Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 28

Malayalam and Tamil

Is spoken Malayalam mutually intelligible with spoken Indian Tamil? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoken Tamil isn't even necessarily mutually intelligible with itself. I know speakers of Tamil Nadu Tamil who don't understand anything that speakers of Sri Lanka Tamil say. Some speakers of Tamil may be able to understand Malayalam - but that would not really tell us anything about the relatedness of the two languages, but more about the speakers. Other speakers might not be able to understand it at all. Whether people understand another language depend on many factors - for example the degree of exposure to the other language and to other languages in general.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This question was only asked a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not allowing me to go through the archives, but the conclusion was that it depended on the speakers, but generally yes. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're probably meaning this thread. --Theurgist (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

November 29

Part of speech for please

Consider a sentence such as this: John, please pass the salt. It is my understanding that the word please is an adverb. Can someone please explain why. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Well, according to Wiktionary, in that context it is "Short for if you please, an intransitive, ergative form taken from if it pleases you, which replaced pray". I think this helps? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The information that you quoted from Wiktionary refers to the verb form of the word "please". I am asking about the adverb form. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Please is an adverb because it modifies the verb, "to pass". Just reduce the sentence to its core bits; John (subject) pass (verb) the salt (object). Which of those three is changed by "please". Is John different? Nope, he's the same person passing. Is the salt different? Nope, same salt. Is the passing different? Yup, its now being done politely. That makes it an adverb. --Jayron32 05:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I don't understand. How is "please" modifying the verb "to pass"? In your example, you somehow equate "please" with "politely". If the sentence stated "John politely passed the salt", then I understand how "politely" is an adverb to modify "passed". In my original sentence, I do not see that "please" equals "politely". In fact, "please" is really just a formality or nicety. I just don't see how it modifies the verb "pass". It's not the manner in which I am asking John to pass the salt (as if I asked him to pass it quickly or slowly or politely or whatever). Anything you can offer to help me see why "please" is an adverb and why it modifies the verb "pass"? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

John is passing the salt in response to a polite request. Thus, his passing is modified by the environment in which it is requested. --Jayron32 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure if "John, please pass the salt" implies that the passing is polite, but rather that the request (i.e. the discourse itself) is polite. It may be for that reason that Anders Holmberg calls it a "particle" and notes that "The semantics and syntax of please is a tricky subject" (On Whimperatives and Related Questions, Journal of Linguistics; unfortunately, the database isn't freely accessible). He also gives an interesting example that "?If you can open the door, can you open it" is dubious, but "If you can open the door, can you please open it" is grammatically correct with the please insertion. I'd also like to note that AndyTheGrump's statement was on point, according to the Online Etymological Dictionary, which says please 's "imperative use (e.g. please do this), first recorded 1620s, was probably a shortening of if it please (you) (late 14c.)." If that's the case, it's easy to see how the please 's ancestral subordinate if clause would have modified the main-clause verb, but the degree to which that's relevant to the present-day use of please is up to you. I'd say since English dictionaries don't like to use the term particle as a legitimate part of speech (perhaps understandably so, since it's such a vague term), they defer to please 's etymology and call it an adverb.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Please" doesn't really fit in well with the traditional parts of speech. You could lump it in as an adverb (if you wanted to define things that way), but it's quite different from classic "manner" adverbs, such as "quickly" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Some theories of linguistics might define it as an illocutionary particle... AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Following up on Andy's commments, presumably the "if you please" derives from the French expression répondez s'il vous plaît used in RSVP (invitations), which I take to literally mean "respond if it pleases you". I'm not a grammatician, but I would think "if you please" would be considered an adverbial phrase.

There is a funny reference to the expression in HMS Pinafore, in which the land-bound commander of the British navy orders the ship's captain to say "if you please" when giving orders to the crew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, it's a verb. Quoting the entry (I've added the links):

“ III 8 verb trans. & intrans. In imper. or optative form: be agreeable, be acceptable; be willing or kind enough to do (archaic. to do). Now freq. used in making a polite request or indicating acceptance: if you please. M17.

S. Hyland ‘Shall I tell him you're coming?’ ‘Yes please’. Beano P-Please stop fighting, chaps—just for m-me! V. Bramwell Please remember: If a pain is sharp…see your doctor. New York Times If you go to all this effort, facts please.

”

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that! Calling it a verb seems more problematic than calling it an adverb. In a sentence such as this (If you do your homework, that will please your mother.), I can see that it acts as a verb. In a sentence such as this (John, please pass the salt.), I cannot see that it has any verb function. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Unless they are saying that the standard (polite form of) "please" is just a short-hand way of saying "if you please". In which case, I can see that the "please" is a verb ... and the "if you please" is an adverbial phrase. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

I think please may actually be in the imperative here. "I am commanding you not just to pass me the salt, but to be pleased by doing so." Doesn't sound all that polite when you expand it out that way, but it seems intuitive; it would then be a shortened version of please to pass the salt. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No: it's pretty certainly short for "if you please", and we have attestations going way back to prove it. As such, it's a subjunctive: there's no command in it. We can imagine a possible universe in which you are pleased to pass me the salt, and if that is the same universe we are living in, then pass me the salt; hence, it's a subjunctive. "Pass", on the other hand, is certainly in the imperative mood. Marnanel (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A mandative subjunctive is a (third-person) imperative. "[May] it please you to pass me the salt.". The recipient of the command is technically "it", rather than "you", but still, something is being commanded. On the other hand, conditionals in general do not ordinarily take the subjunctive, although it's true that they sometimes used to and that this could be an example of that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This question has got me thinking. If you translate Please pass the salt as Passez le sel, s'il vous plaît, then the main verb of the sentence is clearly pass and please merely modifies the verb, making it an adverb. But if you translate it as Veuillez me passer le sel, please suddenly becomes the main verb (in the imperative) and pass follows that, and is in the infinitive.

The first would be expanded in English as If you please, pass the salt (or strictly if it pleases you). The second is expanded as Please to pass the salt, a formula which I think is sometimes found in pseudo upper class writing ("Please to tell His Majesty that ...") Unfortunately, unlike in French, the imperative and infinitive in English are formed identically so we can't tell which is intended. Sussexonian (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascinatiing. It's obviously an interjection, and yet not only has nobody here mention that, most of the online dictionaries under www.onelook.com have it wrong as well. American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, Collins, Webster's New World, and Random House all call it an adverb. Macmillan has it right, and Encarta goes both ways, giving "adverb, interjection" for the "Please do this" sense and "interjection" alone for the "Please!" sense. I also looked at the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary; they call it an "exclamation", which Wikipedia sais is another term for an interjection. The OED1 calls it an "imperative or optative" verb, but that was written in 1907 and they're still thinking of it as a contraction of expressions like "if you please" rather than a word in its own right. --Anonymous, 23:38 UTC, November 29, 2010.

We can probably all agree that "please" is indeed an interjection when used in the following sense: Oh, please, I don't want to hear that song again! (or some similar construction). My original question, however, was specific to the Hey, you, please do such and such for me variety of "please". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Merriam-Webster lumps it into the 'adverb' part of speech, but defines it in the manner that they define interjections, with two definitions: 1) — used as a function word to express politeness or emphasis in a request 2) — used as a function word to express polite affirmation. To me it seems more of a verbal tic in the same category as 'like' (which M-W calls an interjection), whereas 'like' conveys approximation or uncertainty, 'please' conveys politeness. Lexicografía (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "interjection", in traditional parts of speech, mostly means a single standalone word not closely grammatically integrated into a sentence. In "That was, like, grody to the max!", the word "like" is kind of marked off from the surrounding clause (shown by the commas in writing), so it can be considered interjection-like. However, in the sentence "Would you please pass the salt?", "please" is not interjection-like at all (by traditional criteria). AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it not? It could be set off by commas as well and IMO doesn't contribute too much (Would you pass the salt v. Would you please pass the salt) except an air of politeness. Lexicografía (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Doesn't contribute too much except an air of politeness" = illocutionary particle. AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought interjections were particles. Whatever. Lexicografía (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

However, "interjection" implies that if it occurs in a sentence, its meaning, grammatical relationships, etc. are much the same as when it occurs as a standalone one-word utterance, while "particle" doesn't imply that... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the input and feedback above. This was helpful. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

Correct use of hyphens

What is the correct use of hyphens (if at all) in the context below?

• John is a 25 year old student. John is a 25-year-old student. John is a 25-year old student. John is a 25 year-old student.

Also, does it make any difference if the age is spelled out with words rather than numbers?

• Betty is a five year old girl. Betty is a five-year-old girl. Betty is a five-year old girl. Betty is a five year-old girl.

