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.
î and â in Romanian—what happens if there's a c or g about?
According to the article on Romanian orthography, the Romanian letters î and â are identical, and that â is used word-internally and î is used at the start or end. But what happens if there's a soft c or g that needs to be preserved? If there were a word pronounced Romanian pronunciation:[tʃɨt], would it have to be spelled cît despite the rule? Or would it be ciât? (Does î even make c or g soft? Or are there even any Romanian words which have the clusters Romanian pronunciation:[tʃɨ] and Romanian pronunciation:[dʒɨ]?)
This rule was introduced with a spelling reform of 1993. Until then, /ɨ/ was spelt î everywhere except in român, România and their derivatives, and in certain proper names (Agârbiceanu). See Romanian alphabet#Î versus  for more information. The â/î does not make the c/g soft: cînta (pre-1993 orthography) or cânta (modern orthography) is pronounced [kɨnˈta], and gîndi (pre-1993 orthography) or gândi (modern orthography) is pronounced [ɡɨnˈdi]. As for whether the /tʃɨ/ and /dʒɨ/ combinations exist in the language, I (non-native speaker) can't think of any words that contain them. --Theurgist (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mari, I have already submitted the translation, and I did in fact use 'apply'. I couldn't declare this question closed because Wikipedia was offline yesterday. Cheers, anyway. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Port Authority's Exact Words
There is audio all over the Net purporting to be the conversation between the Captain of the Costa ship that capsized and the Italian Coast Guard. One phrase (translated as "Get back on board, [expletive!]") has made it's way around the world, everywhere, in fact, except where I can see it. Does anyone know the actual words in Italian and what (in English) is the "expletive" that was used ? Bielle (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the final part of the question, "Cazzo" means cock, prick, penis. It's not in our article Italian profanity except in the compound "Cazzo di Budda! (Buddha's cock!)" but you can find it in many dictionaries, e.g.[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because cazzo in the original was not an insult directed at Schettino, it was an exclamation of anger/exasperation. The Language Log link above offers "Get the fuck on board!" as an idiomatic translation. Angr (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me to look at what the Italian Wikipedia says about parolacccia, as linked from the English article Italian profanity. I haven't attempted to verify their sources, but it gives three categories, imprecazioni (expletives), insulti (insults) and maledizioni (curses). Of the imprecazioni, it gives cazzo as the single example, saying:
sono una forma di interiezione, ovvero di dialogo con sé stessi, e servono a sfogare simbolicamente la propria aggressività contro un oggetto inanimato o contro una situazione...
Or roughly:
expletives are a form of interjection, or something one says to oneself, and are used symbolically to vent one's aggression against an inanimate object or against a situation.
And our Italian friends have a 36-footnote article on cazzo. My Italian suffices for basics, but not to untie academic arguments, so I'll leave any further investigations to those who are fluent. For linking convenience, the original question was about the Costa Concordia disaster. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Both...and..." or "...so..."?
...the opening of the game did away with the slow opening sequence of Golden Sun, introducing the characters in between the action.
It's mean "Both (the opening of the game did away with the slow opening sequence), and (introducing the characters in between the action)." or "(introducing the characters in between the action), so (the opening of the game did away with the slow opening sequence)"?
It means, "[the opening of the game did away with the slow opening sequence] and instead [the characters are introduced in the course of the action]". "In between the action" sounds really, really bad to me. Angr (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that instead of a long opening sequence where all of the characters are introduced, now one is introduced, then there's some action, then the next is introduced, then more action, etc. If this is indeed what they meant, then perhaps "character introductions are now interspersed with action scenes" might describe it best. Also, I don't like using "opening" in the same sentence to mean two different things. The first instance should be changed to "beginning". So: "The beginning replaced the slow opening sequence of Golden Sun. Character introductions are now interspersed with action scenes." StuRat (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the longest English word that can in theory be written by repeatedly pressing the same key on a phone with an E.161 keyboard?
What is the longest English word that could be written by repreatedlety pressing the same key on a phone with predictive text and an E.161 keyboard, if the word was in the phone's dictionary? The longest I can think of is "deeded", which is not in my phone's dictionary. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a short shell script that finds the longest such word in a dictionary of your choice:
DICT=/usr/share/dict/words
(for PAT in abc def ghi jkl mno pqrs tuv wxyz; do
grep -i "^[$PAT]*$" "$DICT"
done) | (while read WORD; do echo "${#WORD} $WORD"; done) | sort -nr | head -1
With the system wordlist on Mac OS X the longest such word is deedeed (a euphemism for damned, according to the OED). Gdr16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The words "Sodomy" and "Fornication" and "Adultery" -- fancy words for anal/oral sex, premarital sex, and extramarital sex?
Can "Sodomy", "Fornication", and "Adultery" be used as fancy, formal words for "Anal/Oral sex", "Premarital sex" and "Extramarital sex"? Is there a fancy term for "Vaginal sex"?
Instead of saying "James had anal sex with Christopher", one can write "James sodomizes with Christopher", and it still means the same thing, right? And a person who has anal sex with someone would be considered a Sodomite, right? Or does the term "sodomite" bear any connotations to the people of Sodom such as Israelite is a person from Israel? If a person happens to be from Sodom but does not engage in anal sex practices for whatever reason, then is that person still a Sodomite or be called innocently as "a person from Sodom" without any sexual connotations whatsoever? 164.107.189.181 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These terms are in fact pretty much obsolete, and mostly to be found, if at all, in lawbooks not updated since the Victorian era (or in the more florid pornography). (And to be technical, "to sodomize" is a transitive verb: James sodomizes Christopher, or vice versa.) In U.S. law, the word "sodomy" (a/k/a "the abominable and detestable crime against nature") in particular was often expanded to include any kind of sexual activity other than heterosexual penis/vagina intercourse, even including bestiality! See our article sodomy law. --Orange Mike | Talk17:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sodomy, fornication and adultery should not be used. These words are obsolete and ambiguous, as well as having millennia of baggage("sin") attached to them. You should be as straightforward as you can be when you write, if you feel embarrassed then leave it to someone else. DukeTwicep (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify, though, that adultery in the sense of "violation of a marital expectation of exclusivity in sexual activity" is still a useful term, since there's nothing formal that expresses the same thing. --Orange Mike | Talk18:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how "sodomy" itself got the connotation of "anal sex". Jesus, in the only instance of him mentioning Sodom, hints that the sin of Sodom was pride, selfishness, greed, and cruelty. Indeed this is also the Jewish interpretation and attested in other books and the Talmud not present in the Christian Old Testament. See Sodomy. People who claim it is in fact sexual behavior because of later instances of the word "Sodomite" in other passages (in Deuteronomy, Kings, and Job) forget one simple thing: they are holding an English translation. The original text did not at all say "Sodomite", nor were the words used even related in any way to Sodom. -- Obsidi♠nSoul18:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Genesis 19:4-5 says "But before they [Lot and his party] lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. " Luckily Lot had the perfect answer: offer his virgin daughters instead. " (19:8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, The only good man in Sodom is one who would willingly let his virgin daughters be raped. But even that is unclear. It can easily be interpreted as rape as well. And earlier accounts of the wickedness of Sodom do not specifically mention this as the reason. It seems the very vagueness of why Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed led to its application in later interpretations to sins that are nebulously "unnatural". -- Obsidi♠nSoul18:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Within that historical context, it would not be considered rape, any more than setting up an arranged marriage for your daughter without her consent would be considered rape. From the earliest history until recent times (possibly as late as the 19th century, I'm not sure about this last part, but certainly well into the Middle Ages), rape was not a crime against a woman, but rather a crime against her guardian (for an unmarried woman - her father, for a married woman - her husband). Rape of an unmarried virgin girl was considered particularly heinous, because her virginity was one of the greatest financial assets of her father and he could expect to extract a sizable sum of money in exchange for an arranged marriage. The woman herself had no say at all, she were to do what her guardian told her to do. --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formally (in English-speaking religious contexts):
'sodomy' refers to any kind of non-child-producing (and hence to the religious mind unnatural) sexual activity, excepting masturbation. This loosely includes anal sex, bestiality, and oral sex.
