Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 30

How is this translation in Spanish?

Hi! I wrote All Smiles Dental Centers in English. After some work, I wrote a Spanish version at es:Usuario:WhisperToMe/All Smiles Dental Centers by consulting bilingual documents online. Anyhow, how is the translation? I would be happy if others edited the page, before it is posted in the mainspace on ES. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, right off the bat, "all smiles" (e.g., "he's all smiles") doesn't mean "all the smiles" in English, but something much closer to "all smiling". I am not sure offering a translation is the best idea, but "todo sonriente" would be much closer to the English sense.

aproximadamente de 60.000 should be aproximadamente 60.000

en una tienda should be colocada en una tienda de comestibles.

use desde (since) more often to replace a partir de (beginning in).

Estado is not capitalized.

It's pretty good, but there's a lot of little things. Is it okay if I just edit what you have written? μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Have right at it :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll make some changes. I don't want to change the name to todo sonriente on my own--I'd like your opinion, or better yet, you could contact them and ask them if they have a name they use in Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine :) - I'd like to move it to the mainspace whenever possible WhisperToMe (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two questions, mere grammaticality, which is generally fine, and idiom and meaning. There's a moderate amount of work to be done making the article idiomatic (inaugurarse, instead of abrir), and a significant amount of work to be done making sure the meaning of the Spanish approximates the sense of the English. For example, Más empresas proporcionaron frenos para niños pobres, was grammatical, but made no sense, until I looked at the English, seeing you needed to coordinate with the prior information: Por eso, más empresas comenzaron a proporcionar frenos para los niños pobres. That's a lot of work, and I haven't really gotten much past there yet. I suggest you read WP:TRANSLATION and its Spanish version and Wikipedia:Translate us and seek other hands to help. At this point you can probably post the article on the assumption that it will be legible. But I can't certify yet that it sensibly conveighs what the English article does, since that requires detailed, sentence by sentence work. It's not just a question of the conjugations, but of understanding the underlying meaning of the English and expressing the same ideas idiomatically in Spanish. I'll give it some time tomorrow and let you know if I think it's okay to post once I have compared more of it in detail to the English. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I went ahead and posted it to the mainspace. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Another user went ahead and helped fix up the translation :) - Anyhow, on the Spanish name for Texas State Board of Dental Examiners, I had gotten it from http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75s/senate/members/dist27/pr03/p052803a.htm which says "Junta Estatal de Examinadores de Dentistas" - Doing a site search on *.tx.us, I found the state government doesn't translate it as "Junta Estatal de Inspectores de Dentistas" - instead it uses "Junta Estatal de Examinadores de Dentistas" - He had changed it to "Inspectores de Dentistas" - Is it technically correct to use "Examinadores de Dentistas"? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's what they call themselves, that's what they call themselves. I'd be loathe to change an institution's own name for itself if they have published one, even if a "better" translation is available. Speaking of which, how goes it with todas las sonrisas versus todo sonriente. The former is definitely a bad translation. Where did you get it from, them, or your own work/Google translator? If you don't have a source, I'd use "todo sonriente" and, if necessary, put a note that literally "all smiles" is todas sonrisas, but that idiomatically it means "todo sonriente". μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"todas las sonrisas" was my own work. I interpreted "All Smiles" as "All of the smiles" - Since it's not from them, I'll go change it. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

are my sentences correct?

Hello there. Can someone here please check my sentences for any grammar errors. Thank you so much.

1.In this study, the method will be used to determine the disparity or agreement among the respondent's responses on the socio-economic profile, team emotional intelligence, which will also help analyze results that will be gathered for problems 1 and 2. 2.With regard to developing a safety culture, organizations that do not listen to their staff and by implication do not value them are not the type of organizations to promote an open culture, report and manage adverse incidents sensitively nor respond to a range of emotions generated by incidents. 3. Mahfoozpour and Mojdehjarz concluded that patient safety could be achieved through teamwork while safety climate can create a culture where errors are being reported properly and necessary actions are taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.88.53 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would re-write them as:

1. In this study, the method used will be determination of [note 1] the disparity or agreement between the respondents' responses [note 2] using the socio-economic profile, team emotional intelligence. This will also help in analyzing results that will be gathered for problems 1 and 2.
2. With regard to developing a safety culture, organizations that do not listen to their staff and, by implication, do not value them, are not the type of organizations to promote an open culture, report and manage adverse incidents sensitively or respond to the range of emotions generated by [such?] incidents.
3. Mahfoozpour and Mojdehjarz concluded that patient safety could be achieved through teamwork while a climate of safety can create a culture where errors are reported properly and necessary actions are taken. [note 3]

[note 1] I'm assuming this sentence describes the method you're using for the study. If not - if "the method" refers to how you're determining the degree of agreement - you need to make this explicit: "In this study, the chi-square [or whatever] method will be used to determine..."

[note 2] "respondents' responses" if you're analyzing all the respondents as a group, "each respondent's responses" if you're analyzing them individually. "respondent's answers" or "participant's responses" might be better, as it avoids repetition.

[note 3] I'd remove "seriously" if your conclusion is that management will actually do what's necessary. If your conclusion is that management will just determine what is necessary (without actually doing it), then "the need for action is taken seriously" might be better. Tevildo (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.113.253 (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

#1: "socio-economic profile, team emotional intelligence" needs more than a comma; it's not clear how these are related. They're not the same thing, so they shouldn't be in apposition. Is the question about correlations between respondents' measured team emotional intelligence and their socio-economic profile? If, on the other hand, it's about disparity or agreement within each of these two types of data, replace the comma with and — though that leaves a problem of parallelism: a subject can provide "responses on" a profile (in the sense of a questionnaire), but not on a team emotional intelligence.

#2 would hang together better, in my opinion, if stated positively: something like "A culture of safety, in which adverse incidents are reported consistently and the resulting emotions addressed with sensitivity, requires an organization that promotes an open culture by valuing and listening to its staff." Phrases like with regard to are vague, inviting the reader to guess how one thing (open culture) is related to another (safety culture). —Tamfang (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I interpreted them as being the same thing - "the socio-economic profile [that is called] team emotional intelligence." Replacing the words in brackets with a comma doesn't seem wrong to me (cf "This is my cat, Tiddles"), but if it's objectionable, how about "the team emotional intelligence socio-economic profile."? Noun stacks like this are common in scientific writing, unfortunately. Tevildo (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is this quote from

"But standing in water up to their knees three very unimportant little people where doing the best they could with an idea and that’s about all they had and I don’t know maybe that night these three people were making history but anyway what I’m telling to tell you folks here we are."

Where is this from and who said it originally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.110.65 (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's from Get Up by the French group Chinese Man (article from French Wikipedia). I don't know who said it originally, but it sounds like an American politician. Tevildo (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like John Steinbeck, but he can actually speak English when he wants to. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's from The Great American Broadcast (1941). It is Jack Oakie who delivers the quote in a final speech at the end of the movie. 45.155.27.166 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

October 1

Hindi pronunciation

How is Dikshit (दीक्षित) pronounced, especially the 'i's? --168.7.228.232 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

[ˈd̪iːkʃɪt̪]. The first i is like the ee in sheep; the second is like the i in fit. Lesgles (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Though I have been told that in Dikshit is pronounced deex-hit in Southern states (of India), which ties in with Paul Henry's mispronunciation or radio. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, or that may also just be a way for people to avoid the unfortunate associations the syllables have in English. Lesgles (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There are various people that have adopted the spelling 'Dixit', possibly to avoid those connotations. However, to be clear, the syllables in Hindi are 'di' and 'kshit'. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My uninformed observation is that a few words with a "sh" sound in Hindi seem to be pronounced with a "s" sound by Tamil speakers and possibly speakers of other Southern Indian languages. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Tamil doesn't seem to have a /ʃ/ phoneme, so that would make sense. The woman Paul Henry was talking about was from north India, though. Lesgles (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe (though I can't recall any now) that some Sanskrit words with /kṣ/ are cognate to Greek words with 'x', so it makes a kind of sense to use 'x' for /kṣ/. To further the analogy, the glyph for /kṣ/ is unusual in not resembling those for /k/ and /ṣ/! (/ks/, with plain /s/, is impossible in Sanskrit so 'x' is unambiguous.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Some types of Bengali seem to have only "sh", no "s"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

w/ vs. ⊆

Waaaaaay back when I was in college (the 1980s), I noticed that some of my classmates used the symbol ⊆ to represent with in their notes. I always jotted down w/ in the same situation. I know ⊆ as a mathematical symbol, but how and when did it come to mean with? (None of us were using any "official" shorthand, just our own made-up versions.) Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In medicine, c̄ (c with a line over it) is used as an abbreviation for "with"; it comes from the Latin cum. I'm guessing this is a holdover from medieval scribal abbreviations. C with a line underneath may be a variant on that. Lesgles (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That means subset, as in A is a subset of (or is included in) B, denoted by $A\subseteq B$. StuRat (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Pitman Shorthand uses a similar symbol for "with". One of my last lessons at sixth form was being taught some very rudimentary shortforms in this shorthand: I remember the symbols for "as is" and "is as", as well as "with". So your classmates may have had teachers like mine! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in Pitman shorthand the logogram for the grammalog "with" is similar, but it is not identical. It is a small semicircle shaped like a "⊂" and positioned above the line of writing, but it does not have a horizontal underline like the one in "⊆". The logogram for the grammalog "when" is similar to the logogram for the grammalog "with", except that it is positioned on the line of writing.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, how did w/ get to represent with, particularly on Fox News where many shows are "<name of show> /w <name of presenter>" (eg. Your World w/ Cavuto)? Astronaut (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone probably invented it when he was torn b/w ways to write about going out w/ his g/f. Seriously, isn't it just a simple shorthand? Or do you mean "how did the slash come to be an abbreviation?" 66.244.68.64 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been using w/ to mean with for more than 40 years. I just thought it was a simple abbreviation, but not used in formal writing.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Actuallly, w/ is a formal abbreviation used by secretaries, clerks, editors and typesetters, all of which I have been or, in the first case, worked with closely. You are right it is not used in formal publishing, but not because it is informal, just because it is an abbreviation. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why being ranked from the 12th to 31th it is "with" that are very often shorthanded. Is this word so long?--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a 50% reduction in effort, whether by symbols or strokes. Fifty percent is 50%. When you are typing comments in a limited field on a csr acct while spkg w/them as you neg't their ord, its a huge hlp.μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

il cane Flike

In the Italian movie Umberto D. (1952), the dog's name is Flike /flajk/. Any idea how an elderly Italian might come up with a nonsense English word to name his dog? Was it meaningful in wartime jargon? —Tamfang (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Flicka. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC) More specifically, My Friend Flicka. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As late as the late '80s/early '90s, there was a tendency to put nonsense pseudo-English on some merchandise in Italy. I don't really know why. I remember a candy bar called "Tronky". --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes Flike and Tronky "pseudo-English"? To me they seem nothing more than invented words that (presumably) don't violate Italian phonology. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, pronouncing Flike as /flajk/ is most definitely not Italian, and I can't think of any language it could be except English. For Tronky it's a little harder to put my finger on exactly why I think it's pseudo-English, but it certainly appears that way to me. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What other languages (of which the average Italian might be aware) would end a word with nky? I suppose Flaik – we don't really know the spelling – could be a German word. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Flunky - According to Wiktionary, "A sycophant; a servant or hanger-on who is kept for their loyalty or muscle rather than their intellect." Wonky - "weird, whacked out, messed up, not working for no definable reason. Usually applied to technology." Hanky - abbreviation of handkerchief. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and these examples are in response to what? —Tamfang (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought that "Tronky" was a pun on "tronchi", Italian for "logs". Probably because they look just like logs. Ferrero is not new to similar pseudo-Englishisations. For example I remember a “Happyfania”, a pun on “happy” and “epifania”.--151.41.218.203 (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I knew tronco in the sense of "trunk"; I'm not sure I ever came across it in the sense of "log". --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, also, Italians seem to think the word happy sounds like "epi", but English speakers don't hear them as very similar. Presumably this is because Italian lacks the /æ/ vowel.) --Trovatore (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There's an old-fashioned Italian supermarket near where I work, and most of the transactions at the deli section take place in Italian, often along the lines of "500 gramme di em, per favore".

