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

December 14

tin can despots, and tin can regimes

Howdy,

I'm curious as to what "tin can" means as an adjective. I've encountered it as a description of tyrants, despots, regimes, etc, but old man internet doesn't seem to define it. I think it is sometimes written as "tin-can" too. Thank! --JSJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.182.8 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That'd be a variant of "wikt:tin-pot dictator". Wiktionary has a separate item at wikt:tinpot dictator. The basic idea is "worthless". --Anonymous, 19:37 UTC, December 14, 2010.

The basic idea is a petty tyrant whose pretensions to grandeur far outpace the somewhat squalid reality. AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Semper Eadem"?

The article HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) says that the motto of the ship is, and I quote, Semper Eadem ("Always the Same"). Shouldn't that be Semper Idem? JIP | Talk 20:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Semper Eadem was Gloriana's motto, have always seen it spelt that way. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

...and since eadem is the feminine form of idem, that should be correct. Iblardi (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And ships, like Queens, are female. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Having studied Latin for six years, I should have known that. Except that those six years were a decade and a half ago, and unlike my native Finnish, and English, Swedish and German, I hardly ever get the chance to exercise my Latin skills. So I tend to forget what I learned. JIP | Talk 20:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Eadem is also the neuter plural, but I guess not in this case. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Blessed are the cheesemakers, for they shall always be the same." Go in peace. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Rule of inflection of English adjectives derived from participles.

Greetings, I'm somewhat confused by the declension of certain adjectives in English.

As far back as I can remember, the rule has been that ALL adjectives derived from INFINITE TENSES of VERBS form their comparative and superlative forms with "more-" and "most-" respectively.

--> eg.

       dreaded  more dreaded  most dreaded
       boring   more boring   most boring

This rule even applies to one-syllable adjectives (where the "-er" and "-est" inflections are usually preferred).

--> eg.

       bent     more bent     most bent

Increasingly, however, I'm encountering words which seem to side-step this rule.

--> eg.

       acute    acuter        acutest
       intense  intenser      intensest
       obtuse   obtuser       obtusest

I always assumed that because these adjectives came to us from PARTICIPLES in Latin and/or French, that the same rule applied here as it did in the above examples.

-->eg.

       acute    more acute    most acute
       intense  more intense  most intense
       obtuse   more obtuse   most obtuse

Though the "-er" and "-est" declensions seem commoner than before, can they really be considered proper?

Or is this simply another case of pop-culture eroding the language?

-->eg.

       the winningest coach in NBA history.

Pine (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The language was being eroded in 1865, when Lewis Carroll wrote the novel Alice in Wonderland. See Curiouser and Curiouser and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland - Wikiquote.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with pop-culture. I don't know specifically about there being a rule that all loaned participles must take "more/most", though for your particular examples, I would agree that only "more acute/intense/obtuse" are acceptable in formal usage. The increasing use of -er and -est is simply a common linguistic phenomenon known as "generalization", where speakers of a language, given multiple means of expressing an identical idea (in this case comparative "more/-er" and superlative "most/-est"), tend to generalize one pattern to more and more situations. Generalization is not a sign of "degradation" or "erosion" of a language; many things present in modern standard English emerged as generalizations from earlier stages of the language. If it weren't for generalization, for instance, we wouldn't be forming the possessives of all singular nouns with -'s, but would also have -n and -a (Old English genitive case endings) alongside.

As for "winningest", whenever I've heard it, it's been rather tongue-in-cheek. Voikya (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Acute, intense, and obtuse are not past participles in English, and the fact that they're etymologically derived from Latin past participles simply plays no role. The correct formation of their comparative and superlative is decided purely by the same rules that decide comparative/superlative formation of any other English adjective. To my ear, acuter and acutest sound fine, while intenser/intensest and obtuser/obtusest sound a little strange but not flat-out wrong. I think winningest has to be considered an exception; I'd say its comparative equivalent *winninger as well as their opposites *losingest and *losinger are all completely ungrammatical. Winningest probably started out tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not sure it still always is. 85.178.81.116 (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And this really shows how much variation currently exists. I personally would use "more/most" with all of "acute", "intense", and "obtuse", though I don't even think I'd notice anything weird if I heard someone say "acuter" or "intenser" (though "obtuser" sounds a little weird to me). And "losingest" sounds perfectly fine to me (in casual speech only, of course). Again, it feels a little tongue-in-cheek, but definitely not ungrammatical. (And maybe people do use "winningest" as a perfectly normal adjective, but I guess I don't hear it enough to have actually noticed) Voikya (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, "winningest", while not particularly elegant, serves a useful function. "Most winning" has an alternate meaning, i.e. most charming (though I dare say there are few coaches to which that would apply). Never mind. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have never met the rule you quote, and while I can quite believe that somebody may have concocted it in an attempt to describe English, I greatly doubt that it has any validity as stated. The simpler "rule" I am familiar with is that monosyllables form their degrees with "-er" and "-est", while polysyllables do not. This rule is clearly not accurate, but it does express a general tendency, and since the majority of adjectives derived from participles are polysyllabic, it subsumes your rule. --ColinFine (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese numbers

Hi, in ひとつ, ふたつ, みっつ, etc., can any independent meaning be ascribed to the element つ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.83.190 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If any can, then the same question might be asked about -dai, -hiki, -hon, -mai, and -nin. All six suffixes are represented at Counters In Japanese, under "Counting with Counters".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I already looked at Japanese counter word, but found no mention of it (well, the numbers ひとつ, ふたつ etc. are listed, but there is no mention that I can see of the つ part being a counter). Do you think it should be added? 86.161.83.190 (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tsu, tsu (hiragana つ) is a counter for small items.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

[I am correcting my English spelling.—Wavelength (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)]

Be bold and add it! Oda Mari (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to [1] it's a counter suffix and it can be written with the kanji 箇 or 個, which are also used for the counter こ. I've never seen it written with kanji, though. I think it's a bit different from the other counters since most of them were imported wholesale from Chinese, but ひとつ etc. precede the era of Chinese influence. At least two other pre-Chinese counters survive, り for people and か for days, so there was apparently some kind of counter system already. It would be nice to have an article or section on it. -- BenRG (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Is mad offensive?