Finally, does the following manipulation of the words change anything? (The word "year" from above is made plural to "years" below.)

• John is 25 years old. John is 25-years-old. John is 25-years old. John is 25 years-old.

• Betty is five years old. Betty is five-years-old. Betty is five-years old. Betty is five years-old.

Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

It makes no difference whether you use numerals or spelled-out numbers. The attributive phrase "x-year-old" should have two hyphens (thus "John is a 25-year-old student" and "Betty is a five-year-old girl), while the predicate "x years old" should have no hyphens ("John is 25 years old" and "Betty is five years old"). Not being a huge fan of hyphens myself, I would probably let "John is a 25 year old student" slide, but "John is 25-years-old" is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.) —Angr (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

For "Not being a huge fan of hyphens", read "Not being a huge fan of correct punctuation". 87.114.101.69 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am a huge fan of correct punctuation. But hyphens are very often used unnecessarily, and when their use is wrong, or even optional, I prefer to excise them like blackheads. —Angr (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm irritated by compounds with more than one hyphen, partly because of the with-enough-hyphens-any-phrase-can-be-an-adjective trend, but see no better alternative to "n-year-old". —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! Much appreciated! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

Polish translation

Please could a native Polish speaker translate an English phrase into Polish for me? I want to say: Thank you and happy Christmas. Thanks for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.165.179 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a native speaker, but Dziękuję i życzę Wesołych Świąt should work.—Emil J. 15:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A native speaker here and I confirm that Emil's translation is correct. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.165.179 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

After colons and semicolons

I learned in grade school to always use lower case letters after colons and semicolons (except with proper nouns, obviously). Yet in any novel I read, they always use a capital letter after colons and semicolons. Looking it up on Wiki here, I read that my way's right, but then why do these books from major publishers do this? I guess they have the choice, but it still seems odd to me, especially considering how crazy publishers are about grammar and punctuation when sending out literary work. ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 16:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've often seen capital letters after colons, especially if what follows the colon is a complete sentence on its own, but I've never seen (or at least never noticed) a capital letter after a semicolon in edited, published writing. Do you have an example? —Angr (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised by your reference to "any" novel. Do you mostly read novels from a particular publisher or author? This may be their particular idiosyncracy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Katana = Equinox?

Is the word Katana (in one of its written forms in Japanese) somehow linked to the meaning of equinox, solstice or eclipse? Wiktionary says no, but I have a strong hint that it may be related, from a Japanese speaker that made a mistake in a presentation. --Lgriot (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "mistake in a presentation" and how you formed the connection? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, the letter for Katana is 刀. Equinox is 分点, vernal equinox is 春分, and autumnal equinox is 秋分. Summer solstice is 夏至 and winter solstice is 冬至. Other than the similarity between 刀 and 分, Japanese sword (日本刀) is pronounced nihontō and winter solstice (冬至) is pronounced tōji. I don't speak Japanese, though, so please take this with a grain of salt. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 04:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a business presentation in English, I really think they meant equinox (that is the name in English of the project they were talking about) and wrote Katana in their PPT. Unfortunately it is too senior a person for me to dare ask them directly. But maybe it is a completely unrelated mistake and katana creapt up in there for some other random reason. Thanks anyway. --Lgriot (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well katana = 刀, and X equinox is X分. In its simplest sense, 分 is to divide - an equinox is one of the dividing points of the year. You can see the connection in the construction of the character: 分 is a knife (on the bottom) cleaving two parts apart (above).

So could it be katana --> cleaving --> division --> equinox? Perhaps it's deliberate and they are going for a metaphoric rather than literal connection? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for trying, sorry I don't think we will find any more on this, I think we can close this thread. --Lgriot (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

T-glottalization in American "kitten" etc.

My best guess at the difference between General American and some Northeastern US speech is (respectively) [kɪʔn̩] vs. [kɪʔɪn]. (Or perhaps the latter should have the second vowel nasalized instead of followed by a consonant: what would that look like in IPA? Also the place of articulation seems farther back in the latter?) Am I on the right track, or is there something else going on (e.g. is the glottal stop geminated?). Wareh (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. Is there an online clearinghouse of IPA transcriptions of texts in various languages and dialects, with whatever degree of strictness, so that I could browse through IPA of different forms of Brazilian, American, Arabic, etc., speech? My ideal here would be long & accurate enough to infer the rules of sandhi etc. Wareh (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Having lived in the Northeastern US most of my life (grew up on Long Island, have lived in eastern Massachusetts intermittently since the early 1980s), I don't think [kɪʔɪn] is correct, at least not anywhere north of central New Jersey. (I am less familiar with dialects south of about New Brunswick.) You might be onto something with gemination of the glottal stop, which I think sometimes happens in the New York area. I don't think a vowel (nasalized or otherwise) occurs in casual speech after the glottal stop. It is a sonorant [n̩] everywhere I've been. I'm not aware of an online clearinghouse. I think that this sort of information is buried in academic journal articles. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Since I am no expert linguist, maybe a more personal version of the question will be clearer. I believe I pronounce such words as "mountain" and "kitten" in the standard General American fashion. When I am exposed to many speakers from the length of the Hudson Valley (Brooklyn to Albany), I am very struck that their "kitten" and "mittens" are so different from mine. Impressionistically, I would have said that I pronounced a "t," whereas they left it out and said "ki''in" (as for "mountain," I'm not sure there's any difference). However, a bit of reflection convinced me that I (and most other Americans) do not in fact pronounce a t, but a glottal stop. This raised the puzzle: what is the striking difference between their pronunciation and mine, since the unexamined belief "glottal stop vs. t" turns out to be inaccurate. My leading theory is still either (a) gemination of the glottal stop and/or (b) some kind of vowel "more" than the syllabic n. Hopefully more help is forthcoming. Wareh (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not so sure that you are wrong about this. I think maybe I have heard something like ['kɪʔʔɘn]. Marco polo (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that sort of thing, but it's not standard here...it's noticeably 'something'. (Can't quite put my tongue on it, I think I want to say it sounds childish or something...in any case, the point is, it definitely is said, but people also definitely notice that it's a bit funny.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that pronunciation is a class marker (i.e., used by people from a less-educated, working-class background). Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think many would agree, though I should say that in the area I indicated I have heard it in the formal speech of e.g. university professors too. I like your ['kɪʔʔɘn] suggestion too. Wareh (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think this extends from the Hudson Valley east into western Connecticut and perhaps western Massachusetts, as far as the Connecticut River valley. I don't hear it where I live, in eastern New England. Marco polo (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I live in western Connecticut and I can't recall hearing ['kɪʔʔɘn] except perhaps by children or New Yorkers. I believe I personally pronounce it [kɪt̚n̩] (with an unreleased t). RamsesWPE (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ramses. You seem to have illuminated most of the true answer, which is that I pronounce [kɪt̚n̩]. Unreleased stops were not on my radar screen, but what that article says ("In English, a plosive is unreleased (in most accents) before a homorganic nasal, as in catnip [ˈkæt̚nɪp]"), assuming that "most accents" includes most US accents, removes any doubts that this is my pronunciation. That said, I have to say that I find the description bizarrely counterintuitive, as I cannot for all my life persuade myself that my tongue articulates any stop at all ("unreleased" or not). It does not feel to me as if it makes contact with any point between my palate and teeth... If anyone can help me understand this with something better than the blind faith that I articulate t's as do most other English speakers, it would be most welcome.

