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

July 24

Einherjar

Can you help on Talk:Einherjar#Pronunciation? Thank you –ebraminio^talk 00:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help me edit the following paragraphs to improve readability, grammar, and flow

In membrane chromatography, fluids pass through a filter-like membrane and transport cross chromatography ligands through convection. Membranes can be loaded and eluted much more quickly because the mechanism of binding and eluting are based on convective transport, a much faster mechanism than diffusion. This operation desires membrane chromatography because the product should be processed as quickly as possible. There’s not a lot of product so you can use small membranes for this step. Load the product on a membrane and the product is adsorbed onto the membrane. Wash solution is introduced and removes loosely-bound species and rinse out residual impurity components. After the wash, an elution buffer is introduced that allows the product proteins to detach and are collected. The really important parameter for binding and eluting the product using the anion exchange membrane is conductivity. When the conductivity is low the product binds, and at high conductivity the product let’s go.

Soiled equipment is placed in a sterilizer, using the validated sterilization cycle. Pull the equipment out of the sterilizer after sterilization and cooling and it is moved to an area with an air supply. The equipment is connected to a source of compressed air and made ready for pressurization. The pressurized equipment is held at the specified pressure for a specified period of time. Release the pressure, open the drain valve and ring tubing, while maintaining air flow through the system. Then after the specified period of time, cover all openings with autoclave paper and dead end tubing or blanks and prepare for storage. The clean time is the period of time for which the equipment can be held post cleaning but prior to sterilization without the need for cleaning again.172.56.22.171 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

An initial question - are you writing a description of the process, or instructions for a technician on how to carry out the process? It's not clear from the text as it stands. Tevildo (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Some corrections added:

In membrane chromatography, fluids pass through a filter-like membrane and transport cross-chromatography ligands through convection. Membranes can be loaded and eluted much more quickly because the mechanism of binding and eluting areis based on convective transport, a much faster mechanism than diffusion. This operation desiresrequires membrane chromatography, because the product should be processed as quickly as possible. There’s not a lot of product, so you can use small membranes for this step. Load the product on a membrane and then the product iswill be adsorbed onto the membrane. Wash solution is introduced and removes loosely-bound species and rinses out residual impurity components. After the wash, an elution buffer is introduced that allows the product proteins to detach and arebe collected. The really important parameter for binding and eluting the product using the anion exchange membrane is conductivity. When the conductivity is low, the product binds, and at high conductivity, the product let’slets go.

Soiled equipment is placed in a sterilizer, using the validated sterilization cycle. Pull the equipment out of the sterilizer after sterilization and cooling and it is movedmove it to an area with an air supply. The equipment is then connected to a source of compressed air and made ready for pressurization. The pressurized equipment is held at the specified pressure for a specified period of time. Release the pressure, open the drain valve and ring tubing, while maintaining air flow through the system. Then, after the specified period of time, cover all openings with autoclave paper and dead-end tubing or blanks andto prepare for storage. The "clean time" is the period of time for which the equipment can be held post-cleaning but prior to sterilization, without the need for cleaning again.

You seem to change between active voice and passive voice constantly. For example, "pull the equipment out" is active while "it is moved" is passive. There were too many of these for me to fix them all, but pick one voice, and stick with it. "Ligands" and "elute" will need an explanation, unless this is meant solely for a technical audience already familiar with those terms. Since this is a step-by-step process, I suggest numbered bullets. You also use some rather casual language, like "not a lot" and "really important". Depending on the audience, I would think more formal language would be ein order, like "A small quantity" and "most significant". StuRat (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope to God vs. Ojalá que

I was taught that Ojalá que can be used to express hopes and requests in the same manner as Espero que. Though, I don't remember a "to God" at the end. Which one is the more accurate translation of Ojalá que? "I hope" or "I hope to God" or "Oh, Allah!" 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I should have just googled it. http://www.spanishdict.com/topics/show/74 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You learn something new here every day. There is a Portuguese ejaculation oxala (acute accent on, and therefore stressed on) the final syllable, which means roughly "Listen!" I would never have guessed that its origin was "Oh my God".86.141.140.147 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Oxalá means "I hope" or "may it come true", not "listen". —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Both portuguese "oxalá" and spanish "ojalá" derive from arabic "Insha'Allah". The portuguese translation "se Deus quiser" (if god wants) is also pretty common. "Oiça lá" (imperative of ouvir, listen) is also common but would be used in different contexts. 90.62.96.246 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

See 1 Corinthians 4:8.—Wavelength (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The person may have said oica or ouca ("c" with cedilha). The word means "listen!". Maybe you can add the preposition la (acute accent over the "a" - the word means "there"), to get something like "Listen to that". I don't know if there is a Spanish equivalent.

Oxala appears to be a Brazilian god - but then many Brazilians perform voodoo ceremonies dressed up as Catholic ritual. Courtesy of the Portuguese Wikipedia, this appears to be Yoruba (West African) religion which went to Brazil with the slaves. 86.141.140.204 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 25

More mystery Chinese characters (and a dash of Tibetan)

I have a second instalment of puzzling characters which I'd appreciate help with.

Chinese

Transcription of Om mani padme hum. Judging by this page, for the second-last character I'm looking for the mouth radical plus 17 strokes; it doesn't seem to exist in Unicode. Is this right?

Here, the first footnote means "August Guard of the Gate of Heaven" -- 威X天門 -- but I can't find the second character (presumably meaning "guard").

Here the second character in the Chinese here looks simple, but seems not to exist. This is the name of the Moso or Mosuo people.

Here the second character is another simple-looking, but elusive character using the "比" element. This is the name of the Lisu or Liso people.

Transcribed as "T'ai Ho Chên"; the name of a small town. The closest I can find for the third character is "鍖" -- could it be a variant form?

Here "郤" plus moon or flesh radical seems not to exist.

Tibetan

The book also includes a few Tibetan words which I've tried to reproduce using the Tibetan alphabet page, with limited success.

Om mani padme hum. "ཨོམ་མ་ཎི་པད་མེ་ཧམ་" looks like a transcription of the Tibetan (apart from the vowel(?) on the second-last letter, which I can't find), but all versions which I find online are quite different. Is the book's text wrong?

brTen. First word in footnote 4: the closest I can get is བརཷན་, which doesn't seem quite right. Similarly with the second word: "སང་བ་" is not quite right. Both these words refer to an amulet or charm.

Treasury-hand and lieutenant. No idea about either of these words.

Long title. No idea. I got as far as "ཧ་དབར་བ", which has no Google hits.

A-jol. This is the Chinese Adunzi in Yunnan, but I can't find the Tibetan version of the name.

Ajang. No idea about the Tibetan name here.

Thanks for any help you can give me with these! Henry^Flower 06:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Your second Chinese question: the "guard" character is probably a poorly written "鎮" [1]. The character in the town name "T'ai Ho Chê" (your second-from-last question) might be the same character too, as it seems to appear regularly in town names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- that looks plausible. Henry^Flower 12:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For your first Tibetan question, the Tibetan is properly written ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ Tibetan script is derived from Indic scripts and uses the Anusvara (the small open "cirlce" above the initial consonant) for final "m" in om and hum. Also, as an Indic-derived script, it employs "stacking" for consonant clusters such as the "-dm-" in padme so the "m" portion is written under the "d".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For your second Tibetan question, brTen is written བརྟེན "b","r","subscript t","e" (over the "rt" combination), "n". And srung-ba is written སྲུངབ (the "u" vowel in the book you link looks a bit different, but I suspect it is a font issue). Tibetan writing hasn't changed much in the last 1000 years while the language has changed substantially, most notably by simplifying consonant clusters. The word written brTen is actually pronounced in modern Tibetan as "ten" and srung-ba is pronounced sung-wa (sung means "to protect" and "wa" is a noun-making particle, hence "protection"). If you don't have the ability to type in Tibetan fonts, you can use character picker sites such as this to write most words.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you just want the Tibetan text transcribed?