Is using "mad" or "madness" when referring to insanity offensive? Someone on the science desk recently said it was, and that surprised me, because it seems to be a very old and common usage. Ariel. (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Being old doesn't mean that it isn't offensive today. There was a time when a word like "retarded" was considered value neutral, and was routinely used by doctors in diagnosing mental handicaps. When it became a school-yard insult, it became an offensive word through usage; but it was not devised as offensive. --Jayron32 00:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have baulked at The Madness of King George and insisted on The Insanity of King George. If the person is removed from the speaker by historical distance or lack of personal acquaintance, it seems to be OK to call them mad. But not if they're members of the speaker's family or social/work group. Then again, .... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine it being used in a professional clinical sense in modern times. That usage is obsolete I think. 86.161.83.190 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that referring to 'insanity' isn't potentially as offensive. It depends on the context though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more the case that 'mad' is associated with, and conveys an image of, a cartoony version of mental illness that actually fits very few or no real people with mental illness: the image of a dangerous, deranged person, talking to invisible people, randomly throwing things, shouting half their words, laughing uncontrollably as they attack random passers by, detached from reality. Real mental illness is hugely varied and has all sorts of different impacts on people's lives, so that one person with mental illness might be able to live the life they want simply by taking the appropriate medication, and only their closest friends and family would know, whereas another might have to make allowances for their illness and schedule plenty of downtime, or avoid certain situations, and another might find their illness makes it difficult to keep up with fulltime employment simply because they stop being able to concentrate, and another might need a permanent carer to keep them safe. Calling these different people 'mad' conjures up a set image of a 'mad' person, which doesn't actually fit them, and is part of what makes mental illness taboo. It is part of why people don't tell anyone they have or had mental health problems, if they can help it, and why people often don't seek medical help in a timely fashion. So yes, it is hurtful and offensive. And, given the proportion of the population that experience mental health problems at some time in their lives, combined with the taboo, every time you use the word you are probably hurting or offending someone who is afraid to tell you so, and adding to the atmosphere that keeps them afraid of someone finding out. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's kind of a side issue that will come from naming any group with a single term, not necessarily from the word "mad" itself. Lumping a group of people together and calling them "insane" or "mentally challenged" or whatever contains the same danger. I don't know if I'd call the word "mad" itself particularly offensive, but it's a tricky word to use: in the US, "mad" often gets used as a synonym for "angry" rather than crazy/insane, while in the UK I think it mostly gets used in situations that are obviously hyperbolic "He parked there? Is he barking mad?!" When I think of it being used as a serious diagnosis (whether medical or informal), I pretty much just picture Alice in Wonderland. Matt Deres (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, "mad" never refers to insanity except in a handful of compound words and fixed phrases, like "to go mad", "madman", "madness", etc. When the adjective is used on its own, it invariably means "angry". LANTZY^TALK 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Is bipolarity considered a mental illness? When someone "gets mad", then their angry side comes out, and can result in destructive actions. Hence the plea of "temporary insanity". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

December 15

Words coined by children

I'm aware of googol's coinage by a nine-year-old. Does anyone know any other dictionary (!) words (in any language) coined by children. Or teenagers, I guess (but I'm already aware of Rimbaud's encrapuler et al too). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a new coinage but a new usage: in 1930 the name for the newly discovered what-was-then-called-planet Pluto was thought up by the 11-year-old Venetia Burney. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wendy and mama and papa, arguably. -- BenRG (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Children can surely be credited with many examples of Inventive spelling. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those examples (particularly Pluto and Wendy). I guess I'm looking for examples that can be attributed to a known child or adolescent with a name. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks U.S. Embassy "Cables"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This appears to be a content dispute, not a reference desk question. Take to the appropriate article talk page or MOS talk page, please. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In reading articles about the wikileaks, there is no explanation of what "Cables" means. It is obviously not referring to bundles of copper wires which is the literal definition. This technical jargon needs to be at least explained in its initial usuage of the word "Cables," e.g.

• The US Embassy Cables - "Cables" being technical jargon for "secret communications" - were leaked by....

If someone could address this, it would make understanding the articles a lot simpler. I don't know how to add to Wikipedia, so I'm leaving this in your fine hands. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.219.99 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Technical terms in wikipedia are most often best explained by a link to a page describing the subject matter. The link should be to Diplomatic cable. The Wikileaks now has such a link; United States diplomatic cables leak already had one. Good call.--Tagishsimon (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, wikilinking a technical term is not an excuse for not explaining it. Readers shouldn't be expected to click through a bunch of pages to understand an article, and often the linked-to article is more complicated than the first article, sending readers on a never-ending wild goose chase through the encyclopedia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Consider the article eye. Would you put inline explanations of the very many bluelinked terms? Meanwhile the articles in question provide amply sufficient context to understand the term absent a visit to the definition page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If the term is necessary to understand the article and is not clear from the context, an explanation should be required. If the term is not necessary (such as one of several examples of something), a wikilink is sufficient. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am with Tagishsimon here. If you know what a "cable" is in this context, you don't need to click on the link. If you don't know and you want to know, click on the link. It is that simple. --Lgriot (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intonation

I know that in English, the Romance languages, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, you raise the tone of your voice to ask a question. Does the same apply to other languages? If so, why should this seemingly-random intonation rule be universal? --140.180.26.37 (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good question, but I'm not sure the premise is valid. I don't know enough about Chinese or Korean, but in Japanese, while it is true that question intonation involves a rise, it is a different pattern from English (the voice rises just for the question particle 'ka'), so I don't think you can talk about a 'rule'. Intonation (linguistics), though not a very good article, has some more information which casts doubt on your general principle, and has a few references, though I've not followed them. --ColinFine (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In Strayan, we raise our tone when making any sort of statement. (or possibly ?). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not universal. Russian, for instance, has a very different question intonation than English. In questions containing an interrogative word ("what?" "who?" "where?" etc), you have a drop in pitch towards the end of the sentence. In questions without an interrogative word, you have a sharp rise on the first syllable of the word that's being emphasized/question, followed by a sharp drop and low intonation for the rest of the sentence. Using English-style question intonation both sounds a little odd (definitely a foreignism) and often doesn't even convey the sense of question—it sounds more like you're just making a statement. Voikya (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In French class, we were taught that intonation is only one of three ways to ask a question. You can also invert the subject and verb ("Have you the right answer?") or add "Est-ce que" ("Is it that") to the front of your statement to turn it into a question. --Thomprod (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is still intonation with those forms, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In Fusha Arabic, the word 'hal' makes any sentence a yes/no question. No intonation is needed. --Soman (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In my French phonetics class, we learned that in a yes or no question "Did you eat lunch today?", you raise the sentence at the end. In open-ended questions, such as "How much does this cost?" you drop the intonation at the end. One also raises the intonation at various points within the sentence, so (in Standard French at least) it would be "Pourqoui est-ce que l'homme [up], qui a faime [up], mange ce fromage? [down]". That, in case you are curious, should mean "Why is the man, who is hungry, eating this cheese?" Falconus^{p t c} 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In Hungarian the voice is up on the last-but-one syllable, not the last, the last is clearly a step down from the previous one --Lgriot (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nasal "yes" by African-Americans

