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

February 19

Complete Set Character

I just found Complete Set Character. Is it valid as is? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I just went bold and put an XfD on it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea what it was. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Iesus

Why is Iesus a 4th declension noun in Latin (rather than second)? Any reason or just random choice at some point? --Ornil (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The simplest reason is that it is "Iesous" in Greek, and that diphthong becomes a long "u" whenever a Greek word is borrowed into Latin. (It's also irregular in Greek, with the same declensions as the Latin.) Jesus (name) talks a bit about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Written omicron-upsilon was already a monophthongal ū vowel in Koine Greek (u shifting to ü left a gap at u, which the ō vowel written <ου> rose to fill)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!. --Ornil (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the 'u' was felt to be part of the stem, as it is in fourth declension ('u-' stem) nouns, rather than just part of the nom. sing. ending. --ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"...than what ..." in comparative expressions

In Australia, it's common for people to say things like "You're smarter than what I am" or "I worked harder than what he did, I deserve a bigger pay packet", and similar expressions. Is this superfluous "what" found elsewhere?

I tend to associate it with the people who say "I seen it" (saw) or "I done it" (did) or "That check-out chick only give me five dollars change" (gave). In other words, a less than university level of education and/or living in a rural/regional area. Is this true elsewhere? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall ever having heard it. I live in a rural area and have both university-educated and high-school dropouts among my neighbours and acquaintances. Perhaps it isn't a Canadianism. Bielle (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds Irish to me. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, purest Cockney. A couple of seconds Googling found somebody trying to explain rhyming slang (another London export to Australia); "If English is not your mother tongue, or you are not a cockney, like what I am: butcher's = butcher's hook = look".[1] Seen/saw and done/did are both found in London English too.

Our Australian English article quotes Anthony Burgess; ""Australian English may be thought of as a kind of fossilised Cockney of the Dickensian era." Alansplodge (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this construction does not occur in any variety of American English. Marco polo (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also wracked my brain and failed to come up with a construction common to the U.S. Snow (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The illustrative sentences for the full entry at the top of this page show, in passing, the use of this construction in "rural locutions of Maine and northern New Hampshire". (For any who can't see the Google Books page, the sentences are "Liz is full hun'somer than what Vieny is" and "I'm full better'n what you be, Joe Buck!") And farther down, on page 81, the entry for than what reads "Redundant for 'than'." It's my impression that this occurs in various U.S. dialects, not just in the Northeast. The chart at the bottom of page 2 of this PDF handout shows the use of "as what / than what in comparative clauses" as present in more than 80% of nonstandard varieties of American English (though of the examples given in the box at the top of that page, I'd consider 2a to verge on standard, or at least very widespread, English). Deor (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It sounds pretty old-fashioned to me. There are several examples in Huckleberry Finn ("It was floating a little faster than what I was" for one). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's quite common in South Africa but I would personally consider it poor grammar. People whose home language is Afrikaans tend to do it because it is quite acceptable in Afrikaans. e.g. Hy is slimmer as wat ek is. (He is cleverer than what I am.) I don't think rural/urban or level of education plays a big role here. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that a written source from outside Wikipedia is always supposed to be superior to the original research of a Wikipedian. However, in this case, we are talking about an unsourced class handout written by two Germans, on the one hand, and the lifelong experience of a professional editor and native speaker of American English on the other. I strongly question their claim that 80% of "nonstandard varieties" (whatever those are supposed to be) of American English display this "than what" construction in a comparative clause. Just what is their basis for this claim? I've never heard that construction come from an American mouth, and I've lived in five states on both coasts and in between (each for periods of more than one year) and visited 25 of them, many of those repeatedly over the years due to family or business connections. If these "nonstandard varieties" are in fact different specimens of dialog as recorded in American works of fiction from the 19th century, then I could believe the claim. I accept that my experience of American English is not comprehensive, and there may be isolated pockets in Appalachia or the deep South where older speakers still use that construction, but it is not current in any variety of American English with large numbers of speakers. Marco polo (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I've found the source of this "80%" claim. It is this PDF. If you look on page 3, you can see a map of the varieties of English included in this database. The authors' definition of American English includes all varieties spoken in "the Americas". This of course is not the usual definition of American English as English used in the United States (and maybe Canada depending on the source). Now, if you look at the map, you can see that the varieties chosen are not a representative range of regional varieties of United States English. Instead, the varieties include a number of Caribbean patois and a few varieties from the United States, which seem to have been chosen for their degree of divergence from the standard. So what their 80% statement really means is "Among the varieties of English used anywhere in the Americas that are most divergent from standard English, 80%" use this construction. This does not contradict my claim that this construction is rare in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That I was, in my youth about 50 years ago, in fairly frequent contact with countrified speakers of one of that study's L1 English varieties (Ozark English), and indeed grew up not far from Huckleberry Finn's stomping grounds, may account for my acceptance that this construction occurs—without being universal—in at least some varieties of U.S. English. I'm sure that I've heard it from living speakers. (And I wish I could afford a set of DARE to see what it says about questions like this one.) Than what does, however, appear to be most prevalent in dialects of England, and that probably accounts for its appearance in Australia. Deor (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I should have clarified above that by saying it sounds Irish what I meant was if I were to expect to hear it in the NYC area it would be from an Irishman. Purely subjective OR, of course. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this construction really sounds alien and foreign to most speakers of American English, at least to the large majority of the population living in major metropolitan areas. I guess I'm not surprised to hear that it is current in the Ozarks, which, together with southern Appalachia, is very culturally conservative and often preserves usages (and nonlinguistic customs) that are no longer current elsewhere in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a very diplomatic way of referring to the lubricious doings of my Ozarkian cousins. Well done, Signor Polo. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy-go-lucky hater

Besides JEALOUS or ENVIOUS, is there a term for those that specifically despise or show disdain for happy-go-lucky people?165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, type A personality/anal retentive types tend to, although those terms refer to them being uptight, not specifically to hating those who aren't. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that jealousy and envy are approximate synonyms, but pretty much the opposite of disdain. The first is wishing you were like them, while the other is wishing they were like you. (Unless we count the case where you both meet in the middle, these are two different things.) StuRat (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The jealous and envious were actually meant as a mild joke considering that the haters might not be either of those... (but should be in my opinion). I am trying to focus on the "hater" aspect where it is obvious that what they are hating (by word and deed) is specifically the carefree, no-worries attitude.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Killjoy? (Note also the synonym listed there.) Deor (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, thats pretty close. But that is more focused on active fun than on just one's good fortune or general contentedness at all times.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Found it: Naysayer, detractor. Even better: "detractivist"165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You have me completely confused, StuRat with "Note that jealousy and envy are approximate synonyms, but pretty much the opposite of disdain. The first is wishing you were like them, while the other is wishing they were like you. (Unless we count the case where you both meet in the middle, these are two different things.)" What (jealousy, or jealousy and envy together) means "wishing you were like them" and what (envy or disdain) means "wishing they were like you"? I know of no definition of either "envy" or "disdain" that means "wishing they were like you." Bielle (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The first two are grouped together. Disdain, in the context of hating someone because he is different from you, pretty much means you wish they were more like you are. (Of course, there are other reasons to hate someone, in which case it doesn't mean this.) StuRat (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand "disdain" to mean that, at all. Is there a reference, or does anyone else have such a read on the word? Bielle (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It only means that in this context. Just like "there" means "at the store" in "I'm going to the store and will buy some bread there", but doesn't mean that in a general sense. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Disdain" means scorn or contempt for something, the opposite of "deign", which means to consider something worthy.[2] Jealousy or envy could go along with that, but not necessarily. Like I say those who hold the USA in disdain might just be jealous. But they might also be repelled by everything we stand for. That wouldn't be jealousy, it would be hatred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, so let's take a specific example. Say the Taliban. They have disdain for the US because it's not like Afghanistan was when they were in control. If the US was 100% devout Muslims under Sharia law, and women were heavily repressed, and the government was a theocracy, then presumably they would no longer have disdain for the US. So, in this context, "disdain" means they wish the US was like them. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, they would continue to have disdain for the US, and they have no wish for the US to be like them, only for the US to leave so they can restore their terroristic, murderous regime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And why wouldn't they want the US to become West Afghanistan ? StuRat (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest "puritan". There is no such term in English as "anti-hedonic", but there should be. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's something of a slander against the real historical Puritans, though. Their views on correct behavior were fairly rigid, but they had nothing against pleasure per se. I suspect that usage of the word puritan we may owe to H. L. Mencken, one of my favorite authors but not a particularly reliable historian. --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"prudish", "censorious" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As with Tom Lehrer's friend "Hen3ry": "Like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Does happy-go-lucky mean cheerful, or optimistic, or carefree, or careless, or what? For some senses, an opponent might be a control freak. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

