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

November 15

What word means "cousin or sibling"

I'm looking for a single word that means "cousin or sibling". I can refer to all my brothers and sisters collectively as my siblings; how could I refer collectively to all my siblings and first cousins? 63.116.23.136 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, English has no such word. Do you have a reason for believing that such a word exists? --Trovatore (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Family? Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no reason to believe that such a word exists, but reason to use one if it does. I'm updating some software, the current version has a button "add siblings" which adds (to a list of files to process) files with the same parent directory. The user has requested an "add cousins" button that will add files with the same grandparent directory. What they really want is "add siblings and cousins" but that won't fit on the button, hence I'm looking for a single word descriptor. ("Add cousins" is wrong, because the desired functionality is cousins and siblings, not just cousins. Likewise the suggested "family" is not specific enough.) 63.116.23.136 (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you add a pull-down menu, from which you could choose:

Add family+Siblings

Or:

Add family+Cousins

StuRat (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You could make a case that collateral relative fits the bill. But I think I'd abandon the family metaphor for a concise description of what you actually want to do: add files to parent directory or higher. - Nunh-huh 05:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

---

63.116.23.136 -- Some languages with a "Hawaiian" system of kinship terminology have such a word, but English doesn't... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There isn't one single word in English for what you describe, but I can offer the phrase "generational cohort" for people of the same generation as you. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If forced to you could say my grandparent's grandchildren. There's probably a word cogenerationalist or the like somewhere in the anthropology literature. Or you could borrow a word from one of the languages that uses the Hawaiian system. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The general word for "relations of any kind" is "kin." Collect (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

IPA vowels and consonants

Where can I find a list of the IPA's vowels and consonants- with the records of the pronunciations? I would like to understand two IPA's forms that are shown in this page. Thank you for the help. 5.28.173.168 (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Try our own IPA pulmonic consonant chart with audio and IPA vowel chart with audio (although I'm not certain all recordings are absolutely precise, they ought to be good enough for a first rough orientation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.yorku.ca/earmstro/ipa/ --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that link (although I think the [e, ɛ, o, ɔ] entries are decidedly more close than in an authoritative IPA recording I once heard). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still unable to recognize these two symbols in the site that mention above. Thank you for the help 5.28.173.168 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Which ones do you mean, "ð" and "ə"? The first is the voiced interdental fricative, the second is the schwa. You'll find phonetic descriptions and sound samples in these two articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are. So, what that page says is that there are two pronunciations of the article "THE" depending of beginning of the word? (the & tha)5.28.173.168 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It says that the two pronunciations, in normal discourse, are "thuh" and "thee" (with th indicating voiced "th" and ee indicating a short or "clipped" ee sound). The pronunciation "thee" with a full or long ee sound is normally used only when the word is being specially emphasized, as in "Your name may be Mario Lanza, but you're not the Mario Lanza". Deor (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I've got it. Can you please tell me what are the other two symbols there in the same table of fingers? (j&^)5.28.173.168 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What the page linked to actually says is that the is pronounced [ðə] (= "thuh") before a consonant sound and [ði] (= "thee") before a vowel sound. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The 'j' is IPA for a palatal approximant, the sound which is usually written 'y' in English (as in 'yacht', 'yoke'). (The letter 'j' was chosen because that is the sound of that letter in German, and in pretty well all European languages that use the Roman alphabet, apart from French and languages further West). The 'ʌ' represents an open-mid back unrounded vowel, which is used in many (but not all) accents of English for words like 'sun' and 'button'. The article is distinguishing the two common pronunciations of the letter 'u': /ju/, as in 'unit', and /ʌ/ as in 'under', because the first of these starts with a semivowel, and so 'the' behaves as for a consonant-initial word. --ColinFine (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Now it's clear. Thank you a lot! 213.57.96.70 (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Name of literary device

Resolved

There's a device in which … well, rather than explaining it, how about I just give 2 examples:

• To tell the story of [Samuel Taylor] Coleridge without opium is to tell the story of Hamlet without the ghost (Sir Leslie Stephen)

• To have published an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would have been like publishing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera (The Times, obituary of Driberg)

Is there a name for this, apart from, perhaps, analogy? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Just simple parallel construction quite akin to "A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine." It is a variant of Simile q.v. and, to the best of my knowledge, has no separate name given by pedants. Collect (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Arabic help requested

• 1. How do you type the Arabic text seen here? File:Alhoudderborn.JPG -- Is it "أسواق و ملحمة الهدى" ?
• 2. How do you type the Arabic text in File:Dearborn Mosque Michigan.JPG
• 3. How do you type the Arabic text in File:شارع وورن في ديربورن.jpg?
• 4. How do you say "Gay people in the Syrian war" and "Here is an article on gay people suffering in the Syrian war" in Arabic?