SBS broadcasts overseas news services outside prime time. Sometime a little while ago it relayed the Rai Uno story about some underworld murder. I initially didn't didn't hear the story, but the scrolling News ticker text said the body of the deceased was found "nel garage di killer". Like some horrible ghoul I tuned back in later, and it was reported that the body of the deceased was found /nɛl ˈgarad͡ʒ dɪ kɪlɛr/.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The article on the Italian Wikipedia transcribes the dog's name as "Flaik". I think the My Friend Flicka theory is very far-fetched. Gabbe (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - see: Cani e cinema: Flaik del film “Umberto D.”. If I could read Italian, I would tell you what it says ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a summary of the film, with no etymological help. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

An equally far-fetched idea - could it by a phonetic spelling of "flake" as in "snow flake"? The dog is mainly white and Tin-tin's dog was called "Snowy"... Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A phonetic Italian spelling of flake would be "fleic". It would obviously not be an Italian word, but if you pronounced it according to Italian rules, you'd get pretty close to English "flake". --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, in Aussie English, "flake" would be pronounced "flike". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that might be your perspective... HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as in the well-known Aussie greeting, "G'dye, mite!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugs's intuition is largely confirmed by Australian English phonology, which notes that the "a" vowel in words like "face" and "bait" is pronounced with the /æɪ/ diphthong. In General American, the similar /aɪ/ diphthong is used in words like "kite" and "might", whereas the words "face" and "bait" use the /eɪ/ diphthong. As /æɪ/ doesn't exist in American phonology, it gets "heard" as closer to /aɪ/. So to Americans, Australians sound like they are saying "flike" when they say "flake", because they're using a vowel sound completely unused in American English. It's the closest analogy an American can make, because there is no other analogous vowel sound. Received Pronunciation also shows /eɪ/ in those uses. I'd say the use of the /æɪ/ diphthong in those places is as close to a shibboleth of Antipodean English as there is. --Jayron32 16:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the important thing to note is that Australians pronounce bake and bike (and all similar words) completely differently. Yes, both are different from the way Americans may say them, but we are all correct. OK? HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No one said you weren't. --Jayron32 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I moved discussion unrelated to answering the question to WT:RD Please carry on that portion there, if anyone wishes. --Jayron32 04:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WHERE'S THE LINK, JAYRON? μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Because in NZ English the /ɪ/ is more centralised and lowered that in AuE, Australians claim that they pronouce "fish and chips" as "fush and chups". Conversely, New Zealanders hear Australians as saying "feesh and cheeps". (And in my experience, the only people who can tell difference between New Zealand and Australian accents are Australians and New Zealanders!)

And while we're are alomst on the topic of the Australian /æɪ/, in some varieties of AuE, "coke" and "cake" are as near to homophones as makes no difference. The <o> starts on a sort of nazalised æ (close to /ɛ̃/, to my ear) up to an unrounded, fronted ʊ (/ɯ/ but fronted-er), and the <a> starts on a sort of nazalised æ (again close to /ɛ̃/ and goes up to /ɨ/. I found this out when I was working a concession stand that sold both Coke and cake.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What's a concession stand? It's OK, I do know, now, but it's another linguistic difference, and not exactly the most obvious name for a place to buy crappy food. As for "coke" and "cake", I'm certain I pronounce them quite differently, but I also know that when I was in the US and tried to order a "coke", I was met with blank stares, on several separate occasions. I've heard other Aussies say the same thing. We need to get more of our TV shows on the air in the US. That's how we all learnt how to understand American. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, sorry if you thought that I was taking the mick, mate (/mæːɨʔ/) but as a (admittedly very much non-hard core) language nerd, I just can't help code-switching. No harm, no foul? (Aaargh!) Anyway, here's a quote from one of Australia's foremost practitioners of The Yartz, talking about problems faced by Australians overseas:

MIKE: Stuff em! If we'd just be honest with ourselves for a change, we'd admit that our accent is bloody awful for the simple reason we never open our bloody mouths. It was good enough in the old days when Grandad was out in the bush and had to keep the flies out bit it's death to the international saleability of our product.

David Williamson, Emerald City, Act 2, pp 62-63. Quotation from work under copyright is claimed as a "fair use" under the applicable legislation and fair use where the WMF's servers are located, with attendant reciprocity under international and Australian conventions, legislation and case law. And so on and bloody so on. HiLo48, are you familiar with the International Phonetic Alphabet? My ken oath, it opens spoken language like you wouldn't believe. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Arabic roots s-y-d and sh-r-f

What did these two roots (from which the words Sayyid and Sharif came) originally mean? Do they have cognates in the other Semitic languages?--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, it's root s-w-d (basic meaning "chief, master" etc.) and root sh-r-f (basic meaning "elevated, noble, illustrious")... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. But I rather looked for a "hidden" meaning or etymology. Like Latin nōbilis came from nōsco "to get to know" or English lord from hlāford "bread keeper". Though, maybe there is not such indeed. P.S. It seems that s-w-d means "black" [1].--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, s-w-d "black" and s-w-d "chief, master" are two separate roots (s-w-d "black" doesn't occur in the basic Stem I verb). AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So why do -y- and -w- alternate in the same root? It seems that more real words derive from s-y-d than from s-w-d "master etc." Actually I can't find a word from the latter in the dictionary. Maybe su’dud "dominion" can fit but there is hamza not waw. --Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Are English creoles syllable-timed?

I can't find this anywhere in Wikipedia--is Virgin Islands Creole (and are English creoles in general) syllable-timed rather than stressed-timed, unlike English? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

David Crystal says yes for Caribbean Englishes in general at http://ibog.woe.systime.dk/index.php?id=184. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow--great find--thanks! Duoduoduo (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Good clips, aren't they? I liked the way he explained by poems. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese help - 古希天子始皇绎臣

I recently posted a question asking help to translate some seal script characters from a ritual yue axe. No one responded because I can only assume little people have experience in the subject. Well, I have managed to find the modern equivalents of the characters using a seal script etymology website (it took a while since my Chinese is not that great). It appears the characters from the front side are 古希天子始皇绎臣. I'm not quite sure how to translate them. It might be referencing Qin Shihuangdi (始皇). It appears that a longer version of the phrase appears on a similar axe. Does anyone happen to know what this page has to say about the axe? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Could it be translated as a something along the lines of the "Rare Son of Heaven, Shihuang ..."? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

古希 (古稀) is a Chinese idiom meaning 70 years old, from a poem by Du Fu, 人生七十古来稀 (it is rare to be 70 years old since ancient times). 古希天子 is probably a reference to Qianlong Emperor (天子 Son of Heaven means Emperor of China). He called himself 古稀天子 and made a seal inscribed as such. --Kusunose 03:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But why would it make reference to the First Qin Emperor? Qianlong obviously lived much later. What does 绎臣 mean within the context of the other characters? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The page you linked to has the following explanation for those two phrases:

1. “古希天子”：秦王赢政在经过血腥风雨后建立起统一王朝， 这位四海之内独一无二的霸主雄君，认为自已“德兼三皇，功过五帝”，就拟应称帝，（帝者，天号、得天之道者为帝）。如黄帝、炎帝、帝尧、帝舜等，三代以降，这些带有“帝称”的有道天子己经被神秘化，由人间的至尊上升为天界主宰，更具有权威性和神圣性。又有“天地大矣，生而弗子，成而弗有，万物皆被其泽，得其利，而莫知其所由始，此三皇五帝之德也”，即取“天帝”合二而一，兼而称之，以显示自己是人间的无上至尊。号曰“皇帝”。这位自夏王朝建立以耒，真正统一中国的第一人，便由秦国的“王”变成了秦帝国的第一位皇帝。古往今来能配得上“始皇”的也惟有赢政一人，正是如此，堪称为中国历史上“千古一帝”，名垂千古，“古希天子”顺理成章、名符其实。所以近代著名维新志士谭嗣同指出：“二千年政，秦政也”；毛泽东也曾经写诗吟颂道：“百代多行秦政制”。

... essentially meaning "son of heaven, rare in history".

2. “始皇绎臣”：与当初秦始皇赐封泰山之松为五大夫之意途同归。秦始皇的泰山封禅是为了实现天下共主的身份。途中遭迂风雨袭击，避雨于松树之下，事后因护驾有功，此松树被封为[五大夫]。在这里“绎”与遗”取意相同,“遗臣”并非仅指人臣，对著“玉器文宝”同样有赐之为“宠臣”之意，企盼秦王朝江山社稷与珠宝玉器一样永固相传。“朕为始皇帝，后世以计数，二世、三世至于万世，传之无穷”。“史记”：秦二世既位,次春，东行郡县,到碣石.并海,南至会稽,尽刻始皇所立之刻石,以章先帝成功盛德.曰：“金石刻尽始皇帝所为也.今袭号，而金石刻辞不称始皇帝,其于久远也,如后嗣为之者,不称成功盛德”。二世称“始皇灭六国,威振古今,自五帝三皇未及.既已袭位,而见金石尽刻其颂,不称始皇盛德甚远矣”.可见自秦二世时对秦始皇的称颂盛行已始

... essentially meaning "[this rare and valuable axe] is a minister from the time of the First Emperor".

The author of that article therefore concluded that this was engraved during the time of the second emperor of Qin. Personally I find the reasoning and conclusions a little shaky.

I don't have enough time to translate these at the moment, but if no-one beats me to it will be happy to come back to it another day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2

Needing some Kannadian help

Not to be confused with Canadian help.

