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

January 25

Türkmenbaşy

Is "Türkmenbaşy" related to "pasha", etymologically speaking? The former term apparently means "Leader of Turkmen", and "pasha" is an anglicised version of a Turkish title for a kind of leader. Of course I know that Turkish and Turkmen aren't the same, but I know that they're both Turkic languages. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It would appear so. The Wikipedia article pasha, in the linguistics section, notes spellings and variations that use "baş" in them in various Turkic languages, and that many such languages do not draw a distinction between the "b" and "p" sounds, so it seems quite likely that the "baş" part of "Türkmenbaşy" means leader. --Jayron32 05:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In Turkish, baş (bash) means head, and başi (bashi) is an affix with the same meaning. But pasha is from Persian pādšāh (padshah) which means 'king'. I think their similarity is superficial. --Omidinist (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not according to the Wikipedia article Pasha which has a referenced section that clearly states that Pasha derives from Old Turkish and not Persian roots; Persian is an Indo-Iranian (and thus Indo-European) language, while Turkish is from the Turkic family, an unrelated group of languages. It is possible that there was some vocabulary borrowing between Turkish and Persian (or between their ancestors) but neither the article Pasha nor the article Padishah indicates any connection; and given the roots of the word Padishah (padi- meaning master and shah meaning king) it seems unlikely that the word is connected to the Turkic one. At best, they may be False cognates. --Jayron32 13:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jayron, please look at our Wiktionary and this Etymology Dictionary. --Omidinist (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My, this seems quite complex.

• Wikipedia says it's from Turkish baş ağa ("head chief/master")
• the Online Etymology Dictionary is confusing to me; it seems to say it's from both baş and pādšāh (or that baş is from pādšāh?)
• the 2nd edition of the OED derives it from baş and says "The best Turkish scholars think there is no ground for connecting the word in any way with Pers. pādshah king or emperor, Turkish pādishah the Sultan"
• but the updated entry in the OED online does derive it from pādšāh, saying "The word seems to have been a title created by the Ottoman ruling family from the Persian, probably via children's language" and "In (especially early) English use the word was further confused with the etymologically unrelated but phonetically similar Turkish başı in-chief < baş head, chief + -ı , ending linking to the preceding word."
• the Nişanyan Turkish etymological dictionary derives it from Persian bačče, "child" and says there's no justification either for the pādšāh or the başağa derivations.

I'm inclined to trust either of the latter. Lesgles (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think at this point, based on Lesgles excellent legwork here, is to call it an "open question" as to the derivation. --Jayron32 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll warn you vigorously not to accept any Turkish source as reliable, unless you have independent external evidence, given the pseudoscientific bent of Turkish nationalism. See Sun language. There was a nationalist push to create etymologies like bacce where they didn't exist. The PIE *potis > OldTurk bash > Iranian pasha etymology strikes me as the most plausible (no longer, see below). Unfortunately I put my reliable Turkish etymological dictionary in storage and have not been able to find it for well over a year. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If he were motivated by a nationalist drive towards pure Turkish roots, why would a Turkish scholar want to posit an etymology from bačče, which is "foreign" (Persian), and reject the convenient purely Turkic alternative based on baş, as Nişanyan does? I have no idea how reliable he is, but this is certainly not Sun Language nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• 1) baş is from Proto-Turkic *baš~ba:š, it exists in all the Turkic languages. Ramstedt also connected it with Korean mari "head", so it may be also an Altaic word.
  2) Türkmenbaşy itself seems to be a Turkic izafet: Türkmen "Turkmen(s)" + baş-y "head-its" (-y is the 3 p. sg. possesive suffix), that is "the head of the Turkmens".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Ramstedt because Nicholas Poppe, who is very reliable, is sympathetic to him. Unfortunately, Sergei Starostin, who agrees the term is Altaic, but who gives balch instead of bash as the proto-Turkic is not so reliable. See his Babylon site. In any case, the fact that all the Turkic languages including Chuvash have a form posh/bash implies the term was native, and hence not borrowed into Ottoman from Persian. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, I don't think anybody has proposed either that Turkish baş was a loan from Persian or anywhere else, or conversely that there was a chain of "PIE *potis > OldTurk bash > Iranian pasha". The three things that are not in doubt are that (a) pasha emerged in Ottoman Turkish; (b) baş is native Turkish; and (c) the first component of Iranian pādšāh comes from IE *poti-. The question is just whether pasha comes from the former or the latter (or something entirely different). – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I though one of the sources (not an editor) referenced above made the claim bash as head was borrowed from an IE source. Since we agree the etymology would be false, forgive me if I don't search for it among all the links above. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It was the Online Etymology Dictionary: "Turk. pasha, earlier basha, from bash "head, chief" (no clear distinction between -b- and -p- in Turkish), from Old Persian pati- "master," from PIE *poti- (see potent) + root of shah." I think the author probably saw the two etymologies and mistakenly linked them up. Lesgles (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was lazy to provide the source for the first time. My info is from Севортян Э. В. Этимологический словарь тюркских языков: Общетюркские и межтюркские основы на букву «Б», 1978, с. 85-88. *Bal'č is from Räsänen. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Lesgles: thanks for digging up those references; I've tried to fix our article on pasha accordingly [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! I was thinking about doing that but was too lazy. Lesgles (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "then".

From the Wiktionary article for "then", an example of the use of "then" is

If it’s locked, then we’ll need the key.

Is it appropriate to omit "then" in this context?

If it’s locked, we’ll need the key.

? ? Widener (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only appropriate, but usual in idiomatic speech and writing. -- Elphion (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it be wrong to include "then", then? Widener (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No - either is correct. Omitting 'then' is more colloquial, but you should discard the idea that one is going to be right and the other one wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Would one or the other be correct or better in writing an essay? Widener (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Whichever leads to more flowing prose would be better, in my opinion, unless the intention is to break up such a flow, in which case do the opposite. (My gut feeling is that omitting 'then' unless the sentence is unclear without it is the more flowing, but the specific sentence you have in mind may not sound that way in practice.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It's not inappropriate. In this case the word is optional. The "if ... then" construction is widely found, but the "then" is often left out, being understood. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In informal speech, we often leave out bits that are understood. Example: "Goin' to the store. Wanna come with?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As discussed previously on this desk, that particular construction may be a calque from German or Norwegian rather than a simple omission: [2]. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In mathematics "then" would usually be included, because it usually serves to break up a statement in mathematical language after "if" from another mathematical statement after "then", so the two math expressions don't run into each other. That situation probably seldom arises in an essay, though.

One rule of good writing that some people believe in is to go through what you've written and eliminate any superfluous words; "then" would be a good candidate to eliminate since it makes no difference for the meaning. Here's one exception: If the "if" clause is so lengthy that someone might forget that we are in an "if...then" logical construction, then (sic) you should include "then". Duoduoduo (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The only time I'd include the "then" is if it represents a change. For example:

PERSON A: "We'll need the key."

PERSON B: "If it's locked, then we'll need the key."

However, it could be omitted, even in this case, by moving the emphasis from "then" to "locked". StuRat (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an English equivalent to the Chinese proverb 好汉不吃眼前亏?

The Chinese have a saying 好汉不吃眼前亏. It means "a good man avoids a confrontation when the circumstances of the immediate situation are manifestly unfavorable to him" (my loose translation.) In a common usage, it's given as an advice to someone to exercise restrain or to retreat from a situation, because it's plainly obvious that things will end badly for him if he does otherwise.

Is there a proverb in English that has a similar meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.179.17 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a proverb, but what about "run away to fight another day"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The proverb form is "he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day". Looie496 (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily the closest match of the sentiment of the OP's proverb though, in that the use of this expression typically assumes that the confrontation was initially not avoided and that it turned out so unfavorably for one party that retreating is advisable. I think Medeis has hit on the closest phrase that is common in English below. Snow (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Discretion is the better part of valor. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not specific to confrontations, really but "Look before you leap" shares the same note of caution, albeit without the context of one bidding their time implied by the Chinese proverb; that is, "look before you leap" doesn't suggest that the course of action being referenced is ever going to be a good idea, but is rather a general advisement not to act impulsively, as opposed to being an advisement on patience and timing. It's also arguably more of a general idiomatic expression than a proverb per say. Snow (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can we get a transliteration and an interlinear (literal word for word) translation of the Chinese proverb? μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The pinyin transliteration of 好汉不吃眼前亏 is "Hǎo hàn bù chī yǎn qián kuī". Literal translations of Chinese expressions are often not very helpful because most characters have multiple meanings. Since characters form meaningful compounds, you might transliterate the phrase "Hǎohàn bù chī yǎnqián kuī". Translating each term, Hǎohàn = hero, brave person, true man; bù = not; chī (in this case) = accept, suffer, incur; yǎnqián = before one's own eyes; immediate; kuī = lose, or "Hero not accept before his own eyes lose". A more idiomatic translation might be "A true man does not accept an immediate loss." My dictionary offers these two translations: 1) "A wise man doesn't fight against impossible odds." 2) "A wise man knows when to retreat." Marco polo (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Yes, I was going to say that a clearer translation that is fairly literal might be "A hero does not accept a loss that is before his eyes". — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Then Medeis has it right: the traditional English maxim with the same meaning is "Discretion is the better part of valour". (English proverbs, except biblical ones, tend not to lay the same emphasis on the 'true man' figure commonly found in east Asian sayings.) AlexTiefling (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, Marco! μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not as close as "discretion...", but a couple related phrases are "pick your battles" and "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."--Wikimedes (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A military maxim is "Never reinforce failure".[3] Alansplodge (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dependent and independent clauses

