Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.147.118.213 (talk) at 22:03, 3 June 2013 (→‎"Logical" languages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:


Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Look up Wiktionary:Translation requests in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


May 28

To lay out

In 12 Angry Men, one juror warns another "You oughta have more respect, mister. If you say stuff like that to him again... I'm gonna lay you out.". To lay out appears to express to knock down, to floor sb., but this meaning is not included in Wiktionary. One mentioned there is to prepare a body for burial, which seems a bit harsh, even metaphorically speaking. So, does to lay out also mean to knock down? And a second question in this context: In my native language German, the verb flachlegen ("to lay flat") both means to floor sb. and to lay sb. (sexually). Is there an expression in English with the same double meaning? --KnightMove (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the first question, yes: to lay [someone] out means to knock someone down and/or out. To the second question, can't think of such a word right now, but maybe one exists. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To lay or to get laid, yes. But to lay out just means to arrange horizontally, such as laying out a buffet, or a red carpet, or a corpse, or whatever. It's also slang for knocking someone down flat. Floored kind of means the same thing, except it's usually a metaphor: "That guy's statement floored me." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sense added to Wiktionary. Dbfirs 19:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's stretching it a little, but tumble can be used as a transitive verb to mean both "cause to fall" and "have sexual intercourse with".- Karenjc 19:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These don't necessarily require a knockdown or horizontal position, but words like "nail", "hammer", "drill" and "pound" are used about equally in combat sports and porn. The North-south position, while not an idiom, is in a somewhat similar grey area between love and hate. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Bang" is an example that comes to mind. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me, I forgot "slam". Not a strike, but it lays someone out on their back. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insanitary or unsanitary?

An editor has just amended an article that I started - SS Navemar - and changed "insanitary conditions" to "unsanitary conditions". Any thoughts? Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, under insanitary, Wiktionary has "Common misspelling of unsanitary". Does that help? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, "unsanitary" is the proper term. I've heard of "insane", but never "insanitary". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of "insanitary" either, only "unsanitary". FWIW. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(UK English speaker here) I'm surprised that "insanitary" is considered "incorrect": it seems perfectly normal to me. Google hits are two-to-one in favour or "un-", but the OED has four citations for "in-" (going back to 1874) and two for "un-" (1872 - a line from Middlemarch). Maybe it's a UK-US difference, but here is an official-looking US document that uses "in-". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Insanitary" is not incorrect. It's uncorrect. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In an insanitarium. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which just goes to show that local (rather than "US") officials are not necessarily English scholars. And I note that EO has no entry for "insanitary".[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd say that's a fair assessment, and that insanitary is more of an alternative spelling than an incorrect one, albeit a less common one. Google Ngrams shows that, across the whole English corpus, insanitary was more usual before 1900, then unsanitary takes over until about 1925. From there, they're both about equally popular until the 70s, at which time unsanitary seems to become the established favourite. However, in American English, unsanitary has always been favoured, whereas in British English insanitary is the winner. So, yes, it is probably a question of dialect. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. As the article is about emigrants to the US, I suppose that the American English version is the right one. In my defence, see Exhibit "A": The District of Columbia - Board for the Condemnation of Insanitary Buildings (BCIB). Perhaps someone could amend Wiktionary in line with your collective findings? Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However interesting the history of its development, I am gobsmacked to see anyone referring to insanitary as "wrong" or a "misspelling". As Cucumber Mike kindly demonstrated, it has a long history in both the UK and the US, and is currently widely used in the UK, far more so than unsanitary, in fact. This is not the first time that this kind of query has attracted responses that boil down to: "That's wrong. I've never heard of it", when a minute's research would show otherwise. Without going through the whole Reference Desk thing again, it's worth noting that our personal language preferences do not trump established and accepted variants in other varieties of the shared language that divides us, and that we should provide references when we make authoritative-sounding pronouncements on anything. WP:ENGVAR definitely supports the use of unsanitary in this context, but we could have established that without giving incorrect and unreferenced kneejerk replies to the original question. - Karenjc 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My minute's research was to go to Etymology Online, which didn't have a listing for "insanitary". Silly me, for believing a source. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. It tells us nothing one way or the other. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - Karenjc 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, but I must point out, in everyone else's defence, that my first answer was where we got the idea that it's a misspelling. I agree with the rest of what you say, though - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, "insanitary" does not show a significantly lower usage than "unsanitary", at least according to Google Ngrams: [2]. There have even been some time periods when "insanitary" was the predominant form of the word; though since 1965 "unsanitary" has taken the clear lead, and the "insanitary" usage has been steadily dropping. --Jayron32 18:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem :-) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that the Wiktionary entry was not corrected long ago. I've now removed the claim of mis-spelling and added a usage note for American users. Dbfirs 19:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are jokes about an "insanitary spectre" (~=sanitary inspector). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of the sewer wisp from The Wizard of Id. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion reminds me of the dispute during the writing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence: Thomas Jefferson originally penned "inalienable rights"; John Adams insisted it should be "unalienable rights".    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ej", "icke", "inte"

