a homophone of "ante" and "auntie" (expect in those parts of the USA where "aunt" is pronounced "ahnt" instead of "ant"). But take words like "anti-abortion". I've heard it both ways in the US, and it might be a regionalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flow of the sentence is probably the most important indicator of U.S. pronunciation. I'll use "antee" when it's part of a well-used, unremarkable compound word (e.g. antitrust, antifreeze), and "antai" in all physics contexts (e.g. , antiproton, antimatter, antigraviton). Other than that, its use in (say) political labels (anti-fascist, anti-communist, anti-American), advertising (anti-oxidant, anti-allergy), etc. - basically general usage - depends almost entirely on the sentence structure. I'll point out that "semi" comes to English more directly from the Latin, and agree with Bugs about the rest. I'll note I do come from that part of the U.S. where "auntie" is pronounced "awn-tee," but in my travels I have never encountered anyone who thought I was calling my mother's sister a fascist. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was bemused by Jedi, which I encountered in a comic before the film was released, and naturally pronounced "Jeddy", on the analogy of "semi" and "anti". Given that it is supposed to be a foreign name, I would expect to see it written "Jedai", like Altai and Masai. But then Mark Okrand had a problem when he came to devise the Klingon language, because the second vowel of 'Klingon' wasn't anything he wanted to write with 'o'. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Zweig

In your listing of his work, in the second to last line of that section, would you please consider a change in spelling of the word 'Verzeichnuss' (you actually spelled it correctly with an Umlaut instead of the letter 'u' I cannot add the marks above the vowels 'a' 'o' 'u' in this case, of course: 'u' to show an Umlaut) to the correct German spelling 'Verzeichniss' I also am unable to print the letter we have in German that is (almost always) the equivalent of 'ss'. In short, will you consult other Germans/German language specialists if the spelling you have used is not in fact incorrect? I apologize for my long-winded description of my request. Michael Leuthold (alterego2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alterego2000 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Stefan Zweig). However, it seems that Mozart himself used the spelling "Verzeichnüß", see for example [8] and [9]. +An gr 21:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Verzeichnüß is actually the way Mozart himself spelled the word in the list's title, as you can see e.g. here: http://www.smca.at/presse/press_formular.php?pmid=216 - therefore, changing our entry would be the wrong thing to do. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when editing, you have lots of special characters available from the panel below the editing panel: choose 'Latin' and you'll get pretty well all the accented letters used in European (and some other) languages. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can use alt codes which I find easier. To type ü hold down the alt key and press 0252 in succession. There are codes for every character. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, of course, depends on knowing what the alt codes are, or knowing where to find them; and also technical stuff like holding the Control and Alt keys down with the NumLock on, while typing the alt code (not something that would be blindingly intuitively obvious to an alt code newbie). I know a bit about them, but is there a lookup table that's easy for dummies to use but is also comprehensive? Going via our article alt code gets me some external links, but they fail one or both of these requirements. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try this one. I wouldn't say the technical stuff is that difficult really. You don't have to hold Control down at all, just Alt. And yes the Num Lock needs to be on, but it usually is by default. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that this method is completely system-dependent. For example, for me Alt+0252 does nothing (or rather, the Alt+2 part of it seems to invoke a Firefox shortcut to switch to the second open tab), whereas I can produce ü by pressing Menu " u in succession (as I have the menu key bound to serve as the compose key).—Emil J. 12:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should check that. On Windows, Alt+0252 (not Alt+252) when the cursor is in a text entry mode like a Word document or a Wikipedia edit box will always bring up ü, it is not browser dependent. From your description of the tab switching, it sounds like you're trying to do it in a browser window, which is not what I'm talking about. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say browser-dependent, I said system-dependent. I don't use Windows.—Emil J. 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, if you're on a Mac (or Linux, for all I know) it will be different. I didn't bother to specify Windows. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 12:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the numbers have to be pressed on the number pad. Pressing the "other" numbers won't do jack. Rimush (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes the Num Lock needs to be on, but it usually is by default - that's what the Universal Assumption seems to be, but I'm here to tell you that I despise the NumLock key with a very great passion, and will use it only when absolutely unavoidable. (And no, I don't use the key pad for numbers, I use the horizontal row at the top of the keyboard, always have and always will. Early typewriter self-training goes in deep, and stays.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

𣲙

What does the Chinese character 𣲙 mean? I haven't been able to find a definition for it anywhere. 68.160.243.61 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I've been to find is that the character was in the Kangxi Dictionary. [10] Seeing that only a quarter of the characters in the dictionary actually sees use today, my guess is that this was a regional or obscure variant of 水. I couldn't find it in any Kanji dictionaries. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/yitia/fra/fra02289.htm or perhaps http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/yitia/fra/fra00309.htm, variant of either 溺 or 冰96.232.190.148 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fit or fitted in American english

Does "fitted" exist in American english? If not, why not? Is it correct to write for example "Noisy (roughly linear) data is fit to both linear and polynomial functions" (from the Overfitting article) rather than "Noisy (roughly linear) data is fitted to both linear and polynomial functions". 92.24.190.46 (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just a mistake, or an optional American usage. I've changed the word to "fitted" so that it is easily read by all. Dbfirs 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have often read "fit" being used in American-english online texts (Wikipedia, blogs, etc) where I would have written "fitted". I wondered if that usage is correct grammar in American english. Thanks 92.29.127.240 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English English

Are Americans in general more familiar with RP or Estuary English (or another variety)?