It's said that independent clauses can stand as sentences by themselves, but dependent clauses cannot. At Independent clause the example "I am a doctor, and my wife is a lawyer" is given, which is said to consist of two independent clauses: "I am a doctor" and "my wife is a lawyer", both of which can be independent sentences. At [4] the example "The poor woman had no money because she had lost her job" is given, with "because she had lost her job" highlighted as a dependent clause. However, "She had lost her job" can also stand as an independent sentence, which contradicts the original claim. It's true that "Because she had lost her job" cannot be an independent sentence, but this is not comparing like with like as we are now including the conjunction. One might as well say that "And my wife is a lawyer" cannot be an independent sentence (in the proper sense relevant here), and therefore the second part of the first example is also a dependent clause. What is the explanation? 86.160.212.30 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Omitting the conjunction seems to be implied here. If we omt "because" the remainder seems to be a cromulent, if vague sentence. Am I missing something else in the question? μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Interesting question. (1) In "The poor woman had no money because she had lost her job", the part "because she had lost her job" is not intended as a separate and equal piece of information; it is only stated as supplementary information to the main clause. Subordinating conjunctions like "because" indicate that supplementary status. But in "I am a doctor, and my wife is a lawyer", the two clauses are intended as separate and equal pieces of information; this relationship is indicated by the use of the coordinating conjunction "and", and this equal relationship means that both clauses are independent. (2) "Because she had lost her job" indeed cannot stand as an independent sentence, so it is not an independent clause; but "And my wife is a lawyer" can stand alone. (Despite occasionally heard advice that coordinating conjunctions should not start a sentence, in fact it is a widely accepted practice to do so, even by authoritative publishers and authors.) Duoduoduo (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, if one is allowing sentences starting with conjunctions, "Because she had lost her job" is just as acceptable as "And my wife is a lawyer". ("Why did she have no money?" / "Because she had lost her job.") 86.160.212.30 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, at least insofar as we are talking about dependent and independent clauses as technical terms. Duoduoduo seems to be conflating elements of prescriptive and descriptive grammar. Neither sentence beginning with a conjunction is technically an independent clause, but there are plenty of contexts in which we still accept these uses as grammatically sound because, even for those who lack formal training to explicitly describe what is going on here, we all have an innate understanding of assumed context that allows us to mentally abstract and fill in the missing elements (see my post bellow). It's just that not all phrases are created equal in this regard and some are going to sound more jarring than others because the assumptions that have to be made in this manner can vary in their complexity. There's also a good deal of social pressure which goes into which uses are considered "acceptable" and which aren't. While, as Duo says, "And" and "But" are increasingly viewed as acceptable, even in some formal contexts, there are plenty of purists who will still make an issue of them, often in the most obtusely pedantic manner. But what is accepted as a "proper" form and what constitutes an independent syntactical unit are two separate issues, even if they are deeply entangled. Snow (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You're allowed to start a one-clause sentence with a coordinating conjunction like "and", but not with a subordinating conjunction, since the latter by definition subordinates what follows to something else in the same sentence. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Says who? In my earlier example – "Why did she have no money?" / "Because she had lost her job." – I did just that, and I maintain that said sentence is just as valid as one beginning with "And". 86.160.212.30 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually your example establishes his stance more so, once you factor in another consideration which I obliviously looked right over earlier, despite having just alluded to it in my own response bellow. "Because she had lost her job." is absolutely an acceptable response to that question for pretty much any native English speaker. But if we're going to pull it apart into its composite structures grammatically, you have to recognize that it is an answer to a question that is known in this context, and as such, the only reason it is accepted is because the speaker(s) already know the first part of the phrase and don't typically do not require it to be repeated. So there is a nul structure in that sentence which is there cognitively but not necessarily spoken aloud. The full sentence which is represented by "She had lost her job." in this situation is actually "She had no money because she lost her job." If you walked up to a random person and said "Because she lost her job." it would be incomplete and more or less nonsensical as they have no context to supply for what relationship "because" refers to, context which can be mentally (if not verbally) supplied to fill out the entire statement being made by all speakers involved. By contrast, if you walked up to someone out of the blue and asked "She had no money." or even "Why did she have no money?" those would be fully formed and completely intelligible statements, even if the person asked had no idea as to who you were talking about and what the answer could possibly be. Notice that this kind of unspoken but grammatically present phrase is so ubiquitous in spoken language that we take it completely for granted and many times consider responses to questions which don't use this format (that is, responses which explicitly repeat the first part of the statement) as the "marked form" (the more aberrant one that seems to be suggesting extra information). For example, if one person asks "Why didn't she have any money?" and the response is "She didn't have any money because she had lost her job." (as opposed to just "Because she lost her job" or "She lost her job") we often tend to perceive this as emphasis. However, while Duo is ultimately right on the larger point, his statements about what are "allowed" confuse the issue a little bit in that this is not about rules in the sense of an agreed upon and enforced standard but rather what naturally occurring utterances qualify as examples of particular grammatical structures and where they become unintelligible if used in a way inconsistent with their context. Snow (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any difference. If you walked up to a random person and said "Because she lost her job." it would be incomplete. If you walked up to a random person and said "And my wife is a lawyer" it would be incomplete. 86.160.212.30 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You've hit upon some ambiguous wording in our Independent clause article which should probably be clarified; technically it is correct to say that both "I am a doctor" and "my wife is a lawyer" could serve as independent clauses, specifically if they were there own self-contained sentences. But when dividing statements into clauses, one cannot leave orphaned elements; every morpheme must be assigned a role somewhere and in this case "and" has been ignored. In the case of English syntax, the conjunction clearly belongs with the second of the clauses and therefore "and my wife is a lawyer" is the dependent clause. Note that this rule is absolute, even when analyzing complex or informal speech, though things have to be contextually approached a little differently. So, for example, imagine the following exchange:

Person A - "Well, you can afford it - you're a doctor, right?"

Person B - "And my wife is a lawyer."

Even in this case, having no overt independent clause to attach to, B's statement is still a dependent clause; it just happens to be one attached to a nul statement, an unspoken independent clause assumed by the speaker from context.

Person B - "(Yes, I am in fact a doctor) and my wife is a lawyer."

In fact, you'd somewhat expect B to nod or otherwise give a non-verbal queue in acknowledgement of the omitted element. That's a little more complicated than is strictly speaking necessary to answer your question, but I wanted to emphasize that no single element of a spoken statement can be excluded when breaking said statement down into clauses and conjunctions at the head of a clause typically (universally? I'm wracking my mind for contrary comparable examples in other languages) mark it as dependent. Snow (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that a clause beginning with "and" and no other conjunction could be construed as dependent is very non-standard -- do you have a reference for that? As I said above, the clause "and my wife is a lawyer" is considered to be an independent clause, whether in a sentence by itself or otherwise. Dependent or independent is determined by the type of conjunction, since that's what determines whether clauses (explicit or implied) are equal or not. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity for the OP, I have to admit that a number of resources I've consulted since the issue was raised today agree with your position, including several of our own articles (though a lot of our articles on this subject are honestly underwhelming). I was absolutely certain that in cases where the second clause is formed of a conjunctive phrase and a noun phrase which combine to form a head noun phrase that said clause was collectively referred to as dependent even if the noun phrase would, minus the conjunctive phrase, have stood as an independent clause. But it seems I'm mistaken (that or a good number of online grammar resources are oversimplifying the matter, which is possible, if admittedly less likely). Just to clarify on another point raised though, the relative difference between a dependent and independent clause is not so much a matter of them being "equal" in abstract status but rather (non-)interchangeability owing to relative "conditioning" of the clauses. Snow (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea that "I am a doctor, and my wife is a lawyer" contains a dependent clause is contrary to everything I have read elsewhere. 86.160.212.30 (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The descriptive and prescriptive aspects of this discussion can be disentangled as follows. As Snow says, independent clauses are not conditioned (or as I put it, not subordinated, or equal in the sense of neither being conditioned on the other) to another clause, while dependent clauses are -- that's descriptive. In English, the coordinating conjunctions, which link independent clauses, are for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so and various others -- that's descriptive of English. On the other hand, to say that "And my wife is a lawyer" is or is not an acceptable sentence, or to say that "Because she had lost her job" is or is not an acceptable sentence, is prescriptive and hence at least somewhat arbitrary. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is also descriptive to say that a sentence or independent clause represents a complete thought and a dependent clause does not. Sometimes "and" may suggest a complete thought because it maybe used to mean, in addition to something else. However, "because" suggests an incomplete thought, where it is used to mean there is a cause to be explicated, but the clause does not explicate it. On the other hand, sometimes "and" does not precede a complete thought, but are there any sentence constructions where "because" is not be used in a dependent clause? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In English I'm only aware of the following constructions in which a dependent clause has no explicit subordinating conjunction (like "because", "if", etc.): "Were he to come, I would be happy" (= "If he were to come, I would be happy"; subjunctive mood in dependent clause, more common in US English than in UK English); "Had he come, I would have been happy" (= "If he had come, I would have been happy"); "Should he come, I will be happy" (= "If he comes, I will be happy"; more common in UK than in US). Duoduoduo (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the above dependent clauses indisputably cannot stand alone (I mean this descriptively for how English is spoken, but it may give a clue as to why there's a like prescriptive rule for English dependent clauses in general: "Were he to come."; "Had he come."; "Should he come." Duoduoduo (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a natural-sounding sentence from my post in another section on this desk: "So there are reasons to do it either way". It starts with a coordinating conjunction, and I kind of doubt that even an uptight style editor would object to it. Yet some editors are uptight about "And...". (Notice that that last sentence also sounds unobjectionable despite starting with the coordinating conjunction "yet". Duoduoduo (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for all the replies. It seems to me that when people say that "I am a doctor, and my wife is a lawyer" contains two independent clauses, they are thinking of "I am a doctor" and "My wife is a lawyer", and not "I am a doctor" and "And my wife is a lawyer". Since numerous dependent clauses can form grammatical sentences when the conjunction is lost ("I had a cup of tea when I arrived home" -> "I arrived home"), it seems to me that the theory "independent clauses can stand as sentences by themselves while dependent clauses cannot" must take into acount meaning, not just grammatical correctness. When "My wife is a lawyer" is extracted from "I am a doctor, and my wife is a lawyer", none of the meaning of that clause is lost. On the contrary, when "I arrived home" is extracted from "I had a cup of tea when I arrived home", the whole purpose of the clause is destroyed. Sorry if someone has already said something similar in a different way! 86.160.212.30 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good and it also gets to the difference between a word (meant to be) used as a subordinating conjunction and a word used as a coordinating conjunction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

January 26

tak

I would like to know the meaning(s) of the word "tak".

