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

March 30

liquidation

I'm curious about the history of liquidate as euphemism for kill (political scapegoats).

What's the core metaphor here? Converting useless 'assets' into something that can at least be used as fertilizer? Or were enemies of the People sometimes put into blenders?

I have the impression that it originated under Stalin. Is that anywhere near accurate? If so, what's the Russian word?

I may later remember other related questions. —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably a metaphor from financial liquidation (which meant converting something into "liquid" assets)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The OED says it is indeed from the Russian word likvidírovat. The first citation is from 1924 and refers to the elimination of the Workers' Opposition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's probably similar to the Polish usage where zlikwidować typically means "to get rid of". — Kpalion^(talk) 13:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

'Liquidate' was used prior to 1924, here's a 1911 example, http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/twwliqus/index.htm --Soman (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the OED dates the first citation in English to 1924. The Russian usage is certainly older than that. Interestingly, the Russian example you're giving isn't really an instance of the use in the sense "to kill" - it's a reference to a current among Russian Marxists around 1910 that was derogatively dubbed "the liquidationists" (ликвидаторы) for wanting to "liquidate" = disband the old illegal revolutionary underground cells of the Social Democratic party and replace them by legal organisations such as worker's unions or cooperatives that could eventually develop into a legal party.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha, thanks! —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In Russian, the verb "liquidate" is the usual one for "get rid of" or "destroy." Russians don't know that the verb does not have such a broad meaning in English (or French) and thus use it too often when speaking Western European languages. That's how it got tagged with the special meaning of "physically eliminating an opponent" because there was a lot such liquidation activity going on in tsarist and revolutionary Russia in the early years of the 20th century. --Xuxl (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hence the line from The Wizard of Oz: Dorothy - "We brought you the broomstick of the Wicked Witch. We melted her!" Wizard - "Oh, you liquidated her, eh? Very resourceful!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese"

I've just nominated this article for renaming because the present title sounds like Chinglish to me — however, the incomprehensibility of the present title means that I can't come up with a good replacement suggestion. Is there any standard academic way of referring to this phenomenon? I know nothing of Chinese, so I can't imagine how I could search for such a subject. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no expertise either, so this is just a stab in the dark, but how about Multiple Associations Between Traditional and Simplified Chinese Characters. Eiad77 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Or "Converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese". StuRat (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification —Tamfang (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(pile on)Mapping between Traditional and Simplified Chinese. No such user (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The "article" looks like a list with an introduction. It lokos to me like it really should be a list that branches out of Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters, and be named something like "List of simplified Chinese characters with multiple corresponding traditional Chinese characters". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you pronounce the surname Florescu?

And what country does it come from? --112.213.145.95 (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Romanian. —Tamfang (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly the Romanian language, the -escu ending being a dead giveaway, but that language is also widely spoken in Moldova. Florescu (surname) lists a notable Moldovan person with this Romanian surname. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly neither the disambiguation page for Florescu (surname) or any of the articles about people with this surname have a pronuciation guide, so maybe, just maybe, it is pronounced as it is written Flor-ess'-koo. I tentatively suggest that if it were not straightforward then the English WP would have pronunciation guidance. Regrettably I am not familiar with IPA. Richard Avery (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The IPA pronunciation is more like floresku, or in rough English phonetic transcription, "floe RAY skoo", in which the R is rolled. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, but I have also heard it pronounced "flor (rolled 'r') -es - koo." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, the Romanian /e/ and /o/ are mid vowels. Since Romanian doesn't contrast between close-mid and open-mid vowels in the way that German or French do, they are conventionally rendered by the IPA symbols for the close-mid vowels, e and o. Think of something in between the vowels in French fée and fait, or German Fehl and Fell. Or something in between English "rest" and "race", but without the /i/ glide that is found at the end of the English diphthong in the latter word. If you are just looking for a usable English pronunciation, I'd recommend something like [flɔːˈrɛsku] (flaw-RESS-koo) or [fləˈrɛsku] (flə-RESS-koo). Lesgles (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that flo-RESS-coo is way better than flo-RAY-scoo, at least from the perspective of a speaker of a language that doesn't contrast close-mid and open-mid (I don't know what the French would think). I think that it's much more important to avoid a final glide and prolonged pronunciation of the vowel (as in RAY) than to get the quality of the vowel exactly right. I'm puzzled by how most American speakers seem not to notice the length and the offglides (Y and W sounds) that characterize their BANE and BONE vowels, and consequently to consider them to be excellent renditions of standard European short /e/s and /o/s. Similarly, the length of the vowel in German Fehl makes it inappropriate for a normal short /e/, be it an [ɛ] or an [e]. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Lesgles (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

flo-RAY-scoo is definitely wrong. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly the following sentence means?

"The doctor knows that the fact that taking care of himself is necessary surprises Tom."

In particular I would like to know: What does the doctor know? What surprises Tom? 117.211.88.149 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

Tom is surprised by the fact that taking care of himself is necessary - the doctor knows that Tom is surprised. - X201 (talk)

I agree with X201's interpretation but would like to add that the insertion of a comma after "necessary" would greatly improve the intelligibility of the sentence. Roger (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can really put a comma there, though. It's not like you've got two clauses which can be separated with a comma. It's just a bad sentence and nothing can save it except for a recasting. --Viennese Waltz 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

May I propose "The doctor knows that Tom is surprised by the fact that taking care of himself is necessary." or "The doctor knows that Tom is surprised by the necessity of taking care of himself." Roger (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You can put a comma there, some people use that sort of comma and some don't. It's a stylistic issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Farsi help needed at the Science desk

An IP poster apparently from Iran has posted a question at the Science Refdesk using what looks like English from a machine translation - which is quite unintelligible. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Spreading mineral matters on earth. The OP is not responding to requests for clarification. We would appreciate it if someone fluent in Farsi could contact the OP to explain the problem with their original post. Thanks Roger (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I did the translation. Hope it helps. --Omidinist (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Roger (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

using of "the"

why we use "the" in this sentence?

today`s lecture is about the effects of background music on employee performance and retail sales.

why we don`t use "the" before "background"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhadis (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you say "the background music" you are refering to a specific instance of background music. It's the same as the difference between "I like apple pie" and "I like the apple pie". In the first case you are expressing a positive feeling towards apple pies in general, in the second you are refering to one particular pie. Roger (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"...the effects of the background music..." sounds fine to me. After all, they are referring to the background music that the employees and customers hear, not just any background music. Likewise, "effects of background music" or "effects of the background music" seem fine. I think there's no particular logic to it. -- BenRG (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that BenRG is mistaken. There is a difference between a definite article and a zero article in English that does have a "logic" to it. You may want to review the linked Wikipedia article. It is possible to imagine a case where the phrase "the effects of the background music on employee performance and retail sales" would make sense. This would be a case in which the speaker or writer was referring to a type or use of background music that has already been discussed. Then the speaker or writer would be referring to a specific instance of background music, and the definite article the would be called for. However, in this case, the sentence begins "Today's lecture is about the effects of background music ...". In this case, it would be incorrect to use the before background music, because this is an introductory statement in which we are just being introduced to the use of background music in general. The speaker has not yet discussed any specific instance of background music.

