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.

March 26

Fescal: German readers needed to help establish notability

Hi, there is a discussion at Talk:Fescal about the subject's notability, as the article has been AfD'd. I'm trying to help figure out if the subject is notable. One reference that has been provided in the discussion is to this magazine article, in this issue of Beat, a German publication. Hoping a German speaker could help to translate the copy and contribute thoughts as to whether this helps to establish notability, or if it's a reprint of a press release, or some other squirrely material. There are underlying questions as to whether or not some paid editors are involved in promoting the article subject, so scrutinizing the source material is kind of important here. Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The brief article reads like a very positive music review. However, it's impossible to know from the article itself who wrote it and whether it is a press release or other promotional material from people connected to the artist. I searched in all available repositories (digital content, print content, and PDF archive) at www.beat.de and could not turn up this article. I also searched Google with this string—fescal "traditionell gilt musik als eine kunst"—with the name of the artist and the first words of the article in quotes, and Google could find nothing. If this has only appeared in print, it might elude Google, but you'd think the magazine's search function would find something. Are you sure it was published in that magazine? Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the top of the box the text appears in is truncated. You occasionally see ads in papers laid out to look like a journalistic article, but they always include "Anzeige" or "Dies ist eine Anzeige" etc. ("Advertisement" / "This is an advertisement") at the top, which may or may not have been intentionally left out in the scan. These ads are never published in the exact same font as the medium's genuine articles, however, so I guess a trained eye could compare the typography of Beat 's articles with that of the text Cyphoidbomb linked. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in question is Beat #86 02.2013. It belongs to a column on pp 96-97 with the title Musiktipps aus dem Netz - Filesharing, compiled by Tobias Fischer. Whether the article is promotional material or not remains unclear. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accent in Yiddish

Hello,

I was using the YiddishPOP website to learn a few words of Yiddish. I have a suspicion that the main character, Nomi, has a non-native accent in Yiddish. Specifically, I was wondering if she might have a Modern Hebrew-influenced accent.

Can someone fluent in Yiddish gib a kuk and let me know? Thanks. 184.171.209.180 (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that you'll have to settle for my answers; DISCLAIMER: 4th generation American of Ashkenazic descent, naturalized Israeli since 1984, last 15 years in a polyglot workplace including two generations of native speakers and others with acquired Yiddish. My Yiddish reading/singing level=1, speaking/writing level=0.

That site appears geared to learners of conversational Yiddish. The lesson pronunciation sounds synthetic, North American if anything, with no influence of Modern Hebrew phonology. More significant is whether its demonstrated pronunciation resembles any of the authentic native Yiddish dialects or rather an attempt at a standardized form, as described on that page. Spoken Yiddish today is largely within Haredi communities and probably retains the geography-based dialect of each community's founders (as with their religious customs). I can't say whether Yiddish occurs as a native language among any secular Jewish communities, but rather is an acquired language among academics, folklorists and descendants of Ashkenazi forebears, notably in Greater New York, Buenos Aires and other holdovers of the Bundist tradition. As for receptive language study: acquiring vocabulary, including for the purpose of reading, would be more effective using texts and glossaries regardless of, or entirely disregarding, dialect variants. For pronunciation exemplars, listen to folksingers (e.g. Chava Alberstein), cantors with secular repertoire (e.g. Dudu Fisher), or entertainers (e.g. Mike Burstyn). Consider contacting a native-speaking tutor, perhaps at a Jewish community center or home for seniors. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deborahjay, Thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm pretty certain that the "target" pronunciation is Standard Yiddish. BrainPopESL is made by the same people for learners of English as a second language, and also has the robot character, so it's fair to assume they're produced in a similar way. The English voice in that sounds quite natural, not computer-generated, at least to me. (What do you think?) Nomi's voice strikes me as human-like as well, but maybe you have a better ear for that than I do. One of the things that made me think Nomi's accent might be non-native is that the article Yiddish phonology says that in Standard Yiddish, the high vowels are [ɪ] and [ʊ]. But she uses [i] and [u] instead. For example, in Unit 1.3 she says Es zaynen do finf bananes with [finf], not [fɪnf] (or [fɪnɪf], which I know is the Polish way of saying it). In the same unit, she says Gut! Lomir mishn as [gut. lɔmiʀ miʃn.] instead of [gʊt] and [mɪʃn]. This also makes me think it's unlikely the voice would have been recorded by an English-speaker, since we have those lax vowels in our language. On the other hand, the article Modern Hebrew phonology says that in that language [i] and [u] are used. I don't think this is a matter of dialect, as anyone with a Polish or Ukrainian accent would say [gɪt] anyway, and Standard Yiddish is supposed to be very close to Lithuanian Yiddish in terms of pronunciation, according to what I've read. 184.171.208.24 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Term

There is a term/word which defines when a person thinks in clause phrase sequence. (EX) no sex with the ex/ the word begins with an A it has a S in it and a C in it. I am currently going through Websters, no luck yet HELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.119.114 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agrammatism? (doesn't contain a "c" though) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "no sex with the ex" is an example of the phenomenon, it's not a very illuminating one. —Tamfang (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too struggle with "when a person thinks in clause phrase sequence". What can it mean? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is "asyntactic", has "a", "s", and "c", but your example, "no sex with the ex" does occur in that sequence in English syntax, so it wouldn't be asyntactic. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give another wrong answer: "aphasic". Thincat (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

work at the textbook

I want to know if "work at the textbook" is a right phrase in "As soon as she borrowed the textbook from her friend, she began to work at it." Here by the phrase I mean "read and try to memorize what is in the textbook". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.159.208 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds non-standard to my native AmEng ears, but the meaning is still fairly clear. I'd suggest "began to work on it" or "work at understanding it" or even "work through it." SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

work at it implies more struggle than work on it. —Tamfang (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my BritEng ears, "working on a book" would probably imply writing it, whereas "working through a book" implies reading it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible to work with a textbook, if you are using it as a reference. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or work (one's way) through a textbook. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the English word "God" a name or a title?