To get the final answer to my question, I have to reframe it in light of what Ramses has pointed out. Now that I believe that my pronunciation is [kɪt̚n̩] (not [kɪʔn̩] as I wrote before), what is the most likely pronunciation of the adults from Brooklyn to Albany whose pronunciation is markedly different: should we say simply [kɪʔn̩], and forget about all the gemination and post-glottal-stop [ɘ] speculation? I'm talking about a pronunciation that anyone would recognize as different from mine, and yet nothing childish or bizarre (though some would apply snobbish judgements against it, I'm sure). Wareh (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If your tongue makes no contact with your alveolar ridge until you make the [n], then what you're saying is indeed [kɪʔn̩], not [kɪt̚n̩]. Personally, I doubt I get the timing of the tongue contact and the lowering of the uvula (to make the nasal) the same every time I say the word, so I probably vary between the two: [kɪʔn̩] if the tongue contact and uvula drop are simultaneous; [kɪt̚n̩] if the tongue contact comes before the uvula drop. (If the uvula drop comes first, you're saying "kint", or the German word Kind.) —Angr (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the ontological question may become whether the range of pronunciations correctly transcribed as [kɪʔn̩] is wide enough to embrace me and certain Brooklynites (for example). Further (unskilled amateur) self-examination suggests that when I slow down my pronunciation for observation purposes, it's definitely [kɪʔn̩] as described by Angr; it seems possible that in rapid speech I'm more on the fence like Angr. Let's put it this way: I can definitely pronunce [kɪʔn̩] with "my tongue making no contact with my alveolar ridge until I make the [n]" in such a fashion that I still don't sound like these Brooklynites & Albanians. (By the way, I'm starting to wonder if all the Upstate NYers who talk this way do it because they have downstate roots.) Wareh (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As easy as pie origin

I'm writing the as easy as pie article, but the sources don't seem to agree on the origin. This site suggests the phrase is of American origin, while other sources state it is of Aborigine origin. What is the origin of the phrase "as easy as pie"?Smallman12q (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem to originate from the UK. P. G. WODEHOUSE used the phrase in 1925, and the Saturday Evening Post in 1913, according to the OED. The phrase seems to derive from the earlier US expression like eating pie which was used in "Sporting Life" on 26 May 1886. Dbfirs 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

... (later) The Australian derivation might possibly be an independent convergence towards current usage, but I've modified the claim in the article (just as a temporary measure). Please remove my text when your research finds earlier usage. Dbfirs 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

November 30

Rioplatense "vos" conjugation

Is it just the vosotros form with the "i" deleted? Or are there exceptions? LANTZY^TALK 04:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are indeed many variants. You may want to have a look at this description. For your question, I refer you to §2.3.1.
The basic Rioplatense voseo I know (and use) follows your description for the present indicative form. The future indicative, for instance, just follow the tú paradigm. The sames happens with the simple past form, which can also be seen as using the variant of the vosotros form, dropping the final s (e.g. vos tuviste). Preserving the s is not unusual, but considered unproper and completely uneducated. The imperative mood follows the vosotros form, dropping the final d (e.g. cantá from cantad). Pallida  Mors 15:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the run-down. I've been curious about that for years, and none of my Spanish professors has ever been willing to explain it to me. They act as if voseo were some sort of impenetrable thieves' jargon, impossible to explain and pointless to learn. But since I'm going to be spending some time in the River Plate region, I would to know what people are saying. LANTZY^TALK 15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Image vs picture

Hello, I'm a non-native English speaker. Can you explain to me the difference of meaning between "image" and "picture" ? When do you use either word ? I just can't seem able to grasp the difference. Thank you, have a nice day. 130.79.160.112 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what EO has to say about the two words:[1][2] The root words originally meant an "artificial representation" and a "painting" respectively. So I would say that a picture is one type of image. Another would be a statue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In normal use, they mean roughly the same, with 'picture' being the more usual word. A little child will know the word 'picture', but might not yet know 'image'. 'Image' is generally preferred when people are talking about what they see in their own head, or generally want to imply a less solid 'impression' rather than a literal 'picture' that you could point to. So, having seen a goat attacking a melon, you might say, "That's an image that will stick with me." Having seen a great painting and bought a postcard copy, you might say, "I'll stick this picture on my wall." You can get away with using the other word, but it will sound strange. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The latin root of picture can be translated as 'painting', while that of image is 'copy'. As has been pointed out they're inter-changable in modern usage, but you might use 'image' to describe something created without too much human intervention whilst 'picture' implies an act of composition. Blakk and ekka 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In practice, I (an English English speaker) would use "picture" for most uses, but "image" in the context of computers or in some special circumstances. For instance, I would say that the Turin Shroud bears an "image" rather than a "picture". I'm not sure I can explain why - perhaps someone else can do better. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand it, a picture may be a two-dimentional man-made image, with a defined and specific content. An image would be instead simply anything that we can sense with our eyes. MBelgrano (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that doesn't explain why one might choose to use the word "image" rather than "picture" to refer to a man-made image, as frequently happens. --Viennese Waltz 14:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting question. I'm inclined to agree with MBelgrano here - a picture is an image created with intent. If I pick up my digital camera, and look at what I see through it, it is an image. If I press the button, I 'take a picture'. Note also that the term is sometimes used in reference to cinematic works: early ones with sound were often referred to as 'talking pictures'. The 'Turin Shroud' example seems to suggest that where intentionality is ambiguous (or at least, not attributed to human intent), 'image' is more correct. For many purposes, the words are more or less interchangeable though, so I'd not worry too much about getting it wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image is a more clinical term than picture. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking metaphorically, an "image" of a person or thing has a greater connotation of reputation while a (mental) "picture" is more to do with the senses. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture is more rooted in the corporeal; image carries a more conceptual flavor. They can be used interchangeably, but the core different shades of meaning can result in new implications when one is knowingly substituted for the other. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You hear "image" more in the worlds of graphic design, desk top publishing etc. These people speak of "high res images" and "image libraries" as a way of making themselves sound ritzier than they really are. The same people who use "font" when they mean "typeface". --Viennese Waltz 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, image is definitely the word one wants to use when one wants to sound sophisticated and an expert in some area of endeavor. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

See pretentious. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[unindenting] At the risk of sounding pretentious, I am a professional editor, and in the company where I work, image amounts to a technical term with a specific meaning. We use the term photo to refer (unsurprisingly) to photographs. We use the term art to refer to visuals built using applications such as Adobe Illustrator. Art includes illustrations, graphs, tables, maps, and so on. So a photo of the Mona Lisa is a photo, but not what we refer to for publishing purposes as art. Now, we refer to art and photos collectively as images. I suppose we could use the word pictures, but most people don't think of maps and graphs as pictures. I suppose that most people don't think of graphs as images, either. However, image has more of a technical feel to it than picture, and I suppose that is the reason why this word was chosen for this technical use. I have contact with other publishing firms, and I think that the use of the term image is fairly widespread, at least in American publishing, to describe all visuals in a file format suitable for publishing. Marco polo (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Where content is concerned, basically you've got 2 things: text and images. Right? Or what did I miss? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An image can also be a natural phenomenon, e.g. images of a partially eclipsed sun created by the pinhole cameras of foliage. —Tamfang (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, in publishing contexts (these days), you have more than just text and images. Other possibilities include video, audio, and interactive templates that can accommodate any of the foregoing. Marco polo (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I betrayed my 19th-century origins. :) Is a video considered an image, or would only individual frames be considered images? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image means still image, so a frame (saved as a .png or such) could be an image, but not the entire video file. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say a "picture" represents a view of something that is real or is meant to look as if real, while an "image" is a more general term and includes any sort of visual display. A computer "image file" can represent anything like that: it might also show a table, a reproduction of a page layout, whatever. Of course, in metaphorical usage "image" and "picture" have pretty much the same meaning. --Anonymous, 23:18 UTC, November 30, 2010.

Images do not have to be a visual display. I think Bus stop said it best above - pictures are corporeal and images can be conceptual. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now, thank you very much for the detailed explanation, and have a nice day ! :D 130.79.160.112 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Past of the past

I'm writing an article where, at a certain point, I describe a situation in the past, where a man makes a comparison between the present and a past event (present and past from his perspective, both are past for ours). Are "currently" or "at the time being" acceptable ways to make reference to the former present? If they are not, which ones should I use? MBelgrano (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The general linguistic term is pluperfect... Why not "at that time"? AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, or then, often used as in "he said to then-Senator Hillary Clinton" or even "he said to then Senator Hillary Clinton".—msh210℠ 16:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

currently could easily cause confusion. —Tamfang (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Named for"

Is "named for" correct usage in American English? I have seen it used many times here. A made-up example, "The Davey lamp, named for Sir Humphry Davey". In British English "named after" is used. Thanks 92.28.247.40 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes: in American English, either is used.—msh210℠ 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems peculiar to British ears, as saying "named for John" would imply that John could have chosen the name themselves, but delegated the naming responsinility to someone else. Like "shopping for" or "driving for" someone else. 92.28.247.40 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"For" is one of those very diverse words in English. Like "of". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Named for and named after are nearly synonymous in American English. There are certain situations in which named after would be preferred. For example, "John is named after his father". Whereas, named for, I think, implies that the person (or thing) that inspired the name is somehow renowned or honored. For example, "The street was named for George Washington." In this latter case, named after would also work. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the nuance is that after implies that both bearers of the name are of the same (broad) kind, or bear it in the same way? Many colonial towns are named after other towns; Washington Street is named for ... —Tamfang (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that works: "Boston, Massachusetts, is named after Boston, Lincolnshire." In that sentence (in American English), named after sounds more natural than named for. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Named after" is what my American ears grew up with. "Named for" is not unusual but I've never liked it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

the mystery schwa

I continue to be baffled by entries like this:

Sidereal time (pronounced /saɪˈdɪəri.əl/) ...