'onanism' is used for masturbation
'intercourse' is used for normal sex (usually in the marital context)
'adultery' is a violation of marital vows (yours or another's)
'fornication' is non-marital but otherwise regular sex
there are a few others (like frotteurism) that are less conventional. IMO, the association of sodomy with sexuality is because in English of the time 'know' was a euphemism for 'have sex with' (e.g. someone in 16th or 17th century England would say 'I knew him/her' the way a modern American might say 'I did him/her' - if I remember correctly, Shakespeare plays on that a lot). Lot's statement, particularly combined with the bit about virgin daughters, would have tickled English speakers no end. Most likely Lot was trying to appease a mob suspicious about strangers by distracting them with women - note that the mob didn't take him up on the daughter-offer, which is what one would expect if it were actually about sex.
The person who sodomizes is a sodomite. A person who fornicates is a fornicator. A person who commits adultery is an adulterer, or if female, an adulteress. If that is the case, then present-day unmarried, pregnant teenagers could be called "fornicators", if there was a time machine and a person from the 19th century used it to travel to the 21st century. 164.107.190.169 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but didn't it have that meaning in English because that is how the phrase is used in the Bible? The Bible uses the set phrase "to know (a man)" quite a few times when it clearly means sex, and I was pretty sure this was actually a Hebrew idiom that had been transferred to English (and some other languages) through the Bible. I'm not sure where to look that up. It's why people say "know in the Biblical sense". Even literal modern Bibles have Mary in Luke (written in Greek, but in a Jewish context from people familiar with the older Scriptures) saying "how can this be, as I have not known a man?". It's not sniggering English-speakers reading an unsavoury meaning in: this is what it meant. Aha!
3 [with object] archaic have sexual intercourse with (someone).
[a Hebraism which has passed into modern languages; compare with German erkennen, French connaître]
(OxfordDictionaries.com definition of "know". I can't paste the link, weirdly enough.)
It's worth remembering that instead of saying "James had anal sex with Christopher", one can write "James had anal sex with Christine". I don't know if that's a crime anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For pedagogical purposes, I generally say seven: /ɪɛæʌɑɔʊ/. The rest can be presented as diphthongs in -j (/ɪjɛjɑjɔj/=[iːeɪaɪɔɪ]), -w (/æwʌw~ɔwʊw/=[aʊoʊuː]), or -r (/ɪrɛrʌrɑrɔrʊr/). — kwami (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the bird vowel, you either need to posit an additional rhotic vowel /ɝ/ (so /ɝɹ/), or that this is underlyingly /ʌr/. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In accents with the cot-caught merger, however, it's difficult to justify listing both /ɑ/ and /ɔ/, but without /ɔ/ there's no easy way to resolve [ɔɪ] and [ɔr] into simple vowel + approximant. Angr (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also /ɔw/, and you could argue [ɔr] is /ɔwr/, but yeah, it's weird to have no /ɔ/. But I'm thinking more of accessibility than of theoretical elegance. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pin-pen merger doesn't have an effect on the number of phonemes, since /ɪ/ and /ɛ/ are not merged in all environments. Even someone with the pin-pen merger still distinguishes bit and bet. Angr (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally there were pronunciation differences between furry [fɜːrɪ] hurry [hʌrɪ] Mary [mɛːrɪ] merry [mɛrɪ] marry [mærɪ] starry [stɑːrɪ] etc., but only very few dialects retain the full set of contrasts... AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a difference between 'rhotic' vowels and vowels followed by /r/. Some vowels may only be followed by /r/ if there is another vowel after that. Hurry is an example: there is no possibility of a word like "bird" with that vowel, even in dialects that distinguish hurry and furry. You see the same thing with marry – merry – Mary: there is only a single air sound within syllables. So you could argue there are rhotic vowels (effectively diphthongs) and also a larger set of vowel + /r/. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My dialect of English has ten true vowels /ɑːiːuːæɛɪɒʌʊə/ and four diphthongs /ajojaʊjuː/, as well as two diphthong/vowels /eɪ oʊ/. My dialect also distinguishes between syllabic and consonantal /ɹ/ (<boar> [boɹ̩] and <bore> [boɹ] are pronounced differently), so one could argue that that makes eleven vowels. Interchangeable|talk to me19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am sure. /əɹ/ does not exist in my dialect, with the exception of words like "erase" and "surreal" ([əɹʷeɪs], [səɹʷiːəɫ]) where the /ɹ/ is between a schwa and another vowel. Otherwise, my dialect always realizes /ər/ as /ɹ̩/.
I'm here to ask about the odd, unnatural "almost-English" that commercial marketers seem prone to. Examples:
Many large stores in my country have signs near the exit that say "Thank you for shopping K-Mart" (or whatever the name is).
We see TV ads with some celebrity endorsing some product, and it's set up as a conversation introduced by something like "Don Burke talks Selley's".
Who actually talks like that? Does a concerned parent say to their partner "We need to talk Kevin"? Nobody I've ever heard says they "shop K-Mart" or "talk Selley's". They might shop at K-Mart or talk about Selley's products. We do "talk turkey", but that's a very particular expression that isn't generalised, afaik.
The "talks X" usage seems a fairly reasonable extension of expressions like "let's talk business", but I've never seen the "shopping" example here in the UK. To me, "shopping K-mart" can only mean reporting them to the police for some misbehaviour. (wikt:shop#Verb) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Jack, one thing it's done is caught your attention. Now, next time you need a product which could come from those suppliers, you will go directly there. That's how it's supposed to work anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works in reverse for me. Have you by chance encountered those truly shocking ads for Harvey Norman, which SHOUT all their messages at us at an incomprehensibly fast speed and end with a gaggle of women screaming Go, Harvey Norman! GO!? I always turn the sound off, and I will not set foot in their stores or buy any of their products until they can communicate with us in a civilised manner. Not that my silent protest will make the slightest difference to their profits, but it makes me feel better. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My subjective impression, based on the USA-originated general literature and specific linguistic material I've read over the decades (e.g. Leo Rosten's The Joy of Yiddish), is that such usages are consistent with others that derive from German and Yiddish, having entered general US linguistic culture from immigrants with those native tongues. Consider, for example, such Yiddish-English expressions as "Would you like a cup coffee?" eliding the "of" natural to British English.
