Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 1

What rhymes with "just" /dʒʊst/ ?

I just finished watching Wheel of Fortune, where one of the answers was "JUST MAKING CONVERSATION". That prompted me to ask my parents (who reside in South Jersey, and come from Philadelphia, what rhymes with "just", which I pronounced /dʒʊst/--using the same vowel as book in standard American and southern (Recieved Pronunciation) English. They both insisted the word was not pronounced that way, that it rhymes with must /dʒʌst/, using the vowel of cup. I agreed the adjective, like "a just verdict" is pronounced this way. But I have always pronounced the adverb /dʒʊst/, making the two words a minimal pair.

I looked at wiktionary, which gives only the cup vowel pronunciation. Merriam Webster on line does show variation in the adverb, vs the adjective. But its transcription, /jəst/ vs /jüst/ is unclear. Can anyone say whether /jüst/ is supposed to agree with /dʒʊst/ ? Looking lower in the entry it doesn't repeat the umalauted spelling, but gives /jest/ and /jist/ which sound Southern or Western (hillbilly, not to be offensive) to me. Also, does this split between the adjectival and adverbial meanings exist in other dialects? And do other dialects use the same contrast I do, or different vowels. (I expect Northern English has only the book vowel, with no contrast in forms?) Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the main American alternative pronunciation to [dʒʌst] is actually [dʒɨst], which is a re-stressing of an unstressed pronunciation with unstressed reduced vowel. Sometimes [ɨ] and [ʊ] are confused in some contexts, or partially conditionally merge in American English (especially before r), but I would be quite surprised to hear a pronunciation [dʒʊst] with real rounded vowel... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I might (I do) say [dʒɨst] as a reduced form of /dʒʊst/. But I am quite clear on the difference, and /dʒʊst/ (with the vowel of book) is my citation form. People from the Delaware Valley also say /wʊɾr̩/ "wooter" for water. This may be related. In any case, I can't figure out what MW thinks they mean by /jüst/. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, looking around at a few other entries, it looks like MW's /ü/ corresponds to IPA /u/. Note that /jüst/ is restricted to an archaic spelling of joust. I'm from Iowa and never, as far as I could tell, heard a distinction made between different uses of "just". Lsfreak (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it's also not something you're likely to pick up on without being aware of it in the first place, so it's not surprising I've never noticed it, even if I have heard it. Lsfreak (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where they explicitly say the jüst vowel rhymes with juiced? μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Lsfreak -- "Stress pairs" (to coin a term) can actually include some quite common words, but English orthography doesn't represent them at all. So "just" as adjective is always [dʒʌst], but "just" as adverb or particle is very frequently [dʒɨst]. "That" as demonstrative is always [ðæt], but "that" as conjunction is very frequently [ðət]. In many English dialects, the [dʒʌst] pronunciation of the adverb and the [ðæt] pronunciation of the conjunction would very rarely be heard except in rather stilted and unnatural pronunciations, or when words are pronounced in isolation. If someone were to write a grammar of such dialects based on the spoken language only, then [dʒʌst] and [dʒɨst] or [ðæt] and [ðət] could easily be considered quite separate words... AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that and should have been more precise in my wording. What I meant was, I've never heard a differentiation between the adverb and adjective when it came to whether it was /dʒʊst/ or /dʒʌst/ - they are both pronounced [dʒəst] for me, as best as I can tell both stressed and reduced. Also Medeis, just look up juiced - they used /ü/ for juice, food, cute, Jew, etc. It pretty clearly matches with IPA /u/. The use with just, like I said, was only for an archaic (at a guess pre-Great Vowel Shift) spelling of joust. Lsfreak (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, as a side issue, I pronounce demonstrative and pronominal that as [ðæt] but the relative pronoun as [ðɛt] or even [ðɨt], but never [ðət]. None of this seems to address who actually does say /dʒʊst/, or whether other dialects such as British one vary between the adjective and adverb. I take it AnonMoos is British. Do British dialects distinguish between these forms in any cases? μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've only ever heard the u in "just" to rhyme with the oo in "book" when spoken by Brits. In the Midwest, and most other American places I can think of, "just" rhymes with adjust (duh!), bust, cussed, dust, fussed, gust, lust, must, rust, etc. As noted above, I would say southerners often say "jist", at least when speaking slangily, to rhyme with cyst, dissed, list, mist, wrist, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Medeis -- I'm American (as I've stated before). Most British dialects don't have [ɨ] as a prominent sound (while it seems to be gaining in many types of American English). AnonMoos (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No offense meant! Don't be surprised if I make the mistake again--but I'll try not to. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

[1], [2].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

THanks, but neither of those suggests the book vowel as an alternative. I find it hard to believe we have no one else here who uses or has heard that form. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If I heard someone saying it the way you say you do, I would assume they were from the North of England or at least somewhere in Britain. I've never heard any American talk like that, and the other responses here seem to bear that out. As is so many other ways, Medeis, you're simply unique in this. Maybe it's time to recognise just how special you really are. The Medeis Touch, perhaps? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There are certain particularities of my dialect that other Americans see as British, including fronting of the long o diphtong so that I say [gɛw hɛwm] (like Judy Dench) instead of [gow howm]. I have actually had people ask me if I have an English accent, which strikes me as odd. But no, the joost pronunciation of just is common locally. I was surprised to hear otherwise, which is why I am looking for sources that reference it. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

British here - I think the word is pronounced to rhyme with "dust" or "bust" in the South of England and particularly in RP. It moves towards the front of the mouth as you move further north. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, /dʒʌst/ in the south of England and RP. It might get slightly more fronted somewhere in the Midlands, but it graduates towards /dʒʊst/ (BB must have heard northerners) or even /dʒust/ in some northern dialects (more close, not more front). There is no distinction between adverb and adjective. Dbfirs 13:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking of (Paul or John, whoever it was) singing "In Penny Lane, the barber shaves another coostomer..." in which the "oo" rhymes with the way I would say "book". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the "oo" of book (/bʊk/) in RP (short vowel) is the same as the "oo" of /cʊstəmə/ in Scouse, but the word "book" sounds quite different in Scouse, with a much longer vowel (perhaps /bʉːk/? but I'm not sure which is the correct IPA vowel). Dbfirs 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the Northern English pronunciation I mentioned in my original question, and it does rhyme with how I say just. The only other plausible rhyme I could think of an American speaker using would be if you made a verb out of puss, such as in to pussy foot. "He pussed about in the back room looking through my papers until I threatened to bean him." That's quite a stretch though. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Wussed" as in "wussed out"? It's not a word I particularly like, but the way I hear it pronounced does rhyme with your pronunciation of "just". --Amble (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that matches exactly, and I think it's more likely to be heard than my invention. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here's an interview with Lizbeth Scott who has an underlying Scranton accent, which is very close to mine. You can hear her fronting her long o's and hear her say just several times. The first instance is a clear cup vowel (rhymes with must). Then at 4:20 and a few times thereafter she says it with the book vowel. A lot of her speech is affected from her stage work, but these examples aren't learned. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

English Word... from its definition.

I am trying to find a word, if one exists, that means "a hunger for attention".

If there is a more appropriate way of answering this type of question, please tell me, I am not that computer savvy.

