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.

November 25

What does "button job" mean?

Form Absolution Gap,by Alastair Reynolds:

"He thought of all the he swift ways he knew to end the life of a sentient being. Those methods had their uses, too: mercy executions, button jobs."

I guess this is some slang term I'm unaware of. What does it mean? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure it means a hit job, but so far I've failed to find a source. Maybe others have better search-fu. 197.201.4.179 (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Urban Dictionary gives one definition of a "button man" as a hit man, so presumably a button job is one performed by a button man. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the "button man" link is interesting, I'm sure it is that. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively (but maybe less likely), the phrase appears in the transcript of the inquest into Operation Flavius, the controversial military operation in which three members of the Provisional IRA were shot dead by the British Special Air Service in Gibraltar in 1988,

'24. Soldier F made no mention of a timer but stated that they were briefed that it was to be a "button job", that is, radio-controlled so that the bomb could be detonated at the press of a button'. [1]

Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How similar is Russian and greek

How similar are the two languages? I know the russianalphabet is a heavily modified form of the greek alphabet so thats why I was wondering.YuriGagrin12 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian is a Slavic language. Greek is Greek. Georgia guy (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Indo-European languages will give you some idea about the relationship between the two languages. Remember however that alphabets (or other types of script) and languages are not wedded: any given language could be rendered in various scripts, the English language, for example, is usually written using the Latin or Roman alphabet with minor modifications, but one could if one chose write it in the Greek alphabet or for that matter in an artificial script such as Tengwar. (As a schoolboy, I used to do both, for amusement).

The Russian alphabet, aka Cyrillic, somewhat resembles the Greek because it was invented by Byzantine Greek missionaries in the 9th century for writing a Slavic language, subsequently called (Old Church Slavonic) which up until then had had no generally accepted written form. They (Saints Cyril and Methodius) had previously invented another script called Glagolitic for a similar purpose, and Cyrillic contains some elements from that along with the Greek ones. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to log in so it can be clear what edits are yours. Now, does Wikipedia have an article talking about using the Greek alphabet for English?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia guy, I cannot 'log in' because I do not have a Wikipedia account (and do not want to get one for reasons I have explained several times over the past ten or so years I've been a regular here). FWIW, I have been "pseudo-signing" all my RefDesk and Talk page posts with my old fixed IP "{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}" ever since Sky.com – who only provide dynamic IPs – took over my previous ISP. That, however should not matter to anyone: any post I make should stand or fall on purely its own merits, and I know how to indent appropriately. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

90.208.173.186 -- Cyril and Methodius likely only invented Glagolitic. Cyrillic almost certainly dates to a little after their time. AnonMoos (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so (and I bow to your expertise), our articles on both scripts need correcting. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; Glagolitic script#Spread: "At the end of the 9th century, one of these students of Methodius…created the Cyrillic script"; Cyrillic script: "The script is named in honor of the two Byzantine brothers, Saints Cyril and Methodius, who created the Glagolitic alphabet earlier on. Modern scholars believe that Cyrillic was developed and formalized by early disciples of Cyril and Methodius"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For another example of similar alphabets not implying similar languages, consider that Basque, English, and Finnish are all written using Latin-derived alphabets, but all three are completely unrelated languages. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a less cluttered family tree. Russian and Greek, while ultimately descended from PIE, are very distant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Thank you! This is very helpful! YuriGagrin12 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to modern Greek, but the only real advantage of knowing one and learning the other, for a native English or Romance speaker, is that like Standard German, Ancient Greek (with four) and Russian (with six) cases in common use reflect an earlier common PIE state when bare nouns stood for what are often prepositional phrases in English.

The verbal systems are entirely different. Greek doesn't have a periphrastic perfect tense and Russian has basically only the present and perfect, ignoring aspect, which is a matter of prefixation (and some root suppletion) for the most part, while it is a matter of the augment, ablaut, reduplication, suppletion and desinence in Greek. Same with mood, it's periphrastic in Russian, synthetic in Greek. The single verb λύω (lúō) "I loose" (considered the most (some might say only) regular verb in Greek pedagogy) has well over 270 forms. But single Russian verbs have only six present finite forms in one of two conjugations; four perfect forms made from past participles exhibiting agreement for gender and number, not person; the infinitive, and four participles. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The alphabetic similarity is way overplayed. Б Д Ж З И Н С Ц Ч Џ Ш Щ Ъ Ы Э Ю Я have (avoiding commentary on archaic/dialectal forms) no direct connection with Greek counterparts, and А Г Ε Κ Λ Μ Ο Π Ρ Τ Υ Φ only have five symbols confusing to those who know Latin but not Greek. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify yourself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew any Greek, you would know that no one wrote that post, Jack. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Bard (whoever he was or they were), I have little Latin and less Greek. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis -- you've kind of swept under the rug the lunate sigma, which for centuries was actually more common than the zig-zag sigma in writing the Greek language, and which is still used in religious abbreviations today (IC XC and so on)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the part where I said "avoiding commentary on archaic/dialectal forms"? Announcing you won't address esoteric matters not relevant to the specific question is not denying their existence. All communication requires economy, the downside of which is nitpickery. I am also quite aware that Cyrillic Ш likely originates in the Hebrew ש. Why not rap my knuckles for that omission? μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From some points of view, zig-zag sigma could be considered the "archaic" revival, while lunate sigma is the real result of the natural evolution of the writing system. Lunate sigma is not in fact "esoteric" when considered over the whole history of the Greek alphabet. AnonMoos (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know that and I know that, but in regards to the sophistication of the user's question, the misspelling of his username, the fact that his account is less than a week old, the availability of the articles, and the very high probability he was either referring to Attic or Modern Greek as taught to new learners, the point is esoteric in the literal sense "of interest to the initiated, as opposed to the layman".