Does http://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/ಮಹಾಕ್ಷತ್ರಿಯ talk about the same movie as the Mahakshathriya article here does? 66.244.68.64 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You can see that from the interwikis of the articles linked from the Kannada article. --Soman (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The names of the actors and the release year also match. --BishkekRocks (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 3

Getting oneself sliced

A woman on my facebook feed recently posted that she was going into hospital to "get myself sliced". I don't know what she meant and I think it's a bit rude to ask, so I'd be grateful for any thoughts. Something gynaecological, perhaps? --Bluegrouper (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a generic description of surgery to me, where "slicing" means cutting, which is part of most surgeries. StuRat (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - a quick Google brought up a US theatrical event called SLICED AND DICED: THE SURGERY SHOW. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A variation on the old expression "going under the knife". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Icelandic word for "surgery" is uppskurður (literally, "up-cutting"). Gabbe (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Danish social dancing pleasantries

I will be doing some social dancing (contra dance) in Denmark, and I would like to be able to ask someone to dance and thank them afterwards. In English, I would usually say:

• Would you like to dance?
• Thank you. That was delightful.

So far I have come up with these Danish translations:

• Vil du danse?
• Tak. Det var dejligt.

Are these correct and socially appropriate? (I'm male if that makes any difference.)

Tak -- Rotcaeroib (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

They're both correct and completely appropriate. The Vil du danse? phrase is slightly informal ("Do you want to dance?"). If you want to be more formal and old-fashioned you could say Må jeg bede om denne dans? ("May I have this dance?"). But I see nothing wrong with the translations you have. Gabbe (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and helpful response! Det var dejligt. :) Rotcaeroib (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Tickle me pink

"Kitzler", for those unaccustomed to foreign tongues, is the German term for clitoris. Translated verbatim it means "tickler", a rather apt term for this poorly accessible delicacy. Pondering the comparative mysteries of the two languages, English and German, I compared the "sex based" terms of the two languages (German in italics):
Eg: Penis = Glied / n, vagina = Scheide / f, testicles = Hoden / m, etc. It seems to me that in English such terms are largely derived from Latin whilst German seems to use Germanic terms (the Latin alternatives exist in German). Where English uses non-Latin terms, these range from colloquial to vulgar and would hardly be used in the proximity of royals. Of course, there are exceptions (foreskin = Vorhaut / f, etc) where Anglo-Saxon terms are perfectly acceptable. The simple question: Is there (apart from Victorian morality) any reason for the mysterious extinction of sex-oriented terms of Anglo-Saxon origin and for their replacement with medical euphemisms? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it isn't necessarily medical euphemisms, it is the influence of Norman French on English. English is (very broadly and approximately) a French vocabulary laid over an un-gendered Germanic base., from the influence of Norman French after the Norman Conquest. Consider that the French words for the terms, penis = pénis, vagina = vagin, testicles = testicules, clitoris = clitoris etc. closely match the English ones. And no one has ever accused the French of having prudish "Victorian morality". These are simply the straightforward, non-vulgar words taken almost directly from the French, not necessarily from Latin medical terms. --Jayron32 01:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you just say English is the transvestite child of a Teutonic eunuch and a violent Frenchman named Norm? μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Broadly speaking. --Jayron32 04:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayron's hunch is wrong on this occasion. None of the English or French terms mentioned were in use at the time of the Norman Conquest. Both series come in to medical use from Latin much later, and only from there into the colloquial language. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a brief history of medical language, suggesting that since early medical texts were written in Latin, and doctors would naturally write in Latin, it was an obvious step to use Latin terms for medical items. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So, then, I guess my question would be if it went Latin --> French --> English or if it went Latin --> French and Latin --> English in parallel. --Jayron32 13:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Answering my own question: Etymonline dates Vagina and Penis from the 1670s-1680s and indicates that they did likely enter the language as medical jargon. Clitoris and Testicles were invented in Latin in 1610, and entered English directly from there. So, it was pre-Victorian that these terms were used, but looks like I was completely wrong. It looks as though they all entered English through Latin, and some of the terms were rather late inventions in Latin as well. --Jayron32 13:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

However, the idea of Latin or Romance words as "high speech" comes as you say, from Norman French being the language of the elite. English Words: History and Structure By Robert Stockwell, Donka Minkova; "...according to one estimate the number of French words adopted during the Middle English period was slightly over 10,000. Of these, about 75 per cent have survived and are still used in present-day English" Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Medicine is an area where English differs from the other Germanic languages, in that English is far more likely to use Latin loanwords, whereas the other Germanic languages more often use non-Latin terms. To take further examples, Swedish has tandläkare ("dentist"; but literally "tooth-healer"), hudläkare ("dermatologist"; "skin-healer"), bukspottkörtel ("pancreas"; "stomach-spit-gland"). Danish has spiserør ("oesophagus"; "food-pipe"). Icelandic has uppskurður ("surgery"; "up-cutting"). Dutch has eierstok ("ovaries"; "egg-stocks"). And so on... Gabbe (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a conlang called Anglish, which aims to write English using only Germanic-derived words. For example: "When in the Fare of mennishly belimps, it becomes needful for one Leed to formelt the mootly bends which have limpledged them with another, and to nim among the mights of the earth, the sunderly and even standing which the Laws of Ykind and of Ykind's God befeal them, a thewly eighting to the weens of mankind tharf that they should abeed the Andwork which fordrive them to the sundering." (From the introduction to the onemood Forthspell of the Selfdom of the thirteen gathertang Rikes of Markland. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That was Jefferson's first draft. He feared that if he wrote it in normal English, it might cause trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

English often has Germanic and Romance words for the same thing, the former being used in everyday speech and the later for more formal uses. An example is graveyard and cemetary. English has perfectly good Germanic words for the external sexual apparatus, but their use is considered vulgar in many circles, whereas the use of the Romance term is considered more acceptable. Alansplodge (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the same in Norwegian: 'Penis' and 'Vagina' are the formal, neutral words for the sexual organs, whereas the 'native Norwegian' words (tiss, pikk, fitte, etc.) are considered rude, or, at the very least, not appropriate in all contexts. However, when it comes to the rest of the body, as Gabbe mentions, the Norwegian terms are perfectly fine, and the Latin ones are not used. V85 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that a rather dated euphemism for foul language in the UK and apparently the US is "Anglo-Saxon". An example is here Eyewitnesses to the Indian Wars, 1865-1890 - an army officer is trying to get reinforcements during a battle; "After some delay and a vigorous use of plain Anglo-Saxon, he succeeded in getting M Troop sent over...". In other words, "after some delay and a lot of swearing". More decorous language is expected to have a lot of Latin-based words in it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting in this context that no Irish person or of Irish heritage has ever been recorded as swearing. Ever. We're above all that shit. Which is why these fecking rude words are described as "Anglo-Saxon" and not "Anglo-Celtic". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, if a Londoner lets slip a swearword at an inappropriate moment, he/she will say "Oh, pardon my French" (ie please excuse my bad language). I doubt that this comes from any deep study of linguistics however. As for Australians, they have such a reputation in the UK for swearing, that a 1990s advertising campaign for a brand of Queensland lager ran with "Australians wouldn't give a XXXX for anything else!"[2] Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Australians are famous for it in Australia. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That particular ad went over like a lead balloon in Oz. It attracted criticism from many quarters. Some pretended it was about the crude language. But the real problems were that (a) it wasn't crude enough and (b) it's unidiomatic. We do say "Bloody hell!", but almost always as an expletive by itself, not as part of a more complex sentence. We're much more likely to say "Where the hell are you?" or even "Where the fuck are you?", when talking to someone other than one's mother or the bishop. "Where the bloody hell are you" confuses two idioms, sounds confected, and is confected. The whole thing was misconceived, by someone with a tin ear. Or a committee. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Where the bloody hell are you" is completely natural in British English. 86.181.171.180 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well Wiktionary doesn't have a problem with it.[3] "Interjection (UK, Australian, New Zealand, mildly vulgar) placed before a verb to add emphasis to a sentence. What the bloody hell are you doing here?" Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And Exhibit B, a learned discourse from Griffith University, Queensland; Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication (2008) - “Where the bloody hell are you?”: Bloody hell and (im)politeness in Australian English. Conclusion - "In short, using the words ‘the bloody hell’ in Australia is usually not impolite in everyday conversation. In addition, most Australians are not offended when they hear them..." The defence rests its case m'Lud. Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I took over a class of unruly 7 year olds in Japan from an Australian teacher who couldn't handle them, and they kept saying "Bloody hell" all the time. I guess he'd been saying it a lot in class. So, while I was teaching phonics, I taught them to say "That does my head in!" in a Scouse accent. When the next teacher (an American) took over the class, he was totally bewildered as to what they were on about, and kept saying "WTF?", so I guess they learned a new phrase from him. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unruly Japanese schoolchildren? I didn't think they had that problem in Japan...

Got them everywhere, mate. Go to Japan, teach a class of little kids, and count how many times a day they run up to you and punch you in the balls, shouting 'KANCHO!' At least they shout it, so you have milliseconds of forewarning of the impending attack. My way of dealing with it was to catch the kid's hands, and twist him/her round and use the kid as a human shield against further attacks. One of my American mates would just pick them up during the attack and give them a slobbery kiss. They wouldn't go near him after a while. We all had our own techniques for defence. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WHAAAE; see Kancho. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly Gabbe's "tandläkare ("dentist"; but literally "tooth-healer"), hudläkare ("dermatologist"; "skin-healer")" would literally be "tooth-leech" and "hide-leech" in English. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

leech n. 3. Archaic A physician. Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

October 4

What does "sasta wala" mean?

I read this regarding cheap merchandise for sale in India. But I don't know what it means. Any ideas? --209.133.95.32 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sasta (सस्ता) means cheap, and wala indicates a person connected with it. I think it is equivalent of something like "the deal guy" or "bargain merchant". -- Q Chris (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

....as in dabbawala.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

.... and Dishwalla. --Jayron32 13:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Does "cheap" in this context mean low cost/inexpensive, or low quality/chintzy merchandise? --209.133.95.32 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Vālā (वाला) can also be used to nominalize adjectives, e.g. in this case the meaning could also be "the cheap one". A little bit more context would be useful. --BishkekRocks (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what it means here. Vālā (वाला) here is being used to nominalize adjective 'Sasta' (सस्ता). So "sasta wala" refers to some merchandise that is inexpensive/low quality. Vālā (वाला) doesn't have to do anything with the person connected with the object. (I am a native speaker of Hindi language.) - DSachan (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What Western words are cognate with vālā? Well? Value? μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WAG, maybe "vend" or "vendor". --Jayron32 00:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WAG? What ah guess? μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a wild-ass guess, but I think your surmise is off the mark. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitions #5 and 7. --Jayron32 02:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The OED says the English is from the Hindi suffix meaning "regarding", but gives no origin for the Hindi. Calvert Watkins and Mallory and Adams don't even mention it. Wiktionary apparently gives a false etymology, from pala, protector--that should be deleted or whatever one does to BS at wikt. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster gives the pāla theory as well, which is presumably where Wiktionary gets it. Angr (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the Wiktionary entry to provide both theories. Angr (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

McGregor's Hindi Dictionary also derives vālā̇ from pāla, but Turner's Comparative Dictionary does not mention it in its entry for pāla. It doesn't seem too unprobable, though. You definitely cannot derive vālā from any Indo-European root beginning with v, since Old Indo-Aryan v has shifted to b in Hindi. On the other hand, p → v is a regular development between vowels (and as second member in compounds -pāla will occur between vowels).