I believe it's uncontroversial that the 20th-century advertising industry, as with the comic book industry and Hollywood, had a higher than average proportion of Jewish participants (NB: this is in no way a negative observation – I'm partly of Jewish descent myself), and as a consequence expressions characteristic of that linguistic community may have entered US English preferentially through advertising. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.242 (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...Then Sammy he crumbled, just like a piece halva..." (courtesy of Allan Sherman). I don't think it's necessarily a Jewish thing, it's just a trend in written advertising to have as few words there as possible. In spoken English, it's done more conventionally: "Thank you for shopping at K-Mart." During the holiday season, Mike Rowe had a number of ads for Ford automobiles which all began: "What do I do during the holidays? Come to the mall. Talk about Ford." Not "talk Ford". Although he did leave out the subject "I", that being understood. There are spoken expressions such as "let's talk business" or "let's talk turkey". Those are kind of specialized. "Business" is often used without an article. "How's business?" for example. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be a modern and mainly American phenomenon, merging the preposition into the word. This book makes a brief reference to it. In the UK "thank you for shopping X" is unheard of, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear/read "thank you for flying British Airways". the wub"?!"17:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd chalk it up to a tendency of people in service jobs, perhaps as instructed by marketing departments, to substitute a verb for the customer's action for the verb to use. Whether this tendency then spread to the culture at large, or rather started as general use and then moved into flight-attendant-speak, I don't know. "Thank you for shopping Wal-Mart" = "Thank you for using Wal-Mart (for your shopping needs)." "Thank you for (flying Delta, or riding Amtrak)" are the other major uses I've heard. Now, it could simply be a dropped preposition as Bugs suggests; but I think it might instead be a general practice to commodify the product being sold, even if the product is a service rather than a physical thing. Flying Northwest is the same thing, from either a shareholder's or your internal linguist's perspective, as eating McDonald's (though nobody thanks you for that in so many words) or drinking Coke or reading The New York Times. These uses all make sense as a direct act by a consumer (speaker) upon a tangible object which is named identically to the company that produced it, and on this hypothesis a flight from Point A to Point B is just like a hamburger with lettuce and tomato, in terms of how language manipulates its meaning in a sentence. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠20:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the cost of the sign would be a factor. There must be some saving in dropping "at" or "the". Of course you can always try complaining. My neighbour has a sign that reads "Beware of dog" that really irritates me, especially as he is never there. I complained about it but in the end I wrote "the" on a paper and stuck it on the sign. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the sign means to say something like “Thank you for shopping. K-Mart”, with the “K-Mart” being a signature, and they're actually eliding punctuation marks rather than prepositions? – b_jonas17:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about saving money with shorter signs — Alcoa dropped an "i" from "aluminium" to save space and created the spelling "aluminum" as a result. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Jack on this Nyttend. Alcoa has extensive operations here in Australia and, as you'll see from its Australian web site, follows the country's convention of using the aluminium spelling here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no citation to back this up, but the impression I have is that it's nothing to do with saving space or saving money. They want to kinda "sex-up" the language, inject some "chicness" into it. A person who "shops K-Mart" is on the ball and is up there with all the latest fashion and IT trends (a good thing, supposedly), whereas a person who merely "shops at K-Mart" could just be your frazzled and frumpish overweight housewife from the western suburbs with screaming snotty-nosed kids named Charlene, Kylie and Nathan. Any marketing gurus out there who can confirm my deepest suspicions? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pronunciation
I'm looking for a word that satisfies the following 3 conditions:
It ends in an "ed" (for indicating the Past tense, or the Past participle).
The "ed" follows a voiceless consonant other than t.
Nope. Sorry, the "ed" follows the /kə/ sound, which is not a voicelss consonant, but rather a sound of a voiced vowel - following a voiceless consonant. 87.68.245.244 (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, but the source gives also unvoiced examples: crooked, naked, wicked, wretched, blessed, markedly, markedness. As for the other "voiced" examples: aged, learned, rugged (and: two-legged), the source gives them just in order to claim that their "ed" is pronounced /ɪd/ rather than just /d/. 87.68.245.244 (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greek, German, English
In the realm of paleontology, how do the words "πλατεία", "breiter Weg", and "broadway"? What would be a better translation of the Greek into English (or German, for that matter). Bielle (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to my condensed Liddell and Scott, Ancient Greek πλατεῖα (alternative dialect form πλατέα) is the feminine singular of the adjective πλατύς "Flat, wide, broad". Unfortunately, the word "broadway"[sic] is used prominently on article plateosaurus in a way which really doesn't make any sense according to the meanings of "broadway" listed in English dictionaries, and some of the authors of this alleged featured article react strongly to that being pointed out... AnonMoos (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The big L-S says that πλατεῖα was also used substantively to mean "street" (i.e., πλατεῖα ὁδός)—see sense II at the page I've linked. I agree that "broadway" is a poor translation either of πλατεῖα or of breiter Weg. Deor (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the "discussion". What has me curious is that Google translate uses the Greek word as one of the two words meaning "public square". A public square is a "broad road" or "broad way". There is no use of the single word "broadway" that I know that isn't specific to the world of theater. A public square is usually paved with large stones; is that the connection, I wonder? Can "πλατεία" mean "plate" as in "large scales" or even "tectonic plates"? The whole argument seems to hinge on a translation into a phrase that isn't English. Bielle (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Η πλατεῖα can mean "street" (literally "the flat one"), as mentioned by Deor. I don't see anything about public square in the dictionary, and no-one knew about tectonic plates until the 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "public square" meaning is peculiar to Modern Greek, probably influenced by (or having developed along the same lines as) Italian piazza, Spanish plaza, etc. Deor (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Lewis & Short's first definition of the Latin equivalent platea is "a broad way in a city, a street". Breiter Weg = "broad way", but the OED entry for solid broadway (with the parenthetical note "now usually as two words") says that as a common noun it meant "a wide open road or highway, as opposed to a narrow lane or byway", which seems to lack the urban focus of the Greek and Latin words. Deor (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the styleguide of my university, the term "Technische Universität Berlin" (literally Berlin University of Technology) is not translated in English texts. But does this term need an article (c.f. "at THE University of Texas") or not (c.f. "at Stanford University"), so will it be "I am studying at THE Technische Universität Berlin" or "at Technische Universität Berlin"? 130.149.229.180 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think either one could be used, depending if you want to effectively "Anglicize" it a little (by including "the") or treat it as a purely foreign name (by omitting "the"). AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no source to back this up, just my own experience of how we say things in the UK, but I reckon that if the name is given as 'xxx University' there is no article, but if you have the word 'of' in the title, you need an article. Therefore you get 'Oxford University', 'Westminster Academy', 'City University', but 'theUniversity of Oxford', 'theUniversity of Nottingham', 'theRoyal School of Mines' and so on. Therefore I would plump for either 'Technische Universität Berlin' (which I would personally translate as Berlin Technical University, therefore no 'of' and no article) or, if translated as above, 'THE Berlin University of Technology', which has an 'of' so needs a 'the'. I hope that makes a bit of sense! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For "at Technische Universität Berlin" vs. "at the Technische Universität Berlin" the ratio is about 1 to 2,5. The exact numbers vary but they are in the tens to hundreds of thousands. Iblardi (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, "studying at the Technical University of Berlin" gets 20000 hits (5 without "the") and "studying at the TU Berlin" gets 4000 hits (800 without "the"). 188.117.11.111 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no clear rules, but my instinct is also to use "the", especially because German also uses an article here: "an der Technische Universität Berlin". Lesgles (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. They are saying the contestant may try again next time (literally, it says "We are waiting for you to try again"). Also, the Japanese says, "...condition got worse and suddenly withdrew...." From that, I would take it that the contestant was actually already sick but was planning to turn up anyway. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)02:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I flipped through two French-English dictionaries, both of which were geared to British speakers. What surprised me was that the English pronunciation guides do not use /ɛ/ and transcribe all instances of close-mid to open-mid vowels as /e/. Is this merely an anomaly or laziness on the part of the lexographers, or does British English really go without /ɛ/? I find the second option hard to believe, as my dialect relies on this difference for several important word pairs (late/let, wait/wet, abate/abet, phase/fez, and date/debt to name a few). Interchangeable|talk to me19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is there, but it's a judgement call how to transcribe it. John Wells uses ⟨e⟩ for the let vowel, most other phoneticians use ⟨ɛ⟩. The pair can be transcribed ⟨ɛ e⟩, ⟨e eː⟩, ⟨ɛ eː⟩, ⟨e eɪ⟩, ⟨ɛ ɛɪ⟩, ⟨ɛ eɪ⟩, ⟨ɛ ej⟩, ⟨e ej⟩, etc. Depends on whether you think length is primary, or if it's height, diphthongization, etc. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that to English speakers unfamiliar with phonetics /eɪ/ is "long A" - it is 1) "long" and 2) more associated with <a>, and hence with /æ/, than with <e> and /ɛ/. The fact that there exist distinct open and close vowels /e/ and /ɛ/ will not generally be appreciated (and nor will the fact that /eɪ/ is a diphthong). Writers of foreign pronunciation guides for non-specialist English speakers often need to choose the least worst options. --ColinFine (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an AmE speaker, but I'm fairly certain BrE has /ɛ/. I'm also fairly certain it doesn't have monophthong /e/ (only diphthong /eɪ/), which might be why the dictionaries used /e/... it's easier to type than /ɛ/, and /e/ isn't being used anyway. (We do the same thing a lot in AmE, for instance transcribing /ɹ/ as /r/ because <r> is easier to type--it's on a normal keyboard--and AmE doesn't have a real /r/ anyway.) That's just speculation though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most UK accents do indeed have /ɛ/. Yorkshire (where I live) also has /eː/ (which combination the "IPA (English)" character set offered by this editor does not include), but I can't think of instances of short /e/ - in Bradford "take" is not /teːk/ but /tɛk/. But there's no reason why a dictionary's own indication scheme should follow IPA. --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of what you're saying, because the dictionary was using the IPA. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. It distinguished the sounds as /eɪ/ for itself and /e/ for /ɛ/. Interchangeable|talk to me21:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The person who selected the transcription conventions used in that dictionary presumably would have said that a "broad transcription" was being used instead of a "narrow transcription", without any intention to indicate the non-existence of the [ɛ] sound... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few days ago I heard a Scottish speaker on the radio who said the names of letters j, m, and f. He clearly made the distinction [dʒeɪ] but [ef] and [em]. I think that clears things up. Interchangeable|talk to me16:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
light sounds are pretty common, so anyone even a little familiar with how russian actually sounds - regardless of whether they can read cyrillic - can benefit. 80.98.112.4 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are minimal pairs, such as "брат" (brother) vs "брать" (to take). But generally it's part of one of the general issues of transliteration - do you aim to be faithful to the spelling or the pronunciation, do you preserve purely graphical distinctions, do you preserve phonemic distinctions that are difficult for English speakers to appreciate, etc. In principle it depends on your purposes for transliteration; but since there is value in standardisation, non-ad hoc transliteration schemes try to be general purpose, which may involve compromises. --ColinFine (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time it substantially changes the pronunciation, and often it also changes the meaning. Situations where it can be ignored are mostly exceptional and indicate the laziness of the person who's doing the transliterating, the presumption that the reader will know the correct way to pronounce the word (you're supposed to know that the last 'r' in Tver is soft, but in Vladimir it's not), or that the soft sign may be inferred from the transliteration without an apostrophe (e.g. Михаил Касьянов is transliterated Mikhail Kasyanov rather than Kas'yanov, because Касьянов is a common last name, but Касянов is very rare.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that in practice they often ignore the ь in transliterations: e.g. Perm, Yaroslavl, Bolshoi Theatre and many others. I'd say it's a matter of some differences between "scientific" and "conventional"/"simplified" transliterations of some languages. For example, the "scientific" transliterations use diacritics to indicate long vowels (Japanese, Arabic, Hindi), tones (Chinese), retroflex consonants (Hindi) or pharyngealised consonants (Arabic), or two different types of apostrophes to indicate Arabic hamza and ʿayn - all these things might be irrelevant for common English speakers, but are quite substantial for those who speak or study those languages. --Theurgist (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
January 22
the 17th century equivalent of 'decor'
Decor is a 19th Century term; was there some equivalent that was current in English or French in the 1650s? Our interior design article is very heavy on US designers - I was hoping for something earlier, obviously: I suppose 'interior design' must be a very recent phrase - I wonder what term it replaced...
I thought of "furnishing(s)" too, but the OED does not support the suggestion. It gives the word "furnishing" in the sense of "decoration" from 1594 certainly (the word itself is dated from 1496) but its sole example before 1882 is (1594 R. Carew tr. Tasso Godfrey of Bulloigne iii. 118) "Those two, who thus in one conioyned goe, and parrell white, white haue their furnishing" - i.e. it means decoration but not of a room.
"Furniture" in its modern everyday sense, the OED dates from 1573, but of course this is only part of "decor". I haven't found a better answer. --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On http://www.guardiacostiera.it/ I'm trying to find something on the site which explicitly states that the Italian coast guard is responsible for investigating nautical accidents and incidents. Would anyone fluent in Italian mind helping me find such statements? Thank you
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under "ORGANIZZAZIONE" it is said that one of the main activitie is: "Polizia marittima (cioè polizia tecnico-amministrativa marittima), comprendente la disciplina della navigazione marittima e la regolamentazione di eventi che si svolgono negli spazi marittimi soggetti alla sovranità nazionale, il controllo del traffico marittimo, la manovra delle navi e la sicurezza nei porti, le inchieste sui sinistri marittimi, il controllo del demanio marittimo, i collaudi e le ispezioni periodiche di depositi costieri e di altri impianti pericolosi."
In particular, "le inchieste sui sinistri marittimi" means investigations of nautical disasters. So yes, one of the main activities is to investigate sea accidents/incidents. --151.41.163.244 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read that "Pwned" was made popular by misspelling with a key next to "o." Turns out, "i," "k," and "l" is also next to "o." Therefore, why hasn't "iwned," "kwned," and "lwned" gained currency as opposed to "pwned?" Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this question could be answered factually, but it seems obvious to me that, firstly and most importantly, "pwned" is funny and the others are not. And that is probably because "P" is next to "O" both on the keyboard and in the alphabet, and it looks like "O" while the others do not. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find that typos with my right hand tend to be the letter to the right of the intended letter (therefore, 'o'>'p'). Conversely, typos with my left hand tend to be to the left (e.g. 'e'>'w'). This is only my experience, but if others are the same then this may explain at least part of it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we have an article on Pwn, including a section on the Etymology. It suggests a few other possible reasons for it than it just being the preferred typo. --jjron (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to a discussion here, I'm curious if anyone familiar with Gikuyu or Kenya, can help us identify if converting instances of "Ngugi" to "Ngũgĩ" would be correct, or if the accent marks are only added in certain instances (when wa follows it?). Essentially while we know the correct spelling of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, would those rules apply more broadly? Any help is appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alphabet of Gikuyu does feature the letters <ũ> and <ĩ>. The corresponding Gikuyu Wikipedia article has the same title exactly: ki:Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. There is a little information regarding the name at the #Biography section too. I'd guess that "Ngugi" could be a simplified Anglicised or Swahilicised spelling of the name. As far as the "wa" is concerned: at least in Swahili, a fellow member of the Bantu language group, "wa" is (one of the forms of) a connector somewhat corresponding to the English possessive "of"; I'd think that it could be the same in Gikuyu, and that it should thus be irrelevant for the diacritics of "Ngũgĩ". That's what I can tell, from the best of my knowledge. --Theurgist (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out that Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o has a son called Mũkoma wa Ngũgĩ. Judging from their names, it gets even more plausible that the "wa" should be the same genitive particle that it is in Swahili: Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o = "Thiong'o's [son] Ngũgĩ" and Mũkoma wa Ngũgĩ = "Ngũgĩ's [son] Mũkoma". But please be aware that even though this makes perfect sense (at least to me), it is still some original research of mine. --Theurgist (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, they are：青岛市宁夏路288号市南软件园G3楼213室. The pinyin romanisation is Qīngdǎoshì níngxiàlù 288 hào shìnán ruǎnjiànyuán G3 lóu 213 shǐ. The translation is: Qingdao City, 288 South Ningxia Road Software Complex, Building G3, Office 213. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first version of this story said that the woman was “killed” after being swept away. While I support the change to “dies” in this case, I got to wondering when someone is “killed” compared to when they just “die”. (Well, not just die; but not "killed" either.)
