Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 10

Obligate carnivores

Is the "obligate" in obligate carnivore from the same root as obligatory? Dismas|^(talk) 03:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes (see definition 5). Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 04:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

FYI Dismas et al., this sense of 'obligate' is used in a wide variety of ecological descriptions of plants and animals (and their behaviors). The opposite term is 'facultative.' Compare e.g. obligate parasite to facultative parasite. There's also Obligate_aerobe, obligate hibernators, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

French -> English translation requested

Resolved

Would anyone be able to tell me what fr might be called in English? "Fountain of devotion" does get a few hits, but I wonder if there is a better term? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is Holy well.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it. In fact, the French article could be used to improve the English one, which at the moment is excessively focussed on the situation in the UK and Ireland. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both, WilliamThweatt & AlexTiefling. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

universal human language

Why did languages develop so differently from one another? Like, everyone knows that smiling means happy and crying means sad, these are universal. So why didn't a universal human language develop along the same lines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.9.135.151 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If language were as uniform across humanity as basic facial expressions, then all of it would have to be coded directly into human genes, and there are a number of reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea. To start with, this would almost certainly drastically curtail overall vocabulary size, and the ability to coin new words. If cultural practices strongly vary between human groups, then it makes sense to allow languages to vary between groups (though there are constraints on possible natural human languages)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Languages may be similar but due to isolation they may take on characteristics particular to themselves that inhibit ready comprehension upon immediate contact by non-native speakers but as any language can be learned it seems evident that languages are largely similar. Bus stop (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

...and before new media (I'd count radio as "new"), some degree of "isolation" was the de facto standard, and anything else involved long, slow travel. Only the most wealthy individuals could afford that, and even to them, it was very time-consuming. Books used to be rather expensive, too, and didn't provide any hint to the way the foreign words were pronounced, nor did they give any insight into the average citizen's daily life.

Oh Internet, blessed be thy silicon soul;) - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 14:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Might want to check out the various disciplines and sub-fields associated with structuralism, which is based on the idea that language can be scientifically studied (beginning with Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics) and that universal structures can be found in the way we create meaning through language (this is a gross simplification, but I don't want to go off on a tangent). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

...Also interesting may be universal language, [mostly] synthetic attempts to fix the problem OP brings up. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea that "smiling means happy and crying means sad" is not universal. See Smile#Cultural differences and Tears#Social aspects. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 18:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A smile is not always the same? Well, that explains why you'd build this. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

One element of "language" or verbal expression that appears to be universal is Laughter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• To answer our blocked and actual troll, Historical linguistics is the science that describes and explains the origin of linguistic diversity, for example, sound change, over time. It may not offer a specific explanation for a specific instance of change, but it does name and classify them and compare them. For instance, the not closely related languages of German and Russian both have a phenomenon where final -b, -g, and -d become -p, -k, and -t unless some other sound/ending intervenes. In German, the verb schlagen "to strike" has the singular imperative schlag! which is pronounced "schlack!" English even has this phenomenon. A helpful but I would guess illiterate clerk with a very strong "urban" accent asked me if I had tried /bɪk laʡ/ for an item her store didn't cary. It took me a few secons, and I said, do you mean "big lot"? Over time changes like this cause divergence between isoltaed dialects, and Latin becomes French and Spanish, etc. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't math considered a universal language? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, kind of, yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

the poetry of Chaos

The following is what I read in Martin Amis' novel "Lionel Asbo":

"To evoke the London borough of Diston, we turn to the poetry of Chaos:

Each thing hostile

To every other thing: at every point

Hot fought cold, moist dry, soft hard, and the weightless

Resisted weight."

Would you tell me who wrote the verse and what is the basic idea it conveys. Thank you a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.217.97 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's from Tales from Ovid by Ted Hughes. As for the idea it conveys, that's a matter of individual interpretation - there is no one set meaning. --Viennese Waltz 13:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read Chaos (cosmogony) and Classical element#Greece. Ovid is describing the state of affairs that obtained before a creator sorted out the inchoate stuff out of which the universe was formed. Deor (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Since many people won't know what that word means, here's the def: Wikt:inchoate. StuRat (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for that, but I think most people are perfectly capable of looking up a word in a dictionary if they don't know what it means. Your edit, implying as it does that the previous poster used an unnecessarily obscure word, was both unwelcome and pompous. --Viennese Waltz 22:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So, are you really saying "Thanks for nothing", VW? Let's leave the personal stuff off these pages, eh. That sort of remark is best confined to user talk pages. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Providing a definition, or at least acknowledging the need for one, can indeed be helpful. I'm reminded of a couple of examples. On one of Groucho Marx's appearances on The Dick Cavett Show, he was singing the "titwillow" song from The Mikado. Just after he sang the line, "And if you remain callous and obdurate" he stopped the music and asked the audience if they knew what "obdurate" means, and continued singing after someone piped up with the answer. Then there was Tom Lehrer, in an intro to one of his songs, discussing his friend "Hen3ry" who wrote "a heartwarming story about a young necrophiliac who finally achieves his lifelong ambition by becoming coroner." Noting the murmur in the crowd, Lehrer added, "The rest of you can look it up when you get home." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe there's a Wikipedia standard somewhere that says we should avoid using terms which many people won't know, and, if we must use them, we should provide a link to explain them. The "just look it up" approach fails if each word somebody looks up has another word or two they must look up, etc. So, it's critical to use the simplest words that get the job done. In the case of "inchoate", I would suggest substituting "embryonic". As for being pompous, I suggest using unnecessarily complex words and telling people to go look it up is being pompous, as it seems designed to prove your superiority over them. Note that I don't blame Deor for this, as people who use obscure words often don't seem to know they are obscure. Many Wikipedia science articles are written in a way that is totally inaccessible to the average reader, yet the authors seem unaware of this fact. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 11

Pronunciation of 'protocol'

When I was younger, so much younger than today, the final syllable of 'protocol' was always pronounced as written: col. But I now hear lots of people say it like 'call', as if it were written "protocall". And sure enuf, some people do think it's spelt that way, e.g. referring to IPs as Internet Protocalls.

