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.

April 5

anecdotally

"Anecdotally, I can tell you people are just as likely to click on negative stories as they are to click on positive ones." How can "anecdotally" be understood in the above sentence? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.239 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This smells of homework, but I'm happy to refer you to our article that explains what an anecdote is.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisionally, I'd describe it as an adverb in apposition, but that's only my opinion. Hopefully, a grammarian will clarify. Meanwhile, you might like to read the article on Disjunct (linguistics). Dbfirs 20:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case the querent (whose IP geolocates to China), is merely asking for the sense of anectotally in the sentence, it means that the person speaking or writing the sentence is basing the statement on personal experience, of either their own or others' actions, and not on scientific studies or the like. Deor (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language with only three verbs

I remember hearing about a language that only has three verbs (do, go and something) but I can't remember what it is called. I think it was an Australian aboriginal language. (A google search suggested Jingulu but our article Jingulu language says nothing about this. There was also something about Igbo not using verbs as we think of them but again nothing at Igbo language). Anyone remember the name of this language so I can read up on it? RJFJR (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Kalam languages in general, and on Kobon language in particular, mention that they are among the languages with the smallest number of lexical verbs, but give ranges of 100-120 and 90-120.

Where have all the verbs gone? Remarks on the organisation of languages with small, closed verb classes (2006) by Andrew Pawley has more on the verbs and "paucity of verb roots", for ~~Jingulu~~ Jaminjung and Kalam. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (Note added later: Apologies, my very bad, I misread crudely. That paper is discussing Jaminjung, not Jingulu. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, here is perhaps what you read:

"Jingulu spoken in Australia has only three verbs: do, go, and come. Igbo (Ibo), a language of approximately 18 million speakers in Nigeria, does not have verbs at all. Instead, Igbo uses clusters termed ‘inherent complement verbs’ (ICV) that have the structure –gbá plus a noun."

See On the Nature of Syntax (2008) by Alona Soschen. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Baker writes that Jingulu is the "most serious candidate" for a "verbless language" he has found. "Jingulu has exactly three verbal items that can inflect for agreement and (suppletively) for tense; [Robert J.] Pensalfini glosses them as 'come', 'go', and 'do/be'. [...] If one wants to say anything other than 'come', 'go', or do', one must combine a bare root that has lexical semantic content with one of these three items, which then functions as an auxiliary, bearing the tense and agreement of the clause [...]." (Baker, Mark; Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives; Cambridge University Press; 2003; p 90; ISBN 9780521001106) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basque verbs come in a closed class of a dozen or so that are actually conjugated, including be, go, come, know, take, have, and bring. The remainder of "verbs" are participles that form periphrastic phrases with to be. Examples are eat, drink, buy, fall, open, learn. In English this would be as if one could say he comes and he has, but not he drinks or he buys, just he is drinking, or he is buying. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, Kēlen is a constructed language designed to have no verbs at all. --Theurgist (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

History of netiquette conventions

How did certain conventions of modern netiquette come about? Like why does italics mean a particular word is pronounced with a stress? OR WHY DOES ALL CAPS USUALLY MEAN SHOUTING? excuse me, but why does small letters mean a whisper? --TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In old style Usenet, e-mail lists (LISTSERVs), and dial-up BBSs, italics and font-size variations were generally not an option. The convention against indiscriminate use of ALL CAPS presumably came about because some people posted messages entirely in capital-letters throughout, which made them somewhat difficult to read. In a few cases, such uniform all-caps messages were due to the use of obsolete technology or obscure computing systems with character sets that were not fully ASCII-compatible, but such possible explanations were already starting to wear a little thin by about 1993... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WWW became widespread in 1994/95, and before that, Usenet newsgroups (discussion forums) and BBS were popular with the limited number of Net users. Each active newsgroup would usually have a FAQ written by its moderator(s) or regular users, and netiquette was usually included. If you joined a newsgroup and broke the netiquette rules, you would be told by the regular users to read the FAQ, and users could be blocked by moderators for consistently breaking the netiquette rules established for that group. I guess that's how it became standardized. As for the historic origins of conventions like italics, etc., some of it predates the Net, some of it, like emoticons, just suited the new communications medium. OttawaAC (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it originally had something to do with comic books printing dialogue in ALL CAPS. Though sometimes ALL CAPS can be used effectively without conveying the appearance of shouting, e.g. on advertisement billboards and the like. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regular typesetting of physically printed material, all-caps can be very effective for "display text" (i.e. relatively brief captions or headlines which seek to attract attention), not so good for lengthy "book text"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of italics to indicate emphasis is of long standing in typesetting, although our article doesn't indicate its origin. You see italics quite overused in material printed in the 1700's for emphasis of all sorts. I'd guess its use restricted just to indicate verbal emphasis developed after this era. It is certainly in use by the 1940's and must predate that by a good amount. I wonder if Lewis Carroll used it. μηδείς (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the following can be found in an 1897 edition (for example) "That you won't!" thought Alice", and "It was such a thunderstorm, you can't think!". I can't see enough pages to be sure that he didn't use italics for other non-spoken & non-thought emphasis, but I haven't found any. Dbfirs 20:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks, User:Dbfirs. I suspected with all the shouting that goes on in Alice there might be some italicising. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All caps for SHOUTING predates the widespread use of the internet by some time. The convention was sufficiently common by 1989 for John Irving to use it in A Prayer for Owen Meany, published in 1989. The title character shouted everything he spoke; he was incapable of speaking in anything other than a shout. Irving rendered his speech in ALL CAPS to represent this. I am unaware that Irving was particularly concerned with the conventions of the nascent internet world at that time. It is likely such a convention existed in literature prior to his use of it. --Jayron32 01:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure "Internet culture" would be too accurate for 1989. At that time, the majority of end-users didn't technically use the Internet (IP protocol) to check their e-mail or read Usenet, though server computers were often connected to each other through the Internet... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was sort of the point. The convention of using ALL CAPS for shouting dialogue predated the meaningful "internet" by some time. --Jayron32 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fanzines printed by mimeograph, underlining was undesirable because it created a long cut in the stencil which invited tearing; I guess that's why all-caps was often used instead for emphasis and for book titles (in my limited experience). I'd bet that culture had a significant early influence on Net culture. —Tamfang (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi (?) -> English translation