What exactly is the difference between the words "ej", "icke" and "inte" in Swedish? I assume they all mean "not". The only one I learned at school was "inte". JIP | Talk 17:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This explains it reasonably well, I think:
"Swedish has three negations, inte, icke, ej, all meaning ‘not’. Inte is the most commonly used negation in Swedish. Both icke and ej are restricted to formal written language, icke is also found in compounds, where neither inte nor ej may be used: icke-våld ‘non-violence. Other words with negative meanings are ingalunda ‘by no means’, knappt, knappast ‘hardly’, omöjligen ‘not possibly’."
Basically, if in doubt, use inte. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Cucumber Mike with regards to Swedish as presently spoken in Sweden. In Finland Swedish (which I presume is the variety JIP is more accustomed to), it is quite possible that words that are considered somewhat stilted and archaic in Sweden (like icke and ej) are more commonplace, but I can't find anything on this online. Gabbe (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand you completely, but yes, you are right, I am far more accustomed to Finland Swedish than real Swedish. I have only ever learnt real Swedish when I have actually gone to Sweden, which I have done about ten to twenty times in my life. In Finland Swedish, "inte" is the only word for "not" I have ever encountered. In real Swedish, I have also encountered "ej" and "icke", which I have understood also mean "not", but I am still unaware of the exact distinction in usage. JIP | Talk 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is the words' formality. Inte is acceptable in all situations, but ej and icke are used in more formal language. So, whilst you might say to a colleague "Blockera inte utrymingsvägen", the signs on the Stockholm Metro say "Utrymingsväg få ej blockeras". Ej and icke are also apparently more common in prayers and bible verses. Finally, as above, icke can be used in the same way as English 'non-', such as icke-rökare (non-smokers) or icke-svenskar (non-Swedes). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the origin of the words, but the modern senses are subtly different, in that kein means 'no', 'nobody', or 'not', whereas icke means 'not' or 'non-'. The Swedish equivalent to kein is inga, whereas the German equivalent to icke is nicht. Of course, it's entirely possible that all these words (kein, nicht, inte, icke, inga) could be derived from the same root (Old Norse? Proto-Germanic?) and have diversified into their modern senses. I'm afraid I haven't been able to find a useful reference. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have always assumed that kein < nicht ein in the same way that -heit > keit after -ich n (e.g., möglichkeit). Of course I have no source or confirmation for that, which is why I am asking. μηδείς (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Medeis, kein comes not from "nicht ein" but from "nich ein", with "nich" meaning "and not" in Middle German. Your supposition about -keit is correct. In both cases syllable final /x/ was interpreted as syllable initial, where /x/ was possible only in certain dialects, whereas the standard form was /k/. As for ikke, it is not cognate with kein, but it is analogous. Ikke is a modern form of the old Norse ekki, which consisted of a compound combining the neuter form for "one" followed by a negative clitic -gi or -ki. [3] Engi/Inga incidentally are merely derived from the masculine form of the same compound in Old Norse. [4] For more on the -gi/ki clitic see p. 375 of this source. Likewise, German kein combines an adverbial negator with a form of the word meaning "one". Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting--so ikke is actually related to ouk! μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Us?

In some places in the north of England, speakers use a word that sounds like əz or ʌz where standard English would have "our" or "my". What is that word? Is it actually "us"? 86.160.209.9 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It is "us", though pronounced with a 'z': See Yorkshire dialect#Vocabulary and grammar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. 86.160.209.9 (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The English us and our are cognate to the German uns and unser which retain the earlier Proto-Germanic language form. English had a rule that deleted the -n- before -s or -f at the end of a syllable (compare five and fünf). There would have been a form user at some point, then splitting into the standard and Northern form. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard it pronounced ʌz, only ʊz or əz. Another usage is "wer" for "our", but I don't know the geographical distribution of the usages. They are not distributed throughout Yorkshire, but us is used, I think, only around the Lancashire–Yorkshire boundary. Perhaps an expert can confirm the extent of the usage? Dbfirs 07:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(OP) ʌz may just be my not-very-accurate attempt at transcribing what I hear. 86.128.1.148 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Round here in the English Midlands, the use of "us" in that way is quite common and pronounced with a final -z. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's interesting — I thought the usage was confined to parts of northern England. Presumably the pronunciation is ʌz in the Midlands? Dbfirs 06:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Brummie pronunciation of "bus" is more like "boozz" with the oo being the short vowel rather than the long vowel. (Not the exasperating version pronounced to rhyme with "fuck" either. Whoever thinks that "oo" is prounced "uh"? <rant over>) Sorry not good at IPA. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In London, "us" is sometimes used for "me", for example; "give us it here" means "give it to me". Famously in Devon, "Yur us be" means "here we are". Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


May 29

Mini-text standards

I was thinking about these, recently, and made a "Hierarchy of Minitext Standards" list.

etc...

Plus, related short writing forms?

Questions: Is there a collective term for these? Somewhere that they are already listed, or could/should be listed, on Wikipedia? (And do you have any items to add to the list? or references for further reading?) Much thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The broadest concept which already exists which could contain all of these ideas is perhaps semiotics, but that's a VERY broad concept. More specifically, philosopher and semiotician Marshall McLuhan studied this broad idea, though I don't know that it had a name, when he famously formulated the idea that The medium is the message, which is to say that more than the thought being conveyed, but the actual manner in which the thought is conveyed also has meaning, so for example, a tweet itself carries meaning that is different from, say, a blog, even though conceptually one can express the same general idea in a 140 character tweet as in a longer blog, but the very nature of the specific medium itself adds its own meaning to the idea being conveyed. I don't if there is any word that conveys this concept, but I think if you're looking for understanding the big ideas here, you could do worse than to start with McLuhan. --Jayron32 01:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These links may be helpful.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In computer science the term "microtext" is often used -- however it also has a variety of alternate meanings outside of computer science, such as the use of microscopic fonts. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In newspapers (and here), I believe they call the intro to a story the "lede". This unusual spelling is to distinguish it from others meanings of "lead". See also wikt:hed. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected my example above to use "subhead->lede" (instead of "leader->intro"). Thanks, –Quiddity (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all responders.

(FYI, I was prompted to finally post this, out of my scratchpad, by the various discussions at meta:Concise Wikipedia, which keep circling back to "we need a variety of lengths of summary, for each topic". I was hoping to discover a "name" for the various existing short forms.)

