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

December 16

Horse meat

Is there an English word for horse meat that is prepared for human consumption? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamleslie33 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Research in OED shows that horseflesh (horse-flesh, horse flesh) is far more common than horse meat. And the adjective chevaline, usually meaning "of or pertaining to horse" can also be a noun for horseflesh: "1868 A. S. Bicknell Hippophagy 10 Horseflesh or, as I propose henceforward to call it...Chevaline." And yes, hippophagy does mean "eating horseflesh", and it too is in OED.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that when I'm heading to the grocery store or the butcher shop, the OED is not the first reference I'd consult while making my list. Some U.S. - dwelling family members used to buy horsemeat (not horseflesh) for dog food; Belgian bars in Michigan featured horsemeat steaks. And wherever people raise, ride, or race horses, you'll hear the non hippophagic usage, "a good judge of horseflesh." Silly words like "chevaline" just annoy people -- a horse of a different choler, so to speak. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So they just annoy people do they, OtherDave? We wouldn't want to do that, now, would we? :)

The question, I remind you, was this: Is there an English word for horse meat that is prepared for human consumption? And that is exactly what I answered. There was nothing about everyday use, or anything else to do with register in the question. Yes, there are three that are recorded in the definitive twenty-volume standard authority on the English language, OED: horseflesh, horsemeat, and the very rare chevaline. By the way, OED records that horsemeat meant first of all (and it's not marked obsolete) "Food or provender for horses." Just so you know, OtherDave.*

*Knowing is a good thing.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The OED is no guide to current usage, especially in that part of the alphabet; some entries may be decades out of date. So "not marked obsolete" doesn't prove anything. Personally, "horse meat" is the only expression I'd recognize as a correct answer the original question. --Anonymous, 02:29 UTC, December 16, 2008.

Read with more attention, Anonymous; otherwise you waste your fellow editors' time. The question was not restricted to "current usage". Why presume that the anonymous question did not come from the author of an historical novel, or someone researching the history of dietary restrictions? We get all sorts of enquiries here, for all sorts of purposes. Some OED entries are, of course, out of date. But that is not particularly relevant to its records of old and recherché terms, which for all we know are exactly what the questioner wanted. I wish questioners would more often give a context, and a reason for asking. Till then, we answer the question as asked.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of reading with attention, you might note that my comment about the OED was specifically related to the previous poster's bit about "not marked obsolete", not to the original question in general. (But no offense was taken.) --Anonymous, 04:40 UTC, December 16, 2008.

Speaking of reading with attention, you might note that I was that previous poster! But no offence is meant or taken.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but Anonymous might also like to note that Noetica's parenthetical comment about "not marked obsolete" was not an answer to the original question in any case, but was an aside in response to OtherDave's comment. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, williamleslie, it is not always quite so childish. Sometimes we get answers that do address the question. Please don't blame yourself ;-)) Richard Avery (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Richard Avery, what does that contribute? Do you mean to suggest that the question was not answered – ten minutes after it was posted?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the horse-barn star for celerity, then: *

I wanted to clarify for the original poster that "horseflesh" does not always mean "meat from horses, for consumption by people." --- OtherDave (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done, OtherDave. Here's the barnstar for a perfectly proper and useful supplement to a swift and accurate answer: ^«№2».

:)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Depression era until some time in the 1980s, I believe Seattle's Pike Place Market had a shop called "Horse Meat Market". I'm not absolutely sure whether it was "Horse Meat" or "Horsemeat". -- Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>No, Williamleslie33, there is no specfic and widely understood word. It is a matter of interest that most of the other animals that the Anglosphere kept for food had at least two terms, one for the live beast and one for its flesh, considered as a culinary ingredient. Hence cow/beef, calf/veal, deer/venison, pig/pork, sheep/mutton. Horse does not have this handy built-in barometer of the historical climate (Saxon swineherd/Norman chef), as noted at the relevant section of the horse meat article (on which I worked, caveat lector). The article also claims, unsourced, that the meat has been marketed euphemistically as "cheval meat", cheval being the French word for "horse". By the way, don't be distracted in your research by results for events such as the Horse Meat Disco, which do not, I am reliably informed, sell horse meat, neither as Austrian leberkäse nor as Belgian steak tartare. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

French question

I'm reading this PDF, which is linked to at Míkmaq hieroglyphic writing, and on p.2, it says that the glyph for elieyikw meaning ‘ils marchent’ is "en forme de l'empreinte de raquette." I understand ‘in the shape of the print of ______’, but what does raquette mean in French? Babelfish is of no use. Thanks! —anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.21.120 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Snowshoe" is the sense of the word that seems to be operative here. Deor (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that "raquette" likely means tennis racket, this seems to be an exact description of a typical snowshoe. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

French Canadians can suffer from mal de raquette, otherwise snowshoe sickness. Xn4 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of grade 8 when we learned how to talk about sports and household chores, which always seem to start with "faire de" - "faire de la raquette" is "to go snowshoeing." Adam Bishop (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you so much. Another question about the same document: I have attempted to translate the following passage. Could anyone please check my translation and tell me whether it is accurate or how it could be improved? (I have preserved the quaint capitalization and punctuation.)

Nôtre Seigneur m'en inspira la metode la seconde année de ma Mission, où étant fort embarrassé de quelle maniere j'enseignerois les Sauvages à prier Dieu, je m'apperçûs que quelques enfans faisoient des marques avec du charbon sur de l'écorce de bouleau, & les comptoient avec leur doigt fort éxactement, à chaque mot de Prieres qu'ils prononçoient : cela me fit croire qu'en leur donnant quelque formulaire qui soulageât leur memoire par certains caracteres, je pourrois beaucoup plus avancer, que de les enseigner en les faisant repeter plusieurs fois ce que je leur disois.

Our Lord inspired the method in me in the second year of my Mission, when, being totally stuck as to how I would teach the Savages to pray to God, I realized that some children were making marks with coal on birchbark, & were very exactly pointing out with their finger every word of the Prayers that they pronounced: this made me think that by giving them a certain [I don't know how to translate formulaire] that would relieve their memory by means of certain characters, I would be able to make much more progress, than by teaching them by making them repeat many times what I said to them.

Thanks again! —anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.21.120 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

forumlaire is most likely formulary. I mostly know that word from the health insurance business, meaning a list of approved drugs for certain plans, however the article I linked seems a much more apt application of the word. You have translated the last sentence literally correctly, but it might be easier to read if the last phrase was something like "rather than teaching them by rote memorization". --LarryMac | Talk 18:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fomulaire can also mean a standardized form (formulaire de télégraph = a form for writing a telegram), and I think in this example that's the general sense -- some sort of (physical) model, pattern, or cheat sheet. Here is my freeform take at the translation; I'm going more for the sense than word for word.

In the second year of my mission, when I'd been completely unable to determine how to teach the savages to pray, the Lord showed me the way. I had noticed that some children used burnt wood to make marks on birchbark. They also carefully counted with their fingers each word of the prayers they recited.

This led me to think of giving them a form to aid their memory by means of certain characters. I could then make much more progress than trying to teach by making them repeat over and over what I said to them.

I use "burnt wood" for charbon because I suspect (without doing research) that the kids weren't writing with coal from a mine, but rather the leftover bits of wood from a fire. But I've been wrong before. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest "charcoal" as it is burnt wood. Like the "voice" keeping the sense of the times it was written. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about charcoal, too, though my mind was set on the bagged stuff and the fact that it's more or less baked -- but your comment led me to see in the charcoal article that the first use of "coal" in English was for charcoal. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Partially burned wood, charcoal is. Probably good to point this out for younger persons, who might be puzzled that charcoal gets burned as a fuel. French distinguishes charcoal as charbon de bois: "obtenu par la combustion lente et incomplète du bois" (Petit Robert). Charcoal as used in drawing is fusain. The other sort of coal then gets specified as charbon de terre, or charbon minérale. Coke is French is coke (m); in English coke used to mean charcoal (LME, says SOED); but now it means only "Coal deprived by dry distillation of its volatile constituents; the solid substance left after heating petrol etc." (SOED).

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestions for the translation above:

1. charbon > charred wood (char: "Burn to charcoal; scorch, blacken with fire." SOED)
2. quelque formulaire > some sort of crib sheet ("a written or graphic aid (as a sheet of notes) that can be referred to for help in understanding or remembering something complex." MW Collegiate, entry for "cheat sheet", linked to from "crib sheet"; also in OED; cf. "aide-mémoire")

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. 8-) —anon

Russian (Cyrillic) surname suffix in English transliteration

I don't have the Cyrillic source, but is there a general rule for contemporary English-language transliteration of the surname suffix "...skaia" vs. "...skaya"? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends which romanization of Russian you're using, but I think -skaya, as per the BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian is more common in English-language contexts. The Library of Congress uses the ALA-LC romanization for Russian, though, and there it would be -skaı͡a, which could be simplified as -skaia. —Angr 09:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

German Grammar

"Erinnert sei hier nur an die Polemiken zwischen Schelling und Fichte, Jacobi, Hegel bereits um die Jahrhundertwende." (Quoted from Manfred Bubr's foreword in Zur Geschichte der neueren Philosophie)

I'm confused by this sentence structure. I think "sei" here signifies the use of imperative ; but then I don't understand why "erinnern" in partizip II? What is the translation of it? "Be reminded only of the polemics between..."??

Yeah, something like that. An idiomatic translation would be "One should only remember the polemics..." or even "Let us just remember the polemics..."; most literally it would be "Let it be reminded of the polemics..." but that's atrocious English. Sei isn't an imperative in this case, it's a 3rd person singular subjunctive being used impersonally. —Angr 09:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to pick it apart a bit further, part of your confusion might come from the combination of subjunctive ("Konjunktiv I") and passive voice and impersonal object ("es"). I think this type of Konjunktiv I can also be called "Jussiv", because it summons someone to do something. For an impersonal example using the active voice, there is the famous "Man nehme ..." (found in recipes, "man nehme sechs Eier" for example, literally: "Let one take six eggs") or, staying with "erinnern", you could say "Man erinnere sich ..." ("Let one remember"), but your passive-voice example sounds a bit less pushy and is used more often in scholarly texts, especially in footnotes (in my experience). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In Latin grammar, the term hortative applies to the 1st person, imperative to the 2nd and jussive ist used with the third person. WP states that both cohortative and jussive moods are not used in English. I can´t add to the translations given above. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is academese. I believe the reason why it's partizip II is that it is modeled after Latin (as in "benedictus sit"). — Sebastian 10:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Surname pronunciation

How do you pronounce the surname Mamouney and what country does it come from? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It can be Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. It is pronounced in three distinct syllables: ma+mu+ni (ma like in mat; mu like you; ni like knee). After the first syllable, you have a strong glottal stop. --Omidinist (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian for lazy

Can anyone tell me the Russian for 'lazy'

Or point me to an on-line translator which doesn't give me the answer in cyrillic!

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliankaufman (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary gives ленивый as the (masculine, nominative) Russian for lazy. Algebraist 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the OP asked for an answer not in Cyrillic, it may be helpful to mention that ленивый can be transliterated lenivyy. —Angr 19:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Algebraist probably thought of mentioning that but was just a tad lazy.  :) JackofOz (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you both —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliankaufman (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The accent is on the second of the three syllables. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yemen Ellerinde Veysel Karani (English)

A friend of mine asked me who Yemen Ellerinde was because she had receive a powerpoint slide show with a song she had enjoyed ... and it read at the end "music: Yemen Ellerinde".

When I looked it up on the net I found out that Yemen Ellerinde was actually the name of the song (not the singer). However, I do not know the origins of this song. I looked it up and there is little information about this in English. I found what appear to be the lyrics for the folk song. When I typed Veysel Karani... this is what I found: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veysel_Karani (not in English) http://tr.wikisource.org/wiki/Yemen_Ellerinde_Veysel_Karani Also, there are various versions in YouTube.