184.19.29.243 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Histrionic Personality Disorder? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Needy. It's not perfect, but it's probably in the right ball park. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Although "needy" is an adjective, whereas the question asked for a noun. 86.160.223.11 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did you see that? The question did not specify that the word need be a noun. Asking about "a hunger for attention" implicitly asks about "hungry for attention". Responding with a noun or an adjective is splitting hairs and is a matter of semantics. Also, many of the other replies (from other editors) are indeed adjectives. And, furthermore, every adjective pretty much has a noun counterpart, as you saw below with "needy" and "neediness". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Neediness?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I just could not think of that word, only "need". 86.160.223.11 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Attention seeking? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"High maintenance" might also apply, although it's less specific. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebooker? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Related to "attention whore". -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Prima donna? Prima_donna#Modern_usage_outside_opera 196.214.78.114 (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear as to whether OP found what he/she was looking for, but it all depends on what sense of "attention" he/she is asking about. If indeed the "attention" is closer to "affection" then "neediness" seems appropriate. If, on the other hand, "attention" is the attention of many or of generic others, "histrionic" might be more appropriate (which exists without "personality disorder" to describe the overblown and possibly insincere quality of someone's emotional expressions). So "melodramatic" and the above "attention whore," while a bit blunt, is very similar. "Ostentatious" is less about attention to one's emotions: obvious, even pretentious, intent to attract attention in the sense closer to "showiness." Anyway, some options :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A good word or phrase to describe this situation

What would be a good word or phrase to describe the following situation or feeling? I hear a joke on TV or I read a comic in the newspaper. I just don't "get it". I don't understand what is funny or what is supposed to be funny. I feel somewhat embarrassed or silly, because I think that I should know it or that I should get it; after all, everyone else must get it. The humor escapes me or "goes over my head". Also, after someone explains it to me, it is (typically) something that I should have been able to get on my own, without any help. But, for whatever reason, I didn't make the connection. What is a good word or phrase to describe that person or that situation? I have considered the following already, but they don't seem quite right: clueless, oblivious, not comprehending. Any better options? Thanks in advance. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Obtuse? Slow on the pick-up uptake?

My elder sister is internationally famous (within my family, that is) for being the only one not to get a joke told when we're all gathered together. Not at the time, anyway. But then, maybe an hour later, when we're now talking about something quite unrelated, she'll suddenly burst out "Oh, I just got that joke", and then proceed to explain it to the rest of us, for whom no explanation was ever necessary. This then becomes the real joke, and usually excites more mirth than the original joke ever could. It's weird, because she is a lot smarter in so many ways than I will ever be. Let's just say she has a special relationship with humour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Humor disconnect? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a recent example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I really did not have a specific example in mind; it was more of just a general question. But, here might be an example of what I am referring to. See this comic, here at this link: [3]. I might not get it and I would not think it to be funny. Then, later – or perhaps never – it might dawn on me that "Larson" is the name of the cartoonist and, hence, the comic is funny due to a play on words ("larceny"). If you never make that connection, the comic (or the joke) will never be funny. That's just an example. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The cartoon assumes some prior knowledge, without which it doesn't make much sense. (I would say nearly every Dilbert strip is like that.) A similar example comes to mind. Or maybe two. Charles Schulz, the author of the Peanuts strip, only ever made one direct personal reference to himself. One year, Schulz was the Grand Marshall of the Pasadena Rose Parade. So the strip that day had Lucy watching the parade on TV. Linus comes up and asks, "Who's the Grand Marshall?" and Lucy says, "Nobody you ever heard of." Not terribly funny, just cute. I like better the B.C. strip (authored by Johnny Hart), had several of the guys together. One of them says, "I have discovered an organ that gives us life and purpose." (Or something like that.) Someone asks, "What is it?" The guy says, "I'm calling it a 'Hart'." Curls, the master of sarcastic wit, sneers at the guy, "Bootlicker!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny that you mention Dilbert, because that is exactly where this has happened with me several times. That cartoonist tends to use a lot of "engineering" or "computer geek" type of references. A lot of people wouldn't get them, if they are not "in the know" in those fields or if they do not run in those circles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Any topical humor runs the risk of getting deer-in-the-headlights from anyone who doesn't know the back-story. A long-running strip like Blondie is probably a lot easier to "get", because they have always dealt with common family situations. And getting back to Gary Larson, no small quantity of his cartoons depended on prior knowledge. A simple example: A group of spiders driving down the street in a little car with a "Have a Nice Day" smiley bumper sticker containing 8 eyes instead of 2. Now, the average citizen might know that spiders typically have 8 eyes. But anyone who didn't know that would likely be confused. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"slow" is the first word that came to my mind. 86.160.223.11 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar to L'esprit de l'escalier, but from the other side... AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

'Slow on the uptake is good. You could also say that the penny hasn't dropped yet. - Karenjc (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

All of the suggestions with "slow" might be applicable, if indeed I get the joke at a later time. But, there are also times in which the person never gets the joke. So, the "slow" variations would not apply there. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's where words like "dull", "dense", "thick" or my already-suggested "obtuse" might come into play. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. Just because a person does not "get" a reference to, say, popular culture in a joke does not necessarily make that person dull, dense, or thick. Just as an example, consider different generations. Those who are older today (senior citizens) would have no clue about (for example) computer lingo, texting, or Justin Bieber. Kids in their teens and twenties would have no idea who Lawrence Welk is. Stuff like that. Not knowing the reference doesn't render the person dull, dense, or thick. I don't think. Maybe "sheltered", but even that's a stretch. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that you put it that way, I entirely resonate with your misgivings. My kids and others of their generation are always communicating on FB etc, apparently quite successfully, using symbols that look like letters, grouped in sets that look like words, but which often have no meaning as far as this senescent citizen is concerned. And no, I don't consider myself any of those words I offered. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Every generation has its cultural icons. The Beatles are still in the public consciousness. But how many of the youngest generation know about, or have even ever heard of, old-time entertainers such as Jack Benny... or for that matter, Johnny Carson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I was at a party on Sat night, and talking to people who'd never even heard of Little Britain, let alone ever seen it. I'm still trying to wrap my brain round that one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. When I look it up, I still doesn't look remotely familiar, and that the stars are people I've never heard of. As for the first question, I've a hunch that what was said to be funny actually was not. If people around you are laughing and you're in a good mood then you may find funny what at other times you wouldn't. Of course there can be ideological and similar problems, but these aren't the reason why (say) for most of the time I find Jon Stewart almost completely unfunny. He seems a good fellow, he has funny writers and is sharp enough to be good in interviews -- but all the mock surprise, face-pulling, shouting and other histrionics just leave me cold. -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with show either, but it may never have been on US TV. As regards Jon Stewart, I suspect you're describing a different situation: That you do "get" the joke, you just don't find it funny. That's my reaction to Will Ferrell, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It was on BBC America and the Little Britain USA was on HBO. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I don't have HBO and I don't think BBC America was on my cable system at the time. Is it still running anywhere in reruns? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you lot ever heard the expression "The only gay in the village"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What a repugnant, scabrous, fetid, wemful show! I am surprised you like it Jack. Kids in the Hall and The Catherine Tate Show are better by lightyears. The only redeeming thing about LB were the lush voiceovers by Tom Baker. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC) The smorgasbord of my various appetites would no doubt surprise many. Please form an orderly queue. Why not just say it didn't appeal to you, rather than all that judgemental claptrap? Comparisons are odious, particularly when half the world has been laughing itself sick for over a decade and one is very much a latecomer to the party. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC) The words were to avoid being misunderstood, no judgment on you. Tate's and TKITH's gay sketches are much funnier as well. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Why not just say it didn't appeal to you ..."? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC) But it doesn't just not appeal to me. Since this is the reference desk, I'll suggest you google "disgusting little britain" (the first hit I see is on how it's hateful, and not funny, and then look at this representative image. Feel free to hat this digression if you like.μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC) I get tired of explaining that people who claim that something is "funny" or "not funny"; or that X is funnier than Y; are just wasting their breath, given the inherent subjectivity of humour. That's just school-level discourse, not fit for adult consumption. It is also possible to be both revolted and amused by something at the same time; they are not mutually exclusive responses, as you seem to be intimating. Hatting follows immediately. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the feedback. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2