Hi! There´s a question about English in DE-Wikipedia´s "Auskunft" that can hardly be answered by us Germans - but you might be able to help. I´ll try to translate it: In recent TV-series from the US, female african-american actors increasingly use a nasal "Mmmmmh"-sound, that seems to be an affirmation (meaning "Yes"). On the discussion page, we wondered a) if the use of this form is actually restricted to (female) african-americans? b) if it is a new development? Perhaps one of you locals has any ideas, Besten Dank, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This form is a variant of the expression often spelled unh-huh or uh-huh, which is an affirmative meaning, more or less, "yes". I think you are describing a variant that uses the rising intonation (first syllable low pitch, second syllable medium pitch) of unh-huh but without every opening the mouth. (Its negative counterpart is uh-uh, with a generally falling intonation pattern). This set of utterances is probably a borrowing into American English from one or more tonal African languages, originally via African slaves during the 17th and 18th centuries. It is in use among all American, black and white, though exaggerated versions of these utterances are stereotypically found among African Americans. In fact, you will find animated versions of these expressions among American whites, too. (See this reference and this discussion.) Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is common in British English too, and on that basis, I doubt that it derives from tonal African languages. I think it is much more likely related to a more general usage of pitch tone variation to indicate yes/no, good/bad etc. Compare 'ah-ha!' with 'uh-oh!'.

I agree it's definitely not uniquely African nor American (or even African American) it's widely used in many varieties of English. Roger (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The question immediately above this one, on 'intonation'. is discussing much the same subject ... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of this expression in varieties of English other than American English is hardly evidence against an African origin. If this was an African loan into American English, well established in American English by the 19th century, it would not be the only example of borrowing from American English into other varieties of English since the 19th century. People in the UK and other parts of the Anglosphere have seen Hollywood movies and American television shows, too. Marco polo (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Identical "tonal expressions" for yes / no also exist in German. As in English, there is a rising intonation for yes and a falling intonation for no. Generally, they are associated with the appropriate (nodding / shaking) movements of the head. Admittedly, there is a slim possibility that these "words" were introduced by US American (possibly African American) military forces stationed in Germany / Austria. I (having spent my infantility in the US sector of Vienna) doubt it, but maybe a Swiss ref desker (like Sluzzelin) or a person from the former GDR could clear that up. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They also exist in Afrikaans. I suspect this phenomenon may have a much older history and emerged in the Germanic language family at a very early stage of their shared history. More research needed... Roger (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the original poster was talking about a single-syllable grunt. I use this sometimes; I don't associate it specifically with African-Americans. Actually the first person I remember using it regularly was an Indian guy (as in from India). I think it's become more common in recent years, but I'm not sure of that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(OR warning) I was using these sounds long before I ever knew what "African Americans" were, and certainly long before I ever saw or heard anyone from the American or African continents (even on TV -- yes, I can remember the first TV I ever saw), but in my native area (a Yorkshire dale in Cumbria) a rising tone indicates a question, with the affirmative having a flat or falling tone. I tend to no longer use these because they are commonly misunderstood without the associated gestures. Dbfirs 00:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone has totally grasped what the OP was asking about; here is a parody of it from Family Guy. It's extremely difficult to find clips of real people doing this, but, well, any sort of comedy with African-American women is bound to have a few examples. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Marco Polo provided a good answer, but to summarize: the lengthened, exaggerated version is seen as typical of some African-American women (African American Vernacular English), but uh-huh and uh-uh are of course common among all English-speakers. I would also like more evidence for the supposed African derivation, but it is interesting that the first of these two quotations from the OED also gives that explanation (the second gives a little more information on the phonetics).

"1969 D. Dalby in A. Dundes Mother-Wit (1973) 139/1 African usage can also explain the frequent use by Americans of the interjections uh-huh, for ‘yes’, and uh-uh for ‘no’. Similar forms, especially for ‘yes’, occur in scattered parts of the world, but nowhere as frequently and as regularly as in Africa.

"1982 J. C. Wells Accents of English III. vi. 556 There are also the grunts sometimes spelt uh-huh and uh-uh respectively. The first, ‘yes’, is phonetically [ˈə̃hə̃, ˈʌ̃hʌ̃, ˈmm̥m], hence nasal or nasalized; it usually has a rising tone pattern.‥ The second, ‘no’, is [ˈʔəʔˈʔə, ˈʔʌ̃ʔˈʔʌ, ˈʔmʔˈm]‥; it is not necessarily nasal, and has an accented final syllable, with an obligatorily falling tone pattern." Lesgles (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about the single-syllable version or the more recent two-syllable "uh-huh"? Dbfirs 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that "uh-huh" and "uh-uh" are of African origin, as Brits have been know to use them as well. But there's no question that a lot of African-American nuggets have been brought into white America over the decades. Endless musical influences, for one. And catch-phrases, like being "dissed", or being "down with that", or slurring the mundane "what's up?" into the stylistic "whuzzuuuup?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Apprehension

In English, If ur speaking about someone in the police force or someone else doing apprehensions, what is the right words to use in front of apprehension?

MAKING apprehensions

DOING apprehensions

PERFORMING apprehensions

Or could more than one of these three variants be correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.152 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Far, far better than any of those three variants would be the following:

APPREHENDING.

If you insist on using apprehensions plus a verb instead of the verb apprehend, then I suppose making or performing would be awkward but okay. Doing sounds extremely awkward. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me at all; apprehension is a state of being, not an action. One cannot do/make/perform it. One can have an apprehension about something or be apprehensive. It means to have a negative or fearful expectation: An apprehension of disaster. Roger (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary allows apprehension as "The seizure of a person, a ship, etc., in the name of justice or authority; arrest. Const. subj. gen. of the actor, obj. gen. of the person arrested, the latter being more frequent: ‘The king's apprehension of Pym,’ ‘Pym's apprehension by the king’." DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The noun is standard police jargon. However, so is the verb apprehend or apprehending. Marco polo (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not be at all surprised to hear police persons talking about "effecting an apprehension".

@ Marco polo: "Doing apprehensions" does indeed sound extremely awkward. But no worse, really, than "doing due diligence", a repulsive phrase that's been dumped on us by unthinking corporate dolts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming not to answer the OP's question, as a native speaker of American English I'd never say any of those (making, doing, or performing apprehensions). I'd say "making arrests." --- OtherDave (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that arrests is more natural, but police are fond of apprehensions, which is actually a somewhat broader term than arrests, including seizures both of persons and of possessions. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, an apprehension could result in a mere "detention" rather than an arrest (which triggers more rights). —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In cop-talk, Effecting an apprehension of the perpetrator is probably standard.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Real cops or Hollywood cops? Roger (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted by others here, I would think the cops would be more likely to take the active-voice approach and say "apprehended the suspect". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Making/effecting/doing/whatever-ing apprehensions" is still active, Bugsy. "The suspect was apprehended" - that would be passive. Or even "An apprehension was effected". The difference between "The detective apprehended the person" and "The detective effected an apprehension of the person" has nothing to do with active/passive. It has more to do with Plain English vs. corporate gobbledygook, wank-speak or officialese. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Old English word definition