(It's complicated by the existence of IT and HR companies actually called ProtoCall.)

Is this indicative of a language change occurring before our very ears/eyes, or is it still considered erroneous? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I've heard it both ways here in America, but more often as "call". My 20-year-old Webster's edition gives "call" as the primary and "cole" as the secondary. This kind of reminds me of the phonograph record, which in its early years was pronounced as spelled, "reh-cord"; and by the 1950s was pronounced "reh-curd". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? "Record" is just one of a large number of two-syllable words that are stressed on the first syllable when used as verbs but on the second syllable as nouns, and in other senses it's a word centuries older than photographs. The OED Online gives the pronunciation of the noun as "Brit. /ˈrɛkɔːd/ , U.S. /ˈrɛkərd/ (in sense A. 5c also) Brit. /rᵻkɔːd/ , U.S. /rəˈkɔ(ə)rd/ , /ˌriˈkɔ(ə)rd/", so they say that the accent on the second syllable exists as an alternate pronunciation in only once sense of the word—and that sense is a specialized usage in Scots law. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I searched for a corresponding merger at "Phonological history of English vowels", but without success. When you say "pronounced as written: col", that could mean "like 'coal' " or "like 'call' ". You context indicates that you mean "like 'coal' ".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No. He means "like cawl". --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Or caul. In my world, call, caul and cawl are mutually homophonous, and all different from col or coal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No no no. I was using "cawl" for /kɔl/. I would IPA "call" as /kɑːl/. I was trying to explain to Wavelength that, when you wrote "col" you meant /kɔl/ (same as "cawl") and not /koʊl/ ("coal"). The problem is, a lot of people here don't hear any difference between /kɑːl/ and /kɔl/, so they don't know what you're on about. (It's not that they can't hear the difference, if they listen to the two sounds played side-by-side, but since they make no distinction between them, they don't notice it if not listening specifically for it.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, I for one have no damn idea how col is pronounced in Oz. —Tamfang (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nor, for that matter, can I recall ever having occasion to pronounce it elsewhere. —Tamfang (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Help him if you can; he's feeling down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Down under, that is.

No, Wavelength, neither coal nor call, but col, rhymes with boll, doll, loll, Moll, Noll, Poll, quoll, Sol. This is an American, but he says 'protocol' (from 43 secs) the way we (at least used to) do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Sounds like (American) call to me. —Tamfang (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My name is 'Col' and 'protocol' always meant an earlier version of myself. I always pronounce it /kɔl/ and most British do. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you should be aware that a lot of contributors here have the cot–caught merger and will not even know what you're talking about, because they already rhyme "doll" with "call". --Trovatore (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to avoid all that confusion by linking a video of a man saying it the way I'm familiar with (above at 00:52). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can hear what you mean, but I don't have the merger, or at least it isn't complete. A person who has the merger (and hasn't studied it at least at a casual level) just won't hear anything different — if you asked, did he say "protocol" or "protocall", they just wouldn't know; it would sound the same to them. --Trovatore (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

English English: "col" as it rhymes with "doll" - so /proʊtəkɒl/ Bazza (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have the merger, and this whole question just confuses me. Pretty much all of the examples you have all given all rhyme. Mingmingla (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, folks. I'm a little stumped as to how to explain my dilemma. I can only once again point to examples of those who obviously think it's spelt and pronounced protocall – and to them, as it is to me, that's very different in both spelling and pronunciation from protocol:

• Mission Impossible 4 ghost Protocall Official Trailer 1080p (the movie is subtitled "Ghost Protocol")

• We're Breaking Protocall Here - Obama Quote (I'm sure if you asked Obama to spell the word he just used there, he'd say "p-r-o-t-o-c-o-l", but that's not how the videomaker is hearing it)

• Treatment protocall checklist (it's even written "protocol" on the piece of paper the guy's holding, but hey, so what, the maker of this video seems to think they know better).

These examples all seem to be from the USA, so there are some Americans who know what ahm talkin' 'bout. Why aren't they here, answering my question? Until I did this research, I'd only heard Australians mispronounce the word as "protocall" (or protocawl or protocaul), and I'd never seen it written any way but 'protocol', but it seems to be a more widespread thing than I imagined. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think these are just people who can't spell. I wouldn't read much into that. --Trovatore (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