The lowercase god is just another word for deity. But God as a proper noun is typically referring to the Abrahamic god. (If it's referring to a non-Abrahamic deity, then that deity's name in transliteration would be used to avoid confusion. So, English speakers would say Nüwa when they mean to refer to her. Calling her "God" is misleading, even though she is a goddess.) Yet, it seems that even the Abrahamic god has polytheistic roots. Could YHWH be the name and God is merely the title? Then why do some people write God like this, G-d? Maybe it's suggesting that even the mentioning of God's name is too sacrilegious? 140.254.227.69 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YHWH is not really God's name, it's God saying "I am that I am" when Moses tries to get God to tell him what His name is. God's actual name is known only to God. God is our name for Him, so it's effectively the same thing, hence the G-d to avoid blasphemy. But it gets complicated. You may find Names of God interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YHWH is God's name. "I am that I am" is Ehyeh asher ehyeh (Hebrew: Template:Hebrew). Two separate designations. See Names and Titles of God in Judaism.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 19:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He first said "I am that I am", and then said specifically that His "name" (or all he was willing to share with Moses) is "I AM". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after the "I am that I am" (which isn't even a good translation of the Hebrew), He says His name is "YHWH". Whether that is supposed to mean "I AM" or is a similar sounding, though unrelated, word/name is a subject of debate. Since, without vowel pointings, it's unreadable, nobody can be sure. See I Am that I Am#Hebrew Bible and Tetragrammaton--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, ehyeh אהיה and YHWH יהוה could easily be derivatives of the same triliteral root (or two closely related consonantal roots which are slight variants). It's not 100% certain that they originally were, but a relationship between the two words would seem natural to a speaker of ancient Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.227.69 -- "God" is a Germanic word, and so obviously does not appear in the Greek or Hebrew Bible texts. However, it is equated to theos in Greek and Elohim in Hebrew, words which are related to other words referring to divinity in those languages. YHWH was originally the name of the God of the Israelites, just as Chemosh was the name of the god of the Moabites, Qaws was the god of the Edomites, etc. If YHWH has any etymological relationships, it is with the Hebrew verb meaning "to be"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Does that mean God is a concept? 140.254.226.227 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If YHWH is interpreted as a Hiphʕil conjugated verb form, then it could basically mean "he who causes to be" (though that's one speculation among many). AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about Jehovah at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391. There is a section on the non-distinctiveness of the words God and Father.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to be unnecessarily blunt, but I really would not take lessons in Hebrew from a group whose name itself contains a blatant Hebrew error. AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an error, it's the anglicized form, not unlike "Jesus". — kwami (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a mistranslation, going back to at least the KJV. There was no such word as "Jehovah" until that mistranslation came along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can a word be a (mis)translation if it didn't previously exist in the destination language (here English)? —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the historical process went from Hebrew to Latin. I'm not sure that "translation" is the correct term, but misunderstanding Hebrew scribal practices so that the Latin form is based on the consonants of one Hebrew word combined with the vowels of another Hebrew word, resulting in a chimera which was never used by Jews, would appear to be a slightly bizarre proceeding. AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami -- English "Jesus" derives from Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע , Greek Ιησους, Latin IESVS etc. by a many-centuries-long process of each language adapting the name from the preceding language as best it could, given the phonological and morphological characteristics of the borrowing language, plus the effects of regular sound changes which affected all phonologically-similar words within each language.

In strong contrast, "Jehovah" was created abruptly all at once by Christians who misunderstood the scribal conventions of Jewish manuscripts, and therefore inserted the vowels of one word within the consonants of a completely different word, resulting in a form which never existed in Hebrew. See Q're Perpetuum for some of the details... AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moos, they could (hypothetically) have learned a thing or two in the generations since adopting the name, but kept the name for continuity's sake. Plenty of examples of that in Science. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some errors which do not become any less erroneous with the passage of time -- see Mumpsimus... AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there are institutionalized mumpsimi in every discipline I know of, I'm not so ready to assume that a group is generally unreliable because it has not bothered to change nomenclature now known to be erroneous. When a phrase becomes a lexeme, as Jehovah's Witnesses has, I get the impression that most people rarely think about its component words. —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Words like mumpsimus, ignoramus, and mandamus do not generally take "-i" plurals (they certainly don't in the original Latin!). And students in science classes are not now taught that the sun revolves around the earth, regardless of how quaint and picturesquely time-encrusted that error might be. Some Christian scholars of Hebrew have known that "Jehovah" was erroneous since before there was a distinct group under the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" (in fact since around the time of the Millerites, a remote precursor of JW's), though scholars didn't start discouraging the use of "Jehovah" until the 20th century. I'm sure that there are many sincere and good people among the JW's, but the fact that their name contains a blatant Hebrew error makes it difficult to take any pretensions to Hebrew scholarship too seriously... AnonMoos (talk)

Oh? What is the authentic Latin plural of mumpsimus?

The crack about heliocentrism is disappointingly irrelevant to my narrow claim about terminology. —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mumpsimus" would almost certainly be indeclinable when used as an ad-hoc nonce substantive rather than an ordinary finite verb. If it were desired to form a respectable Latin noun from this form, some way would be found other than interpreting a 1st person plural verb ending as a 2nd declension nominative singular noun ending (which probably wouldn't be too appropriate except as a somewhat strained attempt at humor).