And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.
I realize "chaumbir" is old English or middle English, however I am interested in the modern definitions.--LordGorval (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Chamber is from the french for room. Considering that many modern translations of the passage state there was "no room availible", see NIV and NASB and New King James Version all translate it as "room". --Jayron32 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Chaumbir" is, as noted, simply our modern word "chamber," though used in its old sense of a room in a house, especially a bedroom or other private room. Some other modern meanings of "chamber" are here. A literal translation of this Middle English passage is, "And she gave birth to her first-born son, and wrapped him in cloths, and laid him in a cratch, for there was no place for him in a room." A "cratch" generally is a rack or crib to hold fodder for horses and cattle, although the word can also refer to a manger, which is a long open box or trough for this purpose. John M Baker (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

O.K., thanks.--LordGorval (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As discussed a couple of days ago, the terms "creche" and "cratch(e)" have the same origin, and are considered equivalent to "manger". If I'm reading your comments right, they really are the same thing, except maybe some variation in shape and size. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

After my catholic upbringing in the 1970s and 80s in the UK, I grew up thinking a 'manger' was actually a crib that you put babies in. It was only pretty recently (relatively speaking) that I actually found out it was something that cattle, etc., feed from. I can only assume that our teachers just expected this sort of thing to be common knowledge amongst kids in the city from the age of 3. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how often in modern English the term "manger" is used in any context other than the Nativity? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So seldom that the word is now popularly understood as a poetic synonym of "cradle". But apparently the word retains its original significance in agricultural circles, or did until very recently. A citation from Farmers Weekly, 3 January, 1986: We must do something about the troughing, both to improve intake by having feed constantly in the manger, and to cut down labour. LANTZY^TALK 02:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I grew up on a farm with an old-fashioned barn, and we had mangers in which we put ground feed for our animals. I guess we also had cratches to hold their hay, but we didn't call them that; we just called them racks. John M Baker (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Knowing that manger is cognate to the homographic French verb meaning "to eat" may help people remember what its actual meaning is. —Angr (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

December 16

Help with Japanese needed - image description

Hi! At ja:NARUTO -ナルト- 疾風伝, a description in Japanese is needed for File:Viz Media HQ marquee.JPG - The file is of a marquee promoting Naruto Shippuden at the Viz Media corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California WhisperToMe (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

[[ビズメディア]]サンフランシスコ本社に掲げられたNARUTO -ナルト- 疾風伝の看板 Oda Mari (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Oda Mari! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, how would you say "Watch it on Disney XD" in Japanese? (Disney XD is a television channel)

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Literal translation is [[ディズニーXD]]でご覧ください. But thinking about promotional phrases often used in Japan, "ディズニーXDで放送中" might be possible translation. It means "Now on air on Disney XD". Oda Mari (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll use the latter translation WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Spanish translation help

For wholly unprofitable reasons, I'm translating a collection of Zen koans into Spanish. One of them concerns a master making a "feast in the joss house", a metaphor with the same basic significance as "casting pearls before swine". Joss statues are surrounded in incense, but they smell nothing. In the same way, the master's wisdom is wasted on those pharisaical Buddhists who cling to superstitious ancestor worship and lack true understanding. The trouble is, I can't find a tidy translation of "joss house". I've encountered only one previous translation into Spanish of this koan. The translator uses "casa de incienso", a satisfactory circumlocution, since the metaphor hinges on the futility of the incense. However, purely out of linguistic curiosity, I still seek a direct Spanish translation of "joss house" or simply "joss". (A word with an Iberian pedigree, I believe.) Though the term might be obscure and restricted to sinology or anthropology, I would still like to know it. Might I even get away with "casa de joss" or something? Any suggestions would be welcome. LANTZY^TALK 07:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Joss house indicates that it's a small temple or shrine, so maybe that will lead somewhere. Although I must say that unless you happen to know what a joss house is, it doesn't make sense in English, either. I also question the "pearls before swine" comparison, but that's a separate issue. Seems to me there's a more direct metaphor, about doing something for the "benefit" of those who have no capability of using it, but I can't think of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As Bugs said, "joss house" is not a usual English term. Could you give us the term in the original language? Perhaps someone here can give you a more apt English translation that you can then convert into Spanish.

The page Joss house is confusing. For one thing, it opens with the word "Shenist", which seems to be a neologism composed of the Chinese shen, or gods and spirits, and "-ism". It is not a common English word and does not make much sense taking into account the alleged Chinese meaning either. I can only guess, etymologically speaking, a parallel with theist.

In any case, "joss house" seems to be just a rare, local colloquial translation of the Chinese character 庙, which simply means "temple" in common, every-day English. If you could give us the original Chinese or Japanese for your koan, someone here will be able to confirm whether it is better translated as "temple". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Complicating matters is that "joss" is apparently a corruption of Latin-based words for God, such as deus. That would be Casa de Dios in Spanish, but that doesn't really capture the point of the original slogan - which I'm still confused about where you're seeing equating statues with superstitions - although that might be somehow obvious from the slogan in its original form, in which case translating it without adding a paragraph of explanation could prove challenging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On your point about incense - the translation of joss in "joss house" as incense is incorrect, at least according to the explanation given in our article about joss house - using "joss" to mean incense is a secondary borrowing. "Joss house", as "place of worship", came first, and "joss stick", as a name for the incense burned at / before such palce of worship, derives from joss house. Thus, deus -> joss -> joss house -> incense burnt at joss house -> joss sticks (incense).

I'm leaning towards the view that "joss house" here should be translated simply as "temple", unless the original Chinese or Japanese (or whatever) text suggests otherwise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Searching Google Books in Spanish is pretty fruitful. It turns up some old dictionaries which translate joss-house as "templo para ídolos chinos". This book seems to use the spellings Joss and Yos. You may want to have a look at the other results as well. Lesgles (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I was thinking that yos might be hit upon as a transliteration. Presumably it's an import from English, rather than from Portuguese. LANTZY^TALK 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I thought "joss" was relatively well-known in English. Evidently not. In light of that, it's a bit surprising that the original book, The Iron Flute by Nyogen Senzaki, used the term in preference to something like "idol house" or whatever.

As noted above, "idol house" might convey the meaning better. As far as "joss" is concerned, the only one I had ever heard of was Addie Joss, but I doubt there's any connection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Joss (or joss sticks) meaning incense is quite well known, but "joss house" certainly isn't (except, it seems, in certain contexts like Macau or the wild wild West).

"Temple of idols", from the Spanish quoted above, seems more natural than "idol house", and conveys the necessary meanings of 1) a temple, and 2) the presence of idols, which I think is crucial to the meaning of the koan you quote. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Googling "bad joss" gets 15,000 hits. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of a "joss house" until I went to Australia - one is a tourist attraction in Bendigo in Victoria[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of "bad joss". What does it mean and what dialect of English does it come from? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen

While reading about this programme I noted in the second paragraph the term "...presently running" is used. Please not that the word "presently" refers to "soon." The actual expression should be "...currently running."