As for the Wiktionary entry, I don't you can speak of "two theories": English wallah is derived from Hindi vālā, which may or may not be derived from OIA pāla. But "pertaining to" and "person in charge (of)" are just slightly different meanings of the same word. --BishkekRocks (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, Turner from your link gives ʻherdsman, shepherd ʼ deriv. of *pāl ʻ flock ʼ. Perhaps flock is a cognate. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Change that number on your dial" meaning

In the Michael Jackson song Thriller, what does "unless you change that number on your dial" mean? I'm mostly asking just if this is a common turn of phrase somewhere. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I always thought it meant to change your phone number. Of course, it doesn't really "fit" the song, which is basically about horror movie tropes. But the line may have been chosen more for prosody than for sense. That it, it fits the meter and rhyme of the song, so it kinda gets shoehorned in there despite being a bit out of place, content-wise. Songwriters do this all the time. --Jayron32 23:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I never "always thought" anything about it, but looking at the lyrics, I'd say it's a reference to changing the channel on the television (to watch something other than a horror flick)—notice that a couple of lines later he says, "I'll save you from the terror on the screen." Surely folks remember when TVs had dials that you turned to select the channel. Deor (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cf don't touch that dial, although that probably originated in radio, not TV. -- BenRG (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You young'ns and your change of telephone number theories are so cute! Tune in next time. Same Bat Time. Same Bat Channel. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. (from someone definately old enough to remember when TVs had dials. Two. One for VHF and one for UHF.) --Jayron32 03:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I still have a portable TV like that, but it's been demoted to the bathroom, and I don't use the channel dials anymore, since it's now hooked up to a digital converter box. On the plus side, this gives me a remote control for a TV that lacked one. StuRat (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh you guys rule a lot! Thank you so much, I've been curious for a while and that makes perfect sense. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchs reign but do not rule. My point in mentioning this is that it's been rumoured for a number of years that Queen Elizabeth II edits the WP Reference Desk in her spare time. I wonder which of the above editors is the real Queen. I have my suspicions, but I'll keep my own counsel. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unrecognisable

Which is correct: "He looks unrecognizable to the formidable leader he once was" or "He looks unrecognizable from the formidable leader he once was"? Ankh.Morpork 23:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

They are both correct, but it depends on what you are trying to say. --Jayron32 23:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Explain their different meaning please. Ankh.Morpork 23:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you say "unrecognizable to" it means that Person B doesn't recognize Person A. If you say "unrecognizable from" it means that Person B is indistinguishable from Person A. Even if Person A and Person B are the same person, "unrecognizable to" could mean "He had changed to the point where he wouldn't even recognize himself anymore" whereas "unrecognizable from" would mean "he hadn't changed". --Jayron32 00:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say both are wrong. We recognise something "as" something, not "to" something or "from" something, Hence, "He looks unrecognizable as the formidable leader he once was". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But I can see why the OP wanted something other than as. "Unrecognisable as" is emphasising that he is the same person, whereas the OP's "unrecognisable from" (which I interpret as "unrecognisable compared to") is emphasising the difference from the former person -ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but he'd need to write "He looks unrecognizable compared to the formidable leader he once was". Or even "compared with". He can't get away with just "to" or "with". And "from" doesn't fit at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This article stated "Vincent Kompany looks unrecognisable to the formidable leader he was last season" which seemed a little awkward so I was wondering if this was grammatically correct and how it could be alternatively expressed. Ankh.Morpork 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jack; in this case you can't get by with a single preposition, you have to use a phrase like "compared to", or choose a different word, e.g. "he hardly resembles the formidable leader he once was". Lesgles (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd just drop the "looks" (superfluous here) and say, "He was unrecognizable as the formidable leader he once was." --Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although I'd make it "is" versus "was", since he presumably still looks that way. Better yet: "He is no longer recognizable as the formidable leader he once was." StuRat (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

October 5

Ye Olde Curiositie Shoppe

OK - so I get why the old letter "thorn" got transcribed to "Y" in print - so "Ye" is really pronounced "The" and modern pronunciation of "Ye" as "Ye" is just silly.

I also get that in an era before decent dictionaries and standardized spelling, "curiosity" could be written "curiositie".

But why do "olde" and "shoppe" have "e"'s on the end in modern faux medieval writing?

SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is an article of faith among Americans faking up "medieval" (usually really Early Modern) spelling, that everything had an 'e' on the end in "olden times", whether it does now or not. This is apparently inspired by the horrified discovery that all those silent e's on the ends of words used to be pronounced[!], plus that whole theater/theatre, center/centre, etc. thing that Noah Webster started. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've seen these spellings in the UK also - and we were never inflicted with Webster's "simplifications". SteveBaker (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The best thing about blaming "Americans" for things is you never need a reference to back up your bias. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are three examples of an Americaine doing thatte sorte of thynge: [4], [5], [6]. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, mye. Surelie thou keptest noughte those edittes in thy memorie. So where didst thou keep hem? Hast thou a liste thou keepest? Matters noughte so long as oure readers do readen oure editte sommairies. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely I did remember them, because they stuck out at the time as extremely odd. It was less than a week ago, after all; I may be ayncientte in the eyes of some people, but my memory ain't that short. What made them particularly memorable for me, was that you took the time to make those three apparently pointless edits, but hadn't found time* to respond to any of my four questions seeking clarification about your earlier contribution to the thread under discussion. One could have been forgiven for thinking you were pointedly avoiding the questions. Maybe that was your point (or poynte, in this case). (* You've since made a response. Of sorts.)

But are you saying you post stuff on websites in order to be totally ignored and immediately forgotten? That wasn't my impression at all, but I'm happy to be corrected. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the first time you've remembered my owne postes bettere than I have. I am hugely impressed. Or flattered. Or impressed. Or flattered. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fair to say you've created a certain impression of yourself, Medeis. As we all do. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Here in Detroit, we have a drug store named "Ye Olde Drug and Party Faire". Sounds like the place for fun, doesn't it ? :-) StuRat (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You can see here in the texts of Wycliffe, Chaucer, and Grower the use of things such as "The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne" (the tender crops and the young sun--compare "shoppe" and "croppes"), and "these olde wise" (these old wisemen), and "Jhesu made iorney by citees and castelis, prechinge and euangelysinge þe rewme [realm] of God".

These final ees represent fossilized markers of case and gender, as in the feminine yonge sonne. Copmare the German, Die Sonne, sie glänzt "The sun, she shines". Spellings in printed material tend to be conservative, especially in religious texts. Consider original texts of the King James Bible or look at this facsimile of King Lear. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I could only testify to how Yanks get it wrong. As to ol' Noah: youse guys are exposed to your side of the whole Websterian differentiation, and I suppose folks might think that "this is how we who preserve the Fine Old Heritage of Mother England used to spell thinges!" Actually, a quick peek at the OED reveals that the legitimate spelling "olde" has been attested from 940 C.E. well into the 1600s; and "shoppe" was common in the 16th century, alongside (at different times) schopp, schop(p)e, shope, schop, shopp, schoop, shoope, shop; shapp, chope, choipp, shap, and even chop. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

However, as far as the first word goes: while "curiosity" has been spelled coryouste, curiouste, curyouste(e), curyoste, coriouste, curiowstee, curyste, curiosite, cury-, curiosite(e), curiosyte(e), curiosytye, curiositye, kewriosyte, etc., the sense of "the kind of tschotschke sold in a curiosity shop" was first attested in 1645, by which time the spelling was settle solidly in the modern form, with not a single counter-example found. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The original Old Curiosity Shop lacks any superfluous "e"s. However, we Brits are not above adding an extra "e" when the urge takes us.[7], [8], [9], [10] Note that "ye" is still pronounced "ye" when it is the plural form of "thou" as in "Oh ye of little faith" (but you probably knew that already). Alansplodge (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes; not all us Friends mangle 17th-century pronoun use, as thee may know. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's, "As thou mayest know...." Thee is the object form of that pronoun. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

However, some 19th-century Quakers said "thee knows" as a kind of partial compromise between "you know" and "thou knowest"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with that, but would call it an affectation (or a corruption--but I don't think it was a continuos transmission), not a compromise. I love the Nixon (film), but Mary Steenburgen as Nixon's mother talking that way drove me nuts. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It may have been accurate, though; there was what some purists consider extensive corruption of traditional Friends practices among the group to whom Nixon's mother belonged.--Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is one of my favourite videos. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I like this one better. V85 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the use of thee is for thou art is a corruption, the earliest Quakers used the terms properly: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2732 μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

One of my favorite lines:

"When thee asks or suggests, I am like putty in thy hands, but when thee forbids, thee is barking up the wrong tree". --Quigley

--Trovatore (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Framed poster in a synagogue

A framed poster in Chesed-El Synagogue, Singapore

What is the significance of this framed poster which I photographed in Chesed-El Synagogue in Singapore? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking for a translation ? Other than that, all we can do is speculate about the imagery. The Stars of David are obvious. The flowers, scissors, teapot, stairs, and chalice, not so obvious. StuRat (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking for a translation, just what sort of poster it is. I presume it has some particular religious significance. For instance, is it a prayer? Are posters of this sort a standard feature in synagogues, perhaps? Just wondering if I can describe it more accurately on the file description page apart from calling it a "framed poster". — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an example of a Shiviti, per the upper text in large letters at the top, under the inner vertical rectangular frame line that underscores "Know before Whom you stand..." (from Berakhot (Talmud)). I would suppose the content conforms with the composition of a Shiviti, and would be displayed accordingly. It's being a framed reproduction, its provenance might be clarified with the synagogue's custodians for documentary purposes. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating! Thanks very much. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm DeborahJay's identification. I might add: it's a more or less standard Shiviti. The Menorah is a mystical calligraphic version of Psalm 67 (see the Hebrew version), repeated three times in this case. The only unique features on this Shiviti are the illustrations: the items depicted are various (labeled) utensils of the Temple in Jerusalem used with the Temple Menorah - the stairs for the Kohen to mount when lighting and cleaning the Menorah (oddly labeled as a "ramp"); the "teapot" is the oil jug, for filling the lamps; tongs for removing the used wicks, and shovels to clean the lamps of ash. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 6