And I'm not too sure what trying to disparage "mere terminology" really means in an area where linguistics is an important part of what is at issue. The JW's claim special expertise or insight concerning what they call "God's personal name", but the fact that the very name of their group contains a blatant error with respect to that Hebrew name creates a dissonance which ends up undermining such claims among those with relevant knowledge... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Moses' conversation with God interesting:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to highlight what Bugs has brought up. You should read the whole passage anyways, but the relevant bit is But Moses said to God, “If I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”[a] He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord,[b] the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: Another good passage is Exodus 6: [2], which says "2 God also spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am the Lord. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty,[a] but by my name ‘The Lord’[b] I did not make myself known to them." In English translations, by tradition, the name of God, YHWH, is typographically translated as "the LORD" in all caps (or sometimes in small caps), as it is in these cases. The footnote [b] in both of these passages notes this. When you read English translations of the Bible and see "LORD" in allcaps, know that that is using the actual name YHWH as the proper name of God. When you see "God" in normal type, traditionally that is "elohim", which is the generic word for "god". There's also the title El Shaddai, which is often translated as "God Almighty", though the meaning of Shaddai is not well understood. So, what you see here in these passages is God saying "When I appeared to Abaraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I told them I was "El Shaddai" (God Almighty, that is, his title) but I am telling you my personal name is YHWH. To sum up.

El and its forms like elohim are a generic word for "god", just as the generic word for you is "person"
YHWH is God's personal name, just as your personal name may be "John". YHWH means "to be" or "I am" or "I exist" or something like that, and there's intentional symbolism there that the actual name of God is simply "existance".
El Shaddai is probably God's "Title" or "style of address", just as Queen Elizabeth is "Her Majesty" or something like that. Though again, there's much less certainty about the origin or meaning of this name.

Hope that all helps. --Jayron32 23:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The various meanings ascribed to YHVH are a bit dubious. There's an assumption that the name must mean something profound, and there have been many attempts to figure out what it is, but it's also possible that it's simply the name of the one Hebrew god, out of many, that eventually became the national god of Israel. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way my minister explained it, names were ascribed great symbolic importance. When Moses asked God what His name is, he was trying to "get something" on God. God, being a tad smarter than Moses, didn't fall for that. He told Moses "I AM", which was kind of a polite way of telling Moses to mind his own business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami -- The pronunciation [v] for the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet is completely anachronistic to the Biblical period. AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Allah, an Arabic word, is likewise a title which is used as the equivalent of a name. It comes from the same Semitic root as the Hebrew word Elohim, and both words mean "God" as we say in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by the original poster, the Abrahamic 'God' has polytheistic origins; more specifically, Yahweh (Canaanite deity). Given that there is zero historical evidence for the Jews being in Egypt until 10 magical 'plagues' or the subsequent '40 years' in the 'wilderness' and that all evidence indicates the Jews to have arisen among the other Canaanite tribes, it is entirely unsurprising that their deity is actually one of the Canaanite pantheon. Aside from that, God is now frequently used in English as a name for the 'Abrahamic' deity rather than only a title.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that still hasn't been merged?

Yes, names are given a lot of meaning in the Bible. But there are lots of false etymologies as well. Whether it was important to assign meaning to a name centuries later has little to do with what they actually meant, especially if their origin had become obscure. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 -- I don't know that there's any evidence that YHWH was part of the general Canaanite pantheon in the same way that El, Baal, Anat, Mot, etc. were. The name YHWH does not occur in Ugaritic texts (our main source for Canaanite mythology), as far as I know. Rather, YHWH was the national or tribal god of the Israelites. Some (including King Solomon in his old age, according to the Bible) worshipped YHWH in conjunction with other deities, while others had a henotheistic or monotheistic conception of YHWH which did not allow this. AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we're going to pretend the story—written much later—about the Jews coming out of Egypt after 10 magical 'plagues' and trudging around the 'wilderness' for 40 years—with zero evidence—is real, there's no reason to conclude that the Israelites were not a group that arose from among the Canaanites.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, you've provided just as much evidence for your proposition that YHWH was Canaanites. The lack of evidence for the one does not mean proof of the other, and AnonMoos raises cogent points about the lack of evidence for your little hypothesis. --Jayron32 04:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly 'my little hypothesis'. But if you choose to believe in myths instead, that's up to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 -- YHWH was certainly worshipped by speakers of Canaanite languages, but the term "Canaanite pantheon" (which you chose to use) generally refers to figures widely known in the mythology of the Levant ca. 1000 B.C., for which our most detailed evidence comes from Ugaritic texts. This Canaanite pantheon includes El, Baal, Anat, Asherah, Ashtart, etc. YHWH was the national or tribal god of the Israelites, but there's no real evidence that YHWH was part of the "Canaanite pantheon" in any particularly meaningful sense... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend the term 'pantheon' in any particularly technical sense. Only that Yahweh was one of the deities worshipped by Canaanites, from whom the Israelites arose. The central point is that the Israelites were Canaanites, as was the origin of their deity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Canaanite pantheon" does have a special meaning, however -- to those in the know, it immediately brings to mind El, Baal, Anat, Ugaritic texts, etc., but not particularly YHWH. And it's a very reasonable hypothesis that Israelite identity coalesced in the area of the West Bank hill chain before 1000 B.C., as seen in the Merneptah Stele, and confirmed archaeologically by the spread of four room houses. However, an element of desert cultural heritage also influenced Israelite identity, and I'm not sure on what basis you conclude that YHWH was a pre-existing culturally Canaanite deity. The idea that YHWH was a deity of the coast and city dwellers who are the main enemy in the Book of Joshua seems dubious... AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 22:8 says YHWH is the deity of Balaam of Pethor in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Jews. Of course, if we're not to accept what Numbers says, the whole thing is irrelevant anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's set east of the Jordan, where Canaanite languages were often spoken, but not part of the land of Canaan according to the definition in Numbers 34:12. To speak of "Jews" (rather than Israelites) at that period is somewhat anachronistic... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's curious that the same God who spoke to Moses just a few verses earlier should also speak to Balaam, but we will probably never know how he came to hear the voice of the God of the Israelites. I don't read the verse as implying that YHWH was the deity of Pethor, only that Balaam heard his voice. Dbfirs 11:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of confused by all this. Isn't IP140 simply asking what the etymological origin of the English word is? There's no disputing it's an adjectival form cognate with either "invoked" our "poured" (i.e., libation) in other PIE dialects, including the exact cognate, Khoda, in Farsi. The word is not a name of an individual, but a descriptor. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the meaning of the sentence is clear