Would this list perhaps belong in a subsection of Constrained writing? I suspect the spectre of WP:OR will forbid it, for the moment, but... Further RSs or suggestions or assistance would be appreciated. –Quiddity (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These pages might be helpful.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, none of those sources use the word "Constrain" at all, which is why "haiku, tanka, and senryu" were removed from the article (according to the talkpage). "Length" appears to be something that the academics have not recognized as being a part of the purview of "Constrained" writing(?). I'm still looking, but... :/ –Quiddity (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling Down

Phrase used most recently in American politics describing one's reaction in regard to a motivating event. The meaning of the phrase varies with the event but, generally, references a person's willingness to extend their commitment to a controversial stance even further, rather than retreating from the original stance taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmmaine (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking about the origin of the expression, I believe it's a metaphor drawn from the card game of blackjack—see Blackjack#Player decisions. See also the Wiktionary entry. Deor (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your analysis of the meaning is correct, they are both increasing their risk, and potential reward, when they "double down". StuRat (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Spelling

I'm trying to spell "Pans Mayhem Hunting Club" in greek letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.132.178 (talk • contribs) 23:47, May 29, 2013‎

Παν'ς Μαυηεμ Ηυντινγ Κλυβ will work if all you want is approximate letters that are close to the English ones. But in real Greek you would use a double gamma γγ (gg) to indicate the "ng" sound, ou for the short "u" of hunting, and an apostrophe for the aitches, rather than the eta (Ηη) which I used. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greek spelling is mostly phonemic and specific to the Greek language; there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between Latin and Greek letters. Because of this, there are a few questions you would need to answer first: (1) Ancient Greek or Modern Greek? (2) Do you just a transcription (which be read like the English words, but with a strong Greek accent) or a translation? (3) If you want a translation, is it indeed "Pan's Mayhem", with an apostrophe, as Medeis suggested? Lesgles (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek apostrophe mainly indicates the elision of a word-final vowel before another word beginning with a vowel (at least in ancient Greek)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using χ for h is standard (look up John William Waterhouse in Greek to see this), μπ for b, νγκ for ng (look up Vitus Bering in Greek to see these). If I was making a straight transliteration of just what you wrote I would write: Πανς Μέιχεμ Χάντινγκ Κλαμπ. If I was making some literature in Greek, like a website, or other advertisement for the Greek market, I would do a semi-translation like Πάνoς Μέιχεμ Όμιλος Κυνηγιού, but that's just a guess, and I would get a native speaker to look at that. u definitely has no steady transliteration, sometimes u gets ου (as in Dublin), sometimes ε (as in Robert Burns), sometimes α (as in club), sometimes ιου (as in David Hume). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my attempt at a full translation into modern Greek: "Κυνηγετικός Σύλλογος «Αντάρα του Πάνα»" (also not a native speaker, though). Lesgles (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what you mean by faux-Greek, Symbol might qualify. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually real if minimal Greek. I meant a font that looks like Greek but corresponds to the Latin alphabet, having a c, h, q, and distinct u/v/y/(w) which modern standard Greek does not. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's the Herakles font, though not sure how authentically Greek-looking you'd consider it to be... AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


May 30

Polish and German speakers needed to check sources an article.

See Wikipedia:Help desk#German Minority Political Party in Poland and German Minority (political party). It appears that we have an article on a 'political party' that doesn't actually exist as such. Both the Polish-language [5] and German-language [6] Wikipedia articles linked to this article refer to an 'Election Committee', and not a political party. Could I ask for volunteers with the necessary language skills to check the relevant material, and confirm exactly what the situation is, so we can sort this mess out - the article talk page is probably the best place for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's a political party, but it participates in elections. I think it's similar to the UDMR in Romania: not a party, but acting like one, since it is a representative body of a national minority. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify whether you are basing that on the sources cited in the article, or on personal knowledge? We need to get the article right - and we can only do that if we can source it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the German article, which seems fairly well sourced. This organization fields candidates in elections, and its representatives sit in a provincial council. It has one representative in the Polish parliament. While its name in German and Polish contains a term that means "electoral committee" in English, I don't see how this organization is functionally different from a political party. That said, the title of our article should probably be a more direct translation of the organization's name: German Minority Electoral Committee. Marco polo (talk)
After reading the German article too, ...it is a bit comparable to the South Schleswig Voter Federation in Germany, as it enjoys certain advantages when elections are held; I agree with Marco polo that it is in essence a political party. I also agree with the name offered: German minority Electoral Committee, and will move the article there. Lectonar (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it is listed as a "party" in the Sejm, at least in the German article, whereas here it is listed as a "political group".......Lectonar (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may need a person with knowledge in the Polish constitution here. As our articles state, the "group" is not subject to the 5% minimum hurdle applicable to political parties, otherwise it would not have a seat in the national parliament with 0.19% / some 28k voters. There may be special constitutional provisions (and possibly restrictions) for minorities in the Silesian counties. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German and Polish words for political party are Partei and partia respectively. If someone can find a reliable source that says that this entity is a party or a Partei or a partia, then I guess our article can say it's a party. If not, then it shouldn't. This isn't really a question for the language desk, unless you have a specific non-English text you want translated or explained. Victor Yus (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is speculation based on the situation in Germany, but at least it is consistent with the German article. Some electoral systems are not very well suited for true independent candidates even if those are possible. In such a system there can be parties that downplay their official party status and present themselves as vehicles to get loosely affiliated independents elected without the more typical trappings of parties in those systems. KarlLohmann (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such political party as "German Minority" in Poland. According to Polish election law (Ustawa z dnia 5 stycznia 2011 r. - Kodeks wyborczy [Election Code], Dz. U., 2011, vol. 21, No. 112 (2011-01-05)), candidates may be proposed only by election committees, registered prior to an election. These committees may be registered either by a political party or by a group of at least 15 citizens. German Minority is an election committee of the latter variety. Its own website says quite unequivocally: Komitet Wyborczy nie jest partią polityczną ("The election committee is not a political party"). [7] — Kpalion(talk) 04:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer village in China

What is "Cancer village in China" in Chinese (either traditional or simplified; preferably both)? Does Wikipedia have an Chinese article corresponding to "Cancer village in China"? Can the English article be improved with information from the Russian article?
—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

中国癌症村 (simplified). See this. 中國癌癥村 (traditional). Oda Mari (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the article on this topic in the Chinese Wikipedia. zh:中國癌症村. Marco polo (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I have added to the English article an interlanguage link to the Chinese article.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Living out of a car

