Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

December 7

Chert in Spanish?

I would like to create an article for Chert in Spanish by translating the English one but I don't know how to say it. I only found sílex on my own but that seems to be flint. What can I do? I speak Spanish fluently and can't recall as I am not well verses in rocks.Luciferwildcat (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some digging, "ftanita" may be the Spanish word. My spanish is super rusty (basically comes via my knowledge of French mixed with some heavy guessing), but Google Translate lists that as a possible hit for "chert", and all of the other possible hits are Spanish names of other rocks (shale, slate, flint, etc.) Ask around and see if that fits. --Jayron32 04:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

es:Puriscal mentions ftanita in the "Geología" section, and Google Translate likes "Chert" for it there. --Jayron32 04:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"ftanita" looks close enough, but I'm not sure if the word "chert" can or should be translated exactly. "Chert" is a collective term that includes multiple distinct types of quartz and the word with that exact meaning simply may not exist outside English.--Itinerant1 (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to read this handwriting

I want to see how Deng Xiaoping's name is spelled in Deng_xxixian.jpg

It seems to be "Teng Xi Xian" - Is this correct? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That link's no good. Is that pic in Wikipedia or just on your computer ? StuRat (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it should be File:Deng_xxixian.jpg - It's actually on the Commons WhisperToMe (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like Teng Hi Hien. See here (second paragraph). Deor (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks right to me. Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deng was Hakka, whose language is quite different from Mandarin, so it's not surprising he would spell his name differently than the way Pinyin spells it. I don't know Hakka, though, so I don't know if that's the reason for this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible that this was Deng's given name and that he adopted another name later in life, which is not an uncommon practice among the Chinese. See "Chinese name#Alternative names". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no standard for transcribing Chinese at that time (early 1920s). Deng was descent from a Hakka family in Sichuan, however he did not speak Hakka, he spoken Southwest Mandarin. Deng Xiaoping's name was Xixian after entering school, and changed to Xiaoping in 1927 during the harsh time after CPC-KMT split--刻意(Kèyì) 14:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and France

Hello. A brief resumen of myself: I am ethnically Chinese but adopted by a family of linguists and from my early life my mother spoke only Spanish to me and my father only French, and we lived in the united states (except for frequent travel with my parents' professions) so I grew up speaking three languages natively o.0 I share my adoptive parents' love of travel and I have found a strange trend that in France people don't bat an eyelash that I speak native-like French but in the Latin American countries they stare. I think it is because of my racial appearance, but then why the difference between le monde francophone and el mundo hispano? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.215.48 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are more French-speaking Asians than Spanish-speaking ? The former Indochina spoke French, and, even though they aren't Chinese, many Occidentals lump them all in together. As for Spanish-speaking Asians, there's the Philippines (although they haven't been a Spanish colony for over a century now), and, if you consider Portuguese to be close enough, there's Macau. StuRat (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are Asians in many parts of Latin America, one even became President of Peru, see Alberto Fujimori. The issue may have been with your Spanish rather than with your appearance; the varieties of Spanish spoken in the Hispanophone world are quite distinct, and speaking a particular variety will mark you, for example someone speaking Castilian Spanish in, say, Cuba or Mexico would seem out-of-place. --Jayron32 06:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly your accent, not your appearance. The way of pronouncing "c" or "z" in Spain may be taken as a gay code elsewhere (no offense, I'm serious). 1947rogs (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least tell us which pronunciation is a gay code! --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Z" and "c" (as in ce-, ci-) are pronounced the same as "s" most everywhere (this side of the pond). But e. g. "zumo" starts with your tongue against your front teeth in official Castillian Spanish, right (except for seseo, I think)? This is the pronunciation that may be used as a gay code.1947rogs (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Spanish has a gay lisp too? Angr (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Sondheim's "The Boy from...", a parody of "The Girl from Ipanema": "Why does he claim he's Castilian? / (He thays that he'th Cathtilian.) / Why do his friends call him "Lillian"? / And I hear at the end of the week / He's leaving to start a boutique." - Nunh-huh 23:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

No mention

Is the usage of word "No mention" justified as a reply for Thank you? Is it correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.51.130 (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more correct to say "Don't mention it", meaning "It's not necessary for you to thank me". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is a polite fiction and will not to be taken literally.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a polite way of responding to a person who thanks you. A more formal response is "You're welcome". If you were Australian, "No worries [mate]" would work too. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have ever heard "No mention" used in this way, and if I heard it I would think the speaker had an imperfect grasp of English, and had probably misremembered "Don't mention it", or had confused that phrase with "No problem" (or the Australian "No worries", as Jack says). --ColinFine (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curios about this "No worries (mate)" response. Do women usually add "mate"? I've never heard of women adding "mate". I just hear them saying "Don't mention it./ No worries./You're welcome." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.210.228 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, plenty of women (in Aust) use "mate", I'd say more so in country areas, and/or where they regard the person they're talking to as somewhat inferior, e.g., when speaking to a child. On the other hand, and perhaps contrary to popular conceptions, many Australian men rarely if ever use "mate", or would only use it in certain specific situations; ironically this would often be in cases where there's a certain amount of aggression involved and they regard the other person as anything but a 'mate'. --jjron (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Sentence Paragraphs

When I was at school any one sentence paragraphs would result in the "red pen" warning that I had transgressed some rule of writing. Yet many Wikipedia articles contain single sentence paragraphs, and in a lot of cases avoiding them would require unnecessary linking or expansion.

Are one sentence paragraphs considered acceptable nowadays? -- Q Chris (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They always have been. Rules of writing that teachers impose at school have no relationship with reality and are best forgotten as soon as that teacher's class is over. Pais (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's even mentioned in our list of common English usage misconceptions where the notion that "paragraphs must comprise at least three sentences" is said to be a "myth". ---Sluzzelin talk 14:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all newspapers (our reliable sources) routinely use one sentence paragraphs these days. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my journalism classes, I was taught that the lede paragraph of a news story should be one sentence if possible.Then expand to longer paragraphs for the details. — Michael J 18:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two competing concepts behind what defines a paragraph. One is that it should be a certain physical size, while the other is that it should contain a single thought. Actual paragraph sizes are usually some combo of these two concepts. Thus, if your thought takes 100 sentences to explain, then you need to break those up into many paragraphs. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is something that has changed over the years. I've come across older (19th century) books where a single paragraph can span an entire page or more. This would be thought very inappropriate today--62.49.68.79 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The eye can only distinguish something like 5-10 lines before having to count. This makes it difficult to keep your place in a paragraph longer than that, unless you resort to putting your finger on the page, much to the horror of anyone trying to preserve the book for posterity. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just in defence of the original teacher, many teachers give simple black-and-white rules to help students improve their writing or whatever else it may be they're teaching. Enforce the 'paragraph must be more than one sentence' rule and you help deal with the common problem of kids not having a clue when to start a new paragraph, and help to enforce the 'paragraph should contain one thought' concept. Once the student's writing develops sufficiently they may then of course ignore all rules. (FWIW, of course we've also all been taught that you can't begin a sentence with "And".). --05:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Word Describing the Outlawing of Homosexuality?