Hello, I got as a gift these two [ keyrings] with hindi word on it. I would be very thankful to anyone that can translate it. Thank you very much in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.208.187 (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the top word is शुभ (Hindi pronunciation: [subʰ] "auspicious" or "lucky") and the bottom word is लाभ (Hindi pronunciation: [laːbʰ], "profit" or "increase"). The two words are often seen together as a blessing or on talismans and such.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/subʰ/ not /ʃubʰ/? —Tamfang (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your quick and detailed answer ! Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.208.187 (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. And, btw, Tamfang is correct, it is /ʃubʰ/, not /subʰ/.....darn my lisp!!!--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct wording

I just used this sentence in another Reference Desk posting: "Will the seller know that it is me specifically who is watching his item?". On second glance, it seemed that the correct wording should be: "Will the seller know that it is I specifically who am watching his item?". But, that also seems awkward. What is the correct way to word this sentence, if I want to keep its structure? That is, I don't want to rearrange the wording. So, in other words, which pronoun is correct, "me" or "I"? Which verb is correct, "is" or "am"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're both correct. The first wording is more colloquial, the second sounds pedantic. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, how (or perhaps why) is it that the first can be correct? I am confused. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct because in colloquial English, we use disjunctive pronouns as predicative complements (just as in French, cf. c'est moi, not *c'est je) and we consider who a third-person pronoun and use third-person verb forms after it accordingly. Angr (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a term for that sort of mismatch between pronoun (1st person in this case) and verb (3rd person, I suppose)?

Another example that comes to mind is from "Clancy of the Overflow": Clancy's gone to Queensland droving, And we don't know where he are (which sounds authentically like C19th country talk, but also rhymes with the preceding line ...written with a thumbnail dipped in tar). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro -- you can read in Otto Jespersen's big "Modern English Grammar" how finite subordinate clauses with relative subject pronoun rarely take non-3rd-person verbs in modern English, even if the relative pronoun refers back to something in the 1st or 2nd person in the main clause. As the question is posed (non-3rd-person in main clause referred to by relative pronoun which has the role of subject in the subordinate clause), there simply might not be any answer which is both logically and stylistically satisfactory ("All grammars leak" as Sapir said). AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find TLS article

I'm trying to obtain a copy of an article in the Times Literary Supplement archives, but I do not have access to their database. The article is How the Light Came In by Jonathan Israel, published on June 21, 2013. It was a review article for the book THE ENLIGHTENMENT And why it still matters by Anthony Pagden.

Can anyone help me track down a copy of this article or direct me to the right place on-wiki to ask those that would have access to the TLS database? Silverseren^C 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try The Resource Exchange at WP:REX They are specifically designed to help people access references they know exist, but cannot directly access themselves. --Jayron32 01:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i'll try that. Silverseren^C 01:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

"Pled" vs "Pleaded"?