I might have pointed out that Armenian is Greek's closest relative, and that Standard German is probably the closest to Russian outside the existing Balto-Slavic languages. I might even have thrown The Lord's Prayer in Old Prussian at him.

Again, when writing, one has to consider one's audience, its needs, and economy. One can't cover every base, or we'd greet each other in monographs and hold discussions by throwing stacks of library books at each other.

Tawe Nuson, kas tu asai an dangun.
Swintints wirst wajs emens.
Pereis twaja riki. twais kwaits andaseisin
Na zemei kai an dangun.
Nusun deininan geitin dais numans shandeinnan.
Ba antwerpeis numans nusun aushauints
Kai mes antwerpimai nusun aushautenikamans.
Ba ni wedais mans en perpandan.
Sklait izrankismans aza wargan.
Amen

Duck! μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lunate sigma had a very direct and immediate impact on the Cyrillic alphabet; none of that other stuff did. AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is bad to know, but it's still an archaic form that someone taking either modern or ancient Greek 101 would not come acrost until they had already learned first hand Greek and Russian actually aren't very similar. Why not complain, for example that Ц comes from the Hebraic tsade? You could simply have couched your comment as a helpful aside, rather than suggesting something was being hidden from the OP. In any case, these esoteric matters of orthography don't answer the OP's original question. -- 00:46, 27 November 2017 Medeis

It's not something which would usually come up in the first year of learning modern Greek or the first year of classical Attic Greek (though the first year of learning New Testament / Patristic Greek might be quite a different matter!), but it's something that a modern Greek-speaker who has even a little bit of interest in the history of his language (or just wants to be able to read the inscriptions in many churches/monasteries in Greece) would be likely to know, and it has quite a bit of relevance to the relationship between the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets (unlike all the other stuff you keep dragging in). The word "archaic" is a double-edged sword, since it wasn't all that long ago (in historic terms) that the zigzag sigma would have been considered more archaic than the lunate sigma... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your non-apologies (admitting most first year students unless they start in special contexts won't be familiar with the Lunate Sigma, then accusing me of "dragging" stuff in) are tiresome to no end, but par for the course. Are you capable of appearing brilliant without having to denigrate others, or did you skip that and go straight into Superiority Through Contempt 301? I really doubt the OP cares, and I don't, but have fun picking your nits. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all who responded! YuriGagrin12 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek majuscules A B H I K M N O T Y X don't confuse those who use the Roman alphabet. P does: a Briton in Moscow seeing the word PECTOPAH above the door of a restaurant asked how to pronounce it. He was relieved to be told that it was pronounced "restaurant". 92.27.49.50 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that modern Greek B, H, Y, and X are pronounced as "v", "ee", "ee", and "loch", (lots of ancient Greek vowels have fallen together as the "eeh" sound) there is room for some confusion in an untutored tourist. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy eating at pectopahs. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean pectopahbi? :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect Russian (and other languages of Orthodox Christianity) to have more borrowings from Greek than from Latin, for whatever that's worth. —Tamfang (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: My username is misspelled for security reasons, I was referring to modern greek and why wouldn’t I? Its like saying saying “ How do you say ... in English?” with the person responding old english or regular english? Also I am completly aware of all the articles about the two languages, I couldnt compare them myself and reasoned that since they are orthodox christian countries and the monks who invented cryllic were greek I wondered that. I wanted a speaker of the 2 languages to say how similar they are. Please do not refer to me as a layman. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the user name, Yuri; after all, mine was chosen for anonymity. And a "layman" simply means a non-expert in the field, and I assumed you are not a comparative linguist. Hence the term is not insulting or inappropriate, unless you are a linguist?

As for the religious aspect, yes, you will find many technical church terms in Russian that come from Greek, but in a wider aspect Greek has not had the influence on Russian that Latin has had on English. Latin had the special place of being the lingua franca of the Celtic, Romance, Germanic and other western Christian groups even outside of religion, while Greek did not serve this purpose in the east.

Russian is much more purely Slavic in vocabulary than English is Germanic. So the relevant dimensions are: phonology; no more than most SAE languages; vocabulary, mostly religious; nominal; similar in that they have cases, but not very close in form as of today; verbal, quite different. Again, the consensus seems to be in favor of German, but even then, it's like saying Spanish is the closest non-Germanic language to English--not very much. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek verbs are much closer toay to Russian ones typologically, in that there are now only the non-past and the imperfect tenses and their perfect counterparts made with the verb have plus a non-declining participle. Not quite the exact Russian counterpart, but much closer. See Modern Greek grammar. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

Company names are plural or singular in English?