These are the results I received searching Wikipedia for this word: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=meaning+of+tak&title=Special%3ASearch JaysMarion (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In which language? In Czech it means "so" or "then", as in "tak jedeme!" = "so let's go!", or "like this", as in "děláme to tak" = "we do it like this"; in Polish it means "yes"; in my constructed language it means "dog"... - filelakeshoe 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Filelakeshoe, it isn't a word in English. Where did you encounter the word? --Jayron32 01:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Also means "thank you" in Danish (spelled differently, it means "thank you" in Swedish (tack) and Norwegian (takk)). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In Swedish, tak means "roof" or "ceiling". The pronunciation is different from tack - tak has a slightly longer a sound. JIP | Talk 07:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary may be more useful if you do really just require a list of meanings in every language. My, that page even mentions Wymysorys. - filelakeshoe 01:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

But it omits Russian, in which it is certainly a word, albeit spelt cyrillically (так, not the same our tak). It's probably in Ukrainian and other slavic cousins. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The Slavic word is cognate with the English thus: i.e., "like that". μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I like that remark, but to whom are you addressing it? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lack of indentation implies a thread-wide context, not subordination to a previous respondant. That will be $5, please. 22:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)`

It seemed to follow hard upon my Russian and Slavic allusion, so I'm not sure how it gets to be "thread-wide context". Unless it's a case of "I'm responding to what Jack said, but I'm not saying it to Jack".

Oh, btw, I don't pay money to people who can't spell "respondent". Lift your game and ... I still won't pay you, but you'll be a better person. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am still not sure I understand your concern. The OP asked about a word and I commented on its Slavic meaning. I did assume he read your comment, which I did, and found correct and helpful. But I was responding to him, not you. There may be some alphabetical issue going on, since although I and my relatives studied cyrillic, we all, as Austro-Hungarians or Americans used the Latin alphabet. I don't "think in cyrillic". μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your post is stuck way out in left field, at the same indent level (= zero) as the OP's question. A response direct to the OP's original question is indented one (1) level (that's one colon; and no asterisks, as you're prone to use). Very simple rules, but spurn them at the peril of confusing others. Only yesterday you amended a post of mine because it used 2 colons instead of 1, so that tells us you know the rules. Yet sometimes you act in ignorance of them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Addition: tak < adverb tako < pronoun takŭ "like this/that" < tŭ "that" + suffix -k-ŭ.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Since your question was not very specific, this may be well outside its scope, but in the Discworld fictional series by Terry Pratchett, Tak is the name of the Dwarf race's Creator God. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you happened to be reading a Northern English dialect publication (perhaps unlikely), "tak" would simply be eye-dialect for "take". Dbfirs 10:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Passive voice

Occasionally, while editing a Wikipedia article, I'll analyze the text with a number of proofreading tools.  When analyzing 'style', the results often recommend reducing the 'passive voice', which is typically 80% or more.  There is no style option for Encyclopedia, but the percentage of passive voice is regarded as too high for all style comparisons such as essay, journal or thesis.  However, for an encyclopedic article I am thinking that a passive voice is not such a bad thing.  Opinions?  Suggestions?  ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't such a bad thing. I'm not quite sure where the odd proscription against using the passive voice comes from, but in many cases, the passive voice actually allows for more natural and easier to understand constructions. For example, the phrase "I was hit by a car" is in passive voice, but sounds more natural than "A car hit me", which is entirely correct but idiomatically a bit off. There are many sound, stylistic and editorial reasons to use the passive voice, and I'm not sure that programs that analyze writing for the "percent of passive voice" or recommend certain levels of usage thereof are very helpful in improving writing. The Wikipedia article English passive voice has some guidance here. --Jayron32 06:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check out the article. ~Thanks, ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In business communications, at least, we've been taught that passive voice is considered poor usage, because it sounds bureaucratic. Active voice sounds crisper and to the point. And I realize that I've got some passive voice in this comment. But if you've ever read a memo filled with passive voice, you'll get the idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jayron's passive voice example "I was hit by a car" is better than "A car hit me" specifically because the former frontloads the focus of the sentence, which is "I" and not "the car". One reason that it is often recommended (sic) that the passive voice be avoided (sic) is that it is often used (sic) as a way to be evasive about who did the actual action ("Mistakes were made"). Sometimes it just accidentally avoids telling who did the action: When I used to supervise doctoral dissertations, I saw that often the student would say things like "This hypothesis was examined" or whatever, leaving me wondering whether it was examined by some previous author or whether it was examined by my student as part of the research he's going to report later in his writing.

Another reason to avoid the passive voice, which applies to e.g. novel-writing as well as to the context that Bugs mentions above, is that the active voice is more immediate to the reader -- it feels, well, active.

So there are reasons to do it either way, depending on context. Just using a ratio calculation is worthless -- each sentence needs to be examined for its own characteristics. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Parallelling the car example, in the Monty Python sketch about the Hungarian phrasebook, the drugstore manager tells the policeman, "I was hit by him!" No, actually it was, "He hit me!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the difference is that there's a tendency to not want to give "agency" (for lack of a better word) to inanimate objects; when dealing with the interaction between a person and an object, it feels odd to make the object the sentence, because it implies the object had some volition or agency in committing the act. "The car hit me" feels a bit like the car could have had some say in the matter. "I was hit by the car" avoids this. In the case of "He hit me" vs. "I was hit by him", the active voice version doesn't have this problem, so it sounds better. --Jayron32 18:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Active/passive choice is typically a matter of two competing sets of factors: the animacy dimension you just described, which favours the subject position for animate agents, and the topic–comment dimension, which depends on which parts of the sentence are contextually given and which are newly introduced into the discourse. There's been a lot of ink spilled on this; perhaps this is a good overview. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is informative and interesting. I still have trouble positively identifying exactly where the voice becomes passive (with the exception of finding to be type transitives). However, I know a passive voice when I read it. Regarding the use of proofreading programs, they help me to identify problematic editing technique or style; and 80% passive seems to be (sic) rather excessive. The article mentions that "a statistical study found about 13 percent passive constructions in newspapers and magazines."^[5] ~Eric F 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC) ~ Of course, one thing that the programs can't do (yet) is provide context on a case-by-case basis, which is why human editors are still useful. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

To me agentless passives seem the natural choice for encyclopedic articles. It's easy to write in active voice about a person, but when it comes to objects, whether it's canals or toothbrushes, there usually are few things they "do": the article will be mostly about how, where, when, why they are made and used. Unless you can come up with a dozen synonyms for "people", active voice would become quite repetitive. And it places emphasis on an agent that (except when discussing regional and historic details) isn't needed (or wanted). Ssscienccce (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 26#Weird verb that can't be done but is only done.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The ignorant witch-hunt against the passive voice in English is something that Geoffrey Pullum over at Language Log has been documenting for some time now. See here: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html. I emphatically recommend people check out those articles, ESPECIALLY if you are or want to become an editor or an English teacher. 209.159.255.226 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the passive certainly has its place, otherwise it wouldn't even exist. But sometimes the naked shame with which journalists employ it is very telling. On the one hand, we hear "Channel 69 can exclusively reveal that yadda yadda". That's when they're claiming the credit. But when they want to downplay their ignorance, we're told "It's not known when this event happened". Never "We don't know when this event happened". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So, you watch Channel 69 a lot? μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd happily go into it in great detail, but I think we've had enough of ref desk respondents' lurid sex lives to last us for quite some time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the passive is often used in politic-speak in a way that suggests that somebody is avoiding taking or admitting responsibility. Whenever I hear the phrase "Lessons will be learned" I want to shout "Who will be learning these lessons?" --ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding is that active voice should be considered when writing because brevity is the soul of wit, but of course, it is only one consideration because "wit is brief" is just not poetic :). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And "should be considered" is just not active.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do better than Google Translate

What is Michael Lieber's position, according to this article from the Siegener Zeitung? Is it potentially something that would pass WP:POLITICIAN, do you think? I tried Google Translate, but like it often does with German, it gave me a pile of gibberish. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Lieber has an article on the German Wikipedia, and he is the 'Landrat' (administrator/governor) of Altenkirchen, see Districts_of_Germany#District_administration: "The executive authority [of a district] is an officer known as Landrat or Landrätin, who administers the district." I'm not sure about notability, the article you link to only mentions him in passing, but he is named in a number of other articles, e.g. [6], although they all seem to be in local newspapers. - Lindert (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The article from Siegener Zeitung as well as the article in the German Wikipedia de:Michael Lieber name his position as Landrat. Holders of this public office are notable for the German Wikipedia according to their criteria for notability de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien. The office itself is described in de:Landrat (Deutschland) and translated here. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather astonished to find that the German WP has apparently systematically covered landräte with biographical articles – given that they are normally less inclusionist than we are here, and quite strict on notability criteria. I'd say these persons won't normally fit WP:POLITICIAN. The guideline demands "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", and a landkreis is substantially less than a province or state (that level would be that of the federal states in Germany). It's really much more akin to municipial offices – a landkreis may have anywhere between 50,000 and 500,000 inhabitants. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I had guessed that he held some high-up position in the government of his Bundesland. This came up because of an AFD for our current Michael Lieber article; I was thinking of suggesting that we replace the article about a nonnotable subject with a stub about the German politician, but now I won't do that. Trying to understand this position in US terms — would he be comparable to an elected executive for a county (United States)? Or is he some sort of bureaucrat that gets appointed by the Bundesland's government to run the Landkreis' programs? Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's slightly different between different federal states. Traditionally, at least in some areas, they used to be centrally appointed civil servants, but now they are mostly elected officials, similar to mayors on the municipal level. A landkreis is roughly equivalent to a US county, so yes, I guess an elected county executive would be the closest match. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of the progressive