Is there a word for outlawing homosexuality or any other specific kind of sexual behavior that one advocates outlawing (for example 'anti-miscegenation')? Thank you. --66.188.134.110 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should say that 'anti-sodomy' or 'anti-buggery' doesn't work since the former isn't necessarily homosexual and the latter is just sodomy with beastiality thrown in; and both of them are sexual acts, as opposed to sexual orientation. --66.188.134.110 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (non-pedantic) point being that homosexuality is not a sexual behaviour but a state of being. Homosexuality cannot be outlawed, just as thoughts and feelings, likes and dislikes, cannot be outlawed. Certain activities can be outlawed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a word to describe one of the oldest socially conservative impulses. Arguing about the practical ability to enforce thoughtcrimes doesn't really help me. How about a word for the impulse to make people stop doing activities the society doesn't approve of (with consenting adults behind closed doors, etc). And I mean attempts to use authority to enforce that, not just ostracizing or being sanctimonious. --66.188.134.110 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-sodomy is the most commonly used term in the United States. "Oldest socially conservative impulses" weren't directed specifically against homosexuals, but against the broad range of "unnatural" and "detestable" sexual activities, of which homosexual relations were the common denominator. In other words, sodomy laws outlawed unnatural sexual activities, which always included homosexual conduct between males, but may or may not have included any act between a man and a woman, depending on the time and the place. So either if you want a term for outlawing homosexuality, or a term for outlawing all sexual relations which aren't approved by the society, anti-sodomy is your best bet.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, sodomy law can be used to describe any law that outlaws any type of sex act, and it seems to be pretty widely used in academia. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be anything catchy. Smurrayinchester 23:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "sodomy law" is nowadays considered fairly archaic; but as recently as the 1970s was probably the term in broadest use by laypeople (if you'll pardon the expression) such as politicians, at least in the United States. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Heteronormativity" might work in a broad way to describe all attempts to stamp out the phenomenon of homosexuality, whether casually or by legislation. The concept is predicated on the acknowledgment of homosexuality as an identity, and it encompasses the entire modern anti-gay program: barring gay people from military service, denying legal recognition to same-sex couples, forbidding gay couples from adopting children, fostering "conversion therapy", etc. None of these issues are inherently related to "sodomy law", which merely overlaps with heteronormative legislation. LANTZY ^TALK 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Semitic roots

Approximately how many native Semitic roots are in active and common usage in:

I realise this question can hardly be answered with an exact number, but given the nature of Semitic morphology and the large potential of those languages to derive lexemes from existing roots, I'd think that a reasonably accurate value could have been worked out in some source (see Greenlandic language#Vocabulary for comparison), and that this question is less silly than: "How many words are there in English?" --Theurgist (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but probably the most easily-definable concrete interpretation of "active in common usage" (i.e. participating in root-and-pattern inflectional morphology) would be slightly different for Arabic and Hebrew, since in Arabic broken plurals would count, while in Hebrew only verbs would count (Hebrew does have historical remnants of broken plural formations in one particular case, but it's hard to say that this is synchronically-productive root-and-pattern morphology, especially in modern Hebrew). There would also be very strange roots like Z-N-G-F, the "root" of lehizdangef להזדנגף "to strut down Dizengoff Street"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in Arabic there are for example ʾ-M-R-K (ء-م-ر-ك), the root of taʾamraka تأمرك "to get Americanised", or H-T-L-R (ه-ت-ل-ر), the root of tahatlara تهتلر "to imitate Hitler". But those really don't qualify as native roots. This raises another problem, because some of the long-existing roots may have been borrowed too, for example from Coptic or other languages over the many centuries of development of Hebrew and Arabic... --Theurgist (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

taʾamraka follows in the tradition of old coinages as far back as mityahed in Esther 8:17, while lehizdangef is rather more bizarre (more comparable to basmala بسملة and ħamdala with strangely-formed quasi-pseudo-roots b-s-m-l and ħ-m-d-l). But you're right that I overlooked the word "native"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

What is the name in Arabic?

What is the name of Casablanca-Anfa Airport in Arabic? I need to add the info to this article and the French article, and submit an article request on the Arabic Wikipedia

Also what is the Arabic for Casablanca Tit Mellil Airport?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca-Anfa Airport has an article on Arabic Wikipedia: مطار_الدار_البيضاء_أنفا. I found it on ar.wikipedia's list of Airports in Morocco (ar:ملحق:قائمة_مطارات_المغرب). It has "مطار الدار البيضاء تيط مليل" for Casablanca Tit Mellil Airport, but no article yet. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that! I linked the Arabic of Anfa to the others. For Mellil I will add it to the requests page.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin problem - presently tense

Hi, I've noticed that the use of the historical present seems to be particularly common in Latin. Am I right, and why would this be? I was wondering if it was because Latin is so much more inflected than English, and because it uses sequence of tenses to convey important connections of meaning that might otherwise be harder to follow, given the free word order. My theory was that using the present as a starting point gives you more places to go - if you start in the past, you can only go to the past perfect, and then you are stuck. If you start with the present, you are kind of in the middle of the tenses, so you have more of a range for jumping backwards and forwards (hope that was clear). It made sense at the time, but I still tend to baulk at what would appear to me to be overuse of a slightly unnatural-sounding form. IBE (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As our article says, it's just a rhetorical device to make the past more vivid. I don't know if it's especially common in Latin, but it is also used rather frequently in French. You may be right, since Latin has more subtle distinctions of past tense than English does (as does French). But English uses it a lot too, especially informally - listen to someone reporting a conversation, they say "I go" or "I'm like" before quoting what was said. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely used in English too, just not that often in written English. The uses of tenses in languages generally is far less clear-cut than is implied by the simple past-present-future paradigm of classical Latin (and not many languages have that three-way opposition in their grammar). And Adam, I would dispute that Latin has more subtle distinctions of past tense than English: it's just that all but one of our past tenses are periphrastic. --ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and Latin has periphrastic past constructions as well, it's just that in English we have to use much longer constructions to represent what Latin can do with one or two words. In any case, Longinus (On The Sublime, c. 25) gives a short explanation, although he was writing about Greek, not Latin: "When past events are introduced as happening in present time the narrative form is changed into a dramatic action." Quintilian (Institutio Oratoria 9.2.40-44 or so) also talks about something similar, although not the historical present tense specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'historical present' might just be so-called 'relative same time', emphasizing continuity and/or placement within a specified time. Also, don't we have something similar in English (used in informal storytelling)? Take this sentence; while not grammatically correct, it is still linguistically valid; "So this guy walks up to me and says;....." While it is clear that this information is being relayed, and that it happened sometime in the past, the speaker still uses the present tense. Maybe it's to make relayed events seem more current, or to draw attention? Anyway, this gets back to the 'temporal tense v.s. aspect tense'. Van Gulik (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only too happy

I feel like I've asked this before, but I can't find any actual evidence of having done so.

The expression "only too", usually followed by "happy" or "pleased", is very odd. Analytically, "only" downplays what comes next, and "too" suggests undesirable excess. Put them together and you get what seems like meaningless nonsense. The words sort of cancel each other out, a bit like half a double. Yet it has an accepted meaning, except it's one that can't be derived from examination of the individual words.