Hi,

Should I write "Coke/Microsoft/SpaceX/Apple want OR wants to develop its OR their business?". Thanks118.71.64.44 (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This can sometimes depend on the variety of English. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Plurals for details. Dbfirs 08:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP geolocates to Vietnam, and the companies listed are all American in origin. The singular should be used, unless the OP is going to affect a British style for some other purpose. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is who you're writing for. If it's for Wikipedia, that answer is sufficient. If you're writing informal North American English, the company wants to develop their business because they want more money. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"its" is equally acceptable in American English. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I heard someone say "Verizon wants to increase their market share" I would assume "their" referred to a partner of Verizon, a third party, not Verizon *themself. Verizon does what's in its best interest, not theirs. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typos on Polish WP page

The page on the Polish WP pl:Jerozolima wyzwolona has two apparent typos in the alternative title appearing both in the lead sentence and several references: either "Gofred" or "Goffred," and either "abo" or albo". As this has crept into a recently created, related-topic page on the Simple WP and the PL WP doesn't have a Language RD, I'd appreciate help here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a matter for the Polish talk page, but albo means "or" in Polish, while abo is not standard Polish (it does mean or in Rusyn and Ukranian) and the Gofred referred to is Gotfryd z Bouillon in Polish and the original spelling of his name in the Italian Epic Poem is Goffredo. All this can be got by using the foreign language links to read the various articles in English, Polish, Italian, French, and German, and Google translate for "or" since this is obviously a variant title. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goffred abo Ieruzalem wyzwolona appears to be the original, 16th-century spelling of the title. It is common for Polish scholars and editors to transcribe old texts into modern Polish spelling. In this case, it's Gofred albo Jeruzalem wyzwolona. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deborahjay: this entry in the Polish Wikipedia is devoted to Torquato Tasso’s original (Italian) work titled Gerusalemme liberata, which is nowadays commonly known under the Polish title Jerozolima wyzwolona or sometimes Goffred albo Jeruzalem wyzwolona. The form albo “or” is Modern Polish, we do not use anything else now. Tasso’s work was translated into Polish in 1618 by Piotr Kochanowski, and he gave it the title Goffred abo Jeruzalem wyzwolona, where abo is the seventeenth-century (i.e. Middle Polish) form of this conjunction, completely obsolete now. As for the difference Goffred – Gofred – Godfryd I am perplexed myself, I will report t as a mistake right away. Maitake (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Verarschen kann ich mich selber!"

What do say in English? I didn't find any really satisfying equivalent either in my dictionaries or on the web…--Herfrid (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Verarschen kann ich mich selber, X!" would be "X, my arse!" in British English (or "X, my ass!" in American English). On its own, there isn't as exact a translation - something like "In your dreams!" (BrE) or "In a pig's eye!" (AmE) or "You're shitting me!" (both) might work. Not something to say in front of your grandmother, in any case. Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "In a pig's eye!" in front of your grandmother. The others, not so much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspro: Any help? I'd take it to mean, "I can fuck things up myself (I don't need your help fucking things up)", but that's a guess worth nothing. Aspro's a native Deutscher. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Translate says that first word means "muck around". Methinks there has been some "cleansing" in that translation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Verarschen" is really not so much "fucking things up" but "fool somebody", but apart from that, Medeis' reading ("I don't need your help...") is basically correct. It's a sarcastic way of saying "don't try to fool me". (And Baseball Bugs, you were told not to randomly cite Google Translate, which is absolutely useless in cases like this. Why are you still doing it? Stop it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, Google Translate says the phrase means "I can fool myself", which is closer to what you're saying than what everyone else is saying here. Second, show me a Wikipedia rule declaring that Google Translate is forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo's basically said it all. jemanden verarschen means "to fool somebody", "to pull somebody's leg". It's basically a dismissal of what the opponent just said. It is futile to hope for a one-to-one translation; how a native speaker would react depends on the context, on the mood of the situation (did they just tell a joke or a tall story or did they seriously try to take advantage?). I my view, Google Translate should be avoided per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, Tevildo didn't say that, but you did. Second, you've just ruled out using Wikipedia articles in response to questions, as Wikipedia is officially an unreliable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is presumably not a native English speaker, so Tevildo giving vulgar phrases is not a good idea. Your version is much safer for all audiences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The German original is vulgar: Arsch and "arse" are cognates. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it might or might not carry the same "punch" in German that it does in English. It would be nice if the OP would comment here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But since you have absolutely no knowledge of the topic, your uninformed speculation is worthless. Henry ^Flower 14:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least I provided something approaching a reference. The other comments here are nothing but "arguments from authority". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can the kindergarten behaviour maybe stop? Acting like children the lot of you, show some pride in yourself and the project you are representing perhaps? Now that my mini rant is over, there just is no 100% equivalent. An example for something similar from english to german perhaps would be "it's raining cats and dogs", which just makes no sense when just translating it. "es regnet Katzen und Hunde" is of course total nonsense so it would perhaps be translated as "Starkregen" (hence why google translate can be not very helpful for the like when unfamiliar with a language). There may be similar sayings in different languages, sometimes even the same ones. "Ass im Ärmel" and "ace up the sleeve" comes to mind among others. But sometimes there just is no equivalent. The sarcastic "don't try to fool me" is a decent translation of the meaning, in my oppinion, but obviously has otherwise nothing in common with the german expression. 91.49.95.110 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of text from Catalan to English

Hi, I'm looking to get the following text translated from Catalan to English. There are both quotes. I am not looking for a google or bing translation. The two quotes are:

Aquest pobre Triadú
que per triar no te do
si quan tria, tria dur,
es que és un mal triador

and

Diu que el senyor Triadú
que per triar no té do
com que és un mal triador
quasi sempre tria dur

Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ReǀScope creep I know you don't want a google translation but this actually makes sense (if its a poem). Heres the text translated,
This poor Triadú
which to choose does not give you
yes when you choose, choose hard,
It's a bad triador

and

He says that Mr. Triadú
Which to choose does not have any
Because it's a bad triador
almost always choose hard

YuriGagrin12 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YuriGagrin12, it is a poem of a sort. I'm not sure what sort though, but it need to be accurate for the article: Joan Triadu. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are apparently plays on words. The first is clearer based on my OR as a Spanish speaker and using various resources:

Aquest pobre Triadú

This poor Triadú

que per triar no te do

Who for choosing has no gift

si quan tria, tria dur,

If when he chooses, chooses poor, (literally, "hard")

es que és un mal triador

Because he's a bad triador.