There's a style of speech which I find very grating, though I'm not sure if it's due to some grammatical disagreement of mine or due to my association of it with irritatingly bureaucratic sales people and office staff. It's a construction where nearly every verb needs to be in the progressive aspect, as in "What was it you were wanting to be looking at?" rather than the perfectly fine "What would you like to see?" or the perhaps too abrupt "What do you want?". I guess my questions are: what is up with that and why do I find it so annoying? Are they speaking overly circuitously as a hyper-correction to being too blunt/rude? Matt Deres (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a hypercorrection against rudeness to say "What was it you were wanting to be looking at?" I can see how someone might find it irritating, though I think that I would find it amusing. On the other hand, it sounds natural to say "What was it you were looking for", which has one less instance of the progressive, and a valid one at that.

What I find irritating is a fad or trend in recent years among law enforcement spokespeople of using the emphatic "did" in announcements, as in "The suspect did rob the couple, and officers did arrest him". The implication is that the listeners have already asked whether he robbed them and whether he has been arrested. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

One of my pet peeves: "A preposition is something one should never end a sentence with". ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Verily. It's nonsense like that up with which you should not put. With my apologies to Churchill - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Or the unnecessary use of "today": "Do you need any help today?", or "Was there anything else you wanted to discuss today?". Next time I'm asked that I'm gonna say "No thanks, everything's perfectly fine today, but I want to make an appointment to discuss a major problem I predict will occur next week. No point waiting till the last minute, is there, now. I like to be proactive about these things.". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

One of my Indian friends said "I am having a child" so I congratulated her, only to find out later, her child was 18 years old and just starting university. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is an increasing tendency to use the progressive with stative verbs like know, love or want that previously wouldn't take it. McDonald's with their "I'm lovin' it" slogan and other youth- and lower class-oriented marketers have adopted what is euphemistically called 'urban' phrasing in their advertising, which both reflects and pushes culture. See sources on the increasing use of the progressive. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have used that "I'm loving it" on postcards, when on holiday. It has always implied, to me, that it was temporary. McDonalds is surprisingly honest. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am having a feeling you are younger than I am. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am indeed only 40, but at least I can spell 'loving' without an apostrophe and a missing 'g', unlike McDonalds' marketing department. And I don't want fries with that, old chap. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So next time your loved one says "I'm loving you, baby", you can validly ask "For how long?". There are lots of songs called Loving You. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

But that is surely in the main a gerund rather than an abbreviated version of "I'm loving you". It certainly is in the Minnie Riperton song, which is the only one of those listed I'm readily familiar with: "Lovin' you is easy cos you're beautiful". As such it doesn't have the temporary aspect of the progressive forms. Valiantis (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jack's observation reminds me of a joke in Kruko kaj Baniko el Bervalo which refers to an historic debate among Esperantists over whether 'was [verb]ed' ought to be estis —ata (with the present passive participle) or estis —ita (with the past passive participle); the resolution was that aspect – which, curiously, otherwise has little expression in Esperanto – decides. — The joke: A woman tells her friend, "...mi estis amorita de li (I was [carnally] loved by him)". The friend replies, "You ought to say amorata [progressive aspect], to indicate the pleasant duration of the process." The first woman remarks, "Indeed, I hope it was a daŭro sen rezulto (duration without result)!" —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

January 27

Language evolution after disaster

Have there ever been historical instances in which the language of a community/country completely evolved after disasters such as disease, famine, political collapse, warfare, etc., and the implications that followed? Thanks! 99.240.0.162 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See Middle English in relation to the Norman Conquest. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The French, Spanish., Potuguese and Romanian languages are products of Roman occupation. Old English entirely displaced the Brythonic languages which were spoken in England before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. A lot of Native American languages were lost following European colonisation. I'm struggling to think how a language could be affected by a natural disaster though. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A natural disaster that eliminates most speakers of one or more regional variants or dialects of a language is practically certain to have an effect on the evolution of the language. Examples - Vesuvius eliminated the Pompeiian accent or Conquest related diseases wiped out entire tribes of native Americans. Roger (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

On a smaller scale, there are some interesting studies by sociolinguist Daniel Schreier about what happened to the language of the small English-speaking community of Tristan da Cunha after they were evacuated from the island (due to danger from a volcano) and came back only after some years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "online": a or an before "online"?

Why do we have 194 search results for "a online" here in Wikipedia and about 213,000,000 results for "is a online" in Google? Is there any variation in which it is pronounced similar to one (won)? (Just curious. I came to this when I saw google has dropped to 2nd position, checked Alexa ranking to know what is in first position, then goint to our article on facebook (read by 100,000 each day) which begins with "is a online") ···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 11:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

'A online' is definitely non-standard. In the Facebook article, which currently comes top of the search list, it seems to have come about by someone carelessly adding the word 'online' in '.. a social networking service (where it's probably redundant anyway, as the linked article defines social networking as being online), and I suspect this may have happened with other examples too. The second hit is generally very badly written, so "a online" is one of the least of its problems. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-standard but definitely the lingua franca among a certain cohort of speakers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Many of the WIkipedia results aren't mistakes but are places where a url ending in a comes before the word online, like this one.184.147.123.15 (talk) Russian Constituent Assembly References : org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/11a.htm online . See V. I. Lenin. Speech At A Meeting Of The Central Committee Of The R.S.D.L.P ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.15 (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What is this accent?

In this video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlrv8r_om-namah-shivay-33_shortfilms&start=1725 (starting at 28:45 if direct link does not work) the woman in the brown embroidered dress and the two men in rainbow shirts are in disguise. As well as changing their clothes they have changed the way they talk... it's slower and the intonations and vowels are a different. (1) what accent are they using? (2) how is this accent perceived in India, is it like the Hindi version of Australian or Texan or something? (3) is their portrayal of this tribe/accent respectful, neutral or mean? thank you.184.147.123.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The depiction of tribals in the video not authentic. Both the accent and the dressing have been cooked up by the creators of the video. The accent is mostly South Indian fused with Bhojpuri and Parsi intonation in places. Since the accent is imaginary I can't really comment on how its perceived in India. However, such accents are usually deployed on tv for humour. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The scene is from Om Namah Shivay featuring story of Mallikarjuna Swamy.

As CK said, there's no specific accent. The TV series was created by north Indians (from Mumbai) and perhaps have had no clue of culture of Deccan tribes.

Misrepresentation of Southern Indian adivasis, which is expected as show is in Hindi. — Bill william compton^Talk 19:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the answers. I appreciate it. I was afraid it was mocking; I'm really sorry to hear that. Correct Knowledge, I'm sorry about the five minutes of your life. 184.147.123.15 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

January 28

"Women writers"

From today's featured article Reception history of Jane Austen:

"Like many women writers, she chose to publish anonymously..."

"women writers" "sounds" wrong to me. Had I written it, I would have used "female writers", though that sounds a bit more "clinical" than it should, too. FWIW, according to M-W, the adjective form of woman is woman, so this is apparently a compound noun? In that case, shouldn't it then use the singular noun "woman", like "airplane hangars", not "airplanes hangars"? (Actually, removing the word "writers" would solve the problem here, too.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Mignon Fogarty agrees with you --Senra (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"women writers" sounds acceptable to me. ("men writers" does not, however.) 86.171.42.159 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "women writers" is an established usage; see, for instance, the many books published with that in their titles. The plural seems more acceptable to me because of the relative equality of the two parts of the compound. A woman writer is both a woman and a writer, but an airplane hanger is not an airplane. See English plural#Plurals of compound nouns: "If a compound can be thought to have two heads, both of them tend to be pluralized when the first head has an irregular plural form." Lesgles (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry no references on this, but I know I've seen linguistic analyses that say that in English there's a tendency, when using a noun as an adjective before a plural noun, to use the plural form of the attributive noun if it is an irregular form, like women. So for example a woman or a man might say "I have a lot of women friends", "I have a lot of men friends" (not "woman friends" or "man" friends") but "I have a lot of lady friends" (not "ladies friends"). Duoduoduo (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Likewise, "women writers" but not "ladies writers". Duoduoduo (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Women writers" could be considered a kind of predicative or appositional compound. Jespersen in volume II of his Grammar gives examples of compounds which have an irregular plural or pluralia tantum as their first element: "scissors-grinder", "trousers pocket", "mice poison", "men-eaters" (i.e. cannibals) -- the last two now archaic... AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I searched for List of women composers and was redirected to List of female composers by birth year. It's in Category:Women composers, which contains the sub-categories Australian women composers‎ but Brazilian female composers‎ and Female film score composers‎. It’s a sub-category of Female musicians and Women by occupation. Checking that last one out, we have Women: academics, activists, architects, artists, bankers, chefs, comedians, dentists, ethnologists and some others; but Female: accountants, astronauts, aviators (isn't a female aviator just an aviatrix?), bullfighters (!), dancers, diplomats, explorers, film directors, lawyers, missionaries, pirates, prostitutes and wartime spies. Go figure. This year, the Academy will be giving an award to the Best Woman Actor. Not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Equivalence for spiel?