mofusil

I came across mofusil in a wikipedia article, and not knowing what it meant did a little searching. I see it is used 3 times within wikipedia. I think it likley that it means Wikt:mofussil (note the spelling difference) Do you agree? Would it be sensible for me to change all the mofusil's to Wiktionary links to mofussil? -- SGBailey (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I typed "mofusil" into google and it gave results for "mofussil", but it also asked me if I want to search instead for "mofusil". So I clicked that and it gave me a lot of hits that use "mofusil" in the same way. So it looks like it's an alternative spelling for the same word -- whether non-standard or not I don't know. But Wikipedia itself contains numerous uses of "mofussil", and only a few of "mofusil", so I think your proposed action is a good idea. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the article that uses that spelling? Looie496 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Typing mofusil into the Wikipedia search bar yields Paranapiacaba, Jafferkhanpet, and Chinnalapatti. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done -- SGBailey (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

February 20

Spanish help

Hi, I wonder if someone fluent in Spanish might be able to glance over the document at http://www.scribd.com/doc/97475201/Documento-Posicionamiento-Reloj-Solar , which is cited in the article Equator against the claim:

Quitsato Sundial, at Mitad del Mundo, Ecuador. It's one of the most accurate places in the world in determining Equator position by using modern GPS and GNSS equipment.

The article has been tagged with the question "Why?" (i.e "Why is the determination of the position of the Equator more accurate here than elsewhere?") Does the cited document shed any light on why that might be so, or even claim that it is so? 86.160.222.18 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider myself "fluent", but I can tell you that this is a detailed technical explanation of how the Ecuadorian government determined the position of the equator with high precision, using the GPS system. I didn't notice anything claiming that it's the most accurate in the world, or even "one of" the most accurate, to use the wikipedia editor's wording. That conclusion is implicit, and not well-stated in the wikipedia article, either. It would be better to say something like what I said, which the linked article supports: that it was measured with high precision by using a GPS system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As a fluent speaker, I consider Bugs' explanation completely accurate and his suggestion precise.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed that claim from the article. 86.160.212.72 (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Euphemisms for "fried"

People seem to have figured out that fried food is unhealthy. Many restaurants, rather than stop frying food in response to consumer demand, have instead disguised the fact that their food is fried. For example, Kentucky Fried Chicken has changed their name to "KFC", so people don't think about most of their food being fried (they also introduced grilled chicken, but it's so bad I have to think they are intentionally trying to steer people back to higher profit fried foods).

Now for my Q. The current euphemisms for fried I'm aware of are "battered", "breaded", and "crispy". Are there any others I should be aware of, so I don't get surprised by a greasy, fried mess on my plate ? StuRat (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course there are traditional Asian cooking styles that involve deep-frying, such as tempura in Japan or "salt-and-pepper" in China (typically used for seafood). I don't think these labels are euphemistic, since they predate modern health concerns. Also, "fish and chips" is generally deep-fried, without "fried" being part of the dish's name. Marco polo (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Beware broasting, which is another form of frying. Kentucky Fried Chicken is technically broasted, though the process antedates the name. The "broasting" name for "pressure frying" arrives from an independent invention of the same process that Harland Sanders came up with when he invented Kentucky Fried Chicken; there are likely other similar methods of pressure frying that have been invented or adapted at various other times in history. For trademark purposes, it isn't called "broasting", but compare the process described at KFC#Origin with that described at broasting. It's the same thing, broadly speaking. --Jayron32 17:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow; hot pressurized oil ? I'm surprised that doesn't kill as many people from burns as die from eating it. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Devices typically have safety features to prevent the possibility of opening while under pressure. I'm not going to say no one has ever been hurt by a failed pressure fryer, but the ubiquitousness of KFC restaurants, and the relatively low skill level of their employees lends to evidence that it isn't markedly less safe than other cookery. You can cause serious damage with any cooking method; and lots of stuff out there on the web specifically recommends against home pressure frying. The wikipedia article on the subject specifically notes that such techniques are limited to commercial kitchens almost exclusively. --Jayron32 02:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, electrical home deep fryers seem to be especially dangerous, as kids will pull the cord and the hot oil will spill on them, causing severe burns or death. This model, on the other hand, seem to be specifically designed to spill oil on the father: [3]. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Breaded can also mean "coated in breadcrumbs and cooked in the oven". It's not as nice IMHO as fried in breadcrumbs, but seems to be appearing in more and more places. In the UK "pan-fried" often means cooked in a frying pan in a minimal amount of oil. (Pan-fried? What else do you fry in?) To directly answer Stu's Q, look out for "saute" especially saute potatoes. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought "pan-fried" contrasted with "deep-fried"? 86.160.222.18 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

For linking purposes: deep frying and Pan frying. --Jayron32 20:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

...and sautéing. Looie496 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also heard of oven frying (although apparently Wikipedia has not). But Google has: [4]. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oven fries redirects to French fries. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Daryl Katz

How does Daryl Katz pronounce his name, cats or kets? The image in his article isn't the best and since he lives near me I was going to knock on his door with my camera and see if he wants a better one. I want to pronounce his name correctly so I don't sound foolish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone I have known with this surname pronounces it to rhyme with cats. Lesgles (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think, perhaps, that even if you make it to this billionaire's door without being stopped by security people, the response to a knock may be "Release the hounds"? Deor (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in Edmonton. We don't have many security and violence issues here. He probably has a gate and intercom like the movies. Should I go with 'rhymes with cats' then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Found it. 'Kate's rhyming with Gates it seems.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of oxymoron

Years ago my highschool English teacher insisted that "oxymoron" is pronounced /ˈɑkˌsimɔɹɑn/ because it "has nothing to do with morons". Back then I didn't realize it, but in hindsight this was clearly a hypercorrection for the sake of political correctness.