Where did this expression come from? There's nothing about it in wiktionary under either "only" or "too". Are there any others like it? I’d be only too happy to hear what my wise colleagues have to say about this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for only too, the fourth result is http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/only-too, which dates it to 1817.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the two senses listed in Wavelength's link are different, with different origins. The "As a matter of fact" is a kind of litotes, as Jack suggests; but the second meaning "extremely", is mainly used of oneself (though not exclusively), and I think the "only" expresses a kind of polite self-deprecation. --ColinFine (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "only" in "only too happy" doesn't downplay what comes next, it indicates that's the lone outcome of the request. You could be very unhappy, you could be unhappy, you could be indifferent, you could be happy, or you could be very ("too") happy. "Only too happy" ensures that you are totally very willing and eager to do what was asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC

I don't buy that explanation, Bugs, because the stress pattern does not match it. When "only" means "sole", the word that it qualified is usually stressed, but in "only too happy" the stress is on "happy", and if there is a secondary stress it's on "only". --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly interested in the 2nd usage (1899) in Wavelength's link. The meaning is very clear, from repeated exposure to such phrases in real life. But surely, the first time anyone hears this expression they would need to have explained to them what the heck the speaker's talkimg about, because it doesn't seem to be a comprehensible juxtaposition of words. So I'm curious as to why the 1899 person came up with it, and why it achieved a permanent place in the language. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Only too" is not as confusing as "if not" (which has two contradictory meanings) or "not unoften"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An expression such as "not unoften" or "not infrequently" or whatever, suggest some middle ground between "often"/"frequently" and "not often"/"not frequently". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, "unoften" is only used in the phrase "not unoften", and so can be hard to parse if you haven't come across it before... AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not infrequently come across "not infrequently", but I have never in my life heard "not unoften". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I have my doubts about the legitimacy of "unoften". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1741) The Man of Gallantry not unoften has been found to think after the same manner.

(1835) Nor was it unoften that the mere presence of a noble sufficed to scatter whole crowds.

(1864) You get more patient, ... and not unoften you come to a stand-still.

(OED) — kwami (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED? What would they know! :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I'm in agreement with Jack in regarding "not unoften" as a rare usage in modern Western English (including Oz, of course), but it seems to be common in Indian English, and has been used in Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers: Volume 72, Part 2; Volume 72, Part 2. Dbfirs 08:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any examples of unoften where it isn't negated? The OED examples above are of not unoften twice and nor... unoften once. Is it a negative polarity item, or can one say I go unoften to the movies? Angr (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says it almost always follows not. If one were to use it in your sentence, Angr, it would feel slightly less unnatural to say "I unoften go to the movies" (cf. "I often go to the movies"), than "I go unoften to the movies". But either way, it's at the very Nadir of Naturalness for my money. As I say, I'd never come across it before now, and I hope I never do again. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the original question, there is also "just too" as in "it was just too wonderful". This should mean it only just got over the line; any less and it would have been merely "quite" wonderful. I think "just too" and "only too" are purely idiomatic, as they immediately prompt a relatively small number of words that could follow them. You couldn't have "only too wonderful", although you might (unnot unoften) hear "just too happy". And I hope Jack's still reading. IBE (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's also "not unseldom", which means the same thing as "not unoften", though it would be expected to mean the opposite! AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my amazement, that misuse of litotes is surprisingly common and occurs in no less writers than Jane Austen and Mary Shelley. I wonder how the mis-use began. I suppose the "not un...." construction became an idiom and accidentally transferred itself to an inappropriate adverb. Dbfirs 13:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an idiom is pretty much only used in one particular way, then it's hard to call it a "misuse"... It may be unexpected according to simple classic logic, but there are many things in human languages which classical first-order predicate logic simply is incapable of dealing with (which is why whole theories of Discourse Representation Theory, Montague semantics, Intensional logic etc. were developed). AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets call it an illogical transfer of an idiom to an inappropriate adverb. Dbfirs 16:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Played a blinder

What does it mean? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

performed with a lot of skill. Angr (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED defines "blinder" as used here as "Something ‘dazzlingly’ good or difficult, esp. an excellent piece of play in Rugby Football or Cricket." Its earliest citation of "played a blinder" is from David Storey's This Sporting Life (1960). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'd go a bit beyond that definition and say it's when a sportsperson performs considerably beyond their usually accepted talents. Good players may "perform with a lot of skill" on a very regular basis, but they may only put in the occasional 'blinder' where they go beyond their usual expectations. Note that less talented players can also put in a blinder at times. It's usually used in the context of sports, but can be applied to other more general situations as well. --jjron (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which should not be confused with the other colloquial use, where "a blinder" or (more often) "a bit of a blinder" means "something that is blindingly obvious". I only mention this because there is some overlap in appropriate places to use either meaning, and there is potential for confusion (or insult!) if the similar phrases are mixed up. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to the verb use of blindside? Rmhermen (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No: as has been elaborated above, a "blinder" is a performance that metaphorically "dazzles" because of its "brilliant" quality; to "blindside" is usually literally to exploit the vision of an opponent being physically blocked (by, say, intervening players), although it might be applied to outsmarting opponents (not necessarily in a sporting context) by using tactics they did not (or could not) anticipate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.195 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When do mourir and morir take se (become reflexive)?

What distinguishes the simple forms of mourir (French) and morir (Spanish) from their apparently reflexive forms, se mourir and morirse (or se morir)? [All of these can be translated into English as "to die", for which I can't think of a reflexive or apparently-reflexive English counterpart. "To die oneself" inevitably invokes images of soaking oneself in dye.] Is there a similar distinction in Latin, Italian, Portuguese and other Romance languages? What I could find by a quick look at dictionaries didn't explain very much, so perhaps the distinction is subtle (and not one to die for). —— Shakescene (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.wordreference.com/fren/se%20mourir, se mourir means "to be dying" rather than to die. This wouldn't be the only place in French where a reflexive doesn't actually convey a reflexive meaning (e.g., s'en before some verbs has an "inceptive" meaning, as in je m'en dort "I'm gonna go to sleep"; je m'en vais "I'm gonna get going"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds a bit archaic or poetic, or overly dramatic, like you're not literally dying, it's just hyperbole. As for Latin, there is no similar distinction, but it is interesting to note that deponent verbs in Latin (like mori) or regular verbs that can be used passively (like videri) sometimes become "reflexive" in Romance languages (in French, at least). But they're not really reflexive, more like a middle voice, which Latin didn't actually have but could represent with the passive voice. In French for example there is "se trouver", which is not really reflexive, even though it looks that way. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's just a corollary to the progressive aspect of the reflexive form, but for my French ears (trained, though not very well, mostly by Molière, Dumas and Renaissance songs), se mourir has stronger petite mort associations than mourir. Hans Adler 00:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting discussion here. Not sure how reliable it is. Hans Adler 00:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While no language replicates every nuance in another, does this form fill part of the need served in English by the present progressive as in "I am dying" ? My very rusty memory of French class was that je meurs means both "I die" and "I am dying" because "I am dying" can't be translated word for word; my rusty memory of Spanish class is that the present progressive form is more possible, as in estoy hablando for "I'm talking" where je suis parlant would either be meaningless, strange, or simply incorrect in French. (I think that Italians can say sono parlando or sto parlando, although I'm less sure.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian you can say sto parlando. *Sono parlando is just wrong. Spanish has the same construction: estoy hablando; I'm reasonably sure you can't say *soy hablando.