Spiel, according to the dictionary, is an informal term used to describe a lengthy or excessively extravagant speech or prose intended to persuade an audience. Is there a formal equivalence to this term? The closest term I can think of is "equivocality", but I think that word has the connotation of "ambiguous" or "misleading", which may be reactions to a lengthy or excessively extravagant speech or prose intended to persuade an audience. 140.254.227.111 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Rant seems like a good word, but it has the connotation of "angry talk". Vociferate seems to imply a sense of strong protest, which may be short or long. Proselytism can be interpreted as any attempt to convert one to another opinion, ideology, or faith, but it has no indication or connotation of a lengthy speech or prose that "spiel" has. 140.254.227.111 (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of spiel you mean. A solicitation would be one kind of spiel, a tirade or harangue might be another. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Longwindedness Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

140.254.227.111 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Maker subculture

Someone on the talk page is wondering if this is a correct title for the article. They suggest Maker culture may be better, which is a re-direct to the main now. I could have brought this up in other ref. desk fora but thought I would start here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Druggist, apothecary, pharmacist

Is there a difference between the words "druggist", "apothecary", and "pharmacist"? They all seem to point to a person that sells, administers, or distributes drugs. How about "professional drug dealer"? 140.254.227.111 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The first three, by connotation, imply a license, while the last makes no such distinction. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, the first three sell medicines for the treatment of medical conditions, diseases, and symptoms thereof. The last sells substances for recreational use. --Jayron32 23:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not nevessarily the case. The last might merely be a vendor going from pharmacy offering products at retail. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Drug dealer is a term understood almost exclusively for clandestine sales of recreational drugs. Pharmaceutical wholesaler is the term d'art for vendors that sell to retail establishments. --Jayron32 05:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean really, Jayron? So what exactly do the cases where the "almost" you yourself concede apply mean, then? Obviously professional drug dealer can mean exactly what I said. Do feel free to emphasize a point no one contested. Yet, so far as I am aware, there has been no such thing as an unlicensed "druggist", "apothecary", or "pharmacist" for almost a century if not more in English speaking countries. Recreational drugs is an even vaguer term, as if they don't sell steroids or antiobiotics and other things on the black market. But I won't go into it. Back to the OP, if you want to call someone a dealer of legal drugs you can call him legitimate, although a legitimate vendor of medicines will have a much clearer connotation than the possible black market professional drug dealer. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The hedging was there to state that I could find no examples where the term "drug dealer" meant anyone except a clandestine seller of drugs, but if I didn't say "almost" then there would be the possibility that someone could find a single such usage. In reality, I don't think anyone uses the term "drug dealer" to mean anything except illegal dealer of drugs (either sales of outright illegal drugs or illegal sales of otherwise legal drugs). There are terms for people who legally deal in pharmaceuticals. Drug dealer just isn't one of them. At all. If the word "almost" bothers you, then ignore it. No one who uses the term "drug dealer" means some person with a legal job selling pharmaceuticals either in stores or to stores. If you're claiming otherwise, it would be helpful to provide a citation showing the use of the term you're claiming it has. --Jayron32 06:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I can think of one exception. My dad used to be in the medical profession, and when a woman he had known as a sales rep for a drug company stood for a local election, he took great delight in telling people "she used to be my drug dealer". --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the fact that he took "great delight" shows that he was having fun with the usage of the word. That is, he knew the meaning of "drug dealer", and the humor in his usage was in using it in a slightly subversive way by referring to the sales rep for the drug company as such. The very existence of said humor shows the understood meaning of the term. --Jayron32 14:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You are equivocating, failing to distinguish between meaning and connotation. Drug dealer means someone who sells drugs. It has the connotation of on the black market, which the terms for licensed professionals do not. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In British English, "druggist" is really only known as a US import, "apothecary" is archaic, "pharmacist" is the normal relatively formal word, and the everyday word is "chemist". --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So what do you call chemists, then? --Trovatore (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We usually use a descriptor: industrial chemist, analytical chemist, etc. "Chemist" by itself, absent any particular context, means a pharmacist. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Whereas pharmacist without any further context means someone who practices pharmacism. μηδείς (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. And a druggist practises druggism. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And an orgast stands on a street corner. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

These revelations are superb. I must go and re-examine the language through a new prism. I may now be described as a prist. Maybe I'll advocate a schism between the old and the new, and that will make me a schist. Anyone who wants to assist me in this noble work will be practising assism. Very fitting. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That, unfortunately, will probably not happen, since prist, schist, and assism are not widely known or accepted words used in that context. Those words may be called neologisms of the English language. Whether they would become marketable or usable is a question of debate and not for this reference desk. 140.254.227.122 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And double pooh to you, too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Marketing such words would simply be 'opportunism', and the community of people involved in 'linguism' may not be pleased. However, you could get away with a light sentence by be called a 'colloquialist'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

January 29

Between / among

Failing to distinguish the words "between" and "among" is a common error. Correcting this one has me stumped, however. From the Navajo Nation article:

...traditional homeland of the Navajo people, situated in the area between the mountains...[four mountains listed]

I can't seem to find the proper wording in order to remove "between", since it refers to more than two things. The context requires a description of a general area, and "bounded by" would be too specific. "Among" might be correct, but sounds odd. ~Suggestions? ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Leave it alone. There are distinctions to be made between "between" and "among", of course, but the idea that you may not use "between" if there are more than two objects is a piece of fatuous nonsense invented by some smartarse in the 18th Century. The OED's entry for "between", says "In all senses, between has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two." --ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Among also carries the possible connotation of a plurality of objects bounded by the outer objects. Amidst would be better than among here, but between is fine since it obviously means between the north and south and between the east and west, or the like. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Okay, thanks. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a further note. Between is also properly used when speaking of more than two things if the things are to be understood pairwise: "Plant rows of marigolds between (not among) the rows of tomatoes." Deor (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the main reason why "among" wouldn't have worked here, as the original poster rightly felt, is that "among" implies that the entity whose position is being described is of the same or a similar kind as the objects that are used as reference points. You might describe a tribe as settling "among" other tribes, or a mountain as being the highest "among" other mountains, but you wouldn't describe an "area" as being "among" mountains. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would, and I think many others would too. I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as you're suggesting. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a phrase such as "hidden valleys among the mountains" sounds perfectly natural to me, and Longfellow wrote: "Like those waters rushing Among the wooden piers", but there always seems to be an implication of distribution. Dbfirs 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just use betwixt and be done with it.:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting translation from Italian to English

Hello.

Could someone please translate this poem (poesie d'amore) by Alfonso Gatto from Italian to English? Thanks in advance.186.31.40.94 (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate has done this job:

The big nights summer 's nothing that moves beyond the clear filter kisses your face a dream in my hands.

Far as your eyes you're coming from the sea by the wind that seems' s soul.

And kisses passionately until the 'dry mouth as the night unfolded is taken away from her breath.

Then you live, you live the dream ch 'exist is true. How t 'I looked.

I hold you to tell you that the dreams are as beautiful as your face as far away as your eyes.

And the kiss I want is the 'soul.

75.185.79.52 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And that demonstrates why people come here, and ask for translations from actual humans, rather than relying on Google Translate. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right on that point. However, in this case, the original is roughly equally comprehensible. --Trovatore (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My best quick effort:

The great nights of summer

In which nothing moves but the light (or clear?) filter (or philtre?) of kisses

Your face a dream in my hands

Distant like your eyes

You have come from the sea

From the wind that seems the soul

And you kiss desperately

Until your arid mouth

Like the night is disclosed

Carried away by its breath

You live then, you live

The dream that you exist is true

For as long as I have sought you

I squeeze you to tell you that dreams

are as beautiful as your face

as distant as your eyes

And the kiss I seek is the soul

Better? --Trovatore (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is kinda better isn't it? Funny how I didn't notice until I translated it. --Trovatore (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rechtsfähigkeit/権利能力

This is a question about different legal systems. What is the difference between the concept of Rechtsfähigkeit/権利能力 and legal personality and legal capacity? The Japanese and German Wikipedias have articles on those two concepts that are separate from these foreign terms (which are connected between the languages). Is there an article on the English Wikipedia that is roughly equivalent? Reinana kyuu (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do not know if some of the other help desks would be more able to answer this question, but going by the german article about Rechtsfähigkeit, it is definitely a generic term incorporating both english concepts you linked to above. But as legal systems tend to have walked off in different directions, I am not sure that there is a possibility of even a rough equivalent. I can say nothin about the Japanese article, though. I think that legal capacity is already as close as you can get, but "capacity to act" should come close too or "enjoyment of civil rights" Lectonar (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for trying to help. I'm asking because the concept is referred to in an article on the Japanese Wikipedia about dōjin circles that I am in the process of trying to translate. In the organization section, it leads off (as I understand it) by mentioning that although dōjin circles have some protection under freedom of association, legally they are generally considered to be private organizations, with "private organization" then linking to a page entitled what translates roughly as "Groups without 権利能力". For the time being, I have that sentence translated as, "Freedom of association is protected in Japan, and thus dōjin circles have some legal protection. However, they generally are considered to be private associations devoid of legal personality under Japanese law." However, I'm trying to get a handle on what exactly this concept is and what differentiates it from the terms we already have in existence. Evidently, something must, since they have separate pages for those. I suppose I could try the humanities desk and see if they can help out. Reinana kyuu (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here are the German pages on legal personality and legal capacity, and here is the Japanese article on legal personality (They don't have a distinct one on legal capacity). Reinana kyuu (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

interbreeding vs. outbreeding

What are the differences between these two terms (if any)? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of emphasis. Interbreeding covers any hybridisation between two populations, while outbreeding is when fresh blood is intentionally introduced to an existing lineage. Rojomoke (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is contemporary then, now or either?

