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.

October 12

Colourful verbs

Her face reddened with rage when she heard him blackening her name; the obvious thing to do was to go and have her teeth whitened.

There's also the little-used verb pinken.
There is the word golden, but it's not a verb.
There are no such words as orangen, bluen, greenen, purplen, yellowen, greyen, brownen, silveren, rosen, mauven, violeten, creamen, buffen, khakien, maroonen, vermilionen, ultramarinen, or any others I can think of.
Green, yellow, silver and some others can be used as verbs in the sense of imparting the colour to something, but they don't require an –en ending.
As far as I can see, black, white, pink and red are the only colours that form –en verbs. Why only these four? -- (Jack of Oz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, there's 'darken' and 'lighten' as well. Just a guess, but those are the only active color words. it's a fairly common to blacken things (as in a fire), and we literally get pink with embarrassment, red with rage, white with fear. similar words (green with envy or illness, blue meaning sadness) are metaphorical, not literal, and may not merit an active verb form. --Ludwigs2 06:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plausiible guess. For further research, this kind of verb with the suffix "-en" is called causative. (lengthen, strengthen, tighten, brighten, ...). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A noble spirit embluens the smallest man."

I'm afraid it's just the usual lexical gaps of derivational morphology... AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Productivity (linguistics)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Green" (not greenen) is sometimes used as a verb (I see it even has a website), and Wicked (musical) has "degreenify". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original inquiry included this point, of which another example is "to brown" ("First brown the toast lightly.") There is "to caramelize", but this involves, I think, more than color. Then there are those problematic lines from Shakespeare, a shameless serial neologiser, "this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red." (Macbeth, II:2) —— Shakescene (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the answer is simple euphony: blueen and greenen sound wrong to the listener, so a speaker or writer would hesitate to use them. There is "to empurple". (Aren't you glad that English has twice the working vocabulary of most modern languages?) —— Shakescene (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me pose the question in reverse. Since we brown meat, and pages of a book become yellowed, why don't we simply black things, or white our teeth, or talk about faces redding? Why do these few words need to go the extra mile and add an -en? And as for having twice the vocab of other languages, there is no room for complacency when we consider the multitude of truly shocking gaps we have yet to fill, like ept, sult, peat, protransitive, restroy, hypostruct, and so many others. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Browning isn't specifically about color: i.e., when we whiten something we do it to make it white, when we brown something, we do it to make it cooked. the -en suffix means "denoting the development, creation, or intensification of a state", and there aren't that many colors that we think of as 'developing' rather than simply 'existing' just as a color. Even leaves don't 'develop' a green color; they develop a red color in the fall, but spring out of the bud already green. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People of my mature years are sometimes described as having greyed a little up top. (Or a lot, as the case may be.) Gun metal is sometimes blued. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think productivity or non-linguistic things (such as Ludwigs' proposal) are the answer here, if you look cross-linguistically. French, for instance, has verdir and bleuir (green-en and blue-en), as well as all the ones that English does (rougir, blanchir, rosir, noircir), but I doubt that French people make stuff green or blue more often than we do, or that 'greening' and 'blueing' (I just blue myself...) mean something different for them than they do for me. Rather, I bet this is just another language-to-language idiosyncracy (as AnonMoos suggests above: "just the usual lexical gaps of derivational morphology"). Some languages that are more agglutinating and have more productive causative suffixes, such as Turkish, probably can -en-ify all the colors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For productivity, Esperanto has no limits within its own patterns of word formation. (See Esperanto vocabulary#Word formation.) For example, it has blanka ("white", adjective), blanketa ("slightly white, whitish"), blankega ("very white"), blanko ("white", noun), blankeco ("whiteness"), blankigi ("to whiten", transitive), blankiĝi ("to become white", intransitive), ~~blui~~ blanki ("to be white"), blankulo ("white person"). Similar words can be formed for all colors. (See eo:Koloro.)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean 'blanki' ("to be white"), Wavelength? 'Blui' seems out of place there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and I am correcting it. Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Verbing weirds language." — Calvin. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Origin of 'going to the John' " question from the Reference Desk/Humanities

From Origin of "Going to the John"

John Harington has been credited as having invented the flush toilet in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Could this fact be the origin of the slang phrase Going to the john? Back in medieval times the word for latrines was the jakes, hence Harington naming his toilet Ajax. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

etymonline.com says: John, "toilet," 1932, probably from jack, jakes, used for "toilet" since 16c. (see Jack). 24.16.154.46 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The folk etymology of the "john" being named for a guy named John who invented an Elizabethan flush toilet is as amusing as the "crapper" being named for Thomas Crapper who was a Victorian plumber and fixture manufacturer. Edison (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or of Otto Titzling having invented the brassiere. --Jayron32 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out-Google Google?

What is to out-Google Google?

Does it simply mean to surpass Google?--Analphil (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty much, or "to be more like Google than Google itself" (though you'd have to give more context to be sure). It originates from the phrase "out-Herod Herod", from Hamlet, Act3 Scene 2. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a more precise definition is to surpass Google at what Google is best-known for doing. --Anonymous, 05:41 UTC, October 13, 2010.