In French, I think you can say je suis en train de parler, but it's a bit "heavier" and less usual than the solutions from languages to the south of the Alps. --Trovatore (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, sto parlando is not parallel to *je suis parlant. Italian retains a distinction between the gerund parlando and the present participle parlante, and uses the gerund, not the present participle, for the present progressive.

This is a bit different from the categories in English. In English, "gerund" usually means a nominalization of the verb, and grammars will usually tell you that the present progressive is formed using the present participle. That will mislead you if you try to apply it to Italian.

As I recall, the last time this came up, it was established that the present participle is not productive in modern Spanish, though its influence is felt in many etymologies. It is productive in Italian, although it's not terribly common outside very formal usage. --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was certain that Old French had an être+gerund construction, and that that may be where English got it from, but I can't find any examples. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second language education in the English-speaking world

In response to this question on the Humanities Desk, an editor stated, "Italian is more commonly studied than Spanish in a lot of other English-speaking countries", and later provided a link to "Second Languages and Australian Schooling" (2009), showing that in that country at least, the number studying Italian vastly outnumbered those studying Spanish. But what about other countries? Can anyone find simple graphs (such as the one on page 49 of the Australian report) that show the most popular languages studied? I am particularly interested in the English-speaking world, but information beyond that is welcome too. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Most Studied Foreign Languages in the U.S. — Infoplease.com

and The 3 most studied foreign languages worldwide | Antimoon Forum

and Top 6 Most Popular Foreign Language Teachers in China | Antimoon Forum

—Wavelength (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swift response! Thanks. However, I note that the first and fourth are based on the same report into US higher education, and the second and third are unsourced forum comments, verging on advertising (fond though I am of Antimoon). For the record, the ten most popular languages for American college and university students are: Spanish, French, German, American Sign Language, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Russian, Arabic. (Source: Source: Association of Departments of Foreign Languages at the Modern Language Association, Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2006.) NB Chinese doesn't make the list, and Spanish has more students than the other nine added together. Can anyone offer reports of this calibre for other countries? Secondary or tertiary education is equally welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the UK, there's some data here, with data for England alone here. Education tends to be different from country to country in the UK: England, Wales and Northern Ireland have similar systems and all take GCSEs at the end (though have different requirements particularly when dealing with languages), but Scotland has a totally separate system. The headlines are:

In both England and Scotland, French is most common, followed by German and Spanish.
In Wales, Welsh is most common, followed by French, German and Spanish.
In Northern Ireland, French is most common, followed by Spanish, Irish and German.

All others are relatively small minorities. Pfainuk talk 17:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So that's most of the UK (bar Scotland) up to age 16, and the US at undergraduate level. More? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

A few thousand or A few thousands?

Which is correct to say "A few thousand" or "A few thousands"? SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A few thousand" sounds more correct to my ear. You wouldn't say "a few thousands dollars." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we would say "many thousands of dollars". I suppose you could contrive a context for "a few thousands of dollars", but it's not really normal language. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... unless, of course, you were talking about thousand-dollar currency, or other discrete units of thousands, when it would be normal to say "A few thousands". Dbfirs 08:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, but I would say a few thousands is more correct, grammatically - you see similar in 19th century writing and earlier - but as the 'of' eroded away, so did the plural; I reckon it's manifest vestigially in the phrase 'myriads of'. Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Chinese lyrics in the Chinese song 高山青

In the Chinese song 高山青, there's a line in the lyrics that's not (Han) Chinese. Supposedly the song was adapted from a folk song of some indigenous Taiwanese tribe. Does anyone know what the non-Chinese lyrics say, assuming that it means something in some language? --108.2.210.109 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So much have changed or So much has changed?

Which is more correct to say?

So much has changed

So much have changed

SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'So much has changed' is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the definition and the example at wikt:much#Pronoun. You need a singular verb here: has ("it has"). You will need the plural verb have ("they have") in the sentence "So many have changed", where "many" refers to multiple people/animals/objects/things. --Theurgist (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally hate how so many people are starting to use "much" as the default when referring to large quantities. Inter change able|talk to me 00:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this relief, much thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from English to German, please?

Can someone kindly tell me how to write the following sentence in fluent, colloquial German?

I have enjoyed having you living here and hope you continue through 2012.

Thank you in advance. Gurumaister (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continue what? Living there? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I had hoped/assumed that that was fairly obviously implied - no? If not then please re-word it as is most appropriate in German. Gurumaister (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

et haat me gefreet daat du hast met uns gelebt, un ech hoffe daat du wellst en 2012 met uns leben. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] This is luxembourg german. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in Standard German: Es hat mich gefreut, dass du hier gewohnt hast und ich hoffe, du wohnst hier weiter durch 2012 hindurch. Angr (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick: I don't think any native German speaker would say "durch 2012 hindurch". It's understandable, but sounds wrong to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - to both of you. I am grateful. Gurumaister (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid using "wohnen" twice, you could rephrase the second part of the sentence to read: ...und ich hoffe dass du auch 2012 dableiben willst. This would translate as "and I hope you would want to stay on in 2012".

...or even more colloquially: "...ich hoffe, dass du auch 2012 bleibst". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this assumes that you want to use the informal "du" and not the formal "Sie" in addressing the person. See T–V distinction (which, somewhat oddly, does not mention the German usage). --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Gurumaister wishes to address multiple people informally? This will require the usage of the informal plural "ihr", as well as the verbs to be conjugated accordingly. --Theurgist (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarize, if you are addressing this to an individual with whom you are on a first-name basis, you would say:

Es hat mich gefreut, dass du hier gewohnt hast, und ich hoffe, dass du auch 2012 bleibst.

If you are addressing more than one person with whom you are on a first-name basis:

Es hat mich gefreut, dass ihr hier gewohnt habt, und ich hoffe, dass ihr auch 2012 bleibt.

Finally, if this is a person or persons whom you call "Mr./Ms. So-und-so":

Es hat mich gefreut, dass Sie hier gewohnt haben, und ich hoffe, dass Sie auch 2012 bleiben.