Contemporary writers, such as the member of theInner Temple writing in 1816 (from reprint by Warren 1977) or the Cambridge Chronicle of May 1816 (from transcribed extracts 1981), blame the rioters themselves. Modern writers, such as Peacock (1965), Gerrard (2003) and Goulden (2008)[,] do not establish a direct cause ...

— Senra, 13:28, 12 January 2013

Does the above paragraph use contemporary correctly? This question is not important as the paragraph might not be used in the article --Senra (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly correct, and (in this instance) also unambiguous, since the contrasting of "contemporary" with "modern" makes the intended meaning clear. But the word is often also used in the other sense; it's all a matter of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary really means "sharing the same time period". In historical writing, it almost always means "during the time period just referenced". The meaning "present-day" usually occurs only in ahistorical texts or texts clearly focused on the present. Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A source of confusion, though, is that some people use "modern" to mean "everything from the 17th century up to now"; in that context, you really need another word to describe more recent modernity, and "contemporary" often fills that niche. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a similar problem in the rare book community (and possibly other antique-type things too, but I'm not qualified to speak there) where "contemporary" means "produced at the same time", so an incunabulum with "contemporary binding" or "contemporary ms. notes" means that the binding and/or manuscript notes date from around the same time as the production of the book itself. eldamorie (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Words with supposed antonyms but are actually synonyms?

One good example is the word "valuable" and its supposed antonym is "invaluable" but it actually means the same thing as "valuable". How many words in the English language that are actually like this? With words like this, how can a person find a true antonym for a word? How are these words developed? Another word, I think, is "priceless". From the surface, it looks synonymous with the word costless or free, the opposite of costly. Free is synonymous with cheap, but cheap costs little money or resources while free costs no resources. It can therefore be interpreted as free as in "completely worthless" or free as in "so valuable that is beyond numerical value". 140.254.227.122 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's also "flammable" and "inflammable" - the latter causes so much confusion to non-native speakers (and some native speakers) that it has effectively been banned from use on warning signs and labels in some countries. See Flammability#Linguistics: flammable vs. inflammable. Roger (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Then there are words like cleave that mean their own opposite (pull apart, stick together). I've never been sure which meaning applies to "cleavage". Or for that matter to the promise to "cleave only unto him". --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, cleave is a really interesting verb because there were originally two (or possibly three) different verbs that got confused, and they are both over a thousand years old. The past participles cloven and cleft can be used only for the cleave that comes from Old English "cléofan" meaning to split (and cleavage is also from that meaning, of course, but I like the doubt cast by Trovatore!)

The other sense, written "cleeve" in Middle English, from OE "clífan", should have past "cleeved" but the words got confused hundreds of years ago, so it is now spelt cleave, with past "cleaved" (or sometimes "clave" -- blame the King James bible for that), and means to stick or cling (almost the opposite). The present and past tenses of the two have become thoroughly confused. Dbfirs 22:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

He watches her cleave (hew asunder) the sparkling green crystal; one-half rolling into the wicker cleave (basket) balancing on her lap. Her ample cleavage (cleft) quivering inside her satin blouse damply cleaving (clinging) to her silky pink skin --Senra (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the story about a baker who invented a breadknife that could slice four breads at one - it was a four-loaf cleaver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

These days, "free" is often used in ways it was never intended. You've got to spend money on some purchase in order to get the "absolutely free" giveaways. How much of a contradiction in terms is that! "Free" never meant "at no additional cost", it meant "at no cost at all, and without any conditions at all". I have no real idea of what the antonym of this creative sense of "free" would be. Logically, "unfree" would be something you get without having to commit to some other, larger purchase - but that exactly matches my idea of "free". What a cockup the marketers have made of our language. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but the "absolutely free" giveaway that you have to spend money to get is often described as a "free gift". --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

While I know exactly what you mean and are looking for, valuable and invaluable are not great examples – they're not synonyms. Valuable means having considerable value, while invaluable means having such great value it's impossible to measure. Here's a pair: You would think having a fat chance would be the opposite of having a slim chance, but they mean about the same thing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point about valuable/invaluable. Subtle difference. Even more so with 'fat chance' vs 'slim chance' -- the former is used ironically/sarcastically and thus has added nuance, i think. Also there is a significant difference between 'free' and 'cheap,' not sure how the OP is conflating those two. And i've never thought of 'free' as 'completely worthless.' El duderino ^(abides) 09:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I was confused by that aspect too. I don't think of 'free' as ever meaning either 'cheap' or 'worthless'. 'Costless' looks like it might be a calque of a word in some Germanic language; I'd have picked 'priceless' and 'worthless' as the words to contrast in this context. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hot" and "cool", when applied to people, don't mean exactly the same thing, but they tend to be applied to the same people - although it is certainly possible to be cool without being hot, and hot without being cool. But "hot" and "cool" are still a lot closer in meaning than "warm" is to "cold". Also, "hot" and "cold" are not antonyms, and "warm" and "cool" are not antonyms; but, confusingly, "cool" and "cold" are close to antonyms, as are "warm" and "cold". It's perfectly possible to be hot and warm, or hot and cool, or hot and cold, or warm and cool. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I get any points for "sucks" vs. "blows", in the context of "X is really bad" -- e.g., PTC sucks vs PTC blows? DaHorsesMouth, not logged in ... 184.100.91.151 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"slow up", "slow down". 86.176.210.160 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Pissed on and pissed off are synonyms; at least it is usually likely that if you are pissed on, you will be simultaneously pissed off. --Jayron32 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

driveway / parkway as in the classic question, "Why do we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?" [7] though personally I've never used the word 'parkway' for a freeway or highway, I suspose it's a regional difference. El duderino ^(abides) 11:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Different meanings of "park". A parkway is a highway or roadway that has been sufficiently decorated with pretty trees and landscaping; at least that was the initial definition. And of course, you do drive on a driveway; your car is certainly not airlifted into and out of its place on the driveway. --Jayron32 18:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Stage Language

I am trying to remember the name of a slang language which was used amongst especially 1960s stage actors and comedians in England. I seem to remember it was based on Yiddish, and may begin with a P. My googling has come up with nothing. Many thanks for your help BbBrock (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Polari. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's it :) BbBrock (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Register and French/Germanic word origins

So, it's pretty widely known that in English, where you have a pair of common more-or-less synonyms, one from Old French and one from the Germanic languages, the French word is of a higher register or has better connotations (grand vs. gross, pork vs. swine, kingly vs. royal). But there's one pair at least that doesn't fit the pattern - pigeon vs. dove. Although there is no difference between a pigeon and a dove, the Germanic word "dove" is poetic and romantic, while "pigeon" tends to denote vermin (no-one would say "This town has a dove problem" or "We're releasing pigeons at our wedding"). Why did pigeon/dove buck this trend, and are there any other (common) words that fit this pattern? Smurrayinchester 22:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, grand and gross are both derived from French, and I don't really see your point about kingly vs. royal, which has better connotations you think? Anyway it's quite subjective anyway and I'm sure other counter-examples can be found. Languages just don't 'listen' to such kinds of rules, they're living things. - Lindert (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a form of the infamous woody vs. tinny divide.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's often argued that the names of meats are French in origin, and the animals they come from Germanic. But the pattern is unreliable:

• • Pig (Old English? earlier etymology uncertain) / Swine (Germanic) / Sow (Germanic, but cognate with Latin sus) > Pork (French)
  • Cow (Germanic) / Bull (Germanic) / Ox (Germanic) / Steer (Germanic) > Beef (French)
  • Calf (Germanic) > Veal (French)
  • Chicken (Germanic) / Pullet (French) > Chicken (Germanic)
  • Sheep (Germanic) / Ewe (Germanic, but cognate with Latin ovis) / Lamb (Germanic) > Mutton (French, but not Romance - apparently Gaulish) / Lamb (Germanic)
  • Goat (Germanic) > Chevon (French, but obsolete - most English-speakers with the need to refer to goat-meat call it 'goat')

There appears to be no distinct English word for horse-meat (as recently brought to the public's attention in the UK and Ireland as an undisclosed ingredient in beefburgers). The most obvious exception to the assumed rule is chicken, but lamb is far more commonly used than mutton these days. I think the more general rule to which the OP refers, and of which this is a special case, may be too loose to be a reliable rule at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Lamb/mutton is supposed to be like the difference between veal/beef. It isn't simply that mutton the word isn't much used but that leg of mutton isn't much sold. Rmhermen (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How could we omit deer/venison? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

English words of French and Latin origin generally are seen as more 'prestigious'. This owes much to the Norman takeover of England, when Norman French became the speech of the elite and thus was seen as the 'prestige language'. That's the main reason why so many French words came into English. If you look at my Romanic→Germanic wordlist you'll find that the Romanic (French and Latin) words are generally the ones that are seen as more 'formal' or 'high-register'. For example 'begin' (Germanic) and 'commence' (Romanic); 'enough' (Germanic) and 'sufficient' (Romanic); 'odd' (Germanic) and 'abnormal' (Romanic); 'end' (Germanic) and 'terminate' (Romanic). I could give you more but I'd be here all day! An interesting example are our words relating to sex and bodily functions. Here, the Romanic words are seen as politer, while the Germanic equivalents have become swear words. Compare 'anus' (Romanic) and 'arse/ass' (Germanic); 'excrement' (Romanic) and 'shit' (Germanic); 'penis' (Romanic) and 'cock' (Germanic); or 'testicle' (Romanic) and 'bollock' (Germanic). However, as you say, there are some exceptions. ~Asarlaí 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