Are there any records of this alternate pronunciation? Are there people who actually use this pronunciation (other than the teacher in question)? I checked the major dictionaries and nothing turned up.Dncsky (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in Kenyon & Knott or Jones & Gimson; they also go with the familiar ˌ••ˈ•• stress pattern. The only variation is the quality of the vowels. But high school English teachers are not immune from mistake; mine insisted that viscount was pronounced to rhyme with discount and flatly refused to believe 15-year-old me when I pronounced it [ˈvaɪkaʊnt]. Angr (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is connected with "moron" etymologically.... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I know, but apparently he didn't. In his defense, neither does most people. Dncsky (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the teacher was trying to avoid disruption by children trying to call each other oxymorons in class. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oxymoron: n. Someone who has suffered permanent brain damage due to excessive use of the medication, OxyContin. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I employ other people to make my mistakes, and then they become a proxymoron. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Students at rival colleges refer to the students of Occidental College as "Occie Morons". Angr (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, the weirdly normal OED gives two pronunciations thus: "Brit. /ˌɒksɪˈmɔːrɒn/ , U.S. /ˌɑksəˈmɔrˌɑn/" from "oxymoron". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) (subscription required) whilst the normally weird Merriam-Webster prefers "\ˌäk-sē-ˈmȯr-ˌän\" from Merriam-Webster online:oxymoron --Senra (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

When I first saw that idiosyncratic pronunciation guide in M-W, I was filled with indignation. However, attempting to pronounce it as written clearly produces a bad-American-accent version of 'oxymoron' in my British mouth, so clearly it works. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

February 21

Part of speech for interjections

What is the name for this "part of speech"? This is a bit difficult to explain by writing, but can be done very quickly face-to-face. Think of it as an oral, yet nonverbal means of communication. Here goes:

Yes = 2 notes, the 1st lower than the second. Sometimes seen in print as "Uh-huh". No = Just the opposite, 1st higher than the second. I don't know = three notes, the middle one higher than the others, actually sort of humming "I don't know". what? = Hmmm?

Anyway, what is the proper name for these "hummmonyms"?

ThanksBonfiglioli2 (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added a title for you.Dncsky (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

They're interjections.Dncsky (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bonfiglioli2 -- they're kind of interesting because they use sounds that are not regular phonemes of English. The "no" one is [ʔʌʔʌ] with definite glottal stops, strongest stress on the first syllable, and general falling intonation, while the "yes" one is [ʔʌhʌ] with strongest stress on the second syllable, and general rising intonation. The vowels are often pronounced nasalized. Not sure that there's any name for them specifically... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Often" nasalized? For me they sound flat-out wrong without nasalized vowels. Alternatively they can be pronounced with syllabic [m̩] in place of each [ʌ̃]. Angr (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Angr -- when they're kind of breathily semi-whispered, then they can be unnasalized. AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you say so. When I breathily semi-whisper them, they still come out nasalized. Angr (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Further considering, I guess you're right -- the nasalization is less apparent if they're breathily semi-whispered, but still there... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See wikt:uh-huh and wikt:uh-uh and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uh-huh and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uh-uh. (See also "Yes and no#Colloquial forms of Yes and No".)

—Wavelength (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What the dictionaries don't have an entry for is the interjection commonly associated with, but not unique to, African-American women, [ˈʔm̩˥˩ʔm̩˧ʔm̩˩], or even the [m̩˦˥˧] that means "I don't know". Angr (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, West Africa has been proposed as the place of origin of the expressions uh-uh and uh-huh. [5] Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There's also "uh-oh" [ʔʌʔo] (this one definitely without nasalization)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ˈʔm̩˥˩ʔm̩˧ʔm̩˩] uh uh and uh huh μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I don't like the term "interjection" for what I'm asking. I've looked at three different dictionaries, and each of them claim the interjections always have an exclamation point after them!!! <--I did that on purpose (haha). "Go away!" being an example. Anyway, is this something that DOESN'T HAVE A PROPER DECRIPTIVE NAME? Hmmm? -- 02:36, 24 February 2013‎ User:Bonfiglioli2

"Go away" is not an interjection in the sense of a part of speech -- "Go away" is an imperative phrase composed of a verb and an adverb. Interjection is not very specific, but it's the traditional label for most anything which cannot be considered any of a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, or conjunction... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

L'Oréal

What are these two symbols in L'Oréal and what are the functions of these symbols? --PlanetEditor (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the apostrophe and the acute accent? Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That article reads like it was taken straight from their own website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the opposite of 'empirical'?

Taken from my Statistics textbook: "Some faculty think that a course is good or bad independent of how well a student feels he or she will do in terms of a grade. Others feel that a student who seldom came to class and who do so poorly as a result will also (unfairly?) rate the course as poor. Finally, there are those who argue that students who do well and experience success take something away from the course other than just a grade and that those students will generally rate the course highly. But the relationship between course ratings and student performance is an empirical question, and as such, can be answered by looking at relevant data." The opposite of "empirical" in this sense seems to be "arbitrary" or "subjective" rather than "non-observable". The speculations of the possible relationships between a student rating the course highly or poorly and the course itself are observable in the sense that the observations are based on personal feeling or experience, which may be quite useful in Bayesian statistics. Right? 140.254.226.238 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the author of the passage is warning that one should do empirical study rather than making a priori assumptions; so perhaps a priori is what you want. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If that was directly quoted from your textbook, the publishers need better proofreaders... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to our Empiricism artcle, alternative approaches are "rationalism, idealism, and historicism" It later says "It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation." Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if aphorisms would count as a priori statements. They hold knowledge about the world without reason, but with intuition. They are "true", because people experience the meaning of those aphorisms and claim them to be true. On the other hand, it's also possible that aphorisms could be a posteriori, because they depend on human experience and are true pertaining to human experience. 140.254.226.238 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would say that "empirical" is being used here as an opposite of "theoretical". Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  I don't like using the word "theory" or any of its forms in this context. It certainly is a common usage, but such a usage confuses the meaning of what a scientific theory is, and causes untold wailing and gnashing of teeth over such misunderstandings. When people say 'theoretical' in this context, what they really usually mean is hypothetical, but even in that case I don't think it makes a good antonym. Empirical in this case means "extends from the data"; i.e. a rough synonym for empirical here would be inductive reasoning, which is the idea that big ideas need to derive from smaller, established principles. In this case of the scientific method, inductive reasoning implies that theory is built from experimental results: you gather data and draw conclusions based on the data. Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is reasoning built from the top down: it starts from the Big Idea, and attempts to make predictions of future or unknown events based on that. Induction tells you what the theory should be based on the data, while deduction tells you what to expect based on the theory. Contrary to the OPs presumptions in this case, I think the use of "empirical" here IS meant to be contrasted with "non-observable" or at least "not established by data". Empirical here just means "observed", so the opposite in this context might be "deduced". --Jayron32 18:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Anecdotal" might be the opposite of "empirical". Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Anecdotes are still data, of a kind. It would be shitty empirical evidence, but it still wouldn't be the opposite. As empiricism is "deriving truth from evidence", the opposite would be "deriving truth from deduction". Whatever word you want that captures that would be fine. But that isn't what anecdotes are. --Jayron32 22:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless they're anecdotes relayed n-th hand, by which time they tend to lose whatever veracity they ever had. Anecdotes told by the people directly involved might be OK; even then, different direct observers will report different things. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but it still isn't an "opposite" of empirical. The two concepts come from the same general class of concepts, but they aren't opposites. --Jayron32 05:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The opposite of empirical as such is a priori, which I refrained from posting given the question was slightly different, but which has been given above, and is correct. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the opposite is dogmatic or methodic? According to the OED, empiric has its roots in the Latin empīricus and, as the noun "Empirici: A member of the sect among ancient physicians called Empirici (Ἐμπειρικοί), who (in opposition to the Dogmatici and Methodici) drew their rules of practice entirely from experience, to the exclusion of philosophical theory." "empiric". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) (subscription required) --Senra (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

