Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

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.

November 23

Nerd v. Geek

Which of the terms is more insulting? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say geek is more insulting. Being bookish and socially inept isn't nearly as bad as biting the heads off live chickens. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reference to biting chicken heads off. AIUI both terms are used to label a socially inept, bookish person who is interested in an "intellectual" subject such as IT or chemistry. Would such a person use "nerd" to describe themself and regard "geek" as an insult? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Geek show for the reference. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only my personal opinion, but I would agree that "geek" is more insulting. It implies a degree of obsession with a subject, beyond mere social inadequacy. A nerd is someone you don't want to meet at a party unless you're interested in the subject of his nerdishness. A geek is someone you don't want to meet anywhere, especially if you're interested in the subject of his geekiness. Incidentally, "nerd" is a semi-official term in UK patent law - see Rockwater v Coflexip paras 7 - 10, per Jacob LJ. Tevildo (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, the term "geek" is highly insulting, which is why Best Buy doesn't publicly use the term "Geek Squad".[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My husband proudly associates himself with both terms and doesn't find them at all insulting! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those terms used to be kind of insulting, but now they're worn like a badge of honor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd implies intelligence, Geek doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind when I make myself look like a fool. I do mind when I look like a fool unintentionally. These words are now embraced by some because it transfers the power of the word. I'm happy to be a geek and/or nerd. The context matters if someone else is calling me a geek or nerd. Its all about intent. The word itself isn't insulting, but the reason for them saying it might be. --Onorem (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems relevant, particularly the mouseover text. Matt Deres (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Arabic

Hi. First thing to say, I don't know anything about the Arabic language. I'm translating some English articles about Governorates of Lebanon into my first language. As the community there asks members to use native names for foreign geographical names, for example they use "München", not "Munich", I need to know how to convert Arabic script into Latin script. For example, the native name of Beqaa Governorate is البقاع, which is transliterated into Al-Biqā', but the English article uses "Beqaa", while Babylon.com gives "Bekaa". Why "Beqaa"? Should I write "Biqa" or "Biqa' " or "Bekaa" or "Beqaa"? Please help. Gaconnhanhnhen (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It sounds as if you think there is a right answer which you just need somebody to tell you. I'm afraid there isn't. There are many different systems, some favoured by some organisations, and others by others. Furthermore, romanisation is language dependent: an English romanisation of Arabic would use 'y' for ئ and 'j' for ج, whereas a German romanisation would use 'j' and 'dsch' respectively for the same sounds. So you need a romanisation appropriate to your target language. As for 'Beqaa' - the rule for foreign names in the English Wikipedia is to use the most common name in English, but it sounds as if your target Wikipedia has a different rule. You might find the article Romanization of Arabic helpful, but in the end, I think you'll need to ask for advice on the particular Wikipedia you're using. --ColinFine (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is no one universally accepted romanization of Arabic. That's why there are maybe as many 112 possible spellings of Muammar Gaddafi. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaconnhanhnhen -- On the one hand, there are scholarly transliteration systems, which attempt to unambiguously represent all relevant features of full Arabic writing (i.e. with vowel diacritics and other diacritics included). On the other hand, there are rough-and-ready journalistic-style systems, which are concerned with an approximate rendering of Arabic spoken sounds (more than Arabic writing) into the sounds of the non-Arabic target language, as reflected using the spelling patterns of the target language. Most scholarly transliterations won't use "e" or "o" to represent Arabic short vowels, to start with... The "aa" in journalistic type renderings is presumably to provide some indication of the voiced pharyngeal `ayn consonant at the end of the word without resorting to special symbols. For what goes italicized in parentheses near the top of the article, use Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic; for most other purposes, use the most common spelling found in English (if there is one).

Then of course there's always the Lawrence of Arabia method: Arabic names won't go into English, exactly, for their consonants are not the same as ours, and their vowels, like ours, vary from district to district. There are some "scientific systems" of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a washout for the world. I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are.

-- AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual answer depends on your goals and means. Do you want to use fully-diacritic scientific transliteration or diacritic-free 26-letter one? Do you want to use Anglocentric or adopted to Vietnamese? I am sure there are already standards for Arabic-to-Vietnamese transliteration, as one should reflect somehow Arabic in Vietnamese library catalogues and maps at least. Better to follow them.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Thanks for your explanations. There are so many things to say about the difficulties for local people when translating articles here. The government keeps harping on great things but they do nothing to help formalize a set of transliteration rule for foreign names. Books or the media have no rule either. Sometimes they use English names, less much often French names, sometimes their unofficial transliteration. There's no rule at all, so as a last resort the community asks members to use native names though they may be extremely exotic to us, for example "München" is very uncommon compared to "Munich" (here in my country), but there are at least 5 transliteration forms (not to mention those forms without dash), none of which has been officialized: "Mu-ních", "Mu-nich", "Miu-ních", "Miu-nich" and "Mu-níc". I think I'll choose "Beqaa" as English is more common. Many thanks. Gaconnhanhnhen (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just some explanations why this is used. Beqaa is not strictly scientific. Letter ⟨e⟩ is used here as in Levantine Arabic short phoneme /i/ is pronounced close to sound [e]. Or another explanation (less probable): they tried to reflect Arabic /i/ with English spelling hence ⟨e⟩ which in open syllables is pronounced [iː] in English. Letter ⟨q⟩ rather reflects Arabic writing while ⟨k⟩ rather reflects the local dialect where there no Standard Arabic sound [q]. Double ⟨aa⟩ is to reflect long Arabic /aː/ (spelled ⟨ā⟩ in scientific notation). And all the variants are used.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Arabic long a (ا) is not generally transcribed into English journalistic style transcriptions as "aa". I bet the doubled vowel letter partly reflects the pharyngeal ع consonant... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could also write in social media style, as "el-beq3a". --Soman (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the article Arabic chat alphabet which covers this style. --Theurgist (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, it's generally not appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles (except those which discuss chat Arabic itself)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin text from the title page of a book

Hi, just wanted to check if I translated these Latin texts from the title page of a book into English correctly:

Inertis est nescire quot sibi liceat. → Dullards are ignorant of what they are allowed to do.
Hac ego grandavus posui tibi, candide Lector. → I, of great age, put this to you, friendly reader.

Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is cowardly/lazy not to know what one is permitted

Hence old I have put this before thee, innocent reader.

μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Thus we see the danger of relying on Google Translate. By the way, the letters "I.C." appear after Edward Coke's name. Is this a misprinting for "P.C." (Privy Councillor), or something else? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's "J. C.", standing for "juris consultus" - see this 1797 edition of the Institutes. Tevildo (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hence old I"? I thought the OP wanted it translated into English? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. Yes, I did wonder what that means, exactly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hence I, who am very old, have put...". Modifying subject pronouns with adjectives isn't really done in English. (I once spent some time training a German friend of mine to stop saying "Poor she!" and start saying "Poor her!" when commiserating with someone.) Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed perfectly clear, thanks, Angr. Of course, I have heard some people say they find Tolkien difficult, which always surprises little old me. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's another one: "Prodesse, non Obesse. Illud ex animo siet, hoc præter voluntatem accidet." How should this be translated into English, and is it a quotation from a well-known author? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Horace's Typographical antiquities. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found that one, but Coke's text doesn't appear in any version of Ars Poetica that I can find. (The preceding text, "Sunt delicta tamen quibus ignouisse uelimus..." is at lines 347 - 350). Tevildo (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are still looking for a translation:

To be in favor

Not to oppose

Be the former from the heart (lit., "spirit")

The latter haps against the will.

μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You've lost me at "haps against the will", though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Occurs against choice"? "To hap" is in Shakespeare and at Wiktionary. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so ... — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

Japanese movie wallpaper, what's the name of the movie

This is the wallpaper, it's about serial killer Tsutomu Miyazaki. What's the name of the movie? Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.179.53 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yume no naka, ima mo" which would mean "In a dream, even now". I don't know the official English title, but that is a translation of the Japanese. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a movie, but a book written by Miyazaki. See [2]. Oda Mari (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon metaphors

Dear colleagues! I'm writing on a German WP article, about "cannon metaphors", most of which originated during the times of Kaiser Wilhelm (example Kanonenfieber cannon fever, a kind of stage fright in the face of war...). To show the difference, how cannon metaphors are used in different cultures, I decided to add sections about English and French cannon metaphors. Cannon fodder (Kanonenfutter) is the first that comes to mind. "A loose cannon" is another typical English one (with a French background). Do you have other suggestions from the (US or British) English language? Cannon, cannon ball, cannon whatever? The When and Why I can then research myself. Thx GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannonball Run, for one. And the train song, "Wabash Cannonball". And anyone who can throw a baseball or football with exceptional force and distance is said to have a "cannon" for an arm. Somewhat indirectly, a German WWI cannon called "Big Bertha" led to that term being synonymous with any big, powerful or noisy machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Adderley became known in high school as "Cannonball" Adderley, but that was a corruption of "cannibal", because he had an appetite that knew no limits. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In the cannon's mouth" meaning a dangerous situation comes from Shakespeare's "Seven ages of man" monologue. "The cannon's roar" might fit the bill too - I found it mentioned in a 19th century nursery rhyme[3] but must be much older. The question is a little complicated, because an English-speaking WWI soldier would have talked about "guns" rather than "cannons" which infers an obsolete muzzle-loading weapon - "cannon" is not a direct translation of "kanon". Alansplodge (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoist with your own petard" might do I suppose, since a petard was a type of artillery. Alansplodge (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon (TV series). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's the expression "Trust in God and keep your powder dry", which roughly means to stay alert and prepared, although I'm not sure if the gunpowder is meant to be used in a cannon or gun. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it referred originally and primarily to the powder for a flintlock musket, where damp powder was likely to cause a misfire, a particular problem for infantry of the period. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a gun refers to cannons, and has several meanings. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far: Great! THANKS! ... now a visit in the fr:wp. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canon law refers to religious law. A pun on this, "Cannon law" means the rule of force or the law imposed by conquest. DES ^(talk) 17:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the queen has a baby, they fire a 21-gun salute. When a nun has a baby, they fire a dirty old canon....Old joke, sorry. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pachelbel's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Tennyson's The Charge of the Light Brigade:

...

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them

Volley'd and thunder'd;

Storm'd at with shot and shell,

Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death,

Into the mouth of Hell

Rode the six hundred.

... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

German and French

Does anyone know what you call a pairing of words which are German and French in origin, like "law and order"? Also, are there any more examples of such a phrase? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 06:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should say 'a pairing of words which are Old English and French in origin'. The technical term for a pairing of words is hendiadys, of which this is a subset. There are so many hendiadys-es with OE and Fr components, especially in the legal area, that it has been thought they come from a bilingual period in English after 1066, when to obviate misunderstanding things were defined in both languages (though I only know of this theory by reading someone who pooh-poohed it). I'd like to have references on this. I think I read of it in a book on (by?) Marshall McLuhan, who was very interested in hendiadys towards the end of his life.Djbcjk (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rembar, in The Law of the Land supported that theory, suggestign that often there was a triple, using words drived from Old English, Norman French, and Latin. "Give, devise and bequeath" was one example that he cited. There are also many cases where the word for a cooked meat is derived from French, while the name of the animal is derived from Old English. "Veal" is one such case. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that devise and bequeath are technically different – devise is used for a gift of real property, and bequeath for personal property. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if these are true hendiadyses, but common word pairings in English include justice and right, token and pledge and will and testament. Only will and testament mean exactly the same thing; in the other phrases, the words have slightly different meanings. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice will and testament is OE + Fr. Are they always in this order? Djbcjk (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add cease and desist and assault and battery. That last one seems to put the French first. StuRat (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See our article on legal doublet. (In cease and desist and assault and battery, both elements are Romance though). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A visiting lecturer at law school once explained that cease and desist wasn't simply repeating the same thing, as it means "stop now, and do not start up again in future". I was going to say something, but undergraduates (and especially undergraduates who are amateur dabblers in linguistics) simply do not interrupt Supreme Court Justices. It's interesting to note that two French derogatory words for the English - Les goddams and rosbif - combine a Germanic followed by a Romance element. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assault and battery aren't the same either. Technically, an assault is "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact" (this is from our article on the subject). All that is required is an apprehension of contact, not contact itself. Thus, if I advance towards a person while rolling up my sleeves, and say, "I'm going to punch your brains out," that is an assault. Battery, on the other hand, requires physical contact. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not assize-time, I'd say that cease and desist do actually mean the same thing, but then this thread might end up on a frolic of its own :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you're claiming that they do mean the same thing? I think you're just wrong, then. The "visiting lecturer" was quite correct — cease means "stop", whereas "desist" means "don't do it anymore". --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One example of a Germanic/Romance pairing is "bits and pieces", but there are also Germanic/Germanic ones ("might and main", "time and tide") and Romance/Romance ones ("vim and vigor", "null and void"). English speakers seem to like such pairings, especially when they're alliterative (indeed, they are frequent in medieval English alliterative verse). Deor (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few examples from the Bible. I vaguely remember hearing somewhere there was a Hebrew literary figure of repetition. "Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise." (Psalm 100, somewhat seasonally relevant in the US). I would be curious to know whether we have an article on this figure.