Hindi/Sanskrit pronunciation

How can I make all the hard sounds in Hindi/Sanskrit? (aspirated/unaspirated, retroflex, palatal) --168.7.239.19 (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Ph", "th", "kh" are fairly easy if you're a native English speaker, since any [p], [t], [k] in English which is followed by a stressed vowel, and is not preceded by [s], is almost always aspirated. If you can pronounce the [t] of "stop" without the [s] and contrast it with the [t] of "top", then you're on your way with being able to produce the "t"-"th" distinction... AnonMoos (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Retroflex is not hard: just turn the tip of your tongue backward. (The hard part, for us anglophones, is making the dentals truly dental; our alveolar "dentals" sound to Indians like retroflex.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, "pure" vowels are very hard for English speakers. I find it particularly hard to stop 'ए' sounding like "ay" -- Q Chris (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Just say 'air' without the 'r'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That would work for me (British near-RP), but my wife (Texas-USA) would still pronounce it "ay"! -- Q Chris (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure she's not from Canada, eh? :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing I did with my kids in China to show the difference between aspirated and unaspirated was to give them little strips of paper, get them to put them in front of their mouths, and say 'p', 't', and 'k' (and a few others), and see who made the paper move the most. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was an undergrad, I took Sanskrit from a professor who carefully produced, and taught us to produce, the difference between aspirated and unaspirated stops and between dentals and retroflexes. Then when I was a grad student at a different university, I took Sanskrit again from a different professor, who told us on the first day: "Sanskrit has four different kinds of t: [tʰə], [tʰə], [tʰə] and [tʰə]", pronouncing all four identically as slightly aspirated alveolars. I think he genuinely thought he was making the difference. Angr (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

γγ γκ γξ γχ

My Shelmderdine Greek book says that when these consonants appear together, the γ becomes a [ŋ]. My instructor, when asked, said he kind of knew that was the case but that he wouldn't really ever do it. So: is Shelmerdine correct, and if so, common? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, γμ. One piece of evidence is that γγ γκ γξ γχ are transliterated as NG NC NX NCH into Latin (αγγελος = ANGELUS etc.). For detail on reconstructing ancient Greek pronunciations, you can look at Vox Graeca by Allen. Wikipedia article is Ancient Greek phonology... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So stigma ought to be stiŋma?! —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The velar nasal sound is sometimes called the "angma" based on αγμα. Also, when a verb with a stem ending in a labial stop comes directly before an "m" ending in ancient Greek, the result is "mm": καλυψω / κεκαλυμμαι. The analogous case with velar-final stems is πραξω / πεπραγμαι. Anyway, orthographic "gn" in ancient Latin was [ŋn] at least some of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean so much in Classical times, I mean in modern classical education and scholarship. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If you mean modern pronunciation, then you don't have to worry about γμ; but for the others, γκ γξ γχ would be very difficult to pronounce if γ is not nasal, and for all of γγ γκ γξ γχ the nasal pronunciation is consistent with Greek loanwords into English (angel, sphinx, elenchus etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice that in English, we write the /ŋ/ with <n> before a velar, as in "bank": we are using a letter to represent a different sound which is similar to its primary sound in one respect (nasality) but different in another (place of articulation). The Greeks appeared to have done something similar and used a letter <γ> whose primary sound was similar in one respect (place of articulation) but different in another (nasality). The Romans also did something similar in some contexts: there is considerable evidence that the <g> in words like "cognosco" was pronounced /ŋ/ rather than /g/. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop clusters

Looking at #γγ γκ γξ γχ, it seems to me that the problem is with these clusters is that they're all velar stops. I tried to pronounce the [ɡ], [k], [x] and [ks] with the [g] of the gamma and couldn't. So I wondered, is it generally the case that stops in the same POA cannot be pronounced together? Is this just a restriction I have due to my native English? (As a total sidenote, how is the order of the IPA symbols in the insert tool on the edit page determined?) 67.164.156.42 (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

[gk], [gkʰ] are unlikely clusters, since the adjacent consonants differ only in voicing. However, [gg] is not problematic, and can be found in many languages. AnonMoos (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

[gkʰ] occurs in English at syllable junctures (usually morpheme junctures), as in "egg-cup". Given the English derivatives that AnonMoos mentions, I think you are just making your life unnecessarily difficult by trying to pronounce these clusters with /g/. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in "egg-cup" this is at the boundary between two stems of a compound (where any series of consonants which can occur at the end of English syllable can be followed by any series of consonants which can occur at the beginning of an English syllable), and so does not count as an ordinary (stem-internal) intervocalic consonant cluster... AnonMoos (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about Greek here, the rule is that gamma before a velar stands for eng, not for gamma. Those orthographic clusters are pronounced /ŋg/, /ŋk/, /ŋks/, and /ŋx/. (OH, I see this was a subhead, not a main question--I read these threads bottom to top.) μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Person through relative clauses

To what extent is grammatical person preserved in verbs across relative clauses? I was going to list two examples, but I can't find them to post. The first is from the Aeneid. Someone is talking to someone else (one of the gods, I think) and however it goes, there's qui clause with a second-person verb inside it. The second is from a poem of Ángel González Muñiz that I can't for the life of me remember the exact words to, so I can't find it. But the gist was that the verb was first plural then a que clause and inside it was also a 1P verb.

It seems to me that relative pronouns, like qui or que or who, function as nominatives in the relative clauses. So the verb should be third, yes? It would sound somewhat strange to me in English to say "You, who eat five oranges a day, should be healthy as an ox." rather than "You, who eats five oranges a day, should be healthy as an ox." So is it that Latin and Spanish do it where English does not, or that I am just wrong and English does it all the time? Or just what is the deal with this? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

English historically used to do it, and still does in certain cases ("I, who am..."), but third person now occurs in many other cases. Jespersen has examples in volume VII of his grammar. The Spectator has the sentence "I am one who live in a continual apprehension", but that would be "lives" in modern English... AnonMoos (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservative though I am, I'd expect lives there because its subject is one, not I. —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tamfang: I would use "I am one who lives...." because the subject of the relative clause is "who", of which the antecedent is "one". And, contrary to the OP, I find it natural to say "You, who eat five oranges a day,...." because the subject of the relative clause is "who", the antecedent of which is "you". Duoduoduo (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It could be considered "attraction" to a logical first-person subject (apparently possible in the English of 300 years ago, but not today). By the way, the article Attraction (grammar) is strangely narrow and limited... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A contentious issue of biblical exegesis turns on just this question for Hebrew. In Exodus 3:4, Hebrew: אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, lit. 'I am/will-be which/who/the-one-who I am/will-be' is traditionally translated "I am who I am" or "I am that I am", but some scholars prefer "I am the one who is". Part of the argument in favour of the latter is that Hebrew does have the rule that the verb in the relative clause agrees with the subject of the main clause, and therefore that this can be analysed as containing a full relative clause: on this interpretation, it is as if it said "I am the one who am", though as Tamfang says this is barely possible in Modern English. The traditional interpretation does not treat it as a relative clause at all.

A paper which discusses (and rejects) this analysis is Albrektson, Bertil (1968). Peter R Ackroyd; Barnabas Lindars (eds.). "On the syntax of אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה". Words and Meanings: Essays presented to David Winton Thomas. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0 521 07270 0.. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Metamorphoses

How is Ovid's poem pronounced in English? I feel like it should be said /mɛ.tə.mɔr.'foʊ.sizˌ/ instead of /mɛ.təˈmɔr.fə.siz/. I don't really know why. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

In Latin, the stress is on the penultimate syllable because it is long: /mɛ.ta.mɔr.ˈfoː.seːs/. English usually follows the Latin stress for scholarly words like this, but in this case for whatever reason, the stress is usually shifted back a syllable. My Longman Pronunciation Dictionary gives both but puts the third-syllable pronunciation first. Here's what the OED says: "The alternative pronunciation with stress on the fourth syllable is apparently first mentioned as occurring in British usage by H. W. Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage (1926), who describes it as ‘more regular’ and as ‘still often heard’ (this impression of its former currency appears to be mistaken)." Both these sources are talking about the common noun. I could imagine that classical scholars might decide to stick to the Latin stress when talking about Ovid. Lesgles (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've only ever heard it pronounced with the stress on the penultimate syllable, as the title of the work, in both scholarly and non-scholarly discussion. But, I think if I were meaning "the plural of metamorphosis" in a natural English sentence, I might well produce metamorphoses with a stress on the third syllable. 86.159.77.170 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Payment B/G

What does "Payment: B/G" mean? bamse (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly bank guarantee? Difficult to make suggestions without more context.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible. As for context, it is on an offer (i.e. somebody is offering a product and I might buy it), but I don't want to put the offer online here. bamse (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the context, a Bank Guarantee seems like the most obvious answer. Commercial offers are usually accompanied with a bank guarantee requirement. _{Hisham1987 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)}

Latter part/second half of century

"Latter part" = "second half" in a sentence "In the latter half of the 8th century..." ? bamse (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct, although perhaps later than 751, if we're talking about a specific event. I'm thinking more like 780 or 790. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; the year 751 would be best described as "mid 8th century". You could also say "late 8th century" for dates towards the end of the scale. Alansplodge (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if we are talking about something with a wide range of years, like the reign of a king, it might extend from 751-799, and this could be called "the latter part", although I might specifically call it "the latter half". StuRat (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And if I don't know what the author mean when writing "latter part", what should I assume? bamse (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the last third might be a good middle-of-the-road interpretation. StuRat (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the author was being deliberately vague, so he didn't mean for us to infer anything specific. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to be very grammatical, latter is comparative, and therefore indicates that there are only two things being compared, and this is indeed confirmed by the sentence, as it indicates the century has been split in two halves. As Duoduoduo points out, the author is (probably) being delibaretly vague, as it might be difficult to date exactly when something happened in the 8th century, and therefore uses vague language. As we (on the ref desk) do not know what event is being discussed in that sentence, we can't know whether what was happening might reasonably require 50 years to complete, or if it's just vague dating. I would agree with Alan and StuRat, though, as a general rule of thumb, understanding it as the last decades of the century might be the most accurate. (And, you will notice that I have used specifically vage language here, as I haven't quantified how many decades you should count.) V85 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Boost your computer's start-up time" ?