David J. Cottrell, M.Ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.225.53 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Presently can mean "soon" or "now."[3] That said, I don't see any reason not to make your suggested change. In the future, please feel free to make corrections wherever you see fit. --Onorem♠Dil 14:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, presently means "now" but it is used as a euphemism for "soon" in some cultures, therefore the change is beneficial. Dbfirs 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It used to be used that way in America also, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No. "Presently" with a future verb means "soon" in the UK, but with a present continuous (or participle) it cannot have that meaning, so the original phrase is not ambiguous. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I was specifically thinking of: A Rodgers and Hart number from the Crosby/Fields film Mississippi, whose signature number is "Soon", and which contains this lyric: "For presently and pleasantly our hearts will be in tune / So soon, maybe not tomorrow, but soon." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Presently", "momentarily" and a bunch of other words with disputed meanings are discussed here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I hadn't realised that the meiotic usage (popularised by Shakespeare) has taken over to such an extent that some believe the original meaning to be wrong! The following is an extract from the Yorkshire Post of 1902: "A lady..in the South of England married a man who was born on Tyneside, and I have noticed that they used the common word ‘presently’ in exactly opposite senses. Neither of them was in any doubt as to the meaning of the word, but he said ‘presently’ when he meant ‘now, at once, immediately’...". Dbfirs 08:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear Hanzi on a 19th century Chinese hell scroll

A while ago, I uploaded a picture from a 19th century Chinese hell scroll showing a headless Yue Fei accusing the recently deceased Qin Hui. I cannot make out all of the characters on the plaque the attendant is holding off to the left. I know the first two say Qin Hui (秦檜), the third is shi （十), but I'm lost after that. The fourth character looks like it could be yao (要). --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It is 秦檜十悪罪状 and it means Qin Hui's ten bad crimes. Oda Mari (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Passé simple

Why do they call it that? It's a lot less simple than the passé composé. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the articles, Passé simple means "simple past" and Passé composé means "compound past". It appears that the "simple" form uses only the verb by itself, whereas the "compound" form connects with an auxiliary verb. That would seem to be the explanation. Perhaps a Frenchy could elaborate here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple doesn't necessarily mean "easy". The preterite is simpler in the sense that it uses one verb instead of two. LANTZY^TALK 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The passé composé always involves an irregular verb! —Tamfang (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case the meaning of simple is the same in French and in English. From the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: "(of a verb tense) consisting of a main verb with no auxiliaries, as takes (simple present) or stood (simple past) (opposed to compound)." — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Simple past (English). In Romanian too it is called "simple perfect", in Italian it is called "remote past". For a limited overview, see also the article on preterite (a term for this kind of tense used in several languages). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What they all said: "simple" doesn't mean it's easier for us to use, it means it uses a single wordform instead of an auxiliary verb plus a participale (which the passe compose does). rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. It would be more accurate to call them passé synthétique and passé analytique (or périphrastique), but those aren't the usual terms. —Angr (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Compare with the musical terms simple time and compound time, which makes the same contrast between simple and compound. 86.163.0.221 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

December 17

Ahorita

Is the word used outside of Mexico? I know a Mexican-American who learned Spanish only recently, and not to the point of fluency. He uses "ahorita" profusely, even to the point of never saying "ahora". He doesn't grasp its true significance. He treats it as merely a cute, distinctively Mexican way of saying "now". He once claimed (with pride) that some Argentines in his youth soccer league routinely mocked him for using the word, but perhaps they were mocking him for misusing it, or using it affectedly. Would the word, properly used, be particularly jarring or ridiculous to people outside of Mexico? Or is it just that Mexicans are particularly fond of it? LANTZY^TALK 00:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My Spanish-English dictionary lists both ahorita and ahoritita as "American informal". The more "formal" way to say "right now" is ahora mismo. The informal one I always used to hear, which was adopted into English, is pronto or muy pronto. There's also the obvious cognate, inmediatamente. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted here,[4] ahora comes from the Latin hac hora, which means "this hour". There was a discussion recently about just what "a moment", "a minute", "a second", etc. really mean; and it's clear that it's not always clear, especially if your mother says "now" meaning "right now", and you think "now" means "within the hour". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And how does that reply contribute in the least to answering the question, Bugs? The question was about usage, not meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My Spanish dictionary (Collins) marks ahorita as "esp[ecially] S[outh ]Am[erican]", implying that as far as they know it's less common in Mexico than further south. As for the double meaning discussed in the blog post Lantzy linked to, I'd say English right away has the same double meaning - depending on context, it can mean "this very instant" or "as soon as possible / as soon as I get around to it". German sofort (usually glossed "immediately") also has the double meaning. If your mother tells you to do something sofort, you start work on it within three seconds. But if your waiter tells you he'll be with you sofort, that means within the next 10 to 15 minutes, if you're lucky. —Angr (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I first heard the word in Columbia. It was used a lot. In the contexts I heard it, it meant "in a moment". The "moments" tended to be quite long. Definitely not "pronto" or "ahora mismo". --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A question for Sanskrit afficionados

I know I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but can anybody translate what the characters in http://i53.tinypic.com/2yw6auo.jpg say? I asked a few places under the assumption it was Japanese, but one person told me it was more likely a form of Sanskrit. Irrelevant Supporting Character (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit has been written in many different scripts in its long history. A few are shown here. To my unturored eye, your characters most resemble the Tibetan script out of those shown, and may of course be some other language (Standard Tibetan or one of the other Tibetan languages?) written in that script. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It does look more like Japanese to me, but I wouldn't rule out Siddhaṃ script. What's the source? —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be written vertically, which AFAIK rules out any abugida derived from the Brahmi script, including Tibetan and Siddham. It looks like grass script to me; if so, it could be Chinese or Japanese. —Angr (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Improving my English - simple question, should i use 'shot in', 'broke in' or something else ?

Speaking English, when three people are having a conversation and two of them end up talking the most and adressing mostly each other as they speak while the third person remains quiet for a while, then if the third person suddenly responds to something which one of the other two said, is it correct to say that he/she "shot" in or "broke in"?

I'll show an example here.

"I think what you did was great, Anne," John said, "and I can easily understand why you have gotten so much praise in the local newspaper,"

"I did only what anyone would have done in such a situation," Anne explained, insisting that what she did wasn't all that great.

"Don't be so modest," Lisa shot/broke in, "be proud of what you did, and don't be afraid to take in the praise, for you have deserved it."

Can i say that, that Lisa 'shot in', or 'broke in'? It doesn't sound entirely right to me, and perhaps there are another word, or even several other words that I should rather use? Or maybe I should simply formulate myself differently?