Is there any difference in meaning between phrases "Mike is living out of his car" and "Mike is living in his car" or even "Mike lives in his car"? --Pxos (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like comfortable, easy to understand English and none would appear awkward. There may be stylistic concerns regarding the context for each of them, as to when and where to use them, but none are awkward sounding or anything like that. Google Ngrams favors the "living in his car" formulation, see Here, but none of the three phrases really dominates. --Jayron32 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. A person who is living out of his car generally sleeps in it and stores things in it, little else -- sometimes doesn't even sleep in it. If I heard the other two versions, I would infer that Mike spends a lot of time in his car, not just sleeping or using it for storage. Looie496 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Like Jayron says, they're all perfectly good English phrases. However, I can use them in subtly different ways: "Mike is living out of his car" suggests that I'm temporarily homeless, and, whilst still attending work, I'm using my car to sleep in. "Mike is living in his car" suggests that I'm somehow permanently inside my car - never coming out. "Mike lives in his car!" simply suggests that I spend a lot of time driving. The differences are subtle, but can be useful if you need them. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My take is as Cucumber Mike's, and is interesting to compare to Looie's: my opinion is similar to Looie's, but I'd move the word "just", as in "If I heard the other two [lives/is living in], I would infer that Mike just spends a lot of time in his car, not sleeping or using it for storage. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. A person who is 'living out of his car' might sleep in it from time to time, but I'd think it more likely that they were living in a series of motel rooms, with all their worldly possessions in the back of the car. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "Mike is living in his car" suggests he never leaves it. I'm living in an apartment, but that doesn't mean I never leave it. Angr (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mike is living in his car is present continuous, suggesting a finite action currently in progress; Mike is homeless for a finite but unspecified period and is using his car as his domicile. Mike is living out of his car is the same tense, but I'm with AlexTiefling that the storage aspect is implied by out of but the use as a bedroom is not. Mike lives in his car is present simple, so we're looking at a habit or a state of being. Either the vehicle is the guy's actual home, with no end in sight, or it's metaphorical and he just spends a lot of time driving, as suggested. - Karenjc 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comprehensive answers. It is always a great pleasure to find, in a few moments, a thorough and clarifying explanation to the question at hand. Let's hope that Mike does not – presently and continuously – live in his car! --Pxos (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

complex sentence

Is the following a complex sentence:

Wearing a mask, the thief stole a diamond tiara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afroskyblue (talk • contribs) 07:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that depends on what your course, teacher, or textbook defines as a complex sentence. Let us know what definition your using - or provide some confirmed examples - and we may be able to help. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a fairly standard definition of a complex sentence, which the OP's example certainly fits. It contains the dependent clause "Wearing a mask" (dependent because it could not stand as a sentence by itself), and the independent clause "the thief stole a diamond tiara" (this can be a sentence). A complex sentence requires an independent clause (tick) and at least one dependent clause (tick). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wearing a mask" isn't a dependent clause, though, because it contains neither a subject nor a finite verb. It's just an adjective phrase, so the sentence consists solely of an independent clause and is thus not a complex sentence. Angr (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-finite dependent clauses: Dependent clauses may be headed by an infinitive or other non-finite verb form, which in linguistics is called deranked. In these cases, the subject of the dependent clause may take a non-nominative form". -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you quoting from? It's because of anomalies like this that i asked the OP what standard they were working to. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's quoting from our own article Dependent clause#Non-finite dependent clauses. But if you consider nonfinite clauses able to render a sentence complex, you have to call sentences like "Kids like to play on computers" and "He is the man to beat" complex sentences too, which I don't think is in the spirit of the simple/complex distinction. Angr (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or "I can swim". But to me, the sentence in the original question is complex in spirit. (Why? Can't say, to be honest - because the dependent "clause" is an optional modifier, perhaps?) But as you say, it all depends on what definitions are being used (and linguistics is a field that seems to abhor standard definitions). Victor Yus (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But "The mask-wearing thief stole a diamond tiara" also has an optional modifier, and that doesn't "feel" complex, does it? I have to say, though, that the concept of simple vs. complex is one I only know from English class in school (between about the ages of 9 and 14). When I was studying theoretical linguistics (including syntax) as a graduate student, it wasn't a distinction people ever discussed. We spoke of embedded clauses rather than dependent clauses, but didn't feel the need to divide the universe of sentences into those with them and those without them. I think my 8th-grade English teacher would say "Wearing a mask, the thief stole a diamond tiara" is a simple sentence, not a complex one, while my 1st-year-in-grad-school syntax professor would say it's a sentence with an AP in the Spec of IP or something of that sort, which always made my eyes glaze over and made me start daydreaming about phonology instead. Angr (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree that (as such things are usually defined in elementary and secondary education) the OP's sentence is a simple sentence. "The thief, who was wearing a mask, stole a diamond tiara," on the other hand, is complex. Deor (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wearing a mask" in "Wearing a mask, the thief stole a diamond tiara" is what some people would call a Nominative absolute... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And those people would be wrong. It's not an absolute because it modifies "the thief". See Absolute construction. Furthermore, there's no nominative in it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure "small clause in apposition to the subject" or whatever would be more descriptive, but "Nominative absolute" has been used as a shorthand term... AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not by anyone who knows what a nominative absolute is. By the way, it's called a "participle phrase". See Participle. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, the term is in use... AnonMoos (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, the term "nominative absolute" is usually applied to a participial phrase in which the participle doesn't modify any word in the main clause of the sentence but rather has a subject and predicate of its own, as in "The thief having worn a mask, no one was able to give a description of his face". It functions like a Latin ablative absolute. Deor (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it does not modify any word in the main clause is essential to the definition of "absolute'. If it modifies a word in the main clause, it isn't an absolute, and anyone calling it that is just plain wrong. Another essential part of the definition is that it has to contain a nominative noun or pronoun. There isn't one here, so it can't be a nominative absolute. And no, the term is not in use for this type of construction among anyone who has the slightest idea what an absolute is. It is in use, of course, for actual absolute constructions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's completely clearcut, though, what's modifying what. In languages like Russian this "wearing..." phrase would be expressed with what tends to be called an adverbial participle, implying that (at least in those languages) it's syntactically an adverb phrase modifying the verb (phrase), not an adjective phrase modifying a noun (phrase). And in English too we can use such phrases in the absence of an explicit subject ("do it wearing a mask!", "it's nice to sleep wearing a mask"), implying that they attach rather to the verb than to the subject, at least syntatically. Victor Yus (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation change moving from noun to adjective

I pronounce controversy con-TRO-versy, but controversial con-tro-VER-sial.