In at least one case, it's the root of what is arguably a serious misconstrual: "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life" (Matthew 7:14). Strait and narrow are pretty much exact synonyms, but the phrase has morphed into "the straight [sic] and narrow", where "straight" seems to have a connotation of doing what's expected of one. That's very different from the passage in question, which suggests that whatever most people are doing is probably the wrong thing. --Trovatore (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the curiosity expressed at the end of your first paragraph, the topic is sketchily covered in Biblical poetry#Parallelism and is mentioned in various other places, as in Robert Lowth. Deor (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that is indeed helpful. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know who is he". Is this an acceptable sentence in the spoken language?

I don't know where are you, I don't know why are you crying, and likewise... 77.125.248.237 (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to say "I don't know who he is", "I don't know where you are", "I don't know why you are crying". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Content clause#Interrogative content clauses, noting particularly the statement that "direct questions normally use subject-verb inversion, while indirect questions do not". Deor (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday = week

Are there any other languages except for Slavics where Sunday also means "week"?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Tagalog "Linggo" means Sunday and "linggo" means week. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the assumption in your question really true? I played with google translator and it seems to me that having one and the same word for "Sunday" and "week" is an exception even among Slavic languages. In fact, ~~Russian and~~ Serbian ~~were~~ was the only ones I found. There are tons of languages, however, whose word for Sunday means "week" in Russian (as opposed to "week" in that language). Is this perhaps what you meant? For example, in Polish the word niedziela, AFAIK, does NOT also mean week (which would be tydzień).Asmrulz (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word 礼拜 (禮拜 in traditional characters) can mean both "Sunday" and "week" in Mandarin Chinese. Marco polo (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asmrulz, re your There are tons of languages, however, whose word for Sunday means "week" in Russian (as opposed to "week" in that language). I've read it numerous times but it presents an insuperable challenge to comprehension. Can you please explain what you mean? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian неделя meant simultaneously "Sunday" and "week" since its earliest attestation in the 11th until at least the 17th century, the second meaning then prevailed and воскресенье became the word for Sunday. Common Slavic neděl’a has or had both meanings in all the Slavics including Old Polish and dialectal Polish.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why Monday is ponedelnik in Russian! — Kpalion^(talk) 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never knew that. Never in a months of Sundays..... <- probably unrelated, but could it be? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Slavic peculiarity looks like usual synecdoche. Hence I'd like to know about similar cases in other languages. By the way, there is also another word for week: седмица "sevendays" which is now archaic.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have the very archaic 'senight' ('seven nights') in English according to my old primary school teacher when I was 10. I'm 40 now, and I haven't heard the word since. We of course have 'fortnight' ('fourteen nights'), too. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around in Bulgarian: седмица is standard for "week", and неделя is archaic for "week" but standard for "Sunday". --Theurgist (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Cambodian, ថ្ងៃអាទិត្យ (Khmer pronunciation: [tʰŋaj ʔaːtɨt]) means "Sunday" (literally, "day sun") and អាទិត្យ (Khmer pronunciation: [ʔaːtɨt], from Sanskrit āditya, "sun") means week. The native Khmer word for "sun", tʰŋaj also means "day". Thai is similar: วันอาทิตย์ ([wan aːtʰit]) is "Sunday", อาทิตย์ ([aːtʰit]) can mean "sun" or "week".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual spelling of the archaic English term seems to be sennight, or alternatively se'nnight, according to various dictionary references I found online. --Theurgist (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Korean, ko:주일 can mean week and can also mean Sunday in a church context. The two meanings are spelled and pronounced the same in Korean, but they are not etymologically related. (They have different Chinese characters.) --Amble (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