• brTen: བརྟེན་
• srung-ba: སྲུང་བ་
• Treasury hand: ཕྱག་མཛོད་
• Lieutenant: སྐུ་ཚབ་
• Long title: ཧ་དབར་བདེ་ལིགསརྒྱ་ལ་བོ་ (seems to be run together with extra syllables at the end? Looks like misspelled "gyalpo"?)
• ajang: འཇངས་
• ajol: འཇོལ་

I can't vouch for whether these are correct Tibetan. Just transcribing from the images. I noticed that William Thweatt's versions are missing some of the tshegs (་).--Amble (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have a bad habit of leaving those out, especially when things are (to me) unambiguous. However, those pesky tshegs (the small "dot" that serves to separate syllables) are mandatory.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Our Tibetan language articles only scratch the surface. But one thing I've noticed is that Old Tibetan and Classical Tibetan have impressive consonant clusters and no tones while Modern Standard Tibetan (based on the Lhassa dialect?) has simplified consonant clusters and has got tones. Have the tones arisen out of the simplification of consonant clusters? I mean, are the tones of Modern Tibetan what was left behind as the consonant clusters got simplified? Contact Basemetal here 03:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Tonogenesis occurred in Tibetan with the loss/simplification of onsets and codas. The manifestation of this, though, varies from dialect to dialect. Some dialects have contrastive phonemic tone, some are more in a pitch-register stage, some have a "tonal component" but tone doesn't contrast lexical meaning and some dialects completely lack any tonal component. Quick overview, a more comprehensive analysis, an interesting paper.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful -- thank you, everyone. That's been a great help. Henry^Flower 05:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The first paper is not a "quick overview", it's just truncated (not sure why SEAlang has these truncated versions of papers). The full version is here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

de:Tibetische Sprache#Lhasa-Dialekt (in German, but the lists and tables should be intelligible anyway) shows how you get from written Tibetan (which preserves the Old/Classical Tibetan consonant clusters graphically) to the pronunciation of the Lhasa dialect. Some western dialects (the Ladakhi–Balti–Purig group, especially Purig and Balti) preserve the Old Tibetan phonology fairly well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Squirt

Does the word "squirt" for describing a child originate from the act of a man squirting semen into a woman? For example, "Bryan Adams was just a squirt in the Summer of '69" would imply that he was still a sperm at that point, even though he was older. 197.253.1.4 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Only by distant analogy. The French equivalent is "morveux", meaning "one with a running nose". --Askedonty (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's more like "squirt" as opposed to a full spray. Think the squirt of a lemon as opposed to a water tap turned on full. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Harry Truman referred to the small-statured Joseph Stalin as "a little squirt", but I wouldn't say old Joe was ineffectual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Truman wasn't saying that Stalin was ineffectual. Truman deeply distrusted Stalin. That is one of the reasons that he ordered Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom-bombed, in order to end the war as quickly as possible, before Stalin ordered a Soviet invasion. FDR didn't distrust Stalin enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, Stalin did not have any capability to invade Japan. The logistics problems alone would have been staggering, not to mention the Soviet navy's lack of expertise and resources. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"a little bit of a squirt" Contact Basemetal here 16:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried to find where that Truman quote comes from. From this (paragraph 7) it looks like something he said in one of the instalments of this TV series. Here is an medley of various things he said regarding Stalin in the course of that series. Unfortunately it does not contain the squirt quote. Contact Basemetal here 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I heard it on an audio book titled The Truman Tapes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I bet the "television series" they say this audio book is based on is the one I mentioned above. Contact Basemetal here 22:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Very likely. I'll look for my copy when I get the chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Etymonline says it was first used for a whipper-snapper, i.e. a young person, in 1839. It gives no reason for it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A squirt is a boy who is too small to pee over the garden wall/fence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Very likely. I'll look for my copy when I get the chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why he "pisseth against the wall". Contact Basemetal here 17:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What does that Biblical phrase mean ? StuRat (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

a male (heir) Contact Basemetal here 21:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What a colorful way to say "male". :-) StuRat (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Not every translator likes to stay as colorful (and as close to the Hebrew) as the KJV. If you click on "Other Translations" for each passage at BibleGateway you'll get a whole bunch of different translations in a whole bunch of other English versions of the Bible. Contact Basemetal here 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if it meant "males over a certain age", as male babies wouldn't be able to "piss against the wall". I also wonder why the translators chose the word "piss", versus "urinate", which comes from Latin and is considered the more refined choice. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Since my answer is too long and too off-topic I put it on Stu's page. Inviting people to Stu's place BYOB though. Contact Basemetal here 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(In the 20th/21st century, not in the 17th. Languages, meanings, customs and sensibilities change.) It's not a bug, though; it's a feature. To riff on C. A. R. Hoare, the King James Bible was (well, in some ways, at least) not only an improvement on its predecessors, but also on nearly all of its successors. :-) Also, in the 17th century, urinate was not yet in (common) use and would, as a Latinism, not have been understandable, let alone familiar, to the general public, anyway, which would have defeated the purpose of the translation, namely popularisation and proselytism. Its goal was to make the Bible accessible to the unwashed masses, who had no education in classical languages. No wonder the KJV still has a lot of rabid fans – although they would not name the "dirty words" as a reason, I presume. ;-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to pee over the wall? 86.141.140.204 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To get to the other side? To show they're no squirt? See pissing contest. Contact Basemetal here 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In the example given, there was definitely a sexual double entendre, but it wasn't just about mansquirts, also female ejaculation. The author was playing with the concepts of the Summer of Love, 69 (sex position) and the I Know What You Did Last Summer soundtrack, where men and women both come together and get fucked up to music equally. Maybe more of a double double entendre (not to be conflated with Tim Horton's sweet creamy afternoon delight). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

And yeah, I meant Bryan Adams was a kid, literally, not a sperm. Still twice as old as Brian Adams was, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Origin of "pray the gay away"

I think the phrase "pray the gay away" is quite catchy. What is the origin of the phrase? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean who in particular originated it, or what does it mean? It refers to a generally discredited view that homosexuality was a spiritual disorder that could be cured by religion. It still exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I know what it means. I just want to know who coined the phrase. In terms of usage, people that support gay rights seem to be the people to use it, not the people that oppose homosexuality and anything related to the gay. "You can't pray the gay away!" 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The actual history of Conversion therapy goes back to Freud's day, but I'm fairly certain the phrases "Pray the gay away" or "Pray away the gay" started in the 1980s, thanks to clinical psychology realizing that classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder was a mistake, and the American Evangelicalism's growth in both popularity and worldliness.

I haven't found who actually coined the phrase yet, but I'm willing to bet it was thought up in the 1980s or 1990s, with the conscious intention of being catchy (because Jesus definitely taught "yea, blessed are the speakers of inauthentic but catchy Christio-advertising, for they can serve God and Mammon by filling the pews"). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The earliest definite reference I can find (on a quick search) is to "Cartman Sucks" (2007), so Parker and Stone may have invented it. There was also a 2011 TV show of that title (Pray the Gay Away? - no question mark, no points). However, there may be earlier examples out there. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm in the Middle season 1, episode #9 "Lois vs. Evil" aired March 19, 2000 and contained the phrase "Pray away the gay": [2]. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, catchy, like "The family that preys together slays together." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"The family that brays together strays together." Contact Basemetal here 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There was an advert on Aussie TV in the (??) 1960s-1970s for gray hair colour, with the slogan "Go gay with gray and stay that way". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing more 1960's than 1970's. In the 1960's "gay" hadn't yet taken on the "homosexual" meaning, for example, the Flintstones theme song said "We'll have a gay old time". By the 1970's that had changed, at least in the US. So, unless the change hit Aussie a bit later, it would have been quite a strange advertising choice to say "Go homosexual with gray and stay that way". StuRat (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked online before mentioning it, but could find no reference. My sense is that it was later than the 60s, because I'd have had no reason to remember it. It must have been when "gay" was starting to come into public awareness with its new meaning; until then, "camp" or "queer" were the usual words for that abomination. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall the ad being in colour, and we didn't get colour TV till March 1975. Btw, "go gay with gray" has apparently been in use since at least as early as 1951. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Aussie word I saw on Monty Python from that period for a gay man was "pooftah" (sp ?). Was that in use then ? Is it still ? Is it still derogatory or has it been "reclaimed" by the gay community ? StuRat (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"In terms of usage, people that support gay rights seem to be the people to use it, not the people that oppose homosexuality and anything related to the gay." Assuming that's true, and it's my sense that it is, it makes sense. The people doing the praying aren't likely to be so flip about it. It sounds like something that would come from people deriding the attempt to pray people straight. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, it wasn't coined from scratch. I remember, from decades ago, ads for a hair color product that promised to "wash the gray away". More rhymingly, I see products now that are pitched to "spray the gray away". —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 27