I don't know what language this is (if it happens to be Turk why do they say "Yemen"?). I would like information about the song (in English, please). I would like to know about the origins (if it's Turkish or Arabic, etc) I would like to know if it's just a folk song or if it has some religious meaning. And I would very much enjoy a translation of it. Please help me out. I just know it is from the Middle East, but that's it. Help! Thank you. Allav82 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My Turkish does not exceed tourist point, gesture and utter level. If you click the English link on the sidebar of the Turkish Wikipedia page you linked you get this: Uwais al-Qarni. So he came from Yemen. The second are the lyrics of the song about him. If no one here can help you this site [1] might help. (Don't know about registration/fees there.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ellerinde usually means "in hand", but it might mean something else here. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, 'in his (or its) hands'. I think the 'it' here would be Yemen. --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here’s an English translation. Hope it helps.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your imput. Now I understand better. I appreciate it guys. Still... what language is it then? Arabic? Turkish? the web page suggested before is about "turkish-lyrics-translation"; however, is Turkish spoken in Yemen? It's my understanding that it isn't. Could you just clarify this, please. Allav82 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The song is a turkish hymn. I'm not exactly sure of the meaning but it does have to do with religion. If its translates word for word the hymn loses its meaning.d

December 17

Language reform

I have read of committees reforming the orthography of various languages, and also sometimes wanting certain items of vocabulary replaced (such as for the sake of linguistic purity), but is this all? DO they ever, for example, decide that certain verbs will no longer be irregular, or change verb conjugations, or reform numeral systems (such as if English "eleven" through "nineteen" were to be reformed by analogy with 21 through 29)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.228.82 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For a start, see List of language regulators and Spelling reform. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that official language academies etc. very rarely attempt to impose "a prioristic" reforms of the type you mention (i.e. motivated by abstract theoretical concerns of language efficiency or consistency etc.), but much more often try to regulate such matters as which spoken dialect will be taken as the basis of the written literary standard, replacing percieved excessive loanwords from foreign languages with words formed from native vocabulary elements, details of spelling, details of punctuation, the nuances of the definitions of a relatively small number of words, etc. We have articles on philosophical language, a priori language etc. but I don't think there's much overlap between those topics and language academies... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In Norway, counting was reformed in the mid-twentieth century from saying the ones first (three-and-fifty) to the tens first (fifty-three). I think I've heard that part of the reason was to make it easier to say "modern" things like long phone numbers. The reform happened around thirty years before I was born, yet I - occasionally - use the old way of counting. For saying things like phone numbers, the new way is almost exclusively used; the same in "official" stuff like TV programs; otherwise, old people will still tend to use the old way. (I've briefly tried to search Wikipedia and Google for English-language sources for this but didn't find much - it's briefly mentioned here: [2]) Jørgen (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When Irish was standardized, the amount of irregularity in verbs was reduced compared to some dialects but not to others. Basically, some dialects had already regularized a lot of verb forms, and the standardized language picked those dialects to standardize on. But forms that were already irregular in all dialects stayed irregular. —Angr 21:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Danish bank notes use a different word for the number than is used in speech, as I recall, the 50 crown note has "femti" printed on it, but everyone says something like "hell-tress" (which is half way to three twenties from two-twenties). Bloody confusing. DuncanHill (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Croatian has been undergoing some major reforms in the last 15 years or so (well, the reforms seem to be more or less over now), to differentiate itself from the politically constructed Serbo-Croatian language - in Yugoslavia, we were all supposed to be brotherly nations with lots in common, and Serbian and Croatian were similar enough to be just melded into one language. The reforms consisted mainly of what was already mentioned here, taking regional versions of words and making them standard form. Looking on the process from the neighbourhood (Slovenia), it was widely perceived as a forced invention of words to form a sort of newspeak, and ridiculed as such, even if that was not exactly the case. The reform also backfired in at least one case I'm aware of - the names of months were changed from standard Latin derived names (January, February etc.) to the archaic Croatian forms, and all this has resulted in is that people on the street don't use the Latin names anymore, but neither do they use the Croatian forms, instead just using numerals. In my own Slovene, there is and has for some time been an irrational (IMO) angst about the disappearance of our own mothertoungue, and there have always been covert tendencies designed to "protect" the language - the reactionism of the language authorities is unfortunately turning Slovene into a stiff language that is afraid of accepting words of foreign origin, at times forcefully replacing loan words with words of Slovene origin at places where a loan word could be more apropriate, and particularly, clensing the language of words of perceived South-Slavic origin (i.e. Croatian or Serbian), even when these words are sometimes simply vestiges of an older Slovene language. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

grammar question - it's a simple one so please answer me quickly!!!!!!

please look at the following sentence

"You mean... you cut your hair and sold it to buy me this watch chain?"

in the italicized part , does it mean that the person cut his/her hair by himself/herself or does it simply mean that the person had a haircut???

I think the second option is right, but I'm asking since I'm not so sure.

Yes the second option is probably right. Very often we use "I did", or "he did" when we mean arranged for someone professional to do something. Other examples are "He converted the attic into a bed room" or "When I moved in I installed a burglar alarm". In all cases it is possible that the person did these things themselves, but probably more likely that they ad them done by someone else. To avoid ambiguity you could say

"You mean... you had your hair cut and sold it to buy me this watch chain?"

Or if the person really did it themselves:

"You mean... you cut your own hair and sold it to buy me this watch chain?"

"You mean... you cut your hair yourself and sold it to buy me this watch chain?" -- Q Chris (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the story, it's made explicitly clear that someone else cut her hair. —Angr 11:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. It's only implicit, not explicit, in the story. —Angr 11:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think this would be less ambiguous in French, since forms of faire couper les cheveux etc. with causative faire would mostly be used when the meaning of having other people cut one's hair is intended... AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Same in German - you'd more likely say "You let your hair be cut" (Du hast dir die Haare schneiden lassen) rather than "You cut your hair" (Du hast dir die Haare geschnitten) if someone else did it. It's one of the pitfalls for us English-speakers learning German to remember to get this right. —Angr 16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. However, there is a poem which I can't find now (I think by Heinrich Böll), which says something like "Cesar crossed the Rubicon - but was it just him?", and several other examples where we, even in German, attribute an action to just one person, when it is in fact many unnamed people. (This could be called an application of "pars pro toto"). — Sebastian 18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Same with "In 1941, Hitler invaded Russia". He wasn't even personally there afaik, but the meaning still comes through - he arranged for Russia to be invaded. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This feature of verbs used causatively is found in the Bible.

Example 1

John 3:22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the

"After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside. He spent some time there with them and began baptizing."

John 4:2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were)

"although it was not Jesus who did the baptizing but his disciples-"

Example 2

Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him,

"When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a centurion came up to him and begged him repeatedly,"

Luke 7:3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders

"When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him to ask him to come and save his servant's life."

Example 3

Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to

"Then the Zebedee's wife came to Jesus with her sons. She bowed down in front of him to ask him for a favor."

Matthew 20:21 And He said to her, "What do you wish?" She

"He asked her, 'What do you want?' She said to him, 'Promise that in your kingdom these two sons of mine will sit on your right and on your left.' "

Mark 10:35 James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up

"James and John, the sons of Zebedee, went to Jesus and said to him, 'Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask you.' "

Mark 10:36 And He said to them, "What do you want Me

"He asked them, 'What do you want me to do for you?' "

Mark 10:37 They said to Him, "Grant that we may sit, one

"They said to him, 'Let us sit in your glory, one on your right and one on your left.' "

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Pars pro toto (cf. totum pro parte, synecdoche)? Perhaps. But I think that is not the precise species of metonymy involved in Caesar's crossing the Rubicon. Certainly it is not involved in Hitler's invading Russia, since Hitler himself did not bodily enter Russia when his forces did (am I right?). With Caesar, his personal crossing of the Rubicon is not essential to the case: it is the physical action by forces under his command that constitutes the fatal crossing. Didn't we discuss metonymy here recently, by the way? It's a thoroughly muddled affair.

A caution about causatives. English has many lexical causatives: raise means cause to rise; lay means cause to lie; set originally meant cause to sit; suckle means cause to suck. But English also uses ordinary verb forms in a causative sense. For these, our article stresses change-of-state verbs (and confuses them with lexical causatives, in the case of burn), but I'd say it's much broader. We walk the dog; we march Bart Simpson to Principal Skinner's office; we boil the water (a change of state): in these it is the dog that walks, Bart that marches, and the water that boils, where the verbs are taken in their primary, non-causative senses. And then, sometimes it is unclear what the primary sense is and whether it is causative in itself: he turned the doorknob; the doorknob turned. In my thinking about these things, we would do better to apply notions of middle voice, and radically rethink passive voice and transitivity in English.

Anyway, it may be useful to point out that standard causativity does not apply in the case we are asked about, from O. Henry's The Gift of the Magi: you make someone cut your hair, and this means that you cause someone to cut your hair; but you do not cause your hair to cut! That would be a standard causativity analysis, but improper use of cut. Let me put it this way: if shorten were construed as primarily non-causative, and the idiom were my hair shortened, then we might say, causatively, I shortened my hair.

I'm afraid a lot of those biblical examples miss the mark, interesting though they are. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

IS IT RIGHT TO PUT A COMMA BEFORE A SUBORDINATE CONJUNCTION?

IS IT RIGHT TO PUT A COMMA BEFORE A SUBORDINATE CONJUNCTION? I have encountered subordinate conjunctions such as "because" with a comma preceding it. I know there are grammar books saying that coordinating conjunctions have commas before them.

Your answers will greatly enlighten me. Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.229.4 (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that it depends on which authority you choose to follow. See serial comma. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong conjunction, Richardj. One Hundred Nineteen was asking about "because" and the like introducing a clause. But the answer is still the same, it depends on who(m) you listen to. I had a physics teacher who insisted on a comma before "because" in all cases, which is wrong. My answer is to let readability be your guide, and that the question is not about conjunctions so much as it is about clauses and sense. The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, supplies two good examples: "He didn't run because he was afraid; he ran because it had started to rain." No commas, because the "because" clause is essential to the meaning. (Funny—I'd have put a comma where they have a semicolon.) "He didn't run, because he was afraid to move." Non-essential, explanatory. This distinction is not always so clear, so use a comma when in doubt. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are certain "rules" that one can follow: if clauses seldom need to be preceded by commas, nor do when (in the temporal sense) clauses; since clauses are not usually preceded by commas when they are temporal but are preceded by commas when they are causal; although clauses are almost always preceded by commas; and so forth. But Milkbreath is essentially correct that the matter basically involves a sensitivity to traditional usage and to the distinction between what is and isn't restrictive in the context. Deor (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dutch or Afrikaans?