Or to be more infamous than the idea of Google i.e. international corporation with the impression it is free and progressive/new-age. schyler (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

French verbs

Approximately what percent of all French verbs are irregular, even if it is a small irregularity or form change such as préférer (je préfère but nous préférons) or even manger (nous mangeons). Also, what percent of these are common (ie, at least once per week or 2 weeks) use. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that the question has a well-defined answer the way you asked it, since the more words you include which are relatively rare, the lower the percentage of irregulars will be, since the -er conjugation will predominate. Also, do you mean irregular as a percentage of dictionary listings, or irregular as a percentage of verb forms used in running text? AnonMoos (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are including all those as "irregular", then it is probably quite high. Most of those, however, are not really considered 'irregular'. Even some verbs that are taught in foreign textbooks as "irregular" but are somewhat predictable (such as sortir/partir, and the whole "irregular" -ir set like tenir) are actually, I think, considered regular in non-L2 stuff. (I'm not too familiar with the actual linguistics literature on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there they are maybe considered irregular verbs with gang effects.) In any case, they're not as irregular as, e.g., être, avoir, faire, aller. Anyway, things like préférer and manger are certainly not irregular, as the changes within them are driven entirely by rule and as far as I know there are no common exceptions to them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of irregular verbs see fairly frequent use. In fact, the more irregular a verb is, the more frequently it is used, as a general rule of thumb. I would expect that, in spoken French, a majority of verbs in a typical (everyday) discourse are irregular. Marco polo (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. This article (among others) also confirms that the most frequent verbs tend to be the irregular ones. (A situation not any different than the one for English.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English is conspicuous for the way that the verb "to be" is hyper-irregular (i.e. includes whole morphological inflectional categories which simply don't exist for any other verb in the language, as well as multiple suppletions). AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say that in English, please, Anon? :) Seriously, though, can you explain with some examples. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No other verb in modern English has anything comparable to the am-are-be distinction or the was-were distinction, so where all other verbs have a maximum of five distinct inflectional forms in the same paradigm (e.g. "take", "takes", "taking", "took", "taken"), "to be" has eight distinct inflectional forms. Also, the forms other than "be"-"being"-been" all derive from separate stems (as far as purely synchronic analysis is involved), so where a verb like "go"-"went" has two separate roots in its paradigm, "to be" appears to have six. It's not really a standard term, but I think "hyper-irregular" would be a good way to describe "to be" in English... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Maybe this is what Hamlet was worried about. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addittion to the above, the list of irregular verbs is fixed (there are about 150 of them), any newly coined verbs should be regular (and ending with "er") now, unless they're just a prefixed form of an existing irregular verb. – b_jonas 12:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gender of non-Romance toponyms in Spanish

In Castilian, one says "Nueva York" and "Nueva Jersey", but "Nuevo Hampshire" and "Nuevo Brunswick". In Catalan, Portuguese and Galician, however, all these terms are feminine. How did this strange state of affairs come to be? Why are "Hampshire" and "Brunswick" considered masculine while "York" and "Jersey" are feminine? Was the assignment entirely random, or is there an etymological logic to it? LANTZY ^TALK 08:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is short, but might interest you all the same. Apparently, Nueva Hampshire exists as well, as do both Nueva México and Nuevo México, which is what prompted the q & a I linked. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These Lecciones de navegación ó Principios necesarios á la ciencia del piloto from 1819 even use the feminine and masculine version of New Hampshire on the same page! ---Sluzzelin talk 08:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One would expect the femenine gender for non-Latin-derived names of cities [fem. ciudad]: that is the reason behind Nueva York. Similarly, since New Hampshire is the toponym of a state (masc. estado), we have the preferred form Nuevo Hampshire, cf. for instance this and this. Of course, this is in a way arbitrary, but at least explains the logic.
For the case of Nuevo México (cf. [1]), most speakers would not consider using the femenine form, since México has a stable state as a masculine toponym in Spanish. Pallida Mors 10:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the ciudad-estado distinction explains it pretty well, since the gender of the state seems to correspond to the gender of the thing that the namesake is: "Nueva (ciudad de) York", "Nueva (isla de) Jersey", "Nuevo (condado de) Hampshire". The weird one is "Nuevo Brunswick". In Spanish, as in antiquated English, "Brunswick" is a city in Germany, so you'd think the Canadian province would follow the template of "Nueva York", and be "Nueva (ciudad de) Brunswick". LANTZY ^TALK 16:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg (el Electorado de or el Ducado de ...) was a historic state, with a masculine gender in Spanish. In fact, the ruler of Brunswick-Lüneburg became King George I of Great Britain in 1714, the same year in which the town in New Jersey was named New Brunswick. This can hardly be a coincidence, and although our article states that the town was named after the town in Germany, it seems more likely that it was named after the home duchy of the new king of Great Britain. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but I suppose you could retroactively justify using either "la" or "el" for just about any place name: la (isla de) Jersey vs. el (bailiazgo de) Jersey. LANTZY ^TALK 01:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I just think that the femenine or masculine adjectives were applied considering the respective category of the toponym, not having precisely the ellipsis in mind. And the categories city and state are simple, encompassing and well-known [hey, I haven't heard bailiazgo before in my life!]. On the other hand, the term provincia is more or less a femenine equivalence for estado. Pallida Mors 12:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing in another Romance language for comparison, French has "Nouveau-Brunswick", and if Wikipedia is correct "Nouveau-~~Mexico~~", both masculine; but New York, New Jersey, and New Hampshire keep their English names. Nova Scotia, as the Latin form used in English suggests, is feminine: Nouvelle-Écosse. --Anonymous, 06:00 UTC, October 14, 2010.