Note, wikt:traïdor is traitor. Dur may be simply "hard" the adverb, as in "he tries hard".

μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While traïdor means traitor, I think triador means chooser (triar + -dor). I don't know why it would be translated triador. —Stephen (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point in mentioning traïdor is that "triador" is not attested, but might be coined on analogy. There's also the other verse where Diu means "he says" but "Déu que el senyor triado" would mean God who the lord triad/trinity"--another possible play on words. If you are wondering why I said "triador" in my mostly English rendering it was to point out the poetic license, not because I think triador is English. All this is basically educated guessing on my part, so it should be taken as unusable OR, and we really do need an expert in Catalan literature. I got out a book on Catalan poetry through ILL, but it was written almost entirely in English, and not at all helpful. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

Bad Hand?

What does it mean in this context? Thanks in advance. Omidinist (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like he has sustained an injury to it, or it is damaged in some way. The allusion would presumably have been explained earlier in the book. --Viennese Waltz 09:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, see bad heart/leg/back etc. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Many thanks. Omidinist (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A hard one... ["This is nothing of which I would say I am proud of"]

(after precipitate auto-archiving) @Trovatore: Now, to recapitulate: Are we speaking in terms of style or grammar here? This is not something about which I would say I am proud of — is that grammatically (!) wrong or not?--Herfrid (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not something about which I would say I am proud" or "this is not something which I would say I am proud about" - with the first being the pedantically correct form avoiding the preposition at the end of the phrase. You can not add an "of" at the end - in this case you are saying that you are not proud about something, rather than that you are not proud of something. Adding the "of" when you have already used the preposition "about" is a grammatical error. You could say that you are proud of it, or proud about it - but never that you are proud about of it (or proud of about it). You can use of, or about, but not both together. Wymspen (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's an ungrammatical pleonasm to use two prepositions here. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wymspen and Medeis: Hello and thank you both! My point is: "about" is supposed to refer to "say" (i. e. "to say sth about sth", meaning "to give a certain comment on sth"), not "proud"! Now, assuming we wanted to rephrase the sentence a bit, one could say: "I would not say about what happened that I am proud of it". I admit, this sounds very stiff and artificial, but from a purely grammatical point of view it should be correct, shouldn't it? If so, then it would consequently also have to be correct with the given relative clause.--Herfrid (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would still be a pleonasm, and horrible style, if technically grammatical. No native speaker would be comfortable with it. Your options are:

"I would not say I am proud [of what happened]," or

"I would not [say about it] that I was proud."

The emphasis is different, and the verbs are phrasally really different. One is "say" and the other is "say about". Consider:

"I would not say I am proud [of what happened], but of my reaction" or

"I would not [say about it] that I was proud, so much as relieved."

They are not interchangeable, and the sorts of phrases they contrast with are different, as you can see. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@μηδείς: Thanks once more, though what I unfortunately still don't quite get is why exactly you call it a "pleonasm" here. Is it really a pleonasm to say about something that one is not proud of it? I don't see that you could leave out either about or of in this wording.--Herfrid (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not something about which I would say I am proud of" has a built-in redundancy or pleonasm. You would either say "This is not something about which I would say I am proud" or "This is not something [which] I would say I am proud of". Which one to use depends on how formal you're trying to be. Or better yet, "I am not proud of it". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, Herfrid, is that "something about which" and "of it" are both referring to the same object. The it and the something are the same. Good English usage avoids that, and good style hisses at it. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@μηδείς: Thank you once more! I guess I see what you are trying to convey – however, consider e. g. this sentence for comparison: "I told you about my brother that I am very proud of him." Wouldn't you consequently have to call the "him" a redundancy here, too, then, according to your logic above? Yet, IMHO the "him" is necessary here as "that" does NOT introduce a relative clause in this case! Therefore, from a strictly grammatical POV (thus leaving out the question of style), I cannot agree to your redundancy thesis for the original instance either.--Herfrid (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I told you about my brother that I am very proud of him." - No native English speaker has ever been known to utter such a sentence. Possibly it could be "I told you about my brother, and that I am very proud of him." But most likely "I told you (that) I am very proud of my brother." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @JackofOz: but that phrase is indeed attested here, even if it's a hapax legomenon. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silliness aside; as I said, No native English speaker has ever been known to utter such a sentence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard German is probably the closest to Russian outside the existing Balto-Slavic languages"*