the meaning of "give you lot an inch and you take a bloody mile"

Would you please teach me the meaning of "give you lot an inch and you take a bloody mile" in the following passage?

  "Jesus Christ, will you stop nagging at me?  I've agreed to stay away 
  from the jar until after they've been and gone, which is a fine imposition
  to put on a man who's going to lash out for a fancy society wedding.  
  But still, give you lot an inch and you take a bloody mile..."---
  Maeve Binchy, p.667.

122.19.123.34 (talk)dengen —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The speaker is a man given to indulgence in alcohol ("the jar"). Others ("you lot") are concerned about that. He has already apparently agreed that he will not drink until after "they" (likely the bride and groom) have come to the reception and left again (the bride and groom tend to leave before the other guests). That's the "inch" he has given them, this promise to stay away from the jar during a specific time period. Obviously, "you lot" want more than that, and that's the "mile" they want to take. (If you have grown up with the metric system, substitute a centimetre for the inch, and a kilometre for the mile. The sense will be right.) There is an overtone of "you lot are never satisfied" that goes along with the saying. Bielle (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give someone an inch, and she'll run a mile laughing. :) Sorry, someone had to say it.KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a well-known nautical expression - "Give a winch an inch, and it'll take a foot." Tevildo (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another phrase for this is the slippery slope. In either case, a small compromise on your part leads to expectations of greater compromise later. StuRat (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means, "give you lot 2.54 centimeters and you take a bloody kilometer and 61 hundredths." μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madams?

In an email to an organization where the recipient or recipients are more likely to be female than male, what would be the appropriate salutation? "Dear sirs" doesn't quite fit, "Dear madams" sounds even worse. The recipient(s) are in the UK. And what would be the appropriate valediction? Yours sincerely/Best regards/Kind regards? In case it matters, the recipient is an external quality control agency. Thanks, --91.186.78.4 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to books of etiquette, the proper plural of "Dear Sir:" is "Gentlemen:". So the proper address to a group known to be largely female should perhaps be "Gentlewomen:" DES ^(talk) 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, "Ladies and Gentlemen" has largely replaced "Gentlemen" in business use. John M Baker (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sending the email to a single recipient whose name you don't know, then 'Dear Madam' would be fine. If you are sending it to multiple recipients within the same organization, then it would be considered spam. It's better to find out who the point of contact is, and contact her personally. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old generic greeting is "Dear Sir or Madam". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional plural of Madam was Mesdames, but Dear Mesdames doesn't sound right. As for the valediction, again tradition said that 'Dear Mr Smith' was followed by 'Yours sincerely', but 'Dear Sir' (or other generic salutation) was followed by 'Yours faithfully'. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're writing a formal letter to an organisation, then "Dear Sir" is the salutation and "Yours faithfully" is what you end with. If you're writing a formal letter to someone whose name you know, then "Dear Mr X/Ms Y" is the salutation and "Yours sincerely" is the signoff. The plural form of address is not nowadays used in the UK. It is possible to use "Dear Madam" if you know your letter will be received by a woman. However, my suggestion is to telephone the organisation in advance and find out the name of the exact person whom you wish to see your letter: standard practice in all the offices I've ever worked in was to file the "Dear Sir" letters in a circular file, as the person couldn't be arsed to do their homework. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP: Thanks everyone for speedy replies! It is quite possible, even probable, that I know the name of the person who will receive the email. This is an organization that we buy services from. When writing an email to a group of recipients, I believe (can't check, home now) that they start their emails with "Dear participant" and end with "Kind Regards". The problem is that I am writing to a no-name inbox, but don't want to make it excessively formal. "Dear inbox@company.co.uk" is just weird, no? They are expecting emails from the participants about a certain issue, so there is no risk of my email being mistaken for spam. --109.189.65.217 (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I (living and working in the States) tend to start that sort of email "Dear colleague," or in your case maybe "Dear quality controller," or whatever their title is likely to be. I tend not to end business emails with anything but "Thanks." (assuming there is anything to express thanks for), and then my name on a separate line. I've seen colleagues in the UK use "Cheers" instead of "Thanks." Marco polo (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no name then Dear Sir or Madam. Yours faithfully to close. Dear colleague only for people in your own organisation. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/madam is fine, for example when contacting a bank about PPI and you have no idea who it goes to. When I write to a company about software problems, I would generally use 'Dear Support Team', until I get a reply, and then I use the person's name for all further correspondance. "To whom it may concern" is also a valid option. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plural form of address is not nowadays used in the UK. I'm in the UK and my organisation (a firm of solicitors, if that makes a difference) sends and receives letters and emails addressed "Dear Sirs" all the time. In fact, we'd only not use it when writing to a specific named individual (in which case "Dear Mr X", etc.). Proteus (Talk) 14:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it was still widely used in the City a decade ago. Alansplodge (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A letter in the simplified letter style does not require a salutation.