Marco polo (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in spoken Hochdeutsch is zwei tausend und zwölf.
Sleigh (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you all - I am really very grateful. Gurumaister (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OSVAH

(moved from helpdesk [1] Chzz ► 12:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I want to know about the Meaning of Arabic Word OSVAH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.223.161 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means leader and role model. --Omidinist (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omidinist -- What is the Arabic alphabet spelling of the word that you think the questioner may have had in mind? -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

اسوه ‍Omidinist (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic defines اسوة as "example, model, pattern". I was looking in an Arabic-English dictionary under "leader", and having a difficult time finding anything that could correspond to OSVAH... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But اسوة is not the same as اسوه (because tāʾ marbūṭa is not the same as hāʾ). --Theurgist (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is the initial hamza a hamzat waṣl? Because if it's not, it has to appear as a diacritic: أسوه. --Theurgist (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, the dictionary does not list اسوه and اسوة is defined under root ا س و, which means that an ه would not really be expected as a non-inflectional consonant there. Omidinist knows more Arabic than I do, but he seems to be a Persian native-language speaker, and Persians are sometimes hazy on ة (which is not used in writing the Persian language). The dictionary does not list word-initial hamzas, as discussed on the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic page, but looking in another, smaller dictionary I have here, it should have a hamza above if pronounced uswa and a hamza below if pronounced iswa (or [ʔuswa] and [ʔiswa] if you want to be more strict IPA). AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since OP knew the pronunciation (OSVAH) almost correctly -- though it's actually USWA -- I felt that I didn't need to go that far. By the way, finding correctly placed hamzas for Arabic letters in keyboards and fonts is really hard and takes time. Thanks for comments, anyway. --Omidinist (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word for someone who doesn't believe in free will

What word describes someone who does not think that anything macroscopic objects such as humans do is actually caused by any will of the humans themselves, but is only attributable to the laws of physics governing the particles of which they are made, and that out of the resultant complexity emerges an illusion of independence from the fundamental laws governing the particles of which they are made? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard determinism? Chzz ► 13:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which sounds like an extreme version of Calvinism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that hyper-Calvinism doesn't attribute actions to the laws of physics governing the particles of which humans are made. Angr (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard determinism is probably the right answer. Let me note that Free will is a featured article on Wikipedia, and gives a pretty nice explanation of the various possible points of view. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation problems

hello,

I recently want to translate the following sentence from German to English:

"In der schmutzigen, armseligen, von Gott und der Stadt vergessenen Malaja-Grusinskaja-Straße erhebt sich das wunderschöne, hoch künstlerische Massiv der neuen römisch-katholischen Kirche, geweiht der Heiligen Jungfrau Maria"

I would translate it as follows:

"Amidst the dirty, pathetic, forgotten Malaja Grusinskaja street by God and city, a beautiful, higly artificial massief was raised for the newly-built Roman Catholic church, dedicated to the Holy Virgin Mary"

But can I write

"Amidst the dirty, pathetic, by God and city forgotten Malaja Grusinskaja street, a beautiful, higly artificial massief was raised for the newly-built Roman Catholic church, dedicated to the Holy Virgin Mary"

I have to say I have no clue... help would appreciate. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 16:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

How about "In the filthy, wretched Malaja Grusinskaja Street, forgotten by God and the city, there rose the gorgeous artistic solidity of the new Roman Catholic church, dedicated to the Holy Virgin Mary"? Deor (talk)

Excellent. Thanks! =)--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 17:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also localize the transliteration of Russian and write "Malaya Gruzinskaya Street". Angr (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "forgotten by God and the city", I'd up it a notch to "forsaken by God and the city". BrainyBabe (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]}

Exemplary language usage by websites

Which websites are exemplary for their language usage, by avoiding profanity, slang, relaxed pronunciation, filler words, and errors in grammar, spelling, word usage, pronunciation, and punctuation?

The websites can be mainstream media websites, alternative media websites, or other websites. They can be in English or another language, or be multilingual websites.

(This post begins with a one-sentence paragraph, and ends with a one-sentence paragraph.)
—Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since most websites are available in written form only, I don't think the criterion of avoiding "relaxed pronunciation" is going to be relevant very often. Angr (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is an odd wording: note the repetition of "pronunciation". Also, written text is unlikely to have filler sounds, words, or phrases (um, yeah, youknowwhatImean). If you seek good prose, look no further than our Featured Articles. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first was "relaxed pronunciation", the second was "errors in ... pronunciation".

A website that has no errors of any of the above kinds would truly be a wonder to behold. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the websites using the "best" English would be the news services from the BBC and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Of course, that choice reflects my bias, and won't satisfy the user's needs if he/she is looking for American spelling. And I must make the point that language is ever changing. To paraphrase an old saying "One decade's slang and profanity is another decade's mainstream language. The same principle applies across the globe. What I regard as powerful, effective language would probably horrify some conservative American Christians or the like. But maybe my suggestions are a start. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you differentiate who's who when there are more than one person with the same last name in a family?

Let's say there is a family of three boys and two girls. Their names are Albert Carruthers, Herbert Carruthers, Ferdinand Carruthers, Diana Carruthers, and Anne Carruthers. If you want to refer to Albert Carruthers formally, then you would say "Master Carruthers" if he is single or "Mister Carruthers" if he is married, right? If you want to refer to Anne Carruthers, then you would say "Miss Carruthers" or "Miss Anne", or if the woman is married to Mr. GoodlyTwoShoes, then you say "Mrs. GoodlyTwoShoes", right? Now, how do you differentiate who's who? It would too confusing to say two "Miss Carruthers" or the three "Master Carruthers". How does one know who's who?

I am told that the girls in Pride and Prejudice are "Miss [insert-first-name-here]", except the first one. The firstborn or oldest unmarried daughter is called "Miss Bennet", and the rest are referred to by their first names and title, "Miss".

Does this pattern apply to males as well?

SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Albert Carruthers is Mr. Carruthers whether he's married or not as long as he's older than about 10 or 11. At his workplace, if he needs to be distinguished from younger male family members, he's "the elder Mr. Carruthers" or "Mr. Carruthers senior". (Remember Young Mr. Grace from Are You Being Served?) At home, the servants call the father Mr. Carruthers, and the sons Master Albert, Master Herbert and Master Ferdinand until they're about 10 or 11, when they get promoted to Mister Albert, Mister Herbert and Mister Ferdinand. The mother is Mrs. Carruthers, the eldest daughter is Miss Carruthers, and the younger daughter is Miss Anne at home, to the servants, since she needs to be disambiguated, but outside the home to people who know her on her own terms and don't know her elder sister, she is Miss Carruthers. This means the eldest daughter is the only child who gets called by her last name at home. Angr (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Miss Anne Carruthers" and "Master/Mr. Ferdinand Carruthers" are always options as well. If you are taking Pride and Prejudice as a model, note that, as Angr says, it depends on who is talking. The eldest daughter is referred to as "Jane" or "Miss Bennet" by the narrator, "Jane" by her family, and "Miss Bennet" by non-relatives (never "Miss Jane"). Elizabeth, the main character, is called "Elizabeth" by the narrator, "Lizzy" by her family, and "Miss Bennet", "Miss Elizabeth", "Miss Eliza", or "Eliza" by non-relatives (in increasing order of familiarity). Lesgles (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone still use this terminology? It sounds terribly old-fashioned to my American ears, though I must admit that I have never had household servants. In most households, I think in both the United States and Britain, children are called by their first names, no "master" or "miss". A formal invitation, for example to a wedding, might be addressed to children as "master" or "miss", but I've never heard those terms spoken. Increasingly these days, particularly in the United States but also increasingly in Britain, even adults are addressed by their first names except in relatively formal situations. In most workplaces on both sides of the ocean, first names are used among colleagues today. Marco polo (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not used in England now except in some ultra-formal circumstances. Jane Austen uses a rigorous system for naming women and girls, not sure if she is as rigorous for the men and boys. Also, not sure if Austen's system was used by everyone in polite society of her day. And it may have changed some time during the 19th century. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Eyre is called "Miss Jane" by a servant at Gateshead Hall. I think the name "Miss Jane" distinguishes her as a relative to the family rather than as an ordinary servant girl, even though she is treated like a servant girl in her own house. In Charles Dickens' day, his male character in A Christmas Carol is Master __________, signifying that the character is young. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