Which one is more appropriate in a judicial context? I believe 'pled' is the more common variant in American Legal Usage, but I am still unsure of which is the proper form. --Flipandflopped (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to specify which country you're actually interested in. For the U.S., I did a search of U.S. Supreme Court opinions here, and found that pleaded is about 200 times more common than pled. 184.171.208.24 (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's unfortunate. Personally, I use pled for "offered a formal plea in a court of law", and reserve pleaded for "importuned earnestly". I'm probably not completely consistent about it. Do others make the same distinction? Or even the reverse distinction? --Trovatore (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree with Trovatore, though "pleaded" is much more common for both usages in England. The OED in its entry updated June 2006 says "Chiefly Scottish and U.S." for "pled", (Walter Scott used pled in Fair Maid of Perth in 1828.) Here in northern England, I would not object to pled used in the legal sense, but I would view it as odd used in other senses. In Australia & New Zealand, pled is rare. Dbfirs 06:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, the past tense pled, which had originally been in competition with pleaded, fell out of use in English English, and became limited to Scotland. It then made its way to the U.S., where it became established. Later, in the late 19th and early 20th century, the form pled was "attacked by many American [usage] commentators." As was often the case, the true reason for the attacks was most likely that the word was not in mainstream use in Britain, although the arguments put forward against it may have been couched in different terms, as simply saying "the British don't do it this way, so we shouldn't either" would have been much too transparent, even in those days. Eventually, the form pled regained its respectability in the U.S. But given the conservatism of U.S. legal circles, and particularly of the Supreme Court, it's not surprising that any word that was once the object of criticism would be eschewed. So I'm not surprised to see an overwhelming preference in legal writing for pleaded in opposition to majority non-legal usage. Language conservatives like Bryan Garner continue to recommend pleaded as "the predominant form in both AmE and BrE and always the best choice" (in his Modern American Usage). He even claims that pled is "[not] quite standard in AmE," a claim not supported by the evidence, as the MWDEU entry for plead makes clear.

Personally, I make no distinction in meaning between pled and pleaded, ~~except that in some fields of discourse you're less likely to encounter pled for the reasons I've mentioned. Any perceived differences in meaning would likely be caused by this.~~ 184.171.208.24 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure I follow. Are you claiming that "pled" is actually less likely in the context of a plea offered at trial? I don't think that's right at all. I would say for example "he pled guilty, then pleaded with the judge not to impose the death penalty". The alternative "he pled with the judge" would sound unusual, maybe pretentious. --Trovatore (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the first context you mention, as in "he pleaded/pled guilty" I think a journalist or the general public would be more likely to use pled than a lawyer would, particularly in writing. But I think both forms are possible in both contexts. For example, the MWDEU gives these examples:

Both pled not guilty.

...a scene, for whose life I pled, vainly.

My mother pled with the girl's mother to allow her to let the dress down.

...pleaded innocent before Criminal Court Judge Jerome Kay.

...pled not guilty and was found not guilty.

That being said, in terms of frequency, you may well be correct that pled is less common in the second context, so I withdraw what I said above about fields of discourse. 184.171.208.24 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my day, "pleaded" seemed to be the common usage. Nowadays we hear "pled" more and more often. I guess it's like "bled" rather than "bleeded" or something. We still (mostly) say that a batter flied out rather than flew out, but the latter creeps in sometimes.

Note these peculiarities of English:

bleed/bled, feed/fed, lead/led, read/read ['red']

vs.

cede/ceded, heed/heeded, need/needed, seed/seeded, weed/weeded

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays you'll hear "fleed" and "sweeped" and "dreamed" but I have never said those terms, and never say "pleaded" or, as a participle, "proved". Even "lighted" strikes me as odd. I think my speech is normal for the Delaware Valley in this regard. "Pleaded" seems to be an in-group identifier for people with law and journalism degrees. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, "pled" does seem more appealing to me, although personally I have noticed that sometimes the usage depends on context (as Dbfirs and 184.171.208.24 said). I'm not a grammatical expert either, so bear with me.

"I pled guilty" "I pleaded with the jury to find me guilty"

Is there a difference in context there?

Additionally, in real time talk, I have trouble imaging someone referring to themselves as having "pleaded" something (not to suggest that 'pleaded' is entirely incorrect).

The only context I can imagine 'pleaded' being used in is in the case of pleaded with (something) or pleaded his innocence (something of that sort, where the verb is accompanied by a noun rather than an adjective). "I pleaded guilty" isn't really appealing to me.--Flipandflopped (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pleaded" appears three times in the King James Bible; "pled" not at all. Similarly, in the Complete Works of Shakespeare, "pleaded" appears three times and "pled" not at all. These works had the greatest influence on the English language for centuries. Dbfirs 00:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historically verbs do evolve toward irregularity due to analogy. "Lit" for the old regular "lighted" is an example. As is "dove" for "dived". μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just a feature of North American English? The past tense "dove" is not used in general British English (we regard it as a North American invention). Shakespeare used "dived", not "dove" (except for the bird, of course). The past tense does not appear in the KJV. Both "lighted" and "lit" have been used for the past tense of "light" for many centuries. (I'm delit to have alit on these examples and I hope you don't feel slit. I've plit my allegiance to British English.) Dbfirs 06:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since dove is an innovation, I certainly wasn't arguing that it's universal. I was just drawing attention to the fact that in language change, not all development is from irregularity to regularity. Presumably dove arised in analogy from drive/drove/driven. Yet, although I do hear "have dove": "Have you ever dove off the high board?" dived is more common, and except from my own jesting use of it, you don't (yet?) hear "have diven". μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that. I can't think of any verbs in British English that have newly-invented past tenses, but there might be the odd one. In most cases where we differ from American English (e.g. "spelt" -- Gray & Cowper spelt it that way in the 1700s; Shakespeare used "speld"; Macaulay used "spelled" in his History of 1849), we retain an older form rather than invent a new one. Dbfirs 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not referring to law but journalism but I notice that NPR says pleaded (and I notice because I'd say pled). And my copy of the UPI stylebook (third edition, copyright 1992, 1986, 1977) has the entry "plead The past tense is pleaded, not pled". (Interesting, the firefox spelling checker is objecting to pled.)RJFJR (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, the examples you give seem quite different from each other. For one thing, fleed and sweeped seem extremely unlikely to be produced by a native speaker of English other than as a speech error (that is, they would correct themselves if prompted). At worst, these forms will be corrected on sight by any editor. On the other hand, the pairs dreamed/dreamt, has proved/has proven, pleaded/pled and lighted/lit that you mentioned are all subject to significant variation among educated native speakers, in speech of any degree of formality as well as in (even edited) writing. Dreamed, for example, in addition to being the majority usage in the U.S., has been in constant use for 700 years (see its entry in the MWDEU), so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you can hear it "nowadays." 184.171.208.24 (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nowadays" means currently, it's probably in MWDEU. I have heard fleed at least once from a reporter and sweeped many, many times (although not on Britcoms); the fact that they stood out to me when I heared them is why I remembered them and brought them up. Both are well-attributed at google. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right dislocation in English