If she’d been involved in a car crash, or struck by a falling tree, or shot by accidental gunfire, or struck by lightning, or was a victim of murder or even manslaughter, we’d have no hesitation in saying she was killed. But if she accidentally swallowed poison, or was electrocuted at home, or was victim of a gas leak, or died in a house fire, I’m not so sure that “kill” would fit. I think we’d be more likely to say she “died”, maybe with some qualifier to avoid giving the impression that natural causes were the reason for her death.
So, what makes the difference? If a person is killed by a falling grand piano (even though this implies no intent on the part of said piano), why is a person who drowns while swimming not killed (even though this would similarly fail to imply intent on the part of the ocean)? Is it that one can point to a definite object in one case, but only to an amorphous mass of water in the other case? If so, is not a pile of poison tablets or a burning house just as definite as a grand piano? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]07:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case of passivity (in reality, not in linguistic terms). In your first list, all those things can be said to have killed the victim; in the second list, we wouldn't. Assuming that, then I'd say that was because of the passivity of the action, more like a status than an act. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 09:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think killed without a specified agent/cause implies murder or homicide. In common usage you can be "killed by a falling tree", "killed in a car crash", "killed by cancer", but if you're simply "killed" it has a narrower meaning. In cases where the agency is implied, it's trickier, and best to be as explicit as possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that when used with the passive ('was killed'), it does sound odd sometimes - 'a woman has been killed after being caught in a rip' sounds like she was rescued and executed afterwards (in addition to making a clumsy-sounding sentence with two passives in close-proximity - the reason, I presume, for the change). 'Kill' does tend to imply intention. However, this is not the case all of the time ('Alcohol killed him/He was killed by alcohol', 'Cleopatra was killed by poison,' etc.). If you look at List of unusual deaths, you will get 42 instances of the word 'killed' in the actual list itself - some of them sound odd, but others just fine. You may want to check them out to see if you can refine your criteria. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)11:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use of "without" to mean outside. Is it now outdated?
Is this use becoming old-fashioned. Foe example I recently wrote " ... supporting people both within and without the team", but then remembered that a lot of younger people seem to be using "outwith" in this context, which to me sounds like a "Scottishism". Sould I write " ... supporting people both within and outwith the team"? BTW I am located in Northern England if this makes a difference. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can say that down south that would be a very odd usage (so would "outwith"). There'd be a strong inclination to think of "without" in its other sense. "Outside" would be a popular word in your example. I can't say if this is a change, I haven't been around long enough. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even here in northern England, both "without" and "outwith" sound slightly odd in this context (though neither is incomprehensible). For maximum clarity, I would write either: " ... supporting people both within and outside the team", or, perhaps even better: " ... supporting people both within the team and outside it."Dbfirs10:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if I use "outside" it sound more balanced if I use "inside" too - I think I'll go with " ... supporting people both inside and outside the team". -- Q Chris (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People used to be made aware of the "outside" meaning from having the hymn "There is a green hill far away, without a city wall . . . ," explained to them, but I don't know if it's still popular. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The city of Chester has a church called St Mary's Without-the-Walls (being one of two churches called St Mary in the city, the other of which is located inside Chester city walls). Judging by the number of local jokes about the name, I'm guessing that even in Northern England (for, admittedly, a limited value of "Northern"), "without" as an antonym of "within" seems odd these days. Smurrayinchester17:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which reminds me that for a period as a child I lived in a suburb of Canterbury, Kent called Thanington Without (it being outside the old city walls) which may have further inculcated in me the locational aspect of the word. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably a bit archaic, but less so 45 years ago, or at least it was archaic but recognizable when George Harrison wrote "Within You Without You"; though Harrison may have been playing with the language a bit, using the non-antonymic meanings of the apparent antonyms, (c.f. my favorite pair of this type being "pissed off/pissed on"). --Jayron3222:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(The) Name Foundation Center for/of International Production Systems
A foundtation (let's say "The Name Foundation") has financed our new Center at our university. This Center is about research about International Production Systems. How would this Center best be called in English? My suggestion: "The Name Foundation Center for International Production Systems". Would you agree? 130.149.229.180 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds correct, although such centers often include "research" in the name ("The N. Foundation Research Center..." or "The N. Foundation Center for Research in..."). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the organisation's purpose is to passively study/observe/describe "international production systems" then the "of" form is more correct; if it actively engages in creating/improving/designing such systems the "for" form is more accurate. Roger (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of view about "American" categorized people =)
Hi there
My name is Carlos .. yes, i know, you already read it..
Tonight, looking for a BIG MAN at wikipedia, (Carl Sagan)
I see something strange in you resumed bio at left of my screen...
..." Nationality: American "...
Off course i'm glad if you put Carl in a WORLD category... but that's is not the point
I'm American too.. but i born and live in Argentina,
Under all kind of gegraphic knowledge -"AMERICA"- Goes from -Tierra del Fuego- to -Alaska- or vice-versa and be splitted in South, Central & North Americas
So, i know Carl was born and live in U.S.A.
My question is:
Why some articles from Wikipedia call U.S.A. as AMERICA ? when U.S.A. is just a Country INSIDE ONE of the THREE PARTS of AMERICA ?
The use of the word norteamericano is a similar phenomenon in Spanish, whereby a word essentially meaning "North American" has come to have the meaning "American/pertaining to the United States", etc.. The Spanish Wikipedia would use estadounidense in such a context, though. -- the GreatGavini16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point, but as the article linked above points out, perhaps the key reason is that the USA is the only country in any of the Americas to actually have America in its name. Just as we don't usually say the Federal Republic of Germany, but prefer to just use Germany, so America is a handy shorthand for the United States of America. Personally I tend to prefer to use either the US, USA, or the United States in either speech or writing just to remove this potential ambiguity, but people are rarely, if ever, confused by the use of the word America/American in reference to the US and it's people. Maybe if the Federal Republic of Central America had have survived, things would be different. And perhaps you should be less worried about this, and more worried about the entire landmass being wrongly named. :) --jjron (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no potential ambiguity. Not in English. "North America", "Central America", "Latin America", "South America" and "The Americas" all refer to particular groupings of countries, not all of which are well-defined, and some of which include the USA. "American" can be used in conjunction with any of these groupings. "American" can also be used to refer specifically to the USA, and that is its most common use. But "America" by itself refers to one and only one country - the USA. It cannot, without the addition of some qualifier, be extended to refer to any place beyond the USA. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There definitely is ambiguity. In terms of people American would generally be assumed to refer to the US, but it is an assumption, and the same with the use of America. Try reading some history texts and you'll start seeing how much more ambiguous the term becomes. It's also ambiguous in other uses, such as with American wildlife. A bird doesn't stop being from America just because it crosses into Mexico or Canada, or when it is found in more than just the US, or for that matter if it's not found in the US at all. --jjron (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is about America; just read the question again if you doubt this.