Missing the bark for the tree

How do you say it? Missing the tree for the bark or is it Missing the bark for the tree? 61.3.165.11 (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I know "Couldn't see the forest for the trees". On that basis, it would be "missing the trees for the bark". But idioms are not necessarily logical. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Like Jack, I've never heard the expression about bark, and would assume it is a translation of a foreign idiom. The phrase familiar to me is "can't see the wood for the trees" (not "forest") but we don't have many forests in the UK. The phrase was puzzling to me as a child, because I didn't know whether it meant "wood" = "collection of trees" or "wood" = "material in trees". --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That was the point of the phrase. I'd never heard Jack's version before today but it misses the nuance. 86.141.140.204 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Strangely, Jack's version is the one we have in the US, about as far from Aussie as you can get. I don't understand what you mean about nuance. "Can't see the forest for the trees" means you focus on individual items and don't see the overall picture. What does "Can't see the wood for the trees" add to that ? It could either mean "can't see the overall picture" (where wood = forest) or "can't see the details" (where wood = material). If so, I don't see any advantage to an ambiguous saying like that. Or does it mean you only see the middle level, and neither the overall picture nor the details ? StuRat (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It means all those, hence the nuance. I suspect that most usage in the UK is about not seeing the overall picture, but the ability to be ambiguous is one of the things that makes our language not half bad. Bazza (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There are times when ambiguity is a plus, like for double entendre, but how is it a plus here ? StuRat (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Because then it can mean either of two separate notions - A) you're missing the big picture because you're focused on the smaller entities (if wood=woods=forest). B) you're missing a detail because you're focused on the larger tree (if wood=biomass). SemanticMantis (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a given, as described above. The question is why you would want to be unclear in your meaning. I get it when describing a sexual act, but this case makes no sense to me. (BTW, in UK English, "wood" directly = forest, as in "Hundred Acre Wood".) StuRat (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "We don't have many forests in the UK?" Off the top of my head I can give you Epping Forest, New Forest, Kielder Forest, Thetford Warren, Sherwood Forest, etc. Scotland is full of them. In Nottinghamshire, apart from Sherwood Forest (Robin Hood's base), when you pass Rainford going north on the main road you enter a huge forest. That was where the Black Panther (a serial killer) came unstuck. He kidnapped a driver and forced him at gunpoint to drive up that road. When they reached the last outpost of civilisation (a roadside fish and chip shop) the driver swung the car round and brought it to a stop outside. The killer started fighting and was only subdued when the police handcuffed to him to the railings outside. 86.141.140.204 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's all relative. Bigger places in the world have forests which take days to go through, and may well consider what we call forests to just be oversized copses. Bazza (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The UK doesn't do very well compared to other European countries, only the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland have less forestation. [3] Alansplodge (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree? Rojomoke (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Aboriginal name of Tasmania

Does Tasmania have an aboriginal name? It's called Lutriwita in Palawa kani, but that's a modern constructed language. --195.62.160.60 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Just as on the mainland, there were numerous tribes in Tasmania, which were as separate culturally and linguistically as the Vietnamese and the Mongols. Just as there is no "Asian language" or "European language", there is no "Aboriginal language". Now, each of the tribes would have had a word for the lands and waters they inhabited, but to talk of a word for the entire island supposes they had a sense that they were in fact on an island, and I don't know that they had such an awareness. Maybe an ethnologist can correct me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can understand how people living in Australia proper might not have known they were on an island, because circumnavigating it is a major task, especially on land. Tasmania is a lot smaller though, and I would expect that the natives both would have known that they were on an island, and that a larger landform (mainland Australia) was nearby. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Just don't let the Tasmanians hear you talking about the mainland as "Australia proper". They're very touchy about being perceived as less than other Australians. Understandably so, particularly after the 1982 Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony in Brisbane, where a huge stylised human map of Australia failed to show any evidence of the island state. (See also Omission of Tasmania from maps of Australia.) I once read in an American almanac/fact book that "in 1901 Tasmania merged with Australia to form a new nation". I still wince whenever I remember that grotesquely inaccurate statement being disseminated to the wider world. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Australia is an island, a nation, and a continent. The island would not include Tasmania, while the nation does, and presumably so does the continent (since Tasmania is on the same tectonic plate). So, by "Australia proper", I meant the island. You used "the mainland", but I found that to be ambiguous, since there are many mainlands. The British call the rest of Europe "the continent", which always seemed funny to me, since they are part of the same continent. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In any discussion where the topic is Australia, "the mainland" has one and only one meaning. What else could it mean - Eurasia? I don't think so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so good in an archaeological context, because Tasmania was connected in the past. So, did "the mainland" include Tasmania at that time, or not ? StuRat (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A rapid search through "Google Books" seems to give Trowena/Trowenna as possible aboriginal names for Tasmania. I don't know if they are reliable. --195.62.160.60 (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this is already mentioned (in an alternative spelling of "Trouwunna"), in the already-linked Tasmania article, Section 2.2 Indigenous People. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems doubtful that there would have been an aboriginal name for Tasmania other than a word meaning something like "land". Tasmania lies 150 miles from the Australian mainland, and its aboriginal peoples did not have seagoing boats. The Furneaux Group of smaller islands, lying between Tasmania and the mainland, ceased to be inhabited at least 4,000 years before Europeans arrived. Genetic studies suggest that Tasmania's aboriginal population had been genetically isolated from the population of the mainland for at least 8,000 years before Europeans arrived. It is not at all likely that aboriginal Tasmanians were aware of the existence of landmasses other than Tasmania, and therefore also unlikely that they had a name for Tasmania other than "the land". Historically, landmasses have been named only to distinguish them from other known landmasses. For example, the inhabitants of the Old World had no name for it—other than "the world"—before they discovered the New World. (Note that I am aware that others had discovered it before them.) Marco polo (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it would take much of a boat to make that distance. A canoe with a rowing crew could make it, during calm seas (do they have nasty seas year round ?). And how about Australian Aboriginees visiting them ? Or Polynesians, they seemed able to cover long distances by boat, did they visit ? StuRat (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The climate was unfavourable (cold and wet), compared to the mainland, so the interest of outsiders in the land was small (compare the relative disinterest of the Māori in the climatically similar South Island), and the aborigines, due to their small number and isolation, lost techniques they must have had originally (such as fire-making and boat-building). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