He said "Americans." :) Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

USA here. I know exactly what you're talking about. Lacking IPA, I will just say that I can hear the difference you describe, but I also have (much of) the caught/cot merger. My NOAD gives: | ˈprōtəˌkôl, -ˌkäl |. My notions of regionalisms in USA are a bit off, as I've lived in several states, and most of my colleagues have also moved around a lot. But, in all my experience, only the Brits that I've worked with strongly hit the ô, as opposed to making a sound somewhere on the ä-to-ô spectrum (working in science, we use the word 'protocol' a decent amount). In the USA, I really think this is all about mergers, or lack thereof. I don't think anyone would say Obama's pronunciation is 'considered erroneous' here, though of course there is only one correct spelling. I don't think having the merger means that we can't hear the difference, we often just don't care. So, just chalk it up to "American Accent" if you wish, noting that of course we don't all say it exactly the same way. BTW, what is the pronunciation authority for AU? OED and NOAD don't seem quite right... SemanticMantis (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I'm an American, and I think I have an incomplete cot-caught merger, or at least I can't tell the difference between the linked "Jack's way" of saying "protocol" and what I imagine "protocall" would sound like (do you have examples where someone is actually *saying* "protocall", rather than just misspelling it in writing?). Likewise doll and call sound very similar to me. (I can tell the difference in the way I pronounce them if I slow things down, but it's slight and would be lost at speed.) That said, I don't know of anyone who would think the spelling "protocall" would be a proper spelling of the word. So it's not the case that the spelling of the word is changing, I think it's just the case that people are just misspelling it "foneticly" (as people do on the internet with a range of words) and doing so with the cot-caught merger, so it comes out "obviously" wrong to someone who doesn't have the merger. "Protocall" still looks like a mistake to me, but not a forehead-slapping how-could-they-be-so-oblivious one. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is pronounced like this. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the way an American Midwesterner would say it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

All of these pronunciations sound similar. Which is an example of a different pronunciation (from "American Midwestern" pronunciation)? I found a few more examples here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, they all match my expectations. What I need is to find a video of someone saying it like "protocawl", to make the difference very clear. How to search for such a thing? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects, have you seen it? —Tamfang (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Simple past vs. present perfect in a business email

An English business email of a non-English enterprise starts with:

Two weeks ago we sent you an e-mail in which we informed you that your annual fee... is due. However, we have been unable to debit this fee...

Is it correct to use simple past tense in the first sentence and present perfect in the second? You might argue that the information mail has less direct consequence for the present than the failure of the debiting, but this seems to be very subjective to me. I'd use present perfect in both sentences - what do English native speakers think? --KnightMove (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No. In the first sentence, to use the present perfect would imply multiple emails. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The use of the present perfect in the first sentence is pretty much ruled out by the presence of the definite time adverbial "two weeks ago", which almost always triggers the past tense in English. The second sentence, in contrast, is not hooked to such a specific point in time, but says that there has been no time point among all the possible time points within the entire time span from then until now at which a certain event occurred. This makes the present perfect appropriate. Using the past tense in the second sentence would imply that there was a single, limited point in time in the past during which they tried to debit the fee, and then stopped trying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you 2. --KnightMove (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Article or no article?

I am not sure whether to put an article "the" in front of an abbreviation that, when spelled out, would have a pronoun. Specifically, I am talking about this example.

• Charles Darwin travelled on the HMS Beagle (the Her Majesty's Ship Beagle).
• Charles Darwin travelled on HMS Beagle (Her Majesty's Ship Beagle).

So, should an article or no article be put before the "HMS Beagle" word? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In US English, yes, but the subject matter makes me think you may want British English, where such articles seem to often be skipped. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So, it does not matter whether there is a pronoun within the abbreviation? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia article titled Ship prefix. The use of "the" is discouraged by both the U.S. Navy, the Royal Navy, and by most style guides on both sides of the pond, according to that article. --Jayron32 20:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph from that article is:

"Note that while calling a US ship "the USS Flattop" may make grammatical sense, the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy uses ship names without article, except for USS The Sullivans, named for the five Sullivan brothers, all lost at sea during World War II.[10] Its British equivalent ("the HMS Flattop") is also discouraged, since "the Her Majesty's Ship" would be grammatically incorrect."

However, despite what the style guides say, "the" is widely used in the US. If you said "I just toured Constitution", it would sound very odd here, as would "I just toured USS Constitution". StuRat (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with saying "I just toured USS Constitution" as I would with "I just toured Haggerty Hall". Haggerty Hall may be the name of a building. Similarly, USS Constitution may be the full name of the ship. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But that's different, StuRat. When the prefix ("HMS", "USS", MV" etc) is omitted, "the" is almost universal. The question is whether to use the article with the abbreviation. --ColinFine (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I covered both cases in my example. StuRat (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not spell out the abbreviated words in full the first time they appear in a paragraph or on a page—and of course omit what would be the ungrammatical article—and in subsequent uses omit the article but use the abbreviation? This way you are providing the reader with the meaning of the abbreviation, and you are alerting them to the oddity of the omitted article in later instances of the name of the ship. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, if the name of the ship only appears once in an area of a document, one can use parentheses similar to what we see in the originally posed question: "Charles Darwin travelled on HMS Beagle (Her Majesty's Ship Beagle)." Using this form, the reader would understand why the article was omitted. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, when Darwin was sailing in it, it was "His Majesty's Ship"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 12

人間宣言 (Language used in Humanity Declaration)