This paper identifies certain kinds of right dislocation, for example "She's got a very good degree, has Julie," as being most closely associated with northern England, although it also gives the following example from Margaret Atwood': "She was quite stuck-up about it, was Helen." Charles Boberg, in his book The English Language in Canada, describes this construction as "non-existent" in North America, though he does so "on the basis of casual observation."

My own observation is that it is quite common among hockey commentators here in Canada. Bob Cole seems to use it all the time, as in the following examples that I've made up, but which I think fit with the way he uses right dislocation:

He made a beautiful pass to Kunitz, did Crosby.
He's really kept his team in the game, has Luongo . (This one would have had to be a long time ago.)
He made an incredible save, Price did.
He was just able to keep it inside the line, Markov was.

Both versions, with and without inversion, can be heard. The advantage of this kind of sentence in a fast-moving game like hockey is obvious: you want to state what has happened as quickly as possible, and only when you have time will you fill in less-important details like who performed the action. Although "He made a beautiful pass, Crosby" would be somewhat less exotic in North American English, I also think it would be a little bit harder to follow in the middle of a hockey game, as the auxiliary verb really does help you fit the different parts of the sentence together. And "He made a beautiful pass to Kunitz, Crosby" is in fact of questionable acceptability to me. A sentence like "He made a beautiful pass to his winger, Crosby" would be out of the question due to its ambiguity (saved perhaps only by intonation), but the ambiguity can be resolved by a well-placed did.

I've heard numerous Canadian commentators use the construction in recent years, and increasingly I'm hearing it from American ones as well, though so far only in hockey. I suspect that it may have started with one or two individual Canadian commentators influenced by British English. From there it probably spread to other North American sportscasters. I can think of a couple of reasons it would be more likely to have arisen in Canada. First, we used to have a lot of British commentators in sports like soccer or track and field. Second, Canadians would probably react to it as being slightly less strange, because many more of us would have heard it from British parents or grandparents than would Americans.

My feeling about this construction is that until recently I would have regarded it as entirely British, and not natural for a North American to use. On the other hand, I really love the sound of it (contrary to some other British borrowings that I find quite irritating when used by North Americans, like equalizer - what's suddenly wrong with tying goal?). I don't have any feeling of it being particularly informal as spoken usage goes, although you wouldn't expect it in a throne speech.

How do other North Americans feel about it? Does anybody have a sense of how long it's been in use by sportscasters here? And if you're British, how "northern" do you feel it is? Does it strike Britons as too informal to be used on television? Also, I'd be curious to know about other English-speaking countries like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, if anybody from there has any comments. 184.171.208.24 (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly common (with inversion) here in northern English dialect, but regarded as a colloquial usage. Dbfirs 08:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But not used at all in the south. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that would be the case, but wasn't sure, so made the claim only for the north, and then I think it's only true for parts of the north and among older speakers or in certain dialects. Young people regard the usage as odd, or as something only their grandparents would say. Dbfirs 20:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, as soon as I saw this I thought "Bob Cole". I thought it was because of the speed of the game, they just have to say a bunch of other stuff before they are able to recognize who is doing what on the ice (and in Cole's case, he does it much more often because he's extremely old). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a US-American who never watches hockey, and while I can understand this construction, I have never heard it among my linguistic peers, and I would classify it as one of those odd constructions that occur in (to me) exotic varieties of English. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do hear it in North America on very rare occasion, but it's a highly marked formation, used for emphasis and typically perceived as antiquated or, as noted already, indicative of an outside dialect. Note however that there are a number of small tweaks that can be made which cause it to be perceived as a little less remarkable. Consider, for example, a woman speaking of her late husband and employing a personal pronoun: "He was a great one for surprises, my Charlie was." Omit the second instance of the copula and it becomes more mundane still: "He was a great one for surprises, my Charlie." I think most dialects of English have some form of this kind of construction that can be used without seeming too out-of-the-ordinary, but the descriptive constraints vary some. Snow (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parse Tree for lists