German and French requests

For File:Swissair 111 debris.jpg The description "Debris recovered from Swissair 111 crash. The center, doorlike object is a cargo door. note how the material curls on impact." What is that in French and German? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

French. Débris récupérés après le crash du vol Swissair 111. Au centre, l'objet en forme de porte est une porte de soute. Notez comment la pièce s'est courbée à l'impact. To avoid repetition we could simply say (for me it's better): Au centre, une porte de soute. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

German: Nach dem Unglück von Flug Swissair 111 geborgene Wrackteile. Bei dem Objekt in der Mitte handelt es sich um eine Frachttür; man beachte die Verformung des Materials durch den Aufprall. The English is kind of awkward, so I have not translated literally. Lectonar (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the English is awkward... 86.128.3.165 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think "the doorlike object is a door" is fairly awkward. Angr (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

February 22

"conservative"

What term do statisticians use to describe the opposite of "conservative"? I want to say "liberal", but I feel it's a bit iffy when it comes to numerical figures. "Conservative" in statistics seems to mean "a low figure" or "a p-value that supports the resistance to acknowledge a statistical significant change or observation in the population (as opposed to random chance) by failing to reject the null hypothesis". So, an extremely conservative statistician would probably be someone who chooses an incredibly low z score and may fall to the Type II error, if the null hypothesis is found to be true. In this case, the term "conservative" seems to be vaguely similar to the "resistance to change" but used specially in this context. In a different situation, a person is described "socially conservative", when that person resists societal change (e.g. using the same energy source instead of taking risky but "green" alternative fuel source). A person is described "fiscally conservative", when that person resists financial change or experiencing the decrease in money supply in his wallet (e.g. miserly or stingy). A person is described "religious conservative", when that person wants to keep old interpretative traditions of a particular religion. In all these situations, it seems that "conservative" means "failure or resistance to change" broadly speaking. I am still uncertain about using the term "liberal" as the proposed antonym for "conservative". 140.254.226.231 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think they work as general antonyms. For example, in cooking, you could say either "I'd be conservative with the amount of X I add to the recipe" or "I'd be liberal with the amount of X I add to the recipe". StuRat (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

They don't work as antonyms even in politics (see conservative liberalism, for example). On the original question, it's a good one; I want to say that I must have heard such a term but I can't remember it right now. In any case it is definitely not liberal. Possibly "aggressive"? --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say "bold" would work. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The question is not what would work; the question is what statisticians use. Conservative in statistics has a clear technical meaning. It seems probable that there is a technical antonym too. But if I've heard it, I can't think of it. --Trovatore (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the "technical" definition I provided, then I have to admit that the quotes are really my personal definitions of "conservative". In that case, there may not be a real technical usage of the word "conservative" or its supposed antonym. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't going off of your definition. In my experience that's what it means in statistics, and counts as a technical term (although not necessarily one you'd find explicitly in textbooks). --Trovatore (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I've heard "a generous estimate", "a liberal estimate", or "a tolerant t-statistic critical t-value". Duoduoduo (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a generous or a loose estimate, depending on your meaning. Liberal is also cromulent. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to challenge both of you to find any serious statistical writing where liberal is used to mean "imputing statistical significance using a large value of alpha" or "rejecting the null hypothesis based on marginal evidence". My connection with statistics is somewhat in passing (though I did a lot of work on statistical software), so I could have missed it, but I do not ever recall seeing such a usage. --Trovatore (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the language desk, a liberal estimate is a broad, loose, or generous one in common usage. If the OP wants a statistician's opinion of what term is used in technical writing by mathematists he should ask at the mathematics desk. So, there! :) μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the question was clear. He wasn't asking about "conservative" in the sense of "estimating on the small side", but rather in the sense of "reluctance to risk type I error". Technical language is still language — the math desk is more for mathematical questions, which this really isn't. --Trovatore (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Any Q which requires math skills to answer, like knowing the diff between type 1 and type 2 errors, belongs on the Math desk. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the point is arguable. In any case we ordinarily do our best to answer questions where we find them. It should have been pretty clear that the OP was asking about technical language (though there is the confusing aside about "a low figure", which is really a separate usage). --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Travatore says He wasn't asking about "conservative" in the sense of "estimating on the small side", but rather in the sense of "reluctance to risk type I error". But the OP actually specified both: "Conservative" in statistics seems to mean "a low figure" or "a p-value that.... In any event, I think that "conservative" is no more a "technical term" than is any of the proposed antonyms. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I admit I missed the "low figure" bit the first time through. That's quite a different usage from the one about type I error. Most of it seems to be about type I error, though. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

His number of days has come

Which is more idiomatic English: [An event will happen] after the required number of days have passed. / ...number of days has passed. The word number is singular but the if the phrase "number of days" is understood to mean e.g. "four days", the plural verb sounds better. --Pxos (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I would use "number of days has passed", because the has is describing the number. It makes more sense to my ear, anyway. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This ngrams graph seems to show a large preponderance of "have", and my intuition agrees with that. 140.254's argument is specious, because "a number of" usually behaves as a quantifier. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like both uses are acceptable, according to the graph to the number of uses. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Both make sense according to subtly different meanings. "...a number of days have passed" views the days as countable, so it's like "five days have passed". In contrast, "...a number of days has passed" views the "days" as really an uncountable stretch of time, as in "...a substantial amount of time has passed". But to my ear "have" sounds more natural. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"Specious" really? It is simple subject verb agreement. Americans don't use plural verbs with singular nouns that indicate groups: "The Senate has passed." "The New York Times has reported." Brits have innovated and do use a plural verb with such singular nouns: "The House of Commons have voted." "The BBC are reporting." Prescriptive style in America requires the perfectly logical "a number has passed". The Brits have lower standards. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

When discussing "logic" in the sense of human reasoning (and not logic of a computer) and language, arbitrary conventions and standards may occur. I think this perfectly normal. Well, as long as people understand each other in order to communicate effectively. 140.254.121.40 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I would accept when the requisite number of days has passed but would probably reject *a number of days has passed since the event. I'm not sure exactly what makes the difference. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Brits have lower standards."; but not as low as μηδείς's factual reporting standards: [6] [7] [8]. In British English we say "The Senate has passed." "The New York Times has reported." "The House of Commons has voted." "The BBC is reporting.". In the rush to belittle my version of English, he has confused single entities and groups such as football and cricket teams which are considered plural. Bazza (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the use of plural verbs with formally singular collective nouns is an innovation, it's perfectly reasonable to expect some people will use the older form. The point is, it's a British phenomenon and could be relevant here. See the 195,000 hits for "BBC are reporting". (OH, and the line about standards is what's called joshing.) μηδείς (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but it is not used every time: there is a difference between "The BBC is reporting..." and "The BBC are reporting...", in that one treats the BBC as a single monolithic entity that acts on its own behalf, and the other is really referring to individuals that make it up. To my (British) ears, "The BBC are reporting..." sounds slightly unnatural without some explanatory context, because it's not really usual to refer to the individuals who work for the BBC as "the BBC", whereas it is usual to refer to the individuals who play on a football team as "the team" or "Puddlemere United" or what have you. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