It's clear from the context that they mean to say they will reduce your computer's start-up time, but it certainly sounds like it means the opposite, to me. Is there any way "boost" can properly be used to mean "reduce" ? I saw this in a TV ad for http://www.cleanMyPC.com (they don't seem to mangle English that way on their web site). StuRat (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems a confusion between "boost your computer's performance/efficiency" and "reduce your computer's start-up time". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

People take boost to mean increase in speed, not just increase. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. If they'd said "boost your computer's start-up speed", rather than "... time", there would have been no issue. They should know that IT geeks are usually scientifically literate, and know that speed and time are in inverse relationship. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I know you are not taking my pointing out that sloppy thought exists as defending it. soon enought the OED will report a sense of boost which means to better, not just to increase. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That already exists. To boost the performance of something usually means to better it, in some sense. Bettering the performance of computers can include making them work faster. It can also include making them do more things, ideally in no more time than it used to take to do fewer things. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Soon enough? The 1989 edition says: To hoist; ‘to lift or push from behind (one endeavoring to climb); to push up. (Low)’ Webster. Also fig. To assist over obstacles, to advance the progress of; to support, encourage; to increase (in value, reputation, etc.); to praise up, to extol. I think the original meaning involved assisting a climber to gain height, and both the meanings you suggest are figurative uses of that. I can't see that either of them is particularly new. Marnanel (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was using "soon enough" ironically. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The same ad promises "Your computer will be 100% faster". I'm not quite sure how to take that. Takes half as long to do the same task ? StuRat (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Or no time at all? HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be 100% less time. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with that one. Currently your computer "goes" at a certain "speed". They claim it will go at twice that speed, so, yes, it will take half as long to do the same task. So they claim. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "fast" is not quite synonymous with speed. "Fast" and "slow" are qualitative judgements of speed. If asked "How fast are you going ?", a perfectly valid answer is "Very fast", while "What is your current speed ?" demands a numeric response. (In response to the "How fast are you going ?", you could give a numeric response, but, to me, this means "I'm going 100 miles per hour, so you decide for yourself if that's fast or not".) Therefore, "100% faster" or "100% slower" are somewhat meaningless, like saying "100% colder", "100% better", or "100% prettier". StuRat (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I see what you're getting at, but I'd cut through it to what I said above. Whatever your computer's current performance speed may be, the claim appears to be that the product will increase it by a factor of 100%. Problem is, I'm sure there's more than one way of defining and then measuring a "computer's speed", and I'm not sure any one product can improve all of those metrics, or even any single one of them, by exactly 100% sight-unseen. That would be my main issue with believing such a claim, but I understand what they're driving at. If the product had claimed to "greatly" or "significantly" improve your computer's speed, would that have posed a problem of comprehension? If not, why does a claim of 100% pose a problem of comprehension?

If a computer's speed is numerically measurable in any meaningful way, then it doesn't matter that an owner might choose to describe it as "fast" or "slow". We can also describe a moving car as "fast" or "slow" in relation to some yardstick (maybe stated, maybe not), but if we're doing meaningful comparisons we always have recourse to measuring it exactly, numerically. The same applies to computers, as long as it's possible to measure their "speed" in a rigorous way. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Since "fast" is based on perception, it doesn't necessarily correspond with speed. For example, when downloading software, if it asks some questions, does the entire download, then asks a few more questions at the end, allowing me to do other things in between, that would seem much faster, even if it took an hour, than some poorly written download that only takes half an hour, but takes complete control of my computer and asks a question every minute, so I have to stay there and stare at it the whole time. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you're no longer considering the speed of the computer as such. You're considering how long it might take, and how much of your undivided attention it might take, to complete the process of downloading software onto your computer. These are very different things. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If your PC is on 110 volts house current, try plugging it into a 220. That should make it go fast. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If by "go" you mean "go up in flames", then yes. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what kind of performance boost you're looking for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

German pronunciation help

I have written a new article, Schwurhand, and need to add a pronunciation for the title. I don't do either IPA or German so can somebody help please? The article was the result of a question on the Humanities Desk; a German editor has called my effort "surprisingly original" which I hope is a compliment! Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

German pronunciation: [ˈʃvuːɐ̯hant]. Lesgles (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank. Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

October 7

Recording session style guide?

For years I've been looking at lists of songs with recording information, and they seem to follow a fairly consistent style (even down to standard abbreviations for the instruments). But for the life of me I've never been able to find where this style is defined. Does anyone have any idea? Please note I'm interested in one for general writing rather than for Wikipedia.—Chowbok ☠ 00:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

American English vs. British English

Is there any way to find out whether British English or American English is the English of choice for those who speak English as a second language in countries in which English is not a primary language? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would depend on who's doing the teaching and/or who wrote the texts or other teaching materials. There'd be no one-size-fits-all answer to this.

And those two are not the only possibilities. If I were teaching English to people in Mongolia, say, I doubt it would be either British or American English as such. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is a way to find out. What is the real question? Looie496 (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there particular countries you're wondering about? Typically, European countries and countries that were part of the British Empire in the 20th Century speak British English, whereas countries in the Western Hemisphere and East Asia tend to speak American English. Of course, there's also Canadian English, Australian English, etc., which wouldn't really be considered either "British" or "American".—Chowbok ☠ 03:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether Europeans will learn "British English", but I do know that the US had a large presence in Germany over the past 60 years, and I know quite a few Germans who learnt English in that time and who speak it with an American accent. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply because of its population size, there will always be a lot of Indians learning English. In most cases they will learn Indian English. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it has a lot to do with the type of English spoken by the teacher, moreso than the choice of the student. My French teacher in college was from France, and I sometimes have difficulty understanding Canadian French.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

By "speak" do we mean the choice of certain words (jumper vs sweater) or pronunciation? bamse (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

...or spelling? HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Many non-native English users I've encountered exhibit a variety of influences in their spoken and written language, depending on whether, where and with whom they studied English formally, and their exposure to the language since. To complicate matters further, the majority of the world's EFL/ESL teachers are not native speakers of English.[11] so learners, particularly in non-Anglophone countries, may well be learning from someone whose own English usage isn't typical of one particular variety. - Karenjc 10:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotally, a pair of professors, one Russian born and the other Spanish, both said they began learning English with a British accent, which they found easier to pronounce and understand. Both switched to studying American English while in Europe due to the economic advantage. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the purposes of the British Council is to promote instruction of British English to foreign language learners... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What a horrible thing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we Australians will just keep teaching them Australian English. That's not horrible. HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"DOES THE BRITISH COUNCIL TEACH BRITISH ENGLISH?

Most of our teachers are from the UK, so you will learn more about British accents and UK culture but English is an international language.

We teach practical English that can be used in any context in any country."

http://www.britishcouncil.org/korea-english-courses-adults-faqs.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.171.180 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was teaching in Japan for ten years, and most schools preferred American English. I am British, and had no problem with that, but created my own school in my house, where I taught British English, and got lots of students because there appears to be some sort of prestige attached to British English. In Korea, they preferred American English, but it didn't really matter. In China, they preferred British English. Here in Hungary at my school, they teach British English. Some schools seem to have a preference based on the inability to understand that UK and US English are not as different as they think, whilst others does don't care, because English is English, and they have a business to run. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(Anecdote:) When I was in school in Norway, we learnt British English, because that was the spelling used in our textbooks. However, due to how pervasive American pop-culture is (movies, TV-series, etc.), everyone spoke 'American' English, since that was what we were being exposed to. V85 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Must have made you wonder why there was an extra "i" in aluminum/aluminium. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Bing Translator, the Norwegian for "aluminium" is aluminium. It's aluminium in French too. You're rather out on a limb on that point I think. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because they would have heard it on American media, as they said, without the "i" pronounced (perhaps in the phrase "aluminum siding" while watching Tin Men). StuRat (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are trying to be cheeky StuRat, or if you don't understand what people are saying here. Since I, as a Swede, have the same experience as V85 I'm joining in. If we noticed it, we obviously found the lack of "i" in the American spelling and pronunciation odd, since it is there in virtually all other languages we would have been familiar with (as West/Northern Europeans). Personally, I noticed the American pronuncation of Al in the lyrics to E-Bow the Letter, and initially thought it was just a way to make the words match the rythm of the song. In my experience, the books used for teaching English during the first couple of years all used British English, as did all tapes etc. that came with them. There was never any ban or restriction on American English though, and as soon as we were able to read regular fiction books in addition to the textbooks, these could use any variety of the language./Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Aluminum without the extra i was the choice of the discoverer, Humphry Davy, and it was a perfectly respectable choice, derived from alumina and similar to platinum and tantalum. It is unfortunate that most of the world picked up a usage proposed by some meddler who wrote in anonymously to a journal. This is one where we Yanks got it right. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you attribute far too much power to that anonymous "meddler". All they [sic] did was to propose a new spelling. If the generality of people in the scientific community had thought it was a dumb idea, it would never have been heard of again. Interestingly, the word aluminum/ium does not appear in Humphry Davy except in a footnote. Humphry Davy does appear in aluminium, but as its namer, not its discoverer. The Etymology section is worth a read. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The truth is that relatively few people speak exclusively one variety of English all the time. Most of us who are exposed to other varieties tend to pick up bits and pieces, or more, of them. The pervasiveness of American media, and to a lesser extent British media, has wrought significant changes to other anglo-places. Case in point:

In Australia, we've always used the word alternative as both a noun and an adjective.

• You say we have no alternative (n.) but to refuse him entry. The alternative (adj.) viewpoint is to let him in but to detain him for questioning.

The American version of that would be:

• You say we have no alternative (n.) but to refuse him entry; the alternate (adj.) viewpoint is to let him in but to detain him for questioning.

We do have the word "alternate", but it was always exclusively used as a verb:

• Your mood seems to alternate between gloomy and suicidal,

and it's pronounced differently (ALL-tuh-nayt) from the American adjective alternate (ALL-tuh-nuht). America also has this verb.

Well, lately, Australian reporters have been using alternate as an adjective where we have traditionally used alternative. Some say it in the American manner (ALL-tuh-nuht), but others have made up their own pronunciation, which exists in no known dialect (all-TER-nuht).

Another case:

We're stereotypically known for addressing men generally (and some women) as "mate". When I was growing up, if mate came at the end of a sentence, it had a certain stress. Sort of like:

• "Is it gonna rain, MATE?" - "I wouldn't know, MATE". That overstates it, but you get the idea.

That all changed, and very quickly, when the TV show Minder first graced our screens in 1979. I am absolutely convinced that the Australian people picked up on that Cockney way of de-stresssing the last word, so that it's now usually:

• "Is it gonna RAIN, mate?" - "I wouldn't KNOW, mate". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine an American batting an eye at the use of alternative as an adjective. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

But do they usually choose to use it that way? Not in my experience, but yours is obviously far wider. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would probably be more likely to use alternative, as in "an alternative method". But it would be "alternate juror", which is a set phrase. It would sound strange to hear, "You'll have to find an alternate route home." That would be "an alternative route". I just don't think there's any real difference, but each version might be used more in different contexts. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, alternative implies some volition in the matter, while alternate usually doesn't. Divorced parents have the kids on alternate weekends. An alternate juror is a backup, not an alternative juror, as if there were some choice in the matter. If you have alternative routes you have various possible choices. If you take alternate routes that means you switch your routine according to some schedule, or are trying not to follow a predictable path because of fear of assassination. Alternate focuses on "(every) other" while alternative focuses on "option". μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

From a Canadian who uses some of both English and American styles: I've had to teach myself not to bat an eye at what I consider to be insalubrious language use. I was causing hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and giving myself eyestrain and whiplash. Bielle (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So, Hurricane Bielle, eh. Is your last syllable pronounced like -cane, or -kən? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How about "ell"? Bielle (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:VNE (version of 12:15, 5 October 2012) says the following in point 4.

• Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating depending on which sense is intended).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary for schools to have a preference for US or UK English. Most of the kids are only learning it so they can pass exams, which are mostly written exams, so they only need to know the spelling. Even then, they are multiple choice anyway, so they don't even need to know that. Also, businesspeople will be interacting with people all over the world, and not just people from the US or the UK, all with varying levels of English and various types of accents, so it really doesn't matter. I met a girl in China who was really proud of her strong Georgia accent, and after a few days on a sort of business trip with her, she refused to talk to me, because she thought my UK accent was affecting hers. I told her, "It doesn't matter: language is for communication, not for sounding like you are from a place you have never even been to." If a Hungarian comes up to me and says "Áj vil nat báj zisz rekord, it iz szkrecsd," I will understand him. Seriously, it doesn't matter. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And your surroundings matter a lot...I learnt most of my English in Ireland (Kerry), and am living in Brussels now...so my English at the moment is a bit of Irish/Dutch accent mix, which kind of flummoxes people from the United States. Are others picking up accents like that too, and change it accordingly when they are amongst others who speak English with an accent? Lectonar (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very common for people to change their accents depending on who they are talking to. Sometimes this is deliberate; I have been in a call-centre in the North of England where people are told to tone down their regional accents. Other times it is just hearing accents around. My wife is from Texas and living in England usually speaks with a very mild accent - some people literally cannot understand her otherwise. As soon as she gets on a phone to someone from Texas she brings on a much stronger accent, and says she doesn't realise it. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that this is termed Style-shifting. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. From travelling around a lot, I have basically lost my Liverpool accent, and I speak a mixture of US/UK English (as in, I have a standard RP accent, but it's very often rhotic, and my 'u' and 'a' vowels are still Northern), but when I return to Liverpool, the accent comes back again almost immediately, except when I am on the phone. If I use a Scouse accent abroad, I am very unlikely to be understood by anyone, and if I use the accent while I am on the phone trying to conduct business.... well, you know what I mean. However, from time to time, depending on who I am with, even in Liverpool I will drop the Scouse accent and return to my international one, to which many people remark, "Where are you from?" As an aside, there are some enclaves in the US where UK English is spoken, but with a really old Cockney style. In one film with Clint Eastwood in it, he ends up in some rural village out in the styx, and he needs to go somewhere, so he goes up to this guy and asks where the bus stops. The guy says "Right 'ere", and Clint looks around sheepishly and asks, "Where is that?", and the guy points at the ground and says "Right 'ere!!". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly what you mean by your "a" vowel being Northern? (I get all the rest.) PS, the US accent you describe would be called hillbilly. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See Northern English and Trap–bath split. KägeTorä is saying they pronounce words like "bath and "path" with the same vowel sound as "trap"; a native of Southern England would pronounce them with the same vowel sound as "palm" and "father". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"They", really? I can somewhat reluctantly accept the "singular they" in generic uses ("everybody get their coat!") but it's seriously jarring when referred to a named individual, even if you don't happen to know that person's sex. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There are cases where I have good evidence about a person's sex but I use singular they in relation to them in order to respect their wish that people not assume or attribute to them any particular sex, or anything else about their personal identity. Well, one case, anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it comes across as seriously inferior. If it's absolutely necessary to use a sex-neutral term for a named interlocutor, then he or she or this person or other workarounds. --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Gandalf was referring to the pronunciation of people from the North in general, and not just mine. Hence, 'they'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. You might be right. I hadn't considered that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, no, Trovatore - you were right the first time. Not being aware of his or her sex, I informally used the pronoun "they" to refer to KägeTorä. I should, of course, have been more formal and called her or him "he or she". I hope she or he was not upset by my informality, and I apologise if I caused him or her any embarrassment or offended her or his sensibilities in any way. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not really informality. "Singular they" when the referent is "someone" or "anyone" has a long history. Singular they, when you have a particular person in mind, not so much, and it sounds like self-conscious PC. --Trovatore (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore - it was most kind of you to explain your point again but there was really no need. In my last post I was using a rhetorical device that we call "irony" in British Englsih. I don't know whether you have a word for that in American English. Sorry if I caused confusion. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, Gandalf. Just to clear this up, and to avoid future cross-pond warfare, I shall explain that I am a man, and 'he' is fine for me. If you would prefer to say 'they' (which I actually find very polite, rather than condescending), I shall have to get all of my multiple personalities to vote so we can have a general concensus consensus on which sounds better to us. It may take some time, however, because after all, here on Wikipedia, we are anonymous, and we are legion. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I always thought we were few...Lectonar (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

But the number of long-time Wikipedians, who by rights should know more about consensus than anyone, but who still can't spell it, is legion.  :)

A good aide-memoire is that it's cognate with "consent", and has nothing to do with counting heads in a census. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Could it be the pronounciation which makes it so easy to confound? Or just selective perception Lectonar (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Jack. I wondered what that dotted red line was doing under it after I typed it. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice meeting you or what?

If you get introduced to someone it's normal to say "nice meeting you". But what do you say if you get introduced, spend a couple of hours talking to someone and then it's time to say goodbye? You'll be not immediately after the introduction, so would you say "It was nice to have met you"? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Best to leave that vapid expression well alone and say something else (anything that includes "nice" is automatically vapid). How about "Hello", "Good morning", or "Pleased to meet you" when you get introduced, and "It was a pleasure meeting you" when you depart. At least you're talking about your experience ("pleasure") and your supposed feelings ("pleased"). "Nice" says nothing. Less than nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Nice" may be overused, but it's not meaningless. See def 7 here (due to many obsolete and rare defs listed first): wikt:nice. (And shall I point out that I provided a link, while you did not ?) StuRat (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said "nice" was meaningless, I said it says less than nothing. Your new contribution is welcomed, by me at least. (Your rhetoric, on the other hand ...) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My English teacher at school always told us never to use the word 'nice', because he said it comes from Latin 'nescio', which means "I don't know". It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's what it means now that is important. If my mate buys a Ferrari and shows it to me, and then I say "Nice", it doesn't mean "I don't know." because that would be gibberish, or as Etymonline says "foolish, stupid, senseless," which would be an insult. It just means I do not want to overly commit myself with adjectives that show my true feelings (which may range from a real pleasure to downright disgust). 'Paradise' comes from an Indo-European word 'para-daiza', meaning 'something which is superbly constructed'. It doesn't matter if I go to some tropical island in the Pacific and call it 'paradise', whether it was or wasn't superbly constructed by human hands. Usage of words depends on current usage, not etymology. Also, 'nice' may be overused, but so is the verb 'to be', in that case. Both the verb 'to be' and the word 'nice' perform specific functions in the language. 'Nice' is a non-committal word which is in polite usage. "Nice meeting you" is fine. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a pleasure getting to know you. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I really enjoyed speaking with you. Bielle (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Although grammatically correct "It was nice to have met you" sounds somewhat unnatural to me. I would say "It was nice to meet you" or even "It was nice meeting you". I don't seem to share the prejudice against nice for use in casual conversation that the other contributors do, although I would avoid it in written communication.TheMathemagician (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OP, may I ask - are you a native English speaker, and if so, which variety? I ask because I (Northern UK English speaker) would never say "Nice meeting you" to someone one being introduced to them: I would say "Nice/Good/Pleased to meet you", with an implicit It is ... or I am ... at the beginning. I might very well say: "Nice meeting you" on parting, where it would be shorthand for "It was nice meeting you." All stock phrases risk sounding insincere in this kind of situation, though. It's true that, leaving aside etymology, nice is an overused adjective that often sounds anodyne even when genuinely meant and can easily damn with faint praise. Medeis and Bielle's suggestions inject a little more warmth and sincerity by departing from the usual platitude. - Karenjc 15:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it was nice to have met you carries a possible implication that it was formerly nice, but now no longer is, or at least I decline to assert that it remains nice. I would avoid it for that reason. It was nice meeting you, for some reason, does not trigger this nuance; I am not quite sure why. Possibly "meeting you" is a particular event in the past, and so naturally I can only say that it was nice (you wouldn't ordinarily say it is still nice meeting you), but "to have met you" is a continuing state, and if I say that that "was" nice, I invite the question whether it remains nice. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is not in the specific formulation one chooses when meeting someone or whatever, it is all of the other stuff that goes along with the words: your intonation, your body language, the entire context of the speaking is important. Any salutation can sound insincere if its delivery is wrong, and a warmly and sincerely delivered greeting is far more likely to be received favorably regardless of the specific idiom or word choice used to deliver it. It's all in how you say it, and not necessarily in what you say. --Jayron32 19:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I go along with that 100%. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I have been thinking for the whole thread. There's nothing wrong with a bland formulaic pleasantry sincerely delivered. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In my experience (I've lived all over the UK, but probably picked up this habit in Glasgow), when leaving someone, it is normal to have a "forwards-looking" statement anticipating our next encounter. So I would say something like "Hope to see you again soon". Bluap (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll add a warning that, like most things in UK English, it depends a lot on your relative social status. My response would be OK when talking to someone of roughly the same status (maybe 2 statuses lower or 1 status higher). Higher to lower status, saying "Pleased to have met you" is fine. Lower to higher status, I'm not sure - possibly wait for the higher-status person to make their reply. Bluap (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 8

Difficult time with this bit of Brazilian Portuguese administrative language

Having a tough time figuring out what this bit of legalish administrative language from Brazil says. I've been using the aggregate translation service http://itranslate4.eu/en/ but I still can't quite figure out what this portion means "Processo MDIC/SECEX 52100.006488/2011-15". Processo is translated as "process" but I can't quite make sense of that. Does Processo mean application number? Administrative action?

"e tendo em vista o que consta do Processo MDIC/SECEX 52100.006488/2011-15 e do Parecer no 22, de 11 de julho de 2012, elaborado pelo Departamento de Defesa Comercial – DECOM desta Secretaria"

Breakneckfast (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I reckon it means a court decision. Wiktionary gives meanings "to serve a defendant with a writ or summons", "lawsuit" and "trial". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. Breakneckfast (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Alveolar trill

I've been trying to do the alveolar trill, without any success. How can I know whether I just need to work more or I have the speech impediment that makes that sound impossible? --168.7.233.164 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You are asking for a perceptual judgment, which is impossible without a sound file uploaded by you, and a medical diagnosis, which we don't give. Upload a sound file and someone will give an opinion as to whether it's an alveolar trill, preferably with several examples in varying contexts. For the medical opinion seek a speech therapist. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney: should the "tt" be phonetically transcribed as a glottal stop?