Can you think of any examples of words that also change emphasis as they move to different parts of speech, so I can win an argument?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.60.20.81 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of words shift stress when a suffix is added. Súicide/suicídal and cómmerce/commércial are two more using the same suffix as your example; árgument/arguméntative is one using a different suffix. There are probably literally hundreds if not thousands of examples. Angr (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide/suicidal doesn't satisfy this definition where I come from. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One short one with large pronunciation difference and no spelling difference is "minute"/"minute"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also Initial-stress-derived noun. Lesgles (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The noun "origin" corresponds to the adjective "original".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My favourite example of shifting stress is PHOtograph - photOGraphy/photOGrapher - photogrAPHic. (Incidentally, many people get upset at your pronunciation of 'controversy', and would insist on CONtroversy.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The noun "Corinth" corresponds to the adjective "Corinthian".
—Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of -Ologys become -olOgicals. Even ge-ne-Alogy becomes ge-ne-a-lOgical. And -Opathys become -opAthics. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The noun "sacrilege" corresponds to the adjective "sacrilegious" (which rhymes with "religious" and "prestigious").
—Wavelength (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my idiolect, nothing can rhyme with both religious and prestigious since they don't rhyme with each other; sacrilegious can rhyme with one or the other, but not with both. Angr (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some additional examples.
  • "bureaucrat" and "bureaucracy"—"bureaucratic"
  • "ridicule"—"ridiculous"
  • "outrage" (from French "outre")—"outrageous"
  • "climate"—"climatic"
  • "climax"—"climactic"
  • "nonsense"—"nonsensical"
  • "therapy"—"therapeutic"
—Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, in certain dialects of American English, "insure"—"insurance". Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

What does "to rocket" a cigarette a mean?

Sun Hits the Sky by Supergrass contains the lines

Life is a cigarette,
you smoke to the end,
But if you rocket the middle bit,
Then you burn all your friends,

What does "to rocket" mean in this context? Thank you in advance. 84.106.222.101 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's drugs slang. "Rocket" can refer to one of several ways of constructing a rolled cigarette (with or without extras) that burns fast and hot when smoked. Try googling "rocket joint" for further information. - Karenjc 15:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seed it

Is there any possible way to translate "I seed it" into French while preserving the impression that it is a childish grammatical error for "I saw it"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.118.23 (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just suggestions: « j'ai le voiré » or « j'ai le vu » (less incorrect).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might also have use for the substandard subjunctive of voir, often used by children: [vwaj] ("il faut que je voille"). Lesgles (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestions above take it only as an error for "I saw it", but the way I read your question you wanted it to mean "seed" in the sense of "sow" or "initiate" as well. If so, there is probably not: puns are notoriously difficult to translate. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my question may have been unclear. I am not looking for an additional meaning of "sow" or "initiate" (as you say, that would be very unlikely to be possible). I am simply looking for a meaning "I saw" with bad grammar analogous to English "I seed". 86.128.1.38 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Phonemic" versus "Phonetic" transcriptions

Hello all,
In the Swedish phonology article, there is a section that contrasts a "phonemic" transcription with a "phonetic" transcription. I grok IPA, and it would seem to me that both would sound exactly the same if they were spoken. What's the difference, and why is it important?
Peter aka "annoying Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language dilettante" aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See phoneme. A phoneme is the smallest, abstract unit of sound that is used to systematically distinguish between words in a given language. Hence, a phonemic transcription will reduce the detail of how each sound is produced to just those distinctive units, whereas a phonetic transcription can include much more fine-grained detail. For instance, in English, the sound "t" will typically sound slightly differently when it's at the beginning of a word and in front of a vowel (e.g. "tin"), than when it occurs in the cluster "st" (e.g. "stick") – in the former case it is aspirated but not in the latter. A phonemic transcription will ignore this difference and only transcribe a single unit /t/ in both cases, because functionally there is no systematic meaning-distinguishing contrast between the two realizations, while a phonetic transcription may render the aspirated version as [tʰ]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add to Future Perfect's good explanation: the reason it is important is that speakers of different languages divide the phonetic space up into phonemes differently. Those two phones [t] and [tʰ] are not distinguished in English (and most English speakers are unaware that they are different), but are regarded as quite different sounds in most Indian languages. Conversely, some languages do not make a distinction between [t] and [d], so for those languages both would be realisations of a single phoneme /t/ or /d/. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Fut.Perf. and Colin. Back in the days when I could speak Japanese, I wasn't much good at proper "rendaku" sort of lenition. Worked hard to reduce the aspiration ubiquitous to English language consonants, but with very little success. When I was an AET, the Junior High School kids had a lot of fun asking me to say "kappa-maki" (cucumber sushi roll). Valiantly tried to avoid /pʰ/ but most often ended up voicing the consonant, ignoring the glottal stop, and saying "kaba-maki" (hippopotamus sushi roll) .--Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar check requested

I was reading our article on the The Terminal and the second sentence in the lede seems to be grammatically incorrect:

"It is about a man, knowing very few English words, is trapped in a terminal at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport when he is denied entry into the United States and at the same time cannot return to his native country, the fictitious Krakozhia, due to a revolution."

So, I added the word "who":[8]

"It is about a man, knowing very few English words, who is trapped in a terminal at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport when he is denied entry into the United States and at the same time cannot return to his native country, the fictitious Krakozhia, due to a revolution."