Does phonotactic theory insist that /r/ cannot immediately follow a front vowel? Is the /ǝ/ meant as a kind of off-glide? I have a hard time imagining anyone saying /VərV/ (other than in words like theoretic), and yet I see this intrusive /ǝ/ in numerous articles (particularly in astronomy, though I assume that's selection bias). —Tamfang (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a British pronunciation. I agree that in General American English, there is no schwa in that position. Marco polo (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I heard the word pronounced without the schwa at http://www.forvo.com/search/sidereal/ and http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=sidereal&submit=Submit.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I speak British English and indeed I pronounce it as sigh-deer-real, with /dɪər/. Well, I think so, at least... Does that count as an off-glide? Thanks. --Kjoonlee 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are there words that you pronounce with /ɪr/ or /ir/, no schwa? —Tamfang (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, no. o_O (I'm very surprised by this, by the way.) My English is non-rhotic, so "beer" and "deer" are [bɪə] and [dɪə] in isolation, but when a vowel follows, they become [bɪər] and [dɪər]. (I also have intrusive R, whereby "the idea of it" becomes "thee eye deer of it.") --Kjoonlee 10:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Kjoonlee - are you sure you don't pronounce "mirror" or "Sirius" with [ɪr]? Your accent is similar to mine (judging by your description), and I certainly pronounce "Sirius" [ˈsɪriəs] - not [ˈsɪəriəs], which is how I say "serious". AFAIK that is the answer to the original question - Wikipedia's IPA guide uses /ɪər/ because it is distinct from /ɪr/ in many forms of English, although the number of minimal pairs may be small. Lfh (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I do pronounce Sirius and serious the way you do. I was just thinking about syllable-final "ir". --Kjoonlee 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that discussion of individuals' pronunciations is very enlightening in this case. Whoever constructed the IPA rendering of sidereal (and presumably the other ones that Tamfang has noticed) was following the instructions in Wikipedia:IPA for English. The very first thread in that page's talk archive deals in part with this very question (and shows how much heat such matters can generate). How other dictionaries handle such vowels can be seen in the table at Help:IPA conventions for English; the pronunciation of sidereal in my copy of the the second edition of the OED, for example, is /saɪˈdɪərɪəl/. Deor (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that archive link, though it was not enlightening at all. :( —Tamfang (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can suggest where I can hear someone pronouncing words with /ɪərV/? —Tamfang (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You might find, among the articles in Category:Spoken articles and Wikipedia:Spoken articles, an article spoken by a person who speaks in that manner.

• for Death erection
• for Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine
• for Guitar Hero (video game)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. With effort I might persuade myself that only my conditioning prevents me from hearing a schwa in Hero ... but it's far from obvious, let alone phonemic. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can record myself, this week. --Kjoonlee 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is phonemic, in that there are minimal pairs for /ɪrV/ vs. /ɪərV/ – albeit not many of them, e.g. there is no word "hirro" to compare with "hero". But often the distinction is made through length rather than an actual schwa vowel, i.e. /ɪərV/ is often realised more like [ɪːrV], making "serious" [ˈsɪːriəs] vs. "Sirius" [ˈsɪriəs]. That may be why you're finding it hard to pick out. Lfh (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Vowels and English verb forms

One aspect of the English language that is obviously Germanic in origin is verbs in which the main vowel changes with the tense: "give", "gave", "keep", kept", "come", "came", etc. One pattern frequently occurring in both English and German is "i", "a", "u" as in:

I sing.

I sang.

I have sung.

The bell rings.

The bell rang.

The bell has rung.

etc. I had thought that changes in the vowel when the verb changes forms without any change in the tense happen with some German verbs but not in English (I hadn't thought about this very much, apparently). As far as I know this happens in German only in the present tense ("Ich nehme", "Er nimmt", etc.). But then I noticed:

I say.

He says.

"Long a" as in "bait" in the first form; "short e" as in "bet" in the second. That's certainly a commonplace word, and that's why I say I must not have thought about this a lot.

What other examples are there? (The vowel changes with the verb form while the tense does not change.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

List of English irregular verbs#Present tense irregular verbs has all the rest. --Kjoonlee 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And for quite a few people round me in Yorkshire, "says" is regular in pronunciation. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kjoon.

So: "say" and "do" are the only ones in which the vowel sound changes with a change from one present-tense form to another present-tense form. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

December 1

Pronounciation

We have a question regarding pronounciation of a character word. The character word is spelled "Egor", the humpback slave character. How do we correctly pronounce the name??? Is it "eee-gor" or is it "i-gor". We are having a family fun time with this and any response is appreciated. Thank-you in advance,

Bart and Brooke and Kathy. Blessings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.5.49 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The conventional spelling of the hunch-backed assistant to a mad scientist is "Igor (fictional character)". The name itself comes from Eastern Europe (see Igor (given name)), and is usually pronounced "eee-gor". This convention was notably changed in the film "Young Frankenstein", where the character Igor (Young Frankenstein) tells Dr. Frederick Frankenstein that his name is pronounced "eye-gor", after Fredrick pronounces his last name as "Fronkensteen". -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) See Igor (given name). It's always pronounced with an "ee" opening syllable by Russians, although I have heard the "eye" version spoken by Americans (a la "eye-ris" for Iris). Yegor, sometimes spelt Egor, is a variant of the Russian equivalent of George, and unrelated to Igor. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone said "eye-gor" prior to the film Young Frankenstein. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cognate

What are some false cognates (words that look similar but not etymologically related) that are similar in meaning between English and any other language (especially the languages with less contact with English). I'm excluding the obvious "mama" and "papa" and probably "nana" too. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See False cognate, oddly enough... --Jayron32 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Might the false cognate be in some sense equivalent or similar to the biological Convergent evolution? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, because in convergent evolution the gross similarities between the two phenotypes (which are expressions of rather different genotypes) are selected for by the similarities in their environments, whereas in the case of false cognates their 'linguistic environments' are quite dissimilar and the resemblances are down to sheer statistical chance. Dissenting assessments welcome, of course. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a word

Me again :) I'm looking for a word that means "time right before" or "prelude" as in the time right before a war. I'm thinking it has *fore in it. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the eve of X. See [3] and [4]. Oda Mari (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese help

• How do you say "Logo of the Houston Independent School District" in Vietnamese?
• The image that needs the description is at: File:HoustonISDVietnameseLogo.PNG
• "Houston Independent School District" in Vietnamese is "Khu Học Chánh Houston"

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Poston (Japanese American internment camp)

What is the pronunciation of the Japanese American internment camp "Poston" used in World War II? 99.13.195.179 (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rhymes with "Boston", the city in MA. Roger (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So then /ˈpɔstɨn/ (/ˈpɑstɨn/ˈpastɨn/ with the cot-caught merger)?—msh210℠ 16:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Who or what was it named for (or after)? The actor Tom Poston pronounced his name like "postin'". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 99.13.195.179 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mail Administrator's grasp of English, or mine?

I keep getting emails from someone called Mail Administrator stating that "This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason". Surely it is not necessary to use both the words "due" and "reason". Why not just "This Message was undeliverable due to" or "This Message was undeliverable because"--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"This Message" — or, better, "message" — "was undeliverable because:" works pretty well, but "...due to" doesn't if what follows is, for example, a clause. (E.g., "... due to: The user could not be found" is comprehensible, certainly, but bad English.) Even better might be "undeliverable. Reason:". As for the original, "...due to the following reason", it sounds stilted and is certainly redundant, as you say.—msh210℠ 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not particularly good English, but is there any doubt as to the meaning? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'Due to' is a preposition, and needs a noun. 'Reason' is the noun. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But it's not undeliverable due to a reason, as though a reason came along and jammed the mail queue. There is a reason x it's undeliverable, and it's undeliverable due to x. Marnanel (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The following sentence is the reason, of course, and the word 'reason' tells us it's the reason. I really have no problem with this. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Change it to ""This Message was undeliverable for the following reason"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's good, though, again, with a lowercase message.—msh210℠ 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Quite right: lowercase message. I blame case-sensitive computer programming for this - A 'Message' is something entirely different to a 'message' in Java for example. This tends to encourage unthinking retention of case when copying prose... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm stunned that any of you expect great English from the kind of nerd who usually exercises the power to create such automatically generated messages. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Good grief: what an insulting piece of prejudice. Marnanel (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a job I have done myself. With all due humility, I know that I had a much better grasp of good English expression than a lot of others I encountered in similar roles. It may be a bias based on my location in Australia, where a high proportion of people studying and working in IT are relatively recent immigrants of south east Asian background. Great IT skills, but not a great knowledge of idiomatic or formally correct use of English. Pure OR being displayed by me here, so feel free to ignore it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My father, an electrical engineer, has made the same observation about his colleagues' writing skills. It's not utterly ridiculous to suppose that verbal eloquence and technical competence are quite often inversely proportionate, if only because modern educational methods encourage the development of the one at the expense of the other. LANTZY^TALK 02:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