As for why the precedes effects, that is a little more difficult to answer. Actually, I don't think that it would necessarily be incorrect to omit the before effects in this case, especially if the speaker intends to discuss some but not all effects that background music might have. However, in this case, by putting the before effects, the speaker is indicating that he or she is going to discuss, individually, every effect of background music on employee performance and retail sales. In this case, the effects implicitly means '"each of the specific effects". Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Marco polo, how to do feel about "Today's lecture is about the effects, on employee performance and retail sales [at a department store], of background music"? Seems fine. How about "Today's lecture is about the effects, on employee performance and retail sales [at a department store], of the background music"? This also seems fine to me, even if no style of background music was mentioned before.

When I said "I think there's no particular logic to it", I meant "I think there's no rule demanding the omission of the definite article in this particular case". I wasn't talking about the English language in general. -- BenRG (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would add that English differs from some other European languages in its use of the definite article. In some European languages, the definite article is used for mass nouns, such as music. However, English does not use require the definite article for mass nouns. Instead, they typically get a zero article (that is, no article). If the questioner speaks a language in which the definite article is used for mass nouns, I can see why he or she would expect the before background music. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Music" may be a bad example, Signor Polo. "The music of the 20th century" - that's still a mass noun, no? -- Jack of Oz [your turn]

...but by modifying "music" with the requirement that it be from the 20th century, you are indicating a particular subset of music, thus qualifying for use of the definite article. You wouldn't use "the music" to refer to all music, just a particular set of music. Conversely, "Music of the 20th century" doesn't require the definite article to fix the meaning, and "water" can be generally "all H₂O," or you can fix a definite set of water, say, "the water of the Indian Ocean." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "The music of the 20th century took on a very different character from that of the 19th". While it is indeed about a particular sub-set of music, it's still a mass noun, is it not? Yet, the "the" is still required here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack, there are certainly instances where English puts a definite article in front of a mass noun, such as the examples you have given here. In all of these cases, you are referring to a specific instance of that mass noun. For example, you would say, "I like the music of the 19th century", but you would not say, "I like the music" if you mean "I like music in general." Similarly, if you say, "The baby likes milk", you mean that she likes milk in general. If you say, "The baby likes the milk", you clearly mean the milk that she has at the moment, or a particular type of milk. In French, "Le bébé aime le lait" means that the baby likes milk in general. Marco polo (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the difference between English and languages such as French is that, in English, a definite article is optional with a mass noun and only correct when one is referring to a specific instance of the mass noun. In French and languages like it, a definite article is mandatory before a mass noun. For example, in French, you cannot say *"J'étudie histoire". You must say "J'étudie l'histoire" ("I study history" in English). Marco polo (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure about the apparent categoricality of the original statement "English does not use the definite article for mass nouns". Thanks for clarificnation. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not mass nouns: les arbres vs trees, say, shows the same rule: Romance languages give the general case an article, English doesn't. —Tamfang (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamfang, I stand corrected. Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't visit this page often enough to add comments when most relevant or best timed. But I'd like to go back to BenRG's alternative formulations. It seems to me that the circumstances in which one would use "the" before "background music" are going to be relatively rare (or at least specific). For example, if some of the effects to be looked at in the lecture reflect the type of background music used - e.g. music that is rythmically dynamic energises staff while music that is all lush harmony and slowly shifting sounds makes them weary - it would be wrong (to my mind) to use a "the" before background music. Not using "the" in relation to "background music" therefore has a generalising effect. On the other hand, I think there would need to be a "the" if the lecture title were to refer specifically to one shop's use of music: "This lecture is about the effects of the background music played at Gap on employer performance ..."164.36.44.4 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please throw me the ball, in Spanish and Japanese.

Just wondering what the best translation for "please throw me the ball" would be in Spanish and Japanese. The online translators are not always perfect. Also, "can you throw me the ball please?".

Spelling them out is just fine, as it would appear in Spanish, and the English written equivalent in Japanese. Thanks! 198.168.27.221 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish: Por favor, lánzame la pelota should work for your first sentence; ¿Podría lanzarme la pelota, por favor? for the second one. Lexicografía (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

By English written equivalent in Japanese do you mean romaji or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to their writing script, for example, domo arigato or konichiwa, so I know how to pronounce it. Thanks! 66.23.238.99 (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese: "(Sumimasen), Sono bōru o kottchini nagete kudasai". The second one is "(Sumimasen), Sono bōru o kottchini nagete moraemasuka/moraemasenka?". Oda Mari (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that the word "bōru" is the English word "ball" taken directly into Japanese? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are. See gairaigo. Oda Mari (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha! And I have since found this nifty website[1] which has a list of transliterated baseball terms in Japanese. "Besuboro", that is. It's ironic that so many baseball terms have L's in them, which all come out R's, naturally. But here's one that doesn't: a walk-off homer is a "sayonara homuran". Perfect. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, BB, 'baseball' is usually called 'yakyuu' in Japanese (　野球　which means 'field ball') and not 'besuboru'. I did hear people say 'besuboru' once or twice, but I just assumed they were saying it because I was an English-speaker as I had never seen it in print. Googling 'ベースボール' does give me over 17 million results, though. Being British, though, there's probably a ton of reasons I never saw it in print. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ベースボール takes up three times as much space as 野球. That makes a difference to composers of newspaper headlines. —Tamfang (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Field ball"? That's interesting. What do they call Cricket? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but there are magazines. [2]. And World Baseball Classic is ワールド・ベースボール・クラシック. Cricket is クリケット. It is also a loan word. Tennis is テニス but it is also called teikyū/庭球, garden ball. A baseball bug in ja is Yakyū-kyō/野球狂. See #4 狂 means craze. Oda Mari (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Mari, how kind of you to translate BB's name! He should thank you! Incidentally, it's the same 'kyou' as in 狂牛病 (kyougyuubyou - 'Bovine spongiform encephalopathy') --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vice Minister?

