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.

June 30

Polish translation (~ 1880)

I found the term "trakcie bitym" in a Polish dictionary from the end of the 19th century (Mieczyn wieś w powiecie włoszczowskim, gminie i parafii Krasocin, leży przy trakcie bitym z Włoszczowy do Kielc.). Translation yields "beaten road". How should it be translated? Is it "pavement-covered road" ? Thx for any help. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK found it. Case closed. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 14:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

implying something by saying its opposite

There's a word (and we have a good Wikipedia article about it, I just don't remember the word) for when you imply something by stating the opposite. E.g. saying "My opponent has never been convicted of murder" insinuates that the opponent was at least suspected of murder. Anyone know the word? I think it goes back to classical rhetoric but I'm not sure of that. Thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irony. But it's a bit more complicated than that. Read the article. Myrvin (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give isn't the same as the Q in the title, for which an example would be "He's a real genius, isn't he ?", said satirically. Innuendo is a better match for implying something without actually saying it, as in your example. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying one thing but implying the opposite comes under irony. But you probably wouldn't think of that as a term from classical rhetoric. There's lots of other devices that can achieve similar goals, and use related concepts. Apophasis is also relevant to saying something by not saying it. Depending on the context, litotes could also be involved. Then there's the general notion of the Unsaid. We also have a nice Glossary_of_rhetorical_terms - for almost any real-world statement, it can be categorized as deploying many different rhetorical devices, and classification of such is always a bit ambiguous and subjective. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of the above posts. I was answering the "imply something by stating the opposite" question. Myrvin (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm. According to B. Bousfield (in Marina Lambrou and Peter Stockwell, Contemporary Stylistics, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010, p. 213), sarcasm is:

The use of strategies which, on the surface appear to be appropriate to the situation, but are meant to be taken as meaning the opposite in terms of face management. That is, the utterance which appears, on the surface, to maintain or enhance the face of the recipient actually attacks and damages the face of the recipient. ... sarcasm is an insincere form of politeness which is used to offend one's interlocutor.

HOOTmag (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's saying a nice or neutral thing while actually being nasty. It's not necessarily meaning the opposite thing. There are hours of argument about this in Talk for irony and sarcasm. A bit later, your quote says, "For Leech this effect is caused by the phenomenon of irony, as it is irony which enables a speaker to be impolite while seeming to be polite." Like I said, it's not simple. Myrvin (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible !! How can you claim - the utterance the quote discusses - is "not necessarily meaning the opposite thing", while the quote does explicitly discuss utterances which: "are meant to be taken as meaning the opposite..."? HOOTmag (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related, the old Leon Trotsky joke.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A gem, BB. Yes... "meanings that change with inflection." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Apophasis is the article whose title I couldn't remember. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would certainly never say that this whole thread was a complete waste of time. Nor that you are very probably a mischievous sockpuppet of a very well-known encyclopedia founder. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! My high school Latin teacher (who taught me the concept) would be proud of me. He made it seem as though the technique was very common in the debates and accusations surrounding the First_Catilinarian_conspiracy. I'll mark this as resolved. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

WRT "irony": It's ironic that "it's ironic" is so widely misused these days. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that brings this discusison to a full stop. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Try changing water into good wine. Those almost 13464 not superfluous occurrences of "ironically" just waiting getting translated into their much heavier equivalent "paradoxically".--Askedonty (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, quite a few. Can we get an irony-bot for that job? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one. Got a license ? --Askedonty (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sentences grammatically correct in English? (participial adjective)

It is an error of table can't be displayed.
It is an error of table couldn't be displayed. (could)

Because I think "of" is a preposition which should be followed by a noun rather than a clause ("table can't be displayed")

I wonder if changing it from "can" to "could" resolves the grammar issue.

Other examples of participial adjective I found:

Boring teachers make bored students. (boring, bored)
A book written in English. (written)

But I could't find participial adjective examples for auxiliary verbs (can, will, shall, may, etc.). Do such examples exist?

-- Justin545 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that "It is an error THAT the table can't be displayed"? Myrvin (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... what would you do if you have to add "of" into the sentence? -- Justin545 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It is an error of the programmer that the table ...."?? Maybe, even "It is an error of the table that it can't be displayed." But that doesn't seem idiomatic. "The table is in error because it can't ..." would be better. Myrvin (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It is an error of the table that it can't be displayed." - I like the answer, as least it looks correct. -- Justin545 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's grammatically correct but nonsensical ontologically. It's not a table's error that it can't be displayed, it's an error on the part of someone or something else. There can be an error in a table but I don't think a table can make errors. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it looks like you are correct too. The meaning is kind of different indeed. -- Justin545 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a stretch there could be an "error of a table" if it some sort of reference. "We were expecting a train to arrive at 1:00pm, but that was only because of an error of the timetable".