They lost the ability to make fires ? So they went back to eating raw meat then ? StuRat (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that Tasmanians had lost the ability to make fire is disputed, but is based on a report made in 1831 by George Augustus Robinson: "As the chief always carries a lighted torch I asked them what they did when their fire went out. They said if their fire went out by reason of rain they [were] compelled to eat the kangaroo raw and to walk about and look for another mob and get fire of them." [4] Alansplodge (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. And WP states: "It is claimed that they only possessed lit fires with the men entrusted in carrying embers from camp to camp for cooking and which could also be used to clear land and herd animals to aid in hunting practices. However, other scholars dispute that the Aboriginal Tasmanians did not have fire; and, indeed, a document from 1887 clearly describes fire-lighting techniques used among Tasmanians." These statements are sourced. Check the article Aboriginal Tasmanians Contact Basemetal here 21:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, Aboriginal Tasmanians#History describes it differently – apparently these questions are controversial and uncertain. But even if the Tasmanians had contact with outsiders after all before the Europeans came (which there does not seem to be evidence of), there would have been no particular reason to introduce a non-generic name for their country or for themselves. Lots of peoples, even modern people, use generic names for their homeland (e. g., something that translates to "the island") or hometown (at least colloquially, such as "the town"), and for themselves (Inuit famously means simply "people"). It's a matter of speech economy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure there is. If you didn't come up with different names you would end up describing a meeting between natives and foreigners as "The people met with other people, who are like the people, but not really the people." StuRat (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about endonyms, StuRat. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This might not be the same as a word of indigenous origin prior to European contact. But wouldn't the Aborigines have developed words for Tasmania or Australia when they came into contact with Europeans or European translator developed nativized rendition of Tasmania or Australia to communicate ideas to the different tribes?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/search?&keywords=Tasmania. (I am aware that Māori is native to New Zealand.)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are all just Maori renderings of the English-language name "Tasmania". What's the relevance? --Amble (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is if an aboriginal language rendering of English-language place name (if one exist for Tasmania and Australia) constitute as an aboriginal name? Most culture usually create native language rendering for concepts/name that did not exist traditionally. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The article Aboriginal Tasmanians states (without a source of course) that Aboriginal Tasmanians were called in "Tasmanian" "Parlevar or Palawa". Same name in all Tasmanian languages, right? Another Wikipedian with a sense of humor. Why didn't that guy come up with a "Tasmanian" term for Tasmania? Contact Basemetal here 21:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

When the Europeans made contact with the Eskimos they asked them what the name of the country was, and the answer was "Canada", which is actually the native word for "nothingness". Does anyone know if this word "parlevar" or "palawa" has any additional meaning? 86.134.217.46 (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't know where you got the "nothingness" story from (our article on Name of Canada suggests you may have been misremembering an obsolete folk claim), but it reminds me of the silly old German joke that the name goes back to the astonished exclamation of the first (German) explorer, on setting foot in the country: "Kaana da?!" ("nobody here?") – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There's an old Jewish joke that Moses brought the Jews to the ghastly place he brought them to just because he had a speech impediment: he said "Kanaan" but he had meant "Kanada" all along. Works better in Yiddish. Contact Basemetal here 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of "scenario" in the context of hypothetical prehistorical events

A third opinion is needed on Talk:Kurgan hypothesis. Thank you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

EO's explanation of "scenario":[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page of that article and couldn't find out which section you were referring to. Please be a bit more specific. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Both the first and last section. Sorry, I should have been more specific. Anyway, Wardog/Iapetus has already supplied very helpful suggestions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Our thoughts remain with family and friends of the deceased"

What the hell is that supposed to mean? It's just a stock serif that the Police use. It is in fact gibberish, as their thoughts remain concentrated on other jobs. Why not just say, "This is a regretful incident," or words to that effect? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

They're trying to bring a little comfort. There's no harm in that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that phrase started out as "Our prayers...", but was changed to be secular. (There was a time when most people felt that enough prayers would get God to help out the survivors.) StuRat (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You hear "our thoughts and prayers" frequently even now. Knowledge that someone is praying for them could make them feel better. Psychology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that is still a common phrase. But in the words of Bad Religion, " Don't Pray On Me" (song here [6]) - while some people would be comforted by the idea someone is praying for them, others may well just be annoyed or offended. I think Stu is right that it's a move toward a more secular style of condolence, but the only refs I can find are blog posts. Here's someone who doesn't like "our thoughts and prayers" because they don't like prayer [7]. Here's someone who doesn't like "our thoughts and prayers" because they like praying but don't think "thoughts" do any good [8]. So it seems that "our thoughts and prayers" can alienate both religious and non-religious people. Much like a Jewish person being wished "Merry Christmas", the general polite thing to do is accept that the speaker means well, even if something is a bit off. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to it in general, even if it is the most pathetically formulaic platitude ever invented. But it's not the job of the police to be dishing out stuff like this. Down here at least, they'll start their media op on the investigation of some shocking crime or accident with "This is an absolute tragedy for the family/community", then launch into "Our thoughts ...". Well, we actually knew it was a tragedy, and we didn't need anyone to confirm that. When it comes to bad things that have already happened, their focus ought to be on investigation and apprehension, not on being counsellors to the entire community. It's nice that the police wish to present a kindly and helpful and caring and human face to the community, but these sorts of scripted cliches just waste everyone's time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Public relations is rather important for police. We've seen what happens when relations break down, then you get civilians and police at war with each other, riots, etc. Sure, showing sympathy is a small part, but it all adds up. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't relations breaking down, it's something the 24-hour news built up. No matter how smooth and polite a police spokesperson is to the reporters at a press conference, the narrative will come out the way the producers want.

That's not to say American cops and blacks don't have serious failures to communicate, just that it hasn't gotten worse/more important as suddenly after Michael Brown as the TV says it has. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

When you get anti-police riots, that's tangible evidence that community relations have broken down. Long before the riots there likely was already the attitude in the community that the police were the enemy. Note that this isn't always a racial issue. For example, the Stonewall riots occurred after homosexuals were targeted by police for years. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree totally with with good PR. But spouting cliches and scripted platitudes and statements of the bleedin' obvious doesn't achieve that, imo. All they achieve is to irritate this little black duck, and that's surely counter-productive. If your family was wiped out by a crazed gunman, how would it help for someone to come along and say "This is an absolute tragedy"? That's not even remotely my idea of expressing sympathy. It expresses a judgment on the event (a judgment nobody would disagree with, I'm sure, but a judgment nonetheless). They may as well say "This is a very bad thing". Well, duh! Sympathy is about showing you have some idea of the pain the person is suffering as a result of the event. It's about feelings, not judgments. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems similar to small talk. Do you say "Hi" as you meet people ? Why ? It doesn't actually convey any information, does it ? Human communication is about more than that, you're also conveying mood, etc. (I have a brother who says "Hi" when in a good mood, but when he walks right by I know to avoid him.) In the case of police, they may not feel any regret when some people are killed, but they still better pretend that they do. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What good does that pretence achieve? If we can tell they're pretending (and we can), then it comes across as inauthentic, and for anyone who has the slightest distrust of or issue with the police, that undoes whatever good relations they've created. If we can put it down to small talk, that's just another excellent reason to not get into it at all. Who needs small talk when they're dealing with "an absolute tragedy"? I want to hear what the police are doing to apprehend suspects, investigate crimes or accidents, and the like. The rest of the blather is just that, and life's too short for that. < end of blather :) >-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Because some people will believe it. It similar to the statement I've heard: "Avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if no real conflict exists." Again, like much of PR, it's not honest, but it still is important. The whole field of PR is based on the difference between perception and reality. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

For those who are so narcissistic as to insult well-wishers, I'm reminded of the old saying, "No good deed goes unpunished." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We may think we are all "so clever and classless and free" to quote John Lennon, but social conventions do still matter in most contests. So when someone has died, especially what can be described as a tragic death, using this phrase or something similar ("our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the deceased") is just a way of expressing that the speaker understands that the deaths are a major loss for people who were close to the deceased, even if the speaker does not personally know these people. It does not mean that the speaker has ceased all activities to meditate about the lives lost or immediately headed off to a nearby shrine to pray, but simply that he sympathizes with the afflicted. It has become a stock phrase in recent years, and does in fact sound a bit cliché by now, but similar phrases have been used for centuries in such circumstances ("our deepest sympathies" or "our condolences" were popular terms in the past). --Xuxl (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Besides, many of us still believe in prayer. Got a problem with that? StevenJ81 (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And movements like Black Lives Matter show that the perception is that the police do not value the lives of blacks, and freely kill them, rather than take the time to determine if they actually pose a danger, as in the case of the shooting of Tamir Rice. Any effort they can make to change that perception is badly needed. (Although I agree that actually changing their actions is more important than just pretending to care.) StuRat (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"e" and "ä" in German

It's fairly well known that in German, "e" and "ä" are pronounced pretty much the same, as /e/, unlike my native Finnish, where "ä" is pronounced /æ/, a front vowel version of /a/. (In fact, I once had trouble teaching a native German speaker to pronounce the name of the Finnish band Värttinä correctly. He kept pronouncing it as "Verttine".)