Accents in poetry

Is there are term for the poetic device whereby a grave accent is added to a syllable (usually "ed") to indicate that it is to be sounded? e.g. "And burnèd is Apollo’s laurel bough". (Accent (poetry) is about something quite different.) Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In looking it up in Google, it sent me to Grave accent#English, which has a discussion of the poetic use, though it doesn't really have a term for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think one needs to distinguish between editorial practice and poetic practice here. In an edition of Shakespeare (for example), an editor might make the meter clear by using burn'd where the meter requires a monosyllable and/or burnèd where it requires a disyllable; but such markings don't necessarily reflect how the word was normally pronounced in Shakespeare's day. (If it was normally pronounced as a disyllable, then Shakespeare's use of the /bɜrnd/ [or /bɜrnt/] pronunciation would be an instance of syncope. If it was normally pronounced as a monosyllable, then his use of the /ˈbɜrnɨd/ [or /ˈbɜrnəd/] pronunciation would be an instance of epenthesis.) Should I, however, who normally say /bɜrnd/, write burnèd in a poem, I would definitely be using the latter rhetorical device—probably for the sake of the meter. Deor (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a word?

Intentionally taking the life of a person who wants to live is called “murder.” What is intentionally extending the life of a person who wants to die called? Vejlefjord (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In America the term "extraordinary measures" is sometimes used. Keep in mind that deliberate suicide is illegal in all or most places in the US. That doesn't mean that the doctor, the patient, and the patient's family can't decide ahead of time what constitutes "extraordinary measures". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@BB: As per our article on suicide legislation, there is (since 1990) no state of the US which regards suicide as a crime. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in some states. If I read the article correctly, withholding the right to die from a person has been termed a "cruel and unusual punishment". Of course, this term is not exclusively used for the prolongation of the life of a person who wishes to terminate their life. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The pro-suicide rights POV (e.g., Justice Stevens' "very interesting opinion") in that article is overwhelming, and the 1990's claim stands in need of a reference. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note, related to the original question. When you use the word "murder", the victim does not necessarily have to want to keep living. In other words, I can murder a person who actually wants to die / wants to be killed / wants his life to end. This does not address your question, but I wanted to point out the discrepancy in the "assumption" of your original post. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. It has nothing to do, necessarily, with whether the subject wants to die or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To be more precise, homicide is the unlawful taking of another person's life. Homicide amounts to murder when there is intention to take the life (as opposed to the death being caused accidentally for example). The laws of different countries may also define other acts as amounting to murder, such as doing an act so reckless that in the ordinary course of events it would lead to the death of another. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As that article points out, there are both lawful and unlawful homicides. Murder is, by definition, unlawful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Some homicides are indeed lawful. "Homicide" simply means that one human caused the death of another human, whether legally or illegally, whether intentionally or unintentionally. So, a lawful homicide might include self-defense, for example. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably that's why police have a "homicide division" rather than a "murder division". Because there are degrees of homicide, some legally justifiable, some not; some intentional, some due to negligence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, homicide just refers to the death of a person other than oneself. How sloppy of me – what I meant to say was that culpable homicide is the unlawful taking of another person's life. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is purely a matter of the legislation (and, of course, of the terminator´s ethics). If you have ever been to a hospice where some patients are pumped full of morphines to deal with their excruciating pain, if you have ever spent years observing the rapid brain death of of a parent suffering from Alzheimer´s disease, you may reconsider the term "murder". Haneke called it Amour. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I expect the OP is referring to the recent case in Texas, where a pregnant woman (or what was left of her) was kept "alive" by machinery. The reason the hospital did that was in attempting to follow a poorly-defined Texas law. It took a judge to step in and say that the law did not apply in this case; and presumably the public visibility of this case will induce the Texas legislature to clarify that law. Although that case was not strictly about someone "who wants to die", as the woman was incapable of making such a decision once she went into a coma. The same could be said of Ariel Sharon. Ironically, modern medical technology makes these things possible. In olden times, they would just die and that would be the end of it. It would be interesting to see if the OP has any particular cases he's referring to, or if it's just a general question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Google Translate of Japanese so bad?

I frequently use Google Translate for all sorts of languages - I am an administrator on Commons where such things are absolutely necessary. I've noticed it does a decent job with most languages, but it is awful with Japanese, even compared to other non-European languages like Korean. Why is it so much worse with Japanese? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment specifically on the Japanese, as I can't read the original. But in general the problems I run into with google translate are due to the chunking, how they split up the sentence into phrases. These don't always match the sense of the original. Given Japanese's word order is backwards from the English point of view, and that it drops pronouns when they are obligatory in English, it wouldn't surprise me if they are breaking up words in the wrong groupings. I find when I am translating with a machine translator that it helps to break up sentences like this:

I find

when I am translating

with a machine translator

that it helps

to break up

sentences

like this

Putting the returns between the phrases, and moving the breaks around, hints to the translator how to interpret the sense of your sentence, whether going from X to English or English to X. I also tend to use a third language, such as using tú in Spanish when I want a Du form in German (marked singular you, i.e., "thou") and so forth when the construction I want doesn't exist or i ambiguous in English. Given the extreme similarity of word order between Japanese ad Korean, you might try translating the Japanese into Korean or vice-versa assuming you are familiar, as it sounds, with Korean. Finally, keep in mind, the algorithm, as I understand it matches strings between languages based on matching texts on line. That can explain why The comedian cut up the heckler comes across as "dismembered". Always check for alternative translations, and check your translations by working them backwards again to the original language to see if you get the original wording. See machine translation and Google Translate. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing to bear in mind if comparing Japanese to Korean is that Google Translate sometimes (often?) goes via English anyway. Not sure specifically about Japanese-Korean though. 86.128.2.123 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 3

looking for a literary term

It's French or Latin, and refers to a piece of writing that is mentioned just in passing, but is sometimes the whole point of the story, at least for the writer - I think Nabokov is someone who did it a lot.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not MacGuffin is it? --Jayron32 03:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks for the answer though. The meaning is quite different, as the Maguffin propels the plot, whereas these things are asides; an example is the barber in Lolita who talks about his ten-years dead son as though he's still alive. Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Literary foreshadowing seems similar, but is not "French or Latin". (Except perhaps in its etymology?) -But I know what you mean: something at the beginning that serves as an (allegorical?) microcosm of the story. Have you tried: Literary technique?  ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not foreshadowing, as this has nothing to do with the plot; it's a digression, an authorial indulgence, which a skilful writer can get away with, as it has to be done v carefully. Will check out that page though, thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Agh! No wonder no one could find it - it's not a literary but a legal term I was looking for! - Obiter dictum - sorry everyone! I think it can still be used to refer to a literary technique, though?? Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen it used outside a legal context, but suppose it might be used metaphorically. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it harder for a native Chinese speaker to master Korean and Japanese...