Participle adjectives are possible (like in your last sentences), but auxiliary verbs (except for: "is", "do", "have", "dare") - don't have the participle form. Additionally, your first sentences about the "table" are wrong (I couldn't understand them either). HOOTmag (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "could" is the past participle form of "can" ... am I wrong? -- Justin545 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Could" is not a Participle form, it's a Past form. "Can", and "cant", have no Participle form. However, "can" = "is able to", and "can't" = "is unable to", while "is unable" has an adjective "unable", so you can say: "it is an error of [a] table unable to be displayed". HOOTmag (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have searched more harder for a reliable source. Now I realize "could" is just a past form, thanks! As for the "unable" version, I think the equivalence makes sense to get out of the "could". It turns out aux. verbs have some bizarre properties. -- Justin545 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intended meaning? Is it (1) to say that the inability to display constitutes an error? Or is it (2) that the nature of the acknowledged error is inability to display? --catslash (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I don't understand the question well ... -- Justin545 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myrvin's first answer ("It is an error THAT the table can't be displayed"), means: "You already know that the table can't be displayed, but I need to tell you that this is a problem". I don't think that is what you want to say. More likely you want to say "You already know that there is a problem, but I need to tell you that the problem is that the table can't be displayed". Is that right? --catslash (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! This sentence was due to some programming bug got fixed and posted on a bugtracker web page to inform everybody that it has been fixed. -- Justin545 (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For 'of' with participles, the OED has "There was one child of the marriage". "it was an affair of generations", "The old bluesmen, their black faces engraved with the sorrows of ages." 'Of' is a very complicated word. Myrvin (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes errors have specific names and error codes. Maybe you're looking for something like

It is the error of "table can't be displayed"

As far as I can tell my example is grammatical, but it might be more clear if the "of" was just removed. Putting the name of the error in quotes turns it into a grammatical mention rather than a grammatical use, see use-mention distinction. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the exact meaning ... it would be better if the punctuation marks could be vocally represented. -- Justin545 (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can vocally represent quotation marks. Perhaps not unambiguously, but people do it. Try a little pause before the quoted part, and change tone a bit. Almost like you're speaking in italics :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like that SM. It is the same as "'Table can't be displayed' is the error message." But I think the questioner wants an "of" somewhere. Myrvin (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "of" is needlessly wordy. "It is the 'table can't be displayed' error" works best (if you're avoiding contractions). Can't accidentally imply it's the table's fault. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the OP's question has been resolved. I turns out, the OP was not looking for a "participle adjective" - but rather for an "adjective" only (like in their example "boring teachers"). Anyways, they have indicated (in their response to me above), that my suggestion - of using the " equivalence ['can't' = 'is unable to'], makes sense - to get out of the 'could' " [i.e. to get rid of the 'can't'] - hence to get the correct adjective suggested by me: 'unable', so it seems they accept the final consequence: 'it is an error of [a] table unable to be displayed'. HOOTmag (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We used to live in the automobile world, now we live in the new computer world, where the ones who create and rule and help and fix, don't need to master language as a means for thinking or for common sense... Akseli9 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I wonder who here has ever tried to "master language as a means for thinking". The OP was simply looking for an "adjective of can't", so I tried to do my best to help them find what they were looking for, and I hope I succeeded, that's all. Anyways, I wonder how your comment is related to the whole topic discussed in my response you've referred to. HOOTmag (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

Arabic question: What is "Schools in Detroit" in Arabic and Polish?

What is "Schools in Detroit" in Arabic? I would like to add that description to Commons:Category:Schools in Detroit along with English, Bengali, Spanish.

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

مدارس في ديترويت Omidinist (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For any editors who know Polish, is it okay if I know what "Schools in Detroit" is in Polish? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Szkoły w Detroit. HOOTmag (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, how do you pronounce the single "w" word in Polish ? StuRat (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/v/. HOOTmag (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Together with the following syllable: [ˈʂkɔwɨ vdiˈtrɔit]. If the following word started with a voiceless consonant, the "w" would be devoiced: szkoły w Toronto [ˈʂkɔwɨ ftɔˈrɔntɔ]. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only in Polish, but also in other Slavic languages there exist prepositions consisting only of a single consonant. Indeed, they are pronounced together with the following syllable (word). (There always is a following word because in those languages, unlike in English, a preposition is not a good word to end a sentence with.) --Theurgist (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where/what is your waist?

This question is equally about semantics and anatomy.

I read the article waist as well as waistline (clothing) and did some Google searches. and I'm finding some of the information contradictory, particularly for men.