Now why is this so? It seems inconsistent, as "ü" and "ö" are pronounced as front vowel versions of "u" and "o" in German. Actually "ü" is even more consistent than in Finnish, as Finnish writes the sound as "y". (So do all Scandinavian languages, but not Estonian.)

Also, from what I have read from German-language comic books, if someone shouts out for help it's "Hilfe!" but if the /e/ sound is lengthened it becomes "Hilfäää!". Why the sudden switch from "e" to "ä"? JIP | Talk 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How far apart are /e/ and /æ/ for most people, really? StevenJ81 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In what language, English? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

English and German. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, German doesn't have an /æ/ phoneme. Modern standard German has either two or three phonemes in the front/mid area: short half-open /ɛ/ (spelled either "e" or "ä", without phonological distinction), long half-closed /e:/ (spelled "e"), and long half-open /ɛ:/ (spelled exclusively "ä"). The functional load between the latter two is low, i.e. there are relatively few minimal pairs (Reeder vs. Räder, ich bete vs. ich bäte). The distinction is widely absent in many speakers, except in careful reading pronunciation (though the name of the letter "ä" is always pronounced /ɛ:/, even by speakers who otherwise won't use that sound in natural speech). There's also some lexical variation (e.g. for me, even though I do have the /e:/ vs. /ɛ:/ distinction, the word Mädchen has /e:/, despite its spelling.) On the other hand, confusingly, some southern forms of German have an additional phonological contrast, absent in the standard, between short /e/ and /ɛ/ (this distinction, again, cross-cuts with the orthographical one between "e" and "ä"; e.g. Mensch vs. Fest have different vowels.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The details are complicated, but the main origin of ä is Middle High German /æː/ (in normalised spelling ‹æ›), the umlauted version of /aː/ (in normalised spelling ‹â›), for example in kæse "cheese". Frequent ways to spell the /æː/ phoneme were, as far as I know, ae and the ligature æ, and ae developped (via the process explained somewhere in umlaut) into ä. By analogy to ä for /æː/ and ü for /yː/, ä also came to be used for the secondary umlaut of short /a/, namely for /æ/ (for example in mächtig "mighty"), and the primary umlaut of short /a/, namely (closed!) /e/ (for example in Lämmer "lambs"). In the Central German dialects on which Standard German is based, /æ/ merged with /e/ and /ɛ/ (from inherited Proto-Germanic *e, although this could also become /a/ in some dialects, as in Thuringian, Weimar area /ʃvastər/ "sister") into /ɛ/, and /æː/ merged with /eː/ (from /ɛː/ from Proto-Germanic *ai, and from secondarily lengthened MHG /ɛ/ and /e/) into /eː/. The restoration of the contrast between long ä and long e in the south of the German-speaking area is a fairly artificial spelling pronunciation, but probably motivated by the fact that Upper German dialects generally have not merged the reflexes of /æː/ and /eː/, compare Swiss German /xæːs/, Central Bavarian /kʰaːs/ "cheese". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Upper German dialects have also partly retained the distinction between closed /e/ (the umlaut of /a/) and open /ɛ/ (which, if I recall correctly, is in some dialects opened to /æ/ or /a/, just like in the Thuringian example), as you mention, though at least in Central Bavarian the distribution does not reflect the original distribution (I remember encountering a quaint term like mittelbairische Vokalverwirrung, i. e., Central Bavarian vowel confusion, for this phenomenon). As for Mädchen, it does not originally have a long /æː/, but is adapted from Middle Low German mēgedeken, which might be the reason that even for some of those who usually pronounce long ä as /ɛː/, it is pronounced with /eː/. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that in Central Bavarian, /ə/ does not exist as a phoneme or even phone because all the inherited examples have syncopated or apocopated it or otherwise got rid of it, so the sound is alien to (Central) Bavarian (it appears to have been retained in some South Bavarian dialects, such as in parts of Tyrol) and prone to being replaced by /ɛ/ when read out or used in a Standard German borrowing. In fact, I was not aware that the pronunciation of unstressed e was /ə/ in northern German speech (often considered a neutral or "standard" accent, although northern-German-coloured speech sounds far from accentless to Upper-German-speakers); only at university I realised that my /ɛ/ pronunciation is not the pronunciation judged standard and described in the handbooks. To me, /ˈhɪlfɛ/ is normal and /ˈhɪlfə/ sounds incredibly affected, like talking with a hilariously fake French accent. :-Þ --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

To sum it up, /æ/ did exist in Middle High German (both long and short) and is actually the sound ä historically represents, and it still exists in dialects, but has merged with /ɛ/ in the standard language, which is why we tend to read ä as /ɛ/ and replace /æ/ with /ɛ/ (in English as well, although this "Bleck Hendbeg Problem" is also due to tradition). Also, the /ə/ vowel of Standard German can really be thought of as an unstressed version of /ɛ/ and is actually pronounced as such by some speakers (although this probably in essence a spelling pronunciation). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As to JIP's "Hilfäää!" question (which no one has explicitly answered yet as far as I can tell): first of all the 'e' in "Hilfe!" is not an /e/ sound but an /ə/ sound. Now "Hilfeee!" would I suppose represent a (very) long /e/ sound, while "Hilfäää!" is meant to represent a (very) long /ɛ/ sound. The question then becomes: why when you lengthen an /ə/ sound do you get an /ɛ/ sound instead of an /e/ sound? I don't know so I'll let someone who does answer that. But I note that (conversely as it were) the WP article Standard German phonology says that "Some scholars treat /ə/ as an unstressed allophone of /ɛ/". Maybe the two things are related. Contact Basemetal here 16:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but I have a couple of observations to add. The 'e' in Hilfe is an /ə/ sound in rapid, unselfconscious speech in most German varieties, but in careful speech, especially in the south, that 'e' is pronounced /ɛ/. Basemetal is right that the only way to lengthen that sound using German orthography is to use 'ä'. As for the pronunciation of 'ä', short 'ä' is pronounced /ɛ/ in all or nearly all German varieties, so it is homophonous with short 'e'. However, there is variation in the pronunciation of long 'ä' in unselfconscious speech. (The nonstandard repetition of 'ä' in "Hilfäää!" is meant to draw attention to the vowel and the [ɛː] pronunciation.) As Future Perfect says, some speakers distinguish between long 'e' ([eː]) and long 'ä' ([ɛː]). When I was living in Germany, I perceived a regional dimension to this. I lived in Berlin, and I was friends with Berliners as well as people from Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hamburg, and Niedersachsen. All of those people pronounced long 'ä' as [eː], exactly the same as long 'e'. At one point, though, I took a trip to Freiburg and was surprised to hear the [ɛː] pronunciation for long 'ä'. I think that this may be a mainly southern or southwestern, maybe Alemannic phenomenon. Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Vowel hiatus in German spelling?