In countries where they have ministers (of health, interior, etc.), what are some names of the deputy position? (i.e., what is the analogue for Vice President, replacing president by minister) I look for one less cumbersome than "vice minister" or worse, "deputy minister" (although I'm sure these are in use). THanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The pecking order in the UK is, AFAIK, Secretary of State, Minister of State, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

South Africa has Deputy Ministers. The next in line is the Director General. Ministers and Deputy Ministers are Members of Parliament while the Directors General are civil servants, not elected office bearers. Roger (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ministries and Departments are actually separate entities. A Ministry is the political office while the Department is the civil administration entity. In cases where a single Ministry controls two Departments there would be two Deputy Ministers, each responsible for one of the Departments. Each Department is headed by a Director General. Under each Director General there are a number of Deputy Directors General, each responsible for a particular staff function such as finance, personnel, etc. Roger (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia has an Assistant Treasurer, and has in the past had Assistant Ministers for other things. We also have Parliamentary Secretaries, who have ministerial-like duties, increased pay, and are entitled to "The Honourable" as ministers proper are, but are technically answerable to their minister. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The United States has deputy secretaries, i.e. United States Deputy Secretary of Defense, who is the second in command of the Department of Defense, and "under secretaries", who are in direct charge of major subdivisions of cabinet departments, i.e. Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and "assisstant secretaries", who are staff advisors without being in direct charge of subdivisions of the department (though they do have their own staffs), such as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Many of these offices have their own deputies and assistants, so you can get really convoluted job titles like "Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior" and "Assistant Under Secretary of Education" and stuff like that, in each case the relationship to their direct supervisor is preserved; so that "Deputy" means second-in-command and "Under" means "head of a division within the department" and "Assisstant" means "advisor and assistant without being a division head". --Jayron32 04:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What a lot of secretaries. Can they all type? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In Poland, a deputy minister is called wiceminister. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are Deputy Ministers in the Welsh Assembly[3] where they take responsibilty for one area of a Cabinet Minister's portfolio, and in Guernsey[4]. See also Deputy Minister (Canada). Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ireland has Ministers of State, formerly called Parliamentary Secretaries. EamonnPKeane (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada has had three forms of vice minister: Deputy Minister, Minister of State, and Secretary of State. The positions of Minister of State and Secretary of State are political and have always been held by Members of Parliament; the difference is that Ministers of State are also members of the Cabinet while Secretaries of State are not. (There are no current Secretaries of State, but the position is not defunct - Harper simply didn't appoint any in this Parliament.) The Deputy Minister, on the other hand, is a career civil servant and is not a political appointee - I believe it's illegal for him or her to be one. Some Deputy Ministers have survived three or more changes of government. --NellieBly (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Each ministry in Hungary have a few államtitkár, which are the second highest ranked position after the minister, and often (but not always) come and go with the government. They can lead sections of the ministry. For example, here's a list of the description of the seven sections of the Ministry of Interior, with the names of such a vice minister listed under each. Some of them even used to be called szakállamtitkár, but they abandonned that name because it sounds too funny (the word szakáll is in it, so it's a villanyírógép sort of word). Afaik, these aren't in deputy position as in replacing the minister if he becomes unavailable: a new minister is quickly appointed instead, though it might actually be one of these. – b_jonas 21:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I word brother and sister in law

Is it: My brother and sister in law Jack and Jane. or My brother in law and sister in law Jack and Jane. Or something else? My brother in law and his wife, Jack and Jane? It seems awkward no matter how I word it. Maybe: My brother in law Jack and Jane? (Sort of like how a wife is addressed as Mrs. Husbands-name in formal letters.) PS. This is for mentioning them to someone else, not for addressing them. Ariel. (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you say "brother in law and sister in law" then they needn't necessarily be married. If they are, "My brother-in-law Jack and his wife Jane" seems OK to me. This is assuming Jack is closest to you (i.e. your sister's husband or your wife's brother). If Jane is closest then I would say "My sister-in-law Jane and her husband Jack". 86.177.108.189 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If the articles on brother-in-law and sister-in-law are accurate, they can be a sibling of one's spouse, or the spouse of a sibling of one's spouse. So there's some inherent ambiguity in those terms to begin with. If I were doing it, I would say "my siblings-in-law", and if someone wants details, you give them the full spiel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I interpret the phrase "my siblings-in-law" to mean my wife's brother and sister rather than her brother and his wife. Actually "my wife's siblings" would be clearer. Roger (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to interpret the scenario(s) posed by the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a brother in law, and his wife. And based on Roger's confusion, I need a better way to word it. Is the wife of a bother in law called a sister in law? Ariel. (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the articles I cited, the answer is "yes". Brother/Sister-in-law is an ambiguous term, because it can refer to a sibling of one's spouse; or the spouse of one's sibling; but it can also refer to the spouse of a sibling of your own spouse, or a sibling of the spouse of your own sibling. Under that broader usage, you become in-lawed to every marital connection. I tend to refer to those cases as "in-laws by marriage", but I don't think that's standard usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Some languages have specific kinship terminology to refer to one's husband's brother's wife and/or one's wife's sister's husband. In a few languages, the term for "husband's brother's wife" is also the term that wives in a polygynous marriage use to refer to each other... AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

March 31

Taps

Why is Taps so called?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly from the Old Dutch 'taptoe' meaning 'turn off the taps', which also is the origin of the word 'tattoo' as in military tattoo. Mikenorton (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to find a reference and add it to the article tomorrow, unless anyone else has time to do it before then.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This one isn't simply copied from our article Military tattoo. Roger (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW it's not from Old Dutch which dates from the Middle Ages. It is in fact Modern Dutch which succeeded Middle Dutch by the mid-16th century. The term came into English during the 17th century which makes it early Modern Dutch. Roger (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sentence

A question about sentence. From Oxford A-Z of Grammar & Punctuation by John Seely, sentence is "a unit of language consisting of one or more finite clauses." (p.141) The wikipedia definition is "a sentence is an expression in natural language, and often defined to indicate a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that generally bear minimal syntactic relation to the words that precede or follow it." Now lets look at the following conversations:

conversation 1:

John: Hey, do you know we have won the war?