The definition I see in some places is "the narrowest part of your torso". Let's take a man with a protruding belly, who wears his pants below his belly, which is normal for such people. Even if we were to say the part of his body where he wears his pants (basically his hips) is not really part of his torso and thus cannot be his waist, then certainly the area immediately below his chest is likely to be much smaller in circumference than his belly. But I've never heard anyone call that part of your body your waist.

And if you take the "anatomical" waist which is defined by some to be the circumference around the part of your torso containing your navel, then for this guy with a belly, that would likely be the *widest* part of your torso, not the narrowest.

So do men have several different waists depending on the definition?--Captain Breakfast (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The waist is, in fashion terms, where your trousers stop (hence how describing jeans as "high-waisted" is meaningful). It doesn't have much relationship with the anatomical waist, except that if you're slim enough that your body curves in at the waist, this is a comfortable (if currently unfashionable) place for wearing belts. The waist is not an identifiable structure in the way that a finger or a tooth is. It's ultimately just an arbitrary line on the body, so it's whatever you define it to be. Smurrayinchester 09:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among Negroes in American jails the trousers stopped very low (about halfway down the underpants). This has become a fashion in Britain (and no doubt elsewhere) which many, not only women, find distasteful. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Among Negroes in American jails?" That's a hoot, and about 25 years after the fact. Not safe for work or children. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's vague. For example Empire waist dresses on women put the "waist" just below the bust. Perhaps some rather large men do consider their waits to be near the nipples at the narrowest point of the torso, and also wear their pants there - this guy is not fat but he wears his pants very high [2]SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Captain Breakfast (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that some obese people simply don't have a waist, in that there is no narrower spot between their chest and hips. Therefore, belts don't really work, and they need to go with suspenders. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the grammatical form: "You hate no-one, do you?", or "You hate no-one, don't you?"

The problem I find in #1, is that #1 is opposed to the general form: "You VERB OBJECT, don't you?" (or "You don't VERB OBJECT, do you?"), but it's never "You VERB OBJECT, do you?" (just as it's never "You don't VERB OBJECT, don't you?").

On the other hand: the problem I find in #2, is that the form "You VERB OBJECT, don't you?", is AFAIK an abbreviation of the original meaning: "I was quite sure you VERB OBJECT, don't you VERB OBJECT?" (just as the form "You don't VERB OBJECT do you?", is an abbreviation of the original meaning: "I was quite sure you don't VERB OBJECT, do you VERB OBJECT?"), so #2 - which states "You hate no-one don't you?" - must be an abbreviation of: "I was quite sure you hate no-one, don't you hate no-one?"; but I wonder whether "Don't you hate no-one?" is grammaical, because "You don't hate no-one" is not.

However, maybe my assumption was wrong, and "Don't you hate no-one?" (which could mean "Haven't you claimed you hate no-one?") is grammatical (although "You don't hate no-one" is not). In that case, I guess the correct form - among the forms mentioned in my question - is "You hate no-one, don't you?" 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is the problem in my eyes. "You hate no-one, don't you?" would be my shot at it. - X201 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your remark, I fixed my original question. Btw, what do you think about the last section of my previous response? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply rephrase the question as "You don't hate anyone, do you?" and the problem is solved. --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been quite aware of the legitimacy of "You don't hate anyone, do you?", however my question was about how to deal with sentences involving "no-one". 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you insist on having "no-one" in the sentence when it just causes problems and there is a problem-free alternative? --Viennese Waltz 10:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never "insisted" on having "on-one". On the contrary: I personally prefer "anyone" to "no-one". I've only wondered whether other people share my impression, that using "no-one" may really cause problems. If they do, then I want them to say that (like you); if they don't - then I want them to tell me the correct form when "no-one" is involved. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are both valid - if a bit odd - but they mean slightly different things. When you say "You do X, don't you?", it suggests that I think you do X and am daring you to say you don't. When you say "You do X, do you?", it is probably avowing complete ignorance of whether you do it or not. For the question: "You hate no-one, don't you?" It is saying, I think you hate no-one - say you don't if you dare! The other is saying, is it true that you hate no-one? They could be revamped as: "Is it not the case that you hate no-one?" and "Is it the case that you hate no-one?" You hear the first on TV when the prosecutor is cross-examining the defence witness. The other is more friendly - perhaps posed by the defence lawyer. Myrvin (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by: "I think you hate no-one - say you don't if you dare!"? "don't" what? Do you mean "don't [hate no-one]"? But this was my initial problem: Can you claim you "don't hate no-one"? I suspect it's not a valid expression, is it? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how picky you want to be, and how formal the writing/speaking is. In many varieties of USA English, "I don't hate no-one" is perfectly grammatical, and resolves to the same semantics as "I don't hate anyone". See Double_negative#Two_or_more_negatives_resolving_to_a_negative, which gives the example "I didn't go nowhere today." See also "I can't get no satisfaction", which does not mean that the speaker is always satisfied. But that's a rock song, and the usage would be inappropriate for e.g. a Wikipedia article or school report. We deal with ambiguity related to the examples you just gave all the time. For example, "Don't you want a puppy?" can be answered both "Yes, I do want a puppy" as well as "No, I do want a puppy". Rephrasing: "Do you not want a puppy?" - the answer "Yes" could mean "Yes, it is the case that I do not want a puppy" (this is a negative answer). In other cases, "Yes" could mean "Yes I want a puppy". Fortunately we just use Context_(language_use) and Intonation_(linguistics) to make sense of things or just rephrase them for clarity, and seldom do we have problems in real-life spoken discussions like this, at least seldom between two native speakers. Hope that helps :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you agree to the following two rules: 1. The second part of the sentence "You VERB OBJECT - don't you?", is an abbreviation of "don't you VERB OBJECT?". 2. From what the speaker means - we can infer, that if the question mark had been removed from the second part of the sentence - so that this second part would have been "you don't VERB OBJECT", then this second part would have meant the opposite of what is meant by the first part of the sentence ("You VERB OBJECT"). In my opinion, this is what we can infer - from what the speaker means when they add the second part of the sentence, can't we?