But it still sounds funny to my ears. Can someone with a better grasp of grammar take a look at this sentence and make sure that it's grammatically correct? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently grammatically correct, but poorly written. It should be split into separate phrases or sentences. One of thousands of options is: "It is about a man, knowing very few English words, who is trapped in a terminal at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. He is denied entry into the United States, yet, at the same time, he cannot return to his native country (the fictitious Krakozhia) due to a revolution." μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Medeis's suggestions, except that I would move the 'who' thus: "It is about a man who, knowing very few English words, is trapped...". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not right. That implies his linguistic shortcoming is the reason for his dilemma. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sorry. I should have read the plot more thoroughly. Maybe "The film is about a man with limited English who..."? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all cool, Cucumber. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Plot also needs work. There's a serious disconnect between the first 2 sentences:
  • Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks) arrives at New York, but finds that his passport is suddenly not valid, so he is not allowed to enter the United States.
  • One day, Dixon pulls Amelia aside to his office and questions whether she really knows Viktor or whether she knows what's in his Planters can. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give the wayward synopsis a sound thrashing. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out some anonymous editor made wholesale ill-advised deletions today. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the entire plot section is completely unsourced and almost certainly purely OR? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curses. I've been unmasked as a fiendish plotter from way back. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


June 2

Distinctive plain form ("infinitive") in English

The verb BE is anomalous in various ways, among them (i) distinctions among am, is, and are, and (ii) a distinction between any of those (the plain present form) on the one hand and be (the plain form) on the other. Putting aside (i), let's look at (ii). Although WP's articles on the history of English (a subject about which I am alas very ignorant) say nothing about the disappearance for other verbs of a distinction between plain present and plain forms (or in traditional terms, the disappearance of a distinctive "infinitive"), I'd guess that distinctive be is the last remnant of a thoroughgoing distinction. Amirite? And if so, were there any other remnants that long outlasted the general loss of the distinction? (Cf given, taken and other present-day remnants of the old -en form.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Be" has acted weirdly in Indoeuropean languages long, long before there was an English language, with the present tense forms based on a variety of other stems, all derived from separate synonyms of "be" in the original IE language. It's an exception because it is so very common, in fact, the most common verb in the English language. I can't think of another verb in another IE language that shows this level of disconnect. Even apparent cases like the Polish word for "to cut" (inf. ciąć, "I cut" "ja tnę") turn out to be regular sound changes based on the same root. The only other similar example in modern English is "went" for the past tense of "go", and that's a recent innovation, not a survival. By the way, in the subjuctive, "be" is totally regular: I be, you be, he/she/it be, we/you/they be. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Hoary's original question: in other English verbs, the distinction between infinitive and finite present-tense forms got lost without a trace because the inflectional affixes fell together and were then lost through regular phonological erosion during Middle English. So a distinction could only survive in those few irregular verbs where these forms had been distinguished in their stems themselves. Besides be, the only possible candidates for such an effect that come to mind would have been the ancestors of today's modal verbs (e.g. shullen vs. shall) and perhaps the preterite-present witen–wat ('know'), but in the modal verbs the infinitive got lost through other, syntactic, processes, and witen just vanished altogether. About D.V.'s comparison with other IE languages, suppletive verb paradigms with more than two distinct stems do occur in Latin (fero–tuli–latum), in quite a few Greek items (ὁράω–ὄψομαι–εἶδον; λέγω–ἐρῶ–λέξω–εἶπον etc.), and in modern Romance (e.g. French aller–vais–irai, 'go'). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though, like "went" in English, the multiple forms of French "aller" are an innovation rather than a survival. All the more interesting, because it shows a merging of two languages. "Aller" is from a Celtic word, where as "vais" and "irai" are from two different Latin words. Suspect the Latin and Greek verbs forms are innovations as well. Shullen/shall and witan/wat are based on the same deep stem, so they are not a good example. They are more like the Polish "Ciąć/tnę" that I mentioned above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About "innovation" versus "survival", I'd say that's two sides of the same coin: all these suppletive sets were innovations at some point in time; the only question is how far back. (English be was still being reshuffled from two distinct verbal paradigms during proto-Germanic and Old English times). The shall and wat examples were not meant to be about suppletion, but more generally about the original poster's question regarding potential survivals of distinct infinitive forms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By survival, I meant survival from Proto-Indoeuropean. The umlaut in "shall" and "wat" may well be survivals of PIE umlaut, though the deep stem is the same. Other examples from Modern English that are slightly relevant to the OP's question are "has" and "says". "Has" has dropped the "v" of the root, and "says" has a vowel change (when spoken). Both have the same deep root, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Yes, I realize both that BE shows an unusual degree of suppletion and that suppletion isn't such a remarkably rare phenomenon. The question wasn't about suppletion -- although I realized that the answer might cite suppletion as a factor. DV, I believe that mainstream linguistics thinking has the subjunctive of today's English using the plain form (traditionally called the "bare infinitive"), so when this rather archaic phenomenon does pop up (usually in the mandative), of course it does so unaffected by person or number. (It's not really in my own idiolect, though of course I can serve it up on demand.)

Witen–wat ('know') is interesting; of course the verb wit itself lingered a long time and even now totters on within a few formulas. (Trivia point: I wonder if it's also behind the name E. L. Wisty.)

I really ought to sink my teeth into a good history of the language some time. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first subjunctive is very much alive, though many, if not most, British English speakers have lost the feel for it, and used a variety of tricks to get around using this form. You'll hear it used a lot more in the States. It would be very wrong to call it the "bare infinitive", though it looks identical, as does the imperative. And I doubt that any linguists call it that. It's just that all the endings have been dropped from the first subjunctive, which coincidentally leaves it looking exactly like the "bare infinitive". The same with the imperative, which also used to have endings, but lost them.
British grammar writers have basically given up trying to explain the subjunctive. British books for teaching English to foreigners don't even mention it, mainly because many Britons who end up teaching English as a foreign language don't quite understand it and use it themselves, unless they speak German. Why German? The subjunctive in German works a lot like the subjunctive in English, except that the endings are still there and the forms can easily be recognized for what they are. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Brits mainly use either of two obvious alternatives: (i) should plus plain form (also OK in US English, I believe), and (ii) the indicative (odd for US speakers). I see no reason to regard either as a "trick". Huddleston and Pullum's (H&P's) Student's Introduction is one grammar book that explains the subjunctive well; as for British-produced English grammar books primarily intended for L2 English speakers and their teachers, I'd imagine that the writers are fully competent to write about it but consider it considerably less important than other aspects of English that are likely to be far less salient to the L1 English speaker. As an example of the latter, here's a problem set by H&P:
We have seen in this chapter that subordi­nate clauses functioning as complement of before, if and hope can have a future time interpretation. For example, if it rains in We'll postpone the match if it rains doesn't mean "if it is raining now", it means "if rain falls at some future time". For each of the following five prepositions and five verbs, construct an example to show whether or not it permits a future time interpretation of a present tense in its complement. [...] (You should avoid examples with a futu­rate interpretation like I know that we leave for Berlin next Tuesday. For these, subordi­nation is irrelevant: the interpretation is the same as for the main clause We leave for Berlin next Tuesday. Thus futurate examples don't provide relevant evidence.)
Incidentally, I'm fully familiar with the subjunctive construction myself and for all I know may have used it (and in all seriousness, rather than as an Americanism or in order to send up pompous writing). I'd guess that a lot of Brits have little trouble with it. As for identifying it as "subjunctive", if this is difficult then I'd tend to blame the predilection of ho-hum grammar books for labeling a variety of apparent oddities as "subjunctive"; one of the merits of CGEL (with its derivative, the Student's Introduction) is that it cuts through this obfuscation. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving ... until ...