Can Medeis or someone else elaborate on that? I did once see in linguistic literature the assertion that after the Baltic branch, it is the Germanic branch that is the closest to the Slavic branch within the Indo-European family – but there was no further discussion on the matter. Personally I've always thought of the Romance languages and Greek as being closer, at least typologically, to the Slavic languages than the Germanic languages are, but that's just my uneducated opinion. I'd like to know more. --Theurgist (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:IndoEuropeanTree.svg has Germanic and Balto-Slavic branches leaving the tree at near the same point. I have no idea what that means, but maybe it's a start. --Jayron 32 17:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Centum and satem languages does not directly address the question, but may be of some interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Centum/Satem split is generally discounted as a true primitive isogloss. Slavic went through three stages of palatalization itself. The connections between Germanic and Balto-Slavic as a whole include the use of -mos instead of -bhyos in the dative/ablative and the Corded Ware culture covers their common homeland (Mallory & Adams). There is also shared vocabulary such as Leute/Ljudi (OE has a cognate found in Beowulf) for the "people", as well as the use of strong and week adjectival endings to imply something like definiteness in the noun. The best treatment of this is in Gamkrelidze and Ivanov who expend an entire chapter on the evidence for the relationship, which they find conclusive, with Germanic splitting off from Balto-Slavic prior to BS's first palatalization. Unfortunately, my copy is in storage in Massachusetts. I'll see what else I can dig up. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Russian, German, Spanish, and French (plus some others), and I have always felt strongly that German was the closest to Russian after the Baltic languages. The key feature of Russian, the one that causes students of Russian so much anguish, is the verbal aspect. Russian verbal aspect works predominantly by the verbal prefixes (and also by an imperfective infix -ива- similar to the Spanish -aba suffix): без-, в-, вз-, воз-, вы-, до-, за-, из-, на-, над-, недо-, низ-, о-, об-, от-, пере-, по-, под-, пона-, пре-, пред-, при-, про-, раз-, с-, у-. These verbal prefixes have prepositional/adverbial counterparts as separate words, such as: без, в, до, за, из, на, над, вниз, о, от, перед, по, под, при, про, раз, с, у. These (the prefixes and the independent words) are very reminiscent of the German verb prefixes and separable prefixes, such as: ab-, an-, auf-, aus-, be-, ein-, ent-, er-, ge-, her-, hin-, mit-, nach-, um-, ver-, vor-, weg-, zer-, zu-. Even our English, being a Germanic language, has something similar in: up, off, over, out, away, back, in, down, through, into, across, after, on, by (for example: burn up, burn down, burn in, burn out, burn into, burn off, burn through, burn across). —Stephen (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, —Stephen, that's very interesting. The phenomenon actually seems to be pan-PIE, given it occurs in Latin as well, with in-spect, ex-spect, pro-spect, con-cieve, per-ceive, and de-ceive, and soforth. I know Sanskrit has such prefixed forms, although my knowledge of it is extremely limited. One thing that struck me was that Russian treats third-person pronouns and other agreements similarly to German, with gender in the singular, but not in all instances in the plural. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you mention prefixes in Russian and in German, but not prefixes in English? Like the prefixes: after (aftercool, aftersee, afterthink), by (bycatch, byline, bypass), down (downbear, downclimb, download), for, (forbid, forget, forgive), in (inform, inhabit, input), off (offbear, offcast, offhold), on (onhold, onlook, onpass), out (outbid, outfit, outrage), over (overact, overcome, overthrow), under (undergo, understand, undertake), up (upgrade, upload, upset), with (withbear, withdraw, withhold), and so forth. HOTmag (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those words Stephen provided are examples: it's so obvious to a native English speaker that these particles also form part of the verb that he wouldn't bother to mention it - e.g. "bypass" and "pass by". 92.8.221.62 (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that he wanted to show examples - of English prepositions - rather than of English prefixes of verbs. Why? First, because some prepositions (being "into", "through", and "across") he provided, cannot be prefixes of any verb. Further, he chose the verb "burn" as an example for his prepositions, whereas most of the prepositions he provided with that verb (except for "burn in" and "burn out") cannot be prefixes of that verb.

Anyways, my point was as follows: He provided examples of prefixes of Russian verbs, as well as examples of prefixes of German verbs, because he wanted to explain why he had always felt strongly that German was the closest to Russian (after the Baltic languages), so I wondered why he didn't provide also prefixes of English verbs, that could show that English (besides German) could be regarded as the closest to Russian (after the Baltic languages). Got it? HOTmag (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glottal stops in Aussie English

Glottal stops seem to be making a resurgence in Australian English, particularly among young female TV reporters.

Expressions like "the oven", "the other one", "the apple" and so on have always been pronounced smoothly, like "theeyoven", "theeyother one", "theeyapple". But now it's become "thə oven", "thə apple" with a horribly dysphonious glottal stop in between.