In French it's (le) Nouveau-Mexique. — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petit Larousse (2004) gives fr:Nouvelle-Galles de Sud for New South Wales. Also:

* (presumably masculine:)
Nouveau-Brunswick (New Brunswick)
fr:Nouveau-Mexique (New Mexico)
* (presumably feminine:)
Nouvelle-Amsterdam redirected to Île Amsterdam (Amsterdam Island in the Southern Indian Ocean)
fr:La Nouvelle-Amsterdam (New Amsterdam now New York City)
fr:Nouvelle-Angleterre (New England, U.S.A.)
fr:Nouvelle-Bretagne for New Britain
Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia)
fr:Nouvelle-Espagne for New Spain (Mexico)
Nouvelle-France for New France (French Canada)
fr:Nouvelle-Grenade for New Granada (viceroyalty of greater Colombia)
fr:Nouvelle-Guinée (New Guinea)
fr:Nouvelle-Irlande (New Ireland)
Nouvelle-Orléans (New Orleans)
fr:Nouvelle-Sibérie (New Siberia)
Nouvelle-Zélande (New Zealand) and
fr:Nouvelle-Zemble (Novaya Zemlya)

I'm too sleepy and forgetful to see the logic or illogic of this (for example Wales is le Pays de Galles), and I can't remember all the masculine and feminine countries off-hand.—— Shakescene (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was stupid. I followed the link to fr:Nouveau-Mexique, made a mental note of the Nouveau part, and forgot the other half. Sorry. --Anon, 03:52, October 15, 2010.

Being reminded from the preceding post how to enter wikilinks from Wikipédie, I entered them in my list above, and also encountered this item from the fr:Wikipédie search box [converted to this Wikipedia]:

fr:Nouvelle-Néerlande (New Netherland)
Not to be confused with fr:Nouvelle-Hollande (Brésil) or fr:Nouvelle-Hollande (Australie).

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected some typos in the above list (Méxique → Mexique, Grénade → Grenade, Brétagne → Bretagne) — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What language is this?

Resolved

– gibberish vandalism, IP blocked. Looie496 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was reverted and the user was chastised.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we have a vandal.[2][3]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future use, we have a page to alert admins in cases where a vandal does not respond to repeated warnings, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; though I have never used it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person has now been blocked.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you'll know, the person who did the reverting in the first case didn't call it vandalism, so I gave the person the benefit of the doubt until I saw the other contributions. Not that this was not proof the person was confused instead of a vandal, but action has been taken.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French

What is the difference in usage (when would each be used) between French la langue and le langage. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this article. Speaking from a technical linguistics point of view, those two are translated as "code" and "capacity" and go back to Ferdinand de Saussure, who wrote of the difference between a communication system (for example English or French etc) as it exists abstractly and independently of any one speaker ("code") and on the other hand your own personal "capacity" to implement that system that exists inside your own head.

But, from a non-technical point of view, you would use "langue" + the name of the language: "la langue francaise, la langue japonaise"etc; and you would use "langage" to talk about the idea of language with out referring to any one specific language: "la development du langage". See [4] and [5] for more examples! Duomillia (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if I were to say like, French is a beautiful language, would I say "C'est une belle langue" or "un beau langage"? 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La belle langue française - because you are referring to a specific one. Duomillia (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, in French we say: Ada, Pascal, Java, Python, Lisp sont des langages (langages de programmation) — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computers a a law unto themselves; we Brits have to put up with "programs" instead of "programmes". Alansplodge (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

what's the arabic script say/mean in this photo?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Cannabissativadior.jpg

thank you.--72.178.129.138 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time telling one-dot diacritics apart from two-dot diacritics, but words at left seem to be qinnab bustani قنب بستاني or "garden hemp" -- and QNB in Hebrew is at the far lower left... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word at right is قناوی (qun/na:/vi: in three syllables) which is a famous surname in Arabic. It must be the name of the illustrator. --Omidinist (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The words at left look like "لبناني قنب" (or the other way around, which I can't get my computer to do for some reason), or "qanib lubnani", Lebanon cannabis. Lebanon is apparently famous for it. At first glance I thought the other word on the right was either an alternate Arabic transliteration of "cannabis" or possibly a Persian or old Turkish transliteration (with the "b" represented as a "v"), but I defer to Omidinist's superior knowledge. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Greek at the top, at least the capitals, says "cannabis emeros", or domesticated cannabis. The other Greek squiggles starts off with "cannabis" but I have no idea what the second word says. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer bustani, because in lubnani the lam would be expected to have roughly the same vertical height as the alif, which is not the case, and there also doesn't seem to be another upward curving of the baseline where the "b" would be. Arabic بستاني could also correspond roughly to Greek ΗΜΕΡΟΣ... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, and the qaf also extends further up than normal. And the dot could be part of the first letter, as you say. I do see some squiggles that could be a sin, although I remember learning that sin is often handwritten as a straight line, so maybe that's what happened here. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the two Greek phrases: the second just repeats the first, it's the same words, κάνναβις ἥμερος (with an "ερο" ligature towards the right). In that book the old uncial Greek legends were sytematically translated into minuscule at some point. About Omidinist's suggestion: it's originally a Greek illuminated manuscript, so an Arabic name (if it is one) could impossibly be that of the painter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last names

Last names generally tell us something about either where the male line of a family comes from or what an ancestor did (for example, names like Smith and Miller for the latter, and a name like Hilton for the former). My friend's last name is "Crossot", and this topic came up in conversation. I couldn't tell much from the name, so I told him I'd get back to him after doing some research. What does the name tell us about his ancestors? I recognize that it is a French name and fairly uncommon, but that's about it. Does it have to do with the Church? Thank you. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth/Maps finds a small place in Princé, called Crossot, here. Rojomoke (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antananarivo = Tananariv?