"Got it" and "my bad"

Sometime in the mid 2000s, I first noticed New Yorkers and then later, people from Los Angeles and San Francisco using "got it" in response to a question that is answered. I'm assuming this comes from popular culture, perhaps a television series or a film, that eventually made its way into normal discourse, but I'm at a loss trying to track it down. Which reminds me, was anyone ever able to track down "my bad"? Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike "my bad". The phrase was popularized by the 1995 film Clueless. Which makes perfect sense, because that's about the time I first started hearing it on the streets. Now, someone has to be able to track down "got it" for me, or I won't be able to sleep. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"got it" has been in use in the UK in the sense of "I understand what you say" for as long as I can remember, and certainly since well before the mid 2000s. Is this the usage you are referring to, or is there a distinction I'm not seeing? 81.159.109.15 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've been using "got it" myself since at least the early 90s if not earlier. I'm in the US by the way. Dismas|^(talk) 14:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the expression "get it" is much older. "Get it, got it, good" is a quote from the 1955 film "The Court Jester", but "get it" must have existed long before then to be included in the film dialogue. Dbfirs 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appeal of "my bad" is the embodiment of what is being expressed in the expression. Saying "my bad" is an admission of error. But "my bad" is also grammatically incorrect. "My bad" is an example of an "error". "Got it" is not a very unusual use of language, I don't think. In response to a physical object tossed and caught the response might be "got it". By analogy a verbal statement understood can be confirmed by the response of "got it" but I don't think that "got it" is such an unusual phrase that we should expect to find a defined time period for its usage. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "my bad" also carries the implication that one is admitting an error, but doesn't care too much about having made it. It's like saying, "OK, I screwed up. So what?" --Viennese Waltz 16:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember reading a discussion of "My bad!" on the linguists' blog Language Log which came to the conclusion that the expression was coined by a (very talented) African basketball player who had come to play in the USA and who was only just learning English. I'm sure a refdesker with more knowledge of the game will be able to guess who the player was, and in any case the blog is searchable (an exercise I leave to readers to encourage them to explore it). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.13 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was Manute Bol, supposedly. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual with linguistics study, you have to treat these attempts to track down usage as attempts to rewrite history. Sometimes there is a grain of truth to it. Manute Bol may have said "my bad", but that doesn't mean it caught on. After becoming popular, he may have said, "Hey! I said that a long time ago!" A better example is "Dis" or "Diss". Many people have put a lot of effort into rewriting history to support the claim that it is a short for "disrespect". The problem with that is that the theory that it is short for disrespect came about long after it became popular. So, the goal is to support a probably wrong assumption by cherry-picking any old anecdote that supports the assumption. In the case of "my bad", they are just going through any history they can find and looking for any anecdote that supports their theory. -- kainaw ™ 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In instances of folk etymology, that is doubtless often the case, but such a blantantly unscholarly approach is not characteristic of the University professors who post on Language Log - that is rather its point. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.13 (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three dictionaries I just checked agree that "dis(s)" is short for "disrespect". Why do you think this is wrong, and do you have an alternative theory? 86.183.1.224 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word really originated as derogatory comparison to Diss. 213.122.57.84 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I always assumed "Don't diss me" originally meant "Don't write badly of me in your dissertation". Pais (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The line "I think she's got it" occurs during the "Rain in Spain" scene in the 1965 movie "My Fair Lady". I don't know if it occurs in earlier stage versions or in the precursor, George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion. Given that the scene is all about speaking correctly, could one assume that it was part of normal speech for British gentlemen in Edwardian times, in which the film is set? HiLo48 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The verb "to get" meaning "to understand" has been in my vocab since I first acquired language, and I'm 61 now, so that dates it to no later than c. 1954 (cf. The Court Jester from 1955, per Dbfirs above), and I suspect it goes back way, way further than that. We didn't make up these uses of the verb "to get", we learned them from our parents, and it wasn't new to them either. You'd hear a joke that you didn't quite get, and you'd say "I don't get it". When the penny dropped you'd say "Oh, I get it now". You'd proudly claim to have got it if it was something the joketeller was not expecting his audience to get. And not just jokes either. Your teacher or your parent was explaining something to you, and it was clear from your puzzled look or your verbal response that it didn't make sense, so he/she explained it a different way, and then you'd say "Oh, I get it now". Just like people still talk. Nothing new under the sun. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Viriditas is asking about the use of get to mean "understand" in general. He's asking specifically about saying "Got it" when someone answers a question you've asked them, for example:

A: "What is the average yearly rainfall in the Amazon Basin?"

B: "Eighty inches."

A: "Got it."

I strongly doubt that the origin of that usage is traceable, but stranger things have happened. Angr (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm following this correctly, could that usage be a shortened form of "got it in one"? --LarryMac | Talk 15:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, because "got it in one" implies that A already knows the answer to the question when he asks it and is congratulating B on knowing the right answer. But "Got it" is used when the questioner really doesn't know the answer until the answerer tells him. Angr (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thus my "if I'm following" preface. But since we're apparently not talking about what words mean, this is all venturing too far into Humpty Dumpty land for me, so I'll jump off here. --LarryMac | Talk 15:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, Angr. I pay close attention to word usage in everyday speech and in popular culture in the United States. Something happened in the mid 2000s that led huge numbers of people here to reply to answers with "Got it". If I had to guess, it was a film or television program that was responsible. Because this kind of thing interests me, I would love to know which one it was. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Got it" mean in the above example if not "I understand"? 86.179.7.170 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about usage, not meaning. Prior to the mid-2000s, in the states, I had never heard anyone say "got it" in response to an answered question. Suddenly, somewhere between 2004-2008, I began hearing it everywhere, particularly from people in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. I suspect that there was a popular television program or film that used it, and somehow, all these people had incorporated it into their daily speech. As I said above, this is probably similar to how "my bad" spread around the states in 1995 after the film Clueless popularized it. So, the question at hand is, what made "got it" so popular? Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with the program or film, but this seems to be a (rare?) example of a British idiom being taken up in America. The reverse is much more common. What British films or TV series were popular in the States around that time? The Court Jester was an American film set in Mediaeval England (long before the idiom in reality). Was it regularly shown on TV in America in the mid-2000s? I recall the exchange including "got it" being popular in the UK after the release of the film. Dbfirs 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic, but another example of a British idiom being taken up in America that I can think of is the recent tendency to call red-haired people "gingers". I think that term is decades old in Britain, but I never heard it from Americans until the South Park episode "Ginger Kids" was aired. Pais (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably a century old as in Biggles' friend "Ginger", based on W E Johns' experience in the First World War. Dbfirs 12:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Ginger Meggs was an Australian cartoon strip dating from the 1920s (indicating the term is probably even older), yet I can't recall 'ginger' being used as any sort of insult until probably after that South Park episode. Of course the preferred term in Aust today is ranga, but ginger does get a run these days. Historically in Aust, most redheads seemed to get bluey, but it wasn't generally used offensively. --jjron (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I must have been living under a rock or something. I swear the first time I ever heard the word "ranga" was when Julia Gillard became Prime Minister last year. I'd never heard it used of her in her earlier public career, or of anyone else ever. But apparently I'm the odd man out, because it's a well-established Australian colloquialism. The things you learn. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