...than for a native English speaker to master Spanish and French? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.244.110 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know the answer to the question you are asking, because I do not know how easy it is to learn Japanese. I am going to answer another question, just in case it was implied. As spoken, Chinese and Japanese are not by far as similar to each other as English is to Spanish and French. English, Spanish and French are in the same indo-european family, and all with similar references to boot. DanielDemaret (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The problems learning Japanese and Korean are mainly a lack of common alphabet and basic vocabulary. English is written in the same alphabet as French and Spanish and has a huge vocabulary in common with them. Otherwise, the two Eastern languages have relatively simple grammars and not very difficult sound systems. French is a bit harder to learn to pronounce well than either. This is my subjective opinion having studied eight languages formally, and being very familiar with the mechanics of Japanese and Korean. μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Chinese is often said to have a "simple grammar," but having studied it for several years, I disagree vehemently. It is true that Chinese has little to nothing in the way of verb conjugation or noun declension, our usual criteria for grammatical complexity, but the language is highly idiomatic, and makes use of verb aspect and sentence structures that are not at all intuitive for a person whose native language is European. Because Korean and Japanese do not share a known common "parent language" with Chinese (whereas Indo-European languages do share a parent and common deep structures), I would expect Korean and Japanese to be harder for a Chinese-speaker to learn than French or Spanish are for English speakers. Marco polo (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the question wrong, so my answer's a bit off point, but I agree fully w/MP. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

German word for disorientation of false motion

I'm trying to find a particular German word that means something like "a false feeling that you are moving when you are not", for example when the train next to yours starts moving and you feel as if you have started moving instead, or vice versa. Ring any bells? I hope this isn't just a rumor. 8) Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, one German word with that meaning is Vektion, which is basically the same as the English word for the phenomenon, vection (see our article Illusions of self-motion#Vection). I don't know whether there is any other German word that denotes the feeling. Deor (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Might a word that means vertigo be helpful? μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, a general German word for an illusion of motion, including but not limited to the sort of illusion cited by the OP, is Bewegungstäuschung. Deor (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Playing with Ernst Mach's title Grundlinien der Lehre von den Bewegungsempfindungen (1875), words like Eigenbewegungsempfindung (self-motion-feeling) or Eigenbewegungstäuschung (self-motion-deception) come to mind. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the word! Thanks, that was going to bother me for a while. 8) -- Beland (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 4

Coca-cola commercial

Which languages are at which positions in this Superbowl ad? I think Spanish is at 6 seconds and French at 38 s, but I have no idea about the rest. Thanks. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just taking a quick listen, I think it's:

• 0-6 sec English
• 6-10 sec Spanish
• 11-15 sec ???
• 16-21 sec (not exactly sure, but I think it's Chinese)
• 22-32 sec English again
• 33-38 sec Hindi
• 38-42 sec French
• 43-49 sec (not sure but sounds Semitic)
• 50-end English again

As an aside, I don't think this is the full version commercial. I saw it live; it seemed longer and I remember more languages.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this article says "Languages featured in the Coca-Cola ad were English, Spanish, Tagalog, Hebrew, Hindi, Keres, and Senegalese-French" It doesn't give the order but I think you can figure it out now. Keres, btw, is a Pueblo (Native American) language).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Coca-Cola has issued a set of separate YouTube videos with the whole of the song rendered in various languages, so if you are interested enough you can try and identify the bits used from those videos. However, I have to say that the 16–21 seconds portion does not sound Chinese at all. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack In The Box Plural

What is the plural of Jack In The Box? Is it Jack In The Boxes or Jacks In The Box? I suppose it would be Jacks In The Boxes, considering there would be multiple Jacks and therefore multiple boxes, unless they are all in the same one, which would be terrifying. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is of the opinion that it can be either jacks or boxes. Dismas|^(talk) 09:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC) The common spelling is Jack-in-the-box (with the hyphens) and [this] indicates either plural form is acceptable. Now I'm wondering what the possessive would be...and the possessive of the plural.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I created this article, but even I am bereft of ideas. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a fast food joint in the USA called Jack in the Box. In that case, I'd say e.g. "this town has two Jack in the Boxes", because the whole phrase is a proper name, and plural morphology on the last work carries to the whole phrase. For Jack-in-the-box_(toy) it's a little murkier. OED gives variants of all three of your forms.

1. "Jack in Boxes, nor Decoyes, Puppets nor such poore things." (1627)
2. "These women..toungs that lie worse than false clocks, By which they catch men like Jacks in a box." (1639)
3. "Battles are won by resolute, enthusiastic men, not by jacks-in-boxes." (1899)

-- So, with OED as your backup, you can use almost whatever form you like :) However, all the non-OED Oxford dictionaries I've checked simply give "jack-in-the-boxes." Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

KageTora -- Dr. Seuss did a funny cartoon on this exact subject (no 12 in "Tardy Laurels for Forgotten Brows") around 1930; here's the text: Kelp the Crusader: Never has the U.S. faced a worse crisis than in 1887, after the invention of the Jack-in-the-Box. It had become a fad overnight, and everyone was having a whale of a time when someone asked, "What is its plural?" "Jack-in-the-Boxes!" claimed some. Others hotly insisted, "Jacks-in-the-Box!" Civil war seemed inevitable, when Zeke Kelp's Crusade won a compromise on, "Jacks-in-the-Boxes." Unthanked for forty-three years, Kelp will be honored next week when N.Y. City unveils a hydrant in his name. -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Two Jacks can be in one box, but one Jack can't be in two boxes. (I also prefer "two Johns Smith" over "two John Smiths", but on somewhat different grounds: we occasionally say "Ronnies Corbett and Barker" but never "John and Bob Smiths".) —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a damn shame the toy isn't called "Jack in a Box". The plural of that would be obvious: "Jacks in Boxes". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The OED also has info/quotes on "Jack in a Box" (as an alternate form/spelling), but my VPN is acting up so I can't check now. If you really want the info and can't get access, I can probably post it later. It's interesting, though, as I can't tell if the 1627 quote above comes from the "the" or "a" version... or if there are attested uses of "Jack in Box"? SemanticMantis (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be the same issue with jack-o-lantern, will-o-the-wisp, whip-poor-will and such. Those are taken as single words, so the plural and/or possessive goes at the end. In contrast to a term like court-martial, whose plural is usually courts-martial. And the plural of something like brother-in-law is normally brothers-in-law... but the possessive is brother-in-law's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And the plural possessive is brothers-in-law's. There's also 1 o'clock, the plural of which is 'many o'clocks'.  :) (Well, it's no worse than the European couple in Casablanca who were congratulating each other on "how vell ze English ve are speaking". The husband wanted to know the time, and asked "What watch?". The wife answered "Ten watch". The husband retorted "Ay, such watch!". The husband was played by Cuddles Sakall.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that brings me to another question, which is not actually related to the reason I asked the original one. What would be the possessives of "Jack In The Box" (I refuse to use the hyphen)? Considering Jack doesn't actually own anything, except a box and clothes (he doesn't even own legs!), this is purely hypothetical. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Even stones "own" their attributes: a stone's size, shape, colour, age ..... So, one could ask "What is the Jack in the Box's colour?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

salt bloom

What is the meaning of "salt bloom" in the sentence "Their bodies were covered with salt bloom when they came out of the sea."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.215.3 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Googling the term, this was the first item that came up.[4] It appears to be a colloquial term for a significant surface accumulation of salt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Salty crusts (and also certain ices and frosts) are also sometimes called a rime, [5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need to assume there's anything of a significant thickness here, which a rime would indicate. Just enough of a surface to be visible would count as a bloom. Kind of like frost from a breath on a cold window, not a ring of ice around the hull of a boat floating in frozen water. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

a comma or a full stop?