@μηδείς If you intend to make a joke in writing, then you need to make it clear by some means or another. Your words as written were just rude. Bazza (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. While it really is not very important, I'll provide a context anyway. This question originated in the Wikipedia "autoconfirmed status" autopromotion document message translation process [huh!] in translatewiki. The number of days is almost always four, but in some projects it is zero or seven. The logic behind this was that I originally wrote "after four days have passed" but had to rephrase. The stretch of time is not uncountable but can have only three separate values. So the "have passed" in this context seemed more natural. --Pxos (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And the word "translation" above means translating from Italian English into Finnish English, of course! --Pxos (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Italian English part Italian and part English? 140.254.121.40 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't say. But there was a period in the 1960's when Finnish English was not part of any comprehensible language. --Pxos (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Americans do use plural verbs with singular nouns that indicate groups, depending on the context (and the speaker). That's how collective nouns work -- when used with a singular verb ("the group is almost ready") it means the group as a single entity; when used with a plural verb ("the group are almost ready") it means the individual members of the group. But I agree that the latter type of usage, with plural verb, is less common in America than elsewhere. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding to it, I often find myself in an awkward position to use 'is' or 'are' when describing a couple. Should one say 'The couple is walking down the aisle,' or 'The couple name their baby'? 140.254.121.40 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you mean they both do it, then "the couple are doing it". If you mean they do it as an undifferentiated team, then "the couple is doing it". I think with "couple", people usually view them as individuals and say "the couple are...". Duoduoduo (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The grammatical gender of "couple" is a tough nut to crack. If it's seen as two individuals, then it's the simple plural and the problem is avoided. But if it's seen as a single unit, what then? Is it an "it"? Does it depend on the sexes of the people involved? In the traditional case, there's a male and a female; we can't use "he or she" because it's not one or the other but both. That's "he and she". But "The couple named his and her baby Clarissa" sounds weird. In a same-sex couple, it's even worse: "The couple usually take his and his holidays separately". We're pretty much forced to treat them linguistically as two separate people, even though in our minds they are united as one couple. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Is there a problem with "The couple named their baby Clarissa"? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 11:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. But if you think about it, that is treating the couple as plural, i.e. as two individuals. Anatomically, they of course are two individual, separate human beings. But we think of them in at least some contexts as a single unit, a couple. The problem there is that we have no pronoun that applies to such a single unit ('he', 'she', and 'it' are all inappropriate), and so we have to resort to the language of two separate individuals (= plural) even when we're thinking of them as a single unit (= singular). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

But I think we do have such a pronoun: it. For example, "The group named its event 'The Kalamazoo Grand Ball'." The problem is that couple is seldom treated as a singular noun. Still, you can think of instances: "The couple requested its marriage license from the town clerk." It sounds a little odd, maybe, but it isn't exactly wrong. When the couple really acts as a unit, then singular verb forms and pronouns make sense. However, naming a child is not something that two people really do as a unit; they do it jointly. One person proposes the name, and the second agrees to it. Relations between members of a couple and a child are always plural. Mommy and Daddy (or Papa and Daddy as the son of two of my friends calls his parents) have distinct relationships with the child. Marco polo (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Now think of property that's owned jointly; the marital home, for example. If we're talking about Bill and Mary, and we suddenly drive past the house they own together as a couple, we might say "Oh, that's the happy couple's house there" (cf. "Oh, that's my company's head office there"), but we'd never say "Oh, that's its house there". We'd always say "Oh, that's their house there". Still, that probably just reflects that the owner of the house is not Bill and it is not Mary; it is "Bill and Mary", as anyone who's ever gone through a divorce and property settlement can attest. Even if we have no difficulty understanding that the law considers "Bill and Mary" to be a single legal entity, we still prefer to use a plural pronoun. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

February 24

Symbols in Latin text

Resolved

I would like to find out what the symbols next to the months are in this Latin scientific text.--Melburnian (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The symbols are the es:Símbolos astronómicos. They can stand for 7 planets, 7 weekdays or 7 metals. I ignore what they mean in this text. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, this leads through interwiki to Astronomical symbols. In the linked text above (in the paragraph under Linkia levis) it gives

"D. Ludovico Née mense Aprili "

What does the Saturn symbol mean in this context?--Melburnian (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Stearn's Botanical Latin, in Linnaean usage the Sun symbol = "annual", the Jupiter symbol = "perennial", the Saturn symbol = "woody" (i.e., tree or shrub), the Mars symbol = "male", and the Venus symbol = "female". (Perhaps the occasional use of the Mars symbol by Cavanilles indicates that he saw only a male specimen of a dioecious plant.) Stearn also says, however, that some authors have made somewhat idiosyncratic use of various symbols. The symbols were clearly used because printers had them on hand, not with any specific reference to their astronomical use (except, of course, for the widespread Mars-male, Venus-female use). Deor (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, "woody" fits in this case.--Melburnian (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Hausa Language in the world languages you mentioned in your web site.

Hausa language is the language speaking by billions of peoples in the world, why did you not put hausa language in to the languages you mentioned and listined in your web site for translating your data and information as you do in other languages like Enlish, Arabic, Franch and others?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.3.41 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a Hausa Wikipedia here, but it appears to contain fewer than 1000 articles. If you would like to translate English articles into Hausa, I'm sure that the folks at that version would appreciate your help. (See Wikipedia:Translate us for guidance.) And, by the way, according to our article Hausa is spoken by about 43 million people, not by "billions". Deor (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hausa is not spoken by "billions"; it's almost certainly under 50 million. AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the OP has a cold, so when he tried to say "millions" it came out "billions" because of a stuffy nose. Angr (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it's probably because we keep getting spam telling us we'll get 'billions' of money from some random Nigerian prince (who has either died, been put in prison, or has forgotten his own PIN number and cannot access his bank account), so long as we send them money to get the deal done, over and over until we have no money left, and we end up in a divorce and having our children taken away. 'Billion' seems to be the only number they know. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Trace, track, trail

In English, a trace, a track, or a trail can all mean marks left by a moving object, such as a series of footprints indicating where a person or animal went. If you want to express this meaning, how do you choose from these three words? – b_jonas 14:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In many cases, any of the three words would be equally correct. "Trace" specifically refers to the actual marks (rather than the route), and the plural is more usual for animals - "This is the trace of a bullet", but "These are the traces of a fox." "Trail" specifically refers to the route rather than the marks - "This is the trail of a fox, although there are no visible traces." "Track" is the most generic, and can refer to either the route or the marks, with the plural being more usual for the marks - "This is the track of a fox" = "This is the route a fox has taken": "These are the tracks of a fox" = "These are the footprints of a fox". Tevildo (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it Kokoda Track or Kokoda Trail? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

When a word has political connotations, its meaning is a matter for the politican rather than the lexicographer. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. – b_jonas 09:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Syllable

Is the number of syllables in a word a property inherent in the printed word?

For example, can one say by looking at "despised" how many syllables it has?