For 4. I am making a post at ar:ويكيبيديا:مشروع ويكي الوطن العربي (talkpage of the WikiProject Syria at the Arabic Wikipedia) - An English post I made was removed so I am asking for Arabic help so the post will be in Arabic. The post said:

"Gay people in the Syrian war Here is an article on gay people suffering in the Syrian war.

• Smith, Hannah Lucinda. "How Jihadists Are Blackmailing, Torturing, and Killing Gay Syrians." (Archive) Vice.

Please use it as a source"

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There's actually an "embassy" forum page for non-Arabic speakers on the Arabic Wikipedia (though it was unable to offer any useful help when what I thought was a very straightforward and simple edit apparently got caught up in a minor backwater of the sometimes very strange internal politics over there)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I do use the embassy page to post translation requests. However, I would like to get information about this article into the Wikiproject for Syria over there. I posted this article in the relevant projects in the English Wikipedia. Anyway what internal politics do you find to be strange in there?WhisperToMe (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

My knowledge of Arabic is really not good enough for me to be able to understand the details, but as of a few years ago, it certainly seemed that some people were able to cause information that they considered religiously or politically sensitive to be deemphasized, not by means of crude edit wars, but by means of a kind of subtle web of quasi-intimidation and skewed expectations. Even though my ability to conduct discussions in Arabic is extremely rudimentary at best, at certain points it seemed to depend on me to prevent ثالوث from being absurdly shunted off to تثليث (مسيحية) (while ثالوث was filled with material on tritheism), or being overwhelmed with stuff on لاثالوثية... Anyway, part of the reason why I started doing a little editing on Arabic Wikipedia was that its article coverage of national flags was quite fragmentary for a long time, and part of the reason why I stopped was that I couldn't find an Arabic translation of "naval jack" no matter how big the dictionary I looked in... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't help for number 4, but for the signs:

1. "أسواق و ملحمة الهدى" ("Al-Houda markets and meat store")

2. "الجمعية الاسلامية الامريكية - مسجد ديربورن" ("American Islamic Society - Dearborn Mosque")

3. " مطعم ﺁلشباب" (same, "Al-Chabaab Restaurant"), then underneath that "ملك الطبخ و المشاوي البلدي و الفروج" (which looks like "king of cooking..." but it probably means "cooked goods, country-style barbecue and chicken"). In the windows it says "الكباب الحلبي" ("Aleppo-style kebab") and "اشهي و اطيب الكباب والماكولات السورية والحلبية" ("best and most delicious Syrian and Aleppan kebabs and food"). The billboard says "اسواق السلام" (same as the English, or "Salaam markets"). The other store says "الشرق الاوسط الحوالات المالية", same as the English, "Middle East Financial Services". There is also another sign further down the street on the opposite side, " ملحمة و مسمكة نور الزهراء", also the same as the English, "Noor al-Zahraa Fish and Meat Market" (although it actually says "meat and fish market" in Arabic). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am adding the 3. stuff as annotations. Do you know what the Arabic would be for:

• "Shish kebab"
• "Open" (meaning the business is open)
• "Sheep Head Neefa"
• "Kibbeh Bil-Siniye"

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully a native speaker (or at least someone with much better Arabic than me) can confirm or correct, but shish kebab is "شيش كباب" and kibbeh bil-siniye is "الكبة بالصينية". I think sheep head neefa is "الراس النيفة". I'm not sure what "open" is in this context (just "مفتوح"?) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Neefa and Sheep head are two different dishes. Neefa being brisket of a sheep, sheep head being just that. Rmhermen (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 16