Should a comma or a full stop be used in the following sentence? He shook his head(,or .)‘No,you can't do it.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.215.3 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with: "No," he shook his head. "You can't do it." μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, less clunky that way, but your wording has a slightly different meaning (order of actions) ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the meaning could be different with different punctuation. With a period, it could be "he" speaking, or someone else speaking -- it's technically ambiguous. Without changing any word order (and assuming "he" is speaking) , I think the best choice is Colon_(punctuation)#Segmental, i.e. "He shook his head: "No, you can't do it". SemanticMantis (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon reading my link more carefully, the quotation marks are technically unnecessary if a colon is used to introduce speech. SemanticMantis (talk)

I'd rather say the quotes are not necessarily necessary, depending on the context. If the sentence in question was from a novel, where most other speaking is rendered in quotes, then this one should be, too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds totally different. If you read the following sentence, what would you think I'm saying? He shook his head no. It sounds like he's shaking his head to indicate no, right? Well, if you also add a quote after it, it sounds like he's shaking his head while saying it.

He shook his head, "no you can't do that."

On the other hand, if you put a full stop, it sounds sequential. First he shakes his head. Then he says, "No you can't do that." (in this sentence of mine the verb is 'says' which obviously automatically implies a concurrent movement of the lips, whereas a verb like 'acknowledged' only implies it.)

• To me a full stop is absolutely necessary here. In order to use a comma it would have to be: He shook his head, saying, "No, you can't do that." Otherwise you have a run-on sentence. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

what I'm saying is that if you write He shook his head, "No, you can't do that." it is similar to writing He shook his head no. I would accept the latter sentence, wouldn't you? i.e. it's an action verb: http://goasktheplatypus.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/for-writers-a-list-of-talking-verbs/ 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Without context, and a very detailed description of what he was saying no or shaking his head no to, and of what he was saying couldn't be done, and why, it is really impossible to give alternatives other than guessing. Either original sentence would work as given in the first question. It is up to the author to decide what subtlety of meaning he wants.

The only way for the writer to handle this is to pick one way to say it, and if you're not sure, underline it in the draft as needing a possible touch-up and come back to it the next day. Your subconscious will work on the question for you over night.

For the abstract issues behind how to deal with such questions I would strongly recommend Ayn Rand's two short manuals: The Art of Fiction and The Art of Nonfiction. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Finnish question

Hi, how would one ask "Where's yours?" in Finnish? The "you" is a close, female friend. The referent of "yours" is to a heart but if possible I'd prefer that heart not be specified (it will be evident from the context). I mean where in a literal sense, as in Where's your cup? or Where's your scarf? - the intent is not at all to imply that the interlocutor is heartless. Thanks 160.39.9.82 (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We have an RD regular who is s native Finnish speaker, user:JIP. If nobody answers, you may want to contact him/her on their talk page. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The closest I can think of off-hand would be "Missä sinun on?" or "Missä on sinun?". Finnish doesn't have separate words for "mine", "yours" etc., the same words as for "my", "your", etc. are used. Because it's a close friend, I used the singular "you" "sinä". Unlike English, Finnish (and a whole load of other languages) has separate words for singular "you" and plural "you". The word order in Finnish is mostly free, so either of those sentences is correct. However, I think the first one, where the verb comes last, would be more frequently used. JIP | Talk 10:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And since Finnish (like a whole load of languages, really) does not have grammatical gender, it is irrelevant whether the friend is female or otherwise, and the translation does not depend on a grammatical gender of the possessed thing (the heart). Disclaimer: I don't speak Finnish. --Theurgist (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Translation request - Russian --> English

Hi, was wondering if an editor familiar with Russian could take a look at my recent edits to Nizhny Novgorod Planetarium. I based my changes on a machine translation, but I was getting confused because there were multiple names for the church that used to house the planetarium: Blagoveschensky monastery, Alexievskaya church building, Alexievslaya Church of the Annunciation Monastery, and so on. I also attempted to translate the captions and referenced articles' titles. If you feel like improving the article, please do! but I just want to make sure I didn't botch it up too badly. Here are my relevant edits. The Russian article is here Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The monastery was called the Blagoveschensky Monastery (ru:Благовещенский монастырь (Нижний Новгород)), and it would have contained many buildings such as dormitories, kitchens, cellars, etc. Blagoveshcheniya means the Annunciation, so "Annunciation Monastery" is the same name with the first word translated instead of transliterated. The church at the monastery was named the Alexievskaya Church after Alexius, Metropolitan of Moscow, who is said to have re-founded it. So there are really just two names: one for the entire monastery, and one for the church on the campus of the monastery. --Amble (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Amble: Thank you very much for this. It really helps! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew "yi"

In modern Hebrew, is "yi", as in "ישראל", more commonly pronounced as [ji] or as [i]? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard "yi" pronounced as anything but [ji] in Hebrew. [i] is typical of some Yiddish dialects, not Hebrew. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 5

The cucumber is bound to its vine.

In "The cucumber is bound to its vine.", is the word "bound" a correct usage here? Are there some alternatives? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.168.3 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You would probably say it was attached to the vine, or simply "on the vine". Bound means tied by string or some other restraining material. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Although I've not heard that before it sounds more idiomatic to me. "As the cucumber is bound to its vine, so too is your mortal flesh bound to this earth." 196.214.78.114 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Usage like that would be considered highly poetic or literary nowadays. You wouldn't find it in normal speech or sober academic writing. It's not something you would write outside a poem or a sermon. μηδείς (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

a long face like a cucumber

Is the phrase "a long face like a cucumber" acceptable in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.168.3 (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, except that must be a very funny looking person: it makes perfect sense, but it is not a common phrase. An unattractive person with a long face is often described as horse-faced. E.g., "John was horse-faced and his wife had an overbite but their three children were beautiful." μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that the phrase pulled a long face is used idiomatically to mean someone is unhappy and frowning, thus causing his or her face to look longer than if he or she were smiling. (For example, "She pulled a long face when I said it was time for us to visit the dentist.") If you are using the phrase in that sense, then it would seem a bit strange to a native English speaker if you added "like a cucumber" after it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

as sb. well puts it

In "as sb. puts it", is the word "well" redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.168.3 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not redundant; they mean different things. As somebody puts it means "as someone says" and As somebody well puts it means "as someone says skillfully". μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Can a sentence beginning with "more than once" be inverted?

Can a sentence beginning with "more than once" be inverted? If it can, could you give me one example? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.244 (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the question correctly, starting with "more than once" would be regarded as the inverted version: "I have seen him here more than once" is more idiomatic than "More than once I have seen him here", even though both are correct. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume that the OP may refer to the inversion of meaning. As in "more than once" vs "less than once". The latter, "less than once", may be used jocularly but has little usage in spoken / written English. It may be used in statistical statements (e.g. "married couples kiss less than once a week") where it refers to some real number (they kiss 0.345 times a week). Of course, either sequence can appear in a longer construct, as in: "3 popes, less than once thought, ...", but this has an entirely different meaning. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the inverted meaning of "more than once" is "once or less" not "less than once". -- Q Chris (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"It" or "they" to refer to "a pair of trousers"?