You can find all sorts of historical word usages that have not lasted. Today, unqualified "America" means only one thing. Does anyone rely on the Merriam-Webster definition in order to make statements like "I bought this gift on my last trip to America", when they're actually referring to a visit they made to Brazil, Guatemala or Canada? No, of course not. If the trip happened to include the USA, but the gift was purchased in some other country in the Americas on the same overall trip, and they made that statement, they'd be misleading their listeners into believing it was bought on the USA leg of the trip. If we say "America", we mean the USA. If we mean any other place in the Americas, we use the relevant country's name. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos (181.11.31.128) -- the big problem is that the phrase "United States" does not form a true adjective in the English language (similar to Spanish "estadounidense", Esperanto "usono" etc.), so some alternative has to be used. However, "North American" / "norteamericano" is not the answer, because in addition to being somewhat long and cumbersome, it slights and snubs the inhabitants of Canada and St. Pierre and Miquelon (at an absolute minimum -- probably some others also, depending on exactly how you choose to define "North America"). AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos — you geolocate to Argentina, and I assume your primary language is Spanish? I accept that in Spanish, americano describes any inhabitant of North or South America. What you have to accept is that, in English, the word American ordinarily does not mean that, but means "of or pertaining to the United States". You can think of americano and American as very very slight false friends.
I disagree slightly with AnonMoos. We could come up with a specific UnitedStatesian adjective or some such, if the need were felt. Some people do try to use such terms, but they have never caught on. In English, American refers to the United States, and that is just the way it is, the way the language has evolved. You don't have to like it, but the language is resistant to reform efforts by people who think it should be different, especially ones driven from outside the language itself. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would emphasize that it isn't only English-speaking people from the U.S. itself for whom American means "from the United States". Try asking an English-speaking Canadian if he's American, and see what he says. Angr (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I just returned from a trip to Costa Rica, where I noticed a number of shops with signs indicating that they sold "Ropa americana". They pretty clearly meant "clothes from the United States" or "U.S. style clothes", because these signs sometimes included U.S. flags. So the word americano/a sometimes refers specifically to the United States even in Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, American editors (all), would it sound better to say Nationality: USA? There is a parallel with Nationality: UK. (You can say Nationality: British, but it is less precise.) Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care that awfully much about infoboxes; it's expected that stuff is in condensed form there. So "US" would be fine with me (better than "USA"). However, when identifying a person's nationality, it should read Joe Blow is an American floomatologist, not a US floomatologist. --Trovatore (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you wouldn't say Nationality: UK either would you? I wouldn't if I was writing/editing an article. I would either use the more specific English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, or the broader British. The only real equivalent I can think of for the US is American. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ AnonMoos. I'm curious as to who uses North American to refer only to the people of the US? A look at North America#Usage of the term North America says that it usually covers the US and Canada and sometimes Greenland, Mexico, Saint Pierre et Miquelon and Bermuda. I have no problem with being called a North American but as Angr points out I wouldn't want to be called an American. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that but they said that "..."North American" / "norteamericano" is not the answer, ... it slights and snubs the inhabitants of Canada and St. Pierre and Miquelon..." and I had never heard it used that way. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're Canadian. In my experience, in Canada, "North American" means "Canadian or American", and generally does not include even "Mexican", geography notwithstanding. From the point of view of physical geography, North America runs from Greenland to the Isthmus of Panama. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In some Spanish-speaking circles, it is or was fairly common to use norteamericano to refer to citizens or inhabitants of the U.S. AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the English-only patrol: The questioner is a Spanish-speaker and evidently speaks English with difficulty, so it makes perfect sense to reply to him in his own language, for the benefit of his understanding. Now I've put a translation below, so you will please refrain from deleting my reply on the pretext of some imaginary rule enforcing strict monolingualism.
Si digo "Carl Sagan fue un astrónomo americano, pero Carlos Segers no lo fue", lo que perpetro no es un error sino una polisemia. Como testificó Marco Polo, esto no es una diferencia arreglada y puramente lingüística. El desacuerdo en cómo se usa la palabra "América" - la isoglosa, en la jerga de lingüística - no corresponde exáctamente a la frontera entre los idiomas. Incluso en españa, donde los mandamientos se graban, hay muchas personas que dicen "americano" cuando quieren decir "estadounidense", quizás bajo la influencia del francés. El uso está común, aunque abominado por la gente culta, en el Caribe y en México. En la comunidad hispana de EE UU, la palabra "americano" se usa principalmente para significar "estadounidense"; el otro sentido, aquel del continente, es secundario o hasta terciario en la mente. Entre mis amigos hispanos nativos de EE UU (o casi nativos), nadie dice "Soy estadounidense y vivo en EE UU", sino "Soy americano y vivo en América." Se dice sin reparo ni vacilar, probablemente sin conciencia. No es difícil imaginar por qué este anglicismo ha cuajado entre hispanos de EE UU mientras se resiste en otros sitios: la identidad nacional tiene más relevancia y exigencia que la identidad hemisférica. Palabras como "estadounidense" y "norteamericano" son muy desgarbadas, y "gringo" no sirve para referirse a sí mismo. LANTZYTALK21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I say, "Carl Sagan fue un astrónomo americano, pero Carlos Segers no lo fue", I am guilty not of an error but of a polysemy. As Marco Polo noted above, this is not a clear-cut and purely linguistic difference. The disagreement about how to use the word "America" - the isogloss, in linguistic jargon - does not correspond precisely to the boundary between the languages. Even in Spain, where the rules are written, there are many who say "americano" and mean "estadounidense", perhaps influenced by French. The use is also common, albeit discouraged by the educated, in the Caribbean and in Mexico. In the Hispanic community in the USA, the word "americano" is used primarily to mean "estadounidense"; the other sense, that of the continent, is secondary or even tertiary in the mind. Among my Hispanic acquaintances who were born here, or who have lived here since infancy, no one says "Soy estadounidense y vivo en EE UU", but rather "Soy americano y vivo en América." They say this without misgivings or hesitation, without any awareness of a controversy. It's not difficult to imagine why this particular anglicism has caught on among Hispanics in the USA even as it is resisted elsewhere: national identity is more relevant and exigent than hemispheric identity. Words like "estadounidense" and "norteamericano" are ungainly, and "gringo" doesn't work as a self-appellation. LANTZYTALK21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
who run the world