Given that several two vowel (letter) combinations have in German specific conventional orthographic values, is there a general way to transcribe a vowel hiatus in German? For example 'eu' has in German the value /ɔj/. So what do you do in German spelling if you want to transcribe an /e/ + /u/ hiatus? Specifically I remember a passage in one of Brecht's theoretical works where he was trying to coin a term for his concept of theater: so he says (in German) something like "let's not call it Theater let's call it Thaeter". But how did Brecht mean that coinage to be pronounced? Thäter (since in normal German spelling 'ae' has the same value as 'ä')? Or Tha-eter (that is with an /a/ + /e/ hiatus)? Contact Basemetal here 16:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's commonplace for the dieresis (a colon lying on it's side) to indicate that two vowels are not blended but individually pronounced. I don't know whether or not this is an option for German, because it looks like an umlaut, which modifies certain vowels in a specific way. 86.159.14.114 (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. In French for example you can use either the diaeresis (diacritic) (trema, umlaut mark) or 'h'es between the vowels in hiatus (since the 'h' is always silent in French). Neither option is generally available in German. The umlaut for the reason you said, and the 'h' because it is not silent. So what's left? Contact Basemetal here 17:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

German normally doesn't use any diacritic to mark hiatus pronuncation: Kolosseum, Aleuten, Statue, Aida, Haiti, etc. The diaeresis is never used in this function; as you rightly said, it would be mistaken for an umlaut. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well then, how do you pronounce Brecht's Thaeter? Contact Basemetal here 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Hadn't heard of it before, and I haven't found an exact quotation of the context where he introduces it, to check for indications whether he intended the pun on Täter ('perpetrator'). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the analogous Brechtian coinage of Misuk (for "Musik", same switch of vowels), the fact that he (among other) used dialogue when writing about "Thaeter" (which suggests an audible pun, rather than a mere eye pun), maybe also given the fact that a more conventional spoonerism wasn't possible because the first and the second consonant sound the same in "Theater", and last and definitely least, the fact that I'd instinctively pronounce it with hiatus in juxtaposition with "Theater" and am almost certain I've heard it pronounced that way, ... given all that, most of it unreferenced, my money is on Tha-eter.

Some words (all borrowed from other languages) containing "ae" pronounced as hiatus are "Paella", "Maestro", or names ending in "-ael" such as "Michael", "Rafael", "Israel", ... and my physics teacher always made a great fuss about pronouncing "Aerodynamik" as A-Erodynamik (hiatus). I guess you just need to know. Difficult when it's an arcane word mainly used by the author who coined it. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A few (very few) German surnames mark a hiatus with a diaresis on the e. The best-known example may be Ferdinand Piëch, and there's also Bernhard Hoëcker. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So there you have it. It's ambiguous, though, because standard orthography is to replace the umlaut where desired by "e", thus aepfel. 86.134.217.46 (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there such an absolute rule that you can always replace the umlaut on a letter with an 'e' after? I was under the impression in normal German words the umlaut is only ever used on letters a, o and u, so that rule may only apply to ä, ö and ü. Are spellings such as Pieech or Hoeecker ever found for those names? Contact Basemetal here 14:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A diaeresis is not an umlaut (even though it looks the same in modern fonts) and cannot be replaced with ‹e›. A spelling such as Aepfel is only an accepted workaround when umlauts are not available, but the replacement is never actually desired in standard orthography (same with ‹ss› or ‹sz› for ‹ß›). However, historically, ‹ä› does derive from ‹ae› (actually ‹a› with a tiny ‹e› above it), it's just that the ambiguity of ‹ae› means ‹ä› is preferred whenever possible. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There have been changes in German orthography along the way, as there have been in Chinese, Portuguese and Turkish. My mother went to Europe in the thirties and brought back with her a copy of Mein Kampf, which was written in Gothic script, but in the early twentieth century German books were printed the same as everywhere else. I think that "ss" was normal, not the letter that looks like a Greek "beta". There was a reform of German spelling some decades ago - I can look up the details but the use of the Greek "beta" symbol was made the norm. 86.134.217.46 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, no, not really. Printing of German texts was regularly done in blackletter up to the mid-20th century and changed to Roman fonts afterwards. The "ß" symbol always was and still is part of regular orthography (except in Switzerland); the reform you are probably thinking of, in the mid-1990s, just shifted the distribution slightly (aligning the use of "ss" vs "ß" with the quality of the preceding vowel and thus making the use of either spelling more consistent within the paradigms of individual words). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

German typesetting changed from Fraktur to "Antiqua" (?) (which is probably what Future Perfect calls Roman) in 1941. From WP Fraktur article: "This radically changed on January 3, 1941, when Martin Bormann issued a circular to all public offices which declared Fraktur (and its corollary, the Sütterlin-based handwriting) to be Judenlettern (Jewish letters) and prohibited their further use". "Judenlettern"! This is hysterical. Where did Bormann get that? The article also adds: "Fraktur saw a brief resurgence after the War, but quickly disappeared in a Germany keen on modernising its appearance." See also Antiqua–Fraktur dispute which mentions that German scientific and technical writing had been using Roman from the beginning of the 20th century. Contact Basemetal here 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Ashkenazim, that is, east European Jewry, speak Yiddish, which is a German dialect. However, Yiddish is written in the traditional square Hebrew letters, such as you see in Torah scrolls (Old Testaments) and on Jewish buildings. These have thick black strokes. Bormann would have seen this German looking so like the ordinary secular German of the natives and decided that this was something the country could do without. 86.134.217.46 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. Fraktur reminded Bormann of Hebrew. Your personal speculation or do you have a source? Or you can't recall where you put your smileys? Contact Basemetal here 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My only source is what Bormann himself said. It's difficult for ordinary, sane people to understand the mindset of the Nazis, or of Daesh for that matter. 86.134.217.46 (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 28

Opposite of irony

Using the definition of irony to be something stated as truth when it is actually meant as false, such as "It is a beautiful day" when it is raining, what is a word that means the opposite: purposely stating something as false, meaning the truth, such as "What a terrible day" when it is warm and beautiful. All I've found is "pessimistic", which is similar, but not the same. I'm not looking for the attitude of the person, but a word that encompasses the action. 209.149.113.45 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your "definition of irony to be something stated as truth when it is actually meant as false" is problematic. Try define:irony in Google.

Irony is far more often defined as a statement having the opposite implication or effect than its literal sense. Thus, true->false and false->true could both be ironic. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say the opposite is sincerity: something true stated as truth; or something false stated as false; a "pure" statement.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, Bugs. Irony doesn't imply the absence of sincerity, exactly; it's a language tool. Someone being ironic isn't a liar, s/he is being ironic. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Read EO's definitions of irony and sincerity. Irony isn't lying, but it isn't exactly sincere, either. It's intended to be funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the OP is searching for a verbal distinction between deprecatory or negative irony ("It is a beautiful day" when it is raining) and laudatory or positive irony ("What a terrible day" when it is warm and beautiful). No such single words exist, to my knowledge. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Either way, it's saying the opposite. Like when someone is a good hitter, baseball commentators will often say, "Not too bad of a hitter." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Irony#Definitions. If you look at those options, most are about the difference between the literal meaning and the intended/interpreted meaning. Both of your examples have irony, specifically Irony#Verbal_irony. Getting in to truth values just confuses the issue, irony is ultimately about different meanings. (ETA, restoring my previous response, looks like User:Paulscrawl accidentally deleted it [10])SemanticMantis (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting with "Euphemy" (an archaic term for "euphemism" but which sounds a trifle classier <g>) I ended up at "Periploce" to indicate a substitution of what is pleasant for what is unpleasant.[11] Viz. Seattle "liquid sunshine" etc. Collect (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies User:SemanticMantis,for cross-posting errors - first cup of coffee.

Truth values as a fallacious definitional assumption of irony are source of OP's question.

Two words that are not blind to truth values are litotes and hyperbole, but they are not forms of irony, rather, distinct figures of speech. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what most people consider irony (our article covers it well) would be something like the following reported case:

• A wife, feeling her husband did not give her sufficient provision, filed for divorce
• On 31 March she secured a decree nisi in the usual form, that is to say she could make it absolute after three months
• On 30 June the husband, who had left a substantial estate entirely to his wife, died.
• On 1 July the wife, not knowing of the death, made the decree absolute.