Simplified Format Letter

—Wavelength (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish ll and Italian gl

Both Spanish (Castilian) "ll" and Italian "gl" are defined as [ʎ] in IPA However, I think there are differences. In my opinion, Spanish ll sounds more [j] and Italian gl more [lj]. I know that in southern Spain is affected by Yeísmo and I don't know if I've been exposed to the right pronunciation in recordings. What do you think?--2.245.183.124 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For several generations yeísmo has been expanding, to the point where it is now the dominant, and arguably standard, pronunciation in most of the Spanish-speaking world. As our article indicates, yeísmo is dominant in Madrid and much of urban Spain and in most of Latin America, aside from some Andean regions. The IPA definition of "ll" as [ʎ] probably reflects an older standard, since that pronunciation used to prevail in Madrid and much of Spain. I don't have any expertise in Italian, but I believe "gl" really is pronounced [ʎ], though this can sound like [lj] to native speakers of English, since [ʎ] doesn't occur in English (at least not phonemically). Marco polo (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling candle wax

What would be the right work to describe what happens to liquid candle wax when it cools? "Congeal" sounds a bit too much like the fatty top layer in chicken broth. --76.169.84.42 (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candle wax "hardens" as it cools, is what comes to mind. Another possibility, less likely in common parlance (due to its length?) would be "solidifies." -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker, I too would use harden or solidify over congeal for candle wax. Dismas|^(talk) 07:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are television reporters cliche magnets?

I'm not sure if there are references for this, but I'll ask anyway.

Any half-decent writing course will advise aspiring writers and professional communicators to avoid cliches like the plague (pun). I imagine a person who had undertaken writing courses would be at an advantage for a job as a TV reporter, over someone with no such training; if this is true, then that suggests the TV stations support the sorts of principles that writing courses teach. Yet, TV reporters seem to use as many cliches as they can possibly fit in: "spiralling out of control", "in lockdown", "a tight-knit community", "in a moving ceremony", "horror smash", etc, the whole sad litany. This is the exact opposite of what they were taught to do.