According to this article, "Antananarivo" should be pronounced /ˌtəˌnænəˈriːv/ or /ˌtəˌnɑːnəˈriːv/ (French: Tananarive). Is it just the pronouncement in Madagascar, or in English-speaking countries, as well? (excuse me if my English is not very good, it's not my native language). Thanks, 22:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

~~According to the Oxford Dictionary of the World, "Antananarivo" is pronounced /ˌæntəˌnænəˈri:vəʁ/. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

You mean "Antananarivar"? It's pretty different from what I expected, and since the consonant 'ʁ' doesn't appear in Wikipedia:IPA for English I want to be sure. 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by נו, טוב (talk • contribs)

It's definitely got the ʁ at the end. It's a vowel, not a consonant, /əʁ/ represents the vowel in the English word "no". I will say that 1) the character set offered by Wikipedia for IPA for English doesn't include all the characters used in those of my English reference books which use IPA, and 2) using the IPA template made some of the characters display incorrectlyʁ, so I didn't use the template. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[əʊ] is a transcription of the high-RP version of the sound traditionally described as "long o". Note that [ʊ] is very different from [ʁ]. Wikipedia "IPA for English" uses [oʊ] instead of [əʊ], because the former is applicable to a much broader range of English dialects... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Which is all very interesting, but no-one had mentioned /əʊ/ at all yet! DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think AnonMoos was presuming to correct your IPA. I know of no dialect of English in which '/əʁ/ represents the vowel in the English word "no"', as /ʁ/ represents a gutteral fricative and not a vowel. I think some Geordies have /ʁ/ in their English, but as a realisation of [r]. I believe you have substituted /ʁ/ for /ʊ/--ColinFine (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mistake it, and I checked it thoroughly. /əʁ/ is used for the vowel in "no" in the Gimson system, which according to David Crystal in his Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language "has been particularly influential in the field of teaching English as a foreign language". Please don't accuse me of being incapable of reading before you check your facts. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Crystal also gives ʁ as a pure vowel, as in put, wolf, good, look. op. cit. p. 237. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Did you actually click on the link ʁ presented above?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're quoting a pronunciation in a system which strongly resembles IPA, but it different from it, and not drawing anybody's attention to the fact? --ColinFine (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was using what Oxford University Press call IPA, and drew attention to that fact in my first post. I now see that several characters in my posts, as well as those of others, are displaying differently to how they were last night. Has someone played around with how IPA displays on Wikipedia? It is impossible to answer here if my posts are to be changed. DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck all my earlier responses, as they have been vandalised, and no longer display as they did when I made them. It is impossible to accept good faith when I find my replies being modified in this way. DuncanHill (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I advise the OP to consult a real reference work, not this crappy website, which mangles and distorts the answers that were given. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you've been having problems, but your very first posting to this thread contained [ʁ] not [ʊ] ([6]) and everybody else who posted to this thread has been able to see the difference between the two, and cut-and-paste in the one they wanted. AnonMoos (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it - my very first post DID NOT contain the one that looks like a rotated R - it contained the one that looks like a horseshoe. I checked and rechecked several times. Some of the ones I cut-and-pasted even look different now to what they did then. It is impossible for me to use IPA now on Wikipedia, as I have absolutely no way of knowing what it will look like to others, or if it will change overnight. I strongly advise anyone interested in an IPA representation of a word to avoid Wikipedia alltogether and use a real reference book instead. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. You uploaded ʁ to Wikipedia, and everyone else has always seen it as ʁ. If it displayed wrongly on your computer, that is because your computer has bad fonts installed. I advise you to grow up, drop your persecution complex, and admit that there has been a problem at your end. Algebraist 13:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it first by clicking the symbol in the IPA menu below the edit box. The "rotated R" that others were typing got displayed as the "horseshoe". I advise you to grow up and accept that Wikipedia is crap at some things, and displaying/typing IPA is one of them. I don't think I've ever installed any fonts on this computer. Thank you so much for all your constructive suggestions - oh, you haven't bothered to make any. I offered a good reply, based on a decent reference work, and because of technical difficulties I got abused. Well screw you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get upset, Duncan, I can see that you are telling the truth because there is no inverted R in either of the IPA selections. I'm just testing ... ʊʊ ... to see if I can reproduce the strange error that occurred ... and I can't, but this doesn't mean that it didn't happen to you. Can anyone with a knowledge of character mappings explain how it happened? Could it have been a bug in the Wikipedia software, or is it more likely to have been a fault on Duncan's computer? Dbfirs 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way I know of that this could havae happened within MediaWiki's software. If Duncan was copy-pasting IPA from an outside editor such as Microsoft Word, then what may have happened is that the encoding/display in Word is messed up on his computer, so what was ʁ looked like ʊ on his screen and that's what he pasted in. I'm not sure how likely that is, though.