In English, you can list things with commas, but a list is always part of some clause, so my question is: How can you define the syntactic structure of a list? 190.60.93.218 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little unclear to me what you're asking, but I'll toss out some links anyway :) Syntax_(programming_languages)#Example:_Lisp shows how syntax can be defined for the Lisp_programming_language, which was historically developed for LISt Processing. But if you're talking about natural language, then style guides have various prescriptive ways to typographically denote list syntax. But "in the wild" syntactic structure of lists is handled many different ways. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it probably, is, I'm talking about natural language, in which a clause contains a list, I'm not sure how I would make a parse tree of a clause that contains a list since it has more than one, nouns, adjectives or whatever I'm listing. 190.60.93.218 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an example would help? For instance, do you want to know how to make a parse tree of a sentence? Consider the example: "Jane went shopping for three items: a pair of shoes, a red shirt, and a well-sharpened axe." Next, decide on which kind of parse tree you'd like, because you'll get different trees for dependency-based and constituency-based methods. I think the key approach is that the whole list is a clause, containing three noun phrases. Each noun phrase has delimeters, and so on. Ordering in the list can be preserved by ordering of the terminal nodes, as shown in the example in our article. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Traveling overseas"

If you are, say, Canadian and you travel to Mount Rushmore in the United States of America by foot, car, or train, would that still be considered "traveling overseas"? Or does "overseas" automatically imply that you'd be flying/boating over seas? Can the phrase be used figuratively to mean "traveling abroad" or "crossing the American-Canadian border legally"? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas definitely implies travel over water. However, observation suggests that, when speaking of an unspecified destination, people may use it synonymously with abroad if they don't feel that the distinction is significant, or if they mistakenly neglect the possibility of a nearer location. Since the U.S. is a major possible destination for a Canadian travelling outside the country, I don't think many Canadians would use overseas in a way that includes all foreign countries. Saying "Did you enjoy your trip overseas?" to someone who you know has just visited South Dakota would be out of the question. 184.171.208.24 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions vary. See Wictionary and Dictionary.com and Oxford Dictionaries and the Free Dictionary. My opinion is that "overseas" implies crossing an ocean. I would not use it for travel to the U.S. from Canada or vice versa.--Dreamahighway (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People in New England (United States) do not refer to Canada as "overseas". Brazil, maybe, despite the Isthmus of Panama. Europe, Africa, and Asia are definitely overseas. I think "overseas" implies "across an ocean" or at least "on another continent". Marco polo (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada it is sometimes useful to make a three-way distinction between Canada, the US, and "all other countries". For example, there are three sets of postage rates and three sections in some airport terminals. Since "all other countries" is a bit of a mouthful, people look for shorter forms. Sometimes we use "international" with that meaning (even though the US really is also international), but some of us do also sometimes use "overseas" (even though places in the Americas might really not be overseas). --50.100.193.30 (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian from SW Ontario here. I wouldn't use overseas for anything on the American landmasses, perhaps even including the Caribbean; only for travel that took you across an ocean. Matt Deres (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see referring to a trip to Jamaica from New England in the 1800's as overseas, but I have to agree I have never heard anyone going on a cruise to the Caribbean describe it as going overseas. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very worth noting that the phrase Outremer was the Medieval European term for the Levant, and "Outremer" means "overseas", despite the fact that it is quite possible to walk from any part of Europe to the Levant without crossing a "sea". --Jayron32 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That goes to my point that the technology of travel at the time is important. Obviously travel by boat over the sea from Marseilles to the crusader states was easier at that point than travel by land, which was extremely hard and dangerous. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That's why it was called "overseas". Even if it was connected by land. --Jayron32 02:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed that people from the UK and people from Australia use the expression "travel overseas" to mean the same as "travel to another country", any other country. It makes sense for those folks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, this book: [1] notes that "four of the first six secretaries of the treasury were born overseas", describing U.S. Secretaries of the Treasury. Two of the four so described were Alexander Hamilton and Alexander J. Dallas, who were born in the Caribbean. Thus, we can see that the term is used to describe people in the U.S. born on Caribbean Islands. --Jayron32 02:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again that's in the 1700's, and usage is traditional with them. Would John McCain commonly be referred to as having been born overseas? μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except you can walk to where he was born, again without crossing any seas. --Jayron32 02:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or ride a donkey down and sleep in mangers on the way? You can't say the Levant's overseas but The isthmus isn't. A lot of people can't even say isthmus. μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the Levant was overseas. --Jayron32 09:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You said, "It is very worth noting that the phrase Outremer was the Medieval European term for the Levant, and "Outremer" means 'overseas'". Next time I will have a lawyer, typeseter, and philologsit vet my attributions. μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McCain was born overcanals. You heard it here first folks. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an American journalist wrote (in a hypothetical reality) "Five U.S. presidents were born overseas," would this mean that none of them could have been born in Canada? I think if this happened, it wouldn't mean that the journalist considered Canada to be "overseas," just that the distinction for an American between overseas and abroad was small enough to be overlooked. In other words, the prototypical idea an American has of a foreign country is one that is indeed overseas, not Canada. As regards the Caribbean, however, I think that that is arguably "overseas" as viewed from the U.S. With respect to John McCain, wasn't the Canal Zone considered American territory? Obama certainly wasn't born "overseas" from the U.S. standpoint, for example, because Hawaii is in the U.S. (I hope I won't be starting discussion on a whole new topic!) 184.171.208.24 (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In England, crossing the English Channel to foreign parts is often called "going to Europe", which confuses the hell out of overseas visitors who imagine that they're already in Europe (that's another argument). For older Britons, including me, people from Canada, Australia and New Zealand aren't usually referred to as "foreign" due to a childhood filled with propaganda about the "Commonwealth Family". Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's still a Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which implies that "foreign" and "Commonwealth" are mutually exclusive concepts. Proteus (Talk) 12:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right too. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I was younger, so much younger than today, people Down Here would talk of travelling to "the continent", which was understood to be Europe, despite the fact that we already live in a continent and there is another continent much closer to us, and three others further away but still closer than Europe. This terminology was used because our British forebears spoke that way, and in many ways we considered ourselves an extension of Britain. Our Prime Minister Robert Menzies was still secure in the belief that Australia was "British to the bootstraps", and when he travelled to the UK and saw the white cliffs of Dover approaching, he felt he was "coming home". When the Queen of Australia visited Australia, millions would flock to get a glimpse of her, while predominantly waving Union Jacks, with just a sprinkling of Australian flags. Well, we've all passed a lot of water since then, and the UK has even been declared by our own High Court of Australia to be a "foreign power". That means we have the flag of a foreign power taking up fully 25% of our own. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it's four others closer than Europe. --Trovatore (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I am indebted to my honourable and learned colleague. The prosecution rests. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