The girl I'm tutoring sent me this message: "Do you mind leaving tutoring until 2:45 pm?" What does this mean? The tutoring session was scheduled at 1 pm. Does she want to postpone it to 2:45 or have a 105 min session? Thanks. 60.240.101.246 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would read it as her wanting to postpone the start of the session until 2:45. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jack. If she wanted to cut the session short she would have said "leaving at," not "until." Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"final say" or "the final say"

As at Led Zeppelin:

Under the terms of their contract, the band had autonomy in deciding when they would release albums and tour, and had final say over the contents and design of each album.

or

Under the terms of their contract, the band had autonomy in deciding when they would release albums and tour, and had the final say over the contents and design of each album.

Which would be correct in British English? In my experience, I've much more often heard "final say" used without the definite article, but I wonder if there is an actual rule that covers this. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a "rule". Per Google search on UK sites, "the final say" returns about a million hits [9], whereas "final say" gives only about 27,000 hits [10]. Of course, Google hits are always to be taken with a huge grain of salt, but with a difference this large, it does appear as if "the final say" is much more common in British English. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, "final say" sounds more British to me, vs. "the final say". Like saying "in hospital" instead of "in the hospital" as Americans say. But either way works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "in hospital" is analogous to "at home" or "at school" or "in class". Apart from these standard expressions that have transatlantic subscription, the Brits and their non-American cousins don't have a habit of dropping their "the"s. I think a lot of them would be happy to hear that "The British soccer player David Beckham has announced his retirement", rather than "British soccer player David Beckham has announced his retirement", but they're probably resigned to never hearing such a sentence ever again, unless from the likes of one such as I. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem.... you mean "such as me". Object of the preposition "of". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it understood as "... one such as I am"? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's a faulty analysis. Ą very common mistake, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Fowler (I have the original revised edition to hand, but not the new version, which may differ), under the article on as (discussing whether he or him is to be used in similar situations): "...to insist on writing he always ... seems pedantic, though he is always admissible ..." (this conclusion is supported by reasoning). So in the above case, this would imply that me is more normal, but I is also OK (which also accords with my own intuition). Victor Yus (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the Brits and their non-American cousins don't have a habit of dropping their "the"s. I think a lot of them would be happy to hear that "The British soccer player David Beckham has announced his retirement", rather than "British soccer player David Beckham has announced his retirement", but they're probably resigned to never hearing such a sentence ever again, unless from the likes of one such as I. -- So (A) they don't have a habit of saying such-and-such themselves, but (B) they're so accustomed to having it said to them that they're probaby resigned to its ubiquity? An odd situation indeed. On this construction, see "Renowned author Dan Brown staggered through his formulaic opening sentence" (not least for the laughs). My own impression is that it has spread very quickly. It was an affectation of Time and some other magazines before spreading across US journalism, but it's now so British that it's routine in the Guardian. Just from a minuscule article there that I happened to be reading just now: "After 20 years of journeying around the world, travel writer Sylvain Tesson decided he wanted to stay put and fulfil his dream of 'living as a hermit.'" -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's a feature of written English (particularly journalese) that you wouldn't normally expect to hear in speech (though you might hear it in spoken news reports, sports commentary, etc.) Victor Yus (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dominus! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am from the UK and "the final say" sounds much more usual to me. "final say" sounds borderline wrong. 86.148.152.136 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Victor Yus (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "the final say" is more common here in the UK, and the meaning of "in hospital" differs from the meaning of "in the hospital". Many of us prefer not to use the American word "hospitalized", though it is gaining in acceptability here. The British equivalent is "in hospital". Dbfirs 16:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean and jerk

Where does the "clean" portion of clean and jerk come from? Does it relate to washing or tidying? Dismas|(talk) 23:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this is a mystery. No source seems to have even a guess. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some digging, but I had always assumed it referred to a "clean" as in unblemished lift; that part of the lift is supposed to occur in one fluid motion, with no stops or intermediate pauses, lifting in one "clean" motion from the floor to the chest. But I'll look and see what I can find. --Jayron32 00:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've given it my best effort that five minutes and google can give, and I must admit, I'm lost. I cannot backup my above supposition with any references. Even good online dictionaries like Oxford and such don't indicate the origin of the phrase or why the first part of the lift is called the "clean". All the sources I can find indicate that the "clean and jerk" come from the two phases of the lift, but none of them indicates why that first phase came to be called the "clean". --Jayron32 00:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My Macquarie Dictionary tells me that the rules for the lift demand that the barbell must not touch the body at any stage. This may well be the "clean" aspect. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I find it interesting that the first relates to the quality of the motion while the second half of the term relates to the method. For instance, with something like "ready, aim, fire" they are all actions.
Thanks all for the input thus far! Dismas|(talk) 09:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Macquarie is clean out of its mind. "During this continuous movement, the barbell may slide along the thighs and the lap. The barbell must not touch the chest before the final position."[11] Plus, at the end, the lifter rests the weight on his or her clavicles or thereabouts before trying the jerk portion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Translating an oddball sentence into Latin