And, for what it's worth, there is ʁ in the insert tool...select IPA from the drop-down menu and it's in the second 'group' (with the other fricatives). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not copy-paste from Word or anything else external, I used the drop-down box and some copy-paste from within the edit window. Both of these are now displaying differently to me, and were obviously displaying differently to others than they were to me at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes it is there earlier on the same line, so is there some way that Duncan's display could be corrupted in a way that caused ʁ to be displayed as ʊ ? Dbfirs 08:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone just calm down. The reference desk is no place for a pissing contest, regardless of font issues (DuncanHill, you were getting defensive even before the technical discussion began); if someone disagrees with you at a reference desk, you don't need to "defend your honor" or something.
As for the technical issue, DuncanHill, for future editing, you may find it easier to insert IPA by using the javascript applet below the edit window and buttons (select "IPA" from the drop-down window) instead of copy-pasting from an outside editor. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I DID USE THE DROP DOWN THE FIRST TIME I ALREADY SAID THAT! And yes, I waas getting defensive because people were passing judgement on my contribution based on it appearing differently to them than it did to me - so it looked to me like they were talking bollocks. Their contributions also appeared differently to me than they did to them, so we were all talking at cross-purposes. DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, this getting nasty. Lets go back to the Classics. As Euripides wrote,

Fʁench Soldier: I'm Fʁench. Why do you think I have this outʁageous accent, you silly king?

And as Sophocles replied,

Pontius Piʊate: To pʊove our fʊiendship, we will ʊelease one of our ʊong-doers! Who shall I ʊelease?

I'm here to to have serious discussions about language in a collegial way. Feel free to attack me, I'll take it good humour. But this internecine edit-waring? I dar seyn, an hunderede on a reive,/ That it is pite for to rede, and routhe. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everyone so busy not answering the poster's question? To be fair, DuncanHill attempted to answer it but made a mistake. So what? Anyway, the pronunciation formerly given in our article was incorrect, so I will change it. The pronunciation given is for the former (colonial) name of the capital, Tananarive. The correct pronunciation for the current name of the capital, per Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (MWGD), converted to IPA, is ɑntɑnɑnɑ'riːvoʊ. Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wave my private parts at your aunties! rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the question is that most people in the english speaking world would probably not know what an Antananarivo is and how to pronounce it and would most likely pronounce it as it is spelt, lacking more information. But here is a relevant nugget from Douglas Adams in Last Chance to See:

Antananarivo is pronounced Tananarive, and for much of this century has been spelt that way as well. When the French took over Madagascar at the end of the last century (colonised is probably too kind a word for moving in on a country that was doing perfectly well for itself but which the French simply took a fancy to), they were impatient with the curious Malagasy habit of not bothering to pronounce the first and last syllables of place names. They decided, in their rational Gallic way, that if that was how the names were pronounced then they could damn well be spelt that way too. It would be rather as if someone had taken over England and told us that from now on we would be spelling Leicester 'Lester' and liking it. We might be forced to spell it that way, but we wouldn't like it, and neither did the Malagasy. As soon as they managed to divest themselves of French rule, in 1960, they promptly reinstated all the old spellings and just kept the cooking and the bureaucracy.

meltBanana 21:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nerve! As if French is the last word in logical, phonetic, say-it-exactly-as-you-see-it pronunciation. They have even worse weirdnesses than English does. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Writing Antananarivo and pronouncing Tananarive would seem like a very French thing to do. Rimush (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Looking for better phrasing

This isn't really a reference question (like many questions on the language desk), but I have been wondering whether anyone here could come up with a better phrasing of the following (i.e. without the repetition of "be"). "Any contributions received after the deadline will be assumed to be intended for the following edition." Thanks for any suggestions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could de-passify it: "We will assume that any contributions we receive after the deadline are intended for the following edition". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or "Any contributions received after the deadline will be treated as being intended for the following edition.", or "Any contributions received after the deadline will be considered for the following edition."

Next question, can anyone come up with an alternative to Jack's de-passify? Sussexonian (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Activify? Never heard of either to be honest, but useful-sounding words the two of them. -- the Great Gavini 15:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are making assumptions about submitter's intentions. I'd just say: " Any contributions received after the deadline will be considered for the following edition." --Ludwigs2 15:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that, Ludwigs2, is that you are making assumptions about the context, and changing the basic meaning of the sentence. We were given a sentence that includes reference to an assumption, and we were asked to make the wording less clumsy, not say something quite different that eliminates all mention of the assumption. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=*ivize&ls=a. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a tree

I'm looking for an English word for the "cave" you sometimes get in a tree when a branch has fallen off and the outer bark/wood remains but the inner has eroded somehow. A "knot" is a bit like that but the inner hasn't eroded away. I had thought it was a "bole", but that appears to be the tree trunk. Any good words out there? -- SGBailey (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has "knot-hole: the hollow formed in the trunk of a tree by the decay of a branch." You might also be interested in looking up kerf, knag, and knar which are other bits of trees.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have said "hollow", but there really should be a more specific word. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translation please.

Resolved

I've been tinkering with the Albion page, and need a Latin to English translation please, for rex et primicerius totius Albionis regni, which is what King Æthelstan liked to call himself after he beat the Scots at the Battle of Brunanburh. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make out (my Latin is the rusty remains of 4.5 years of lost time, back when England was called Albion), it translates as "King and first of all the rulers of Albion". We have an article on primicerius, which does not have a simple translation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regnum means "kingdom, realm"; for "primicerius" see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dprimicerius . I would say "King and chief of the whole kingdom of Albion"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou both. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Perfide" (fr.) and "perfidious" (Eng.)