Rebekah: Hurray!

John: So let's celebrate the victory tonight.

conversation 2:

John: What are you doing?

Dave: Reading.

In the first conversation, the response by Rebekah consists of a single word "hurray". Can it be called a sentence? It does not have finite clause, and it bears syntactic relation to the words that precede it. But this single word can stand alone. Similarly in the second conversation, is the response by Dave constitute a sentence? --Novagalaxy (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for bothering, just noticed the article Sentence word. So a second question, what should be the perfect definition of sentence? --Novagalaxy (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question

We know a simple sentence contains a subject and a verb. But if I say

"What a joke!"

The above example does not have verb, and it consists of multiple words. It is neither a simple sentence, nor a sentence word. So how to categorize the above example? --Novagalaxy (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See Nominal sentence (not a great article, but may help you start). — Kpalion^(talk) 21:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

These are sentences that leave out words that are expected to be "understood" by their audience. The "proper" wordings could be, "I am reading", and "What a joke that is!" The "Hurray!" is OK by itself, being an interjection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is a concept from written language. It doesn't apply well to all but the most formal spoken language, where clause is a better base unit. — kwami (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ᴥ Latin Letter Ain

I'm just wondering if there's anyone out there who knows what this character is for. For the most part, all I've been able to find on the Internet are its Unicode value (which I already knew), its name ("Latin Letter Ain"), and that it's apparently in the "Phonetic Extensions" block of Unicode. I've found it on the page for Stokoe notation, where it was supposed to represent a cursive e. Is this its only use? Where does the name Ain come from? Why does it have such an un-Latin shape, despite apparently being in the Latin alphabet? Is it used in the transcription of some foreign language? Or in some phonetic alphabet I'm unaware of? Lunaibis 18:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an ad hoc usage in the Stokoe article, as Stokoe notation is not supported by Unicode. — kwami (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ayin ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lunaibis -- I believe it was used in books about (but not in) Arabic, especially some published in Britain ca. the middle of the 20th century. The 1956 book An Introduction to Egyptian Colloquial Arabic by T.F. Mitchell (ISBN 0-19-815148-9) uses a form of it which looks more like a reversed [ʒ] than an Arabic ع as such... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So, it was supposed to represent [ʕ] for people learning to speak Arabic, but not write it? Sort of like a precursor to the modifier letter left half ring? Lunaibis 00:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're learning to speak and understand one particular variety of colloquial vernacular dialect Arabic, with no real interest in literary or "classical" Arabic as such, then Arabic script is really almost worse than useless (since in conventional accepted use it writes literary/classical Arabic only, and in many cases has great difficulty in clearly expressing non-classical pronunciations)... The Mitchell book uses a slightly odd transcription system, in which the symbol ʕ actually writes a glottal stop (IPA [ʔ]) and little hooks under letters (indicating retroflex in conventional linguistic use) are used to write "emphatic" consonants... AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. It's been really bugging me for a while now. I'm glad that this seemingly-random character now makes sense. Lunaibis 19:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the Arabic 'ayn, as it appears in the middle of a word. -- 20:28, 31 March 2011 User:EamonnPKeane

I think the Phonetic Symbol Guide by Pullum might have it. I'll have a look later on. --Kjoonlee 00:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, no info in the Phonetic Symbol Guide. I guess you've already got your answer, though. --Kjoonlee 11:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

April 1

In the following sentence "himself" referes to whom? Why?

"The doctor knows that the fact that taking care of himself is necessary surprises Tom." Can "himself" refer to either "the doctor" or "Tom"? 117.211.88.149 (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

In the most natural reading of this sentence (which is already a very unnatural sentence) it refers to Tom. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I would read it that "himself" is intended to refer to "Tom", but the sentence is badly constructed and allows a glimmer of ambiguity. It should be re-cast along the lines of "It is a surprise to Tom that taking care of himself is necessary, and the doctor knows this fact" or (just possibly) "The doctor knows the fact that taking care of himself is necessary, and this is a surprise to Tom" (but the original would start with "The fact that" if that were the intended meaning). The confusion arises because it it not made clear what "fact" is referring to. Dbfirs 07:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag that the "natural" reading of this sentence is that "himself" refers to Tom. But the questioner asks "why?". For me, the answer lies in a subconscious unpacking of the sentence that one performs when coming across it. So: the doctor knows something. But, what? Well, he knows that Tom is surprised by something. And what, in turn, is Tom surprised by? Well, it's the fact that he has to take care of himself. The himself only enters the equation once we learn about the thing that surprises Tom. So, naturally enough, the "himself" applies to Tom. (Not my most transparent explanation.)

But the more I think about it, the more interesting this really is. For example, if one changed the sentence to read "The doctor knows that the fact that taking care of himself is overlooked surprises Tom", I believe "himself" would refer to the doctor.

To be honest, I have now read the original so many times that it might as well be written in Greek. So I'm probably not a reliable witness.164.36.44.4 (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is ambiguous (and unpunctuated). The reader only assumes it means Tom because the other party is a doctor. If you replace "The doctor" with "Stanley", it proves the case: "Stanley knows that the fact that taking care of himself is necessary surprises Tom." Could be that Tom needs to look after Stanley and is surprised by that. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Basically agreeing with Dweller: the biggest reason that himself refers to Tom and not to the doctor is contextual. Doctors don't typically tell you what they need to do for their health, they tell you what you need to do for your health, and most people, I think, would bring that expectation to their reading of the sentence. If himself was intended to refer to the doctor, emphasis would be placed on that fact, because it would be counter to expectations: "The doctor knows that the fact that even he needs to take better care of himself is a surprise to Tom, who assumes that all doctors must be in perfect health." --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that my suggested sentence also did away with "taking care of himself is necessary," to the betterment (I think) of the sentence. "the fact that taking care of oneself is necessary" seems to me to be a more likely construction. The sentence would still rely on context to imply who "oneself" referred to in the situation. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of "Black-Eyed Susan"