due is an adjective which needs a noun, and the only one available is message — but the message is due to the (intended) recipient! —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do these emails have links in them? Do they have your original text in them? Because they sound like they could be spam to me. Spammers often try to make their words sound like good English but fail to do so, and they also try to make their emails look like they are something they're not. Just a thought, --Viennese Waltz 08:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it, at least grammatically. Sometimes British speakers object to due to in the sense of because of, but it's an unremarkable construction on this side of the pond. If you substitute because of, getting "... was undeliverable because of the following reason:", you have an unnecessarily ponderous piece of prose, but that's a style issue, not a grammar issue. --Trovatore (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For me (BrE), "due to the following reason" and "because of the following reason" are equally bad. It should be "for the following reason". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.36.106 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that that solution is better stylistically. But there's nothing wrong grammatically or even logically with "because of the following reason". --Trovatore (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not strictly ungrammatical, but I would argue that it's illogical because the word "reason" already encompasses the notion of "because". 86.135.25.44 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That just makes it redundant, not illogical. --Trovatore (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

discovery of biblical greek

Hi, I read somewhere (I think it was in Teach yourself Biblical Greek) that once upon a time (before about the turn of the last century) Biblical Greek was unknown outside an ecclesiastical context, and it was conjectured that the dialect was specially developed for scriptural purposes. The reference claimed it was only after the discovery of early documents that scholars saw the language was actually the common language for all administrative matters, and was used by the Biblical and early patristic writers in order to reach the masses. This does not look at all consistent with the article, and sounds a little strange. Is there any truth whatsoever in such an assertion? Thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The text of the Greek New Testament was certainly known, but it was thought that it was in some respects an "artificial dialect", and the systematic differences between the Koine of that time and earlier classical Attic Greek were not entirely understood. It was discoveries of Koine letters, contracts etc. in Egypt which threw new light on the subject. It's rather notorious in some circles that the American Standard Version Bible translation "improved" on the KJV by applying strict classical Attic tense rules to its English translations, only a few years before papyrus discoveries cast strong doubt on whether such rigid translations were valid... AnonMoos (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. See also the suggestions I made two years ago at Talk:American_Standard_Version#Criticisms... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Following up on AnonMoos's correct answer, note the articles Koine Greek. Unfortunately there is little discussion of this interesting issue (both historical consideration of mistaken understandings about varieties of Greek at this time and current insights into the relationship among these varieties). The article does say, "There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine," and does give a 2nd century BC Roman decree as "Sample 1," though, so check it out. Inscriptions and papyri are our main source of insight into non-Judeo-Christian Koine Greek. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a good article (I can find) on the language and society revealed in Greek documentary papyri of this period found in Egypt. I would recommend the Duke Papyrus Archive, with its several articles, as the starting point to learn more. Wareh (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those interesting answers. It's been emotional (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

addressing and closing a letter to a British ambassador in another country?

Hi,

I've seen some advice (specifically here: http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/handbook/hb/431-2-h/chap4.html) on addressing a letter, and closing it, as it pertains to a foreign ambassador in your country. Would it be the same for a British embassador or is there a special style a British ambassador would prefer? If so, what is it - how should the letter be opened and closed?

For reference, what I am using now is from the section "Foreign Ambassador in the United States" :

[Address on Letter & Envelope]
His Excellency (Full Name)
Ambassador of (Country)
Washington, D.C. (Zip Code)

[salutation:]Excellency:
[closing:] Very truly yours,

Thanks! 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. the person is an ambassador in a European country, not America. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the website of Debrett's, specifically the page entitled How to address a British Ambassador (accredited to a foreign country). You will have to do some research here to find out if the recipient's title is "Mr", "Sir", "the Rt Hon" or if he is a peer. Xenon54 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I was looking at that page and getting so confused! I thought it just wanted my own title or something (which would be Mr.) I had for some reason assumed that being an ambassador totally supersedes anything else you might be. Oh dear. I think I'll just call them tomorrow and ask the secretary! 88.182.221.18 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Be careful about using US guidance in a European context. While "Very truly yours" is (apparently) common in the US in professional and formal contexts, it would be regarded as either odd or even rude (Valediction#Yours truly, has an explanation) in the UK. For an ordinary letter, British usage prefers "Yours sincerely" if you know him (or at least you know his name) (and it sounds like you do). Use "Yours faithfully" otherwise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese sounds

Common schemes for transliterating Japanese into the Latin alphabet indicate sound changes like:

sa, shi, su, se, so
ta, chi, tsu, te, to
etc.

I guess this is based on how the sounds are perceived by Western (primarily English-speaking?) people, but do native Japanese speakers perceive the same differences? Or do they perceive the first sounds in these syllables as being the same? 86.173.36.118 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Well, "sh" and "ch" sounds can also occur before a, o, and u vowels, so it's hard to say that s/sh and t/ch are simple allophones. In handling recent loanwords from foreign languages, there are ways to write sequences such as [ti], [si] etc. See Katakana#Table_of_katakana... AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Is it possible that しゃ, しょ etc. are perceived as "si-(y)a" and "si-(y)o" etc.? Also, I've read that sounds in loanwords tend to be pronounced as the nearest native sound, irrespective of the attempt to reflect the source language pronunciation by inventing new Japanese syllables in the spelling. However, your knowledge of this may well be greater than mine... 86.173.36.118 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

You seem to mix up mora (linguistics)#Japanese with syllable. Japanese sound system consists of moras, not syllables, and Japanese pitch accent. One hiragana/katakana is one mora, except Yōon. They are the combination of one and half hiragana/katakana and one yōon like sha/しゃ is one mora. See Japanese phonology. You can listen to Japanese moras here. [5] and [6]. But the woman's pronunciation of sha is not good. Oda Mari (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While the mora plays an important role in Japanese phonology and poetics, it is not the case that the syllable plays no role in Japanese at all. According to some versions of moraic theory, onset consonants are not part of the mora, which means that [sa], [te], etc., are monomoraic syllables but not moras. And even according to the versions that do include onset consonants in the mora, [sa], [te], etc., are both moras and syllables, rather than being only moras. Either way, the OP is not wrong to describe the sequences in question as syllables. —Angr (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

86.173.36.118 -- It's very common in language borrowing situations that old loanwords are more fully nativized and assimilated into the language's phonology, while more recent loanwords remain somewhat anomalous. It's very likely that at one time [s]/[š] and [t]/[č] in Japanese were purely positionally-conditioned "automatic" allophones without any distinctive phonemic status (like English aspirated and non-aspirated stops), but that doesn't seem to be fully true in current modern Japanese. Analyzing [ša] as /sya/ is a kind of abstract phonological analysis which linguists have been fond of off and on during certain periods (see generative phonology etc.), but I'm not sure whether it would cast much light on whether Japanese perceive [s] and [š] as the "same" or "different" sounds... AnonMoos (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any references, but I think studies have found that older native speakers conflate "chi" (チ) and "ti" (ティ), while younger speakers don't, because of the recent introduction of ティ as a separate syllable for loanwords. Certainly to a Japanese speaker (even a non-native speaker like me), the morae are really "si", "tu", etc., even if they're pronounced more like "shi", "tsu", etc. (just as "forty" is pronounced more like "fordy" in my dialect of English). -- BenRG (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2

French word for Danish (food)