Or does that word have either two or three syllables depending whether it is said as "des-pised" or "des-pi-zed"?

Thank you, CBHA (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The latter. It's the pronunciation that matters, not the spelling. I'm reliably informed North Americans regard the word "squirrel" as possessing but one syllable; the rest of the world is more than happy to give it two (skwi-ruhl). Same deal with "warrior": N.Am = 2 syllables (woy-yurr); elsewhere = 3 syllables (wo-ri-uh). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's the pronunciation that matters, not the spelling. I disagree that warrior obligatorily has two syllables in North American English and that it's pronounced "woy-yurr" when it does have two syllables. I'm American and I usually pronounce it in three syllables, though I can reduce that to two in rapid speech. When I do reduce it, it's "war-yer" (with the first syllable identical to the word war, which for me ends in a clear "r"-sound). It gets murky with words like hire and higher, which most native English speakers "feel" should have one syllable and two syllables respectively (because of the spelling and because of the morphology of high+er), but in fact most people pronounce them identically. As a result it's somewhat ambiguous whether that resulting identical pronunciation has one syllable or two. Some phoneticians have described words like that as "sesquisyllabic", meaning they have one and a half syllables. Angr (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What about "draw" and "drawer". I've never heard anyone give the latter more than one syllable, but it looks like it should have two. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In North America, "drawer" is one syllable, rhyming with "or". But in the rare usage of "drawer" as in "one who draws sketches, etc.", it would be two syllables, the first being identical to "draw". Duoduoduo (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)My North American guess is that most North Americans pronounce "warrior" as 3 syllables and 'squirrel" as 2 syllables (or at least 1 1/2 syllables as per Angr's point). And "warrior", if pronounced as 2 syllables, would be "war-yurr" or, for non-rhotic accents, "waw-yurr". Duoduoduo (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

But it sounds (to me) like an exact rhyme for "lawyer". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The first vowel in warrior is more rounded than the first vowel in lawyer (even for me, and I do distinguish cot from caught). It's more rounded even than the caught vowel. Not sure how to IPA it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Squirrel in NAEng has one syllable, the /r/ is the vowel: skwRl, rhymes with girl and pearl. Lawyer in NAEng is "loi-er" and warrior is either "war-i-er" or "war-yer", neither of which is analogous in any way to "loi-er".

It certainly is not true that all, if any, non-rhotic varieties of American English pronounce warrior as 'wɔːjə. Here in eastern New England, it's pronounced 'wɔrɪə or 'wɒrɪə, depending on the exact variety, but three syllables in either case. Rhotic speakers are more likely to say 'wɔrɪər (3 syllables) than 'wɔrjər (2 syllables), though I don't dispute that the latter occurs. I agree that squirrel is usually one syllable. Marco polo (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Squirrel is definitely two syllables for me (mostly California but some other influences). One time on a river kayaking trip one of the guides described a certain sort of water as "squirrely", but she pronounced it "squirly" to rhyme with "whirly", and I figured out only some time later that there was any connection with squirrel. But warrior is about two-and-a half. --Trovatore (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, squirrel does indeed rhyme with girl, pretty much. The /l/ is sort of semi-syllabic in both words. This might be the "sesquisyllabicity" that Angr was talking about.

But squirrely definitely does not rhyme with girlie for me, whereas for my kayaking guide, it apparently did. --Trovatore (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read that for many languages native speakers can have differing perceptions of syllable breaks and even the number of syllables, and it looks like this thread confirms it. For example, my perceptions of "squirrel" and "squirrely" are the opposite of Travatore's: for me "squirrel" does not rhyme with "girl", but "squirrely" rhymes with "girly". Go figure! Duoduoduo (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. As usual, it is most enlightening to ask questions here.

A couple of supplementary questions: As the various editors pronounce "spelled", is it 1 or 2 syllables? (Or one and a bit?)

Is "dreamed" 1 or 2 syllables? How about "dreamt"? CBHA (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"Spelled", "dreamed", and "dreamt" (and "spelt" for that matter, which you didn't ask about) are all one syllable each. I don't think there's any ambiguity or dialectal variation there (except that North Americans are unlikely to use spelt as the past tense of spell whereas English speakers from other continents may well do so). Angr (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a curious observation. All my life I spelt the past tense "spelled", but it was only after hanging around the novomundanians on the Ref Desk for a while that I became convinced "spelt" is the usual spelling these days, certainly in those countries, but pretty much everywhere. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a general tendency in American vs. British English that when there are two alternative past tense forms, one with "-t" and one with "-ed", Americans almost always use "-ed". E.g. (working from List of English irregular verbs) Americans use dreamed, dwelled, killed, leaned, learned, mixed, penned, smelled, spelled, spilled, spoiled. But Americans say either knelt or kneeled, and either leapt or leaped. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect (though I am having trouble finding the sources) that much of the American tendency to standardize the past tense to the "ed" form comes from the reforms of Noah Webster, who had a fairly profound impact on the development of American English. Webster introduced many reforms designed to rationalize orthography and spelling, and to reduce the occurrence of irregular forms. I suspect the American predilection for using "ed" in forms where other forms of English use "t" has its roots in Webster. --Jayron32 16:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Killed/kilt is new to me. Next time I see a Scotsman, I'll have to ask him whether he has anything dead under there or whether it's just a kilt. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not even "Kilt him a bar when he was only three"? Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack: be careful with that. There's a rumor that "kilt" is what happened to the last guy who called it a "skirt". --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. I was considering asking him if he'd strangled the dead thing himself or if someone else had given him a hand, but then I figured that's none of my business. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

February 25

Spanish question

Hi! The text "So I’m blackmailing you for something sexual in nature." in English (it is a part of a speech on sextortion). Would that be "Así que te estoy chantajeando por algo sexual." or "por algo sexual en natureza"? I'm working on making a draft of Commons:TimedText:Sextortionagent_interview.ogg.en.srt in Spanish at Commons:File_talk:Sextortionagent_interview.ogg (if you want to add to it, please feel free) with the final destination being Commons:TimedText:Sextortionagent_interview.ogg.es.srt Thanks

Pues, te extorsiono por algo de carácter sexual. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. "Pues" would be used in place of "so" as in "so I am doing this" WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. I assumed you were using "so" as a connector, like "well". (When I try to play the ogg my browser crashes.) If it actually means "thus" in the original sentence then another term like "entonces" or "por eso" might be more appropriate. Así normally and rather literally means "like this". See google translate. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Do you feel that sometimes you have to listen to the whole thing (even if you have the English transcript) to get the tones that the announcer is using? (there is a download for the interview, at http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/february/sextortion_021012/sextortion.mp3 ) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Having listened to the file, I would say stick with Pues, or perhaps go with Es decir,--literally "That is to say,". A literal translation is a bit odd as well because in Spanish one would be much more likely to use an infinitive phrase than to couch it in the first person, although that's okay if you want to be very literal. I would say, "Es decir, extorcionar a alguien por algo de carácter sexual." μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll work on more of the file and try to post a draft here so others can take a look and do what they need :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is this sentence from

I googled it and I found no result "In it is God's glory to hide, man's pride to unravel" or some variation of it.--95.82.51.62 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well where did you find it? Rcsprinter (rap) @ 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Proverbs 25:2. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." [9]. Tevildo (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it was written on a board in lab.--Irrational number (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the "Hand" means in "Hand of the Heavenly Brider".