Is this also happening in other Englishes? What could account for (a) the phenomenon itself, and (b) why the speakers' ears are failing to tell them how jarring and ugly these sounds are? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The linguistic process is called diaeresis, which is the breaking of vowel sounds apart (as in the word "naive"). Not about causes (linguistics doesn't have causes per se. It just has things that happen. There can be trends that are described historically, but predictive linguistics can be tricky to explain why things happen). --Jayron 32 20:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. As that article explains, it's epenthesis, which is the exact opposite of diaeresis. The glottal stop keeps the vowels apart, thus preventing two vowel sounds occurring in adjacent syllables, with no intervening consonant. Henry ^Flower 20:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, you are correct. I swapped two related terms in my head. --Jayron 32 13:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My obsessions often line up with Jack's, but in this case not so much. I think I would use /ðiːˈʌ.vn̩/ or /ðəʔˈʌ.vn̩/ more or less interchangeably, and not necessarily remember which of the two I or another speaker had used. Californian with southern-US influences (e.g. I say "nyoo" instead of "noo", and I distinguish "caught" from "cot"). --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious whether Jack's aesthetic judgment would also apply when it's Dinah Shore. In either case, it should count as a data point about "other Englishes". --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Can you direct me to the exact moment(s)? I listened to it but didn't pick up any glottal stops. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I guess he meant this moment, and again this moment: "go to the oven". HOTmag (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Exactly. I listened to 7 other versions of that song (including Bing Crosby, Perry Como, Johnny Desmond, Gabardine Sisters, and Jimmy Boyd), and only one singer came even close to a glottal stop at that point (June Christy). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Well, I guess you liked the song OK. Back on topic, the Dinah Shore example seems to show that /ðəˈʔʌ.vn̩/ is not a recent innovation, at least in American English. Could be an American import in Oz? But as I say, it's a distinction I don't really notice, so it's hard for me to guess whether it's particularly American, or peculiar to a particular region. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is that it sounds more like a borrowing from Arabic. There seems to have developed a kind of "international ethnic" dialect that's prevalent among people living in areas where there are large numbers of immigrants (and their progeny) from many different countries (including Lebanon, Turkey and Greece). It would be impossible to say exactly what language that dialect is descended from, since it has many fathers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that you're talking about a much "stronger" (not sure of the right word here) glottal stop than the one Dinah uses. Is that so? --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I missed her use of it the first time, although it's as clear as day once you've heard it. But the ones I keep hearing really hit you (me) in the ear. I've been looking for some online examples, fruitlessly at this stage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We (in the early 70's in the US) were taught that "the" is /ði/ before vowels and /ðə/ before consonants. That means it's either /ði ʌ.vn̩/ or /ðəˈʔʌ.vn̩/ with the /ʔ/ as a consonant. I follow this naturally as a matter of free variation. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because /i/ is a dipthong and thus already ends in a glide sound, while /ə/ is not, and thus requires at least a pause before starting a new vowel. The vocal apparatus has to transition between vowel sounds; and there's two ways to do that: with a glide or by stopping sound all together, i.e. a glottal stop. --Jayron 32 15:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I considered transcribing thiyoffglide, but since Ayuzdə brɔd /fonimɪk/ rather than a [fownɛt^hɪk^h] transcription, I left it out as not relevant to the OP's question. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

为什么 vs 为神马 vs 為什麼

The first (simplified) and third (traditional) are acceptable forms. So, where in the world does the second one comes from? I don’t know why this author uses the second form and first form in the same page, http://edu.sina.com.cn/zl/oversea/blog/2014-10-14/11171786/2663829400/9ec6cf980102v3zw.shtml. I see that it’s a blog, but still, it’s weird. The use of 为神马 doesn’t seem very different from 为什么. And phonetically, they sound almost alike. Is there some sort of play on words going on to simulate dialectal speech even though it’s nonsense in writing? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Internet slang that has been popular with users from Mainland China since 2010 (see Baidu; it's similar to how Internet users from Taiwan occasionally like to substitute 這樣 with 醬). It's both a play with the phonetics, and primarily used for emphasis. Alex Shih (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That answers my question. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaraguan Sign Language center-embedding: is it unique?

Senghas et al 2004 describe an interesting sort of center-embedded construction in Nicaraguan Sign Language: a modifier is repeated both before and after the verb it modifies. For example, the sign sequence "roll descend roll" means "roll down (a hill)," and "waddle roll descend roll waddle" means "roll down (a hill) with a waddling motion." Does anything else like this exist in any other sign or spoken language? 169.228.98.83 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how similar you'd consider it, but some languages have both pre-negatives and post-negatives, like French "ne...pas" and colloqial Arabic "ma...š". You can also look at circumfix. In any case, linguists would usually reserve "center embedding" for some kind of recursive structure (e.g. a clause embedded in the middle of another clause), and I'm not sure that would apply to the sign language case. AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

Similarities between English and German

Hello, I know it's a big question but I dare to ask it still: How come there are so many idiomatic similarities between English and German? Of course, I know both are Indo-European, Germanic languages and that there are certain direct cultural influences especially due to the immigration of Germanic peoples (Angles, Saxons) into British territory, but all that happened quite a long time ago, didn't it? So, for instance, why do we have a perfect parallel with the idiom "to give up the ghost = den Geist aufgeben" today? And there are so many more expressions that needn't necessarily have developed parallel in both languages (cf. "sharpshooter = Scharfschütze", "act of strength = Kraftakt", "to stink to high heaven = zum Himmel stinken", "to take sth to heart = sich etwas zu Herzen nehmen", "to hit the ceiling = an die Decke gehen" (similar), "to get out of hand = überhandnehmen" (similar) etc. etc. etc.) – rather they could be totally apart instead, and yet they are not! Now, why exactly is that the case?--Herfrid (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any of those could come from different sources and might need to be researched individually. "Sharpshooter", according to EO, is a translation of Scharfschütze and appeared in English around the year 1800.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being languages of the same family doesn't just mean that the languages have similar vocabularies. It ALSO means the languages have commonalities among ALL linguistic traits, such as syntax, grammar, word formation, semantics, etc. For example, some of the same conventions that exist for the formation of neologisms in English would also be similar conventions in German, so we will find parallel constructions, idioms, etc. that developed even after the languages diverged, because they two languages still share a common history and common rules. --Jayron 32 17:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [3]. Some of these indicate when they came into use, e.g Agora é tarde; Inês é morta (It’s too late; Inês is dead). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.208.70 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth noting that "give up the ghost" is a Biblical phrase, and may be the result of English and German translators translating the same bit of Greek. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stink to high heaven" comes from Claudius's line in Hamlet III iii: "Oh, my offence is rank. It smells to heav'n", and at least one German etymological website traces the German equivalent back to the same source. You have to scroll down to "Es stinkt zum Himmel" and hover over it. --Antiquary (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting. Ideally, you'd want to look at Beowulf and Caedmon's Hymn and other Old English texts, comb them for idiomatic expressions, and see if they have correspondences in Old High German, and whether these have survived to the modern day. Unfortunately you might run into calques from the Bible or Latin that were borrowed into each language, as many of the remaining texts are religious in nature.