Then how would you do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.152 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Broke in" may work in some colloquial way, some dialects would recognize it and others would not. It may be better to use the more formal "interrupted" instead. --Jayron32 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you. I have already considered using 'interrupted', but that didn't feel entirely right either, because I don't feel that she's interrupting anything. She was always there and part of the conversation after all. She didn't come from nowhere and interrupt them if you understand what I mean. But maybe you're right. I'm sure 'interrupted' is better than what I was ending up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.152 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, try the word "interjected". It more captures what you are trying to say. --Jayron32 15:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the conversation would be taking place in the US - "gotten" would not be used in British English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/ Jayron...interjected would be my choice. Buster Seven Talk 15:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would confirm that gotten is specific to North American English (where it is the standard form). I think gotten is widely used in Canada as well as the United States. I also agree with Jayron that interjected is the best word to use here. Shot in is understandable but not standard; broke in sounds too much like burglary. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

To me it depends on what type of writing you are trying to do. If you are writing a report or something formal, "interjected" would be your way to go. If you are writing a novel, you have a lot more license. "Broke in" does sound very odd, but "shot in" could be something that would convey what you intend, especially if the other character is prone to talking a lot very quickly, for example. It's not standard usage, but it's not wrong usage in the proper context (in my opinion). I could see it being used as "'Liar!', Kathy shot in as Theo was talking." I may not choose that word combo, but it works for me (American English, North Carolina). Falconus^{p t c} 16:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Shot in" seems very peculiar to me. "Broke in" is possible. If I was talking about the conversation rather than writing aobut it, I might say "came in with": "Then Lisa came in with 'Don't be so modest'". --Anonymous, 17:07 UTC, December 17, 2010.

Came in with suggests that she has just entered the room. On the other hand, chimed in would work nicely, I think in most varieties of English. Marco polo (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Threw in could also work. By the way, I've heard it suggested that all these verbs for different ways of saying things, such as "That's how it was," Sarah explained, or "Gosh," Jimmy ejaculated, or "Wouldn't you like to try some?" Samantha inveigled, are just distractions from the story and are really poorer style than simply using said consistently. 81.131.62.210 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Gosh", Jimmy ejaculated - a phrase for the ages. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Butted in is a regularly used colloquialism in British English [5]. Blakk and ekka 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I would do:

 "I think what you did was great, Anne," said John.
 "I did only what anyone would have done," said Anne.
 "Don't be so modest," said Lisa. "Be proud of what you did."

Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

For a work of fiction, "said" is bland and repetitive and doesn't carry any meaning to indicate the manner of the conversation. --Jayron32 23:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's one point of view... —Tamfang (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fiction writer Elmore Leonard has personal rules for writing it doesn't hurt to review. Third on the list: Never use a verb other than said to carry dialogue. Fourth: Never use an adverb to modify the verb said.

"Not so fast!" said Tom swiftly. -- 174.24.216.113 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As ever with "rules" on creative processes, it would be better to say "be careful not to overdo X" rather than "never do X". It's ridiculous to say "never use a verb other than said to carry dialogue" and to say "never use an adverb to modify the verb said". Rather, an author should think twice about doing either of those things: is the character's state of mind when speaking already clear from the context without using a fancier word like "interjected" or "ejaculated" and without using an adverb to modify said? If so, leave 'em out. I really don't think there's anything wrong with using "asked" with a question. "Where are you going?" Martin asked surely sounds as good as, if not better than, "Where are you going?" Martin said. And of course Ring Lardner's famous line "Shut up," he explained would lose all its charm if you replaced explained with said. —Angr (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. And the most important situation where "said" is out of place is when the volume of voice is unusual. "Come here, girl," said Timmy to his dog Lassie, who was in the grass 100 yards away. Doesn't work, does it? But it is still a good rule of thumb to let the emotions and attitudes be conveyed by what the speakers say rather than by describing how they say it. Looie496 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "to chime in"? -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminds of me grade 4, when we were learning how to write short stories, and a girl in my class wrote that one of her characters "inhaled a sign". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

French grammar question

On working through a book of French grammar, I have come across the question "Depuis combien de temps chante-t-elle dans cette chorale?". I know that this means 'How long has she been singing in this choir?' but my question is what is the function of the lone 't' in 'chante-t-elle'? Is it to stop chante and elle merging into one word or something? Thanks 92.11.32.186 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Liaison (French)#Liaison with inverted verbs. Algebraist 16:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Algebraist, much appreciated. 92.11.32.186 (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

To add unnecessarily to Algebraist's complete answer, Latin: cantat illa. Wareh (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that that is a rather formal style that is not often used in spoken, or even informal written French. (The more common form would be to replace "chante-t-elle" with "est-ce qu'elle chante" or to rephrase it "Elle chante dans cette chorale depuis combien de temps?") Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? But to my ears it's definitely not the "-t-" that's formal, but only the inversion if anything. Sentences such as "Qu'a-t-il fait?" appear quite natural to me. Hans Adler 19:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Online conversations with native French speakers (both in text and in voice) confirm that what Marco polo suggests is common, as are declarative sentences typed with a question mark or spoken with a rising tone at the end: "Elle chante dans une chorale?" "Il a fait quoi?" --- OtherDave (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Il a fait quoi?" has a very strong stress on quoi. The neutral way of saying this would be "Qu'est-ce qu'il a fait?" But I think "Qu'a-t-il fait?" is still also unmarked, at least for educated adult speakers. Hans Adler 10:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wareh, I don't think the Latin conjugation affected that; at least, if it did, it did not happen naturally, because in Old French they would just write "a il" or "chante elle" (and, I'm sure, the words did merge together sometimes). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well established that lingering remnants of 3rd person "t" endings contributed to French verb inversion liason "t"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Well that's pretty neat then. I thought it was just random, like the "r" in some dialects of English ("idear", etc). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course English doesn't have such weird consonants. The very idea-r-is absolutely crazy! Hans Adler 10:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Intrusive R. Just been reading a paper about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a good pointer. The funny French -t- is discussed in Liaison (French)#Liaison with inverted verbs, and the French Wikipedia covers it in fr:Phonème éphelcystique. Hans Adler 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we were taught chante-t-elle and the like when I did French O Level 25 years ago. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous adjectives, English monarchy