What's the French word for Danish (food)? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen "chausson danois" [7], but oranais is the closest frequently used specific term I could find (though not exactly the same thing). More general: feuilleté (sucré) or viennoiserie. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lard is what I think of when people talk about Danish food. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not danish pastry? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Danish Bacon. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Paradoxically the Danish word for danish is wienerbrød (viennese bread). ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Danish word for 'danish' was 'dansk'. I have never heard anyone say "Jeg er wienerbrød"... :) I presume you meant to say 'danish pastry'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the item called French Fries, which the French simply call Fries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically they call them "potato fries" or "fried potatoes" ("pommes frites", with pommes being short for "pommes de terre" which means potatos). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And technically in America they are "French fried potatoes", with "French fries" or just "fries" being the abbreviation. I had thought they were just plain "frites" in France, but it's been a long time since I was there, and it might vary depending on the restaurant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we call them chips in the UK - no reference to France at all. The thin spindly ones we get at MacDonalds are sometimes called fries - mostly by the people who work there - but we usually call them chips, too. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the UK they're called chips, presumably because they are "chipped" off a whole potato. In the US, "chips" are thinly sliced, more like what the Brits call "crisps", which is kind of hard to say, like "lisps" and "asps". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I will agree that 'crisps' can be difficult to say, which is why in my dialect (Scouse) we leave off the final 's', so all we say is 'crisp', even in the plural. I can't speak for the rest of the people on these islands, however. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Corblimey - even Cockneys can manage to say "crisps" - it ain't that difficult! Alansplodge (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye, actually I had this conversation wiv anavva savvnah yesterday, and he says he puts the 's' on the end, so it might be us Northerners. Might have something to do with them not costing £5:90 a bag up here :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In Danish they are "Pommes frites" usually pronounced {{IPA|[pɔm'frits]} or simply "Fritter" - chips/crisps however are called "Franske kartofler" meaning "French potatoes". ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

that is actually very interesting and... bizarre. It would be fun to make a table of which words contain/do not contain the word 'French' in UK English, US English, Danish, and French. There seems to be no overlap whatsoever, and the word 'French' is inserted at random. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few,[8] although they left out French doors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The best one is slang for a condom; in England it's a "French letter" and in France "une capote anglaise" (an English overcoat). Alansplodge (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To guard against VD, "the French disease". But why "letter"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone gives a derivation from "let" (i.e. a hindrance) here, but I can't vouch for its truth. Someone once said to me "Playing Scrabble with French letters is really difficult", and I couldn't resist saying "Yeah, nonoxynol-9 makes the board all slippery." Marnanel (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to know about this jargon to understand the following conversation:

• "I've been invited to visit France".
• "By whom?"
• "I don't know. All I know is I got this French letter and it had "come" in it". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Another geographically confusing viennoiserie can use France in its French name: the coeurs de France ("hearts of France"), but they are mainly called that in Swiss French, I think. In France-French, as in English, they are often called palmiers, without geographical reference. Swiss German uses the French language demonym for the German kingdom/state of Prussia, and calls them Prussiens. :-S ---Sluzzelin talk 05:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Germans apparently call them Schweinsohren, pig-ears. Rimush (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sixties Slang

Which of the words "neat" and "cool" was used first as American slang? Ccountry (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymonline gives the first recorded use of cool at 1933, and first recorded use of neat at 1934. Hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the margin of error for the attestation of slang in writing is wide enough that the above cannot be considered evidence that "cool" is actually older than "neat". —Angr (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes - both words were probably in use in the spoken language some time before the first recorded use of them in litereature. However, this use is not recorded (hence the phrase 'first recorded use'). Strictly speaking, we can only go on the available evidence, and if the OP wants to know which of these two words came into general usage first (before their first recorded use), then that question cannot be answered (because it's not recorded).--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While it's hard to pin down a year, and hence the OP's question is unanswerable as such, the evidence still points out that these terms pre-date the 60s by at least 3 decades. Bill Cosby used that expression frequently in his early recordings, which suggests it was already well-established. "Cool" has persisted, while terms like "neat", "tough", "boss", "groovy", etc., have seen their day. There is an implied connection between "cool" and "neat", in that "cool" (and its companion "chillin'") implies calmness and hence a sense of things being well-ordered and under control; which is more directly expressed by "neat". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both 'cool' and 'neat' are definitely still around. Lexicografía (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

True. I sometimes say "neat" myself, but hardly ever "cool" just because it's so annoyingly ubiquitous. I know folks who say "groovy" also. But I'm fairly certain that "neat" is not nearly so broadly used as "cool". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both "neat" and "cool" fall into the category of "you just told me something that happened today and I wasn't really listening so I'll reply with a word that covers mostly everything". 'Groovy' is narrow enough to imply that you actually think so. Lexicografía (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you can sometimes still hear neat and groovy. However, I don't think that they are really current slang in the way that cool is. I don't think that anyone under the age of about 35 uses the word neat in this way. As for groovy, I think it definitely has a retro feel and is typically used ironically or self-consciously by a person wanting to evoke the 1960s. Marco polo (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to use "hip".·Maunus·ƛ· 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the same as nonchalant (not hot). 213.122.13.97 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but saying that somebody is "not hot" is way different from calling them "cool". Virtually the opposite. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And saying that someone is nonchalant implies nothing whatsoever about their popularity. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Nonchalant" literally comes from "not hot"[9] but it means "indifferent to" or "not concerned about". The closest English equivalent might be to say that you're "lukewarm" about something, as opposed to being "hot" about it, meaning "enthusiastic". "Cool" is used differently. It can mean "hip" or in-fashion (in which case it's also "hot"); it also means "everything's OK", as in "it's cool". One old-fashioned expression for the latter would be "jake". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but an earlier sense of "cool" is as in "playing it cool", with a sense of [10] "calmly audacious", which smells to me very similar to "nonchalant". I don't really know what point I'm trying to make here, though. I just thought it was kinda nifty. :) 213.122.13.97 (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Even a cool cat needs a lot of sangfroid to be nonchalant after icing somebody in cold blood. LANTZY^TALK 02:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You bet! "Playing it cool"... calm, collected, under control, low-key... appearing to be nonchalant, yes. Projecting the sense that "everything's A-OK". Keeping oneself under control, as discussed in one of the songs in West Side Story, as the gang attempts to settle down after their violent encounter with the other gang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The 'nonchalant' sense of 'cool' has largely been replaced by 'chill', to avoid confusion with the 'hip' sense of 'cool'. Chill, dudes! Lexicografía (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although "chilling" is the process by which someone or something becomes "cool"... temperaturewise, and temperamentwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so, from all of this, I see it is OK for me to say that I think U2 are nonchalant? I am also nonchalant with the Tories and their cuts (<- random political statement used purely to illustrate this)? And if I should not be so 'chalant' about this (the opposite of 'nonchalant'?) then I should 'nonchalant'-out, as per Lexi's idea (=chill)? Nonchalant! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Kage Tora, that is not idiomatic anywhere in the anglosphere I'm aware of. An individual is said to be acting nonchalantly; even a group of people could be acting nonchalantly on a particular occasion. But one is not said to be nonchalant about any particular person or thing; and if you really like a person or group and you regard them generally as "cool", it doesn't convey the same meaning to describe them as "nonchalant". Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack. I neglected to put in the </sarcasm> tag. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that square needs to be mentioned. One can be square. And one can be a square. It's not cool to be a square. Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, though, it is Hip to Be Square. --Jayron32 04:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many images for "square hips". Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Help me correct this phrases please.

Confusing about which tense should be use in the following phrases:

"In this respect, when the court questions the applicant until it is ensured that there is a ground for issuing a warrant of arrest or search pursuant to section 59/1 and issues such warrant, it shall then submit to the applicant by means of facsimile, electronics or other appropriate means of information technology a copy of the warrant."

I am not sure that if writing as above would be correct.

Clumsily (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the perfect way to phrase it, but I would put it something like this:

“ In this respect, when the court questions the applicant until it is ensured that there are grounds for issuing a warrant of arrest or search persuant to section 59/1 and the warrant is issued, it shall then submit to the applicant by means of facsimile, electronics, or other appropriate means of information technology a copy of the warrant. ”

Hope this helps... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the second of the above amendments is that it changes active to passive. In general active is usually better as it removes any doubt as to who did what. So if it is the court that issues arrest warrants then I would say it is better to leave it as in the original version, except that I would change "such warrant" to "such a warrant". --Viennese Waltz 15:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Such [count noun] is common in legalese.—msh210℠ 16:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Liebchen - sweetnessheart, what watch?" — "Ten watch." — "Such watch?" —Angr (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

But, to answer the original question directly: as to tense the sentence is perfectly normal English. Non-native speakers often write "will question" etc in this context, but the result of that is not natural English. --ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the tenses are OK, but the sentence is rather long for clarity and does include one passive. How about:

“ In this respect, when the court questions the applicant until it ensures that there are grounds for issuing a warrant of arrest or search persuant to section 59/1, and it issues such warrant, the court shall then submit to the applicant (by means of facsimile, electronics, or other appropriate means of information technology) a copy of the warrant. ”

I can't see a way to split the sentence. Dbfirs 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The ensurance (to coin a word) comes not from the court but from the facts found.

is a ground means some specific tangible fact exists which suffices; I prefer it to are grounds, which in ordinary language could mean a broad vague impression. —Tamfang (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Points accepted. (I'm not trained in legal language, so my attempt to express the sentence in everyday English may have been misguided.) I still think that the job of the court is to ensure that one or more valid "ground" exists. Dbfirs 22:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Name for self-multilation

What is one called or what is it called when one likes to hurt onesself or does self-multilation?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the former is masochism and the latter is self-mutilation, sometimes called cutting.—msh210℠ 19:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Body modification? Apotemnophilia? Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could also be Munchhausen Syndrome. What it is called depends on the reason for doing it. Roger (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Self harm is the phrase most familiar to me (actually 'self-mutilation' above redirects to that article). --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 3

counter-clerks

Who are they, i.e. what does it mean, in the following sentence: 'to the theatre then they came, an invading army of factory slaves, navvies, guttersnipes, emacited counter-clerks and care-worn women suckling babes in arms'? Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a derisive term equivalent to "desk jockey" or "pencil pusher"; i.e. a middling bureaucrat or middle management. --Jayron32 06:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Derisive here, but what it would mean is someone who sits or stands behind a counter and deals with customers as they approach, like a bank teller or a clerk at a government office. Not middle managament. --Anonymous, 06:33 UTC, December 3, 2010.