Hello. There is a game titled Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride in English version, and the original Japanese name is "Dragon Quest V Tenkuu no Hanayome" (ドラゴンクエストV 天空の花嫁). I know "Tenkuu no Hanayome" means closely with "Heavenly Bride", but why translated it into English, it's bride's hand, not herself? PS: In game, players can (and must) choose one heaven blood bride from two or three (depended on platforms), and some plot-releated items about hand are just figure rings. I didn't find bride's hand is special...--Torwiththeipbe (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As the OED says, one sense of hand involves a hand's use "in various ways in making a promise or oath; spec[ifically] as the symbol of troth-plight in marriage; pledge of marriage; bestowal in marriage". Thus a man can be said to ask for a woman's hand (ask that she promise to marry him), a woman can be said to give her hand in marriage, and so forth. It might be considered a form of metonymy. Deor (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of colonel and lieutenant

Why is the pronunciation of words "colonel" and "lieutenant" different from what they should be? 106.209.193.70 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For "colonel", check out the "origins" here. For lieutenant, it is less clear, but still gives the origin of the /f/ in the British English pronunciation (though I don't pronounce it that way; I'm from the US). The spellings "lieu" and "tenant" come from French, which pronounces these words wildly differently than we do in English. American English seems to pronounce "lieutenant" slightly closer to the way that it would be pronounced in French. For colonel, it seems that there were two different words; one ended up being retained in writing, the other in speaking. Falconus^{p t c} 15:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Colonel comes from two different spellings/pronunciations of the same word. The original usage was as the leader of a "column" of troops, from the Italian word "colonnella", which in Middle French had been changed in spelling to "coronel". The modern spelling & pronunciation comes from a merger of the two forms. See [10] and [11] and [12]. There are a few etymologies that say that the "coronel" form comes from the word "crown" (corona) (i.e. [13]), but I think this may be a "folk etymology", as most of the more reliable etymology sources (OED, Miriam Webster) don't mention it, and instead just indicate the pronunciation change as occurring naturally in Middle French. --Jayron32 15:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why then does this not sound "cornel", but "curnel"?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In Japan, I lived with a guy from Kentucky, and we called him 'The Colonel', but I started calling him 'The Kernel', because he was a nutcase. (Same pronunciation in my non-rhotic dialect). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the same pronunciation in rhotic accents too. Angr (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, since spoken language is primary and written language is but a poor imitation of it, the question is not why the pronunciation is different from what it should be (it isn't, it's exactly what it should be), the question is why the spelling is different from what it should be. Angr (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "should". There are some languages where there's virtually a one-to-one correspondence between letters (or defined groups of letters) and sounds. English is definitely not such a language. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ger>Eng. Unter Menschen

Is there any possible translation into English that would preserve the play on word of the original? OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "Untermenschen" as one word, I think "sub-human" is usual. filelakeshoe (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a good translation that would preserve the word play (unter Menschen also meaning "among people" or "among humans"). However, I'm not sure that most Germans are even aware of the word play, since the word was generally used quite unambiguously to mean "subhumans". (Also, the ambiguity disappears in spoken German, because the accent in Untermenschen is on the first syllable, whereas in unter Menschen it's on the first syllable of Menschen.) So I'm not sure there is much point in trying to preserve a double meaning. Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that context should make it clear what meaning is intended. For an analogous situation in English, consider:

• "That dining room set is notable because it belonged to George Washington."
• "That dining room set has no table, and thus I would never purchase it."

The difference in meaning between "notable" and "no table" is clear from both context and stress in the words, and I think a similar situation exists in the German for the terms "unter menschen" meaning "among people" and "untermenschen" meaning "subhuman". --Jayron32 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: I do believe the author of the documentary Unter Menschen indeed wanted to associate both meanings: among people, animals are treated as subhumans. For more information see [14]. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Jayron32 is right that the pronunciation of Untermenschen and unter Menschen are different, but only in the placement of stress, not really in the shapes of the consonants or vowels; whereas the difference in pronunciation is much sharper between notable and no table. Also, the components of unter Menschen and Untermenschen are etymologically and phonologically (apart from stress) identical, whereas those of notable and no table are not. A better English analogy might be undergarments and under garments, as in "under garments there are naked bodies." 2) While it is easier to make a wordplay out of Untermenschen than notable/no table, the documentary producer had to separate the word components (into Unter Menschen) to make the wordplay evident. The producer did this to make a connection that I don't think is immediately apparent to a German speaker from the word Untermenschen. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• In human and inhuman might work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How do translators know when to translate literally or figuratively?

If a nonreligious Chinese woman says something that is borderline religious and borderline idiomatic, "老天爷", would the translator translate it figuratively or literally? If taken literally, I am afraid that would automatically send a misleading message that the Chinese woman is religious, even though she is not. She does not believe in 老天爷 or an old sky man (literal translation). Taken figuratively, one may assume that she believes in Tian, the sky god in Shenism, even though she is nonreligious and atheistic. Perhaps, a good translation would be "Oh, dear!" However, there is a problem, when the person approaches borderline religiosity by treating "老天爷" as a person based on societal-cultural learning (without the worship stuff) and may use the idiom to mean that the "old sky man" is going to strike you with lightning. As this point, how would a translator be able to translate the phrase, or would the translator's translation always be his or her opinion based on what he or she thinks it is saying without knowing the exact intent? 140.254.226.233 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A good translator would try to preserve as much of the original as possible. In this case, there are similar expressions in English. Originally, they were religiously inspired exclamations, and they still may be used religiously, but for most people they have lost their religious meaning and are just exclamations. In this case, I would think that "Oh, God!" or "Oh my God!" might be the best translation, assuming that this expression still has any religious coloring in Chinese. (I don't know enough Chinese to know this.) If the expression rarely or never carries any religious coloring today, than "Oh dear!" might be better. Good translation always involves the exercise of judgment on the part of the translator, and a good translator really needs to be conversant in both cultures, not just both languages, precisely so that he or she can make accurate judgments in cases like this. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, I think that is the function of a biblical translator. A biblical translator may need to learn the ancient languages in order to decipher the Bible and also study the culture behind the text, if that is possible. However, that may involve the assumption that the biblical cultures are real or truthful in that the authors did not just write whatever they want in it without prior consensus from the society in which they lived. I am not sure how one is going to understand a culture, once a culture becomes extinguished or assimilated into another culture. 140.254.226.233 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A good translator, like any good writer, is always thinking about the reader. A literal translation carries more of the flavor of the original, but that's useless if the majority of readers won't be able to understand the message. The trick is to find a way of translating that both maintains the flavor of the original and also can be understood by readers. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Google Translate thinks that the said term means "God". Unfortunately, it's taking the term out of context and not considering the speaker's disposition. 140.254.226.233 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And the translator needs to know the audience, and translate specifically for that audience. Some audiences want the translation to be technically accurate, and don't care about things like tone, while others are the opposite. Unfortunately, this means you really need multiple translations for different audiences. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this just means that a person may never really understand the Bible until he or she learns the ancient languages and the culture in which the Bible was written. That may take years of academic study or loads of spare time (if such a person does it recreationally). Another method is to find a good pastor or priest with a firm background in the area you are interested in and an interest in preaching what you are interested in and a graduate from a well-qualified theological seminary (maybe Harvard Divinity School). However, that may involve actually attending church and listening to the sermons or homilies. A denomination may color one's thinking, so many pastors from many denominations may be better. 140.254.226.233 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Get yourself a good annotated Bible (like the Oxford Annotated Bible), where scholars who do speak the original languages have already done all the work to figure out what the original meant. Unfortunately, on some points, even the experts don't agree, so you will get multiple opinions on what some things mean. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure Looie496 and I really disagree. Of course, the translator needs to think of his or her readers, and when I said that a translator should preserve as much of the original as possible, I meant as much as possible without impairing readers' comprehension. If the goal is not to preserve the meaning of the original, then it is not really a translation, but perhaps a loose paraphrase or an independent work loosely derived from a work in a different language. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A good translator with any sense would ask the source client first, if there is any doubt. "Heavens above" would be a decent translation of the Chinese phrase used here, as it has a neutral feeling to it. Paraphrasing is not a problem. I work full-time as a translator and interpreter, and the rule is, so long as you get the meaning across, that's enough. There is no need to translate everything literally, because sometimes it will be meaningless to the target client, not having the cultural background knowledge. You need to keep that flavour. I once read an English version of the very popular sunday TV show Sazae-san and the translation was absolutely awful, written by someone who was very likely to be rather upper class, even though it was a story about a working class family. Rule of thumb: when in doubt, ask out. Ask your client. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