For me (UK), the only thing I can see that could mark out the Amazon rainfall example above as noteworthy is if "Got it" is used unnecessarily, as a sort of catchphrase perhaps. I might use "Got it" in response to an answer, but only if there was some reason why I had to reassure the other person that I understood (perhaps I had misunderstood previously, or perhaps I have to act on the information and it's important that I get it right). Routine use of "Got it" as an acknowledgement of any answer would be beyond my usage. 109.151.57.40 (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very rarely watch those things, but I seem to recall seeing an episode of The Apprentice a few years back where "Got it" was used gratingly often as a response to any sort of answer or directive (often enough that I still remember it years later). Of course that may have post-dated it's common adoption on the street in NY, I wouldn't know, but it really stood out to me at the time as a little unusual, and more than a bit annoying, in both the regularity and forcefulness with which it was used. I can't say if it was in very regular usage on the show in general, as that was probably about the only episode of it I ever watched. --jjron (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that case actually, but I do remember one series where use of the expression "step up to the plate" became so excessive that the show even made a little joke compilation around the theme. 86.181.169.64 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Got it" is a way of saying "I understand" which conveys a greater sense of finality than "I understand". What I mean is that when one says "got it", they are indicating that they are not inclined to follow that up with any lengthier and more nuanced explanation, perhaps involving some agreement and some disagreement. "Got it" is a way of saying that I fully comprehend what you just said to the umpteenth degree and I agree with 100% of it. Of course, implicit in such an implication is the very unlikelihood of such complete agreement. Thus what one is conveying when one uses the "got it" locution is that, I agree with you but I haven't really examined what you just said. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh patronimics

Take the Welsh patronimics Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and Llywelyn ap Iorwerth (Llywelyn the Great was a 13th century Welsh ruler). Is there a reason why some secondary sources name him one way ("ab"), and other another way ("ap")? Is one an older form of Welsh, and the other modern Welsh (something like the Irish Ua and later Ó in surnames like Ua Néill and Ó Néill)?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In modern Welsh it's "ap", but "ab" is an older form. If you look for example at page 10 r. of the White book of Rhydderch you can see "Bendigeiduran uab llyr", modern spelling "Bendigeidfran fab Llyr", English "Bran the Blessed, son of Llyr". The word "uab" (probably pronounced /vab/) is a lenited form of "mab" = "son", but later that word as a patronymic particle lost the initial "v-" and tended to devoice the final consonant to give "ap". Note however, that surnames which preserve the old patronymic are divided over whether they preserve the voiced (Broderick, Bowen) or unvoiced (Pritchard, Pugh) consonant. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's "ap" before a consonant and "ab" before a vowel. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is (I think) a related question, hence using this thread. The Tranmere Rovers goalkeeper is Owain Fôn Williams, who is Welsh, from Caernarfon. But the Fôn part of his name - which is taken as part of his surname, and often with a lower case "f" - is a form that I haven't come across before. Is this a Welsh patronymic like ap, or does it have a different origin? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across "Fôn" in a name like that, but the long vowel makes me reasonably sure that it's an ordinary name-word, not a particle like "ap". "Fôn" is the soft mutation of "Môn", which is the Welsh name for Anglesey, so I suspect that is the meaning of the name. --ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So sites like this, which tend to use a lower case "f", are presumably wrong to do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a word...

Hi, is there a word or term for that feeling you sometimes get when a common word suddenly looks strange and unfamiliar, and becomes more and more strange the more you stare at it? 81.159.109.15 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic satiation. Previous ref-desk thread here. Deor (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or more generally it's a variant of jamais vu. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universally known as...

Hi, I was wondering whether this AdvP is grammatically correct in this context: "Romance languages are the most widely spoken in Spain; of which Castilian, universally known as Spanish, is the country's official language." 85.56.139.82 (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine, grammatically speaking. Whether it's factually correct is another matter. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how could it sound ~~more~~ less factual, without using the adverb "also known as", or alias? 85.56.139.82 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean less factual? (It already sounds factual enough. The point is that it may not actually be correct.) 86.179.7.170 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Then, how would you correct the above mentioned sentence? 85.56.139.82 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Castilian" sometimes refers to the specific variety of Spanish spoken in parts of Spain (see Castilian Spanish), and is marked by the "Castilian lisp" (see Ceceo) which is somewhat unique to that particular dialect and tends to mark it. Some Spanish speaking countries, in "official" documentation use the term "Castellano" as the name for the Spanish language in general, even if those countries don't speak Castilian Spanish, that is they speak a dialect of Spanish distinct from that spoken in Spain. Other Spanish speaking countries would only use the term "Castellano" to refer to European Spanish in particular. The factual accuracy of the statement "Castilian, universally known as Spanish" may be arguable. It would be better to say "Romance languages are the most widely spoken in Spain; of which Spanish, also known in some contexts as Castilian, is the country's official language." The Wikipedia article Names given to the Spanish language gives some context to the situation. --Jayron32 05:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't your formulation shift the meaning of the original sentence (which seems perfectly okay to me, but then I'm not a native speaker)? The sentence does not oppose the European dialect to other dialects of Spanish but opposes that language which emerged from the province of Castile (and which came to be known as "Spanish") to other Romance languages spoken in Spain, like Galician or Catalan. --Wrongfilter (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but for example Mexican Spanish is clearly Spanish, but clearly not Castilian. Galician and Catalan on the other hand are Spanish in the sense that they come from Spain, but they are not the Spanish language. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say Castilian Spanish is marked by ceceo (the "lisp"), one trait in some southern parts of Spain, when la distinción is somewhat more representative of it. -- the Great Gavini 06:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

What does it mean: "Don’t take net points over gross

Context: "two main rules of thumb for Hollywood celebrities: 1. Don’t take net points over gross, and, 2. Never tacitly give your support to brutal foreign leaders known for human rights abuses."

There is something about this at Hollywood_accounting#How_it_works. "net points" seems to be a way of calculating an actor's remuneration based on a film's net profit, and "gross points" a similar calculation based on gross revenue. The article does not seem to explain exactly what "points" means, however. I added a "clarify" tag. If the explanation transpires as a result of this thread then perhaps it could be added to the article. 86.179.7.170 (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buchwald v Paramount... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Hilary Swank got roundly criticized recently for attending the birthday party of President of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive discussion here, probably worth reading in full if you're interested. To take a lengthy quote: "In almost all cases, [all working on the movie] get fixed compensation for their work, which is unaffected by the profitability of the movie or whatever accounting ploys are used to determine it. They may also get contingent compensation in the form of either "gross points" or "net points" that is dependent on the accounting definitions in their contract. "Gross points" ... are payments based on a percent of the total revenues that flow after out-of-pocket expenses are repaid ... or ... may begin after certain conditions specified in the contracts are satisfied. In either case, "gross points" do not depend on the profitability of the film. "Net points" are another story. The payments here depend on a movie achieving a net profit after the studio [gets] back its investment, interest, overhead, distribution fee and pays all the gross players. In most cases, as David Mamet has said famously, "there is no net." And everyone in the film industry knows that with a standard studio contract, there is little, if any, chance they will see a penny from "net points" So why do they sign a contract with net points? The answer, in a word, is money. They want to be paid the fixed part of the fee and have an opportunity to be in the movie to further their career." Could be worth working into the article. --jjron (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To simplify what Jjron is saying, the term "net" means "revenue minus expenses", and it can be very fuzzy how "expenses" are calulated, so never negotiate from "net" (profits), instead always negotiate from "gross" (revenue). --Jayron32 05:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but I think with a slight caveat. If you're a big enough star, always negotiate from gross points so that you earn as much as possible. If you're starting out or aren't such a big star, then it may be beneficial to negotiate from net points if it means (a) you actually get the job and then get paid at least something for the movie based on your fixed earnings (after all something is better than nothing), and (b) get your name up in the proverbial lights in order to further your career, and ultimately get you to a point where you can negotiate from gross for later movies ... --jjron (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me later that "points" probably just means "percentage points". Can anyone verify this? If so, I will add it to the article. 109.151.57.40 (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pray vs. Beg

Can "praying" and "begging" be used interchangeably?