In John Fowles' The Magus, Chapter 76, first paragraph, there is a sentence that says, "Almost every night I contrived to pass through Russell Square, rather in the way, I suppose, that the sailors' wives and black-eyed Susans would, more out of boredom..." It seems to me that the black-eyed Susans are not a reference to the flower but to something else. Does anybody know what this is. Is it a euphemism for a prostitute?˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.218.125 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be a reference to John Gay's early 18th-century poem "Black-Eyed Susan" (or "All in the Downs"). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, .125, not that tilde: you used the diacritic tilde (option n in MacOS) but what we want is the ASCII tilde, which on my keyboard is at the left of the digits. —Tamfang (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in Black-Eyed Susan, the 1829 play about a sailor who comes home and finds his wife in a pickle. WHAAOE. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Schränker

Is this the name or the title of the character in the film M? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Since he's referred to as "der Schränker" (here [under "Darsteller"], for instance), I think it's safe to say that it's a nickname meaning "Safecracker". Deor (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

French name for Warsaw

Why is it Varsovie? Other than having a consecutive "ars", it doesn't sound anything like Warsaw. --70.244.234.128 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

German for Warsaw is Warschawa, replace the Germanic pronunciation of W as the French V, and you can see how it developed thusly. Corvus cornix_talk 22:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

According to our article on the city, the German name for Warsaw is "Warschau," although because of the sensitivity of the matter Germans will sometimes use a native name (endonym) for Slavic cities rather than the traditional German name. The Polish word for the city is "Warszawa." It appears the French borrowed their word directly from the Poles, while perhaps the English adapted the German version. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. Maybe I was thinking Russian instead of German. Oh, well. Sorry. Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice that the English seems to be a spelling pronuncation: most languages use /v/ not /w/ in pronouncing the name. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the French actually comes from the Latin Varsovia. Warsaw#Etymology and names says that an old spelling was Warszowa, so based on that, here is my guess for the full etymology: Old Polish Warszowa /varʃova/ > Latin Varsovia /varsovia/ (non-Latin ʃ replaced by s, Latin ending added) > French Varsovie /varsovi/. Lesgles (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A better question is, why is it Warsaw in English? Sounds like a name of some fantasy weapon, but not anything like Warszawa. The closest English phonetic transcription of the Polish name would be Varshava (with a rolled R). — Kpalion^(talk) 11:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2

Editor in chief

Why is the position called "Editor in chief" instead of "Chief editor"? Where did this use of 'in' come from? And finally, this is the only phrase that I can think of that uses 'in' in this way. Are there others? Dismas|^(talk) 05:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Commander-in-chief, and probably several other "in-chiefs" that I can't think of right now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On the more transparent side, we also have e.g. "artist in residence" (rather than "resident artist"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Related: Composer-in-residence. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That one actually makes sense, though, since you can be inside a residence. You can't be inside a chief, unless he happens to be a cannibal. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The "in" is not to be taken literally, otherwise what would "mother-in-law" mean?  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Mother in (the eyes of the) law", I presume, rather than an actual mother. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. In any case, "in-law" is explained here:[5] Unfortunately, no "in-chief". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. Haven't thought about it before, but it looks like a French construction. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It does at that. "Chief" is of French derivation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As per Google translate, in French "chef" is the word used for "head" (i.e. "chief"). "In chief" would suggest "in charge" or "in the lead". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And in French, "editor in chief" is rédacteur en chef; in Spanish it's editor en jefe; and in Latin it's in capite editor. So unless they borrowed the term from English, it does seem to be a Latin-based construct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A parallel usage is the case in chief, which I've seen in litigation over a matter that came up as a spinoff of other litigation. —Tamfang (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And in case anyone is interested, "chief editor" Google-translates into Latin as princeps editor; in Spanish as redactor jefe; and in French as rédacteur en chef again. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Litigation tangent. Direct examination of a witness -- as opposed to Cross-examination -- is known as "Examination-in-Chief" where I am. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also "brothers-in-arms" (always plural in my experience) and "officer-in-charge". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"In arms" seems like a somewhat archaic way of saying "armed", as in "men in arms were seen leaving the building". StuRat (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Officer-in-charge" doesn't really fit the pattern of "editor-in-chief" though since a person can be "in charge" of something. In that case, they would be an officer who is in charge of either other officers or an investigation, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 08:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

True. What about "commercial-in-confidence"? Or "government-in-exile"? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone can definitely be "in exile", and something can also be done "in confidence" (secretly), but how do you do something "in chief" ? StuRat (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the OED, the phrase was first used in English in the context of feudal law: a tenant who held land "in chief" (a translation of the medieval Latin "in capite" or the Old French "en chief") held it directly from the king and owed him personal service. The first quotation is from 1297: R. Gloucester's Chron. (Rolls) 9691 "No man, that of the kinge hulde ouȝt In chef, other in eni seruise". The first quotation in the modern sense is from 1612: Bacon Ess. (new ed.) 44 "Thinke it more honor, to direct in chiefe, then to be busie in al". Lesgles (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Relationship

What's the correct English term to ask for the way two persons are related (cousins, uncle/nephew...)? --KnightMove (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You just ask exactly what you did... "How are you two related to each other?" works perfectly fine in any situation I could imagine... --Jayron32 19:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

An alternative way is "How do you two know each other?" (if asked to both at once) or "How do you know _____?" (if asked of one). Typically, the response will indicate the type of relationship, and the phrasing is applicable for even unrelated people (school chums, coworkers, boyfriend/girlfriends, etc.). -- 174.21.244.142 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the language barrier hinders me to ask the question properly... I'm looking for the family relationship, specifically. For example, Hitler's parents were half-uncle and half-niece. What could I have asked them to get the answer "We are half-uncle and half-niece." and not "We are husband and wife." or "We met 15 years ago at a party." ? --KnightMove (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you were aware to begin with of that sort of unusual connection, or the rumour/possibility thereof, you'd have no reason to ever ask them, and so if you did, it would be for confirmation of something you already knew was at least a possibility. "I believe you're not just husband and wife, but also half-uncle and half-niece" would do nicely. That's an invitation to confirm or deny, as the case may be. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

However, in the UK at least, that might be regarded as being rather too inquisitive to be polite. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be looking for the term "blood relative". Asking "Are you blood relatives?" or "Are you related to each other by blood?" Lesgles (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "blood relation" is the right term. However, asking a married couple that you don't know well about a blood relation would be considered impolite in most English-speaking countries, since some people consider marriage between blood relatives more or less improper, even when it is legal. It is almost like asking "Do you have a criminal record?". Marco polo (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "How do you know each other?" is an excellent way to ask such a question. It leaves them with the opportunity to say as much, or as little, as they choose to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