Why does Rihanna sing "who run the world", and not "runs"? Is it correct? --(please correct my English) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No doubt she is thinking that there is a plurality of separate entities that run the world, and not one single entity. It does sound incorrect, however, and I would have used 'runs' (cf. at a kids' party, "Who wants jelly and ice cream?" - you're not expecting just one kid to say yes). In my opinion, the singular would be better, but I don't know if there is a hard and fast rule about it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)15:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The full line is "Who run the world? Girls", right? If so then 'run' is fine, but if being taken as question and answer, the question rather pre-empts the answer. To turn it around, you would correctly say "Girls run the world" not "Girls runs the world"; for 'runs' to be right you'd need a single girl, "A girl runs the world". But by asking the question using 'run' they're assuming the answer will be a plural term, which I suppose if you think about it is at least a somewhat less paranoid way of looking at things (i.e., if you're going to accuse anyone of running the world, at least it's not just one person). --jjron (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm surprised that anyone would accept "Who run the world?" regardless of the answer. But as I read here, if you go "Who are the people who run the world?" then "are" is correct. Not vouching for the reliability of that site, just linking it if anyone is interested, because that was what resolved my own confusion. IBE (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not in general. Just American English, which is a tiny part of the English-speaking world. Those examples you cite are very, very rarely used by non-Americans, and only by people pretending to be American (such as singers, etc.). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)01:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't" used the way Seb used it is considered "redneck" English in America. "Does not" or "doesn't" is the right way. "Who run the world?" is also poor English in America. "Who" is both singular and plural: "Who is he/she?" vs. "Who are they?" and when used by itself with a verb is treated as singular. If the singer had said "Who does run the world?" that would be OK, as it gets it back to the singular form. "Who do run the world?" is again poor English. Kind of "street English". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on whether you take a prescriptivist or descriptive stance. Prescriptivists tend to come up with labels like "street English". But alright... that's a different discussion I guess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ06:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Americans make up two thirds of all native English speakers, it's hardly accurate to call American English a "tiny part" of the English-speaking world. "Who run the world?" is not standard in American English, even the answer to "who" is already known to be plural, but I think it's the usual formulation in AAVE, which is probably why Beyoncé used it. Angr (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Native" English, maybe, but what about the rest of the Commonwealth, which employs English as one of the official languages of a huge number of countries and therefore people? That's pretty much native, as far as I am concerned. We are talking billions here. The population of English-speaking America could be written on the back of a stamp in comparison. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)11:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing putting your flag on someplace, it's another actually making it yours, with people there to look after the place. The British Empire did both. This is why British English is widespread across the globe. American English is only gaining a foothold because of ridiculous Hollywood films, and music. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)00:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kage, you're just flat wrong. American English is not by any stretch of the imagination a "tiny part" of English. In any honest "International English", American English must be represented at least comparably to Commonwealth English. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, I will retract the part where I say 'tiny part', but will hopefully remind people that British English has the majority vote. As you say, American English can be compared to Commonwealth English. I work as a Japanese>English translator, as you all know, and many a time I have to translate into US English. Most of the time, however, it is UK English. There is a reason for that - possibly because of the failing US economy, or just because the UK is more attractive. I don't know. If American English is not a tiny part of the English speaking world, then it will be soon. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely disagree — British English does not have the majority vote. You guys lost your empire and you're trying to console yourselves by fooling yourselves that you still own the language. But you don't. Get over it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Trovatore, but I am just speaking merely from professional experience. We got over our empire changing to the Commonwealth pretty easily. I just hope Hollywood can do the same. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that your country has English as an official language doesn't count for much if you don't speak it, or do speak it but don't use it on a regular basis. It's certainly true that a count of first-language speakers, by itself, is not the whole story, but it's more indicative than a count of all people who have just some knowledge of the language, and much more indicative than adding up the whole population of countries like India. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know. Their accent is closer (in fact, when I lived in Canada, a lot of people didn't seem to be able to tell I wasn't Canadian, in spite of some mild overlays of Mississippi and Texas in my speech). They spell aluminum right, mostly. But they say zed instead of zee, they put all these extra u's all over the place — it's a mixed bag. Yanks in Canada will probably think they use British English, whereas Brits will probably think they use American English. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
singular or plural? Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is/are?
Christians often express the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one entity. In that case, the verb should be "is", right? Or should it be "are", even though the basic concept is that it treats the three names as one entity. Also, what happens if you have one idea but many concepts lying under that idea? Should everything be pluralized or made singular, as in the following example?
Example: A quadrilateral is a parallelogram, rhombus, a trapezoid, a rectangle, or a square. Reverse the sentence, and you have "A square, a rectangle, a trapezoid, a parallelogram, and a rhombus are quadrilaterals." Make it singular, and you have "A square, a rectangle, a trapezoid, a parallelogram, or a rhombus is a quadrilateral." 164.107.189.4 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You use the verb form "are", as in "The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the three parts of the Trinity," in the same way you would say "The right ventricle, the left ventricle, the right atrium, and the left atrium are the four parts of the heart". The parts of a singular still make up a group. --Jayron3219:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? The right ventricle, the left ventricle, the right atrium, and the left atrium are found in the heart. Found in the heart is the right ventricle, the left ventricle, the right atrium, and the left atrium. 164.107.189.4 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not unrelated to the phrase "there is", usually shortened to "there's". It's very common to hear this precede a plural object, e.g. "There's many different types of food available at this market". It would have been better in that case to start with "There are". -- Jack of Oz[your turn]23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, the King's James Bible should go "For thine are the kingdom, the power and the glory" - the translators apparently used "is" as a poetic refinement. I think one sentence (in two parts) that illustrates the whole is/are situation quite well is "God is three Persons/ These three Persons together are the one God." I think that's right, because you just have to favour the first named as taking precedence in choosing the "number" of the verb. It's not subject-verb-object, because "is" is instransitive. And now try this: "Nobody's here yet, are they?" Nobody is a singular subject, so shouldn't it be "Nobody's here yet, isn't he?" So long as he is, then nobody else is, just Nobody. Right? IBE (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would be "Nobody's here yet, is he?", not "isn't" he. Been Emotional is quite right, though, to point out the inconsistency of using a a singular verb @ "nobody's" (= "nobody is"), then switching to a plural verb @ "are they", all within the same sentence and referring to the same subject. Sometimes, the very noble aim of consistency has to be sacrificed on the altar of the nobler aim of clear communication. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Literally, "Kishmish" (کشمش) is Persian for "raisins". Kishmish is a family of seedless grape cultivars of Central Asian origin. It includes the "oval kishmish" or "white kishmish" (better known as Thomson Seedless) and "black kishmish" (Black Monukka). The word is also used to mean raisins made from these grapes. --Itinerant1 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. I'm curious about a language construction from an article I'm writing where one person has interpreted a sentence in an unintended way. Please read and interpret this sentence for yourself before going on to the next part:
Although never a top headlining act, Ali performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States, even having Judy Garland proclaim him her favorite vaudevillian.