I wonder if the meaning of the sentence is clear to native speakers: "They were trying to memorize what they read from the book from time to time by flashlight." Thank you.

It is, but there would be better ways to word it. That is, it doesn't break any grammar rules, and is understandable, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to word it. It's technically not a Run-on sentence, but it has so many dependent clauses that aren't differentiated by commas or punctuation that it is hard to for the reader to parse. It would be better to rephrase it or break it up to make it easier to follow. For example "From time to time, they would read the book by flashlight, trying to memorize passages." That takes the core action "They would read the book" and keeps it concise, while putting the modifications on the action, like "when" and "how" and "why" around the sentence. The way you wrote it, it's hard to picture what is happening. --Jayron32 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't completely clear whether "from time to time by flashlight" refers just to the reading or to both the reading and memorizing. From the sentence as it is, it could mean that from time to time they were trying to memorize what they read from the book as they read it by flashlight. Or it could mean that they read the book from time by time by flashlight, and between those times they tried to memorize what they had read. I think you mean the first one, but I'm not certain.--Dreamahighway (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or that only some of their reading (and memorizing) was by flashlight. —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

relative of Bed No.2

Does "He is a relative of Bed No.2 in this ward." make sense? Is it necessary to say "He is a relative of the patient for Bed No.2 in the ward."? A lot of thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.181.128 (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context. Two experienced nurses who had been working in the same hospital may use such speech among themselves frequently. It wouldn't be standard English in anyway, but people who work and live close together may develop a type of jargon or argot which isn't "standard" English but which is common and understood within the group. So, I could imagine two old Nurses in a hospital referring to patients by their bed numbers as though they were proper names, and that would be normal for them, even if it wouldn't seem normal to others outside the social group. Language tends to work that way; think about Diner lingo and things like that. --Jayron32 23:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all that. Outside that context, the most likely formulation would be "He is a relative of the patient in Bed No.2". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a patient being referred to in that manner might be rather insulted, as this is the classic case of them thinking of the patient as a number, rather than a person. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Editor 347,819. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

At least you've got a name, I am → 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Metonymy... AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

how ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom

In a recent computer game is a quote from Frankenstein. I'm not certain what is being conveyed. "how ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom". Are they saying that this magistrate reckons they're smarter than they are? Maybe even ignorant because of this undeserved pride they have for wisdom they don't actually posses? --78.148.110.69 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it to mean "You're not as smart as you think you are". In the case of Dr Frankenstein, one could argue that he was intelligent enough to know how to bring the dead back to life, but not wise enough to know that doing so was a really bad idea.StuRat (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to read the quote in context, it's here. Frankenstein wants the monster destroyed, but the magistrate doubts his account, but if true, he doubts that the monster can be caught. When Frankenstein becomes agitated; 'He [the magistrate,] endeavoured to soothe me as a nurse does a child, and reverted to my tale as the effects of delirium. "Man," I cried, "how ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom! Cease; you know not what it is you say."' Frankenstein is desperately trying to persuade the magistrate to believe his evidence and to take immediate action. The magistrate's "wisdom" is leading him to the conclusion that the monster is a figment of Frankenstein's imagination. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mrs. Breen's Senior English on this quote. Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the "not safe for work" warning

So just what is the history of the not safe for work warning that's used whenever "inappropriate" material is discussed in a website? Or stub on the warning gives only a description of its use, but does not elaborate on its etymology or history. Did the term even exist before the Internet/Usenet, or not, ala "spoiler"? If it is a relatively recent term, when and where was it first used? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term wasn't used in that sense before the internet. According to Know Your Meme, the first known use happened on Fark, August 22, 2000: “Vote for Fark in the StileProject Top 100. Not safe for work. Not safe period.”. Know Your Meme has more info, including on the earlier "Not For British School Kids" (NFBSK) in 1998, links to snopes etc. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information: can someone add those to our article? I know KYM isn't reliable, but maybe Fark is? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

about verb tense

I came across the following sentence. He wondered: Has Henry turned well? Has Mary come back home safe and sound? I'm inclined to use past perfect tense after the colon. Am I right? Or is the sentence a correct one? Thank you.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.234.184 (talk • contribs)