However, your last claim seems to contradict - at least one of - the two rules mentioned above, because: you claim that the sentence "You hate no-one, don't you [hate no-one]?", eventually means "You hate no-one, don't you [hate anyone]?". consequently, if the question mark had been removed from the second part of the sentence - so that this second part would have been "you don't [hate no-one]" - meaning (in your opinion) "you don't [hate anyone]", then this second part would have meant exactly what - rather than the opposite of what - is meant by the first part of the sentence ("you hate no-one")... 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid this is an idiomatic form - like many, many others. I'll expand: "I think you hate no-one - if you don't hate no-one (ie you hate someone) then say so". I don't think you will see "don't hate no-one" very often. AS VW says: "Don't hate anyone" is more likely. Myrvin (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Scottish (Dumfriesshire) great-aunt (born early 20th century, pre-WW1) used to offer guests a drink with "You don't want a sherry do you?" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great :-) 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere, I read an account about a puritan asked to dinner by non-puritan folk. The lady said to him, "You will have some meat, won't you?" He replied, "Madam, first thou said an untruth, and then thou asked a question."Myrvin (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of this reminds me another case, about a fellow who lived alone in a huge forest, and sometimes had to cope with intrusive guests. He used to welcome them by saying: "If I had had sugar, I would have suggested you coffee with sugar - if I had had coffee..." 87.68.26.3 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "I don't think you will see 'don't hate no-one' very often"? Is it ever possible to hear - something like "you don't hate no-one" - from a native speaker who means "you hate someone"? If it's possible, then in what occasions? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to say that 'don't hate no-one' is ungrammatical. Perhaps you should assume that, but here [3][4] are searches with lots of them in common speech. But all these are probably double negatives (cf SemanticMantis above) that mean "I don't hate anyone". Also, I wrote a book once entitled "Nobody Don't Know Nothing", so what do I know? Myrvin (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never said anything (or nothing if you like) about whether "don't hate no-one" is grammatical. I've always been quite aware of the double negation used by some (native) speakers. I only wondered whether any expression like "you don't hate no-one" - can be heard from a native speaker who means "you hate someone". If you insist that it is possible, then I wonder - in what occasions it is. Regarding the book you've written: does it deal with expressions like "you don't hate no-one" - meaning "you hate someone"? 87.68.26.3 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no instances of "you don't hate no-one" - meaning "you hate someone", so I don't insist upon it. No, my book was about the impossibility of knowing anything. I think we have moved beyond your original question. Myrvin (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd slightly disagree with the you're interpretation (or at lease, talking about "daring" them makes it seem more hostile than it should be). To my mind, the form "You do X, don't you?" is asking for confirmation that your assumption is correct. "You do X, do you?" seems slightly more questioning, as if you are either not sure that they do X, or are surprised that they do. Iapetus (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any random sequence of English words can come up as a response to an unusually framed question. Husband: I don't hate anyone at all. Wife: Oh dear, you know you hate someone. Husband: No, honey, there is no one I hate. Wife: Come, on John, you know you don't hate no-one; there's Bob next door, for a start. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it. I was working on "I don't hate no-one, I hate everyone". Myrvin (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al right guys, so the correct form I've been looking for is: "you hate no-one - don't you?", meaning "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - don't you hate no-one?", which means: "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - do you hate anyone?" (according to Medeis's version), or which means: "I've been quite sure you hate no-one - do you hate everyone?" (according to Myrvin's version). Personally I prefer Medeis's interpretation of my original sentence discussed in this thread (I think also Myrvin does), although Myrvin's version can be used as another interpretation of "don't hate no-one" - irrespective to (and regardless of) my original question. Anyways, all of those alternative interpretations can be added to our article double negation (and to other articles mentioning it) in order to emphasize that the double negation can't be regarded as ungrammatical - when interpreted in some ways. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this thread can be closed. HOOTmag (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be my BrEng ears, but both constructions sound horrible to me. Why not go with "You don't hate anyone, do you?" --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read my post upthread? I already suggested that. --Viennese Waltz 12:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. To be honest, I was put off reading the whole thread by the OP's SHOUTING and other people's excessive use of bold. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP's shouting? I don't remember I've ever shouted. Regarding "other people's excessive use of bold": Note that bold letters are intended to emphasize (rather than to shout). 87.68.26.3 (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided covers both of your points. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the big letters: I've never used them to shout - but rather to quote. As for the bold letters: I've never used them to shout - but rather to emphasize, and the link I've provided (in my previous response) - covers that as well. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that the link you've provided (in your previous response) leads to the same than this last link you're providing. --Askedonty (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. 87.68.26.3 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to your post, I count 16 bolded words, out of about 1900 in the thread. My post was the only one other than OP that used bolding, at 2/200 words. If you want to call rates of bolding 1/100 or less excessive, that's fine. Me, I figure using typographic emphasis sparingly is doing a favor to the community, otherwise we just have huge walls of text and it's hard to see key points. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