If born in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, I am Elizabethan; my grandmother was Victorian, my mother Georgian. Others are Marian (Mary), Henrician (Henry) Jacobite (James) etc. but can you tell me what the correct adjectives for Queen Anne and the Kings Richard might be? Would King John's subjects be Johannine? In this context I'm not referring to 'Tudor' or 'Hanoverian'. I gather Prince Charles wants to be known as George so we won't have the Carolingian/Caroline/Carolinian debate! Thank you, Serenade 81.147.24.198 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard would be Ricardian, but I really can't answer about Anne. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. No-one I have ever asked has known about Anne. Nannite?! Serenade81.147.24.198 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to antique furniture and housing styles, they talk about "Georgian", "Edwardian", "Victorian", "Jacobean" and "Queen Anne" varieties. I've never heard of "Annian", "Annite", or similar words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Queen Anne. Even Merriam-Webster says so[6]. Lexicografía (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Similarly with William and Mary - and claiming to have a 'Williamite and Marian carving chair' might sound a bit pretentious. Maybe with Queen Anne I'm trying to force an eponymous adjective into being where none is prepared to go. Thank you, Serenade81.147.24.198 (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It derives from the Hebrew name Hannah. Maybe "Hannovian" might have been a contender - if it didn't sound too much like "Hanoverian", the dynasty that followed hard upon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why –ov–? Neither Hebrew nor Latin has Hannow. —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Just thinking aloud (or whatever the online equivalent of "aloud" is). Is thinking aloud allowed around here?  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If Hebrew formed an adjective from חנה ħanna it would presumably be חנתי ħannati... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all, wise ones - Serenade 81.147.24.198 (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick Portuguese translation for a Wikipedia article

Could someone please tell me what these two webpages (1, 2) are saying about Rosane Collor, and also whether they look like reliable sources for her Wikipedia article? I am trying to verify the fact that her 11-year jail sentence in 2000 was overturned. (See also: Wikipedia:Help desk#Important information that hasn't been published in English.) Thanks, Brian the Editor (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If I have it right, they both state the sentence was annulled; the second indicates a lack of a closing argument for the defense in the original proceedings. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

December 18

Ram Khamhaeng or Ramkhamhaeng?

The first sentence of the article Ram Khamhaeng the Great reads: "Pho Khun Ram Khamhaeng (Thai: พ่อขุนรามคำแหงมหาราช; Pho Khun Ramkhamhaeng [...]". Is the name one word or two words? Both usages appear not only in the first sentence but throughout the article. It's confusing because this is done with no explanation whatsoever in the article. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of Thai, but it's not all that unusual for an article to include alternative transcriptions, or include both a semi-"popular" rendering and a stricter transliteration... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(Moving this down and out of "Archive" because there's still no answer to the question.) Can someone on here who knows Thai provide some clarification? Thanks. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Thai either, but I've observed that Thai writing has no word-breaks, so it's not surprising that two transcriptions disagree on whether to break a word. (The Ram element is probably Rāma.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

English Malayalam dictionary software

Where can i download the English Malayalam dictionary software as free --RAIJOHN (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If Malayalam is the same as Malay, You will find it here. --Omidinist (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Malayalam is spoken mostly in Kerala in India. The Malay language is spoken mostly in Malaysia.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And they are unrelated. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

--RAIJOHN (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

English Malayalam dictionary software used in Kerala ,India , not Malay language in Malaysia.

--RAIJOHN (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but there are some English-Malayalam and Malayalam-English translations on English Wiktionary. Also, I suppose, on Malayalam Wiktionary.—msh210℠ 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons of importance

Let's say there is someone who thinks that some X thing is important, and someone else who thinks that such X thing is not so important as the other does (for example, in how influential is the cause of an event in such event). Which is the word to describe this action by the second subject? Verbs like "downgrade" or "disparage" seems to carry the connotation of insulting or ridiculing the first perspective, or critizing it in a disdainful manner, which is not the meaning I'm seeking MBelgrano (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is possible without coming across as weasely, but if I had to write something like that, I might use a word like "deemphasize", or perhaps "discount". Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's a case of 2 people sharing their opinions in a civilised manner over a cup of tea, then neither is doing anything to the other's opinions. One might "disagree" with the other, or "dispute" the validity of their argument, and that will lead in to friendly debate and discussion, but at the end they still allow each other to think what they like. "Dispute" does not have to refer to anything belligerent, although it often does. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"De-emphasize", maybe...AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Downplay, minimize 67.162.90.113 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The example you give can sometimes be a case of ultimate vs. Proximate causation. That is, speaker 1 says "X is an important cause of Y". Speaker 2's response can often be paraphrased as "X is only somewhat important (as a proximate cause), but the ultimate cause of Y is Z." SemanticMantis (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

死ンドラー

What is 死ンドラー? --84.61.182.248 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Googling suggests it's a reference to the Minato Ward 2006 elevator accident. 死ンドラー is "Schindler" with the first character replaced by the homonymous character meaning "death". -- BenRG (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How often occurs the katakana ン after kanji? --84.61.182.248 (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't, not usually. As indicated above, there is some wordplay involved in the word you quote. The usual シ you would expect is replaced by the kanji for death which is pronounced the same, to make the whole word sound (well, look, really. It sounds exactly the same when pronounced) more ominous. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is this word game also possible with Mitsubishi or Toshiba? Why not with OTIS, Hitachi, or Fujitec? --84.61.182.248 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this homework or something? I'm trying to figure out what would lead you to ask this question if you didn't already know the answer... -- BenRG (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

December 19

The Tsars spoke French?

From Ruble:

"The form "rouble" probably derives from the transliteration into French used among the Tsarist aristocracy."

Why did the Tsars speak French instead of Russian? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

They spoke French in addition to Russian, not instead of. Most educated "Westerners" spoke at least some French back in the day. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

But why would they use French in practice for anything other than diplomacy? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote from War and Peace

Although Tolstoy wrote most of the book, including all the narration in Russian, significant portions of dialogue (including its opening paragraph) are written in French with characters often switching between the two languages. This reflected a reality in 19th century Russian aristocracy, where French, a foreign tongue, was widely spoken and considered a language of prestige and more refined than Russian.[14] This came about from the historical influence throughout Europe of the powerful court of the Sun King, Louis XIV of France, leading to members of the Russian aristocracy being less competent in speaking their mother tongue. In War and Peace, for example, Julie Karagina, Princess Marya's friend, has to take Russian lessons in order to master her native language.

It has been suggested[15] that it is a deliberate literary device employed by Tolstoy, to use French to portray artifice and insincerity as the language of the theater and deceit while Russian emerges as a language of sincerity, honesty and seriousness. In the novel, when Pierre proposes to Helene, he speaks to her in French — Je vous aime ('I love you'). When the marriage later emerges to be a sham, Pierre blames those French words.

The use of French diminishes as the book progresses and the wars with the French intensify, culminating in the capture and eventual burning of Moscow. The progressive elimination of French from the text is a means of demonstrating that Russia has freed itself from foreign cultural domination.[16] It is also, at the level of plot development, a way of showing that a once-admired and friendly nation, France, has turned into an enemy. By midway through the book, several of the Russian aristocracy, whose command of French is far better than their command of Russian, are anxious to find Russian tutors for themselves.