When Scotland declares its independence

Will travelling their from Wales be considered going overseas? (It's been a few days since we've had a Scottish Independence question). μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(That will depend on whether you travel via England or over the Irish sea.) We usually use "abroad" rather than "overseas", but I suspect it will probably not be until at least a century after Scottish independence that we think of Scotland as "abroad". Dbfirs 06:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC):[reply]

Maybe the title should be changed to "If Scotland declares its independence

MicronationKing (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC) ;[reply]

No, I meant when. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, since you have access to whisperings from the ether that pass us mortals by, you can presumably ask your spirit-guide to answer that question too. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current opinion poll: "Yes" vote = 37% [2] "Yes" vote required = 50% + 1 vote [3] Alansplodge (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Quote -> Arabic Translation

Here's a simple quote:

"It takes two men to make one brother"

My question is, how do you translate that into Arabic? I feel like the verb "take" in this sense is kinda hard to translate... :/

Maybe something like "لازم عندك رجلان ليفعل واحد أخ"

Although, I don't know if the alif-noon should be ya-noon instead on the dual...what's the rule for that, exactly?

Thanks!

131.247.224.148 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from capable of speaking arabic, but in cases like these where I'm translating unusual phrases into French, I try to take the closest possible verb and translate that, no matter how odd it sounds in english. My best guess would be to try 'require' instead of 'take'. May I ask your purpose in translating this? --Flipandflopped (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"فإنه يتطلب رجلين لجعل أخ" Does that sound far off? It might be somewhat of a 'literal' translation. --Flipandflopped (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Handwritten list of Anglican bishops of England?

This question may be more about handwriting than language, so let me know if you don't think this is the right place for the question. I came across this handwritten document inserted into a 17th-century book. The handwriting is pretty hard to make out, but it appears to be a list of Anglican bishops of England around the 1660s. For example, around the middle of the sheet in the first column I made out "D^r Humphrey Henchman Low [church] Bishop of London translated Bishop of Salisbury 1660 and translated to London 166[3]", which matches the information at "Bishop of London".

I was wondering if anyone can make out what the first two paragraphs of the first column say, as this might provide a clue as to why the list was compiled. The second paragraph seems to read "All the Bishops of England now ... [illegible to me] ... are [illegible] in this following catalogue:". — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word after "now" may be liv(e)ing, and your second illegibility may be ranked; the first paragraph is opaque to me, though I can pick out a word here and there. Deor (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look at the first paragraph, and it seems to be an enumeration of some kind:

[Illegible] ... are 2 church [?] bishops : 24 Bishops

... suffragan Bishops ...

... & Collegiate Churches : 60 church

..., 544 prebendary, 7 ...

..., and about 9700 ...

... 7 who for now ...

...

... churches ... :: ...