"Man up" not "gender neutral" - what is current best exact equivalent in English usage

Is there in current English usage a gender-neutral equivalent to "man up" (meaning "be brave or tough enough to deal with an unpleasant situation" or (MacMillan) "to start being brave and dealing with a difficult situation")? Do any of the major style guides say anything anent this? I wish to avoid affronting anyone, but could not find such after an assiduous search :(. Collect (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

toughen up, pluck up, brave up? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of which remotely come near the idiomatic meaning as noted by Zimmer (and as the Guardian article notes) . And saying "Pluck Up!" might well arouse ire. Collect (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More like to arouse ridicule. "Fight Fiercely, Harvard!" and all that sort of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be a mensch. Maybe it's half a century out of date, but who cares; its recipient might appreciatively recognize the reference to The Apartment, a wonderful film. Possibly ineffective in Britain, where people might mistake it for a reference to this person. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all equivalent. A mensch is, among other things, a particularly decent human being. "Man up" is a different stereotype; basically, "man up" means "grow some balls", and there really isn't a gender neutral way to express "act more like a stereotypical male". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is overlap somewhere in the field of courage and doing the right thing without regard to personal consequences (WP has an article on moral courage which I found via de:Zivilcourage, an everyday-word in German). Regarding perfect synonymy, see also "Why do synonyms exist?", e.g.) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know? I always thought mensch referred to a man (and was not used for a woman) but apparently it has a complicated history in the German to English transfer. [5] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "grow up". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's something children say to each other. Not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not always children. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

The expression "take courage" is used in some translations of John 16:33.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last week the assistant chief of police in Detroit said "man up or woman up, whatever, and tell us what's going on" after a shooting. "Woman up" gets a lot of Google results. It's far removed from what "man up" is supposed to mean, but maybe that's a good thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly gender neutral, but around here people say "time to put your big boy/girl pant(ie)s on" or "you better cowboy/cowgirl up!", using either "boy" or "girl" as appropriate.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about the oldy but goody, "gird up your loins" (since the type of loins aren't specified) ? StuRat (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pull yourself together [[wo]man]! --catslash (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "be brave" no good? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest simply "grow up"? --174.88.133.209 (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's something children say to each other. Not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Friendly Giant politely suggests looking up. Not way up, but seven steps. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "Satisfy your needs!" could work. I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Something like "step up" or "stand up" can work, but the question would be whether women say "man up" to each other. If they do, then it's already de facto gender neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just today thinking of the popular phrase in the American military, suck it up. Basically used for "you're in a difficult situation, so don't complain, just deal with it". Variants of the phrase include "get a straw and suck it up" and "suck it up, buttercup". MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't exactly best for a little girl afraid of the dentist (or something). Probably just scare her more. Nothing patronizing or rude about "be brave". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