Are they given their writing instructions by the stations, and have to choose between their principles and their pay packets? Or is it up to individual reporters how they frame their reports, and do they all try to sound like each other? Why would they all aim for the lowest possible common standard, rather than something higher? (I'm obviously generalising here; there are some reporters who have very individual styles, but they're the all-too-uncommon exceptions.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have to say something recognizable, with cachet, of profundity, under pressure. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, don't you remember Frontline? That's one of the many things they satirised. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to miss virtually all of that series; but doesn't that just confirm what I'm saying about the massive overuse of cliches, rather than explain why they do it, contrary to all good advice? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You try being original, day in and day out, in front of the camera while you're just trying to remember the particulars of the story you're reporting. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Clarity. At the end of the day, they have to think on their feet.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the reporters in the studio reading off tele-prompters? That would eliminate the need to think on their feet. As for the puns and word play, I think they do it in the more light-hearted stories in order to appear human in order to form a bond with the audience and not appear as automatons just reading copy. Dismas|^(talk) 07:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't necessarily so out in the field. In the studio, okay, but then the burden shifts to the writers, plus even when the talking heads read the text, it's probably more comforting for them to see familiar phrasing rather than something entirely new and unexpected. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me it indicates plagiarism. I see one news show refer to a particular person as "the man in question", and then every other news show also refers to him with the same phrase. Clearly they are copying each other. StuRat (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was getting at with my reference above to them all trying to sound like each other. A case in point: Back in about 2002, a footballer named James Hird suffered serious damage to his eye socket and skull during a football match, as a result of an on-field collision with another player. Every single news report I read or watched (print, radio, TV, online) called it "a sickening collision" (here's proof). Some of them could have called it "horrifying" (as Wikipedia does) or "shocking" or "devastating" or various other things, but they all chose "sickening". That expression had never had any particular currency before then, and this was far from the first serious collision in the history of the game, so clearly there was some copying of whichever news outlet used it first. But suddenly it was born, and ever since then, it gets trotted out regularly, whenever 2 guys smash into each other. However, I have yet to be sickened when observing such incidents. Maybe I'm more robust than the average spectator. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever noticed how disabled athletes in the Paralympics or similar, and very sick children, are so very often brave? HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, they go farther and call them "heroes". StuRat (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have always objected to kids with cancer being called "special children". It's not that they're not, but the message is that those who have the tragic misfortune to have perfect health are not special. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've concluded that there is a severe lack of writers employed by news agencies any more, and they are using every trick in the book to cover this up. Plagiarism is one method. Another I've found quite annoying seems to infect print journalism. For example, they will have an article titled "In-depth analysis of Iran's nuclear weapons program". The first paragraph is about something new, like the recent negotiations between the US and Iran. The remaining paragraphs are just former articles about Iran's nuclear program, all concatenated together, as if that makes for an in-depth analysis. And much of the old material is outdated/superceded, like they might list the wrong names for the current leaders of Iran. StuRat (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason that so many news sources use the same wording is that they're copying from the same press releases or reporting from the same off-the-record press briefings. I remember the day Hamid Karzai's government was sworn in in Afghanistan, every UK news source I consulted called it "the first peaceful transition of power in Afghanistan in 30 years", despite the obvious fact that it took a war to oust the previous government. I have no doubt that phrase was used in an off-the-record briefing by a government spokesman, and everybody followed it. In the (Aussie Rules) football example Jack mentions, there was probably a briefing by his club or the sport's governing body that used the phrase "sickening collision", and everybody followed that. Otherwise, the reason why they fall back on clichés is the same reason that sports commentators are such a goldmine of malapropisms and mixed metaphors - they have to produce a lot of words at short notice, and naturally fall back on shortcuts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your thoughts, people. If anyone ever comes upon a reference to this issue, please drop in for a cuppa. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ph vs F in terms of root source.

Is the following statement true? If a word has a ph pronounced as an f then the root word for that part of the word comes from Greek and if it has an f pronounced as f then it doesn't come from Greek. I guess the possible answers are 'yes', 'no' and 'in almost all cases'

Some words did not come from Greek like nephew (< OFr neveu < Lat nepos). Hence the answer is "in almost all cases".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also the entry on "ph" on a list of digraphs. On the other hand there are English words using the letter f that entered the language via French, but the root word might still be considered Greek, such as "fantasy from Old French fantaisie (14c.) "vision, imagination," from Latin phantasia, from Greek phantasia "appearance, image, perception, imagination," from phantazesthai "picture to oneself," from phantos "visible," from phainesthai "appear," in late Greek "to imagine, have visions," related to phaos, phos "light," phainein "to show, to bring to light"" (from the Online Etymology Dictionary, see link). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AS Lyuboslov has shown, the answer is "not in all cases" but the rule is pretty good in the positive case that ph > Greek (φ). The presence of ph, hard ch (χ), and y as an internal vowel are good hints a word is Greek. The presence of a v implies it is not (ancient) Greek and a w that it is neither Greek nor Latin. A th implies a word is not latinate, but probably either native English (þ,ð) or Greek (θ)^[1]. None of these is hard and fast. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the exceptions prove the existence of the rule. And let's not forget rh < Greek ρ. --Theurgist (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