The husband's solicitors, who were administering the estate, told her she was nothing to do with it and could not inherit, whereupon she applied to the Court for the decree absolute to be rescinded and lost her case, the irony being that if she had not registered the decree she would have inherited as the lawful wife.

This "cooling off" period is valuable. I know one couple where the wife obtained a decree nisi but never registered it, and many decades later they remain happily married. 86.159.14.114 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

At ANI, which is about as legal as Wikipedia gets (short of a full - blown Arbitration Committee hearing) sometimes the OP (plaintiff)'s complaint (case) against the editor under discussion (defendant) is thrown out by the administrator (judge) either for lack of diffs (evidence) or because he penalises the OP instead (judgment). This latter may result in comments from the peanut gallery on the lines of Love these boomerangs. Oh, the delicious irony of it. 86.159.14.114 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Didn't Paul McCartney make a song called 'Ebony and Irony'? 82.35.216.24 (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with "literalness". Or maybe "rusty". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 29

Antonym (etc.) of "backlog"

Does the English language have an antonym (possibly "frontlog") for the noun "backlog" or for the verb "backlog"? It would involve tasks which can afford to be deferred (or which should be deferred) until a backlog (of backlogged tasks) has been cleared. Also, is there a term (possibly "midlog") with an intermediate sense (as a noun or as a verb) involving tasks which are in neither of the two other sets, that is to say, tasks whose speed of being performed needs no adjustment?
—Wavelength (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You may find project management vocabulary relevant. The Project Management Institute's PMI Lexicon of Project Management Terms requires registration to access; Quizlet.com offers open access: Lexicon of Project Management Terms. See, for example:

Predecessor Activity: An activity that logically comes before a dependent activity in a schedule.

Successor Activity: A dependent activity that logically comes after another activity in a schedule.

Start-to-Finish: A logical relationship in which a successor activity cannot finish until a predecessor activity has started.

Start-to-Start: A logical relationship in which a successor activity cannot start until a predecessor activity has started.

Finish-to-Finish: A logical relationship in which a successor activity cannot finish until a predecessor activity has finished.

Finish-to-Start: A logical relationship in which a successor activity cannot start until a predecessor activity has finished.

Path Convergence: A relationship in which a schedule activity has more than one predecessor.

Path Divergence: A relationship in which a schedule activity has more than one successor.

Precedence Diagramming Method: A technique used for constructing a schedule model in which activities are represented by nodes and are graphically linked by one or more logical relationships to show the sequence in which the activities are to be performed.

More at Dependency_(project_management)

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the antonym of "backlog" is "tasks done in advance of an anticipated need". I don't think there's a single word for it, though "reserve" might work in some cases. --65.94.50.73 (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the tasks could be shelved until the backlog is cleared. See http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/shelve (2nd def.) 196.213.35.146 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

From a warehouse POV, the opposite of "orders on backlog" is "orders in stock". StuRat (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The origin of the term "backlog" and of one sense of "log" may be enlightening.[12][13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain why logarithms are so called? 86.134.217.46 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

From New Latin logarithmus, term coined by Scot mathematician John Napier from Ancient Greek λόγος (lógos, “word, reason”) and ἀριθμός (arithmós, “number”). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If you permutate 'loga' you get 'algo' (that permutation can be written (lao)), which is entirely irrelevant Contact Basemetal here 20:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Annexure- for building?

Can an annex to a main block alternately called annexure? --117.253.191.159 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines the noun annexure as "something annexed". However, I've never heard the word, and I don't believe it would be common usage. Rojomoke (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This [14] explains that the surviving usage is almost solely as a synonym for "appendix" in certain legal documents. While OP might be able to defend such a usage as "That class meets in the annexure of the math building" it would be confusing to many readers, and look archaic/pompous/efete to most of the rest. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Legalese is a law unto itself. For example, in a legal document the word "user" does not mean what you think it means, it means "usage". Conversely, these special terms can trickle out into the ordinary language, as many specialist terms do. The "premises" in a lease are the conditions attached to the demise, but in ordinary language the word has come to mean the building itself. Are there any other words which are plural but have no plural connotation? 86.134.217.46 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Scissors, spectacles (glasses), trousers, pants, knickers, series ... and for fun, chaos and kudos. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:JackofOz Since when is "chaos" a plural of any sort? It's just a word that ends in -s. Straight through ancient Greek to Latin to Old Fr to Eng [15]. $\chi \alpha \mathrm {o} \varsigma$ is just a third declension singular nominative form in Ancient Greek [16], and it originally meant "void" or "abyss", which are both singular concepts. See also Chaos_(cosmogony), which says it's from a verb, but wiktionary says that is uncertain [17]. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And famously grits: "I'm not sure if I'll like them, so you better just give me one grit to start with". StuRat (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of grits, when living in Scotland I learned that "porridge" used to be treated as a plural word: e.g. "These porridge are delicious." I gather this is now only a historical curiosity. {The poster formerly known as 87,81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What I was getting at is these examples from Jack relate to more than one leg, lens or whatever. Series can be infinite. 86.134.217.46 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we treat them as if they were plural (we never talk of a trouser or a scissor) and they take plural pronouns (these knickers, not this knicker) but they still connote singular objects. Series can be either singular or plural depending on the context, as can sheep, fish etc, but the default would be singular. An infinite series is still just one (1) series. I'm sure there would be an infinite number of infinite series. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"A scissor" is substandard but not unencountered in AmEng. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Double negatives are not unencountered either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We do say trouser leg, when talking about one particular part of the trousers, Jack, and we can say scissor blade, when talking about one particular part of the scissors. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, chao DOES have a singular. shoy (reactions) 12:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Negation

The negation of can is "cannot". The negation of shall is "shall not". The negation of do is "do not". So, why is the negation of eat "do not eat" and not "eat not"? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It can be, in poetic language. Same for go not, speak not, write not, etc.

See Arthur Hugh Clough's "Say not that the struggle naught availeth / The labour and the wounds are vain / The enemy faints not, nor faileth, / And as things have been they remain." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So, it's only part of poetic language and not everyday language? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"do", "can" and "be" are auxiliary verbs, the rules are different for them. "Eat not" would be regular somewhere around the 14th century (it still works in German), but today it sounds archaic and this is also what gives such expressions their poetic quality Asmrulz (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

These constructions come about because they're frequently called on and easy to say. They are contracted for that reason. This happens in all languages: Portuguese em + o becomes no. In English you get can't, don't, won't, sha'n't (when did sha'n't reduce to sha'nt?) 86.134.217.46 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this, "shan't" [sic] is actually older. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See Do-support. --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Adjectival form of "lacking imagination"

I'm struggling with the way "imaginationless" fails to roll off the tongue smoothly, can anyone suggest an alternative? I'm trying to write something like "Such an imaginationless person shouldn't be allowed to read to children." It's a statement about a specific person thus "Someone without imagination shouldn't..." doesn't fit well either. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How about "insipid" or "uncreative"? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"The unimaginative shouldn't attempt...". StuRat (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Or more directly, "Such an unimaginative person...". --65.94.50.73 (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure a person can be called unimaginative, I would only use it to describe a work or action - "unimaginative plan/decor/menu/novel". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Lower-left-brained. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dull. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bless, blessed