While doing an image review for a Featured Article Candidate (British Empire), I asked the nominator to provide a description of an associated image in English. One was already attached to the image in what I think is Dutch, but it may be Afrikaans. Either way, I don't know the difference. However, I think it would be helpful to identify the appropriate language. I tagged the language at my best guess in the description line. Please notify if it should be changed. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The language is Dutch and not Afrikaans. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Souchon

May someone please add the pronunciation of this German surname to WP article: [[3]]. Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the pronunciation in any of my usual sources. If no one here can tell you, maybe someone at de:Wikipedia:Auskunft will know. I suspect it's pronounced the French way, [suˈʃɔ̃], but I don't know for sure. —Angr 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"ou" isn't a normal vowel combination in German (see German orthography). I'd suspect it's pronounced like "der Blouson"[4], that is similar to the French, as the above poster says. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

it is pronounced the French way. Souchon ws a descendant of Huguenotes.--Tresckow (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Huguenots. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of English sentences

How many possible sentences are there in English? Counting sentences like: 'subject + verb', 'subject + verb + object', 'subject + verb + object + although ...'. And exclusing sentences that are way too long.--Mr.K. (talk)

Well, including sentences that are "way too long", the number is infinite. (You can repeat the first six words of "I know that you know that he's a liar" indefinitely.) Whether excluding the "way too long" sentences reduces that to a finite number, I don't know. —Angr 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This obviously can't be answered unless you define "way too long." Also, what limits are you placing on what words can be used? Anything in the OED? -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The main answer revolves around the notion of recursion. There are a few points of recursion in English syntax, such as subordinate clauses and prepositional phrases(The man who I saw cooking in the kitchen by the lake where the pandas who like peanut butter used to sit...). There are also no official limits on how many adjectives can precede a noun (the big, red, banana-shaped, over-the-top, famous, horribly dressed, ... film star). The more you expand a sentence, the more incomprehensibility grows, but the theoretical possibilities of sentences are infinite. It's one of the primary features of language that it can use recursion to allow a theoretically infinite number of utterances. Piraha is controversially a potential counter-example, but like I said, it's controversial. Steewi (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the answer is 42, obviously. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not only a question of grammar, but also a question of vocabulary. English effortlessly takes in foreign-language words as loanwords (more or less all languages do this, but English seems pretty extreme in that regard), then there's all sorts of slang, technical and scientific terminology, jargon, neologisms etc, much of which is not even listed in the OED. In finite time with a finite number of speakers, the number of words ever uttered in English is finite, of course, but if you ask about all possible sentences, English vocabulary is potentially infinite. Then, consider sentences like "The German word Schnee means snow", "The Latin word domus means house", et cetera - you can do this for every word in every language (living, dead or artificially constructed), yet all of these are different English sentences with a different meaning. So, as enticing as 42 sounds, my money is on infinity -- Ferkelparade π 09:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is infinity, as Angr showed above. However, if we reduce the length of the sentence (E.g. by limiting the number of letters to 1000) then we get a finite number. Ignoring rare foreign letters such as "é" and only allowing comma, dash (which can double as hyphen), and semicolon for punctuation, we have 30 different charactiers, resulting in 30 to the 1000th different sentences. That's about 10¹⁵⁰⁰ - a one with 1500 zeroes. Of course, most of these would not be English sentences - they would just look as if they had been typed by monkeys on a typewriter. The number of actual English sentences would be far less. Therefore, it wouldn't be infinity. — Sebastian 10:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

not "infinity" because the longest sentence it is possible to utter would be limited by human lifespan (or the lifespan of the universe if you get your descendents to continue your sentence for you). But that's beside the point. They are fapp infinity. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up OK, I meant actually the number of types of sentences. In this case, you will be counting 'John is talking' and 'John is walking' just as one. So it doesn't matter how many words English has or what words count. It is only about the structure. 'Way too long' is also way too blurred. I meant here sentences that are so long that nobody uses them. Mr.K. (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But you might not use a sentence that my mother's auntie's hairdresser's husband's favourite pupil's best friend's older sister's boy friend's mother would. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NO, I definitely wouldn't include these sentences. Five or six speech parts should be more than enough. And that even for academic philosophers trying intentionally to appear deep (but actually being just complicated).--Mr.K. (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is too poorly defined for me to answer, so I'll throw in "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." --Sean 15:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "type of sentence". Let's take some example sentences:

• John is talking.
• John talks.
• John expresses himself verbally.
• John was talking.
• John will talk.
• John will be talking.
• John can talk.
• John may talk.
• John sometimes talks.
• John has talked.
• John should be talking.
• John appears to be talking.
• Look - John is talking !
• I, John, am talking.

How many different "types of sentences" are there in that list ? Where exactly do you want to draw the boundaries between one "type of sentence" and another ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that "John talks" and "John sometimes talks" are the same type. On the other hand, "John talks because he wants to." is another type. Mr.K. (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The apparent rank of Borisch Kommendant in World in Conflict

Hello I discovered while playing as russians on this computer game, I was being styled as Borisch Kommendant(or whatever it appears to my ears), does this mean something? My guesses are that it means A:Grand Commander; B:Lieutenant Commander; or C:just Commander. What really does it mean? I would appreciate an answer.

Gsmgm (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Boris is a common Russian given name, and "Borisch" looks like a spelling of some German's (wrong) idea of how it's pronounced. But then, I suppose, it would be Komm(a)ndant Borisch rather than Borisch Komm(a)ndant. Other than that, I have no idea. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do believe I heard Boris(c)h or something like that(it was a clear sound of sh it the end). I doing a lot of german classes so it might filter through sometimes. And I know I heard in the given order. Ahh well, probably it's the game producers who failed to study russian properly. Gsmgm (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Was it in a German sentence? In that case, it could have been any of a number of adjectives, such as "Bayerisch" (Bavarian) or "Preußisch" (Prussian). (See above how far away what you hear can be from the correct pronunciation in a given language.) — Sebastian 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a german sentence, it was stated ingame by a russian(speaking english) to address the commanding officer. Gsmgm 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmgm (talk • contribs)

Any chance it could be "tovarich (meaning 'comrade') general?" --- OtherDave (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds much more likely. "Tovarishch Kommandant" (Comrade Commandant) would be how a Soviet-era trooper would address his commandant, although I'm not sure it's post-Soviet practice. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See Mondegreen. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure this is a mondegreen, Wavelength. That requires the sound of what the listener "thinks" he heard to make some sense, even if not the intended sense. Clearly, this listener could make no sense of what he thought was "Borisch", otherwise he wouldn't have been asking the question here. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, now I understand it, I though about it for a very long time today and found out it was indeed a V(I am not sure of any T:s, additionaly, I might also heard "Bovarish") somewhere in the sentence, Now it makes really sense now. Indeed, I never learned russian, so I wouldn't understand anything russian. PS World In Conflict is a cold war era RTS/RTT game, so russians saying comrade is very likely. DS Gsmgm (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Товарищ (Tovarishch) is pronounced with a fairly strong accent on -va (tə-VA-rishch), and the first syllable could easily be swallowed when speaking quickly, so much so that the listener might not catch it at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wiktionary page wikt:товарищ has an audio file in .ogg format.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Could it have been "Bolshiy"? That means big, or grand. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Vetula sed(?) Noli Picare... Is this correct Latin?

Hello, Is this correct latin, I saw it on a Telenor tv commercial, where it apparently is supposed to mean "you old magpie". I am very interested in the answer, so can you find out please?

Gsmgm (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It means "Old woman but don't caulk with pitch". Now I am very interested why you are so very interested in the answer. — Sebastian 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, It came up in class when I and a pal started discussing tv commercials, and I started to wonder if this was correct latin. I pass the issue to my subconsciousness and remeberd it today. So I though where else to resolve this issue if not wiki. And that "very interested" was just a proper if somewhat dishonest reason. Gsmgm 20:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmgm (talk • contribs)

So how would a roman state "you old magpie"? Gsmgm (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Tu, pica senex"? Deor (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that would be interesting for my friend, and proving tv-commericals don't usually do any background research. Gsmgm (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian: "corashon"

I've been watching World War II: Behind Closed Doors on the BBC, and I've noticed that, in conversation, Russians sometimes say a word that sounds like "coraShon"; while the context would suggest it means something like "I see" or "is that so?", the programme's subtitles don't show it. What are they actually saying, and what does it mean? Thanks. 87.114.128.88 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I imagine they're saying khorosho, which means "good" or "all right" or "OK". —Angr 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is also the source of "horror show" in A Clockwork Orange, isn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Algebraist 02:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Angr, that's it! 87.114.130.249 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See Mondegreen. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

December 18

German sentence for translation

What would be the precise translation into English of the following sentence: "Im April 1928 wurde er aus der Partei ausgeschlossen, weil er sich nicht der in Opposition gegen Piłsudski stehenden PPS-Politik anschließen wollte." ? --Soman (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"In April 1928 he was expelled from the party because he was unwilling to sign on to the PPS's policy in opposition to Piłsudski." —Angr 08:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What isn't 100% clear to me, is who opposed Piłsudski? PPS or the expelled person? --Soman (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The PPS. The expelled person didn't want to sign on to the "in Opposition gegen Piłsudski stehenden PPS-Politik", i.e. "the PPS policy standing in opposition to Piłsudski". —Angr 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Plural of "index"

What is the plural of the word "index" in the phrase "stock market index". Some sources use "indices" while others use "indexes". --Kalbasa (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you've just answered your own question. —Angr 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, but we need to pick either "indexes" or "indices" for use on Wikipedia. That's why I want to find out here what the more correct usage is. --Kalbasa (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We do? We accommodate multiple national varieties of English. I don't see why we can't accommodate multiple (allowable) plurals for a word. It's best to be consistent within one article, of course. In any case, for discussing what's best for Wikipedia, WP:MOS, its related articles, and their talk pages would be the place, not the Reference Desk. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

At books.google.com (which searches only published books and so gives a better indication of formal, edited usage than regular Google does), "stock market indices" gets slightly more hits than "stock market indexes", but only slightly more. I'd say both are equally correct, and you can take your pick. Flip a coin, if need be! —Angr 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But, as Coneslayer says, within any one article we should use one spelling consistently. The best place to discuss that would be on the relevant article's talk page. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack is right, but be warned: talk-page debates like indexes/indices (or whether you have to capitalize the first D in MacDonald) make the Long Parliament look like a tweet -- and one that doesn't hit the 140-character limit. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what shall we call the fuel used in automobile engines with spark plugs? -- Coneslayer (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about automobiles but cars use petrol. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack, just to make things clear for others: The difference between indices and indexes is not a difference in spelling; they are morphological variants. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that's right, Daniel. You'd know better than I. But for mere mortals, some would naturally use "indices" in most if not all contexts, whereas others would prefer "indexes" in the same contexts. In the case of a particular article, we can't have both "indexes" and "indices" appearing (unless it were an article discussing the difference between the 2 words). So, that's why I say it would be a matter of consensus, which is debated on the relevant article's talk page, and it could well be a different consensus depending on which article was under consideration. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the consensus, Jack. I didn't mean to question that. All I wanted to was to clarify the linguistic terminology. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 09:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on context. For the index of a book it could be either, but I think for mathematical things bearing the name "index", the plural is "indices". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify my meaning further. Stock market indices are in some senses "mathematical", but not central to mathematics. When the "j" in such an expression as

$\sum _{j=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{j^{2}}}$

is called the "index of summation", then the plural is "indices"; I've never encountered anyone writing or saying "indexes" for that concept. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, M-W Collegiate says "pl usu indices" for that mathematical sense.

Yet what are all such gaieties to me
Whose thoughts are full of indices and surds?
x² + 7x + 63
= ¹¹/₃

Lewis Carroll

Deor (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

December 19

If I don't see you beforehand ...

Around this time of the year, in the 10-odd leading up to Christmas, we very often hear people saying to others "If I don't see you beforehand, have a great Christmas" (or whatever). It always strikes me as slightly odd. It sort of suggests "I'm only prepared to issue this greeting once, but I do have to say it, so in case I don't see you again before Christmas, I'd better say it now while you're here". Is there some unwritten rule that it's not proper to say "Merry Christmas" more than once to the same person over such a period? Do people in other countries say this? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I just saw that in an e-mail today actually. It is used with other greetings too, not just on Christmas. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was not proper, just a bit silly. Saying it does sort of imply that you won't see them again before Christmas. I would feel rather foolish if I wished someone Merry Christmas and then did it again. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it more agreeable to hear this as an affirmation of a connection -- "If I don't see you again before Christmas, which of course would be my preference because I enjoy seeing you and would prefer to celebrate with you as close to the day as possible, I want you to know I'm thinking of you and hope that you enjoy the holiday." Unless they have those motion-detecting holiday ornaments that play music or sing carols, in which case I'm very likely not to see them again before Christmas. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it prevents it from having an unpleasant "have a nice life" flavor. --Sean 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a nice life would be a very pleasant thing to happen, if only we could manage it. But I know what you mean, Sean. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of the movie The Truman Show, where Truman likes to say to people "Good morning, and in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night." He's making sure he wishes the person well, exactly the appropriate number of times. --Anonymous, 19:50 UTC, December 19, 2008.

Richardrj touched on this, but what's the etiquette for when a person has already said this to someone, then they unexpectedly run into them the next day, and again two days after that, and it's still not yet Christmas? Can saying "Merry Christmas" too often to the same person ever be a social faux pas? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Twins' names

Why do conjoined twins often have names that rhyme? 124.180.116.201 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason non-conjoined twins often have names that rhyme: parents think it's cute. My mother told me that when she was young, she planned to name girl twins (if she ever had any) Marilyn and Carolyn, and boy twins (if she ever had any) Dustin and Justin. Fortunately for all concerned, my mother only ever had single births. —Angr 09:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aligning with Angr's comment, I went to grade school with twins named Jack and Jill, and worked for one member of a pair of twins named Tom and Jerry. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a pair or a flock an it or a they?