Unless you mean that Henry has rotated with some degree of skill, you should probably say Has Henry become well. Aside from that, it would be better to offset with quotation marks rather than a colon. He wondered, "Has Henry become well? Has Mary returned home safe and sound?" Regarding the tense, it would be better to use did if some time had passed after the action [probably] happened; has suggests something more recent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even "become well" sounds odd to me (though it's much better than "turned well"). I'd prefer to say something like "Has Henry's health recovered?" or "Is Henry well again?", or, as Jeffro suggests above, "Did Henry's health recover?" Dbfirs 12:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more idiomatically, "Has Henry gotten better?" (American English), or "Is Henry better now?" Marco polo (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the question asked: I reckon past perfect is more usual in this sort of narration. —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he or she also asked whether the sentence was correct, and we've responded to that question. On the question of tense, past perfect is the tense to use if the speaker is referring to the current state of events that have happened from the past to the present. However, if the speaker is referring to events that finished before the present, then you would use the simple past (He wondered, "Did Henry get better? Did Mary come back safe and sound?"). Which tense to use depends on the perspective of the speaker. English verb forms are really as much about aspect and mood as they are about tense, strictly speaking. Marco polo (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an account of speech, then the sentence is incorrect because it lacks quotation marks (though of course if you're a famously eccentric writer you can get away with omitting them). If it's not an account of speech, simple past is less usual. For example, I have in mind a scene in a Nero Wolfe story, where the narrator has found a murder victim in a place where he doesn't belong. "I stopped to think. Had I put my fingerprint on the light switch? I decided I hadn't, and left the room." (That's a paraphrase but I'm confident of the tense. Since I first read that story, I've habitually pushed elevator buttons with a knuckle.) During the event Archie wasn't thinking in pluperfect, but he's not the kind to quote his thoughts as if they were speech. Some writers quote the internal monologue in italics: "I stopped to think. Did I put a fingerprint on the light switch? No. I left the room." —Tamfang (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vocational schools

Would any friend tell me if vocational schools are where high-school graduates choose to go in the US if they don't enter universities? Thank you!

No, in the U.S. the term "vocational school" is usually used for a high school where the standard course of study is primarily career focused rather than college-preparatory focused. That is, students go to vocational schools instead of high schools. See, for some examples, Greater Lowell Technical High School and Chicago Vocational High School for a few examples. The term "vocational education" is becoming archaic; in the last ten years or so the new phrase that means the exact same thing is "Career and Technical Education" or "CTE". In the U.S., schools intended to be attended after high school but instead of universities where vocational training goes on are called community colleges, or sometimes by their older term junior colleges. Such institutions also allow their credits to be transferred to a standard 4-year university upon completion, but primarily they are focused on job training. --Jayron32 11:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly non-college vocational schools for post-high school students offering courses in anything from motorcycle maintenance to aircraft mechanics to business and medical assistants. See Career college#United States, For-profit education and the very incomplete Vocational education in the United States. Rmhermen (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may also use the term "vocational school" for such institutions as Milwaukee Area Technical College, a member of the Wisconsin Technical College System of state supported vocational, technical, and adult education post-secondary schools. They are public colleges, granting two-year degrees, certifications, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. Which is what I said. However, the specific phrasing "vocational school" is more commonly (as in, not 100%, not never ever used for this and only this, just more commonly, as in most of the time, sometimes its a bit different, but usually) used for high schools rather than post-secondary schools. --Jayron32 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. I find things like [3] Rmhermen (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation provided. --Jayron32 02:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't actually address the meaning of the term "vocational school" and the results are far closer than you statement implied. There may also be regional usage differences. Rmhermen (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a help I'm keeping by apples!

Is there any problem with the sentence "What a help I'm keeping by apples!" The context is: Tom is the owner of an orchard and John is a boy who loves eating apples. The latter often comes to the orchard to help Tom with his work, and in return he gets some apples from Tom. Tom remarks to others jokingly, "What a help I'm keeping by apples!" A lot of thanks!

It sounds like complete nonsense. It almost sounds as though you're using by apples in the sense of a euphemism more the idiomatic 'oath', by God, but it still sounds ridiculous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to read it three times before I understood what you meant, and then only with the aid of your context. I assume that you mean "What a good help I'm getting in exchange for apples!" (in which case, why not say that instead of condensing it to the point of incomprehensibility?) Dbfirs 12:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you mean "keeping by", in the sense "keeping aside", "keeping to one side". In which case you might say "It's a good thing I've got plenty of apples to hand". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stilted, but close to the original: "what help I'm getting by means of apples" is grammatical. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What a helper! I'm paying him with apples!" Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. That "What a help" didn't sound right to me, either. I might split it up, though:

"What a helper", said farmer John, "And I'm paying him with apples !"

StuRat (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What a bargain, to get such help for apples!" —Tamfang (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon which the reader asks, "why did the apples need the help?" --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear unsigned: [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

Chinese question:

What is the Chinese text in File:Taiping Cable Car.JPG? I want to annotate the image with it. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

歡迎你乘坐黃山太平索道！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.144.60 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: it's 您 instead of 你. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And which, I think, says Welcome aboard Huangshan Taiping cableway, not exactly what is written underneath it. 120.145.97.4 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