Your Nadals, your Sharapovas

Is there a term for the device often adopted by commentators when they pluralise a surname in order to convert that person into a type, or class? Such as "Pro golf is lucrative for the McIlroys, the Scotts, the Kuchars..." Thanks. DA 58.175.129.101 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eponym? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a type of metonym; I'm not sure if there is a more specific term. Not eponym, though.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get the etimology of the term "mono-nucleosis"?

I would like to know what is etymology of the medical term "mononucleosis". By the way I would like to get a site that it's expert of medical trems etymology. Thank you. 194.114.146.227 (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has a definition which shows the etymology (Basically mono=one, single; nucle[o]=nucleus; osis=disease or condition. You might also find List of medical roots, suffixes and prefixes useful. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mononucleosis --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cells that the disease is named for are not monocytes, as is stated in parenthesis in the first sentence of the page linked to by Lüboslóv Yęzýkin. In the context of blood cells, a mononuclear cell is a cell with a one-lobed nucleus, i.e. either a lymphocyte or a monocyte. What is seen in infectious mononucleosis, is an expansion of atypical mononuclear cells, hence the name. When the disease was named, the exact type of the cells wasn't known, but they were later shown to be CD8^{+ T lymphocytes [4]. Strictly speaking, "mononucleosis" (not preceded by "infectious") just means increased numbers of mononuclear cells for any reason, similarly to lymphocytosis, monocytosis and granulocytosis. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

November 29

What is the meaning of "pecker?"

Is the meaning of "pecker" penis or pianist in the next passage? Please teach me. Thanks in advance.

    Thus it was that Danny wrote another page of musical history ---
    winning Grammies in both the classical and jazz categories in a
    day. Indeed, as Count Basie himself was overheard to remark, he was
    "a lucky little pecker."---Erick Segal, The Class, p.218.114.176.241.111 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)yumi[reply]

"Penis". It is a self-disparaging remark made so the speaker doesn't appear to be an arrogant little prick. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French meanings

Hi. What's the difference in meaning between "sottises" and "betises" (sorry about accents I don't seem able type them in this window). Thanks.184.147.136.249 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're almost synonyms. My dictionary gives the same definition for both, and in both cases lists the other term as its first synonym. In day-to-day usage, I can't think of a meaningful difference between the two: they're both mainly applied to the doings of children, they tend to refer to small stupid things done or said, but then the phrases "une grosse bêtise" or "une grosse sottise" are both current for more serious blunders. --Xuxl (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The etymologies suggest a connection with drunkenness for sottise and a connection with beastliness for bêtise, but I'm not sure how much relevance that has for the current-day meanings of the words... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very well-thought-out and useful answer!184.147.136.249 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the original Japanese version of this Chinese translation?

The Wikipedia article The Peach Blossom Fan is using this as a source:

Aoki, Masaru 青木正儿 (2010) [1930], Zhongguo jindai xiqushi 中国近代戏曲史 ["History of early modern Chinese musical plays"], translated from Japanese by Wang Gulu 王古魯, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中华书局, ISBN 978-7-101-06444-5 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-name-separator= (help).

What is the title of the original book? What is the kanji of the author? ISBN? Who published it?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original title is 支那近世戯曲史/Shina kinse gikyoku shi. The author is 青木正児. See [5]. The Chinese translation (1933) is available at here. Oda Mari (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese help: The Peach Blossom Fan

Not all of the characters in The_Peach_Blossom_Fan#Character_List have their Chinese characters. Is anyone interested in finding the rest? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Insert footnote text here

[1] Insert footnote text here

[1]