If one asks "where is my pair of scissors?", can the reply "there they are", be correct as opposed to "there it is"? When one asks "where is my flock of sheep?", is the correct reply "there it is" or "there they are"? ----Seans Potato Business 09:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Pair of scissors" is construed as plural in the reply, and it is unidiomatic to use the singular form, which is odd when you look at it, considering that it's singular in the question. One could ask "Where are my scissors?", no "pair", and I think that that's what we hear. On the other hand, it is just possible to answer "Where is my flock of sheep?" with "There it is", I think. Imagine several separate flocks dotting the landscape. Ordinarily, though, bearing in mind that I have little to do with sheep being an American suburban boy, I'd say that anything but "There they are" would sound strange. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Separate the wheat from the chaff"

Is there a current, contemporary English substitute for this expression based on a rather quaint agricultural metaphor? This occurs in a brief dialogue (in comic strip format) between tweenage kids in an educational text I'm editing, aimed at upper primary grades and middle schoolers on both sides of the pond plus teachers with non-native English. Even if the young characters would understand what it meant, I doubt they'd use it verbatim in conversation unless parroting their teacher. What might kids say to get this across in authentic and succinct language? (Otherwise, I'm considering: "Like the teacher says, you have to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'").-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I went to grade school in the 1950s, and, believe it or not, the expression was quaint even way back then when I was taught it. It's the job of teachers to, well, teach the kids the language, and this expression is a part of English and is well understood by the literate of any age. It is not necessary to make it hip and groovy for the now generation, if you ask me. But I'm still mad at Rowling for letting them change it to "Sorcerer's Stone" for us ignorant colonials, so consider the source. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than coining anything, I'm attempting to discover whether a suitable current expression exists that I myself am not hip and groovy enough, likewise unfamiliar with this target population, to have encountered otherwise. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Separating the sheep from the goats is another agricultural phrase (according to Wikipedia The Sheep and the Goats has a Biblical origin). At least kids know what sheep and goats are (although it's not always clear which are good and which are bad). I've also heard sort the good fruit from the bad fruit, which again might be Biblical (I'm unsure); it is less common, but self-explanatory.

Needles in hay(stacks) and diamonds in the rough are slightly different, referring to finding something rare and precious; separating the men from the boys is about strength or maturity; and telling the sheep from the wolves also sometimes comes up for recognising bad things, not good. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha... I'm starting to get my bearings. It's enough (though essential) that the kids get the tenor of the metaphoric wheat'n'chaff, regardless of the specifics that gave rise to this figure of speech in the first place. For my source phrase, it would be: "wheat is something we use and need for making food, the chaff must be something that we don't use, probably because it's inedible, so it needs to get separated from the good stuff that's worth keeping." In principle, I, like User:Milkbreath, come from a '50s upbringing (urban U.S.), but am expat and raised my own kids bilingual/bicultural on a collective farm in a parochial country. So when editing for a panglobal youth readership I necessarily try to get a sense of their fund of knowledge, as I can't know how conservative vs. progressive their curriculum may be, yet I must anticipate and address that factor in order to produce a useful text. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An afterthought: it's an opportunity for some vocabulary-building with "winnow" and "thresh". --Milkbreath (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

how about "Candy from the wrapper" or "Peanut from the shell" ? --Digrpat (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also "separate the cream from the milk", which doesn't mean to separate the good from the bad so much as the best from the still pretty good portion, although it isn't clear in the modern context that the "cream" is still the best part. This comparison is often put in the form "the cream always rises to the top".

Also, we use many outdated expressions without even thinking about what they originally meant, like "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Very few kids would know why one would choose to look at a horse's mouth. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Later non-chronological insert): "The Tories are the cream of Britain: rich, thick, and full of clots". BrainyBabe (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading these later suggestions, I suddenly flashed on a ditty we learned back in the old days: "As you go through life / Make this your goal: / Watch the donut / Not the hole!" But no: the tenor of donut vs. hole is more akin to that of the proverbial "glass half full vs. empty" while the (didactic) point in our text emphasizes the action, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Anyway the source text's author wouldn't have come up with this, the local donuts being only the filled kind and seasonal. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The "tenor of doughnuts" was obviously Luciano Pavarotti. I can't think who the "tenor of doughnut-holes" would be, as there aren't too many thin ones. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, an Adlai Stevenson quotation: "An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and then prints the chaff". - Jmabel | Talk 22:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would (indignantly) understand this glib jibe to refer not to us copyeditors, but rather to the editor-in-chief in the print (and by extension, broadcast) media who arbitrates "what's fit to print." -- Deborahjay (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This may have been local usage, but I've often heard/ used the phrase "sort the apples from the oranges" instead of the wheat and chaff. (I think it is derived from math where one was admonished not to compare terms of different units Apples and oranges)76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

English language

English is a West-Germanic language originating in England.

Vs.

English language as it is known today developed in England from the dialect of a West-German tribe known as the Angles.

Vs.

English language in earliest records was a Celtic dialect originating from Indo-European tribes of mainland Europe.

• Are any of these statements complicated?
• Are any of these statements correct?
• Are any of these statements of more importance to another?
• How should the importance of such a statement be defined?

Thank you in advance for any guidance. ~ R.T.G 12:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

English arguably didn't originate in England, although it wasn't called English until long after the people who spoke its ancestor-tongue came to England; the first statement is true if you're referring to modern English or Middle English, but is less certain for Old English/Anglo-Saxon. It's certainly not a Celtic language or dialect. The second is perhaps closest to the truth. The first sentence of History of the English language says "English is a West Germanic language which originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers and Roman auxiliary troops from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the northern Netherlands." I suggest you read the rest of that article, and Old English. Calling the Angles West-German doesn't seem quite right; West-Germanic would be better. I don't know how to judge the importance of each statement: from a linguistic point of view, the fact that it is a West-Germanic language is more important, but if you're interested in history then their geographical origin matters more. The third being untrue is least important. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you judge that importance? And earliest records of language spoken in England are of a Celtic dialect which is presumed to have originated from an Indo-European language. Is that untrue? ~ R.T.G 14:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To back up what Maltelauridsbrigge says: it's definitely untrue that English was ever a Celtic dialect. It's almost certainly been influenced by Celtic languages, but it's not a Celtic language. As for where it originates: Old English came from the continent, but it's not actually wrong to say that English is a language originating in England. What we now call English is the modern product of a continental Germanic dialect meeting a Celtic language in England (or what we now call England), and later being influenced by Danish (another Germanic language) and Norman French, both in England. In other words, Middle English and Modern English do originate in England, even if old English didn't. This is perhaps a bit confusing for some people, but that's the difference. Oh, and English certainly is a West-Germanic language. There's nothing wrong with the second sentence above (except for "English language", which just sounds odd), but I think the first sentence is best as the first line of an article. garik (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Earliest records of language in England are of a Celtic dialect. If the Angles and the Frisians are directly responsible for the English language today, what measure of relevance have they if not the largest measure? ~ R.T.G 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The basic structure of English and the bulk of its core vocabulary stem from the dialects of the Angles, proto-Frisians, and coastal Saxons. These dialects developed in what are now northwestern Germany and southwestern Denmark. However, English as we know it today developed in England as a result of strong influences on its vocabulary and weaker influences on its grammar from Old Norse (or Old East Norse) and Norman Middle French. As a basic introductory statement, I would start with "English is a Germanic language." I would not say "West Germanic", because the classification of Germanic languages is somewhat subject to dispute. Specifically, there is some question whether "West Germanic" is a valid category." If you are aiming to produce an article in Simple English, I would avoid specialist terms (especially disputed ones) wherever possible. Instead, after stating that English is a Germanic language, I would explain in short simple sentences what the Germanic languages are, how Proto-Germanic split into dialect groups including the coastal dialects of the Angles and Frisians (stopping to explain the word dialect in a simple sentence or two) and then go through the chronology of the development of the English language from those early dialects. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that in theory, if not in practice, the Simple English Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a "kids' Wikipedia." There's no need to dumb down content or give excessive background explanations. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the earliest records of language in that area we now call England are of a Celtic dialect. But that's quite a different matter from saying that the English language was ever Celtic. It's the language spoken over most of the area we now call England that was Celtic, not the English language. garik (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence the distinction between "English language" and "The English language" of which Garik and I discussed elsewhere today. ~ R.T.G 17:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand the difference between "English language" and "The English language". The difference is syntatic. A sentence like "English language is a Germanic language" just doesn't work in English. So you can't use it to make the distinction you want. garik (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

History of the English language

English is a West Germanic language which originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers and Roman auxiliary troops from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the northern Netherlands.

Vs.

History of the English language of today has its roots in the Proto-Indo-European language estimated to exist some time between 4,000 and 10,000BC.

Vs.

The earliest history of language in England was recorded by the Romans in the 1st century AD when the local dialect was Celtic. Julius Caesar described the dialect as similar to the Gallic language of France. Although humans have lived in region for hundreds of thousands of years, no records of language preceding the Celts remains.

• Are any of these statements complicated?
• Are any of these statements correct?
• Are any of these statements of more importance to another?
• How should the importance of these statements be defined?

More complicated query and again thanks to anyone who can compare these convincingly. ~ R.T.G 12:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to rewrite the History of the English Language article, you should discuss it on the talk page for that article[5]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the interest the user expresses in the simple English wikipedia in his/her userpage, I'd say he/she is trying to write a simple English article on the subject. That's the reason for the question on complicatedness of the sentences, presumably. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am seeking a reference not of how to judge importance of such statements. What is the methodology? ~ R.T.G 14:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I make a living writing and editing textbooks. Currently I am on a multiyear project developing a series of geography and history textbooks for 11 year olds. We have to present complicated information in simple terms in very limited space. I don't think that there is a "methodology" that you can use to assess something as subjective as "importance". Also, the question is not just importance but relevance. If space is limited, you want to present only what is most relevant to your main topic. While I would say that all three statements above are both complicated and correct, not all are equally relevant to the history of the English language. In particular, the last statement is not very relevant, because the Celtic speech of pre-Roman or proto-Roman Britain had very little impact on the development of the English language. That would be the first bit of information that I would consider cutting. The other two statements are relevant but complex. However, it is not so hard to turn complicated statements into simple statements by 1) breaking complicated statements into two or more simple statements and 2) avoiding terms that are difficult to understand, or, when they are unavoidable, carefully defining and explaining them. So, for example, I would start by carefully explaining the term Indo-European in a series of otherwise simple sentences. Then I would similarly explain Proto-Indo-European in two or more otherwise simple sentences. (Note that by "simple", I mean short sentences without passive constructions or dependent clauses using common words mostly of one or two syllables.) I would replace terms like B.C. or B.C.E. where possible with x thousand years ago, since B.C., B.C.E., A.D., and C.E. can be challenging concepts. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a good assessment but is Celtic, although not a part of English, a highly relevant component as the predecessor? Are lines of succession always worthy adds where they exist, especially in an environment dependent on links? ~ R.T.G 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether your topic is "The history of the English language" or "The history of language in England". If your topic is the history of the English language, the language spoken before it in the region where it developed is not very relevant. (Consider that the English language continued to develop in North America. Do you also want to cover the hundreds of Amerindian languages spoken there before English prevailed there?) On the other hand, early Brythonic (the language spoken in England before the Angles and Saxons arrived) would be relevant to a history of language in England. It all depends on your topic. If you have oodles of room, you might want to mention Brythonic in a history of the English language as part of a discussion of the controversial theory that English grammar (particularly its use of tag questions and the progressive aspect) was influenced by a Celtic substratum. However, this is controversial and not universally agreed, and you could only justify including it in a very long history of the English language. Marco polo (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not wishing to comment on the validity of any statement I find the geographic definitions confusing. AFAIK

• Frisians live(d) in 3 populations West-Frisians, East-Frisians and North-Frisians along the coast of what is now The North of the Netherlands (West-Frisians) and the coast of North-West Germany (East-Frisians) as well as the coast and some islands of Northern Germany bordering what is now Denmark (with the North-German Dithmarschen in-between separating the two populations. Not sure, but I think they got split when some coast got washed away in floods.)
• Angeln is an area on the Baltic coast of Northern Germany.
• Although the Saxons did not live in what today is Saxony The German wikipedia has this on their lands around the time they invaded Britain: "Das Siedlungsgebiet dieser Stämme umfasste grob die östlichen Niederlande, das heutige Westfalen, Niedersachsen mit Ausnahme des von Friesen bewohnten Landesteils, Holstein und den Norden von Sachsen-Anhalt." - "The area settled by these tribes roughly comprised the Eastern Netherlands, what today is Westphalia, Lower Saxony except for areas inhabited by Fresians, Holstein and the northern part of Saxony-Anhalt Our map in old Saxony is about 300 years later, but seems to describe roughly the same area.