Would not be hyphenated in modern usage... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In this context (from Melodrama by James Leslie Smith according to Google books) a 'counter-clerk' is one of the most junior (and poorly paid, hence the emaciation) of shop workers; someone that serves the public from behind a counter. The quote refers to the huge influx of unskilled rural workers into the city of London during the early industrial revolution. Blakk and ekka 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Omidinist (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The emaciated counter clerks might have been servers of food. I don't know if such positions were commonplace at the time and place. It is probably tough to have to serve food while hungry oneself. Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that prepared food was not served over counters at that time. Cheap food would have been served from wagons and market stalls, slightly less cheap food served at tables in pubs. I think that the counters in question were shop counters. The word itself indicates that this was originally an object where items (coins, items of merchandise) were counted. Typically it was a table or stand at the front of a shop, often a small retail establishment or a workshop from which wares were sold over a counter. The word clerk strongly suggests work that involves writing, such as keeping accounts. In those days, food service (at the low end) didn't require a "clerk", just someone to dish out the food and collect a few pence. High-end food service would have involved waiters, not clerks. Marco polo (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually pie shops were common in London from the eighteenth century onwards - never heard of Sweeny Todd? Working women and poor accomodation without kitchens led to an early demand for fast food. Fish & chips and eel, pie & mash followed in the 19th century. But you're right - probably shop assistants are the subject here. Alansplodge (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the real dope. If a counter-clerk encounters a real clerk, they mutually annihilate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as clerks are concerned, then, counter-clerks are contra-indicated. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

latin word order for the perfect passive

In Latin, as we all know, word order is very free, but not absolutely so. In the perfect passive, the auxiliary is almost always written last, as in amatus sum, "I have been loved". Can you go sum amatus, or does that come out as a verb (the copula) followed by an adjective, that is, "I am loved" as opposed to "I have been loved" ? Is there a difference between poetry and prose, since word order in poetry is even freer than prose? Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It would never make it a present passive, since that is a different form ("I am loved" is "amor", which happens to look like the noun "love"). Normally it would be "amatus sum", but the "sum" could go anywhere, especially if it doesn't confuse the meaning of the sentence, and can be omitted entirely. It is very often omitted in accusative infinitives and other indirect speech where "esse" is used. I will search for some examples. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course, there is a very famous one that I think I've mentioned on the Reference Desk before. "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres", the opening line of De Bello Gallico. It sounds nicer in English to take "divisa" as an adjective and say "all Gaul is divided into three parts", but grammatically "divisa est" is a perfect passive, and could literally be translated "Gaul has been divided" or "was divided". If he really meant "is divided", Caesar could have said "dividitur" (but I suppose it was no longer divided that way after his expeditions). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What do these mean?

http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/FFNight/wth1.jpg http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/FFNight/wth2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They say you should put your Pokemon to sleep and then try again, if that makes any sense (I've never played these games). -- BenRG (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What, both of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There's a lot of other stuff about how to put them to sleep and how to enter your ID code in various games, but I guessed you probably knew that already. -- BenRG (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess the problem's with my game then. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the first pic says that if you want to access the Pokemon Global Link, you must first put your Pokemon to sleep. The second pic is just telling you to enter your ID. It uses the word 仮登録, which means 'interim registration'. I assume you do not have an account with the Pokemon Global Link, and that they are making a temporary account for you. This is just a guess, of course. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 4

is there an adjective that means 'kookaburralike'?

Kookaburric? Kookaburrical?

Ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with "kookaburralike"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

However, it might be clearer to hyphenate as "kookaburra-like"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "kookaburra-like" with the hyphen is the clearest. Roger (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to use such an adjective in a formal scientific paper or article dealing, say, with the genus Dacelo, you would be perfectly entitled to form an adjective appropriately from it, presumably 'dacelic' or 'daceloid' (I'm a little rusty) and expect scientifically educated readers to grok it. Part of the beauty of English (and doubtless some other languages) is that inventing necessary neologisms within the existing rules is entirely permissible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

kookaburresque?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with kookaburlesque. -- 174.31.199.95 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on context, tone, and the nature of the comparison: whether it's visual, behavioral, auditory, or whatever. In a scientific paper, an adjective derived from the binomial nomenclature would be fine, especially if its meaning were also suggested by context. Addressing a more general audience, you'd definitely want an adjective derived from the English name of the creature. For a visual comparison, I'd just use "kookaburra-like", hyphenated. For a more playful comparison, one might attempt a more playful adjective: "Stephen Harper nodded his kookaburrious head..." If you're making an auditory or behavioral comparison, then you might use "kookaburresque": "When Bruce chundered all over the malonga gilderchuck, a gale of kookaburresque laughter erupted from the sheilas." Of course, "kookaburra" itself could be used as an attributive: "Kookaburra laughter" would be fine. LANTZY^TALK 16:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

English adjectival suffixes sometimes differ in nuance. See wikt:childlike, wikt:childish, wikt:sheeplike, wikt:sheepish.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew help

I know that Adam is Man in Hebrew, and I am wondering how you would go about saying Man-like in Hebrew, would it be possible to do this while keeping the Adam part of the word intact? Failing that are there any words that could contain Adam that could be linked to something warrior-like? It's for a character name and I don't want to use just Adam. I don't really speak a word of Hebrew so answers using this alphabet and not the Hebrew one please. 82.18.201.77 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not able to answer the question, as such, but I just put 'manlike' into Google Translate (English/Hebrew), and it gave me 'ivree', which actually means 'Hebrew'. I don't know if it also means 'manlike', but in any case, it is not using the 'adam' root. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, "adam" does not have a special connotation of maleness -- it means mankind in general, not just men, and derives from the word for soil or dirt. The most warrior-like word I can think of containing "adam" is adamant, but that derives from Latin and doesn't have anything to do with the Hebrew Adam. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the use of "adam" to refer to a man is basically metaphoric, and is itself a derivation from a more basic root meaning "red" or perhaps "brown", which was later extended to "earth", and then to human beings. A more literal word for a man is גבר, gever, whence גברי, gavri, "manly, like a man". OP, when you say "man-like", what exactly do you mean? Do you wish to specify masculinity, or humanity? There is the term דמוי אדם, dimuy adam, which means something like "humanoid", and is used (I think) to describe androids and mannequins, among other things. LANTZY^TALK 18:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lantzy, I misread the first letter. I'll stick to my own field from now on. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lantzy, not "dimuy" (which is another word spelled דמוי as well), but rather "dmuy". HOOTmag (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My copy of The Signet Hebrew/English English/Hebrew Dictionary, by Dov Ben-Abba, indicates the masculine grammatical gender by the abbreviation ז׳ (z.) for זָכָר (zaKHAR) (IPA: zɑˈxɑʁ), which it defines as "male; masculine". The entry זְכָרִי (zekhaRI) (IPA: zəxɑˈʁi) is defined as "male, manly".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Hebrew speaker, who is also a linguist, I can promise that Hebrew has no word, other than Adam, which contains the root Adam. This is the most exact (though disappointing) answer the OP can achieve. HOOTmag (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The OP might like a neologism, if something plausible can be offered. Wareh (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no plausible neologism (i.e. plausible to Hebrew speakers' ears) can be offered, as far as the root Adam is concerned. HOOTmag (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case maybe 'Admoni' (pronounced Admonee). Ariel. (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The word Admoni - which is an existent Hebrew word (See Genesis 25 25) - meaning "red", is related to the root Adom (A.D.M), and has nothing to do with the root Adam (A.D.M) about which the OP has been asking. HOOTmag (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but it sounded to me like he just wanted something that sounded good/reasonable. Ariel. (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The word Admoni could have sounded good/resonable for expressing the idea of Man-like (from the root Adam as the OP wants), only if this word hadn't already been assigned for expressing the idea of "red" (from the root Adom, as opposed to what the OP wants). HOOTmag (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I bet you won't like adom'eh or admor :) But how about loch-dam (from lochem, fight)? Or Adzak (chazak, strong)? Ravdam (from either roveh, rifle; or cherev, sword - but it sounds like "lots of blood" in Hebrew)? 82.18.201.77 - are any of these helpful? How accurate do you want it to be? None of those are real words, nor do they follow proper grammar. Ariel. (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by adomeh? As for "adzak", "loch-dam", "Ravdam": they use half of the word Adam, but unfortunately, no Hebrew speaker can imagine that those semi-words, "ad" and "dam", are intended to be derived from Adam, because Hebrew never uses such semi-words, but rather uses the word dam as a whole word to mean another concept ("blood", as you correctly indicated). As far as I understand, the OP would like to have a word that either can be figured out by Hebrew speakers, or can fit the Hebrew morphology, while this is not the case with your suggestion. By the way, are you a native Hebrew speaker? HOOTmag (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What about "Enosh"? --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The OP explained they would like to have a word that contains the root Adam. HOOTmag (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Possessive for proper noun ending in "s"