I need the phonetic transcription of Mitt Romney into some foreign languages having a character for the glottal stop. HOOTmag (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a hard "t" sound, unlike in "putting", which is often pronounced "pudding". StuRat (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an exact rhyme with "bit", "fit", "hit", "kit", "lit", "pit", "sit", "wit", etc. Whatever the IPA gibberish is for those, "mitt" should be the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

More to the point: in some varieties of English it may be a glottal stop, but in both General American and Received pronunciation it is pronounced as /t/. The only time it would be a glottal stop is if it is being said in a dialect of English where every /t/ is substituted with /ʔ/. Those dialects exist, but they are not usually considered "standard". --Jayron32 22:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's phonemically /t/ in General American, but it might arguably be phonetically a glottal stop. It's very hard to hear the difference between an unaspirated /t/ preceding a consonant, and a glottal stop (and I think in GA it's standardly unaspirated). --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the difference is in the articulation of the tongue. An unaspirated t isn't a glottal stop, it's a alveolar stop, and it's articulated in a very different location: behind the teeth instead of at the back of the throat. --Jayron32 01:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, so I think AnonMoos has it right — this t is realized as a glottal stop in GA, in phrases like "night rate" or "Mitt Romney". --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I speak essentially General American, and I say nothing like a glottal stop there. I've also never heard a glottal stop in any other speakers of General American. It's absolutely an alveolar stop. --Jayron32 16:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it is very hard to hear the difference, so you simply didn't notice it. If you think GA speakers don't use it, you're just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've said it 1000 times to myself to check. The point of articulation is the tip of my tongue on the back of my teeth. The back of my throat remains open the whole time. --Jayron32 04:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I trust you that you don't say it. That doesn't mean GA speakers in general don't. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In some American dialects, the word "Mitt" pronounced on its own would not be pronounced with a glottal stop, but in "Mitt Romney" pronounced as a connected phrase, the "t" could become a glottal stop (in such dialects, "night rate" could have a glottal stop, but "nitrate" wouldn't)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that 'nitrate' as well as 'night rate' and 'Mitt' would probably get a "glo'awl" stop here in "sahf Lund'n". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's "Mitt Romney" - (can anyone tell me where the "IPA-1" userbox is located?) - in some varieties of English where the "t" is regularly replaced by glottal stop. Knock yourself out.

* Australian English: /miʕ ˈɺɔmniː/

* Bromley Contingent English: /mɪʕ ˈɺɔmni/

* Trainspotting English: /mɪʕ ˈromnɪ/

--Shirt58 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it should be transcribed phonemically as a /t/, which is the underlying sound, whatever the surface representation. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've emphasized: "phonetic" transcription, in order to make it clear that I'm looking for the surface transcription from GA (rather than for the underlying representation). HOOTmag (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in most if not all English varieties, a t can be used in emphasised or careful speech, even though it would be replaced with a glottal stop in fast speech. A parallel is that in RP h's are often dropped in fast speech, but never in careful speech, and they should be indicated in dictionaries and pronunciation guides. Also, do you have any evidence for the glottal stop (alone) in Scottish varieties, as opposed to an alveolar stop accompanied by a glottal stop? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you have the wrong vowel in Mitt in Australian English. Unless you want to introduce him: "Meet Romney!". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Judith! As a youth I wore Thespis' buskins so I tend to be more careful with "pronounciation" [sic] than my fellow antipodeans. But I still hear myself saying the <i> in "bitter" as short version of the <ea> in "beater". Compared to other varieties of English, the AuE /ɪ/ is very close (both in the plain English sense of proximity, and phonological sense) to /i/.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Double whoops. My opinion was pure obiter, your comment should still stand.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am still not sure what the underlying purpose is here, but the /t/ in Mitt is only preglottalized in General American, not simply replaced with a glottal stop, which sounds quite odd. See glottalization. Mitt is either said [mɪt^h], with a fully released, aspirated, and un-glottalized /t/, or [mɪˀt], with an unreleased and pre-glottalized /t/. Try saying it yourself, even in the glottalized version your tongue will contact your alveolar ridge, even if there will be no release. It will feel quite odd if you say it without articulating the alveolar stop at all. Also, if you're giving a phonetic transcription, it should be [mɪˀt] or [mɪt^h] in brackets, not a phonemic transcription between slashes.

That's news to me. I have a general American accent, and I pronounce Mitt with a glottal stop with no tongue contact with the alveolar ridge, when followed by another word such as Romney. My impression is that this is quite common. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And the article that you cite, glottalization, says To a certain extent, there is free variation in English between glottal replacement and glottal reinforcement. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly true, that when said in the context before Romney, it assimilates to the retroflex alveolar with the curled tongue making contact with the alveolar ridge, not the tip. So it's then a preglottalized retroflex. But not when "Mitt" stands alone, which is what the OP asked for and what you may notice I described. And there is simply no circumstance in General American under which the /t/ is a stand-alone glottal stop. I cannot imagine under what circumstances a layman would need to know or even understand this; perhaps the OP can clarify. Any phonetic analysis on this detailed a level will run into dialectal and idiolectal issues like the Northern cities vowel shift (which Romney seems to suffer to some extent) and become far too detailed to hold true as a general description. If the OP needs a narrow description of a single utterance that can be done, we'd need a sound file. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that the OP wanted the word "Mitt" standing alone. The question title says "Mitt Romney", and the initial question body also says "Mitt Romney". --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I kind of went by the "tt" quote. In any case, the answer is no, a plain glottal stop would be wrong. I am sure that is quite clear. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To make it clearer: I'm asking about phonetically transcribing "Mitt Romney", into languages having a character for the glottal stop. HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

HOOTmag, if I understand your question right, you are asking whether you should transcribe the tt as a glottal stop if you're using a language that uses a specific character for that sound? No; I don't think in Arabic, for instance, that you would ever transcribe Mitt Romney into Arabic as مئ رومني or into Hebrew as מיא רומני, regardless of how you pronounce it in English (though I did have fun figuring out how those would be written). Lesgles (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of languages having a character for the glottal stop, e.g. Japanese (っ), Malay (k), Maltese (q), and also Arabic and Hebrew - as you've pointed out. Btw, why do you think you can't write مِئ رُومْنِي (in Arabic), or מִיאְ רוֹמְנִי (in Hebrew)? These languages do allow such a way of writing (as appearing also in the Quoran and in the Hebrew Bible). HOOTmag (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney would never be written ミッ・ロムニー in any serious article in a newspaper or magazine in Japanese, because that is childish anime writing. It is in fact written ミット・ロムニー, with the 't' clearly pronounced. The small 'tsu' is not a glottal stop in standard Japanese - it indicates a lengthening of the consonant. It is used occasionally in kids' books (and daytime TV shows which feel the need to emphasize the 'funny' thing some celeb said or did, by writing it on the screen, and repeating it several times) to indicate an abrupt end to a vowel, but not a glottal stop. Japanese does not have glottal stops. In fact, you might as well look at the Mitt Romney article, and click on the various languages on the left, to see how it is written in those languages. It's not hard, and I'm surprised no-one else has even thought of this. Also, transcribing a person's name into a language which uses the Latin alphabet does not necessarily need to have the spelling changed - Juan, for example, does not get changed to 'Huan'. Mitt Romney does not need to be changed to 'Mik Romney' for the Malaysians. Anyway, that link has both Hebrew and Arabic, and I see a clear 't' in both. Is there a specific reason you need to show your particular pronunciation, rather than the globally accepted one? Please clarify. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As to Japanese: so, our (English) article glottal stop should be changed a little bit, as far as Japanese is concerned, shouldn't it? As to other languages that use the Latin alphabet: I can't see how Maltese can spell "Mitt Romney", whereas Maltese assigns the word "mitt" for another meaning ("a hundred of"). Anyways, how about languages that don't use the Latin alphabet? I just wonder: if "Mitt Romney" is really pronounced in GA - with a glottal stop - rather than with the sound /t/ (as some editors here have claimed), then why should those languages transcribe it by the sound "t", while they don't use the original Latin character for this sound? Again, I'd like to make it clear again, that I'm referring (as I've always been) to the phonetic transcription. HOOTmag (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sokuon also says that っ/ッ is a glottal stop when it occurs at the end of the sentence. 81.159.107.204 (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Alumni of Nobel Laureates

Do these template titles make sense: Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Chinese Universities, Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Taiwan's Universities. I know what the templates are for but think "Alumni of" should be removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They don't make sense to me. Could it mean "Nobel laureates who are alumni of Chinese/Tawianese Universities"? --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Think it should be "Chinese universities which are alma maters of Nobel laureates" based on the template contents... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, please change that "which" to "that". --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? Other than arbitrary prescriptivism, I mean. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. These 3 statements all mean different things:

• The cat, which ate the rat, is satisfied.

• = The cat is satisfied + the cat ate the rat

• The cat that ate the rat is satisfied.

• = One cat is satisfied, viz. the one that ate the rat

• The cat which ate the rat is satisfied.

• = A poor man's version of the above.

But see English relative clauses#That or which for a differently nuanced view. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are these templates intended for the university articles or the laureates' biographies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs)

I didn't make or use them but just came by them and wondered about the odd wording. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Chinese Universities and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Taiwan's Universities shows they are currently only used in university articles. I haven't found similar templates for other countries or universities. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The templates list universities, with the laureates in parentheses, so I agree with AnonMoos' wording. (I'm that/which blind myself.)--Wikimedes (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(Venezuelan) Spanish translation - "mujanches"

I have seen many Venezuelans using this word as an insult against anti-Chavistas, but I don't know what it means, and the online translators don't seem to either. --149.135.146.66 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is 'majunches', and means "Person who lacks appeal or qualities, insignificant, mediocre, says things that are not, or are not as necessary or desired; poor quality, regular". KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

garnish

Please help me. This is driving me crazy. When did they start using the word garnish for garanshee? I presume they have. It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that is bringing America'd education down. Instead of insisting that students learn and use proper language and grammer, we just change the words to make it easier. Our students need to exercise their brains and learn the correct terms. If you garnish my wages (and I surely wish that someone would) the only way to do that ais to tack a nice hefty bonus to my paycheck. It really doesn't seem all that big of a deal....except thst I hear teacher after using very poor grammer. I really don't like these teachers teaching my grandchildren anything.

What can I do to help stop this and help our leaders to see what is going wrong fwith our education system?

Thank you so much for your time.

Bonnie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.217.128 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To "garnishee" someone's wages is to remove some of it to pay a debt to a third party, and the employee is paid what's left over. The process is known as garnishment. It's often done by way of a court order that's incumbent on the employer, who is required to divert a proportion of the wage to the taxation authorities or whoever is owed the money. I'm sure some people confuse garnishee and garnish, which, as you say, means something quite different. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's hold on here. Garnish is perfectly normal to use in this situation, and is actually the older verb (1577 in the OED in this sense). Garnishee, like most -ee words (payee, etc.), was first a noun, referring to the person whose wages are garnished. It later came to be used also as a synonym of garnish (1892). Most dictionaries list both; Merriam-Webster has the main entry at garnishee, with a cross-reference from garnish, while Oxford puts the main entry under garnish. I myself have only heard of garnishing wages (though I haven't heard the word that many times in general). Lesgles (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of "garanshee" or "garnishee". Is it an American thing? Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To "garnishee someone's wages" is well-known down here. It's probably at the same level of correctness of language as to "go guarantor" for somebody, but it has idiomatic authority; and it turns up in official places – see [12], [13].

It's a well-known concept in British law too. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Garanshee" seems to be a confusion between "garnishee" and "guarantee". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I always thought a garanshee was one of those evil female lawyer spirits wandering the bayous, leading poor young men to their deaths. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Does Japanese text name plant?

click to enlarge

Can someone who reads Japanese advise if the plant is identified? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it just has some descriptions of various parts of the plant, such as colour, etc. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)