After betraying her best friend, Mary feels guilty and begs for her friend's mercy.
After betraying her best friend, Mary feels guilty and prays for her friend's mercy.
After committing a grave sin, Mary feels extraordinarily guilty and prays for God's mercy.
After committing a grave sin, Mary feels extraordinarily guilty and begs for God's mercy.

The imagery I get when I see the word "pray" is either the kissing of two palms in Romeo & Juliet, or kneeling on the ground and placing the hands on the hand in front of a god or goddess. The imagery I get when I see the word "beg" is the same, but the palms turn into two hands, left and right, holding each other perpendicularly. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the hand gestures, but the normal interpretation of sentence #1 is that Mary is directly begging her friend, while #2 would tend to suggest that Mary is praying to God that her friend will be merciful... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I think, begging implies a reasonable expectation of response, and praying does not. In addition, begging can be directed at anyone, but praying is almost always directed at supernatural beings. The two only have overlapping meanings in biblical situations (e.g. Jesus praying to God / begging God).--Itinerant1 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you pray, you're not necessarily asking for something. For example, you could be thanking [insert deity here]. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the words are not normally interchangeable, but looking at our articles on begging and prayer it seems it depends on where you are, what you want, what you're wearing, and who (or what) you are addressing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and remember the older meaning of "pray", given in Wiktionary as "To humbly beg a person for aid ". Dbfirs 12:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latinise something that Latin-speakers were never aware of please? (might require some creativity/kludging)

If I asked this question once before, I apologise - am refining a piece of writing that I originally worked on, with WP reference desk help, many years ago - too far back for me to find in the archives. Here's the thing: I need to Latinise 'billiard-table'; I think it's probably impossible using proper Latin, but I don't mind some impropriety; if a 17th century freethinker was playfully Latinising the term, what would he end up with? If it helps, I want to come up with a name for a nebula shaped like a billiard table... (PS - I'd like the result to be recognisable to some degree, please, so non-Latin speakers have a chance of guessing the meaning).

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billiard means a little stick, so logically you're seeking the Latin for "little stick table". It comes from Bille, log, which comes from a Gaulish word meaning "tall tree", according to the list of French words of Gaulish origin. (So, a little tall tree table. Getting quite far from being recognisable by this point.) Several Latin and Late Latin words were borrowed from Gaulish, so it seems reasonable to end up with something that still resembles "billiards". You could base it on the root "bilia", and add a Latin diminutive (-iculum or whatever it should be) instead of the French -ard, and then you'd want the Latin for table which is tabula. Tabula biliculum, that's my guess, but I don't know my Latin grammar so I've almost certainly got the wrong ending on the second word. Oh, and bacillus is Latin for "wand" or "little staff", that might be useful instead, although then it would be less recognisable. Card Zero (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula billiardum? Roger (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican, Nuntii Latini, and Latin Wikipedia face similar dilemmas all the time, so if you don't want to reinvent the wheel, you might try to check whether or not there's an accepted equivalence... AnonMoos (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about tabula perforata? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can see this page (it's pg. 139 of a Spanish-Neo-Latin dictionary), it has a whole bunch of options for "billiards". In case you can't see it, here are some of its translations: bilardum, -i; eburnipilium, pilitudium, pililudium, ludus tudicularis, eburnearum pilarum ludus, ludus globulorum eburneorum, ludus sex foraminum (for the game itself); pilitudiaria mensa, tabula lusoria, tabula ad pilis ludendum, alveus ad eburneis pilis ludendum (for the actual table). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps, all of you; really great, helpful answers. AnonMoos, I sent an email to Nuntii Latini, good idea; but even if they don't reply, I think my question's been very well addressed here. Adam Bishop, I couldn't see the page you linked to, but, again, I reckon I've got quite enough to be going on with here. Admodum bene! Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Typecast" in past tense

Should it become "typecasted"? Or is that not a word? Basically which is correct: "He was typecasted in comedy roles" or just "He was typecast in comedy roles". Thanks in advance. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's always "typecast"; the verb doesn't change. It's cast-cast-cast. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you would never say "casted". Seems so obvious now. I thought it sounded wrong. Thank you! --Lobo512 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion about the OK-ness (or not) of broadcasted, typecasted, forecasted etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What that discussion doesn't mention is that broadcast and forecast were nouns before they were verbs, while typecast wasn't. Since broadcast and forecast are thus denominal verbs, rather than verbs derived directly from the verb "to cast", they're expected to take the regular -ed ending for past tense/past participle. Typecast, on the other hand, isn't expected to do so, since it's derived directly from the verb. Angr (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is it like: "come - came - come" vs. "welcome - welcomed - welcomed"? --Theurgist (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or "stand - stood - stood" vs. "grandstand - grandstanded - grandstanded". It happens in German too, hence "tragen - trug - getragen" but "beantragen - beantragte - beantragt", which is denominal from the noun Antrag. Angr (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let he who is without good grammar casted the first stone. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

millionaire

I have always understood the term millionaire (in the US) to mean someone with a net worth of at least 1M USD. In the recent tax debates, though, it seems to be shifting to meaning an income of 1M or more. Is there evidence that this is part of a more general linguistic shift, or is it (for now) just a way of saving space in newspaper headlines and sound bites? --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The shift is probably to keep the term relatively elitist. Thanks to inflation, it's much easier to be worth a million dollars nowadays than it was eighty years ago, so if the term millionaire is going to keep its panache it needs to be redefined to reduce the number of people it applies to. Angr (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The most obvious case of this is when somebody wins a million dollars in the lottery. They don't get it as a lump sum, though, they get it over 20 years, without adjusting for inflation. So that's $50K a year, minus taxes. Not exactly "filthy rich". StuRat (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys do it tough. When we (hypothetically) win big $$ in the lottery, we get the cash in one lump sum, and it's tax-free to boot. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it used to refer to income in the UK. It is sometimes used to refer to net worth excluding your primary residence (on the grounds that you can't really sell your primary residence, so its value doesn't contribute to your purchasing power), but that's the only other definition I've seen. Can you give an example of where it has been used to refer to income? --Tango (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/12/news/economy/payroll_tax_cut/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2 --Trovatore (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 13