England 332

Very intriguing. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph, the words "vicars" and "rectors" recur. It does seem to be an enumeration. Marco polo (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That bit in the first line is "are 2 Archbishops". And the third line and beginning of the fourth is "Cathedrals and Collegiate churches : 60 Archdeacons". Deor (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first line is: "In England there are 2 Archbishops : 24 Bishops". The first paragraph is referenced "State of England, [page] 332". It is printed in Edward Chamberlayne's The Present State Of England, 1684, page 244: "In England are 2 Archbishops, 24 Bishops, no Suffragan Bishops at present, 26 Deans of Cathedrals, and Collegiate Churches, 60 Arch-Deacons, 544 Prebendaries, many Rural Deans and about 9700 Rectors and Vicars, besides Curates, who, for certain Stipends, assist such Rectors and Vicars that have the care of more Churches than one". The second paragraph "All the Bishops of England now liveing take place as they are ranked in this following catalogue" finds its counterpart on page 258. The enumeration starts: "D^r Gilbert Sheldon Lord ArchBishop of Canterbury consecrated Bishop of London 1660 and translated to Canterbury 1663". "D^r Richard Sterne Lord ArchBishop of York consecrated Bishop of Carlisle 1660 and translated to York 1664". "D^r Humphrey Henchman Lord Bishop of London consecrated Bishop of Salisbury 1660 and translated to London 1663". The next thing to do is to compare the earlier editions of Chamberlayne's book, especially the 1669 editions. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent detective work. Thanks! I guess we'll never know why the writer decided to copy out information from that book. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He probably didn't know how to work the photocopier! Alansplodge (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the file description page of the file, and also uploaded a 1676 edition of Angliæ Notitia to the Commons. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been an honor, a privilege and a pleasure to know you. Your work is very much appreciated. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wowee. Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did people view nature before the Enlightenment?

moved to Humanities μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Any French ornithologists in the house?

I am translating a French Wikipedia FAC on a bird species. I could use some help with this passage: En plumage usé, les parties inférieures sont plus inégales et plus claires. I've looked at Plumage, and fr:Plume but I am not sure what plumage usé refers to. Maybe basic plumage; maybe nuptial plumage?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no linguist, but surely plumage usé just means "worn plumage", rather than referring to any particular tract? Older feathers are often distinguishable from newer replacements Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I actually discounted that the direct translation was what was meant (and my ear was incorrectly picking up worn as in simply clothed in), in ignorance of bird terminology and thinking it was probably some term of art, but I see now that "worn plumage" is a term of art, used in many bird publications to refer to older plumage. Much obliged.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surname "Iwi"

In preparation for an article, I'm doing some research into Edward Frank Iwi, who is remembered in British constitutional circles for having the gift, as an amateur expert, of often knowing more than those who were supposed and paid to be in the know. Here is a brief biography of him.

One thing I obviously want to nail down immediately is the origin of his most unusual surname. Search iwi and you'll get hits to do with New Zealand Maori or other Polynesian cultures. But my friend was born in London and educated in Wales. Is it possible he had Polynesian antecedents? The source above is concerned with Anglo-Jewish affairs, so is this perhaps a Hebrew name? Or is it Welsh, maybe? I'm just clutching at straws here. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was once in e-mail contact with a British computer scientist named Alan Iwi, who told me it was a Jewish name originating in Iwye, Belarus. Angr (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference you could contact the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain (JGSGB). They have a family trees library, and Iwi is in their collection (reference number A72 on this pdf index). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both excellent answers, thanks folks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First time around I missed the link to an Excel spreadsheet with more info on the various trees. Now I uploaded the file, but all it gave me was:

Tree ref	Main surname(s)	Period	Places	Notes
A72	WARTSKI	no dates	Wales, South Africa	few places matched to people

Wartski was the name of Iwi's stepfather (and of his mother after she married Morris Wartski) if I correctly understand The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History's entry on Iwi you linked. I guess you really would need to contact the JGSGB to get more info. I also found a tiny bit under Iwi: The Saga Continues at RootsWeb, fwiw. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Sluzzelin. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nation foundation

"the purpose of the nation was to keep the certain green-belt areas free of buildings." How could I improve that sentence? MicronationKing (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would drop the word the so that the phrase reads "... to keep certain green-belt areas ..." The rest of the phrase looks fine. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking context, I can't be at all sure of this comment. However, the phrase "THE purpose of the nation" implies to me that the nation only had ONE purpose. This seems unlikely. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too until I saw the OP's username. He's bound to be talking about a micronation, not a real nation. Angr (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the header, it seems he meant (national) foundation. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the foundation of a micronation with the sole aim of preserving a green belt area. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese character request

What are the actual Chinese characters to the pinyin transliteration Ming Ming La? 140.254.227.101 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the Ming Ming part may refer to Ming Ming, in which case the characters are printed. The La may refer to 了, which is a modal particle intensifying preceding clause or a completed action marker. 140.254.227.101 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the context? Where did you see that? Chinese has a LOT of homophones, even when tones are taken into account, and you never indicated the tone of the pinyin. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is regarding User:Mingmingla, this link shows that the name is a nonsense imitation of Chinese, and hence does not have a single "accurate" representation in Chinese characters. There are several ways it could be rendered phonetically in Chinese. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about me, cool. Marco Polo is correct, it is meaningless. That means that, because of Chinese being a tonal language and me being a native English speaker, there is no proper Chinese characters. If anyone can find any that translate to something cool, though, I'd like to see it. Mingmingla (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Messing around for a minute with google translate, I got "Mìngmíng lā"- 命名拉 - "named pull." I'm sure I have no idea what any of it means, but it does seem to sort of fit the idea of you pulling your name out of hat of pseudo-Chinese gibberish! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