Should "it" or "they" be used to refer to "a pair of trousers"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.244 (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

They. See plurale tantum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Once homo sapiens becomes extinct (yes, I am getting older) and octopus sapiens sneaks into the "void", the above question becomes slightly more complex. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. While English is not my native tongue unlike Andy's, I'm not so convinced, particularly by his explanation. While grammatical number of trousers is certainly plural (tantum), grammatical number of pair is actually singular; number of the whole phrase a pair of trousers is a bit unclear. Having googled a bit, I saw both usages:

• When he returned two days later, a pair of trousers was missing. BBC
• while he was in a liquor store at Thompson and Bleecker streets on Wednesday evening a pair of trousers was stolen from him NY Times
• A pair of trousers was discovered in the river [6]

On the other hand:

• I told Mr. Scott that a pair of trousers were found on Chapman [7]
• Reports suggest a pair of trousers were located in a nearby seating shelter sparking the alarm. Island Echo UK
• In Vivienne’s shop a pair of trousers were 50 quid Dazed

No such user (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the second set of usages above, I agree with No Such User that the key word here is pair which is singular, so I would go with it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

One could choose to put on "this pair of trousers" or "these trousers". But not "these pair of trousers" or "this trousers". But why do we use the "pair" anyway? They never come in single legs, do they? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No_such_user -- third person verb agreement and pronoun reference (especially pronoun reference across clauses and across sentences) are not always exactly the same thing. Verb agreement can be indicative of probable pronoun reference, but it's not decisive direct evidence of pronoun choice... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

dare not think those thoughts any further

I am not sure whether "dare not think those thoughts any further" is idiomatic or not. I need your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.244 (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Could be considered a little "literary". In older language, "dare" could function as an auxiliary verb, with additional forms "daren't", "durst", and "durstn't"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A little more formal than "don't dare think ...", but nothing too out of the ordinary. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

money from selling apples

Is "money from selling apples" a proper phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.216.244 (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. "money from the sale of apples" would be more formal, but there's nothing wrong with this version. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Does beware stem from be aware?

--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

They are both from the same root, as is wary. But, as the OED says, "The origin of this is involved". Beware is a blend of an Old English derived verb bewarian meaning to defend, and the two words be ware, where ware was an adjective with a similar meaning to modern wary. --ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In general, the English "be-" prefix comes from an old prepositional form, and has nothing to do with the verb "to be"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or not, AnonMoos. In general you are right, but the OED specifically mentions both sources for this word (and mentions forms such as I am ware). --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't examined the etymology of this word, but most English words with a "be-" prefix have nothing to do with the verb "to be"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For example, OE "beniman" has a locative sense, "to take away", while simply "niman" is "to take". Also look at modern "bewitch"; "witch" has no verbal meaning, but "be-" turns it into a verb. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

See also wikt:ware#Etymology 3. --Trovatore (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Writing accented letters

I live on a street which has the letter "ä" in it. I recently bought an item from eBay from an American seller. When I received the package, it had my address on it two times: a printed sticker, and handwritten text on the box itself. The sticker had the street name spelled correctly, but the handwritten text had replaced the "ä" with an "a". The seller must have seen my street name spelled correctly with an "ä" both on the e-mail they got and on the printed sticker, but still written the name incorrectly with an "a". Why would anyone do this? Is it so difficult to put two extra dots on the box, or is this some kind of attitude against foreign letters? JIP | Talk 19:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You're talking hand-written, not machine-printed, right? To the average American citizen, "ä" and "a" are the same thing. So they might just not have noticed it or thought it mattered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In some Nordic languages a and ä are different letters in their respective alphabet. In German, it is not. Few Americans can tell the difference between an umlaut and an accent. I many languages today, accents are not considered mandatory. I would guess, as Bugs does, that they did not think it mattered. DanielDemaret (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In American English there are words and place names that use diacritical marks: naïve, coöperate, jalapeño, fiancée, café, San José, La Cañada. They are not considered distinct letters, and they can be used or omitted as a matter of style without changing the meaning. In fact, they sometimes cause problems (ask anyone who has a "complicated" name about their experiences at airport checkin). The sender probably believed that he was writing the same name, with the same letters, but in the form most appropriate to addressing a package. --Amble (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In handwriting the letter ä may, depending on the language and the individual's handwriting style, look like ā, ã, a̋, ȁ, or something else. However, the orthographies of some languages would demand that the opposition between certain letters be preserved in handwriting. Estonian has both ö and õ, Hungarian has all of ó, ö, ő, ú, ü and ű, and Vietnamese has a whole bunch of diacriticized vowels (see Vietnamese alphabet#Tone marks). --Theurgist (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. In the UK, most people don't bother with diacritic marks either. It's very common to see "cafe" for "café" even on shop signs: see this, this and this. I'm sure that Wikipedia editors set themselves a higher standard though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You're skating on very thin ice here, Alansplodge. There are some of us who consider the retention of diacritics in words that have become thoroughly anglicised to be toffy-nosed and pretentious snobbery. I refer here to cases like cafe, role, premiere, debut - and particularly where they become parts of speech other than their original uses. Such as the verbs debuted or premiered. There never were French words such as débuted or premièred, so how can those accents be justified in these words that are English and only English? We don't refer to the Parthenon in writing as Παρθενών, or Moscow as Москва. Well, that would be consistent with insisting on début, rôle, café etc etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I fully support your viewpoint on anglicised words here. But my street name was never anglicised, it's a Finnish word, not an English one. JIP | Talk 20:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And Häagen-Dazs and Mötley Crüe have done much to reassure people in the Anglosphere that those dots are unimportant decorations. Actually, so have Löwenbräu, but probably not deliberately in their part. (If you ask for [ˈløːvənbʁɔʏ] in most British pubs you'll get a blank look: it's /'ləʊənbraʊ/.) --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, if you ask for a /'ləʊənbraʊ/, you get a blank look because it's crap watery beer, like most American brands. When I was in Munich with my Russian and Chinese friends, we called it 'Piss-Wasser'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's make some distinctions here. You've got your basic traditional American lager, Budweiser and Coors and so on, and I completely agree with you on those. My impression is that they're based on the German style, more or less, so it's not too surprising that you'd have the same reaction to Löwenbräu.

But it's entirely unjust to identify those with "American beer" in general, and to ignore the microbrew movement of the last few decades. The center of gravity for innovation in beer is now the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of CAMRA, so I know beer. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather amazed this discussion sparked off to beer. But I have to agree, Löwenbräu tastes very bland. One of the best German beers I have recently had was Augustiner, in the centre of Munich. I'll have to see if it's available here in Finland. There are some very good Finnish beers too, most particularly Keisari ("Emperor") and Kukko ("Rooster"). Most Finnish beers taste bland, but I have found these two to taste very good. JIP | Talk 20:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

yokutch language

i am trying to find out how to say "welcome I am going to talk about my home town" in the Yokutch Indian language, for a speech I am working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFE8:A980:C5EE:6219:D81A:77C1 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Yokuts language? μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 6

More than once did I meet him in New York.

Is "More than once did I meet him in New York." a correct sentence? Or do I have only to say it in the natural word order like "I met him more than once in New York"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"More than once did I meet him in New York" uses a slightly old-fashioned way of indicating rhetorical emphasis. As a basic non-emphatic sentence it's not correct. As an emphatic sentence, it would depend on the context whether it's stylistically appropriate... AnonMoos (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a good way of writing in a novel, for variety, because straightforward sentences get boring. In a joke you might hear it. It wouldn't work for more than the occasional sentence, and it's not for normal speech. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the answer to your question above. Yes, it can be inverted, and you have done it correctly. But if you use it in speech, people will think you are being funny. Yoda from Star Wars talks this way. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Yoda would render it something more along the lines of "more than once meet him in New York I did". Now that I hear that in my head, it sounds Irish, so maybe that's not quite right either. --Trovatore (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A term for clothes worn by patients in hospital

Is there a term for clothes worn by patients in hospital? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• hospital gown. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, if what is meant is those one-piece garments that are usually knee-length and with back fastenings. If something else is meant, then it may be better to use the more specific terms mentioned by Andrew below, or use a generic term like "hospital attire". — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Pyjamas, dressing gown? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

His mind kept wandering, sometimes to whether... and sometimes to whether...