The language at issue is the part about Judy Garland and the word "having". The intent is to simply describe that Judy Garland had proclaimed him her favorite. The interpretation of the other person is that having here means inducement, that Ali had her state that he was her favorite. I'm trying to figure out whether the unintended meaning is a natural construction, or just this one person's idiosyncratic and outre interpretation. Which way did you read it? Is the unintended meaning a natural interpretation? Is it ambiguous?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "... United States. Judy Garland proclaimed him her favorite vaudevillian." No crime in having this be two sentences, and it avoids the awkward construction. --Jayron3213:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could do that though there's a second use in the body that works well which has been (mis?)intepreted in the same way and I really don't want to change it. I want to know if there's validity to the other interpretation or if it's just one person's quirky reading.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly valid interpretation, although I'd say the preceding information in the sentence would steer one away from it. But (and it's an important but), there's some odd tense shifting going on with the Judy phrase, which I'd say makes the ambiguity more pronounced. In any event there is certainly nothing "outré" about the alternate interpretation, and we should be striving for clarity for all. --LarryMac | Talk13:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Although never a top headlining act, Ali performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States, with even Judy Garland proclaiming him her favorite vaudevillian." is certainly better and clearer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the "even Judy Garland" in that construction; the sense seems to require "with Judy Garland even proclaiming". As an alternative, how about the good old absolute construction, "Although never a top headlining act, Ali performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States—Judy Garland having even proclaimed him her favorite vaudevillian," or using Jayron's suggestion but making the Garland sentence parenthetical: "Although never a top headlining act, Ali performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States (Judy Garland even proclaimed him her favorite vaudevillian)." Deor (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. At this point I can't say I love the way it reads (though the version in the body of the article reads better to me), and I am going to change both keeping in mind your various suggestions, but no matter how many times I read it, straining to hear the other meaning coming through, it doesn't for me. I understand what the person is saying, but I can't imagine many people naturally hearing the other.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't interpret it in the 2nd way either, but the "having" doesn't seem to fit in that sentence, which might lead one to wonder if it was forced in there in order to make a pun. And, once you look for it, you might well find the 2nd meaning. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would use a gun to protect the life of my wife and of my son. OR I would use a gun to protect the lives of my wife and of my son.
Also, what about this: I would use a gun to protect the life/lives of my wife and of my children. Widener (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Lives", in both cases. Your wife and each of your children has his or her own life, so the plural is called for here. (This isn't true in all languages, though: German, for example, would use the singular here.) Angr (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second example, however, is badly formulated - "...to protect the lives of my wife and of my children" reads wrongly. The use of "and of my children" suggests a sub-clause, meaning you are effectively saying "...to protect the lives of my wife, and to protect the lives of my children". It would work better, and use fewer words, by saying "...to protect the lives of my wife and children". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think both are acceptable, though the second of my is awkward in both cases. ...[T]o protect the life of my wife and son seems unobjectionable to me. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "life" is used with a slightly different meaning there. One could also say (if you insist on a singular "life"): ...[T]o protect the life of my wife, and that of my son. Dbfirs09:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
January 25
Spanish subjunctive question
I wish to translate the phrase "I believe that we will win." My first instinct was, "Creo que vayamos a ganar," but translated literally that would mean "I believe that we are going to win." I realize that this is an acceptable translation, but that raised this question: does the subjunctive exist in the future tense? If not, I suppose the correct translation would be "Creo que ganaremos." 71.213.67.251 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Spanish has a separate future subjunctive. I know Italian does not, and the two languages are pretty similar on this sort of point. I think the point is that the subjunctive, more or less, connotes uncertainty or at least a disclaimer of a full assertion, and the future has some of the same aspect to it, so it probably disappeared because it was a little bit redundant. (If I recall correctly, Latin does have a future subjunctive, which is why I say "disappear".) --Trovatore (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Latin does not have a future (or future perfect) subjunctive, Travatore. As for the question, no, Spanish does not have a future subjunctive. And, actually, you probably would not use the subjunctive in that sentence. Use of the Spanish subjunctive is often a value judgment: creertakes the subjunctive if the thing being believed is unlikely to happen (this indicating doubt). Thus no creo que vayamos ganar, but creo que vamos a ganar. If not, indicative. Also, you forgot the é in ganarémos. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be Creo que ganaremos or Creo que vamos a ganar. The accent would be redundant in *ganarémos - it's spelt ganaremos. Spanish does have a sort of future subjunctive but it would not be used here. -- the GreatGavini12:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to vs I must not
The phrases "I don't have to" and "I must not" do not mean the same thing in English. How does one make this distinction in French? Or, is this distinction made in French? I can think of "Je ne dois pas" of course, but I'm not sure which one of these this refers to, or if it can be used for both. Widener (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'll treat the analogous question in Italian, which I know better; I suspect French is similar though I'm not sure of that. In Italian, non devo, though it literally seems to mean "I don't have to", really means "I must not". This is something to watch for if a native Italian speaker tells you, in English, that you "don't have to" do something. It's quite likely that she's telling you not to do it. The word "she" here is not used by chance :-).
To say "I don't have to" do something, circumlocutions are necessary — you can try to render it as non sono costretto a..., that is "I am not required to...". I've never really found a nicer solution, unfortunately. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My French is a bit rusty, but I would say "Je n'ai pas besoin de <infinitive>" for "I don't have to <do something>" where as I'd say "Je ne dois pas <infinitive>" for "I must not <do something>". For example "Je n'ai pas besoin d'aller" for "I don't have to go" and "Je ne dois pas aller" for "I must not go". You'll want to look up the usages of "devoir" and "avoir besoin de." --Jayron3203:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My French is suspect as well, but to me that use of besoin sounds like it's about what I feel the need to do, whereas "I don't have to" is more about what I'm required to do. Maybe je ne suis pas tenu a... or something like that? --Trovatore (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Je ne suis pas obligé de..." then maybe? As in "I'm not obligated..." French doesn't take the same sort of "short cuts" that English does, and it tends to be a very verbose language; I would not be surprised if there weren't a simple single verb which correctly captures the sense of "have to" does in colloquial English. --Jayron3204:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We had the same question a few months ago, although I'm not sure it was fully answered then. As a non-native speaker I would just use devoir for both, and I would say that you would never use "besoin" this way. There are lots of impersonal phrases you could use (il faut que, il est necessaire que, il est interdit, etc). Sometimes you hear "avoir de" or "avoir à", exactly the same as English...maybe it's a gross anglicism and not strictly grammatical, although avoir was also used that way in Old French. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To keep it simple. "I must not" (obligation) can be translated as "il ne faut pas que je", "je ne dois pas". "I must no repeat my mistakes": "il ne faut pas que je reproduise mes erreurs", "je ne dois pas renouveler mes erreurs". "I don't have to" can be translated as: "je n'ai pas besoin de", "je ne suis pas obligé de", "je ne suis pas forcé de", "je n'ai pas à". "I don't have to work next Sunday" : "je n'ai pas à travailler ce dimanche". — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smash the granny
I'm watching an episode of Being Human (the UK version (Hope that's okay to say since it's what Netflix calls it)) and one of the characters just used the phrase "smash the granny out of it". After a bit of Googling, I see that it means to have rough sex but I'm curious as to where the phrase came from. Can anyone clue me in on the etymology? Thanks, Dismas|(talk)04:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slang expressions don't usually have a formal etymology, but I assume per granny = docility? e.g. "She's like a granny in bed."... "Well I'll smash the granny out of her." (Not an expression I would ever use myself of course.)--Shantavira|feed me09:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, given that this is the UK, I usually default to rhyming slang and would have guessed that granny = fanny; and in the UK, fanny = vulva, so "smash the granny" is "to treat the vulva roughly", aka to have rough sex. That's just a WAG, but I'm American, so I don't always "get" British slang, especially rhyming slang. --Jayron3212:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But with rhyming slang you start off with two nouns, and the actual rhyming part is dropped, so you just have to know what the rest of the phrase was. If you rhyme fanny with granny, you would have to come up with a phrase like "gramps and granny" or something, and then you would use "gramps" when you mean "fanny". Adam Bishop (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