She's an alumni

Here and here, a woman is described as "an SJSU alumni". ALUMN* isn't really in my own idiolect (I'd say she was a graduate): however inflected, it strikes me as a somewhat quaint Americanism. And I know that as foreign words are anglicized, strange things happen to them (opera is rarely a plural). So I'm not shocked, but I am mildly intrigued: In current Californian English, is "alumni" commonplace in feminine singular contexts? -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Alumni" is plural.[6] The singular would be "alumnus" (male) or "alumna" (female). A term often used is simply "alum". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am commenting as a native speaker of American English, resident in California for 43 years. Although I understand that, technically, the word is plural, common 21st century usage here treats it as singular, and it is applied to both men and women without distinction. It would be unusual to hear "alumnus" in casual speech and I do not believe that I have ever heard anyone utter the word "alumna". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see - like the way "media" and "criteria" are treated as singulars. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or "phenomena", or "vertebrae", more ugh. "Alumna" appears very many times on Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not approving but simply reporting what I hear in spoken usage. That being said, I hear "phenomenon" and "vertebra" frequently. Entirely coincidentally, my brother was in a car crash yesterday, and fractured three neck vertebrae. No paralysis, fortunately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing "phenomenon" is fine. Just don't try watching it. Maybe Phenomena would be better? Matt Deres (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that the word "alumna" is known in some traditional women's colleges which remain single-sex... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about Cambridge, having visited the place only a handful of times. Are those places linked to part of the University? I thought all Oxford and Cambridge women's colleges had become co - educational, the last being St Hilda's a few years ago. St Benet's Hall, run by monks, was the last to admit women when they provided a special annexe for them recently. My mother, who never set foot in Cambridge, studied at Somerville at the same time as Margaret Roberts. When the family was living at Oxford my sister would often speak of female undergraduates as undergraduettes, emphasising the last syllable. Is this a commonplace terminology? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betjeman uses the term in An Oxford University Chest (1938), so it's unsurprising to find it still in use in the early 1950's; it had died out by the late 70's (when some cats may or may not have attended that institution). According to Google, it wasn't unique to Oxford - there was a magazine called "The Cambridge Gownsman and Undergraduette", published in the 1930's, but the term doesn't seem (fortunately) to have become generally popular. Tevildo (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newnham and Murray Edwards (formerly New Hall) are both still single-sex (and both are full constitutent colleges of the University). The other main (and first) women's college was Girton, which started admitting male undergraduates in 1979. There's also Lucy Cavendish, which is women-only, but admits only graduate students and "mature" (over-21) undergraduates. As you say, the last women-only college at Oxford, St Hilda's, went co-ed in 2008. I've rarely heard anyone refer to "undergraduettes", and then only facetiously. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I attended an Ivy League college in the 1980s, and at least in my day, there was a tendency to decline alumn- correctly in the nominative. Not everyone succeeded, but probably most did. I can imagine that correct usage has declined even in the Ivy League and probably correlates to exposure to Latin, which has been declining everywhere. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

What is "School districts in Michigan" in Arabic?

The category Category:School districts in the United States is ar:تصنيف:مناطق تعليمية في الولايات المتحدة on the Arabic Wikipedia.

I would like to start a similar category at the Arabic Wikipedia equivalent to Category:School districts in Michigan using the same translation for "school district". What would it be in Arabic?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe:

School districts in Michigan=مناطق تعليمية في ميشيغان
School districts=مناطق تعليمية
in=في
Michigan=ميشيغان

--Meno25 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Meno :D WhisperToMe (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Teklehaimanot and Qhubeka

Hi friends, what is the correct pronunciation of Teklehaimanot (name of pro cyclist Daniel Teklehaimanot) and what is the correct pronunciation of Qhubeka (name of his team MTN-Qhubeka)? Thank you. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Eritrean name is apparently the same as Tekle Haymanot (ተክለ ሃይማኖት täklä haymanot). Skimming through the Tigrinya language article, I think the Tigrinya pronunciation should be straightforward, except for the ‹ä›'s standing for [ɐ]'s.

Regarding the South African name, the ‹qh› apparently represents a click consonant, and more specifically an aspirated alveolar or postalveolar click. There might be other peculiarities as well (e.g. the ‹k› would be pronounced as [ɠ] in Zulu), and tones are likely involved too, but that all depends on which particular language the name belongs to. --Theurgist (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qhubeka is isiZulu (and isiXhosa) for "advance, move forward, progress". The IPA is [ǃʰuˈɓɛːɠa], where the /!/ represents the sound usually described as clucking one's tongue, although that's ambiguous. (Here is the ! sound in a video that calls it "clicking" which is technically too broad a term, as there are other types of phonetic clicks.) None of these consonants has any equivalent in European languages. The pronunciation at Forvo (offered by a Latvian) is not very good to my ear, so I won't link to it.

μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Theurgist, is täklä haymanot IPA? If not what would it be in IPA? 184.147.138.101 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not IPA; it's the romanization system that is used in the Tigrinya language article. Per that article, the IPA would probably be /tɐklɐ hajmanot/. --Theurgist (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific, thank you again. All syllables equally stressed? I'm not clear what the article means by 'contrastive'. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means words rarely if not at all change their meaning when the stress is shifted. Theoreticly you can put the stress on any syllable.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks.184.147.138.101 (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

inverted ‘Viva’ sign (Italian)

In a movie set in Italy – Don Camillo (1952) – we see placards saying “VV Peppone – ΛΛ la reazione”. The letters VV are crossed, forming a common abbreviation for Viva; by ΛΛ I mean the same sign inverted. I had never seen that before. Has it a pronunciation? —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not answering the question, there is this. --Askedonty (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Wikipedia article on the letter W says "In titles and slogans the letter W is used as an abbreviation of "evviva" or "viva", while the same symbol upside down indicates "abbasso", used as an expression of disapproval." So in this case, "long live Peppone, down with the reaction". Hopefully that makes sense in the context of the film (Peppone is Don Camillo's nemesis, at least). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense in the context of the whole set of stories. Peppone is a communist (and mayor) and thus against la reazione, the reactionary opposition. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greek language

I've heard that Greek is the language which has remained closest to its roots (that is, classical Greek). Is this true? --Halcatalyst (talk)

No but I bet a Greek person told you that, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. --174.88.133.209 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL (I am not a linguist) but I'd put my money on Icelandic. From the article: "modern Icelanders can easily read the Eddas, sagas, and other classic Old Norse literary works created in the tenth through thirteenth centuries". Sjö (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on what is meant by "roots". It's all a matter of degree. Modern Icelandic is only about 800 years removed from Old Norse while Modern Greek is 2300 years removed from the Classical Period.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is difficult because not all the parts of a language change at the same rate. English has conservative consonants, radically changed vowels, and a hugely diminished grammatical system. The noun system of Spanish is highly changed from that of Latin, while the verb system is similar, with some changes and simplifications. Assuming we take "roots" to refer to the Proto-Indo-European language, Greek, Icelandic, Slovenian, and Lithuanian, especially in their literary forms, are all rather conservative. There's an anecdotal story from Anthony Burgess in A Mouthful of Air that a Sanskrit scholar could make himself understood to a Lithuanian. This non-RS blog entry gives some examples of retained resemblances between the Baltic and the ancient Indian language.

μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I was just about to mention that Lithuanian is often touted as being the most conservative of the Indo-European languages but she beat me to it :) .--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quenya hasn't changed in Ages and Ages. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The single most pure language of which all other languages are but corrupted dialects, is Quranic Arabic. I know this from comments on Youtube. Asmrulz (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The holy God language spoken by Adam and Eve? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Enochian, reportedly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

What's the longest Russian word that's pronouncable if you pretend it's English letters?

What's the longest such word where such pronunciation wouldn't be wrong?

For the purpose of this, if there's adjacent letters that look like English consonants and that combination of English consonants doesn't occur in English then I would probably consider that unpronounceable. I would consider the letter that looks like backwards 3 to be pronounced E in English but the letter 3 to be unpronounceable. And backwards English letters that aren't still English letters to be unpronounceable. Maybe a word that still rolls well off the tongue despite too few vowels (like SQRL or VQL) could be honorable mention. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean regular case (eg., Саратов), all caps (САРАТОВ), or cursive (Саратов)? — Kpalion^(talk) 04:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, one record for whichever format makes the longest word, and one record for the longest which also appears to follow English capitalization rules? (no caps, initial caps, all caps, or non initial caps in some cases like McDuff). Did you mean italic or cursive? I've only seen handwriting made without lifting the pen called cursive. Also, I don't see how an italic of a Cyrillic that looks like an English letter would not look like the italic of the English letter, but I've never seen italic Cyrillic before. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about the only Cyrillic letters that are pronounced the same in English are a,e,к,м and т. Doing a regexp search on aspell's dictionary yields, inter alia:
какао, тотем, токамак, токката, томат, тамтам, макака, кокетка, etc, etc, as well as some Russian words that don't mean anything in English (the longest is, at 8 letters, отметете "you will sweep aside") (however, the second to last е is really an ё and pronounced "yo") Asmrulz (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sagittarian is asking about Russian letters that look like English letters even if they are pronounced differently, like "товар" which looks like "tobap" (or "Саратов" as Kpalion has noted, which looks like "capatob"). The longest one I can think of is "ресторан", which is "restaurant" but looks like "pectopah", but I suppose there must be longer ones. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was also wondering what's the longest Russian word that requires no transliteration. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