In general parlance, someone may say, "We feel so blessed at this dinner!" which means "We feel so happy at this dinner!" However, the verb form "bless" seems to depart from the happy meaning, because "We feel so holy at this dinner!" just doesn't make any sense, but "We feel so favored at this dinner!" makes sense, because the inviter probably invited the guest to be at the dinner. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says that to bless someone or something means to make something holy, not to make something or someone happy, though I suppose happiness may be the result of being holy. Anyway, I find that the discrepancy between "bless" and "blessed" highlights the idiomatic uses of the words. When people ask their parents for a blessing of their marriage, I presume they are really asking their parents' permission to marry, because "approve" is one of the accepted Merriam-Webster's definitions. Can someone please clarify for me the difference between "bless" and "blessed"? Are they related terms or not? What about the emotion involved in "feeling blessed"? Why "blessing someone" doesn't mean "making someone happy"? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that those using this terminology are using it in a religious sense: favored by God. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[ec] Such a use of "blessed" isn't idiomatic in UK English - "We feel so blessed at this dinner" would only be said by a very religious (not necessarily Christian) person with a deliberately religious meaning; that is, it _would_ unambiguously mean "we feel so holy". It might be used to mean "fortunate" ("We've been blessed by good weather today"), but it always has religious overtones. Tevildo (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if accurse and accursed would be the opposite of bless and blessed. However, I never hear anyone say, "I feel so accursed!" or "I curse you to ten years of unhappiness and bad luck!" 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have to be religious to feel that food is provided by God's gift. When I was at school lunch ("dinner") was preceded by grace - a prefect would say "for what we are about to receive may the Lord make us truly thankful" and then everyone started eating. Cf. the Blessed Sacrament, which is a meal of bread and wine received by Christians and "manna from heaven". 86.134.217.46 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

71.79, that's the goodness of human nature shining through. 86.134.217.46 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Part of the subtlety is that there is an underlying assumption that both God and human beings can bestow blessings. If someone says "we feel so blessed" at a dinner, the implication is, as I perceive it, is that God has provided abundant food and good health to those present. But this can be metaphorical as well as literalistic. One can be grateful for nature's bounty and one's own good fortune, and frame it in vaguely religious language, without believing in a God who says to himself, "I think that I will bless that splendid McNamara dinner party in Scranton, Pennsylvania this evening", while simultaneously saying "I think that I will withold the blessings of thin soup today from that Somali family in that refugee camp, and let typhus take their child". That would be a horrifying God. Much is left unsaid when such language is used. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"To bless" doesn't mean "to make happy" and "blessed" doesn't mean "happy", except by extension of that fact that if you were blessed you would probably also become happy as a side-effect. The original meaning of blessing was to bestow divine favour on someone/thing. (The term is Germanic pagan in origin, not Biblical, and etymologically related to "blood", which would have been used in the ritual. Similar concepts occur in many other religions though, hence its use in English translations of the Bible). Originally if parents gave their blessing to a marriage, they would literally be invoking the gods to ensure it was successful. Over time, the meaning was watered down to merely "approving and expressing hope that it was successful". Likewise, originally if someone said they felt blessed at a meal, they would literally mean that they felt as though the gods were favoring them. If people are now using it to mean simply that they are feeling happy, that is a change in meaning from the original. If people are not also using "bless" to mean "make happy", that's because English (unlike French) doesn't have anyone to force people to use words consistently. Iapetus (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the meaning "happy" of blessed was also partly influenced by the etymologically unrelated bliss (which is related to blithe instead). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Syntax: not...either

Are all of the following sentences correct / acceptable, syntacticallly?

1. "I'm not old, and you are not old either".
2. "I'm not old, nor are you old either".
3. "I'm not old, and I'm not tall either".
4. "I'm not old, nor am I tall either".

84.229.167.93 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The two that have both "nor" and "either" are wrong.

• "I'm not old, nor are you old either" should be "I'm not old, nor are you old", or "I'm not old, neither are you old".
• "I'm not old, nor am I tall either" should be "I'm not old, nor am I tall" or "I'm not old, neither am I tall".

The other two are fine. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank a lob ! Oops, I meant thank a lock ! Oh sorry, I meant...thank a lodge... What's this? Sorry again, I meant...thank a log... Oh no, What's happening with me today? Thank a loll ! No no no...

I just called, to say, thank a lot ! Oh, that's it ! Thank a lot ! Thank you so much, Jack, I appreciate your answer ! Thankxs ! 84.229.167.93 (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd shorten them a lot, too:

• "I'm not old, nor are you."
• "Neither of us is old."
• "I'm not old, nor tall."
• "I'm neither old nor tall."

I prefer the 2nd and 4th. StuRat (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

big-bigger, vs. good-"gooder"

Since English has "warm-warmer", "high-higher", and likewise, why doesn't English have "good-gooder"? Has the word "gooder" - always been abnormal - in all periods of English?

HOOTmag (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See suppletion. It is neither uncommon with frequently used paradigms, nor unique to English. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The very phenomenon of suppletion, is well-known in many languages - including English of course (e.g. "He has" instead of "He haves"), but my question is mainly about the psychology hidden behind specific cases (e.g. "gooder" "badder"), which - due to some reason - became cases of suppletion, i.e. my question is about what this reason was.

Take "badder" as an example: I can only guess, that maybe people don't like it because it can easily be confused with "better" - which has just the opposite meaning, so they preferred the other word - "worse" - which was already used before it was preferred to "badder". Anyways, I still wonder about "gooder": what's bad in using it, and why people decided to prefer "better". Notice that I'm not asking about "better": I assume it derives from words like "beneficial" and the like: I'm more curious about why "gooder" was ruled out... HOOTmag (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Mere irregularity of form such as have~has is not suppletion. —Tamfang (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

See also the word origins, which may help:[18][19][20] [21][22][23] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist, but good-better has an exact equivalent in German: gut-besser, so that one seems to predate the separation of the two languages. 81.146.50.197 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a particular example of the tension between Words and Rules, extensively discussed in Pinker's book of that name. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A more recent example is person~people. "Persons" is still used in formal writing, as is "peoples". They are historically completely different words, but have become identified with each other. Why that happened is an extremely difficult question to answer. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Going by the OED, which may be out of date, it seems that 'bad' is a relatively recent word, originally meaning s.t. like 'sissy'. It used to be 'evil > worse' or 'ill > worse'. (He's ill, he's gotten worse.) When 'bad' displaced evil/ill, it inherited the comparative 'worse', and the original comparative 'badder' dropped out of use. (You can see this a lot, actually: I'm fucked, but you're worse -- does that make 'worse' the comparative of 'fucked'?) — kwami (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. Leo Tolstoy once said to Anton Chekhov: You know I can't stand Shakespeare's plays, but yours are even worse. Worse than what? Does "I can't stand X" automatically mean "X is bad"? Not in my world; when did the definition of "bad" become "whatever Tolstoy didn't like"? Or anyone else? It seems Tolstoy is inviting Chekhov to believe that Shakespeare is bad, but he doesn't explicitly say so. I'm sure this is subtly related to your foregoing question. Somehow. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Suppletion is usually found in highly frequent words. Good vs. bad, many/much vs. few/little, big/great vs. small/little, young vs. old, high vs. low, these kinds of highly frequent adjectives have irregular comparative and superlative forms (and also adverbial forms) in other languages, too. There are languages in which there are only a limited number of adjectives in the first place (compare Adjective#Distribution and Part of speech#Open and closed classes), and they usually designate exactly those kinds of qualities I have just enumerated. The psychological explanation may simply be that the luxury of having separate unrelated words or roots for paradigmatically related or derived forms is only affordable for extremely frequently used concepts, while in less frequent lexemes, they tend to be regularised even if they were once irregular (as a result of sound change, for example) as otherwise they would be too big of a burden on memory. This may mean that the "default" state is actually to have completely separate, unrelated lexemes for related concepts (person – people, king – queen, good – well, go – went, one – first, healthy – ill/sick, big – size), and what requires explanation is the presence of a relationship of form. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

July 30

Question, A

What is it called when books or movies are written like this: "Movie, The" or "Book, A"? —User 000 name 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have a particular name, but it usually happens when you have an alphabetical list or index of titles. If a film is called "The Movie" it appears in an alphabetical list under Movie, not The. --Viennese Waltz 11:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually (as with the rearrangement of personal names for the purposes of alphabetization), this is called inversion. See, for example, the first paragraph under "Titles of Works" here. Deor (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)