Saxony-Anhalt used to be part of the GDR and would thus be considered East-Germany. Only Westphalia would be considered northwest Germany. Lower Saxony is sometimes counted as northwest Germany and sometimes as Northern Germany. Holstein, Friesland (East- and North-) and Angeln would be Northern Germany. Consequently "northwest Germany" would cause confusion if anyone wished to study the subject in more detail or were studying geography or history at the same time as reading your article. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Brazil= Belgium in India?

I was reading the book Call of the Mall by Paco Underhill. He uses the these words to describe Brazil -- Brazil has been de- scribed as Belgium inside India, in the sense that it has an affluent midddle class surrounded by mind-blowing poverty. Is this his own invention or its really used to describe Brazil. Coz' I feel its kind of "a mockery" of India.^{Unwarranted addendum removed (by myself) as it was taking this language related question in the wrong direction.} --Sanguine learner ^talk 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Paco Underhill probably does not mean to mock India. Instead, he is using the Western stereotype of India as desperately poor (a stereotype which ignores the country's complexity) to make a point about Brazil. His point, however, is a bit outdated. Brazil certainly has an affluent minority ("Belgium"). It used to have a desperately poor majority ("India" in Underhill's metaphor). However, the country's inequality has been decreasing rapidly, and its relatively poor majority has been becoming less poor, as this article explains. A better (though still clumsy) metaphor today might be "Belgium in China". Marco polo (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marco, I guess the last line I added was certainly not needed and took the discussion in the wrong tangent. However, the question I wanted to ask was is this phrase used in mainstream English literature? --Sanguine learner ^talk 17:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase would not be understood in mainstream English. "Belgium" conjures up images of chocolates, Poirot & Tintin, and maybe the horror, the horror of the Congo. "Brazil" is scantily clad women on the beach, football, and deforestation. "Belgium in India" suggests your chocolates melting and getting sandy, while Tintin rescues Amazonian tribes from ruthless loggers as Poirot recovers the stolen World Cup. DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Duncan that the phrase "Belgium in India", by itself, does not have an obvious meaning to native English speakers. Presumably, Underhill's narrative makes it clear that the meaning is not about chocolate. To answer your second question, Sanguine, I am reasonably well read, but I had never heard this phrase before you mentioned it. So, no, it is not a standard description of Brazil. However, it makes sense as a metaphor in "mainstream English" (by which I assume you mean standard English) in the right context. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here. If you explain exactly why you are choosing the metaphors of Belgium and India, it can make sense, but its really not an idiom in any dialect of English I know. Its like having to explain a joke, you can make it make sense by explaining it, but most English speakers I know don't automatically make the Belgium = Afluence and India = Poverty in the same way that Americans might instantly understand the metaphor juxtaposing "Main Street" to "Wall Street" --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

latin hospes meaning both guest and host

I have just found that in Latin, "hospes" means both guest and host. I know we have a small few words (eg. cleave) that have two more or less opposite meanings, but this is going a bit further. Hospes seems like a reasonably common word, and the context wouldn't make it as obvious as with "cleave" in English, where we can often judge from the tone of the sentence. How do you work out its meaning, eg in "hospes erat Pompeius Optatus"? thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Beyond context (you'd have to see whether someone arrived at Pompeius Optatus's house or whether he arrived at someone else's house) I don't know. But I guess it's a good thing there were no television talk shows in Ancient Rome, otherwise they'd have had to figure out how to say "guest host". If it's any consolation, German makes no distinction (except for context) between "borrow" and "lend". —Angr 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

List of self-contradicting words in English--Elatanatari (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We should note that guest and host themselves have a common etymological source and are cognate with Latin hospes (hospit-, whence we get hospital, hotel, hospitable, etc. OED: "L. hospit-em (hospes) host, guest, stranger, foreigner."). Connected with Latin hostis (OED: "stranger, enemy, in med.L. army, warlike expedition"), and therefore with hostile. With friends and guests like that, who needs hosts of enemies? The common thread is the idea of the stranger, as opposed to friend, neighbour, or kin. Greek ξένος (xénos, "stranger") is also thought to be connected.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In Russian, guest is гость (gost') and host is хозяин (khozyain), and the gos-khoz similarity also suggests they came from the same root. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't 'guest host' be something like 'animator invitatus' (or 'animatrix invitata' as the case may be)? Duomillia (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Indo-European root is ambiguous itself in modern terms of 'guest' and 'host' (both of which come from the Proto-Indoeuropean root). Fortson (Indo-European Language and Culture ISBN 1-4) says "PIE did not have words distinguishing 'guest' -rom 'host'; rather there was a single term meaning something like 'a stranger with whom one has reciprocal duties of -hospitality'. Steewi (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Learning

Does anyone know any quality, effective, free Arabic or Spanish language learning courses online?--Elatanatari (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

At this time, Arabic language#External links lists 14 external links. If any are free, they should say so; whether any are of good quality or are effective, you might find out by experience. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

...so you might try contacting the editor/s who posted those External links (revealed in Edit history) and might have some further remarks to share. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For Spanish, I found this very helpful for learning the very basics (especially of grammar). -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

SpanishPod [6]] isn't free, but the audio of the lessons is free. The extra learning materials are for premium members. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cornish translation

The following comment has been left on my talk page "Yo, a Dhuncan, a vab an gusul wann, yth os kepar hag eghen nownek!" Unfortunately, I do not read Cornish (in any of its various forms), and would be grateful for a translation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the etymology of the phrase "A Day in the Life"?

Does anyone know the etymology of the phrase "A Day in the Life"? It's used quite a bit now. Did the Beatles invent this phrase? If not, was it as common back then as it is now? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it was varied from Boris Pasternak Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which was published in 1962, and became a best seller just as the Beatles were getting up and running. People would often casually, or unknowingly, refer to it as A Day in the Life ... rather than One Day in the Life .... But that's a guess and I could be way off. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, not Pasternak, Jack. Deor (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know that people often casually, or unknowingly, or (as in this case) stupidly, refer to Solzhenitsyn as "Boris Pasternak", Deor?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn would be less than thrilled. He looked on Pasternak (a little unfairly, perhaps) as practically a toady of the Soviets. In any event, AS was much more of a dissident. Xn4 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Colour supplements used to do "A Day in the Life of [insert name of well-known person]" features, I believe these started in the 60's. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems a very odd question to me, like asking for the "etymology" of time of year or father of the house. I'd say that "a day in the life of …" is a collocation of words that has always been available to anyone employing the English language, and I have no doubt that it's been used with some frequency for a very long time. Here's a 1908 article titled "A Day in the Life of a London Reporter," for example. Why would one imagine that this is a coinage of the Beatles or Solzhenitsyn or anyone else quite recent? Lennon may have added a bit of torque to the title by intentionally leaving out the "of …" phrase (perhaps to generalize it so that it applies to the lives of all of us), but he was clearly making use of a familiar expression, not coining anything. Deor (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It was already a cliche phrase by the 1960s when the abovementioned "colour supplements" used it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that old-fashioned to talk about colour supplements!DuncanHill (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

When I was a wee one, only just learning English, my textbook had an interview section taken from a magazine, entitled "The Life in a Day of...". The textbook example went on to describe an average day of Linda McCartney, and my teacher insisted that the "the life in a day of" phrasing was some sort of mistake, that what was really meant was "a day in the life of". I found that to be flawed reasoning, as I could see clearly that by reversing the phrase, a joke was intented.

Not sure where I'm going with this, perhaps I just wanted to point out that not everyone can recognise collocations when we see them, professionals included. Gee, I hope noone gets upset with me for using this talk page as a conversation forum... TomorrowTime (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is much older than the Beatles or Solzhenitsyn. For example, The Mount Vernon Reader, copyright 1835, has a section on "A Day in the Life of One Who Was Always Behindhand." I don't think it was new then. My impression is that it was at least as popular in the 1960s as it is now. John M Baker (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

mapudungun wikipedia

what is the status of the mapudungun wikipedia? i am very interested in this project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.82.231 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The language Mapudungun has the language code "arn", and appears not to be mentioned at Wikimedia wikis.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The test Wikipedia in Mapudungun is at http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/arn. —Angr 21:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See also meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mapudungun 2 and meta:Language subcommittee/Status/wp/arn. Please don't hesitate to contribute to the test project! You can also help by recruiting new contributors. Regards, Korg (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Korean language

Can someone please check the accuracy of this text (korean)

지훈,

메리크리스마스, 새해 복 많이 받아 이 책이 니가 멋진 경제학자가 되는데에 좋은 영향이 되었으면해 학교 신청한거에도 행운이 따랐으면 좋겠구, 잘될거라고 생각해 너같은 학생 받는다는것만으로도 영광스러운 일일거야 UN도 마찬가지로 너로 인한 엄청난 이익을 보게될거구. 이 책 영원히 간직해줘, 그럼 우리가 함께했던 기억과 야망도 항상 기억할수 있을테니까. 행운을 빌며

아일랜드의 아름다운 섬에서 너의 최고의 친구, Jim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris12121 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

December 20

Misinterpreted words

I enjoy extending my vocabulary so I frequently look unfamiliar expressions up as I stumble upon them. Today, I found niggardly and was amused by the controversies spurred by people mistaking it for nigger. It all reminds of this xkcd. So, what other examples of language usage are there that have given rise to similar incidents? When it comes to familiarity with lesser-used words, I am absolutely not abreast (tihi, just learned today) with native anglophones, so don't hold your contributions back because you think them trivial – I might know less than you would expect. —Bromskloss (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad word, but I remember being somewhat startled by finding the word invagination. I had no idea that vagina- was a generic word that could be used in other contexts (small in-foldings). Matt Deres (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall a segment on the Man Show where they campaigned to "stop women's suffrage." A lot of people signed their petition because they were thinking it was to stop women's suffering. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also "evaginate" (ugh!) which only yesterday I added to my list of "The Worst Words in the World". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

wikt:Venery. Or perhaps Dihydrogen monoxide. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Given all of the controversy surrounding catholic priests, many are surprised to find that the church-owned house they live in is frequently called a "rectory" or that they attended "seminary" to get their position. There are numerous jokes that play on the connection of these words to rectum and semen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I came across one that cracked me up when debugging a French program. The word "tampon" was used as a variable in the code. It apparently just means "anything which is inserted" in French, or something like that. In English, there's also a crampon, which is a mountain climbing tool, not an uncomfortable feminine hygiene product. "Mastication" is another one in English that's always fun. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also the famous non-speech that was apparently apocryphally attributed to George Smathers: Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Attributed to P. T. Barnum is the method of getting people out of a crowded hall full of interesting critters by putting up a sign saying "This way to the Egress" so that people would be encouraged to go through the door. —Angr 09:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sneaky, but I didn't quite get what the crowd were supposed to mistake it for. —Bromskloss (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Some rare and exotic animal. It is only one letter away from Egrets, for example. —Angr 10:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oups, I just read it as "a crowded hall" and didn't see the critter part. —Bromskloss (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all contributions so far! —Bromskloss (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Tampon means "buffer" in French. Joeldl (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...according to the Encarta dictionary's French>English translation, that meaning is listed as secondary and only in the railroad context. The primary English translations it gives are: plug; stopper; pad, wad; rubber stamp. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are appropriate translations in other contexts. But here the word was encountered in the context of computers. I know mémoire tampon means "buffer memory". I suppose that's because it's thought of as a sort of padding. I think there might be other similar computer-related meanings. Joeldl (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from an entry at [7]:

Domaine(s) :

- informatique
     mémoire d'ordinateur

. français . . mémoire tampon n. f.