then I'd say it's any of the 7-letter words that I mentioned (transliteration tries to preserve pronunciation.) If we admit all letters for which there exists a visually identical (in all caps) Latin letter with no regard to the phonetic value (i.e., а,в,е,к,м,н,о,р,с,т,х) as Adam suggests, then the longest word is, at 16 leters, несоответственен "incongrous" , and the longest noun (15 letters) is реставраторство ("restoration-ism", i.e. restoration of antiques as an occupation, or the advocacy towards restoring some past political conditions) Asmrulz (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here are the complete lists and the commands I used to generate them: [7] [8] Asmrulz (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Sagittarian asked for words that are pronounceable in English, which I would take to mean that they obey English phonototactic rules. Neither HECOOTBETCTBEHEH nor PECTABPATOPCTBO fulfill this condition. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, hence my disclaimer "with no regard to the phonetic value" in my second reply. The words in my initial reply do fulfill the condition of being their own phonetic transliteration into English (more or less.) Asmrulz (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though not both. I meant words that not only look like English transliterations (with enough vowels) but sound like them, too. But it's nice to learn that HECOOTBETCTBEHEH is the longest Russian word that's its own transliteration (despite having some abrupt vowel-less consonant to consonant transitions not found in English). I never knew that C wasn't always pronounced S like in Soyuz or CCCP/Soyuz Sovietski Socialistica Republic or however you say it. Or if that's still S then it wouldn't count cause no English speaker would ever say C like S here. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are nice lists though. Thanks. I can see now that I shouldn't need any more help, But anyone's still welcome to add something that can't be deduced from those lists and Wikipedia/Wiktionary. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh, it isn't. only the short 7-letter words in my initial reply are their own transliterations. the 2nd list is of words that can be written using the Latin alphabet alone, but they aren't phonetic transliterations. C is always S Asmrulz (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also, regarding cursive, there are no non-trivial words (за "for", ее "her") that work in (handwritten) cursive. However, you can write two 16-letter words (перепроизводство, "overproduction", cursive "nepenpouzbogcmbo" and судопроизводство "court proceedings", cursive "cygonpouzbogcmbo") and a 17-letter word (первопроходчество "trailblazing, pioneering", cursive "nepbonpoxogrecmbo") using cursive and it'd still be legible in Russian (the "z" is an old-style "z" with a descender, that looks like a wasp) Asmrulz (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I thought PECTABPATOPCTBO was a transliteration but not pronouncable. My mistake. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Asmrulz's list, these words are in the nominative case, and you can make them a bit longer by putting them in other cases. For example, токамаком tokamakom "with a tokamak" or токамакам tokamakam "unto the tokamaks", either one for nine letters. --Amble (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borscht terminology in Yiddish

Hi, I'm trying to expand our article about borscht and would like to confirm that I got the spelling and grammar of the following Yiddish terms right:

beet sour: ראָסל (rosl)
dairy borscht: מילכיקער באָרשט (milkhiker borsht)
meat borscht: פֿליישיקער באָרשט (fleyshiker borsht)

— Kpalion^(talk) 09:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting laid vs. getting laid off

Does it really matter to include or exclude the "off" at the end of "getting laid" to clarify one's true intentions? "Off" is an one-syllable word, which may be missed easily in speech; and judging by the context, the listener would not assume the wrong interpretation.

He got laid at work.
He got laid off at work.

vs.

He and his girlfriend got laid in the bedroom.
He and his girlfriend got laid off in the bedroom. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind that people won't be able to stand you if you leave out prepositions, feel free. Given you're posting from a library in Ohio, why don't you go check the librarian? μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Get laid" and "laid off" are completely different. I would much rather get laid at work than laid off, and I would be extremely worried if I was somehow laid off in the bedroom. In "get laid," the focus is on "lay," as in "lay in bed (to have sex)" (although this has expanded to refer to sex outside of the bedroom as well). In "laid off," the focus is more on "off," and is more idiomatic. An older and more universal usage of "lay off" is telling someone to stop annoying someone ("Lay off the kid, he doesn't know better"). This probably came to be a euphemism for being fired since the employer is no longer bothering the employee with a job. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off the noun is defined by the OED as "A rest, respite, spell of relaxation; a period during which a workman is temporarily dismissed or allowed to leave his work; a part or season of the year during which activity in a particular business or game is partly or completely suspended." So, to be laid off must be to be temporarily dismissed.Myrvin (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]