I want to render the sentence "Life happens at lunchtime" in Latin. Of course I can use a Latin dictionary, and I think I've used mine to figure out the right words, conjugations, and declensions. (And although there's no single word like our compound "lunchtime", I assume constructing a phrase that conveys that meaning shouldn't be hard. My best guess is to use hora and prandium.) But without consulting somebody who knows Latin grammar and vocabulary on a more instinctive level than I do, I can't feel certain that I wouldn't screw up somewhere. And I hate it when people get Latin wrong. A. Parrot (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difficulty here is to know whether by "lunchtime" you mean the mid-day meal or the small meal. Through history many cultures have preferred to eat a large "dinner" near mid-day, and a smaller "supper" in the evening, so the two are not necessarily the same. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot, why don't you tell us what you've got so far, and we'll see how we can improve it. One bit of advice I can give right off the bat, though, is that Latin is a very literal-minded language. English uses all sorts of metaphors that make no sense in Latin, a language where you really have to say precisely what you mean. In this case, to say something that sounds like something Cicero or Caesar would say, you might have to first convert it into what you literally mean, maybe something like "Important decisions are made at lunch" and then translate that into Latin. Angr (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Figures. Well, the sense I'm trying to convey is that the most pleasant / most fundamental / most profound part of life takes place around the time of the midday meal. (It's a deliberate and slightly silly exaggeration of a vague and subjective feeling I've sometimes had.)
I was thinking of using vita; then, as the verb, the third-person form of either accidere (accidit?) or that strange verb that my dictionary refers to as fio fieri factus sum; then maybe ad hora prandii or whatever other phrase might convey the sense "at the time of (midday) lunch".
But to more literally reflect my meaning, maybe I should try to translate "The essence of life takes place at lunchtime". Essentia might work there, though I don't know whether it can be used with a verb meaning "happen" or "take place". Another option might be "The essence of life is at lunchtime", though whether that could be rendered sensibly in Latin, I don't know. A. Parrot (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, but here are my best guesses: "Life happens at lunchtime" = "Vita in hora prandii fit"; "The essence of life happens at lunchtime" = "Essentia vitae in hora prandii fit". At here should in, not ad, which means "to, towards" in the directional sense (cf. "nunc et in hora mortis nostrae"). Fio is the passive of facio, so literally it means "is done", and might be the most general. Of the other options for the verb, here's what Lewis & Short says: "(The distinction between the syn. evenio, accido, and contingo is this: evenio, i. e. ex-venio, is used of either fortunate or unfortunate events: accido, of occurrences which take us by surprise; hence it is used either of an indifferent, or, which is its general use, of an unfortunate occurrence: contingo, i. e. contango, indicates that an event accords with one's wishes; and hence is generally used of fortunate events. As Isid. says, Differ. 1: Contingunt bona: accidunt mala: eveniunt utraque)". Lesgles (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Does anyone see problems with Lesgles' suggestions, or are they good to go? A. Parrot (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smearing black stuff on the palate to measure place of articulation

I remember when I took an introductory phonetics course years ago, we saw images of what people used to test place of articulation before electropalatography existed--they would smear some black stuff (apparently a mixture of chocolate and something sooty) on a person's palate, then have them say a sound, then take a picture of the palate to see where the tongue had made contact.

What's that method called? I can't for the life of me remember it, and I want to find some images of it to include in slides for a class I'm preparing (specifically, to illustrate k-fronting in English). Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the answer, but it reminds me of disclosing tablets for detecting dental plaque. There is a slight possibility that this information can help other editors to provide the needed answer.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page, it's a mixture of olive oil and "powdered digestive charcoal" (whatever that is); you paint it on the tongue and take a picture of the palate to produce a palatogram, and then you paint it on the palate and take a picture of the tongue to produce a linguogram. Our rather incomplete article is at palatography. Angr (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it! Thanks. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Logical" languages

I only speak English. Even though I am a native English speaker, I can find the language confusing. It seems to me that there are not only grammar rules (of course) and "exceptions to the rules," but also "exceptions to the exceptions!" To me, there does not seem to be a "logic" to the English language. For example, the singular is goose while the plural is geese. Although it rhymes, the singular is moose and the plural is moose. The singular is mouse while the plural is mice. And so on. So, my questions are: are there any languages that are more "logical" than other languages? If so, what makes them "logical" and how to those languages remain "logical" over time.

99.250.103.117 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about natural human languages, probably not really, although some languages may seem that way to speakers of other languages. Sanskrit seemed so perfect to the speakers of its later descendants that they gave it its name, which means "Perfect". And Sanskrit does indeed have fewer irregularities than English, say, but it still does have some irregularities and illogicalities. If you want truly logical languages, you have to turn to artificial constructed languages like Lojban. Angr (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for a natural language with very few exeptions, Japanese is a contender, but it has a lot of other features that you will probably find "illogical" (the writing system is the main one for me). --Lgriot (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish is pretty regular - only two genders, single verb forms for each tense, no noun declension, relatively few irregular verbs or plural nouns, compound tenses in pretty much the same places English has them - and is structurally close to English, with a very similar alphabet. Of the languages I speak, I found it to be the most 'logical' and the easiest to pick up. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure "similar to English" is really the same as "logical". Among the languages I've come across, Turkish has always struck me as impressively regular and consistent. Very consistent typological patterns (head-final throughout, agglutinative throughout); very nearly phonemic spelling system; very transparent and regular phonological patterns in the vowel harmony; hardly any lexical irregularities in the morphological system beyond that; no nonsense about inflection classes, grammatical gender or the like. You can basically pick up the whole inflectional system within a few hours (though employing it in its many combinatorial possibilities is a different matter). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish is an interesting example because it's a language that, within the past century, underwent a really strong top-down movement (mandated by the government) to clean it up and standardize it. So, languages that have recently undergone this sort of authoritative standardization would be one place to start looking for more "logical" languages. Of course, there are many exceptions--in the case of French, the Académie française once tried to keep the language neat and tidy but it has not been successful in that [misguided] endeavor. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you are confused is because English has gathered words from anywhere and everywhere it finds itself. So we have words from our origins (apple, ball etc), from our conquerors (adroit), from our empire (verandah, yacht)and ones invented by famous English speakers (accused, addiction): not to mention Hebrew "Christian" names (David, Abigail). No other language does this on such a scale. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pidgin is another article you'd find interesting reading. These languages are in the early stages of formation and are considered "simplified"... 184.147.118.213 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&oldid=558194313"