Équivalent(s) English buffer .

Définition : Mémoire utilisée pour le stockage temporaire de données lors du transfert d'informations afin de compenser la différence de débit, de vitesse de traitement ou de synchronisation entre les divers dispositifs d'un ordinateur et ses périphériques. .

Sous-entrée(s) : .

   synonyme(s)
      tampon n. m.
      zone tampon n. f.
      mémoire intermédiaire n. f.

. Note(s) : La plupart des imprimantes sont pourvues d'une mémoire tampon.

And it offers these as English equivalents:

buffer storage 
  buffer memory 
  intermediate memory

By the way, the French word tampon can also mean "tampon."

Thanks for inserting those tampon refs. It's all bloody complicated, isn't it ? StuRat (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While we're running with the "French" theme, it caused no end of humor in my High School French class that "Douche" was the french word for "Shower", and "phoque" (suspiciously close to "fuck") meant "seal" (the animal). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

French learners sometimes get into hot water with "idiotisme", which does not mean what it looks like, but "idiom". It means idiocy in Dutch, however [8]. In Russian, идиотизм (idiotizm) can mean either idiocy or idiom, depending on the context, although they also have идиоматизм (idiomatizm), which means only idiom. I'm sure there are some English idioms that qualify as "idiotism"s. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

EFL students frequently stumble over these dissimilar words hard - hardly, hospital - hospitable, host - hostile, famous - infamous. (Among others, there's a long list.) BE/AE words can also cause all sorts of misunderstandings. I'll always remember my reaction when a British colleague said "I'm going out for a fag." 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The last time I heard anyone say that was at a non-smoking gay bar, and I'm still not entirely sure what he was referring to.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm American, I certainly know what "fag" in British English means. Once a co-worker told me that another co-worker had "gone for a fag". Although I knew what she meant, I still responded, "Well, I certainly know what that's like!" —Angr 20:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other word in English that has such a bizarre collection of disparate meanings as cigarette, male homosexual, and school-based servant-cum-whipping boy? (Apart from the fact that, in some cases, the last 2 meanings might converge.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Especially if its a cum whipping boy... (speaking of words with double meaning)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget about the "small sticks" def, which leads to the hate-crime sounding action of "tossing a few fags on the fire". StuRat (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only ever read that (never heard it) as "faggots" of wood, not fags. Faggots are also a type of sausage still sod under that name in the North of England, where they don't go in for euphemism much. -- Actually, have a look at the disambiguation page faggot for a varied list of choices from a Christmas tradition to a metalworking technique!BrainyBabe (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>Words confused between languages are false friends. A French teenager once complained to me that her teeth were "sensible" (sensible --> "sensitive", i.e. she had toothache). As for phoque (the animal, same sound as "fuck"), there's a hysterical "lost in translation" video called "Culture in Danger" here. Is there a term for words confused within languages? Of course there are the good old trans-Atlantic differences (trans-Pacific too): JackofOz, don't leave home without your rubber! Words that sound almost like rude words? "Organism" was all very amusing when ten years old, but one moves on....Those who object to "niggardly" do not, to my knowledge, raise their voices against "snigger". Is there a category for words too close in spelling for comfort? The pairing "marital/martial" springs to mind.

Jack asks for words (or homophones, I suppose) with a bizarre collection of meanings. I suspect lots of short Anglo-Saxon words have multiple main denotations that fly in opposite directions, but we are too close to the coal face to see them. Take "coke", for example. A classic example of changing primary meaning was highlighted in the recent tidying up and reprinting of the Enid Blyton series of children's adventure stories. The Five (or the Seven, it may have been) went exploring an abandoned house, as you do, and fell down the coal hole and landed in a pile of coke. Nowadays that would indicate a multi-million pound narcotraficante haul of cocaine; then it was a coal by-product; most young children now might only understand the soft drink. Or what about piles: heaps of stuff, hemorrhoids, or the long girders buildings rest on. Bag: to shoot ("We bagged a brace of pheasant in the first ten minutes"), the result of a shoot (the day's bag), the udder of a cow, and to avoid or dismiss, often from tiredness ("We watched the first show on the disc than bagged the remaining episodes."). BrainyBabe (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot about vomitorium which, despite what you might think, is not the place that Roman hedonists went to gorge the food they'd just consumed. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Balls of brass

What exactly does this expression mean and where does it come from? From context, I assume it's used to describe someone with a lot of chutzpah and indeed brassy can also be used to describe a outgoing, in-your-face person, but how accurate is that? I hardly ever see brass balls either, it's almost always balls of brass which makes me wonder if there's a specific source for the expression. Matt Deres (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Stateside it's always "brass balls", never the other. I always thought it was just another in a long line of alliterative schoolyard utterances, like "tough titties" or "nimble nuts". The obvious idea behind it is that one's testicles are unbreakable, that no one may "bust" one's "balls", the "balls" metonymically referring to one's manliness. In a similar vein, I heard Jeremy Clarkson claim the other day that the Stig's scrotum had its own small gravitational field. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you forgot to add "Tommy Toughnuts" and "Billy Breakballs". But yes, it has always been "Brass Balls" here on the Eastern Coast of the US ;) Lazulilasher (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, there is the expression "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. --LarryMac | Talk 02:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the iconic "balls of brass speech" from the film version of Glengarry Glen Ross that Alec Baldwin delivers. The basic idea is that to have your "balls busted" is to be emasculated, i.e. to be removed from the collective "manhood". If you have balls of brass, you have balls which are immune to being busted, and thus cannot be unseated as a man. Men who take risks with a huge downside, and frequently succeed, are said to have "balls of brass" because they are unafraid of embarassing failure, especially where that failure would some how show them to be less of a man. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea has been taken up with the UK TV show "Balls of Steel" and its spinoff show "Massive Balls of Steel". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The "brass" part may come from either the 3rd or 4th definition of brass as given by MW online 3: brazen self-assurance 4: singular or plural in construction a: high-ranking members of the military 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Isn't it strange how certain metals get attached to particular idiomatic expressions. You can have a will of iron and nerves of steel, but not the other way round. Me? I just have a heart of gold! Matt Deres (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I have a brain of lead (nothing penetrates it). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "fuck" in 1800's American west..

I've been watching the show Deadwood and noticed that they use the word "fuck" far more than in any other western I've seen before. This has led me to wonder, exactly how common was the word in the old west? Is Deadwood historically accurate in saying "fuck" as often as it does (these are rough and tumble sorts after all) or did it not become that commonly used until later in our history?Jmannseelo (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read our article Fuck? It doesn't discuss the American West of the nineteenth century in particular, but since the word was already well known in the English speaking world before then, there's no special reason to believe it wasn't in widespread use in 1870s South Dakota. —Angr 13:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall an interview with someone from that very show who said that they researched historically accurate profanity but the characters ended up sounding like Yosemite Sam. They decided to go with modern swearage to translate the effect to a modern audience. So I guess the answer is, no it wasn't used as often as the show presents. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Brass monkey (colloquial expression) includes a note about the trend from blasphemies to more sexual epithets "words previously in common use like "bloody" and "damn" (both blasphemies) being largely replaced by obscenities "fucking" and "shit".[9]. So, it's 20th century license. A line that jangled for me was in the movie, the English Patient, someone says, "I can't do this." when historically it was more likely to be "I can't go on like this" or something similar. Is there a word for this kind of glitch even if it's deliberate? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic anachronism? —Angr 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no sound research as to the prevalence of words like "fuck" in the 19th century, nor is there likely to be, because the reliable sources are so limited. (It certainly isn't for want of effort on the part of linguists.) It was a word that people in the old West knew and used. As Fred R. Shapiro has shown in his memorably entitled paper, The Politically Correct United States Supreme Court and the Motherfucking Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: Using Legal Databases to Trace the Origins of Words and Quotations, the harshest insult available in Texas in the late 19th century was to call him a mother-fucking son of a bitch. In an earlier case, in Missouri, there was a suit for slander based on the imputation that the defendant had said the plaintiff had fucked a mare. The defendant argued "that the word used to convey the slander, was unknown to the English language, and was not understood by those to whom it was spoken." On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the defendant: "Because the modesty of our lexicographers restrains them from publishing obscene words, or from giving the obscene signification to words that may be used without conveying any obscenity, it does not follow that they are not English words, and not understood by those who hear them." Edgar v. McCutchen, 7 Mo. 768 (Mo. 1846). The court report is notable as the first printed book of any kind in the United States to use the word "fuck." John M Baker (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

phraseology

What does the expression "same as cash" mean, such as in the phrase "90 days same as cash"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.150.4 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It means we'll sell you this item on credit, and if you pay in 90 days, there will be no interest charge--thus no extra cost to you. "Your payment in full within 90 days is the same as a full cash payment now." --- OtherDave (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

chetedouyi

What does the word chetedouyi mean? I believe it is Arabic. Regards B —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronwyn99 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is, it's probably a French-based transcription of an Arabic vernacular dialect word. I would need a little more information to have a realistic chance of correlating it with anything in standard written Arabic... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What does the "LIO" prefix mean in the scientific name of "Pocket Mice"?

Many scientific names of species have prefixes that define a group of animals within a larger group. Thus, among the various mice ("MYS" in classical Greek) the earth-based mice called in English "pocket gophers" are named in the scientific taxonomy Geomys (literally "earth-mice"). In Greek the prefix "Lio" denotes smooth, but in Latin the same prefix means lion-like or leontine. Since Greek and Latin are used indiscriminately in nomenclature, it is impossible to guess what an animal's name with that prefix means. My question is therefore twofold: 1) In the particular case of "LIOMYS", the Mexican Pocket Mouse, does the "Lio" prefix mean smooth or leontine? 2) In general terms, is there a way to tell which is correct, or does one need specific knoledge for each and every case this prefix is used? Thank you! --Bergeronz (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A paper from the University of Nebraska State Museum says, "The generic name Liomys is a combination of two Greek words, Lio (plain) and mys (mouse), referring to the absence of the specialized characteristics of Heteromys." I think that nails it for our mice, given the contrast with "hetero-". A search of the Oxford English Dictionary on line for "lio-" yeilds two hits. One sends us to "leio-" where it says "also 'lio-'" and defines it as your "smooth". The other hit goes indeed to "lion", but there it's actually "lío" (note the accent on the "i"), one of a dozen or so "forms". I think that "leo(n)-" is the prefix to look for when things get leonine, not "lio", and I think you can expect "lio-" to mean something like "smooth" as a rule. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Greek had two forms lis (lambda-iota-sigma) -- with masculine grammatical gender and circumflex accent, it's a special shortened version of the word for "lion", while with feminine grammatical gender and acute accent, it's a special shortened version of an adjective meaning "smooth". It's not obvious to me that either one would result in a "lio-" prefix in compound formation. The more usual form of the adjective is leios Λειος (which I assume is the source of "Lio-" in "Liomys"). The usual form of "lion" in Greek compounding is Leonto-, as in Leontopolis ("Lion City"). AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Names of Ruthenian political parties

I would need a little help to check the Russian names are correct and add Cyrillic text at Russian National Autonomous Party, Autonomous Agrarian Union, Carpatho-Russian Labour Party of Small Peasants and Landless and Ruthenian Peasants Party. --Soman (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

With the first one, it currently says: Российская национально-автономния партия. There's no such spelling as "автономния", afaik. It's unclear whether the middle word is meant to be an attributive noun meaning "national autonomy" or an adjective meaning "nationally autonomous" (whatever that means). That is, is the party about advocating national autonomy for Russia, or it it claiming to be nationally autonomous itself?