I am not content with the following sentence. Context.

Redis data model is in its outer layer.

I think Redis should be possessive, perhaps

Redis' data model is in its outer layer.

Or perhaps used as an adjective (but would that change the meaning?),

The Redis data model is in its outer layer.

What should it be?

--Mortense (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not "Redis's data model ..."? You would pronounce 3 syllables before you get to "data", so why not write it accordingly? Some style guides say that singular words ending in -s should be possessivised as -s', not -s's, but that works only where the result would be a super-sibilant monstrosity like "Jesus's sisters". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The original is definitely wrong. To avoid the slightly awkward possessive (whether it be Redis' or Redis's), I prefer "The Redis data model...". 86.135.25.44 (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

That's a valid solution, but you don't have to justify it by saying the possessive option is in any way "awkward". "Morris's forces were outnumbered by Harris's. Redis's data model is preferred to Optus's". And so on. All perfectly easy to say. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As Redis isn't a person, I favor "the Redis data model". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Verb tense

Consider the following sentence: The new dorm will be built in 2020. The verb in that sentence is future tense. What is the tense of the verb if we change the sentence to the following? The new dorm is being built in 2020. This sentence refers to a future event, yet is seems to do so with a present tense verb. What is the tense of this verb? Is there a special type of name for this type of situation? If the verb is indeed present tense, how can a present tense verb refer to a future event? Thank you for any insights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

No doubt people are going to explain this at some length, but, in brief: English only has two tenses; the present and the past.

I play.

I played.

Everything else is, um, something else. Which means we have pretty much infinite ways of combining modal verbs and context to express different ideas. The new dorm is being built in 2020 is the continuous present, with a time cue letting you know it is really happening in the future. It's the passive continuous present, with a time cue. You can nest these things endlessly in English. The new dorm will have been being built for 5 years in 2020. The new dorm will have used to have been better before the building works in 2015. Try telling me what tense that is :) 86.164.31.131 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never really got to grips with tenses (or much else concerning grammar - it probably shows), but personally, I'd not write The new dorm is being built in 2020 at all. It just doesn't look right. On the other hand The new dorm is being opened on Friday does, which seems to me to imply that there is a problem with the word is being applied to something that does not yet exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you have a problem with I'm going to Venezuela next year? Or even I'm going to Venezuela in 2020? I probably wouldn't say the latter, because in the next 10 years a hell of a lot could go wrong with my current plans/intentions. I'd probably say I'm planning to visit Venezuela in 2020. But grammatically the I'm going version is unexceptionable. As for the next year thing, if my arrangements were pretty much advanced by now, I'm going fits the bill nicely. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the flaw in the parallel, I suspect, is that the building of the dorm is an event of considerable duration, unlike the opening. —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela exists now, so I'd have no problem saying what I intend to do in relation to it. The dorm will only exist once it is built, which is why stating that it is being built in the future seems clunky to me. The 'it' doesn't exist yet. Possibly this actually has nothing to do with grammar at all, but instead with differing perceptions of time, as '81.131.59.67' suggests?

English, German, and I think maybe other Germanic languages, have only two simple tenses, i.e. tenses expressed by only a single word. But I think I'd call some more complcated forms tenses as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of an article I was coincidentally reading earlier: A-series and B-series. 81.131.59.67 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is traditional to talk about "I will go" as the future tense in English; but in practice it is not always required for future meaning. (Nor does it always convey future meaning, but that's another topic). Syntactically it is questionable whether it should be called a tense at all, since there are no syntactic tests which distinguish "I will go" from "I may go", which is never described as a tense.

I agree that "The new dorm is being built in 2020" is less likely than "The new dorm is being opened next Friday", but I think this is simply a matter of how far in the future it is. "The new dorm is being built next year" is fine, for me. Whether or not they have started it now (i.e. whether it exists) is irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

December 5

Kanji variants

Hi, are the following two forms both acceptable in Japanese?

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?160073_%C4%E3
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/%E4%BD%8E-bw.png

It's the difference in the final stroke that I'm interested in.

Or maybe the second one is only for Chinese? 86.135.25.44 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They are both acceptable in Japanese. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! 86.135.25.44 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

No. Legible. But elementary school teachers would say incorrect when pupils write the kanji in the second way. See these pages for children. [11], [12], [13], and [14]. I never write it in the second way. Oda Mari (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The second one is the common accepted mordern form. I think the first one can be found in calligraphy.--刻意(Kèyì) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At least not in Japan. We don't write the second form. See wikt:低 and this linked page and click the links at the bottom. The second one is simplified Chinese. Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Not to be mistaken as..."

Not to be mistaken as being associated with Wikipedia.

This has been staring me in the face at the top of the (rather busy) Wikileaks article for 24 hours now. Without getting back into the argument as to whether we need this disambiguation at the start of the article, can someone please confirm that this isn't proper English, on either side of the pond? I'd made a comment on the Talk page Talk:WikiLeaks#Not to be confused with..., but not changed it since every time it is changed, somebody seems to prefer another version. Perhaps a grammarian can step in and beat it into shape... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a common expression (as in "not to be mistaken for ... "), and "mistake" is usually a ditransitive verb with the indirect argument introduced by "for"; but it does occur as a simple transitive without a complement. So I would say there is nothing either ungrammatical or unclear about it. Furthermore, I can't think of a succinct way for rewording it using "mistaken ... for". --ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese expression

what does '解手' mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Google is your friend --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Podestà

What is the female form of Podestà?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the female form of Majesty? I think podestà is feminine. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Latin word ("potestas") certainly is, and I assume it still is in Italian, but it just means "power" so it's not really a title. To feminize it you have to say "donna di podesta" or "moglie di podesta" (or some other feminine noun). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Cover"

I read Cover version#Origin of the term, it had a lot of text, but didn't seem to actually answer the question. My guess is something to do with the physical cover of the album? Ariel. (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that it's a metaphor with market presence equated to visibility. A competitor reduces the visibility of the original, thus "covering" it. --Anonymous, 15:55 UTC, December 5, 2010.

When did the "thou", "thy" begin diseppearing?

Hello Wikipedian friends, please excuse my approximative English, I'm a Frenchy.

In British churches I saw many times phrases likes : "Thou arst" or "thy soul" and recently I leafed through a play from Shakespear in which I found such words. I know what these words mean because in French we say "tu" to our friends and "vous" to other people.

Question : when did the English speaking people in the world begin shifting from the "thou" to the "you" to everybody and how long did it take? Thank you very much for your explanations. Joël Deshaies. Rheims-France.--80.236.119.185 (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article Thou is actually pretty good. It's hard to draw a clear line when thee/thou died out, because it continued in many dialects and still exists today in a few rural areas. The picture is also confused by the use of thee/thou in religious texts, because translators tried to preserve the distinctions in the original language. As our article says, this led people to associate thee/thou with religious solemnity, and many Christians grow up with prayers that call God 'thou'. This is the only everyday use of thee/thou most people encounter, and you will see 'thee's and 'thou's used in churches long after ordinary use had died out. Particularly look at Thou#History :) 86.164.31.131 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thee/thou is still common in the Sheffield area. In fact, a derogatory nickname for Sheffield natives is "Deedars", in imitation of the way they pronounce these two words. This usage extends around the South Yorkshire area, and is also common around the Black Country. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the questioner means "thou art" (you are) and not "thou arst" which might be mistaken for "thou arse" ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)