attribution of languages

A discussion above provokes a new question: What languages are now known not to have been spoken by the people for whom they were first named, and have any such languages been renamed? —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of Cuneiform decipherment, when the Sumerian language was not understood very well, it was sometimes called "Scythic"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hittite language may or may not have been used by the Biblical Hittites for which it is named. Rojomoke (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's pretty clear that the people that we know used Hittite did not call themselves or their language Hittite. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terms you are perhaps looking for, User:Tamfang are exonym and endonym. Many people simply call themselves "the people" and their neighbors "the enemy" and are in turn called "the enemy" by their neighbors. They are often named when English speakers ask their neighbors what the strange people down the river are called, and the former answer, the "blahblahs", meaning the enemy. My grandmother called our language po naszomu ("our way", "by us") and the Germans the nemecky, i.e., "don't talks". The latter is the source of the last names Nimitz and Namath. μηδείς (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what exonym, endonym, and your grandmother have to do with the question. 186.93.131.249 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language groups often acquire different names over time according to historical accident of who is asking whom what a group's name is. The slavs called the Germans nemcy meaning "mute" (literally "don't talk") This usage was borrowed by the Hungarians from the Slavs, by the Turks from the Hungarians, and by the Arabs (al-Nimsa) from the Turks (Nemçe). Similarly, the Arabs encountered Western Europeans during the Arab expansion and the crusades in the form of the Franks, a Germanic people. (This even though the French speak a Romance, not a Germanic language.) This lead to Europeans being called faranji (yes, the same as Star Trek's Ferengi) and the word for white person in Ethiopian being faranj. Now, obviously, my grandmother played a small but significant role in all this. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos's and Rojomoke's answers are examples of what I was after, thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rifle platoon leader v. infantry officer (platoon level)

In the US military context, are these two terms synonymous? Gullabile (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Platoon#United States organization explains American military terminology here. --Jayron32 00:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My question better worded would be: Are all infantry platoons rifle platoons in the US military? Gullabile (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, ~3:1 Rifle:Wpns. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

Hardness as a personal trait

Neue Deutsche Härte is translated in the article as New German Hardness. As far as I can see, this term is most often used to describe physical properties of substances in English. But of course, the term hints at being hard as a personal trait. Is it ok to use this expression? Might there be a better one? --KnightMove (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hard is used in English in this sense. It refers to someone who is unyielding or unsympathetic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it describes such a someone. —Tamfang (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with Moses and the pharaoh, the latter having "hardened his heart" each time one of the plagues had ended, having previously promised to give Moses' people their freedom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's the song Harden My Heart. StuRat (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome,

Knew you not Pompey?" (Marullus, Julius Caesar) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed.. " (Matthew 25:24) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... which gives new meaning to "A hard man is good to find". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

"Why should men love the Church?... She is tender where they would be hard, and hard where they like to be soft." T S Elliot, Choruses from The Rock.[5] Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I got the meaning of hard wrong in English. Let's pose the question in a different way: Does the noun hardness carry the same connotations as the hard in hard rock? If no, is there a better noun for that purpose? Toughness, maybe? --KnightMove (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here/. Several of these common definitions involve personality traits. Since I don't speak German, I don't know what the proper sense-for-sense translation should be here, but hard can certainly be applied to personalities. --Jayron32 16:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking specifically about "hard" as applied to rock music, which is not really the same as either "hard" or "tough" (or any other personality trait) as applied to persons; it's about the sound. That's not to say it's completely unrelated (my unsourced observation is that hard rock tends to be unsentimental, as compared to several other subgenres of rock) but it's not the same thing. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as heavy as New German Wellies?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Ok, it seems that I've seen a problem where none is. Thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do speak German, and the word hart, when applied to people, usually does not mean the same as hard in English. Hard in English would usually correspond to something like streng in German, whereas hart in German is more like tough in English. Marco polo (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... so hart in German means the same as hard in Scouse? Dbfirs 21:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hard rock may have been named by analogy with hard liquor. —Tamfang (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... or possibly Hard Scousers. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High English?

Which variety of English is presented in phrases like "fear not, John, for we shall avenge", "Men of the South, be not dismayed!", "survive we will", "You tempt the wrath of the Khala" or "Tassadar be praised"? That is it may be literary English or the so-called high English, but I'm unsure. Thanks --93.174.25.12 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like good old Will Shakespeare to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically just (British) Modern English, but spoken in a slightly more formal or literary mode than is common for the vast majority of current speakers. The speakers/writers are speaking in standard grammatical forms that would have been taught in any school up to the 1950s, and in many schools until probably the 1970s. For what it's worth, my family speak like this at home and with friends (though sometimes ironically when with friends), and with other people like us, and this mode of English is my mother tongue. I generally remember to speak less precisely at work or with people I don't know, of course, because it's polite to speak to people in their own language. One entertaining feature of being part of a minority linguistic community is watching the next generation learn which mode applies in which social situation, and to whom, often with amusing results. RomanSpa (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Literary English is a better description than High English. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of English is not any more or less precise than standard English, or for that matter, any other language. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's archaic literary language. When it's not used authentically, it can be called Wardour Street. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English in the style of the Book of Common Prayer was still used in the liturgy of Anglicans and other denominations. Until the 1950s, those writing new hymns or prayers felt the need to address God as "thou" and use other quirks of 17th century formal language. I had always believed that this style was called "Prayer Book English" but Google hasn't found anything to confirm this for me. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: texts in this style are still being written today - see the The Coronation Anniversary Prayer written for a service in 2013, includes the line "thou wilt pour upon her thy choicest gifts" (a version in modern English is also provided). Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since at least two of these are from Starcraft II, I can say with fair certainty that it's intended to contrast the princely and technologically advanced Protoss with the much more... down to earth... Terrans. "Literary English" gives the sense of education, of class, than vernacular English — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anfechtung

What are all the linguistic nuances of Anfechtung in 16th century German? How do you pronounce it anyway? 140.254.227.30 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't claim to sense all the nuances, as I haven't read that much 16th century German, but if you're referring to Luther, "temptation", "trial", "affliction", and "tribulation" have been used in English translations according to "The Concept of Anfechtung in Luther's Thought" (1983) by David P. Scaer who writes that "each of these English words develops one facet" of Anfechtung ("temptation" for being tested by Satan, "trial" for the probationary period before God, "affliction" for the individual's actual suffering and "tribulation" for the affliction as "suffered by all Christians"). The author wonders whether Anfechtung is perhaps best left untranslated, but admits that this would be "the route of theological and literary cowardice".