"His mind kept wandering, sometimes to whether his wife had recovered from her disease,and sometimes to whether his son had got back home safe and sound." Is the above sentence correct in its structure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's fine. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

grudge his apples

When I want to express that he is unwilling to give me some of his apples,can I say that he grudges his apples? Is the verb "grudge" a good choice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The verb in this case is begrudge. "We were best friends, but he has begrudged me my every success since I beat him for the sports scholarship." "He lost the bet, and handed over the money begrudgingly." "My wife loves to bake, but she begrudges every last dollop of cookie dough I steal from the mixing bowl." μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Try 'he begrudgingly gave me apples'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, or, "He begrudged me the apples."

mottled with peeling paint or mottled by the peelings of paint?

Which of the following two sentences is correct? Or both? "The ceiling is mottled with peeling paint." and "The ceiling is mottled by the peelings of paint." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.232 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The first. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The sun shines on me heavily.

Can I say "The sun shines on me heavily."? If not, then how about "The sun shines on me with strength"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.211.28 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK as a metaphor if the sun feels oppressive (very rare where I live). Otherwise, why not say "strongly", "intensely" or just "brightly"? Dbfirs 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• The use of heavily in this context seems odd to me, and I have never heard it. I would say "the sun shines brightly", or "the sun beats down on me" for stronger, oppressive sunshine. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I would use "heavily" like this: "The sun bears down on me heavily", rather than "shines". Still awkward, but not as bad. "Shine" and "heavy" don't make sense together, but other metaphores and terms do work. Mingmingla (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

bank up the grave mound with earth

Is "bank up the grave mound with earth" a proper collocation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.211.28 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds OK except that if there is already a grave mound then the grave has already been banked up with earth. (To "bank up" is usually used for a less symmetric collection of earth than a grave mound, but perhaps I am being over-fussy?) Why not just say "augment the grave mound with earth"? Dbfirs 08:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• A much more usual expression would be "shore up the burial mound with earth". μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

a neighbor patient?

Can I say "a neighbor patient" if a patient stays next to me in a hospital ward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.211.28 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"A neighbouring patient" would be the usual way of expressing it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

a word in English for the classmate who shares a desk with me

Is there a word in English for the classmate who shares a desk with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.181.58 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Deskmate. Deor (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

eat congee or drink congee?

Which verb can collocate with "congee", "eat" or "drink"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.181.58 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If congee is a type of porridge, then you would eat it. --Viennese Waltz 09:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Whereas, like soup, you would apparently "drink" it in Chinese (喝, hē). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of enlist language word 'clicks' in American action movies

In several English language American (USA) movies, characters traveling towards or viewing a distant location or object refer to it as being < a nr of > clicks away' e.g. 'its 20 clicks away'. What does this mean? is it just a deliberate attempt by script writers to be obscure, or does it have precise meaning like 'degrees' (of the compass) or 'radians'? 10:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)86.133.237.208 (talk)

Usually spelled klicks, it's military slang for kilometers. See the second paragraph of Kilometre. Deor (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Much-used by some science-fiction writers... AnonMoos (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is sometimes used in normal conversation in Canada - no particular sci-fi or military association. I can only picture old farmers saying it though, so maybe it's a generational thing, or a rural thing...I certainly wouldn't normally say it myself. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also seems to be used a lot by Australian cricket commentators when referring to the speed of balls bowled. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also become a feature of casual speech in non-cricketing contexts. We hardly hear people saying "kilometres an/per hour" except in formal-ish settings. It's usually just (sounds like) "120 kays" or "120 klicks". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes heard in the UK among hillwalkers and mountaineers. Although we're clinging to our Imperial miles as hard as we can, we've had metric maps for about 40 years now, and it's much easier to calculate walking times by Naismith's rule in kilometres. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Foreign monarchs' names translated

I'm vetting the historical content of English-language subtitles for a documentary film that makes brief reference to King William I of the Netherlands as "King William the First." Thinking the Dutch spelling "Willem" might be more correct, I checked through the interwiki links here and found that most languages translate the name. Why is this? I'm accustomed to exonyms and localized spellings for foreign place names, but why aren't historical figures referred to by their "given" name as it appears in their native language? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The main reason, I think, is that European monarchs often have cosmopolitan identities; there is a lot of mixing among royal families, and they usually speak several languages. They also usually have common Christian names that are easily translated into other languages. There are exceptions, though, William II of Germany is usually "Kaiser Wilhelm" (perhaps because of anti-German sentiment); the Ivans of Russia are usually that, and not John (because Russia is seen as exotic, and the name equivalence is not as obvious). Lesgles (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think the tendency to translate the names of foreign monarchs is much less for modern (say, 20th century and after) monarchs than for earlier ones. Nowadays we speak of Juan Carlos of Spain and Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, but if they had lived 200 years ago we would probably call them John Charles and William Alexander. I think the only monarch whose name is consistently translated nowadays is the Pope. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Into English, maybe. But check through the interwikis for Elizabeth II and you'll find plenty of Elizabeths - but also Alžběta, Isabel, Eilís, and Erzsébet. Even Prince George of Cambridge - the one born last year - is rendered as Jorge, Džordžs, György and Jerzy in different parts of Europe. I don't know why, beyond the vagaries of local custom. Kahastok talk 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In English today we tend to take the view that a person's name has one true version, in that person's native language, and any other versions are just translations of the true name. That hasn't always been the case, though, especially in times when (if anything) the most official rendering would be the Latinized one. Even in English, I find that books more than 30-40 years old translate names even in cases where it now seems unnatural or jarring to do so. This is true not only for royalty. In some other languages it's still perfectly standard to translate names. If you look at the interwiki links on a Wikipedia article for Vladimir Putin or Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich you'll see very different-looking renderings for Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. --Amble (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many exceptions to Deborahjay's assertion; take for example Wilhelm II, whom I have never heard called William, although "Kaiser Bill" is still heard occasionally. Also Archduke Franz Ferdinand - "Francis-Ferdinand" would be decidedly odd. Despite what our article says, I have never heard of King Humbert I. It's true that we do say Nicholas II rather than Nikolay. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert K. Massie regularly calls the Kaiser "William". I'm not sure if this is just following his usual practice of translating names, or if it's also because he's trying to emphasize the close relationships between the royals in the UK, Germany, and Russia. --Amble (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's an American thing. He's never called "William" here, as far as I know. Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Damn! I've just proved myself wrong. The Last Kaiser: William the Impetuous by Giles MacDonogh. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

VPs

What's the difference between a vice-president and a vice president? The first sentence of vice president makes it sound like a WP:ENGVAR difference, but both spellings seem to appear in American and Commonwealth contexts. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary quotes one American source saying "He is charged with having been long intriguing for the vice presidency," and another American source saying "Suppose there should be three candidates for the presidency, and two for the vice-presidency." Is it perhaps something like ax/axe, which just doesn't have one correct spelling? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:7A27 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It varies from dictionary to dictionary. British dictionaries apparently prefer vice-president for all usages. Many American dictionaries prefer vice president. This is likely due to the United States Constitution, which spells the title of the U.S. government officer without a hyphen. One American dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary, has an entry for Vice President (capitalized), referring to the U.S. government officer, and a second entry for vice-president (hyphenated and lower-case), referring to all other persons with that title. Marco polo (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that without the hyphen, at a stretch one could interpret "vice president" as president of Vices. Mingmingla (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The use of hyphens evolves. Baseball was originally "base ball" and then "base-ball" before it became a single word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Translation request - Chinese