-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Italians have a useful word, esterofilia, that I've never known quite how to translate into English. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

One dictionary suggests xenophilia. —Tamfang (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think in English it would be just plain old code switching. Granted, that doesn't sound half as nice as "esterofilia" :) TomorrowTime (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no, that's not what esterofilia means. It's more like the line the Lord High Executioner sings about his list of people he might behead when the time comes, one of whom is

The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone

All centuries but this, and every country but his own

--Trovatore (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just Russia - the highest military decoration for valour in the Prussian Army (and later the Imperial German Army) was the Pour le Mérite; our article says that it was "founded in 1740 by King Frederick II of Prussia, named in French, the language of the Prussian royal court at the time." Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

French was the language of all European courts and nobility for a long time, even in Britain; exceptions were Hungary, where until the national revival, the court/noble language was Latin, but most also spoke French when dealing with other countries; another was the Ottoman Empire where the Ottoman language was official, though French was usually used for diplomatic audiences at the Sublime Porte; the working language of the palace, though, and many of the military ranks, was Serbo-Croat...not sure about Romania under the Mavrocordato....I think the court language there may have been Greek. Spain seems likely to have been an exception to the French rule, though French was used for diplomacy as with everyone else.Skookum1 (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please could someone check these changes to the Sanskrit

I have made some changes to the Sanskrit in Buddhahood, amending buddhatva given as बुद् to बुद्धत्व and samyaksambodhi given as सम्यक्संबुद्ध to सम्मासम्बोधी. I am pretty sure the originals were wrong but I have replaced them with my phonetic interpretation of the names in the Latin alphabet. Please could someone with a knowledge of Sanskrit check and correct as necessary. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I also added American English, British English, and Sanskrit pronunciations of Buddha in IPA. —Angr (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the word shtick

Hello everybody, I'm struggling to translate the following sentence into German because I dont't know what the word "shtick" means in this context: "On their albumbs, the band often revisits the vaudeville shtick of their grandparents' era."

I thought that shtick is either synonymous with "act", "routine" (of a comedian, for example) or it refers to a particular trait or talent that someone is famous for. But none of these two definitions seems to fit here. Thanks for your help. --84.148.63.238 (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems perfectly cromulent to me. I would say you're spot on with "act" or "routine". Dismas|^(talk) 10:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Stil ("style") might be the most appropriate word in this context. Deor (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems these Yiddish words can be used in almost all contexts..;) --84.148.63.238 (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Masche"? (of Yiddish origin again)! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it meant 'antics'. And since you are translating into German you can just leave it as shtick since it was originally a German word. Ariel. (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, they can't really leave it as shtick. Shtick comes etymologically from the German word Stück, but their meanings are now completely different. Masche may indeed be the closest translation. —Angr (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A German speaker would not understand the Yiddish word (as a Yiddish word, not a German word)? Ariel. (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion (as a non-German native German speaker) the average German speaker would only know it from its usage in American English, if at all. The set of Yiddish borrowings commonly used in German isn't congruent with the list of English words of Yiddish origin, and the German word "Stück" is never used in the sense of "shtick" either. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. In fact, I am a German speaker and I had to look up the word in an English dictionary because it only remotely looks and sound remotely like the German "Stück. --87.173.111.244 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It means "act" or "routine", but it carries a definite connotation of being frivolous and silly. A translation that left out that aspect would not carry quite the right message. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Louie496. I'd add that "shtick" can also have the connotation of being characteristic of a performer (getting hit in the face with a pie was part of Soupy Sales's shtick), and even the connotation of being tiresomely predictable ("ranting about tax cuts is just his usual shtick"). The line the OP quotes about a band could be an approving one (they're playfully reusing music from two generations back) or a dismissive one (they're just coasting along, trying to look cool and ironic with music from 60 years back), depending on the larger context. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

December 20

The English Malayalam dictionary software - Free down load

Where can i download the English Malayalam dictionary software as free. Please note this, Malayalam language belongs to Kerala, India.If possible, give direct site link. --RAIJOHN (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeat of a section just above: #English Malayalam dictionary software.—msh210℠ 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My Google search for english malayalam dictionary download reported "About 956,000 results". The first result was English malayalam dictionary Free Download [sic]. Also, you can ask at Talk:Malayalam and at Talk:Kerala. Also, you can ask someone in Category:User ml.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese video game cut scene

Hi. Can someone please explain this cut scene, which is recorded from an old Famicom Disk System game named Kaettekita Mario Bros. but is not related to the game itself? I mean, what is the large building in the middle of the screen? What do the large Japanese texts say? Who is the old man? What did the old man do? What is the scene's storyline? Is the storyline completely fictional, or is it based on some Japanese historical or mythological events? etc. Many thanks. 118.96.166.11 (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a building. It's a package of a famous brand of ochazuke - http://www.asianfoodgrocer.com/product/ochazuke-nori-rice-soup - so it's clearly either a blatant ad or a tongue-in-cheek reference. I don't know who the man is...I feel like he's an iconic ad-related figure or something. Eccoei (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the comments points to this TV commercial starring Saburō Kitajima. -- BenRG (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to be....

If someone asks me, what do you want to be, My answer would be: " I want to be technologically advanced person". Is this statement correct? Thanks--180.234.50.190 (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No you cannot "be person". You have to "be a person", so your answer should be " I want to be a technologically advanced person" --85.119.25.27 (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In most contexts your interlocutor can take it for granted that you want to be (indeed, already are) a person. I'd just say "I want to be technologically advanced". Pais (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Words for...

what is the word for words like "madam" (same backward or forward)? And also for phrases like "rats live on no evil star"?

I was also wondering if there is a word for a phrase like "failing to plan it planning to fail"?(Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC));

The answer to your first question is Palindrome. As for the second, I guess you mean specifically the interchange of position of the two verbs but I don't know a particular word for this. asyndeton talk 12:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Could the second example be a chiasmus? Pais (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That article does link antimetabole which seems to be what the OP is looking for. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 13:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, palindrome sounds familiar.

The antimetabole seems right too. Learn somethign new eveyday. Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyman's word games (1986) calls them "pseudodromes"[7]. Palindromes and anagrams (1973) calls then "word-unit palindromes" [8]. Marnanel (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Croatian vs. Polish

Could somebody with a linguistic insight compare and contrast Polish against Croatian? I already know Croatian (and English) and I'd like to acquire another Slavic language. Russian is out of question because of Cyrillic writing system, which leaves me with the biggest (by number of speakers) Latin alphabet based Slavic language: Polish.

I'm mostly interested in major differences and things that will give me hardest time moving from Croatian into Polish. I've tried to do it myself, but since I've had very little formal education in Croatian, I'd at a loss what all that means in practice.

I'd also like names of some Polish-language literary works (fiction written by Polish authors originally in Polish preferably) with English translation, I find that it helps me to read something in language I know and then comparing it to language I'm trying to master. Things you'd expect ever educated Polish person knowing, a Shakespeare equivalent in Polish, if you will (not in style or genre, but in popularity). Thanks!!!  --110.174.117.185 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)