Is there a word more commonly used in English than "perfidious" that otherwise has the same connotation that "perfide" does in French? Thanks, from User:Bielle in a hotel lobby in Ottawa. 207.219.128.198 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is treacherous. Marco polo (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, I suspect, though somehow "amant perfide" has a little more punch than "treacherous lover". Thank you, Marco polo from User:Bielle yet again in a hotel lobby in Ottawa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.128.198 (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the time, "perfide" is nothing more than an emphatic metaphorical adjective, like the English "dirty", "nasty", "stinking", "putrid", and "rotten": "escroc perfide" = "dirty crook"; "menteur perfide" = "filthy liar"; "amant perfide" = "slimy, two-timing boyfriend", perhaps? Of course, in certain cases "treacherous" or "perfidious" itself would be fine, especially if you wanted to convey irony: "les perfides juifs", for instance. LANTZY ^TALK 05:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

German word gender

I want to nickname a particular girl I know something similar to "The Stargazer" or "The Star Hunter" in German. Google translate pops out a result of "Der Sterngucker" for the former and "Der Stern Jäger" for the latter. However, a friend I know who took German tells me (as does the German Wiktionary) that "Der" is the masculine form of "the". Does it work to just switch out the "Der" for "Die" to make it feminine, or is it more complicated than that? Would it require changes to "Sterngucker" or "Stern Jäger" as well? (In short, what would be the German translation of "The Stargazer" and "The Star Hunter" when used as a nickname for a girl?)

Also, I notice that when I type just "stargazer" into Google Translate, it puts out "Sterndeuter"...but when I make it "The stargazer", that's when it pops out "Sterngucker". Which of these is the correct translation for "one who stargazes"?

Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could use die Sternjägerin -- Jägerin is "huntress". Sterngucker sounds hideous regardless of gender. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a girl that you wish to honor with this nickname, it would be "die Sternguckerin" or "die Sterndeuterin". Note the feminine suffix. The reason "The Stargazer" yields "Sterngucker" is probably because there's a piece of music of that name by Franz Lehár. I agree that "die Sternguckerin" sounds pretty silly, but "die Sterndeuterin" is reasonably euphonious by German standards. If you don't care whether this German term is colloquial and in ordinary use, you could go with something more inventive like "Sternwächterin", "Sternblickerin", "Sternspäherin", or the tongue-twisting "Sternstarrerin" ("star-starer"). However, your best bet would seem to be "Sterndeuterin". LANTZY ^TALK 05:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, "Sterndeuter" literally means something more like "star reader" or "astrologer", and its connotation in German is not as dreamy and metaphorical as the English "stargazer". It carries an implication of specialized knowledge. LANTZY ^TALK 05:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Sternstarrerin" sounds pretty cool, so long as I am pronouncing it correctly, (literally how it looks; Stern-star-er-in?). "Sternwächterin" isn't bad either, but I have relatively no knowledge of how to pronounce "wächterin", so I may be saying it completely wrong. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very rough approximation of "wächterin" using English phonemes would be "VESH-tuh-rin", and "Sternstarrerin" would be something like "shtairn-SHTAR-ruh-rin". LANTZY ^TALK 08:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "sh" in Wächterin, but then again I wouldn't know how to write out the pronunciation of ch for English-speakers. Rimush (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the voiceless velar fricative (IPA /x/), I've seen it spelled as "kh" sometimes. Lexicografía (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the phrase "very rough approximation". I was writing it out so that an English speaker totally ignorant of German phonology might come close to pronouncing it. Lex, the "ch" in "wächterin" is not /x/ but /ç/, and the closest thing to /ç/ in standard English is /ʃ/. Remember Kennedy's "Ish bin ein Berliner." LANTZY ^TALK 21:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shows my knowledge of German. Good to know. [grin] Lexicografía (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that an East/West difference? When I watched Goodbye Lenin, the characters were saying something much closer to 'Ish', whereas the tapes and videos we saw in school (and Austrians and West Germans I've met) sounded more like the 'ch' in 'loch' (although softer?). I've not met any East Germans, so I assumed the different pronunciation in Goodbye Lenin was down to that. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty close sound in English to /ç/. Say "Hugh". The /j/ in /hju:/ lifts the tongue up (can't remember the technical term for this) so it's near enough to /çju:/. Say "Hugh", and draw out the initial consonant, and you're pretty close to /ç/.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that much East/West, 109.155, because there's no unitary "East German accent/dialect". What is usually referred to as East German is Thuringian-Upper Saxon German, spoken only in Saxony and Thuringia, and I don't think ch is pronounced /ʃ/ in those dialects. The realization of ch as /ʃ/ is a feature of the Berlin dialect (Goodbye Lenin takes places in Berlin), feature which is to some extent shared with the Cologne dialect (Kölsch), despite the geographical distance between the two cities. This is an interesting phenomenon to linguists, because the dialects in two far apart cities, each surrounded by different kinds of German, both grew to include some of the same features. Rimush (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty cool, thanks. The only sop to accents/dialects in my lessons was zwei/zwo (sp?), and I hadn't really considered that such a clear difference would be characteristic of a city like that. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a type of fish called Stargazer, which translates to Himmelsgucker ("Skygazer"), which sounds pretty neat (again, just add the "-in" at the end to create the female form). Sternstarrerin sounds really weird to a native-German ear. It would sound a little bit better if you change the star part to plural - Sternenstarrerin - (someone gazing at the stars, rather than someone gazing at one star) but still weird. Sternguckerin, even though that's the singular again, would be the better choice. The "gucken" part means looking or gazing, while "starren" is a stare. Note that Sterngucker(in) also is a term used for a fetus passing the birth canal face up rather than face down during childbirth. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, "-starrer(in)" sounds odd too, and not very friendly. Starren has rather negative connotations (mostly involuntary or senseless, rather than attentive purposeful gazing). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starren means staring, so yes. Rimush (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stern(en)beobachterin would be another option, meaning a female somebody who watches (in the sense of "monitors") a star/the stars. The "-wächterin" above would be a watcher in the sense of guarding. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To capture the feel of "star gazer", you could go with "Sternträumer(in)" (Star Dreamer). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For "The Stargazer", I'd say "die Sternschauerin". You may also say "die Sternblickerin" or "die Sternspäherin" ("Sternspäherin" has a connotation of looking in order to get information, not just enjoying the beauty of the stars). If you say "die Sternguckerin", that would sound as if you were teasing her a bit. -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing one needs to know is _why_ you want to call her "the stargazer". Does she like astronomy? Does she like astrology? Is she a daydreamer? The optimal translation will be different for each of these cases. --::Slomox:: >< 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Grimms offer a wide choice of star-gazing related terms (start typing stern... here) including a charming entry on "Sterngucker" (astrologo...seine kunst gilt gewöhnlich als unchristlich oder einfältig, also, umgangssprachlich häufig bezeichnung eines menschen, der den kopf hoch trägt). It also has Sternhure, but it seems to mean something entirely else^^--Janneman (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"shine" as a slur for a black person