Nowadays it's pronounced IPA: [ˈanˌfɛçtʊŋ] (I don't know how to represent the "ich-Laut" without the help of IPA).

It's based on the verb "anfechten" which these days usually means "to contest", "to challenge", "to dispute" etc, but rarely "to bother" or "to afflict"; you might still hear "Was ficht dich an?" ("What's wrong with you?") or "Das ficht mich nicht an" ("That doesn't concern me"), but it has a touch of silliness/irony nowadays. The verb "fechten" without the prefix is a cognate of English "to fight". (In modern Standard German it means "to fence"). The prefix "an-" has many possible meanings. Here I sense it has something to do with initiating the action, making first contact, toward a fight/Gefecht, similar to angreifen ("to attack"). Sorry, this is all a bit unstructured. Hopefully others have more to add. --Sluzzelin talk 11:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

Eastern European naming conventions

Eastern European naming conventions dictate that a female's surname would end in -ska or -ova, and a male's surname would end in -ski or -ov. Now, suppose we have a female, Miss Jakubowska, and she marries an American man named Mr. Smith. By American conventions, she would be known as Mrs. Smith and her children with the man will be known as __________ Smith. Now, if the same person had been male, then he would be known as Mr. Jakubowski, and his children with his American wife, would be... um, this gets a bit tricky. Would the children typically follow Polish naming conventions or American naming conventions? How about a case where a single Polish woman adopts a male child. Would he receive her exact surname (Jakubowska) or the male equivalent (Jakubowski) or his birth name? What if the said single Polish woman is impregnated by a man but does not marry him? Would the child receive the man's surname if the man is known or the woman's surname (masculine version) if the man is unknown? 140.254.227.101 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your generalization about surname forms does not apply to all cases. It doesn't apply in Eastern European countries with non-Slavic languages, and even in the Slavic countries, not every surname ends in -ski or -ov in the masculine form. Also, the spelling of those forms varies among Slavic countries. For example, in the Czech Republic, names end in -sky rather than -ski. I can't comment on how Poles handle surnames for single mothers in various scenarios, but I think I can answer the question about the children of Mr. Jakubowski and his American wife. Assuming that the couple did not adopt a shared surname such as Jakubowski-Smith, then the children would normally take the father's surname. The form of that surname would probably depend on the country where the couple intended to raise the children. In the United States, children of Slavic immigrants generally use the masculine form of the father's surname, even if they are girls. In Poland, I expect that the children's surname would take the appropriate form for their genders. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the last question, it's very rare (to my knowledge) for a single woman to give her child the surname of a man she had never married, unless they were in a de facto relationship akin to marriage. Circumstances vary, but generally it would raise too many uncomfortable questions. Or, rather, simple and innocent questions requiring uncomfortable answers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a country where "gendered" family names are used, the child will always have a properly gendered last name. So a male child of a single mother normally gets her last name, but in masculine form. If you tried to give him a feminine last name intentionally, you probably legally can't, or would find it very hard. Of course, in the US or other places which do not recognize gendered last names, the automatic assumption is that the child just get his mother's name. And you get people with names like Ed Lazowska which seems quite weird to me. --Ornil (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It varies in the U.S. some, but quite often the child is given the father's surname even if the mother has no intention of maintaining a long-term relationship with the father. I would say that in the U.S., while far from universal, such a situation is somewhat more common than not. --Jayron32 23:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.227.101 -- I have no idea if it happens in reality, but in Greg Bear's Eon, there's a male U.S. character who has a Slavic feminine last name due to ancestral family history... AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Poland naming conventions are regulated by law. Generally, there are three possible cases, depending on the surname's grammatical characteristics:

Name declined like a noun – same form for men and women, e.g.:
Jan Nowak, Łukasz Kowal, Jakub Środa (men);

Anna Nowak, Olga Kowal, Barbara Środa (women)
Name declined like an adjective that ends, in the masculine form, in -ski, cki or -dzki – masculine form for men, feminine form for women, e.g.:
Jan Nowacki, Łukasz Kowalski, Jakub Śródzki;

Anna Nowacka, Olga Kowalska, Barbara Śródzka.
Name declined like an adjective that doesn't end, in the masculine form, in -ski, cki or -dzki – if you're getting married and taking your spouse's surname, you may choose whether you want your new surname's grammatical gender to match your sex or not (the same if you're registering your newborn baby). So if a woman is getting married to a man whose name is Biały, Cichy or Silny, she may choose to be called either Biały, Cichy, Silny or Biała, Cicha, Silna.

Of course, these conventions do not apply outside Poland. So if an American woman married a Polish man by the name Kowalski in the U.S., she would likely adopt the name Kowalski. If she then moved to Poland and became a Polish citizen or resident, her surname would not be automatically changed to Kowalska. If she wanted to change her name to a grammatically correct one, she would have to legally request such a change.