French tenses

I'm trying to practice my french and improve Operation Unicorn by tightening up the translation from [6]. But I'm not sure how to translate what seems to be conditional past tense here: "Selon les autorités françaises, soutenues par une résolution des Nations unies, cette interposition aurait permis d'éviter une guerre civile et de nombreux massacres." Any tips? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The normal translation would be "would have permitted a civil war to be avoided [would have avoided a civil war]". But the context shows this to be another kind of French conditional: the kind used to relate uncertainty about reported events. See [7], under "possibility or uncertainty". The way you translated it on the page is correct, but if you wanted to add some more uncertainty, you could rephrase it, e.g. "The French authorities, supported by a UN resolution, alleged that this intervention avoided a civil war and widespread massacres." Lesgles (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

April 3

Proche-Orient vs. Moyen-Orient

Why does Le Monde refer to the Middle East as le Proche-Orient? Shouldn't it be le Moyen-Orient? --70.244.234.128 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough in English, the terms Middle East and Near East cover roughly the same area. Le Monde is using the French version of Near East, but for most purposes, they are the same area. --Jayron32 03:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it is nearer for French-speakers than for English-speakers? Actually, 'Middle East' is a rather vague term - middle of what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Middle of three continents; the U.S. military calls the area part of its Central Command, using a different term meaning "middle". --Jayron32 03:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

70.244.234.128 -- In English, the use of the term "Near East" has been somewhat declining over the long term (since after WW2), while French usage of the analogous terms may of course be completely different... AnonMoos (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(Not a reply to AnonMoos) I always believed the area described by the term "Middle East" had migrated from Central Area Asia to where it is now, rather than the "Middle of three continents" explanation, above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Corrected Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the "Middle of three continents" before. I thought that the terms originated in 19th century Europe. Near East was the Levant, Middle East was Iran, Afghanistan and possibly also India, Far East was China, Japan and South East Asia. It was after the Second World War that Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan started being called Middle East, and I think the change was first in American foreign policy documents. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

HMG made the change at around the same time, according to Parliamentary statements in 1951 and 1952. The Middle East Command in WW2 may have influenced the English language. Matt's talk 10:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This was a change from the previous policy: "There appears to be no agreed definition of these vague geographical terms" in May 1947. I think that we can pretty clearly date the change: people knew the terms, but were confused about their contemporary usage. Matt's talk 10:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The older British English usage seems to have been that the Near East covered the current and former territories of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East was between the Ottomans and India, and the Far East was beyond India. Looking in 19th century Hansard and contemporary texts, the Balkans, Armenia, Crete, and Macedonia were the Near East. The Middle East was not mentioned in Hansard until 1905 (Afghanistan), and another early reference was to "the Persian Gulf...littoral". In 1911, the Middle East was "Persia the Persian Gulf and Turkey in Asia.". The number of references shot up from 3 March 1919 when Sir Winston Churchill used it in a debate. Matt's talk 10:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It can be noted that the area is called Middle East (or more correctly, 'the most middleast East', ash-sharq al-awsat) in Arabic. The area is generally called West Asia in South Asia. --Soman (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The etymology given by the French WP can help. You can read also how Le Monde makes the difference between the two. — AldoSyrt (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, the conclusion would seem to be that as America emerged as a superpower, the terminology that made sense from an American perspective simply displaced the older one that made sense from a European perspective (after all, the Middle East is in no way "near" from an American point of view). The Germans seem to continue to distinguish Naher Osten and Mittlerer Osten along the old lines, although in recent years their journalists, too, have been parroting the terms now dominant in the Anglosphere ([8]). The Russians normally use the "Near East" to this day ([9]). Interestingly, English-language academia still speaks of the "Ancient Near East" in a historical context, not of the "Ancient Middle East".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it "a" or "an" before "heuristic" (and similar words)?

An editor has just altered Occam's razor to change "a heuristic..." to "an heuristic...". I guess it depends on how one pronounces heuristic, or does it? "a heuristic..." seems right to me. Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly an WP:ENGVAR situation; so a) he shouldn't have changed it but b) now that its done, it shouldn't be changed back. In other words, its highly dependent on which variety of English you speak, and its standard in some varieties, so whatever... --Jayron32 04:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Even within one variety of English, there are two different pronunciations, one with the "h" sounded (thus taking "a") and one with the "h" silent (thus taking "an"). Take your choice. Dbfirs 08:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Premier vs. premiere

The first screening of a film is called its premiere. When one performs a musical work publicly for the first time, one is said to premiere it. Intransitively, a film or play or a musical or a symphony is said to premiere on a certain date in a certain place. These terms all borrow a feminine French adjective and turn it into a noun or a verb.

But a first performance itself can also be called the premier performance. That's the masculine version of the same French adjective.

Why the inconsistency?

• (PS. I know we love inconsistencies in English, but there's still usually a reason why in each case. It's not just inconsistency for its own sake.)
• (PPS. I've deliberately not used French diacritics on my examples, as I consider they're fully absorbed into English now and are no longer foreign words.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• • This EO entry[10] tacitly indicates that the use of "premier" for a first performance is incorrect. And for what it's worth, "performance" is feminine in French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Premier actually has an older history in English, both in the meaning "first in importance" (1500) and "first in time" (1652). Later came première/première: "first in time" (1768), "first in importance" (1844). The noun première meaning "first performance" arrived in 1877, as a borrowing of the French première (représentation). About the spelling of the adjective premiere, the OED says "The reason for the borrowing of the feminine form (alongside earlier premier adj.) is unclear; in later use apparently frequently after première n.2 or première n.1" (première n.1 is short for première danseuse and is listed as "rare".). Lesgles (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you explain première/première, pls? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to put premiere/première, in deference to your anti-diacritic views, but I guess my own French inclinations got the better of me. Lesgles (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What is a revival?

When a play or musical is successful in its initial production, other theatre companies will produce that show. A very successful show may be produced hundreds or even thousands of times.

On occasion a new production is billed as "a revival".