I had always imagined the racial slur "shine" to be a fairly recent invention, and I strongly associate its use with Italian-Americans on the eastern seaboard. But the other day I was reading Too Many Cooks, a Nero Wolfe novel from 1938, in which one of the characters, the all-American Archie Goodwin, uses the term off-handedly in reference to black kitchen staff: "These shines can take it. They're used to it." So the term is not an Italian thing, and is far older than I thought. Does anyone know how old? Any information on its etymology? I would check the OED, but I don't have access. LANTZY ^TALK 08:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED's earliest citation is from 1908 (a dictionary of criminal slang), and—continuing the mystery-novel theme—there are also citations from Hammett's The Dain Curse in 1929 and Chandler's Farewell, My Lovely in 1940. Many of us will recall Dooley Wilson singing the 1910 song "Shine" in Casablanca. (And, coincidentally, I too recently read Too Many Cooks for the first time.) Deor (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC

As to the origin of the term, isn't it that shoeshine boys in the uS were stereotypically black? Sorry, no cite. --Anonymous, 16:31 UTC, October 16, 2010.

That's plausible. Looking around the interwebs, a lot of websites put forward that etymology. LANTZY ^TALK 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King was originally going to call one of his books The Shine, but since one of the major characters is black, he was persuaded to change it to The Shining. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always took it to be connected with shoeshine boys, but there might be more to it. As EO points out, "shiner" meaning a "black eye" turned up around the same time, early 1900s. Things that are black, such as the polished tip of shoe, or a dark-skinned and shaved head, can kind of "shine" or reflect light. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word for piece of ground upon which UK Motorway Service Area is built?

When I was in France recently I noticed that on French motorways there were things which were called "Aire de.....", which had various facilities ranging from just parking and toilets to a complete set of services: parking, toilets, fuel, food etc.

I was trying to think of a English equivalent to "aire", and I was trying to remember a word I thought I had seen in official descriptions of regulations relating to UK Motorway Service Areas.

This word might not be quite the equivalent of "aire", but I would still like to try to remember what it was.

I have done various searches and asked a number of people but have not come up with the word I half remember.

I have a feeling that the word begins with p, and the best I have come up with so far is "precinct", but I have a feeling that this is not the word.

Some suggestions & thoughts I have already had, but which I do not think are the one, are "area", "plot", "perimeter", "curtilage", "messuage", "purlieu" and "premises".

It may be that I have simply mis-remembered and the word I am trying to find simply does not exist!FrankSier (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what word the official documents would use. "Area" is generic for a piece of land. The usual equivalent for "aire" is "services", but it is not exact because "aires" on French motorways might have full services (petrol station, restaurant, shop) but some are only a picnic area with toilets. All stops on UK motorways have full services AFAIK. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