In the first case, the Russian word for autonomy is автономия (avtonomiya)

In the second case, the word for autonomous (f.) is автономная (avtonomnaya)

What we currently have is avtonomniya, which is neither the one nor the other. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The source says the party name was 'Russkaja nacionalno-avtonomnaja partija', so i guess автономная is correct. --Soman (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

While googling "национально-автономная партия" i came across both Руская Национально-Автономная партия and Русская Национально-Автономная Партия. At http://www.vedikz.narod.ru/analytics/rusinskoe_edinstvo.htm I found some other party names in Cyrillic. I reckon that somehow, difference between Русская and Руская is difference between Russian and Rusyn, right? --Soman (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be. Руски язик looks to be the Rusyn for "Rusyn language", so the whole title may be in Rusyn for all I know. The standard Russian adjective for Rusyn seems to be Русинский, not Руский. I can imagine it being colloquially referred to as Руский, but I somehow doubt it would be an official spelling due to the potential for confusion. It's more likely a typo for Русский. The possibilities seem to be:

• a title written in Rusyn about a Rusyn party
• a title written in Russian about a Rusyn party
• a title written in Russian about a Russian party (with a typo). -- JackofOz (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Birth registry book

Hi. When my son was born in London ( 1977 ) I went to the local city office to register his birth. A large leather 'log'/ book was brought out and his birth was added to the registry. It was done in 'ink' ( a special pen was used ) and his parents occupations/nationalities were entered. We were American expatriots then, living in London for a period of 5 years and employed by an American bank. I was told or understood at the time that this 'log/book' was called the 'doomsday book' by the Brits. Can you give me any way to confirm this info?

Thank you! GL—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.110.102 (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it's just the Register of Births - I've not heard it referred to as "Doomsday Book" before - we have the Domesday Book, but that is something else. By the way, you should have been given a Birth Certificate for your son. I'll just add that, if I recall correctly, a person born in the United Kingdom in 1977 is automatically a British citizen, regardless of his parents' nationalities, so congratulations to your son, he has won first prize in the lottery of life! DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First and second. Which is which is left as an exercise for the reader :) - Nunh-huh 00:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Cecil Rhodes was limiting his congratulations to English people only, Duncan, but Londoners are English so it applies in this case. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me first say I'm in over my head here, being an American. I stayed out of it hoping that a Brit would weigh in with a "Yes, I've heard it called that, too." The Oxford English Dictionary on line seems to indicate that the expression, in the spelling "Domesday Book", is used figuratively. I think the OED is saying that any official book of records might facetiously be called a "Domesday Book" in Dear Old Blighty. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

December 21

Horse metaphors

Was the person who said "never look a gift horse in the mouth" familiar with the concept of a Trojan horse? NeonMerlin 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess he was, that's why he didn't. If he had who knows how history might have turned out. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

After EC: Don't know if they knew about the Greeks, but the expression also exists in (older) German: "Geschenktem Gaul guckst du (or guckt man) nicht ins Maul." (Gaul is an older form of Pferd = horse). I assume you know that people used to look inside the mouth of a horse they were about to buy/ had bought to verify that the traders assertions of the horses age and health were accurate. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a contradiction in the origins of this phrase and the legend of Troy. This site[10] dates it to St. Jerome in 400 A.D. – his point seems to be the opposite of the "buyer beware" argument. His point was that he wrote for free so there is no "catch". Another place[11] supports Jerome's idea that it's bad manners to inspect a gift for defects – the opposite of what's involved with a spy machine like the T-horse. Better to be safe than noble, methinketh. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, he's considered the patron saint of encyclopedists for his voluminous writings – the voluminous wiki even has a patron saint. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the horse theme, I've always lived by the adage, "beware of gifts bearing Greeks." --- OtherDave (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I greatly enjoy reading this page. There is a much higher class of banter here than can be found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Thank you. CBHA (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, CBHA. Now if you wouldn't mind walking through this gantry here,  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You can call me Elmer. CBHA (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

German and Russian assistance

In editing Autonomous Agrarian Union, I encountered that I seem to have misunderstood some of the grammar in some sources. any help from German and Russian speakers would be appreciated, the main source in German at [12] (upper half of the page) and in Russian [13], [14]. --Soman (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What have you had trouble with in the Russian sources? Joeldl (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there are clearly mistakes in the names of the organizations in Autonomous Agrarian Union. One should be Автономный Земледельческий Союз, and the other Подкарпатский Земледельческий Союз. The transliterations would be Avtonomnyy Zemledel'cheskiy Soyuz and Podkarpatskiy ... Also, in most cases, Russian would not capitalize the second and third words in names like these. I'll check the sources now. Joeldl (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was confused there for a bit because your source says Avtonomno-zemledel'cheskiy, which would mean something like "Autonomo-agrarian", when "avtonomnyy zemledel'cheskiy", "autonomous agrarian" made the most sense. It turns out the first gets 7 Google hits and the second 122, so avtonomnyy is correct. Joeldl (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any material in "Значительным влиянием среди населения края тогда пользовался Автономно Земледельческий Союз (АЗС). В начале своего существования эта партия ставила своим приоритетом достижения автономии Закарпатьем, но со временем повернула свои взгляды в бок Венгрии, поскольку в его ряды входили старые священники и учительские семьи, воспитанные еще в мадярофильскому духе, а также некоторые крестьяне, которые, имея имения, при старом укладе состояли на общественной службе [1, с. 12]. Поэтому члены АЗС были искренними сторонниками старого строя, правда не сразу об этом задекларировали. (http://allaaria.ru/vid/bookscontent.php3-quest-b-eq-24-and-c-eq-633)" that would be of interest to the article (note that I'm not asking for a full translation of the passage, but i'd like to get some clarification of what the Hungarian-postures issue is about, google translate gives a quite confused picture). "Ослабленная Прага не могла контролировать Закарпатье и согласилась на создание автономного правительства. Однако реальная власть оказалась в руках русофильской партии «Автономно-земледельческий союз», представитель которой возглавил правительство и вел явно провенгерскую политику. Очевидно, что этот факт свидетельствовал о слабости украинских влияний на формирование власти в автономии." (http://www.day.kiev.ua/198251/), seems to deal with similar issues. Another text, that i think has relevant material for the wiki article is [15], for example there is various names mentioned. I think the mentioned names refer to the party leadership of AZS, but I'm not sure. --Soman (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about the Russian language but, if need be, I can translate / improve relevant bits quoted from the German reference, Die Erste Tschechoslowakische Republik, which you have linked to above (reference 17). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a rough translation. I don't know any of the historical context, so I'll just let you judge for yourself what's useful.

"The AZS then enjoyed significant influence within the population. At the beginning of its existence, this party gave itself the priority of achieving autonomy for Subcarpathia, but over time turned its sights towards Hungary, since among its ranks were old priests and learned families, raised in a "magyarophile" spirit, and also some peasants, who, owning property, had been in voluntary service under the old régime. For this reason, the members of the AZS were sincere supporters of the old order, though it is true they did not proclaim themselves such immediately"

"Weakened Prague could not control Subcarpathia and consented to the creation of an autonomous government. Only the real power turned out to be in the hands of of the Russophile party "AZS", the president of which led the government and followed a patently pro-Hungarian policy. Obviously, this fact bore witness to the weakness of the Ukrainian influences over the formation of the autonomous authorities." Joeldl (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to refer to a dictionary for the meaning of Закарпатье, which it said was "Subcarpathie" (in French), but Transcarpathia seems a better literal translation, and it's also what's linked to from ru:Закарпатье. Joeldl (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about the abbreviation (АЗС). It comes up as the Russian article for "filling station".76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems of using google translate. It thinks you mean Автозаправочные станции. However, this party was active in the 1920s and 1930s, a time when the abbreviation АЗС was not commonly associated with petrol stations. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposite [of language attrition]?

What is the opposite of Language attrition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.149.117 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Language acquisition? Joeldl (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Language acquisition seems to me to be talking about an individual. If you are talking about language attrition of an individual (i.e. A Frenchman living in America who goes back to France to find he can't remember certain words, grammar, etc.), then yes, language acquisition is the opposite. If you're talking about a language group attrition (i.e. a native American nation whose children are learning a grammatically less complex version of their parents' language, the equivalent of a pidgin), then the opposite would be something like language expansion, language revival or language reclamation. Steewi (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Language attrition may lead to the death of that language. It is not clear what phrase we use to describe the process leading up to the creation (birth, if you like) of a new language. Pidgins and creoles are stages, certainly, but one word for the overall process? BrainyBabe (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to examine our article Language attrition (linked by the questioner) before answering in terms that are incompatible with its definition. The article, rightly or wrongly, defines language attrition as "the loss of a first or second language or a portion of that language by individuals", and adds that "it should be distinguished from language loss within a community". So it is not the same as language death, which is the loss of a language at the societal level, and perhaps the total loss of the language in question.

Is the article right? A quick scan with Google suggests that it is. Consider Defining language attrition, for example. If Language attrition is indeed right, some of our other articles need adjusting: including Language death. Neither article has the matter addressed in its talk page, but both perhaps should.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to language, I'm speechless at the notion that an article on Wikipedia might be inaccurate. As a tangent for the person posting the question and anyone else interested, here's linguist Geoff Pullum talking about dead languages, living languages, and language endangerment. In each case he's talking about the use of language by a group: And now to revive Cornish?" He offers an easy, sharp test of whether a language is living: "There must be little kids who speak the language with each other because it is their only language or else their favorite." If the average age of those using a given language every day is over 20 years, he says, you can kiss that language goodbye right now. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't say 'average age over 20' - he has a more complicated formulation. Haukur (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, because the average age of native speakers of English is certainly greater than 20, and no one would argue that English is dying. What Pullum says is that if the youngest speakers of a given language who use that language as their preferred means of everyday communication is greater than 20, then the language is dying, and that if the youngest such speakers are older than 5, the language is probably dying. Of course, there are lots of children under the age of 5 who communicate in English every day, so I guess our language is safe for now! Marco polo (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true; I summarized carelessly. It was a tangent; the point of connection was the disappearance of language among groups. I thought it related to the poster's topic; your mileage may vary. "Many a shot goes into the heather." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OtherDave, be speechless if you like. And yes: entertaining tangents are common here, and most illumin[at]ing. The point of procedure that interested me remains: The questioner specifically linked an article that gave a clear definition, strongly implying that this definition was to be assumed. Joedl replied swiftly in terms of this definition. Thereafter things drifted. If we don't "Keep [the] answer within the scope of the question as stated" (see the header of this page), we should at least stay aware of what the question most likely was. Incidentally, I see that Pullum does not refer to the death of a language as "attrition".

[Leaves the lectern, pursued by a bear.]–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, if you fret as much about "drift" elsewhere on Wikipedia as you do here, I can't imagine how you have time for much else... like, say, respiration. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I say, OtherDave, I don't mind drift. But let us keep the point of departure in our sights. And I thank you: my breathing, along with the remainder of life beyond Wikipedia, is not in the slightest compromised by the slight exertion required to remind editors of the topic.

:)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 22

A good way to learn to write Korean?

I bought 'Korean for Dummies' about a year ago but was busy with other things so I didn't read it at the time. Just recently I opened it because I wanted to start on Korean again but it turns out that 'Korean for Dummies' does not include any information on how to actually write Korean. Apparently the publishers do not consider writing to be an important part of learning a language with a different alphabet. Can anyone suggest any other resources, book- (that I can get in the UK) or web-based to help with this? Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked out our article Hangul? It's the most logical writing system I'm aware of, so it isn't hard to learn. — Sebastian 05:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It was meant to be logical, but since it was invented in the 10th Century, lots of sound changes have appeared in the language, so you end up with sandhi, which even happens between words.--KageTora (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Korean have more than one writing system? There is also Hanja. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with verification using RS in Italian

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriella_Ambrosio#Gabriella_Ambrosio.

A bunch of potential RS in Italian have been found at Google - help discovering if they establish notability would be great and even better would be adding such verification to the article. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Billigen Kieker ("Das Bild Lebt!")

This is from the text of "Das Neue Reich"—an undated series (ca. 1935-38?) of 156 Nazi propaganda photos, 7.7 x 5.5 cm., distributed with cigarette packs of the brands Club, Liga, and Sanct Georg. For a surcharge of 75 Pf. the collector could buy an album for storing the photos at the tobacconist's, and for a mere 25 Pf. could purchase a "Billigen Kieker" that enlarged the photo 3.5x and produced a 3D effect. Near as I can figure out, it was like a cheap View-master (perhaps like the devices appearing on the Stereoscopy page?). I'm looking for confirmation and what to call it in an English-language translation. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it was called a "Billiger Kieker" ("Billigen Kieker" is accusative case), rather than a "Kieker" that is described as being "billig" (cheap)? "Kieker" sounds like it must come from "kieken", which is (at least) Berlin dialect (and maybe more general Low German, I don't know) for "look", so a Kieker is a looker or viewer. —Angr 14:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I quote:

• "Wir empfehlen, die Bilder mit dem >>Billigen Kieker<< zu betrachten, welcher 3 1/2 mal vergrössert und echte Fotos plastisch zeigt."