I wonder what the difference is between "another production" and "a revival". Is the term revival just a marketing ploy or is there something more?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think "a revival" refers to a re-run of an original production in the original theatre. So a Jonthan Miller opera production first put on at the English National Opera might be revived five years later in the same theatre (the London Coliseum). If the same production went around the country, I don't think it could count as a revival. Note that, IMHO, a revival can be directed by a new director - the "revival director" - who gets to make a few changes but nothing as dramatic as to make a new production.86.173.37.163 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If it hasn't been performed anywhere at all for, say, 50 or more years, then any new production, anywhere, could validly be termed a revival. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Gunihatawagotonohotondoha

I was recently using the website "Translation Party", which translates phrases back and forth between English and Japanese to produce humorous results. When I entered the phrase "It's a weird game and you can tell just by the cartridge. It's one of those weird baby blue cartridges so right away you can tell that it's a big piece of fucking shit." (a quote from the Angry Video Game Nerd) into the translator, the result it produced contained the word "Gunihatawagotonohotondoha". I have thus far been unable to find any information about this word. Does anyone know what it means and/or how it could have gotten into the translation?--99.251.211.17 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a romanized Japanese of "ぐにはたわごとのほとんどは" above. (す)ぐには is the translation of "very soon" above and たわごとのほとんどは is "most of the shit". Oda Mari (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a learners' monolingual french dictionary

Hi I'm looking for a monolingual french dictionary suitable for an intermediate learner, available online and preferably not too expensive. I've come across Le Robert Micro de Poche from the bookdepository, at a reasonable price, but can anyone who uses anything in the Petit Robert series please tell me if they are any good, or if they have an alternative recommendation. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need to spend any money, unless you want a print version. The two best-known monolingual French dictionary publishers are Robert and Larousse. I own Le Robert Micro; it is good for most purposes and quite handy. I don't think there is a free Robert dictionary online, but Larousse has one with 135,000 definitions. For more in-depth definitions and meanings, you can turn to Le Trésor de la Langue Française (also at [11]). Lesgles (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See Dictionnaire visuel. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Poetry

What language, from a purely phonetic standpoint, is easiest to write poetry in? I would like the ease at which rhymes can be made to be considered before things such as lexical breadth, syllables and meter, etc (but if possible these should also be considered). Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Rhymes aren't poetry, even just phonetically. And you'd have to define what a "rhyme" is cross-linguistically. I wouldn't even know where to start. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want a language with an extremely small inventory of phonemes, and which only allows the simplest syllable types -- open syllables without consonant clusters -- in its phonotactics, then Hawaiian is a well-known language of this type (though not absolutely the simplest in the world)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For phonemic parsimony, see Rotokas. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Sanskrit was designed to be poetic so that it was easier to memorize the Vedas and Sutras (before written language). You might be interested to read our article on patha.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a strong culture of oral memorization, and works on the most technical and "un-poetic" of subjects were cast into poetic meter to assist in recitation and memorization, but rhyme was not too important... AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Sanskrit was "designed" at all? Its name is literally 'perfected', but I think that only means that it's a prestige dialect with all its quirks faithfully preserved. —Tamfang (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Some linguists have considered the system of Sandhi to be "artificial" or "stylized" to some degree in the particular overall form in which it applies to phrases in literary Sanskrit (though of course it wasn't invented or designed in the way in which Esperanto was)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 4

Lyrics of Lady Gaga's Born This Way

Lady Gaga's song Born This Way has the lines

She rolled my hair and put my lipstick on

In the glass of her boudoir

"She" here refers to "my mama" earlier in the song. What I can't make sense of is the part "put my lipstick on in the glass of her boudoir." Is "glass" here a part of a boudoir? If so, what is it? If not, how should the lyrics be understood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.98.217 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd think this is 'glass' as in 'looking glass' - i.e. a mirror. A 'boudoir' is a bedroom or dressing room. This makes sense to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be a reference to a mirror, or it could be a reference to the mirror-lined boudoir. Because the mother shouldn't need a mirror to put lipstick on her daughter, I'd lean toward the latter interpretation. Marco polo (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the rest of the lyrics, but it sounds like a mother helping her daughter to adorn herself while they are both in the mother's boudoir seated in front of a mirror. It seems odd if the mother is rolling her daughter's hair but putting the daughter's lipstick on herself, so I'd disagree with Marco polo's interpretation. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Make-up artists commonly make people up in front of mirrors (just as hairdressers do hair in front of mirrors), so I don't think it would be implausible for a mother to do the same (especially if she keeps her makeup on a dressing table with a mirror, as many women do). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sign (linguistics)

What are examples of linguistic signs that are not alphabetic letters, words or other grammatical units? --Goqer (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from sounds (phonemes) and gestures (as in sign language)? --Kjoonlee 04:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Even more broadly, there are cues from body language which could easily fit that as well. The OP may be interested in reading up on, and studying Semiotics, which is the study of linguistic signs. --Jayron32 04:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Another one is Blissymbols. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "East eats West"?

Is it a metaphorical use? What is its connotation? 117.211.88.149 (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

What's the context? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I came across a book titled: "East Eats West: Writing in Two Hemispheres", when I googled for "East eats West", I found lot of hits, such as: "Where East Eats West: The Street-Smarts Guide to Business in China", "East Eats West (Video 2004) - IMDb", ... 117.211.88.149 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

From the latter book's website[12], it seems designed to stop you getting (metaphorically) eaten alive by Chinese people: it describes the many risks of doing business in China, from corruption to differences in etiquette. Various metaphors like "dog eat dog"[13] or "eat someone alive" use "eat" in the sense of defeat, kill, or conquer in a ruthless environment; Websters has "eat (someone or something) alive 2 : to badly defeat or harm someone or something * Their competitors are going to eat them alive if they don't cut their prices. * If this story gets out, the press will eat him alive."[14]

However there are likely to be many other contexts, such as literal references to the consumption of western food in Japan[15] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The term itself is a play on words for the better known phrase East Meets West, refering in general to a "clash of cultures" that occurs when people from different backgrounds attempt to get along. --Jayron32 12:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Stress-dependent meanings

In English there are certain words, like subJECT/SUBject, inCLINE/INcline, etc., that are spelled the same, and pronounced essentially the same, but whose meanings change depending on where the stress is placed. In all the examples I can think of, the words are closely related. Are there any examples in which the words are unrelated? 86.184.104.111 (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Have fun, List of English homographs - X201 (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Invalid with stress on first syllable means someone confined to bed by disability. With stress on second syllable, it's an adjective meaning "having no legal effect". Mathew5000 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

However, I think they had the same origin, in that the disabled were thought of as "not valid people". (Given the history, I could see why they might object to that term.) Those two meanings coalesced nicely in Gattaca, where peole who weren't genetical engineered were considered to be "invalid" in both senses of the word. StuRat (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two words which have different meanings, flare and flair. The term "flare" means to burn/sudden outburt and flair is related to skill. The words they sound familiar but are different and are used in different way. aniketnik 07:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniketnik (talk • contribs)

Big bird, little bird

Translating Jefferey Deaver's Edge, I found the sentences as follow:

A picture of a trim, crew-cut man in khaki slacks and a short-sleeved shirt faded in.(...) "The Colonel. Our father... and, yeah, people called him 'the Colonel,' capital C. Lieutenant colonel, a little bird, not a big bird."