According to the Humanity Declaration article, the declaration was written in archaic Japanese, which presumably was substantially different from the way the man on the street would write. Meanwhile, I understand from English in Japan that virtually everyone in Japan has at least a little exposure to English, and presumably many people have a bit better exposure than that. With these factors in mind, if you find the man on the street in Japan, and you give him the original version and an English translation of the declaration, which will he find easier to read? Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The most striking feature of English in Japan for me is the contrast between the large number of hours most Japanese children have spent studying English in classrooms vs. their ability to actually conduct a conversation in English (which is typically rather minimal -- except for a few who are strongly self-motivated to do much more than what is required in the classroom, or who have had personal exposure to an English-speaking environment outside the classroom). So I'm not sure I would have great confidence in the English proficiency level of random Japanese encountered on the street... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Japanese learn archaic Japanese at school. It is still used now, in public documents. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I figured that the average guy on the street would have somewhat less difficulty reading an English text than conducting a conversation; after a few Spanish classes, I know that I can muddle my way through a text, but I don't dare attempt to speak it. I had no clue that archaic Japanese had been studied since 1945, except by specialists. Now I'd like to understand its relationship to contemporary language in comparable English terms. Is (this kind of archaic) versus contemporary comparable to (standard 1769 English) versus contemporary English, or (1611 English) versus contemporary, or Middle English versus contemporary? Pretty much any native speaker of English can understand the 1769 King James Version, it's not too hard to muddle through the original 1611 text, and it's not too hard to get the gist of Caxton's Malory or "Pearl" although good understanding requires ME study. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I am from the UK, but went to school in Japan, and I had to learn archaic Japanese. It's part of the curriculum. And when I became a teacher there, I had to teach it. It's not something you would have a conversation in, but at least you could read public documents. That's all it's for now. Plus, archaic Japanese is not so different from modern Japanese as ME is from modern English. It has the same writing system. It's easier to read than King James (which incidentally is just gibberish to me, not being a Christian). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I added an English title. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

June 13

writing systems

What is the most complicated writing system? Carllica4 (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Of those in use today, Japanese would almost certainly take the prize. To be literate in Japanese, you have to master two separate syllabaries of almost 50 characters each, plus a minimum of about 2,000 kanji. Furthermore, the Kanji have two different types of pronunciations (on and kun), and an individual character can have even more than two different pronunciations, due to historical factors. See the account in Chapter 9 of Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction by Geoffrey Sampson ISBN 0-8047-1756-7... AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you confine it to quasi-alphabetic writing systems, then the Tibetan language is written with an orthography based on the pronunciation of many centuries ago, which is extremely divergent from the pronunciation of the modern Tibetan language. The Irish language of the early 20th century had similar problems before certain reforms... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that Japanese also uses the latin alphabet, mostly for company names or for emphasis, so the Japanese have to use four different writing systems... KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest Chinese is more complicated by some measures than Japanese. For one you can do a lot in Japanese without learning any kanji. Not only is much of Japanese written in hiragana and katakana, but where it isn't furigana can be used, just for less common characters or for all when e.g. you're learning. More importantly more Chinese characters are used in China than Japan, in e.g. government or education. See Chinese characters#Number of characters. The difference is hundreds if not thousands, far more than the hiragana and katakana Japanese has but Chinese doesn't.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely disagree -- the number of characters required to achieve basic newspaper literacy is not overwhelmingly greater in Chinese than it is in Japanese, but characters are used in much more complex ways in Japanese writing. In Chinese writing, most characters have a single pronunciation, while in Japanese writing the majority of characters can have more than one (kun vs. on, or sometimes three different types of on); and in Japanese writing the characters are used in somewhat complex ways in relation to syllable symbols used to write inflectional endings. Also, the so-called "phonetic" elements of characters are actually sometimes useful in Chinese to indicate approximate pronunciation, while in Japanese they're almost always useless. Hiragana-only writing would work OK for writing some types of colloquial speech, but could create problems when any kind of technical vocabulary is used. Katakana-only writing is fine for writing onomatopoeia and startling cartoon speech bubbles with lots of exclamation points, but has a somewhat outlandish appearance when used to write extended passages. One reason why Japan was behind the U.S. and most European countries in office computerization in some respects is that early 1980's dot-matrix printers in Japan had only Katakana and the Latin alphabet, which was totally unacceptable for most kinds of business communications. The furigana would be great if they were somewhat consistently used, but in post-WW2 Japan they've generally been used quite sparingly outside of very specialized contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely disagree with that. Japanese still uses katakana for official documents, bank statements, electricity bills, and so on. My first phone in Japan which had text messaging used only katakana. Later versions used hiragana and kanji, which is what they do now. Computers in Japan use all systems - not exactly "unacceptable for business communications". If they can read all systems, then what is the problem? They learn it at school!! Plus, having only katakana and the Latin alphabet for DM printers is unacceptable? I can't see how. We use the Latin alphabet all the time. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Utility bills are a highly restrictive format with little scope for serious ambiguities, and where the sender has the balance of power over the receiver/reader. I remember reading a news story to the effect that inter-office memos and such in many Japanese companies were commonly handwritten into the 1990s, because the alternative was all katakana... AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote 'by some measures' because I know that's not the only way to look at it but I stand by what I wrote, and your reply does not refute it. The question asked for the most complicated writing system, not the easiest to read. Having multiple readings for a character means you need fewer characters so reduces the number needed. Using hiragana and katakana for many common words means less characters are needed. I didn't mean you can get by just using them, but you can get much further without using kanji.

One further complication is which sort of Chinese. Traditional Chinese characters, still used in Hong Kong and Taiwan, has a few more characters many of which are much more complex than the simplified Chinese characters used in China, and than kanji which have undergone their own simplification. Hong Kong uses additional characters to represent Cantonese, in addition to those used for written Chinese, so arguably has a more complex writing system than most varieties of Chinese.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Having fewer but highly-ambiguous symbols is really not an indication of a "simple" system by most valid criteria of simplicity. The Pahlavi alphabet reduced the 22 letters of the Aramaic alphabet to 16, so that some letters were highly ambiguous (for example, one letter wrote "g", "d", and "y"), but this did not make the Pahlavi writing system simpler than Aramaic (in fact, Pahlavi was significantly more complicated than Aramaic)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want a really complicated writing system, try Mayan. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Or even Maya script. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Usage of "cloister" for monastic buildings that may not have a cloister?