User Herfrid might also find the book Old English and Its Closest Relatives: A Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages by Orrin W. Robinson very interesting, although it doesn't deal with idioms per se. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, μηδείς, for the recommendation and you, 82.13.208.70, for that link! What I don't quite get in that article is the following passage: "It’s a snippet of a phrase, barely noticeable, unless you’re intently focused on learning the language, deconstructing it and then laboriously building new sentences from the ground up." What exactly is supposed to be meant here?--Herfrid (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the context, I see that the writer is calling attention to the fact that the English idiomatic sentence, we're in the same boat has exactly the same idiomatic meaning in Arabic when using the very same words in Arabic. What he's saying is that such idioms are trivial sentences (a snippet of a phrase, barely noticeable) to native speakers of the language. It's not trivial if you're not a native speaker and are intently focused on learning the language, when there is not an acceptable idiomatic expression in your own language. In this case, one is forced to laboriously build[ing] a new sentence from the basics (the ground up) in order to grasp the meaning. Akld guy (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a term for trying to get information out of a dream through your phone?

WP:NOTAFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Young'uns today have short terms for so many things – buttdialing, dancing outside your empty moving car, tricking dumb straights to have sex with a man while blindfolded.. possibly there's one for this?

While sleeping today a book had a joke I hadn't encountered that was so hilarious I took out my phone and transcribed it verbatim to the notepad to try to preserve it for sure instead of possibly (probably?) failing to memorize all those sentences. I was lucid dreaming enough to know I was sleeping but not enough to realize the time was better spent re-reading it till I woke up and writing what I remembered on my awake phone (sometimes I (unknowingly irrationally) hope I'm sleeptyping, sometimes, like this case, I think dream phones work like remote desktop) Sometimes I do realize the electronics in dreams are only connected to an alternate reality and am annoyed if I knew it's already almost wake time in the real world from a previous awakening and wanted to catch up on a news story but instead am forced to surf ridiculous info for what dream-me knew was the average length of a late-sleep dream (up to half hour). I might load CNN and immediately see they have a different President, my last WP edit isn't what I wanted to edit.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You realize the reference desks aren't your personal blog, right? It's not like Jeopardy; it's not OK to post inane bullshit just because you remember to phrase it in the form of a question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be said that wouldn't be medical advice other than seek medical help. μηδείς (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? When I'm awake I know I can't sleeptype/use it as an avatar. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is how Google was created [4]. 92.8.221.62 (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

Word/expression meaning tomorrow+morning

Is there or was there any expression in English that would mean both tomorrow and morning? Like the Spanish mañana or the German morgen? --Hofhof (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If, at some time after noon, you say "I will see you in the morning" that would be understood as the morning of the following day. Much earlier, and you would need to say "I will see you tomorrow morning" to make yourself clear.Wymspen (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make myself clear: I don't want to make myself clear. Quite in contrary. I want to keep the play-on-words. --Hofhof (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morrow is the English equivalent to morgen, and while it has both meanings, they're both archaic. I've personally only ever heard it used to mean "tomorrow". MChesterMC (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "No, not in modern English" There is no single word or expression which means both "In the morning" and "On the next day". There used to be, in older varieties of English. That word was "Tomorrow", but since modern English has lost the first meaning, it currently lacks any single expression which could be ambiguous. --Jayron 32 16:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of "mañana" is interesting.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of "tomorrow" is also interesting.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While mañana generally means either "morning" or "tomorrow", mañana por la mañana means "tomorrow morning".[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with morrow, any literate English speaker should grok it, although it's not in common colloquial use. There's also "morn". μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fixed phrase "on the morrow" is kind of part of modern English (though mainly in passive recognition of literary style), but most other usages would be rather archaic... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What this thread reminds me of is "The Next Day", one of the Black Widowers mystery short stories by Isaac Asimov. Unlike most mysteries, many of the ones in this series are about non-violent and even non-criminal events. In this story an editor working for a major publishing company talks about an argument he had with an author. He (the editor) thought they had an agreement to publish the story, but the author did not think so (or something like that) and was threatening to go to another publisher. Finally the author ended the argument by saying that he would send the manuscript the next day, but then it did not arrive, and the editor is puzzled. And the solution is that he hadn't ever said that he'd deliver it the next day, i.e. "tomorrow"; he'd been saying that he was carrying out his threat and sending it "to Morrow." --69.159.60.147 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a good time to bring this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese do this very nicely:

A manhã - the morning (but na manhã - in the morning)
Amanhã - tomorrow
Amanhã de manhã - tomorrow morning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.208.70 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

Old-fashioned window

Hello! How do we call this type of window? Is there a (specific) term for it? Casement? Thank you very much! --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Window#Types. In English, this is an "awning window". Tevildo (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, as it says there, that is indeed a type of casement window.