What does the speaker mean by 'a little bird, not a big bird'? --Analphil (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In terms of military rank, a lieutenant colonel (little bird) is junior to a "full" colonel (big bird). What Deaver means is that even though the character was only a "half" colonel, people treated him as if he held the full rank. --Xuxl (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The "bird" in reference to a colonel alludes to the rank's insigne, which is an eagle (hence the not entirely flattering term "chicken colonel" for a full colonel). A lieutenant colonel's insigne is not even a little bird; it's just a silver star leaf [thanks, Alansplodge]. Deor (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This was an edit conflict but just to agree with Deor, here's my version:- A Colonel in the United States Army wears a silver eagle on each epaulette as an insignia of his rank. A colonel is known as a "full bird colonel" as opposed to a Lieutenant colonel who is sometimes known as a "light" or "half bird colonel" even though he only wears a sort of stylised leaf, supposedly an oak. "Big bird" and "little bird" are variations of the same theme. Alansplodge (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Napiery

What is it?--78.150.224.119 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

'Napiery' can refer to tablecloths, linens, etc. See the wiktionary entry for napier here: [16], and our article Napier_(surname). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And see our page on napery, of which napiery seems to be an alternative spelling. --Antiquary (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears in this restaurant review. Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Napiery" appears to be a misspelling - I've found plenty of ghits, but no dictionary references; the OED doesn't recognise it. However, I have created a redirect from napiery. Gwinva (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And see, I was thinking "What's a napiery" and when I said it aloud, I thought "maybe he means an apiary instead", since it is pronounced roughly the same. Just on the off chance that is what he meant, an apiary is a bee farm. --Jayron32 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Every cloud has a silver lining. One of the unheralded side benefits of increasing hearing loss is access to a whole new world of previously unrecorded mondegreens. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The n-migration is actually a common linguistic phenomenon in English historically. For example "An apron" was originally "a napron" and "an orange" was "a naranja". Rebracketing is the term, and it happens quite frequently. So I wouldn't be shocked if that is what the OP meant. --Jayron32 03:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Spanish help

Hi! I'm trying to add Spanish descriptions to commons:Diagrams of events at Columbine High School

So is "Harris enters the school" "Harris entra a la escuela?" - Or is there another tense that I'm missing out on?

I may have some additional questions before I complete the page... WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A number of continental European languages actually use the historical present more than English does (though I don't know about Spanish). AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, but in this case Whisper is already using the present in English, so it shouldn't be a problem. It looks fine to me, but note that in Spain the preposition en is preferred with this verb—"Harris entra en la escuela"—whereas what you wrote is more characteristic of Latin American Spanish.[17] Lesgles (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Since many immigrants to the U.S. mainland come from Latin America, and AFAIK the Latin American immigrants are why Spanish is becoming more spoken in the US. It may be preferable to use Latin American Spanish with mainland U.S. subjects. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I found a couple mistakes in the other descriptions, though: "matan Scott" should be "matan a Scott" (Spanish uses "a" before animate direct noun objects), and similarly with "dañan". "Disparar" is only used when the object is a bullet or an arrow; to say "to shoot (someone)", use "pegar un tiro a", e.g. "X pega un tiro a Y". Lesgles (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for finding the errors :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I know to say before is "antes" - but what would "just before" be? - Aside from that, I think I finished the descriptions, so please check my work one last time - Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's very similar to English: "just before dinner" = "justo antes de la cena" (note the de). Lesgles (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much :)

The reason why I am trying to add Spanish to many American article descriptions is two fold:

1. Most immigrants to the U.S. speak Spanish, so many major U.S. articles should have Spanish

2. It's compensation for the prevalence of the English language - All Commons media files need English descriptions, but normally that would mean that many U.S. files would need less work than non-U.S. files - Spanish is the most commonly spoken second language, so as compensation U.S. media get Spanish as the second language, while media of non-English speaking countries get English as the second language

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

One last question related to the category: How would I say "Investigative and Prosecutive Graphic Unit" - I know Unit is "Unidad" - But I'm not sure how to order the adjectives... WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 5

French expression « le suivi transversal »

I came across this while translating the French Wikipédia article fr:Hubert Derache, it appears in his official bio (at a Government of France web page): en outre chargé du suivi transversal de Mayotte et de Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. Neither my Collins-Robert nor Google Translate is of any help. On EU web sites, the phrase gets translated as "transversal follow-up". For example this French text: La discussion porte en particulier sur le Forum pour l’avenir de la démocratie, plusieurs délégations estimant qu'à l'avenir, il conviendra de veiller au suivi transversal des sessions.[18]

is translated as: Particular mention was made to the Forum for the Future of Democracy, where a number of delegations considered that in the future attention should be given to the transversal follow-up to the sessions.[19]

But what does that mean? A Google search on the English phrase "transversal follow up"[20] shows a number of pages that are obviously translations from French (including the one I just did of the article Hubert Derache)!

I've also noticed that a few French government departments have a "comité de suivi transversal"[21]

Could anyone please explain what is meant by this expression? —Mathew5000 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For "transversal" you could use the English "transitional". I assume Derache must be in charge of the transition of Mayotte to a département? "Un suivi" can be a "follow-up" but in English we could also say "watch" or "monitor". The phrase is also used in a medical and insurance context, to see what happens to patients after they are treated. I wouldn't use "transition" in that context, but it is something like "changing from one status to another", whether it is a territory changing to a department, or a sick person becoming healthy, and "un suivi" is the observation of this to make sure it goes smoothly. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Derache is following both Mayotte and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon , that are far away from each other. He is not in charge of transition. I don't know how to translate, but Adam Bishop is wrong. I would say it's an idiomatism, something like "global observation of the evolution of Mayotte and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon". See [22] for "suivi" 80.169.233.244 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)