I know the word "cloister" can be used for "monastery", because the iconic European monastery is one with a cloister architecture. Now, since the term is a metronym for a monastery, can it be used for Buddhist monasteries? I recently learned that my mother went to a Buddhist sangha (before I was born) just to take a look, because there were so many of them in China. My mother used the term seng jia, where Buddhist monks and nuns bow down to the Buddha and have incense sticks. Anyway, can this metronym be applied to non-Christian monastic buildings? Or is it more appropriate to call a Buddhist sangha sangha instead of a Buddhist cloister? 140.254.226.243 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, is the sangha actually used as a metronym for the Buddhist monastery/temple? 140.254.226.243 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It could possibly be confusing, so it would be better to use a term that is either specific to Buddhism or is neutral. "Pagoda" may not be accurate, but would be understood in the West as a Buddhist place of worship. "Temple" is neutral. "Monastery" you use yourself, and references to "Buddhist monks" and "Buddhist nuns" are frequent in English. "Sangha" isn't so widely known but would probably be understood in context. If I was reading a travel book about Thailand I would expect to encounter terms like "wat". By the way, it's a metonym not a metronym. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Sangha" (Pali: सङ्घ saṅgha) refers to the group of ordained monks/novices, not a building or a place. "Sangha" would be the equivalent of the "priesthood". In Theravada Buddhism "wat" refers to the whole of the temple grounds in general, including the monks' residence. The building where the Buddha image is housed and worship is conducted/performed is called the Vihara ("sanctuary").--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The English language term for a Japanese emperor who abdicated and retired to a Buddhist monastery is Cloistered Emperor. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 14

Subject-object-verb construction

I know that the subject-object-verb construction is a rare construction in the English language, but I want to know why the following sentence is grammatical or at least accepted as "correct".

• I thee wed. (Note the objective pronoun is placed between the subjective pronoun and the verb.)

Are there more examples? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrase is correct because it comes from a time when such a construction was more common in English. See Early Modern English. That actual usage is not really SOV, rather it is probably a borrowing from the French enclitic form, seen in phrases such as "Je t'aime" (I love you). As you move backwards in time through English, you find that it becomes closer and closer to its Norman French. The word "thee" itself is archaic in modern English because modern English has lost the T–V distinction in its second person pronouns; though the difference still existed in Early Modern English. --Jayron32 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside here: It's my understanding that the T–V sense of thou/you was operative for a rather short time, a century or so only. Before that, it was just singular/plural; no distinction of familiarity or social standing implied. Even in Shakespeare, it seems fairly randomly applied; the same person will call the same other person thou or you with no clear reason for the choice. (But the distinction of number is rigorously observed, in the sense that multiple persons are never addressed as thou.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So, if I create a phrase in English based on modern French in the enclitic form, then does that mean that people will accept my sentence as correct nowadays? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

An ordinary sentence would look weird unless it was being done for some sort of poetic reason. Jayron mentioned "Je t'aime" which would literally translate as "I thee love", which sounds weird. "I thee wed" sounds OK only because we're used to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As Bugs says, while it technically isn't incorrect, it would appear/sound weird in almost every context except poetry or song lyrics like this old hymn for example. But even in modern poetry/lyrics, such a construction can appear amateurish or indicate the writer is trying too hard to make a rhyme (unless Yoda you are)..--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Also "I thee wed" is understandable despite displacement of normal word order because "thee" is marked as an object pronoun. Only the personal pronouns are thus marked in English, so you can get away with violations of word order (but still sound weird). Using nouns, e.g. "Man dog bites", won't do.Djbcjk (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there's more to it than that. "me" is similarly an object but "you me bore" sounds distinctly wrong/Yodaish. There's something special in "thee", as an anachronism that's still widely recognised, which in particular can still be used in marriage vows:

With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow

That's almost a language lesson in itself, with repetition to get the point across. No wonder many of us recognise "I thee xxx" as a valid construction.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The real answer is that all these "I thee whatever" phrases is that they are idiomatic, which means roughly that, as phrases, they take on a meaning which cannot be analyzed grammatically using standard rules of English, as we understand it now. They used to be non-idiomatic, standard English, back in the day, but they are not currently so, which is why they are generally understood idiomatically... --Jayron32 00:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

guessing that Jayron meant "not really SOV" —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

so corrected--Jayron32 00:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

About your earlier point, that it was originally modelled on the French use of proclitics: I don't really think so; Middle English had its own native pattern, inherited from Old English, whereby several pronouns and other light elements could cluster in front of the verb irrespective of the otherwise V2 sentence order. Anthony Warner has written quite a bit about the grammatical analysis. It was never as strict as in French, although it's typologically a similar phenomenon (but developed in parallel, not borrowed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation request: "reciting the Catholic scriptures" in Chinese