January 30

Aboriginal swearing - Translation from Latin

In the second volume of R. Brough Smyth's Aborigines of Victoria (Melbourne, Australia, 1878), there is a chapter called °Terms of Abuse″, about swearing in Aboriginal lamguages. He quotes from two correspondents, one of whom was the Rev. John Bulmer (1833-1913), who was to spend 51 years at Lake Tyers Aboriginal Mission (starting in 1862). Mr Bulmer begins °When the natives were angry, and abused each other, they used epithets similar to those of the very lowest class of Europeans; not so bad on the side of blasphemy, but worse on the side of filth.″ But when it turns juicy, Brough Smyth drops into Latin:

Itemque saepissime, ut narrat Rev. J. Bulmer, de membris pudendis loquuntur; et rationibus vituperandi tetterrimi foedissimique sunt. In rem longius procedunt quum aliquid de re gravius agitur. Tunc quidem omnem colluviem ex memoria collectam in adversarios sine pudore sine dubitatione congerunt. Feminaeque procul dubio peiores si id quidem potest quam ipsi homines. Ut in albis hominibus °damn″ aut °proh! fidem″ aut °Dii immortales″ ita apud eos verba obscoenissima audiri potest. Ne parentes quidem se retinebunt quominus liberos parvos sermone pudendo alloquantur; liberisque coram disserunt ea quae numquam impuberibus dici fas est. Matresque semper pene liberis dant nomina nostris auribus foedissima prae illorum sententiis innoxia et pura. Puer saepe nominant Dango Willia (lappa). Hoc nomen extremum difficile expressu significat ut lappa cui affigat haerebit ita homo cui nomen "lappa" sit in deliciis veneris inhaerebit.

I can make a fist of it, certainly better than Google Translate (whose botched version I'll put up later, if you want it), but I'm rusty, e.g. never learnt quominus, isn't it related to quin? Besides, I'm hoping that someone out there will get a kick out of providing a translation.Djbcjk (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a go this evening (GMT) if no-one else has tried by then. It's not helped by the fact that the Latin isn't explicit either: Smyth uses the word 'pudendus' (shameful) more than once. Oh, for the directness of actual Latin profanity! AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I can come up with a proper translation later as well, but I can tell you it's a big letdown - he doesn't actually say anything dirty in Latin, just that the words the Aborigines use are frightfully shameful. The only dirty Latin word is "lappa" and that's hardly profane. Smyth just didn't want to discuss the subject at all in English! How Victorian! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of ambiguities in the Latin, and my English isn't perfect either, but I'll give it a try: "And likewise, as is told by Rev. J. Bulmer, they very often speak about the private parts; and they are the most repulsive and dirtiest of people in their manners of scolding. The more seriously an issue is debated, the more they get involved into it. Then indeed they pour on their adversaries the entire load of filth that they manage to collect from memory, without shame or hesitation. And without any doubt the women are worse than the men themselves, if that is even possible. Just as white people say 'damn' or 'oh, faith!' or 'immortal Gods!', so among them the most obscene words can be heard. Not even parents will restrain themselves from using shameful language when speaking to their little children; and in the presence of their children they discuss such things as should never be said to those who have not yet attained puberty. Also, the mothers almost always give their children names that sound extremely foul to our ears, yet in the opinion of these people are harmless and unadorned. A boy they often call 'Dango Willin' ('thistle'). This last name is difficult to explain, but it signifies that just as the thistle will stick to whatever it is joined to, likewise, a man who carries the name of 'thistle' will continuously stick to venereal pleasures." Iblardi (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You beat the rest of us to it! That's essentially what I came up with as well. It's funny that "Di immortales" is a "white people" curse. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Iblardi, for the translation. What were the main ambiguities? Was lappa ever a Latin profanity, for mentula, say? I think the curses of the albi homines are multicultural, and should go °[they] say ′damn′ [English] or ′par foi!′ [French] or ′Di immortales!′ [Latin]″. Aboriginal women here (in Menindee, western NSW) have already seen Smyth's sentence, Feminaeque procul dubio peiores si id quidem potest quam ipsi homines, and they agree totally. So here, as promised, is Google Translate's attempt: presumably it isn't as sophisticated as its other translation services because it hardly ever gets used:

So again, very often, in order to Rev tells a story. J. Bulmer, members of private talk and criticize arguments tetterrimi foedissimique are. In the more serious thing they advance further on the matter whenever a man is at stake. Then, indeed, all of the memory assembly plunged into opponents without shame, without doubt, collect. And women, if that is, indeed, beyond a doubt, it can be worse than the men themselves. So that in white men "amount of damage" or "alas! Faith" or "The gods of the immortal" can be heard in such a way among them by the words of the obscoenissima. Parents not to say that he was refusing to prevent little children talk shameful address, children, before discussing what we may call that never age. Mothers and children, almost always give names to our ears because of their terrible decisions innocent and pure. Child often called Dango Willis (bur). This means that the name of the last hard pressed burr to fasten stick man named "burr" is a pet attached Friday.Djbcjk (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are excellent. I don't think much of Smyth's latin, though, if he thinks homines rather than viri is the appropriate contrast with feminae! AlexTiefling (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question about lappa, Djbcjk: The word is not mentioned in Adams's Latin Sexual Vocabulary, so I think its safe to conclude that it had no off-color connotations in Latin. Smyth's (or Bulmer's?) interpretation of the "Thistle" name would seem to apply only to the Aboriginal usage. Deor (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that Google Translate's °burr″ for lappa is more locally appropriate than °thistle″. Burrs can be annoyingly adherent. The sow-thistle is a food vegetable and there's even a word for it (parlumpa) in the Darling River Aboriginal language, but all the textbooks say it is an exotic. As for Smyth's Latin being suss, surely Puer saepe nominant should be Pueros saepe nominant.Djbcjk (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. I thought that "thistle" would be an acceptable translation for bur(r), which looked unfamiliar to me as a non-native English speaker. But I guess I should have "stuck" to Lewis & Short.

Ambiguities include the second sentence, the translation of the "white man's curses" (should these be modernized?), and some grammatical and lexical irregularities(?) such as the "puer" and "homines" you mentioned. Iblardi (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the 'white man's curses' can be modernised. The whole thrust of the paragraph is that the locals' discourse makes extensive use of explicit and implicit sexual references, while the white folks tend to use mild blasphemies. That's totally changed in the intervening period: westerners' profanities nowadays are strongly focused towards sexuality and bodily functions. This came up as an issue in the production of the TV series Deadwood - when they tested audiences on a version that used authentic 19th-century swearing, it was found to be too silly to modern ears, so they changed to using modern swearing (especially lots of 'cocksucker') to convey they correct overall effect. We can't really make an equivalent change to the passage here, because it's exactly about that contrast. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

But would "damn" have been considered a mild blasphemy in those days? I doubt that it is a case of "mild" and "strong" utterances of abuse being contrasted here. Immediately above this passage, Bulmer is quoted as saying that "[w]hen the natives were angry, and abused each other, they used epithets similar to those of the very lowest class of Europeans; not so bad on the side of blasphemy, but worse on the side of filth."[8] This seems to imply that there is no essential difference between whites and aboriginals in this regard, because white folks (lowest-class Europeans) can be just as bad; they merely use a different register. Iblardi (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I should say that he's reporting that the Europeans use blasphemy, but his examples are as mealy-mouthed as his Latin. 'Damn' was mild enough that it's used for a joke (about swearing) in HMS Pinafore - make of that what you will. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to reconstruct a currently spoken language (grammar, vocabulary, phonology) given it's parent language and sister languages?

We know that linguists use languages spoken today to reconstruct the vocabulary and grammar of languages that evolved to the modern languages. How to do the reverse: given the ancestor language (for example Latin) and sister languages (the Romance languages) of a language (Spanish, reconstruct the language (Spanish)? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not possible. The whole point of reconstructed proto-languages is that they are estimates - though we can construct an estimate, the idea that people actually spoke in exactly that way is extremely unlikely. Currently spoken languages should reflect reality. It would be impossible to determine where loanwords would come from, which patterns people would invent arbitrarily, which structures and words would be affected by events / media, and a whole load of other chaotic behaviour. - filelakeshoe 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Same argument on a more abstract logical level: if we know that it was possible for a certain form in Latin to evolve into that of, say, French, and it was also possible for the same form to evolve into that of, say, Portuguese, then we can logically conclude that it would also be possible for the corresponding forms of our hypothetical Spanish to have gone either the way French went, or the way Portuguese went (or some other way entirely). It would never be possible to make any logically sound conclusions about which of the different possible options our language would have chosen. As Filelakeshoe rightly says, there is an element of chaos in language development, which means that while it is possible to make predictions about what types of language change are generally probably or typical based on a given starting point, predicting whether and when and in what sub-groups of the speaker community such a development will actually happen is not. Of course, it is possible to make reasonable guesses: if we know that all daughter languages of Latin have developed definite articles based on the demonstrative ille, and all have a Future tense based on the auxiliary habeo, then it is a reasonable guess that any hypothetical lost daughter language would also have had those features. Also, reasonable guesses can be made if the to-be-reconstructed variety can be assumed to have been part of a dialect continuum with a dense network of wave-like isoglosses. Say, we know what Old Irish was like; we know what modern Scots Gaelic, Manx and modern Donegal or Connacht Irish are like, but the former Irish dialects of the geographical area in between (i.e. eastern Ireland) have been lost. It would presumably be safe to assume that in many ways these dialects would have turned out to be intermediate between their extant neighbours, had they survived. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You just posted the same question on the Humanities desk. As I said there, any attempt to predict modern English based exclusively on Old English and modern German would almost certainly be a miserable failure... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Reconstruction works only in one direction: backwards. If you have several different descendant languages, it is possible to predict with moderate confidence what form could have preceded the various forms in all descendant languages. You can figure out predictable processes of language change could have resulted in the various different divergences and deduce what the original form was likely to have been. The same process cannot work in the opposite direction, because, given only the parent language, you cannot know which processes of language change would operate in the evolution of the descendant language. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that, but for the sake of clarity, that's not quite what the OP was asking. If you knew Latin and the other extant Romance languages, could you reconstruct Spanish? The answer is "No, not very well at all" but it is somewhat more accurate than only going forward in time because you'd have surrounding (-ish) languages to help. Let's say everything related to the Spanish language instantly disappeared and we wanted to figure out what it was like, we would have a base (Medieval Latin, I guess) and modern French and Portuguese to provide contrasts. Yes, it would still be a mess, but not as bad as, say, trying to reconstruct a more singular language like English. Matt Deres (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Short translation into Polish

Knowing the extreme unreliability of Google Translate and its kin, I come here to trespass on your time slightly and ask - could any Polish-speaking RefDeskers translate the following sentence into Polish, please?