Sources:

Ustawa z dnia 17 października 2008 r. o zmianie imienia i nazwiska [Given Name and Surname Change Act], Dz. U., 2008, vol. 220, No. 1414 (2008-12-12)
Rozporządzenie Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji z dnia 26 października 1998 r. w sprawie szczegółowych zasad sporządzania aktów stanu cywilnego... [Ordinance of the Minister of Internal and Administrative Affairs on the Rules for Preparation of Acts of Marital Status, etc.], Dz. U., 1998, vol. 136, No. 884 (1998-10-26) — Kpalion^(talk) 17:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Word request

What word would best fit this case? A researcher decides to do a study on whatever, and after collecting data and performing a statistical analysis on the data, he concludes that he's not rejected the null hypothesis and that there is no significant correlation between X and Y at .01 alpha-level of significance. But he further changes the .01 to a .05, giving him more power, and justifies the change. At this point, he declares that he's rejected the null and that there is a significant correlation between X and Y at .05 alpha-level of significance. Obviously, this is academic dishonesty... or perhaps it's pseudoscience? 140.254.226.242 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success to include whatever you did." StuRat (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

On the other hand, "Artificial intelligence is that which hasn't been done." —Tamfang (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamfang -- "What's easy is hard and what's hard is easy" is a valid maxim in artificial intelligence. Things that are very hard for humans (e.g. long laborious mathematical calculations) are easy for computers, while things that are very easy for humans (vision, motion, language) are extremely difficult to implement in machines. In the 1960s, before this was fully understood, some people imagined that the development of such things as a computer program which could beat many people playing checkers (draughts) meant that big breakthroughs in achieving artificial intelligence were just around the corner, but that wasn't the case... AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether there's a word. It reminds me of stories about someone who shot a gun and then drew a target around the bullet hole. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On which subject, of course, we have an article. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience can be a lot of things, but generally it doesn't include deliberately falsifying results. So I wouldn't use that word. The best I can find is "scientific misconduct." See the Wikipedia article for Scientific misconduct.--Dreamahighway (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not dishonest at all. The fact that he was expecting 0.01 doesn't change the fact that the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level, and there's nothing wrong with reporting p=0.03 (for example) if that's actually the case. Scientists have to deal with unexpected sources of error all the time. It's frequently the case that their results are weaker than what they were hoping for, but that doesn't make the result any less valid. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.226.242 -- Often such "significance" testing isn't what's most practically important anyway, since these numbers have very little to do with effect size. Something can be significant to the .00001 level and still have semi-negligible effect size... AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academic fraud. See Academic dishonesty#Fabrication.
Sleigh (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not fraud or pseudoscience, or even academic dishonesty if the researcher reports the actual data, because then any statistician can make an appropriate inference about statistical significance. A scrupulously honest researcher would report that he was originally intending to test at the 1% level and that the results obtained are not significant at this level, but he could then perfectly justifiably go on explain that the results are significant at the 5% level and that further research might be called for. Testing of medicinal drugs in the past has often been unreported when the required significance level has not been reached, but regulations in the UK are now requiring all results to be published, even the ones that don't turn out as expected or hoped. Dbfirs 18:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asia languages

examples of countries or communities in a country where many people fluent in two asian languages but only basic english? i know one is the chinese malaysians fluent in both mandarin and malay. --121.7.10.138 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In many parts of China, people will be fluent in their local language as well as Mandarin. See Languages of China. --Jayron32 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the majority of urban Javanese people are fluent in Indonesian, with good (low) Javanese, but middling English. It's quite common to be bilingual in Indonesia, considering the vast number of languages spoken in the country./ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our list of multilingual countries and regions in Asia might be of help here (for example the large minority of Azeri Turkish-speakers in Iran who also speak Farsi. Or the Kurdish- and Aramaic-speakers in Iraq who also speak Arabic). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papual new Guinea have over 850 languages on a population of 7M, and knowledge of English exists, but is not good, see Languages_of_Papua_New_Guinea and Papua_New_Guinea. A friend who has been there once told me that it is quite common for children to speak five local languages just to be able to communicate with all the other children that they play with. (No reference, just hearsay, I am afraid). Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some areas of New Guinea practice linguistic exogamy, where a female marries a male of a group speaking a different native language. This often means a young woman knows the native language of her father's group, the language her mother brought into the family, and the language of her new husband. See William A. Foley The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Existing features under lost estates

Is there anything wrong with this sentence:

"The Hodbarrow Drain is a mine working under the 17th-century Huddleston Estate, then in the historic county of Cumberland."

To my mind, this mixes tenses, unacceptably, in a single sentence. Or is it acceptable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's acceptable but it seems to me you're trying to cram a lot of information (about the mine, the estate, and the county) into one short sentence. If it's a "lost" estate, how about "The Hodbarrow Drain is a mine working under the former Huddleston Estate, which was founded in the 17th-century in what was then Cumberland." Also it might be more relevant to provide the date of the mine rather than the date of the estate (are they connected in any other way?), and "Cumberland" is rather a vague identification of the location; how about "X miles north of Y-town" so that the inclusion of an historic county is unnecessary?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it would be clearer to say "... is a mine working which lies beneath ...", to make it immediately obvious that the word "working" goes with "mine" and not with "under".----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is "working" a noun or a verb. Is it that the mine is working, or is a "mine working" a thing? If, as I suspect, the latter, then there's only one verb in the sentence, and the question of clash of tenses doesn't arise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended as a noun. But it might just as well be mine-shaft, or tunnel, or whatever. Please ignore it. My basic problem is with the word "is" occurring before the word "then" - the 17th-century Huddleston Estate no longer exists, nor does the county in which it was located, but the tunnel beneath it still does. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd pretty much echo Shantavira's first sentence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Port/dock terminology,

Naval nomenclature is the bane of my existence!

There seem to be an enormous number of words describing places where ships dock. Warf, pier, quay, dock...to name just a few. Are they all just synonyms or is there some subtle maritime reasoning behind what bit of planking/stone stretching out over the sea is called what? Dictionaries seem confused on the topic. SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Shipping Law Blog: What is the Difference Between a Port, Quay, Pier and Wharf? has answers in words and pictures.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]