french de

How do I know when to use de alone and when to use the de + definite article (du, de la, de l', des)? I am not confused about the use of the de + article for the partitive, or the alone de for Je suis de ... or like that, but what if you have a de between 2 nouns, or a de after a verb , and cases like that ? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually asking about the usage of the definite article in English vs. French. One basic rule is that French uses the article more often for abstracts ("La paix" = "Peace"). AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some examples of the cases you're referring to? rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This partly has to do with differences in uses of the definite article, but there are some other rules. For example, the definite article disappears in phrases of negation: J'ai du pain but Je n'ai pas de pain Also, the definite article disappears in phrases that call for "de" in non-partitive contexts: J'ai du pain but "J'ai besoin de pain (However, "J'ai le pain d'hier" --> "J'ai besoin du pain d'hier) One way to think about both of these rules is the following formula: de + de la OR de + du = de. As for differences in the use of the definite article, here is another example. The French equivalent of "I love bread" is J'adore le pain. On the other hand, "I want bread" is Je veux du pain. In the first case, you love all bread, you love bread as an abstract category. In the second case, you want a piece of bread. Notice that, in both cases, no article or modifier stands in front of the English word bread. English does not require the determinacy of nouns to be specified in many contexts. With few exceptions, French does require this. In French, nouns can rarely stand alone. (The main exception that springs to mind is that certain proper nouns do not require articles or partitives. Still, some proper nouns, such as the names of countries, do require definite articles in most contexts.) In French, you have to decide whether you are talking about a specific instance or the abstract idea of the referent of a given noun (definite article), a nonspecific instance of the referent of a given noun (indefinite article), or a portion of the referent of a given noun (partitive). Almost all nouns have to be assigned to one of these three categories and be prefaced with the appropriate article or partitive (with the exceptions noted above). Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Rake building

What can the word 'Rake' mean in the following phrase: 'The hotel is located in the late 19th century Rake building?'Thank you Seaweed71 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is talking about the Klaus Kurki Hotel in Helsinki, I think "Rake" simply refers to the Rake Group company who has owned that real estate on Bulevardi since the 19th century and gave the building its name. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's just a proper noun. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it is just the answer95.143.17.191 (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many words?

I'm asking myself how many words a normal man uses in English? And a person's learning English how many words he have to know to become enough fluent? I saw simple english uses 851 words and special english 1500. Is it quite?--Kaspo (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of how many words you need to know to become passively fluent doesn't really have a definite answer. Also, Basic English was an experiment of the 1930's which has not really stood the test of time... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Vocabulary claims that the 2000 most common words would cover 96% of everyday informal spoken usage, though that would probably not be sufficient for fluency in some situations. As stated above, there is no fixed number. The more words you know, the more fluent you will become. Dbfirs 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday informal spoken English would cover only everyday situations. Conversations about anything specific (politics, business, even the weather) would require a much larger vocabulary. Even in everyday spoken situations, I can imagine conversations in which the 4% of the vocabulary that goes beyond the 2,000 most common words could be crucial to understanding. I think 2,000 words might be enough to get by if you just want to be able to get around an English-speaking city and maybe do some kind of manual work that doesn't require complex communication. I would think that a person should probably know more like 5,000 words to begin to be really fluent in English. Marco polo (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Vocabulary states:

James Flynn reports the remarkable differences in vocabulary exposure of pre-schoolers between different classes in the U.S.A. Apparently, pre-schoolers of professional families are typically exposed to 2,150 different words, pre-schoolers from working class families to 1,250 words, while those from households on welfare just 620.^[1]

and

Several word lists have been developed to provide people with a limited vocabulary either quick language proficiency or an effective means of communication. In 1930, Charles Kay Ogden created Basic English (850 words). Other lists include Simplified English (1000 words) and Special English (1500 words). The General Service List,^[2] 2000 high frequency words compiled by Michael West from a 5,000,000 word corpus, has been used to create a number of adapted reading texts for English language learners.

A useful distinction is between a person's active vocabulary, the words they use in speech and writing, and the (usually much) larger passive vocabulary, those that are understood in listening and reading. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Request for translation: English to Thai

how will i translate good afternoon everyone i am maxine padilla in thai language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.193.13.240 (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives this: สวัสดีทุกคนฉัน Maxine Padilla, but you should wait for a human translator who might come along. Rimush (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to pronounce Mettā?

As in the article, Mettā, I've searched the article and google and I am unable to find how to pronounce the word Mettā. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the Pali article. Pali words are pronounced as they are written. The a is long (pronounced ah).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 05:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Function pointer

The question has been moved to the Computing reference desk.

Hindi

i want to read in hindi,how could be it possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinngkumar.10 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to start would be to take a class in Hindi or buy a Hindi textbook. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Urdu speaker? If so, then someone here (though not me) might have some advice specific to your situation. Lfh (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether you can read Wikipedia articles in Hindi? There's no tool for viewing English Wikipedia pages in other languages, but there is a Hindi Wikipedia at hi:wikipedia. Ka renjc 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Hindi page at UPenn. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo maricón

It's not uncommon these days to hear American gays, especially the studiedly edgy, self-applying terms of opprobrium like "faggot" and "homo". I'm curious as to whether Spanish-speaking gays do the same with "maricón". Apparently they sometimes do, as in the movie Cachorro, but is that worldwide, or a peninsular thing, or a left-wing thing, or what?

As a free bonus question, I would like to know if "maricón" is truly comparable, in despective force, with the word "faggot", or if it is closer to "poofter" or "swish" or something. I've talked to a lot of different Spanish-speakers and they all seem to disagree about that. My intuition is that it's a more playful term than "faggot", less steeped in murderous imagery, more associated with outward effeminacy than with sexual deviancy. But my intuition may be wrong. LANTZY ^TALK 21:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At one time in the US, "faggot" or "fag" did mean an "unmanly" man. As George Carlin once said about his old neighborhood, "a faggot was someone who wouldn't go downtown and help beat up queers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Japanese language question

How do you know whether to use a kanji character's On or Kun reading, in general in a section of written Japanese? 76.27.175.80 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Flynn (2008), p. 102.
^ West (1953)

[1] Flynn (2008), p. 102.

[2] West (1953)

[1]

[2]