By the way, the expression in English is "What do we call (something)", not "How do we call (something)". --69.159.60.147 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kombinat

What is the precise definition of the Russian word "kombinat", and what is the distinction between it and "zavod"/"fabrika" (the normal Russian words for factory)? Is there a corresponding word in English? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9559:4F0F:AF97:BC2A (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combine (enterprise)--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, a company like US Steel would also, at least formerly, be technically considered a combine? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9559:4F0F:AF97:BC2A (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In steelmaking, it is a huge integrated steel mill, like Gary Works perhaps. It may include mining facilities lying nearby. Шурбур (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:комбинат, or combine (enterprise). —Stephen (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian carbide

What is the etymology of the noun (as opposed to the verb) "Pobedit" (Russian trademark for tungsten carbide)? Is it cognate with the word "pobeda" (victory)? If so, does it have any relation to the Russian victory over Germany (maybe it has something to do with the way Russia first obtained this material)? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9559:4F0F:AF97:BC2A (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Победит states that the compound had been in use in USSR since 1929, but the name was coined during WW2 when it was used for armor-piercing ammunition. --77.138.205.35 (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name is known well before WWII, probably since the year the compound had been created. It may be simply an "auspicious" name, or a name commemorating that technological achievement. Шурбур (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, I can recommend the 1963 East German comedy Carbide and Sorrel about a German's efforts to get barrels of carbide from a supplier to his bombed-out factory post-World War II. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the side of the road

Is there anything grammatically wrong with this phrase? Is it preferable to always use "at the side of the road" instead? I've raised a question about this at User talk:2605:E000:9143:7000:54EA:48B9:FB1:CE55 and am awaiting a response. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I direct you to a house and a poem called "House by the Side of the Road". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How very quaint. I must try and visit. But the poem is nowhere to be seen there? Does it solve the grammatical riddle in some way? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of many links to the poem itself.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's command of English is obviously poor, as he's misinterpreting the use of "by" in those sentences. If it continues, take him to WP:ANI and ask that he be blocked for disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or be given a poem to read, perhaps? But the IP's edits are not wrong as such, are they? I'm not sure I can be bothered reverting them all. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC) ... but I see someone else can...[reply]

The IP's reason for the edits is wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure they have coherently given one. The edit summaries are a little hard to follow. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're trying to claim that "by" is short for "constructed by". It's either incompetence or deliberate trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they'll learn! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, 2605:E000:9143:7000:54EA:48B9:FB1:CE55 (talk · contribs) needs to be watched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior, whether intentional trolling or simple incompetence, is entirely disruptive. The edits should be reverted, and the ones I have checked had been. I thought this sort of shit was what we had admins with tools to correct. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Sno biggie. I was bemused more than anything. Trying to place that IP's non-English language region (but frustratingly geolocates to California, so I guess drugs are probably to blame). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been speaking and listening to British English for 70 odd years and for me the two phrases "by the side of the road" and "at the side of the road" are interchangeable with no special preference given to either. Personal preference usually dictates which is used. Pure OR but you can consider or ignore. Richard Avery (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Richard. Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Long dog"

I do not have English as my first language. Can any one tell me what is the meaning of the phrase "going at it like a long dog" and where is it originating? I have also heard "he was eating into that pie like a long dog" or some such. So I am thinking it maybe is something to do with a wolf (Spanish is lobo). Thank you. Linda Mora Torrontes (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Longdog. That kind of dog is used in dog racing. Those two expressions could relate, implying doing something very quickly and determinedly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I am a native English speaker and have never heard the phrase(s). Could the OP say where/when they heard/saw it?--Phil Holmes (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry, was a while ago. But I think was in Balham at The Grove public house. Linda Mora Torrontes (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bugs is right. Urban Dictionary reckons going after something like a longdog after a bitch is going after it right away or in a hurry. I've never heard this expression either, but living on a farm in the middle of West Sussex I can hardly claim to be an authority on speaking Urban. --Antiquary (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This line from a Wilbur Smith novel seems to confirm it: "You took off like a long dog after a bitch – fantastic turn of speed." --Antiquary (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not very common in general British English, but has been used since 1634 for a fast dog. The OED says: "a greyhound, lurcher, or dog of a similar breed; (in later use) spec. (in form longdog) a dog cross-bred from two dogs of this type, of which one is typically a greyhound.". Dbfirs 09:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German mitrechnen

How would you translate "Bei diesem Händler müssen Sie besonders gut mitrechnen"? (Maybe: "With this trader you need to count too very carefully"?)--Herfrid (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you replaced "too" with "along" it might work better, but once again, dear Herfrid, you've stumped me for a good colloquial, smooth and simple translation conveying the right meaning, but for native English speakers who maybe aren't sure what is meant: Here, Duden's first meaning is how "mitrechnen" is being used: "[um das Ergebnis zu kontrollieren] gleichzeitig mit einem anderen eine Rechnung ausführen", i.e. "to execute calculations simultaneously with another person <nowiki>[in order to check/audit/supervise the result]</nĿowiki>". ---Sluzzelin talk 00:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does "trader" mean here? Does it mean a retail merchant / shop owner? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with something like "You really need to check this guy's arithmetic." --69.159.60.147 (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well just change "guy" for Händler to the more appropriate merchant, shopkeeper, or seller, or whatever noun is appropriate for the larger context, which the OP does not specify. E.g., "You really need to check this merchant's math carefully." μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 3