"So why don't we teach Polish in our schools?"

For clarity, the 'so' is intended to mean 'in that case', 'thus', and 'we'/'our' refers to 'the people/government of a nation'. Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been advised it's "więc dlaczego nie uczymy języka polskiego w naszych szkołach?" - filelakeshoe 16:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe's translation is perfect for everyday speech, but language purists frown at beginning a sentence with więc. Substitute it with zatem, if you want to sound more formal. In less formal speech, języka ("language") can be omitted as it would be easily implied from context. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this really a rule in English?

In the English language, the present subjunctive form of 'to be' used in a sentence accurately makes sense grammatically, but it often gives me the impression that the phrasing sounds awkward, and I would normally not use it in everyday speech or writing.

• I think I am a good student.
• I think I be a good student.

The sentence is subjunctive, because my knowledge of Spanish tells me to treat the word 'am' as subjunctive, because it is subjunctive. Assuming that is how subjunctive forms are used, I think I have used the term 'be' correctly in the sentence. Is there really such a rule in English, or am I over-applying grammatical rules to excess? Similarly, when I read and hear certain dialects of English, I can pick up certain things that I normally do not use: double or triple negatives instead of affirmative, the usage of the word "ain't", and various unfamiliar idioms.

• I ain't got no money.
• Meaning: I do not have any money.
• Erroneous Meaning: I am not got no money.
• Erroneous Meaning: I do not have no money. (Implication: I do have some money.)

140.254.226.248 (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The few separate subjunctive forms that English still has aren't really used in sentences like 'I think I be a good student' these days, although it's useful to recognise them, as they occur in earlier works. 'I think I be a good student' has nothing essentially wrong with it, but is now so old-fashioned that many readers would regard it as an error.

Double negatives are complicated. Although we are often told that two negatives make a positive, this is highly contextually dependent. With a colloquialism like 'ain't', my default assumption would be that the double negative was an intensifier. But even if someone said 'I haven't got no money', or 'I don't have no money', I'd think it likely they meant 'I have no money' unless they emphasised the 'no' to indicate that they were applying one negative to the other, to imply 'I have at least a little money'.

It's always important to note that English has no governing academy: what counts as a 'rule' is largely descriptive. If a particular construction clearly conveys the meaning you're after, then it's about as 'correct' as it can be. That said, many (but not all) traditional rules of grammar do, in fact, yield clearer English than ignoring them would.

One last note: your first 'Erroneous meaning' suggestion, 'I am not got no money', doesn't make much sense, because 'to be' can only take a complement, and not a direct object. Even though many people who regularly use 'ain't' might not be able to articulate that in those terms, it nevertheless guides their usage of 'ain't' to mean 'am/is/are not' or 'have/has not'. 'I ain't...' followed by a noun would suggest 'I am not...', whereas 'I ain't...' followed by a participle suggests a verb; if the participle is a present participle, then 'I am not...' is still implied (eg 'I ain't joking'), whereas if it's a past participle, then it would imply 'I have not..." (eg 'I ain't got it'). AlexTiefling (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) :Would you normally say "I be a good student" or "I am a good student"? The first example (I be) is not good English but the second is. The various forms of "to be" are "I am, you are, he is: we are, you are, they are". The word "ain't" is non-standard English (at least for British English anyway) but is in very common use. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You haven't used the subjunctive correctly there. While the subjunctive in Spanish is used for a wide number of functions, in English and also in other Romance languages, it has a narrower scope (e.g. French: je pense que je suis un bon élève not que je sois). The present subjunctive in English is generally reserved for requests, pleas and similar modal functions (we require that he vacate the premises by 10am), there are a few other verbs which it can be followed with ("I suggest that...") but just because a verb in Spanish or Latin uses it doesn't mean English does. - filelakeshoe 16:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is not the subjunctive be but the choice of governing verb. Verbs like demand or insist will take the subjunctive:

"I insist he is here now." (It's a fact and you should believe me.)

"I insist he be here now." (If he's not here immediately there will be consequences.)

But "I think he be here now" would have no contrasting meaning from "I think he is here now"--the uncertainty is inherent in the verb think. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) "I think I be..." sounds archaic to me, but I wouldn't know for sure if it was ever in regular use. Google Book data does not show a very consistent trend: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+think+I+be&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3. However, other examples like "He insisted I be the one to try it" or "I asked that they be quiet" sound correct to me. 86.179.1.93 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not archaic. The subjunctive has never been used in positive factual dependent clauses after mental verbs such as think, at least not since Middle English (here [9] is an overview). If you do find the surface string "I think I be", it's invariably in imitations of non-standard dialects, such as African American Vernacular English, but that's a different kettle of fish; most of those aren't subjunctive forms but non-standard inflection paradigms in the indicative. (also a few Scots examples that I've found, like [10], might be intended as subjunctives; not quite sure about that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Re the second point (ain't), at least in my dialect, this word can replace haven't and hasn't as well as aren't/am not/isn't. So your first "erroneous meaning" would rather be "I have not got no money" rather than "I am not". - filelakeshoe 20:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

to the OP: "Ain't" is a contraction of "am not". It fell out of accepted use a long time ago in usages like "I ain't the person you're looking for", but it was always, till relatively recently, used in tag questions such as "I'm your wife, ain't I?". But now, people come up with absurdities like "aren't I" (as if "I are" is something anyone ever says), or "am'n't I" (eeurrgghh!). People defend words like "gotten" and saying "herb" like "erb", on the basis that the English used to have these usages and the Americans are just continuing those traditions. Well, what's wrong with the "ain't I" tradition? The alternatives are worthless, imo. I'm right about this, ain't I. You know it, don't you. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought "aren't I" stood for "are I not" Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in which language is "are I not" a legitimate expression? Certainly not English. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I understood "aren't I?" to also be a corruption of "amn't I?" (or similar). It's probably fairly arbitrary which variations have ended up being "standard"... 86.176.210.160 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"I think I be a good student" is typical of the dialects of the West Country of England, now in serious decline. A well known anecdote is about someone who moved from London to Devon, and was expecting some important photographic material in the post. When it arrived. it had been folded in half so that it could be squeezed through the letterbox, ruining the contents. On the envelope was printed "Do Not Bend", to which the postman had scribbled a message "Yes it do". Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

January 31

What is it Westergren?

there is test that called westergren. My qestion is what is it the meaning of this word? I have not found this word in the dictionary.194.114.146.227 (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I daresay the test is named after someone called Westergren ( Alf Vilhelm Albertsson Westergren, it is in the article, from Sweden). Lectonar (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the help! 194.114.146.227 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-)Mutual intelligibility of Russian and Serbo-Croatian

While I was in Avignon last summer, I came into contact with a group of young Russians. They were surprised to learn that I, a Bosnian, and a Montenegrin girl I met there could understand them - almost fully when they spoke slowly. Of course, neither of us ever studied Russian and could only understand it (as oppose to speak it). It appears that their astonishment was due to the fact that they could not understand either of us no matter how slowly we spoke. Is there an explanation for this phenomenon? My guess would be that Russian is more conservative than Serbo-Croatian (i.e., Serbo-Croatian is more innovative than Russian), enabling the two of us to comprehend Russian words (which appeared archaic to us) but not the other way around. Is this correct? Is there another possibility? Surtsicna (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility would be that you found it easier because as Serbo-Croatian speakers, you're used to listening to people speak in a wide range of dialects and registers and understanding them all, whereas Russian speakers are not so much. This would mean the amount of vocabulary stored in your passive memory would be considerably higher. I observe the same thing between speakers of Polish and Slovak, which are supposedly mutually intelligible, but most Polish speakers claim not to understand any language that borders theirs. Most Slovaks, on the other hand, have probably met at least one vychodniar in their life, and will be able to make more connections. - filelakeshoe 14:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, when I was working in South Korea, I could understand what was being said (using my knowledge of Chinese and Japanese) but couldn't say anything back. One guy even managed to teach me the rules of Korean Chess, and I understood him perfectly (I even beat him), but I couldn't say anything to him. It's fairly common. Using my knowledge of French, Latin, and Spanish, I can understand Italian and Romanian, even though I cannot speak those languages. I understand Dutch from my knowledge of German (but I speak German with a Dutch accent - work that one out.) It's a very common phenomenon. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Could they understand you though? Intelligibility is a common phenomenon but it would usually be expected to work in both ways. What the OP was saying was that in this case, it didn't. - filelakeshoe 18:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I would have had to use a combination of Japanese and Chinese for the Koreans to understand me. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Surtsicna -- The well-known classic case is Portuguese and Spanish, where most of the time it's easier for Portuguese-speakers who haven't studied Spanish to understand Spanish than it is for Spanish-speakers who haven't studied Portuguese to understand Portuguese... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WHAAOE: Asymmetric intelligibility 109.99.71.97 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)