Hi, I was hoping that someone familiar with the appropriate Chinese dialect could please help clear up some of the the content at The Adventures of Little Carp. There are some raw characters, and since it's a kids' article, someone should check that the names are all translated properly (and that we're not saying stuff like, "Little Carp was portrayed by the famous actor Giant Butt".) Thanks in advance! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, at least based on the Chinese version of the article. I don't know what it means for a name to be translated properly--isn't one name as good as another? For example, I have no idea why 肥鲶鱼 (literally "fat catfish") is translated as Bogart, but it doesn't seem better or worse than Steven or George. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Russian Text

Hi,
Somebody dumped a massive amount of text in Russian (or another Cyrillic based language, but from the context of the message I suspect Russian) on my user talk. Google translate gave me a nonsensical result, so (as a non-Rusophone) could somebody please translate for me? Thanks!
Sincerely,
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the text. Раздувание ажиатажа вокруг национальности (наследственности, ДНК, религии,образе мышления) руководителя страны это неконструктивно. Грузины или Китайцы, евреи или чюкчи каждая нация имеет свои национальные особенности заложенные в наследственном аппарате (ДНК). Китайцы , предположительно, наследственно склонны к юмору , грузины к мужской гордости, а евреи к распознаванию чужих мыслей и желаний, впрочем , так же как и арабы, что позволяет удачно вести политические переговоры , торговлю , продавать и покупать выгодно, 1kg Ferei pour 225,- Euro. Для правильной оценки личьных качеств важнее воспитание. Политический лидер США , -прекрасный пример того .

Google Translate isn't as nonsensical to me. I get the impression that the other guy's saying that it's a bad idea to build your idea of cultural differences around nationality or the personality of the country's leaders. He then goes on to reject a few ideas, such as Jews being able to read other men's personalities or Chinese being inherently more funny. He concludes by using Barack Obama as an example of why личьных (privacy? The word's in the article ru:Музей личных коллекций, which Google renders "Museum of Private Collections") is as important as education. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My knowledge of the Russian language is limited, but I found these clues in Wiktionary. Please see under "Declension" or "Conjugation".

wikt:вокруг ("around"), wikt:национальность ("ethnicity"), wikt:ДНК ("DNA"), wikt:религия ("religion"), wikt:образе#Russian ("image"), wikt:мышление ("thinking"), wikt:руководитель ("leader"), wikt:страна#Russian ("country"), wikt:это ("this"), wikt:грузин ("Georgian"), wikt:или ("or"), wikt:китаец ("Chinese"), wikt:еврей ("Hebrew"), wikt:каждый ("each"), wikt:нация ("nation"), wikt:иметь ("to possess"), wikt:свой#Russian (reflexive possessive), wikt:национальный ("national"), wikt:особенность ("characteristic"), wikt:в ("in", etc.), wikt:аппарат ("device"), wikt:предположительно "supposedly"), wikt:склонный ("inclined, addicted"), wikt:к ("toward"), wikt:юмор "humour"), wikt:мужской ("masculine"), wikt:гордость ("pride"), wikt:а#Russian ("but, and"), wikt:чужой ("foreign"), wikt:мысль ("idea"), wikt:и ("and"), wikt:желание#Russian ("desire"), wikt:впрочем ("by the way, however"), wikt:так же "likewise"), wikt:как#Russian ("as"), wikt:араб ("Arab"), wikt:что ("that", conjunction), wikt:позволять ("allow"), wikt:удачно (search: "fortunately"), wikt:вести ("to conduct"), wikt:политический ("political"), wikt:переговоры ("negotiation"), wikt:торговля ("commerce"), wikt:продавать ("to sell"), wikt:покупать ("to buy"), wikt:выгодный ("profitable"), wikt:для#Russian ("for"), wikt:правильный ("correct", adjective), wikt:оценка ("valuation"), wikt:качество ("quality"), wikt:важный ("important"), wikt:воспитание ("education"), wikt:лидер#Russian ("leader"), wikt:США ("USA"), wikt:прекрасный ("splendid"), wikt:пример#Russian ("example"), wikt:тот#Russian ("that", pronoun)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

личьных качеств seems to mean "of personal qualities". I think the last two sentences are "For a proper evaluation of personal qualities it's an important lesson. The political leader of the USA is a perfect example." By the way, it is not clear to me that the author of this is rejecting the idea that personality traits are connected to genetics. It all hinges on the meaning of предположительно, which according to my dictionary means "hypothetically" or "presumably". I'm not sure that we can trust Google Translate's "supposedly" to imply the author's skepticism. Really we need someone with a good grasp of Russian to say for sure. What time is it in Australia? Jack of Oz may be able to help. Marco polo (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Guys, we have fluent Russian speakers on this desk. You don't need to use Google Translate or post 100 links to dictionary definitions. A fluent speaker can give you a much more accurate translation with 1% the effort. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. User:Ymblanter notified. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My (non-professionsl) translation: Getting too much hype about ethnicity (heritage, DNA, religion, or the way to think) of a head of a state is not really constructive. Georgians or Chinese, Jews or Chukchi, every nation has its own national features programmed in the DNA code. Presumably Chinese tend to be humorous, Georgians tend to be machist,<--! No such word used, but the context is apparent--> and Jews are good in guessing of thought and desires of others, similarly to Arabs, which let them be successfull in political negociations, in trade, to buy and to sell with profit, 1kg Ferei pour 225,- Euro. To evaluate personal qualities properly one needs education.<--! Not sure what is exactly meant there.--> The US political leader is a good example of this.

Just to add that there are a lot of spelling errors in the text. The meaning is not entirely clear to me (they are obviosly trying to prove some point), but I hope there was some context to it which makes it more clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

February 7

wall or walls of the room when I mean the four sides?

Should I say wall or walls of the room when I mean the four sides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.210.58 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Walls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The bed is propped up by bricks.

In "The bed is propped up by bricks.", is the verbal phrase "prop up" appropriate here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

lift one foot onto the other knee

Does "lift one foot onto the other knee" make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a bit odd, but the meaning is clear. (Who do you know who can put their foot on their "non-other" knee?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

difference between rather than and instead of

What is the difference between rather than and instead of? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than implies a definite preference. Instead of does not (there might be a preference, but it is not saying so). So I used A rather than B means that I might have used either, but made a choice to use A. I used A instead of B means that I might have used B, but actually used A, without specifying why: perhaps by choice, or perhaps because B was inconvenient, or not available, or didn't fit. --ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

He is sleeping with the wings of his nose quivering.

Is the sentence "He is sleeping with the wings of his nose quivering" acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Only in (bad) poetry. "Nostrils" is the more expected word. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

recurrent crow(or crows) of roosters

In the phrase "recurrent crow of roosters",should "crow" be plural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say "crowing". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is one more apple in his basket than in mine.

Can I say "There is one more apple in his basket than in mine." or "There is one apple more in his basket than in mine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence sounds better, though the second is acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

a cluster of houses

Can I say "a cluster of houses"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Dbfirs 09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

fish for a sweet potato in the crack of the ridge

Is there anything wrong with the phrase "fish for a sweet potato in a crack of the ridge"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.178.134 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this make sense? and should I add some stuff more?

"German is used in some official documents, which are accompanied by the Dutch versions." Should I also put this as "Dutch versions of official documents" or is it fine already as it is? Alevero987 (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)