I was looking up "nian jing" on Yabla Chinese, and I got "recite or chant Buddhist scripture". Okay. The jing part means "scripture", and the "nian" probably means "recite". Apparently, it does not explicitly say "Buddhist". Still, can this term still be used for reciting/chanting the Catholic scriptures? Or is this term exclusively for reciting/chanting the Buddhist scriptures? I mean, I looked up other terms too, and it appears that Catholicism and Buddhism have separate and distinct terms in Chinese for monastery, monk, and nun. Before, I thought 和尚 and 尼姑 meant "monk" and nun", until I searched on Yabla, and I noticed the insertion of Buddhist. There are separate terms for Catholic monks/nuns. So, using different terms is possible. By the way, why does Yabla Chinese report that the Holy Bible and the Confucian Classics have the same set of Chinese characters (圣经 Shèng jīng)? How do modern Chinese people distinguish the two? Note: I am pretty sure that Catholics recite and chant the holy scriptures. They do so with rosaries over and over again. Each prayer in the rosary is thoroughly biblical; therefore, I'm pretty sure that I got that correct. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Jing (经) is kind of a general term for a classic work or a Scripture. It's been used to refer to Confucian classics (诗经，易经，书经), Buddhist sutras (法华经), and to the Holy Bible (圣经). However, the phrase "nianjing" actually is a Buddhist term that's been used for quite a while. I don't know any Chinese Catholics, but I've never heard such a phrase being used among Chinese Protestants. As for shengjing, nowadays it almost always refers to the Holy Bible of Christianity. Historically it did refer to Confucian works, but we refer to those now as the Thirteen Classics (十三经). bibliomaniac15 06:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Only the Our Father is a Biblical prayer, isn't it? Hail Mary is not exactly Biblical, although it contains a couple of Biblical phrases. The other rosary prayers aren't from the Bible either. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Lord's Prayer is another one. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Lord's Prayer and the Our Father are the same thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Biology

What is urea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.12.242 (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This question belongs on the science desk, but anyway, see urea. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Since OP was asking for a definition, I can see how they thought it might belong here. Dismas|^(talk) 00:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Confusing header is confusing. Biology would fit science, but the Q itself is actually chemistry. But since it has been posted here...

See also: wikt:urea, which includes the biochemical definition. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Spanish acronyms

What are the Spanish acronyms seen in this picture? File:Pabellón coreano de la amistad en Cd. de México 1.JPG. I can't tell what they are supposed to mean. I annotated a transcription of the text on the Commons, but it seems like the periods/full stops are in the wrong places. Also I am not sure where the accent marks are supposed to be. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What acronyms? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, here's an attempt at translating. I think some of the periods are supposed to be commas:

Pabellón coreano - Este pabellon es copia [not copa] fiel. del pabellon historico del parque pagoda de la ciudad de Seul. En el cual fue [not due] leida la declaracion de la independencia coreana. El pueblo coreano. obsequia este simbolo del espiritu [not espirity] de su independencia. Al pueblo mexicano. como signo de la amistad que los une. 8 de marzo de 1968

Korean Pavilion - This pavilion is [a] true [i.e. faithful] copy. of the historic park pavilion pagoda of the city of Seoul. In which was read the declaration of the Korean independence. the Korean people. flatter [or "give away"] this symbol of the spirit of their independence. to the Mexican people. as [a] sign of the friendship that unites them. 8 March 1968

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd make it "of the historic pavilion of the pagoda park" —Tamfang (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the following sentence acceptable to the native speakers of English?

The door has been opened sinse morning.

14.139.82.6 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Sukhada

No, it should be "The door has been open since this morning." The meaning isn't really ambiguous, and you might hear someone say that, but you wouldn't expect to see that in written form. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends. The door could have been opened by someone else. Plus, 'morning' instead of 'this morning' is perfectly fine, because it is obvious which morning we are hearing about. The only problem I have is the spelling of 'since'. This is probably an advert for a restaurant or something. Better to say 'Open from morning' and specify the times. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it could have been opened by someone else, so it's not necessarily wrong. But I must admit, I find 'Open from morning' a bit strange, unless maybe it was part of "Open from morning onwards" or "Open from morning until evening", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. I'd agree - a bit strange, at least to my BritEng ears. And 'opened' should be 'open' too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean "The door has been open since this morning" (it's been standing open the whole time), or do you mean "The door has been opened since this morning" (I know it was shut this morning, and now it's evening, and someone opened it in the meantime)? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice one, Alex. It is ambiguous after all! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain the difference between "open" and "opened". "Open" means the door is currently in the open position, while "opened" means the door was moved into the open position at some time in the past. Now, presumably, if it was moved into the open position at some time in the past, and not subsequently closed, then "The door was opened" also means "The door is open". However, it's best to say it plainly, as "The door is open".

The really odd thing is that we don't have the same situation with "closed". There you can say either "The door was closed" or "The door is closed", but you never say "The door is close" (pronounced "klōz"), although you might say "The door is close" (pronounced "klōs"), meaning the door is nearby. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. I never thought of that. Bali88 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser:

An open door may be close. A close door may be open. And I won´t even start on the open doors of closets... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

When I hear "has been opened" (verb), I think of a door that's been busy, people in and out, since morning. "Has been open" (adjective) makes me think the door was opened in the morning and stayed that way. Open is continuous, opened is continual. Here's that difference. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

"When one door closes, another opens. Or you can open the closed door. That's how doors work." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. In some rooms, opening one door closes another, by suction. But I've yet to see it the rhetorical way. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I have the situation where closing one door opens another. It requires that the door which is to open be unlatched. It's a common situation on a refrigerator with a freezer on top, as the air pressure from closing the large fridge door pushes open the smaller freezer door. My magnetic closure mechanism is too weak to prevent it, so I rigged my freezer door with a more powerful magnet and bungee cord combo to keep it from doing that. StuRat (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

But is an unlatched/unlocked/demagnetized door truly closed, or just parallel? Though now we're just moving into a land of both shadow and substance. In this dimension, my freezer door closes when I open my fridge hard. My condolences on yours. That bungee sounds like a hassle. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Part of this language oddity is that "open[ed]" and "close[d]" are from different language groups - Germanic and Latin respectively.[1][2] We think of them as antonyms, but they and their construction have separate origins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference in origins doesn't really explain anything; if the meaning of close (adjective) had not drifted since it was borrowed from French, it would mean the same as closed. —Tamfang (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The etymological opposite of the adjective "open" is not "close", but rather it's "shut". Those two words have consistent usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Latin caption (translation needed)