Why present continuous tense

Could you tell me why "discover" is used in present continuous tense in the following sentence: "Researchers are discovering that the more people talk to others, the less likely they are to suffer from depression."? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.153 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that the information is still in the process of being discovered, and more evidence is still emerging. It's the sort of thing that you can't really know is true until afterwards (what happens if all future results go the other way?) but that's what is being implied. --Trovatore (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one type of present tense in English. The example you give uses the present continuous (English).OttawaAC (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were you responding to me? I thought I explained that. The present continuous is used here to imply that the information is still in the process of emerging. If you used the simple present tense, it would not imply that.

Sorry, got cut off while editing. To continue: simple present means an action or condition happening either at this exact instant, or generally in the past, present and future together . Present continuous means an action or condition either currently intended to occur in the future or happening now and in the future....OttawaAC (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's hard to imagine a situation where you would phrase that sentence in the simple present. If you say researchers discover that the more people talk..., it sounds like a habitual thing; this is what they discover on a regular basis. Apparently they don't read each others' papers, so they have to keep investigating the same topic.

Or, the simple present could also be used as a narrative present, for example in a timeline: 1983: Depeche Mode tops the charts. 1984: Researchers discover that..... --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything people have said, although it is a mistake to look for reasons that are too precise for these things. For example, why do we say "I'm going to the movies on Sunday"? Now surely that is present continuous. It isn't even immediate future, "I am going to go," so it should mean that I am currently in the process of going on Sunday, like I've decided to do Sunday a couple of days early. I don't think there can be an exact reason, for what it's worth. IBE (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "I am going to do X" is a form of periphrastic future, so that the verb "to go" is here functioning not as an expression of motion, but as a sort of auxiliary verb. It is not a modal verb, though, because the "going" is already in the indicative mood, and thus expresses a matter of fact. Note, though, that the fact that is being expressed is not that the expected future action will certainly be performed, but that the speaker has a fixed intention to perform in the stated way at the appropriate time. Other Indo-European languages have similar constructions (e.g. "Je vais dire..." for "I'm going to say..." in French). RomanSpa (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RomanSpa: you are not answering IBE, who was talking about "I'm going to the movies on Sunday", not "I'm going to go to the movies on Sunday". I think the answer to that is that English hasn't got a future tense. It has many ways of expressing the future, one of which (the modal I will ...) nearly always has future meaning; but all forms of the so-called present can have future meaning too. --ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I read too fast, and answered the wrong question! I'll be more careful next time. RomanSpa (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what Trovatore said, for most verbs in English the present continuous is far more common than the simple present; the simple present gets used for special senses such as universal, timeless, or habitual statements ("Everybody does that"), future intentions ("I go to Spain next week") and realis conditionals ("if you eat too much, you'll be uncomfortable"). Verbs of perception and mental state - see, hear, feel, want, think - are exceptions to this. --ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A growing exception is the specialist area of post-game sports interviews, where some interviewees (e.g. soccer club managers) habitually use the simple present to describe past events. Example (you may imagine an 'Arry Redknapp accent for added verisimilitude) . . .

Interviewer to Manager: "How did you see the 'Chopper' Harris red card incident?"

Manager: "Weow, Nudger sends an 'igh baow up the middle, Chopper an' Ibromavich bofe go up for it, it's an accidenteow clash of 'eads, nuffink intentional, should never even be a bookin'." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're just using Historical_present, which is kind of a nice foil to the continual present. As others point out in this thread, English "present" tense can be used for previous, current, or future times! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some good answers so far. One point I'd like to make is that the -ing suffix and related construction sometimes gets used simply to increase verbiage. For example, it is seen as somehow more polite to say "Will you be wanting anything else?" instead of "Would you like anything else?" because it is less direct. Retail clerks seem to have a real passion for this: "Is there anything else you'll be wanting help looking for?" (see periphrasis (linked above) and verbosity). Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese help: translating names of Japanese sources listed in Wikipedia discusión:Consultas de borrado/Liceo Mexicano Japonés

How would someone translate into English the lists of sources at es:Wikipedia discusión:Consultas de borrado/Liceo Mexicano Japonés? That way the editors can determine which ones are more likely to have what will help the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Translators available#Japanese-to-English --Jayron32 12:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual pronunciation pattern

My mom, whose native language is Chinese, often exhibits the following pronunciation pattern in English: when a word begins with a schwa sound followed by another consonant, she often deletes the initial schwa sound (for example, "approve" would be pronounced just like "prove"). Is this practice common among people whose native language is Chinese (or possibly other non-English languages)? 24.47.140.246 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]