The printed text's quite clear; the card's in near mint condition, but I'm an archivist, not a collector. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

N.B. As for dialect (brace yourselves): I don't know proper German, but in Yiddish, biliker kuker (the latter in "Western Yiddish" i.e. in Germany and Austria, pronounced like the German Kieker) means "cheap viewing device." -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "billigen" isn't accusative after all, it's the weak form of the dative used after the dative definite article "dem". I think it's probably just a descriptive phrase "cheap viewer" rather than a special name for the device. According to LEO, Kieker can mean binoculars, spy glasses, or field glasses, and German Wikipedia (de:Kieker) also says it's a North German word for a telescope or binoculars. But since it literally just means "thing for looking (through)" I wouldn't be surprised if it also referred to a ViewMaster-like device. Here's an example of a viewing device for slides or negatives being called a "Kieker". I'd just translate it "cheap viewer". —Angr 14:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Angr that "cheap viewer" would be best. If you'd like to dig further, the pictures are called "Zigarettenbilder" [16] and the Kieker you'll probably find as a "Betrachter", "Raumbilderbetrachter" or "Stereobildbetrachter". Here's an older more elaborate one [17]. The one they describe was most likely cardboard. If you skim to item 11734 and click on the camera and through the "Bildergalerie" there's another one.[18] - 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better not to translate the "Billiger Kieker" at all (or to give the English meaning "cheap viewer" in a footnote and keep the German term in the text); I have never heard of that particular device, but from what you've told us, it sounds like "Billiger Kieker" is actually the product name (because the "Billig" is capitalized, and because the specifically say "der Billige Kieker", not just "ein billiger Kieker"). What they are trying to say with "Wir empfehlen etc" is not "Use any cheap junk to view our pictures" but "use our fine product CheapJunk(TM) to view our pictures". Just a guess, of course - I can't find a reference at the moment that "Billiger Kieker" is indeed the product name, but I'd be mightily surprised if it were otherwiese -- Ferkelparade π 10:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

With the caveat that I've never studied German though typed the query text verbatim from the source: is it signifcant that the first word is Billigen rather than Billige or Billiger as some responses (above) have stated? At the given price, the item may well have been of cardboard and designed for sole use with this collectible series. Note that the enhanced view was plastisch so perhaps my wording("3D") was misleading if merely "lifelike" was intended? Apropos the technology: each card had a single photo image, not a duo (as I've seen elsewhere). -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Numbers in a Sentence

First, my understanding of 'correct' English is that for values less than 10, you should use the corresponding words (one, two, three, etc.) and not the number (1, 2, 3, etc.). For values greater than or equal to ten, use the number (10, 11, 12, etc.). Second, my understanding is that you should not begin a sentence with a number (1, 2, 3, etc.). Instead you should use the corresponding word (One, Two, Three, etc.). Assuming the above is correct, what do you do in the following example: "Ten out of 11 of my pens are black.". Is that correct, or should it be "Ten out of eleven of my pens are black." or "10 out of 11 of my pens are black.". This is for a somewhat formal report. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style has a pretty good treatment of the topic here and here. To answer the question, your rule of thumb is a good one—single-digit numbers get spelled out—and eleven out of eleven copyeditors would make that "Ten out of eleven of my pens are black" after making sure you didn't mean "Ten out of my eleven pens are black." You try to maintain consistency within a sentence, going with numerals or letters all the way, if possible. There are exceptions to almost every rule, though, and the rules are different for different contexts. It's amazing how quickly you can get wrapped around the axle trying to keep it all straight. My advice is to get whatever stylebook your report should use and follow it. If you can use any stylebook, I recommend The Chicago Manual of Style ($55), which you can subscribe to on line ($30/yr). --Milkbreath (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many details of writing in English where multiple styles exist. Both the Wikipedia and the Chicago manuals of style exist for the purpose of recommending specific styles, and of you're happy to follow those recommendations that's fine. But it should be acknowledged that other styles may exist and may also be correct. In particular, in the writing of numbers, there tends to be a variation between technical and literary writing, with technical writing favoring the use of digits -- especially if the number comes from a count, measurement, or computation (like "10 out of 11") -- and literary writing favoring the use of words. General-purpose writing, like magazines, may fall in between. The original poster referred to a rule that the numbers you write in words are those less than 10: some who use such a rule set the cutoff larger, perhaps at 100, and the number on the boundary may go either way. So if this is for a formal report, it may matter what sort of report it is.

If you are following the rule about not starting sentences with a number written in digits -- again this is a stylistic choice -- and you find it produces something awkward, often the solution is to rearrange the sentence.

--Anonymous, 19:22 UTC, December 22, 2008.

This whole matter was hugely and wearyingly controversial at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM, many months ago. Yes, there are various standards and rules proposed by style guides; and no, we cannot settle the matter rationally at Wikipedia. Not as things stand. Usually a style guide delivers a simple guideline, such as: "Don't start a sentence with a number in figures; use words, or refashion the sentence". Well and good; but obtuse and inflexible. It is ridiculous to insist on this rigidly: it will often entrain other anomalies ruled against by other guidelines, and refashioning is not always available (when transcribing a speech, for example). Look at this:

• ... in the 19th century and earlier. 20th-century advances in engineering ...

There is nothing wrong with it, because the full stop cannot be misread as a decimal point or as anything else distracting. MOS says: "When the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth‑century painting, but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century". Why? Why ever nineteenth‑century painting? As one who has been a major contributor to MOS, I have argued against flagrant contempt for MOS and its editors (see this discussion); but here I aim simply to illustrate the difficulties of the task.

This too is to be judged perfectly sound, except in the windy assizes of pedantry:

• 58 of the 130 companies were insolvent within a year. 40 have now been wound up, and 18 are in the hands of receivers.

Rules of thumb, yes. But they are nothing more. Consistency is golden, so such blunt precepts deserve respect; but we need to fathom first their raisons d'être, and respond to them also.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

216.239.234.196, I was tempted to address you as "Two hundred sixteen, period, two hundred thirty-nine, etc." By setting off "correct," you gave me the impression you saw daylight between "correct" and "sensible," which is a good instinct when it comes to these things. I agree with Noetica about a pragmatic approach to rules of thumb. Writing "ten of the 11 edits are sheer gibberish," however accurate the opinion might be, will tend to imply that you're not able to look at a sentence in context. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 23

One name

Is there a word describing people like Madonna, Prince, Teller, who are known by 1 name? Nadando (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mononymous persons. Deor (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Awful" can mean "Chic"?

"I look awful, don't I?" [Charity] said at last with a happy sigh. ~Summer (novel), Chapter 9.

Charity is trying on a new hat and feels pretty. Why does she describe herself as "awful"? Was that slang for snazzy/pretty/chic at the time, or is Charity being sarcastic? 96.233.7.70 (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)WhartonFan

Lots of negative words are used to express positive notions. (e.g. We had a terribly good time. She was hauntingly beautiful.) Not knowing the character described in that book I can only guess that she might have been making a pun (awsome/awful), or trying to ape someone whose opinion of style she doesn't agree with. (Think of a "punk" teenager relaying her "Victorian" aunt's opinion of her.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Could it be tongue-in-chic? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the equivalent of today's "awesome". Look up "awful" in any dictionary. Its common use as "very bad" is a pejorative extension of its core meaning even now. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It could also be insecurity ("please tell me I look good"), a request for reassurance ("I'd like to do something different but I'm not sure this is it"), or fishing for complements ("convince me I look good"). When trying on outfits, you want something suitable. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

But you wouldn't say it "with a happy sigh" in those situations. —Angr 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because in that case she wouldn't heave a happy sigh, she'd make a moue. You're making me wheel out the big gun: The OED calls the meaning "Frightful, very ugly, monstrous" slang even now. The meaning intended is "Solemnly impressive; sublimely majestic". She is guilty of hyperbole, not sarcasm. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The OP doesn't say when the book was written, or more probably, set, but the moral that words change their meaning over the centuries, becoming, in effect, false friends, is a salutary one. The most famous use of "aweful" in this sense is the contested description of St Paul's Cathedral, often attributed to Queen Anne in 1710: "aweful, artificial, and amusing", or as we would say now, awe-inspiring, cleverly constructed, and pleasing to the eye. The quotation is probably an urban legend, with its bubble well pricked in this linguists' list. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A big part of language is that it is often a "secret code" used among members of a social group/tribe/clique/association/whatever. The use and understanding of the "correct" meaning of words indicates that you "belong" to the "club". It is a sign of membership in the clan to be able to speak the clan's language. Its not a conscious choice to create new language to fit a particular clan, but it is a natural part of the evolution of a clique. The whole idea behind using words in a different meaning is that it quickly identifies the outsiders from the insiders. If you don't understand what Charity is saying in the quote, or even if you kinda-sorta understand it, but it makes you feel a bit weird, like it doesn't quite work, it just means that you don't belong to the clan that Charity does... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin expert needed

Please review this edit at Carthago delenda est. It looks like it's been made by an expert, but sense and readability have been badly sacrificed, and there are some perplexing typos. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted, since I don't see any advantage to translating the Latin verb deleo as "to smite". In modern English, the word "smite" has strong associations with the God of the Old Testament (except of course for the derived form "smitten", which has developed its own specialized meaning, which is even more inappropriate as a translation of deleo). AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you translate into Latin "thank you AnonMoos"? --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A translation from Dutch

Can someone please help me with translating the following text from Dutch, please? I get the gist of it but I'm trying to translate the article, so I need to be as accurate as possible. Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 10:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mogelijk was Johann Georg Hiedler die in het Derde Rijk officieel voor de grootvader van de Führer doorging niet de biologische vader. Als mogelijke vader van Alois komt ook de broer van Johann Georg in aanmerking, namelijk Johann Nepomuk Hüttler die in Spital Nr.36 woonde en waar Alois Hitler werd grootgebracht.

Forget about that, after giving a good though to it, I've found out what everything means! Leptictidium (mt) 11:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How many languages do you need to know to be able to speak to 50% of the world?

The statistics on these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

are good, but I want to know is how many languages do you need to know to be able to speak to 50% of the world? or 60% etc. Because of the overlap (bilingual, multilingual) in the lists above, its hard to come up with an answer. - NominalActor (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot hinges on what you mean by "speak to." Take the "usual estimation" of 618 billion who speak English as a first or second language. Are you asking them where to wait for the bus, or trying to get your kitchen made over, or explaining collateralized debt obligations? For example, I may understand individual words like sill, header, sole, plate, stud, king, and jack, but I can't make sense of them in the context of building a wall, the way my brother-in-law the carpenter can. Yet I've been a native-speaker of English for quite a while. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

618 billion? Mr.K. (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I heartily concur, and would add the refinement that the ability to understand what people say back to you is another skill altogether. Those who are not used to foreign accents, let alone dialects, let alond wildly varying levels of competence, may be in for a shock, just because they can issue statements or orders and have them acquiesced to or obeyed. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By speak to, I mean basic talking and understanding, not specialist stuff, like carpentry or philosophy. I know that's an ambiguous definition, but I'm just looking for any figures from a good quality source. I don't want to get too bogged down with definitions. - NominalActor (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, this was just asked like a few weeks ago, see [19]. I'm not sure we came up with a definative answer, because of overlap in the statistics and such, but if you start with a world population of 6 billion and then add together the languages at the top of the list, you can get a rough idea. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe usage

Say I want to contract "It's okay" into "sokay" [deliberate sic]. Do I use two apostrophes ("''sokay), to compensate for the contraction of the apostrophe in "it's", or just one? This may seem a stupid question, but I'd like to know what the usage rules are with regard to apostrophe inclusion and omission. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Short answer—no. I think I can safely say that if you adopt as a fundamental rule "Never use two apostrophes one after the other," your life's journey will be smooth and unvexed. Deor (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)