What is the translation for the caption of this image on Commons?   ("deua intrare nella Elephantina machina exui{f?}cerata")  —  Thanks, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC) — P.s.: Google translate didn't help much: "God was taken off the machine, enter in your ivory wax" ~E:20:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In my non-expert, Wiktionary Googling opinion, this is some sort of machine for putting female elephants into the sky and taking them out again. At least those words are (basically) in there. The grammar probably makes all the difference to clarity. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

The caption is "deua ad intrare nella Elephantina machina exuiscerata", but I'm afraid I can't make sense of the Latin. I've never seen "exuiscerata" and I'm not sure what it could mean.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I read that as "exuis cerata" (extracting wax?). Maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

The image is from a book, and the caption is part of a sentence which starts on a previous page. You can view that page here. It seems to say "Et táto habile íteruacuo se præstua, Che peralcuni slipiti di metallo al modo scalario infixi per gliquali cómodo ascenso, seconce deua intrare..."

I'm still none the wiser though... - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I'm afraid I can't say much about the translation, but I doubt whether the text is actually a caption. looking at the source it seems to be a page from a book. Most likely the text is to be understood as a continuation of the previous page, and it may not be directly relevant to the image at all. - Lindert (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That explains it. From the date, it appears to be Renaissance Latin (could possibly still be Medieval Latin) in which every region (in fact, every author) had their own peculiar styles influenced by the vernacular. Unfortunately my working knowledge of Latin ends at the Classical period.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!  It looks as though translating this won't help answer the question:  "What is the symbolic meaning of this object?" —I'm working on the Cultural depictions of elephants article, relating to Dali's elephants (e.g.: here and here) which relates to that image (via this from here ... etc.) ...  ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not even Latin; it's Italian. "nella" ("in the") is the give-away here. And if you google for the phrase, you'll find out that it is indeed not a caption, but part of a longer text, with "-deva" being only part of a word after a line break. The full sentence is "commodo ascenso, se concedeva ad intrare nella Elephantina machina exviscerata" [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Uhmmm, ... must be Latin (or an archaic Italian?) because when I Google translate the title (Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, ubi humana omnia non nisi somnium esse docet. Atque obiter plurima scitu sane quam digna commemorat) I get gibberish from Italian, but something (somewhat) meaningful from Latin: "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, where he teaches that all human there is nothing but a dream. And by the way, of course, but not worth much learning to recalls. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Our article on this work, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, says "The text of the book is written in a bizarre Latinate Italian, full of words based on Latin and Greek roots without explanation. The book, however, also includes words from the Italian language, as well as illustrations including Arabic and Hebrew words..." It's a reasonably well-known Italian Renaissance mind-screw, simultaneously beautiful and baffling. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I corrected a typo in your link, Alex, to make it operative. Deor (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there male equivalent of "mumsy"?

The English word, mumsy, is a cute pet name for mother. Is there a masculine equivalent, and if so, what is it? Please don't suggest "popsy". I tried that, and I got "an attractive young woman". o_O 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't "daddy" do? Strictly speaking, seems an opposite of "mommy", but cute enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

No, the equivalent for daddy is mommy, not mumsy. It does not have the -sy ending. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. No idea, then. Here in Canada (and the US, I think), we generally don't even use "mumsy". Unless it's someone playing Prince Charles in an Air Farce sketch. Just mommies and daddies here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Muffy Crosswire on Arthur (TV Series) calls her mother, "Mumsy". It is definitely an American children's TV show, and Muffy lives in Elwood City, a fictional city in the United States. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Muffy might count as a Canadian, too. I'd often watch that show. Didn't like it, but we didn't have many channels. But we generally don't use the word. If I did, personally, I'd go with "popsy". Doesn't seem like an attractive young woman to my ears, or likely those I'd speak to. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I found this (Papsey), but it may be just isolated to that particular family as I don't see any other reference to its use.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In the song "What is this Feeling?," in Wicked, Galinda calls her mother "Mumsy" and her father "Popsicle." There seem to be other people who also have this usage, but I don't know to what extent it's influenced by the musical. John M Baker (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Only Mumsy were the borogroves. The men all fell victim to the Jabberwock, hence no cutesy nickname was needed. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How about "pappy" ? StuRat (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's across from "mammy". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Curious. The word "mumsy" in the UK is a colloquial adjective meaning "mother-like in appearance" (rarely a compliment). See Top 10 Tips to avoid looking Mumsy at work and Are you a trendy mum or a mumsy mum?. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Urban usage in NYC is "moms" and "pops" singular with no particular affection implied, as you can hear in JUmp Around by house of pain. The Band is white, portrayed as Irish, but the "black" dialect is authentic. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

June 15

Sued for $1m

If an article says that X sued Y for $1m, does that always mean the suit was successful, and that $1m in damages was awarded? Or can it mean "filed suit for"? IBE (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Sued" always only means "filed a suit in a court of law". If the suit was successful, the language would say "X was awarded $1M as a result of a suit against Y" To sue is merely to initiate the lawsuit. The difference is between swinging a bat and hitting the ball. Not every swing results in a hit; and not every suit results in an award. --Jayron32 05:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Aye. If I were to claim Neil Hamburger stole my phrase "They Can't All Be Zingers" and sold it to Primus, I'd likely come out countersued for defamation and losing, on top of my lawyer's fee for both suits. As I also once said first, "You Gotta Know When to Hold 'Em". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Alan King said that he once filed an injury lawsuit against someone. His lawyer explained the standard procedure to Alan: "If we lose, I get nothing. If we win, you get nothing." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the correct form: "From where?", or: "Where from?"