February 26

Yasui Santetsu

I just created this dab page. Could somebody please check for me whether interwiki links exist? The primary candidate is obviously a Japanese one. My understanding of written Japanese is precisely zero. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Which Yasui Santetsu do you mean? There are two on that link you gave us, and probably more in existence. Clarification would be very helpful. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean the disambig page. Is there a disambig page on Yasui Santetsu in Japanese Wikipedia?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, no. There is one article for Yasui Santetsu (安井 算哲) at [15]. At the top of the article it says something like "This article is about the first generation Go master (head of school) called Yasui Santetsu. For the second generation Yasui Santetsu, see Shibukawa Shunkai". 81.159.110.220 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Really hard to figure out phrase

I've been trying to figure out this sentence and just don't get it. Can someone help me?

"The amount quoted is provided on a net of payer's tax basis and so should be paid in full without any tax related deductions." I"m especially confused by what "a net of" means.

Uqqqq (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's horribly written, but I think you have to read it as "a net-of-payer's-tax basis", in other the amount requested already takes into account any tax allowances that may apply. However, this question seems close to asking for legal/financial advice so if you are in any doubt you should consult a professional adviser. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

PS "net" here is as in Net (economics). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

love handles

Why the fat deposits around the waist are called "love handles"? What is the etymology of this term? --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a common place to put your hands when having sex with a person. Since this location provides an easy place to "grab onto" during the act of sex, having good grabbing sites (i.e. bulges of fat to grip) at the sides of the waist are called "love handles". See [16], [17], [18], [19]. Most of these are "folk" etymologies, and not strictly reliable, but there is a general sense that the sexual connotation is well understood; though several of the above (and a Google search confirms) that there are less sexual overtones (for example, where to rest your hands when hugging or putting your hand around someone's waist while walking side-by-side). However, a general consensus seems to feel that the idea that the fact that such fat bulges provide a gripping place during coitus is the predominant opinion as to the origin and sense of the phrase. --Jayron32 15:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --PlanetEditor (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OED gives "Love handle n. slang (orig. U.S.)(usu. in pl.) excess or unwanted fat at the waist." which also includes its earliest recorded quotation "1970 Current Slang (Univ. S. Dakota) 4 iii.–iv. 20 Love handles, the fat on one's sides." from: "love handle". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) (subscription required) and for balance cf. Merriam-Webster:love handles --Senra (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Authority control

1. Out of context, and in general, what does authority control mean?
2. In context, is {{authority control}} a tautology?
3. Is there a better word or phrase to describe authority control?

See also Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 October 11#Authority control template

--Senra (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See Authority control for our article on the subject. I'm not aware of any special meaning of the phrase outside its library management context, although the two words could appear together in a sentence - "The reservoir is under water authority control." The phrase (as applied to libraries) isn't a tautology - "Authority" could be written "author-ity" to bring out its meaning. Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

February 27

be between husbands

Thanks in advance. I cannot even guess the meaning of "be between husbands" in the following passage. Would you please teach me the meaning?

  Eva was right. The Gilberts returned in the spring of 1975 and again in 1976.
  The third time, they even brought Julie --- who, being "between husbands," 
  was keen to test the myth of Israeli machismo.--Erich Segal, The Class, p.459.123.227.223.236 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.227.223.236 (talk • contribs) ← I'm sorry... I missed your signiature in the original post. Please disregard. Falconus^{p t c} 02:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that to mean that she had previously had a husband, but had not yet remarried. On a timeline, she would be "between" the two periods where she was married, and, I guess, seems to have been enjoying her singleness. Falconus^{p t c} 02:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but there's also a tone that is conveyed by this wording, implying that she is into serial marriages, and not able to commit to a single man. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's redolent of the euphemism "I'm between jobs" when one doesn't want to acknowledge one is unemployed. But that's where the comparison ends. That at least has the basis that being employed at all times is an ideal for most adults of working age. Whereas, being married at all times is not necessarily what most people aim for; the right person is sort of an essential component of the scenario. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

expectocrasy

When a person or group of individuals that produces nothing expects everything to be given to them by others that are productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.230.62 (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(I added a reflist tag to your post.) But was is your question exactly? It sounds like a movie or political quote. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Martin

If not for him

I would like to know the correct way to express in English the following idea:

If not for him, we would get lost.

Is this correct? Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary gives the following example: If not for him, I wouldn't be where I am today.

If my sentence is wrong, could you correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnitempore (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct, but the "get" sounds a bit awkward ("Get lost !" is a rude expression, at least in American English). I'd write "If not for him, we would become lost" or "...be lost" (this one is more for being figuratively lost). StuRat (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree: "...we would be lost" is better. ("Get lost!" is also an imperative expression in British English, although I wouldn't call it rude.) Bazza (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In British English, "getting lost" is slightly different to "being lost". I can't immediately find a reference, but "if you went that way, you might get lost" is different to "if you went that way, you might be lost". Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs more context. In addition to what Sturat said, I would say "we would have been lost" or "we would/could have gotten lost"165.212.189.187 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

introductory paragraph

an introductory paragraph for the following essays:

1. the importance of women in nation building
2. ways of minimizing election disputes in Ghana
3. major causes of divorce in Ghana  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.53.171 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 

When writing essays, it is good to write the body of the essay first and then you can write the introduction and the conclusion from it. The general format should be that you say what you're going to say (introduction), then you say it (body), and then you say it again (conclusion). --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is for school, they may very well be required to write and submit the introductory paragraph first. Also, a writer really should know what their going to write about before they start, or they will tend to drift aimlessly. However, in this case, those 3 thesis statements give us enough of an outline to hopefully keep the papers on target. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We won't do your homework for you, but if you write introductory paragraphs and place them here, we will critique them for you. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP expects Wikipedians to pick a good essay topic. The trouble is, that part is up to the OP. Often, it is suggested that writers write they are most interested in. If 1, 2, or 3 sounds most interesting to the OP, then the proper advice is "Go for it!" 140.254.121.34 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)