Somebody says: "I came from abroad". How should I ask them? "From where?", or: "Where from?" 84.228.230.31 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Either could work, but they're not exactly the same -- "From where" is a prepositional phrase of preposition plus interrogative pronoun, while "Where from" is an elliptic sentence with implied predication... AnonMoos (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you mean that "where from" may be interpreted as an abbreviation of "where [did you come] from", am I correct?

Anyways, the editor who answered after you (just below), is a Brit who claims that "Where from? would be more natural in normal speech". Is this valid in the States as well? (I remember you're American, aren't you?) HOOTmag (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Where from?" would be more natural in normal speech. "From where?" sounds a bit stilted or formal to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

More stilted still would be "Whence?" Ericoides (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Very archaic. HOOTmag (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My perception is opposite to AWT's. —Tamfang (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Both could sound natural in specific contexts. If someone told you, "I flew in from Shangri-La by way of Narnia", then if you wanted to skeptically question this itinerary, "From where?" would be the question to ask. On the other hand, if someone said "I arrived yesterday, and I'm still jet-lagged", and you wanted to casually and colloquially ask where they departed from, then "Where from?" would be appropriate... AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Where from?" sounds backwards to me, like something Yoda might say. That's not to say it's bad or uncommon, and shouldn't cause weird looks. "From where" seems short for implying "From where did you come?" By that logic, the other'd be "Where from did you come?". That's bad and uncommon. Some could say it's short for "Where did you come from?", but I don't think you should drop the middle in abbreviations without an apostrophe or ellipsis.

If someone told me they were from abroad, I'd simply ask "Where?" They already introduced the "from" part, so it can be omitted without fear of confusion. Otherwise, may as well go the whole nine yards and ask "From where abroad did you come?" InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask "What country?". CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency (?) at vowel

Not sure if I understand the terminology correctly, so I'm asking here first. I quote from vowel:

In all oral languages, vowels form the nucleus or peak of syllables, whereas consonants form the onset and (in languages that have them) coda. However, some languages also allow other sounds to form the nucleus of a syllable, such as the syllabic l in the English word table [ˈteɪ.bl̩] (the stroke under the l indicates that it is syllabic; the dot separates syllables), or the r in Serbo-Croatian vrt [vr̩t] "garden".

What's the difference between "r̩" and "l̩" here, and the vowels in "hurt" and "bull" respectively? I'm left wondering whether this use of consonants as vowels is actually just an orthography thing, not a matter of phonetics. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed phonetics. We have an article about the topic (Syllabic consonant). Syllabic consonants are common among the world's languages. And it's not only the liquids that can be syllabic. Nasals, for example, are also commonly syllabic and in a few languages other consonants such as /ʃ/ are said to be syllabic.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 19:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend -- "Hurt" and "Bull" contain syllabic or quasi-syllabic consonant sounds only in certain dialects of English, while unstressed syllabic "n" and "l" (as in "table") occur in many or most English dialects. The syllabic-sonority sound in "hurt" in many American English dialects is more often transcribed as [ɝ] then syllabic "r". And as far as I know, "bull" has a syllabic or quasi-syllabic "l" consonant only in dialects where [ʊ] tends toward [ɨ] in some contexts. In standard British, these words would be pronounced [hɜːt] and [bʊɫ], without any syllabic consonants... AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

primigravida and primipara

Primigravida and primipara are medical/scientific terms. The former means a female (of an oviparous or viviparous species) who is pregnant for the first time. The latter means a female ~ who gives birth for the first time. If a viviparous female is pregnant but does not give birth to viable offspring, then does that mean that she is "primigravida" and then "nullipara"? What is the female called when a viviparous female is pregnant and does give birth to viable offspring, but the offspring only survives a short time (due to biological defects or infanticide)? Is she still nulliparous? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Our article suggests no to the first question (Gravidity and parity: 20 weeks gestation mentioned for primipara). Rmhermen (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How did this Engrish mistranslation come to be?

"Wikipedia fried with eggs". It appears to me that this couldn't come from a machine translation, because the word "Wikipedia" in this context appears ridiculous. Please explain how this translation was made. 171.226.35.245 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but you could search for "Free optical character recognition" and run the picture through whatever option you find. Then machine translate it to see whether it's merely ridiculous or impossible. If you use Google Translate, try to use the version for the country this is from (China?), rather than .com. Not sure it makes a difference, but maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

June 16

Gerund +ing in lists

When to write "by" in gerunds:

• "by doing,... by writing..., and by talking..." or
• "by doing,... writing..., and talking..." or
• "by doing,... writing..., and by talking"

Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any rule, just personal choice. At least without more sentence context. Consider "I travel by walking, by biking, and by swimming." -- "I travel by walking, biking and swimming." Both are grammatically correct. When I search for /gerund preposition/ I mostly get sites for English learners telling them how to write sentences like those above... SemanticMantis (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct usage of " effect" and "affect"

What is the correct usage- is it "effecting arrest" or "affecting arrest". Can you explain in detail?RegardsSumalsn (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably "effecting arrest," but I can't tell for sure without seeing the full sentence. In the sense you are using them, "effect" basically means "to bring about or cause" and "affect" basically means "to alter or change."--Dreamahighway (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)