Another question about pronouns

After reading this question, I got to thinking about a recent issue of the Transformers: Regeneration One comic book where Spike Witwicky says to his girlfriend: "We'll make it. Us Witwickys always do." Isn't this an example of the same phenomenon as in the question I linked to? Could this be considered in anyway grammatically correct? I think it should be: "We'll make it. We Witwickys always do." Or if this is indeed the direction the English language is going in, will it some day be written as: "Us'll make it. Us Witwickys always do."? JIP | Talk 13:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they thought "we witwickys" sounded a bit silly. Back in the 1960s when cigarettes were still allowed to be advertised, there was a minor stir caused by slogans such as "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" and "Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So is this somehow specific to having a descriptive noun/name after the subject? I don't think anyone would say "Us Tareyton smokers, us would rather fight than switch." but rather "Us Tareyton smokers, we would rather fight than switch." But what are the grammatical rules here? JIP | Talk 14:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the colloquial usage of the objective pronoun is intended (originally) to be a shortening of "I'm talking about (pronoun in objective case), (pronoun in subjective case) ...". For example, in my local dialect, I might say "Me and her, we ...". Perhaps someone can confirm my theory (or it shoot down, as appropriate)? Dbfirs 15:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Take the witwickys out of the sentence and it reads "Us always do". Obviously not. "Us" is an object pronoun. "We" is a subject pronoun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Again, this is the disjunctive pronoun use. The english "I, the king, command you" would be "Moi, le roi t'ordonne". (Unfortunately there's no we/us example in French, since both forms are "nous".) μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, it is one of the edge cases where the prestige rule ("We Witickys") clashes with the normal ("Us Witickys"), but isn't common enough that the prestige usage is established in most people's minds, so people get uncomfortable either way. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The usage that really grinds my gears is "That sort of thing doesn't cut any ice with we Smiths" (or whomever). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of hypercorrection seems to be getting more common (or is it just that I'm noticing it more?), even on BBC Radio 4. I once heard an extreme case: "[something of] Sheila and I's". Dbfirs 23:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that construction too. A church organist I know once received a thank-you card from a bridegroom saying "Thank you for playing for Heather and I's wedding". Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So what would be the correct usage here? I don't think it would be "Heather and me's wedding". Would it be "Heather's and my wedding"? "Heather and my wedding" would sound a little strange. In Finnish the equivalent phrase would naturally be "Heatherin ja minun häissä" with both Heather and minä "I" in the genitive case, with the -n ending. JIP | Talk 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You do realize minun and mine, along with Mongoliam маань and Turkish benim < mäniŋ P 192 are cognates. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hence, "Heather's and mine wedding" could be good Turkish or Mongol. Not such good English, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Heather's and my. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mine and Heather's. "Thank you for playing at Heather's wedding and mine." Not "Thank you for playing at Heather's wedding and my." μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure User:Baseball Bugs meant "Heather's and my wedding". JIP | Talk 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I am too. But "Heather's" is a noun, and "my" is called a pronoun, but is effectively an adjective, or better, a determiner. The terms aren't parallel. You would say "the wedding is Heather's" and "The wedding is mine." You wouldn't say "The wedding is my." You could name a boat "Mine and Heather's" You'd be a barbarian if you called it "Heather's and My". So, either one says "Mine and Heather's wedding", or "Heather's wedding and mine". μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Heather's" and "my" are certainly parallel in construction. There's no reason why "Heather's and my wedding" should be logically wrong, and even if it were, I think a majority of native speakers would accept it as grammatical, which is all that really matters. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If the terms are parallel, then why is "The book is Heather's" okay, while "The book is my" is not? Of course all sorts of people say all sorts of nonsense. But if we're to accept whatever is used, why shouldn't the "used" construction "Heather and I's wedding" also be accepted as vox vulgarium. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: see here for an argument that possessive pronouns like "my" are in the Spec of DP, just like possessive nouns like "Heather's". Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Er, what? There's nothing wrong with "Thank you for playing for Heather's and my wedding". But there is definitely something wrong with "Thank you for playing for mine and Heather's wedding". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume that bald assertion is a result of an exclusive diet of eucalyptus leaves, Jack. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I have not yet become a koala. To answer the question "Whose wedding was it?", responses could include (a) "It was Heather's and mine", (b) "It was Heather's and my wedding", and (c) "It was Heather's wedding and mine". But not (d) "It was mine and Heather's wedding", because that is short for "... mine wedding and Heather's wedding". Only mine host might be tempted to say that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's curious whether wombats also eat eucalyptus. But your paraphrase is wrong. The expansion is, "it was mine, and it was Heather's wedding", not "it was my, and it was Heather's wedding". "It was my" is not a full sentence, like "it was Heather's wedding" is. But "It was mine" is indeed a full sentence. Sic phascolarcto dictum est. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I question your strawman-like expansion. How about "It was my wedding and Heather's wedding"? Why does that have be reduced to "It was mine and Heather's wedding" and only that? Would you support "It was her and his wedding", or would you insist on "It was hers and his wedding"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Heather's" is a possessive noun and "my" is a possessive subject pronoun. "Mine" is a possessive object pronoun. And, yes, "Heather's and my wedding". Or to keep it simple, "our wedding." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Possessive subject pronoun Possessive object pronoun? μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problem. They're nouns acting like adjectives. Heather's wedding. My wedding. But not "mine" wedding. Unless you're speaking German or being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the proper proper parallel is "Heather's wedding" and "mine". One can say "Here are pictures of Heather's wedding and mine." One cannot say "Here are pictures of Heather's wedding and my", nor can one say, "The wedding was Heather's, and it was my." μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Heather's wedding and mine" sounds like two different weddings. "Heather's wedding" + "my wedding" = "Heather's and my wedding." Or just "our" wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you meant two different weddings, you'd say, "At mine and Heather's weddings." μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It still doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to recast completely. Heather and I thank you for playing at our wedding. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, with your incessant reasonableness. Now if only I knew whether you are, or are addressing Judith. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

rasafrats

My whole life, (and I am 59) my Dad has used the word "rasafrats" as his go-to word instead of cussing. I looked on the WWW but only found a few references using it the way he did. I am just curious to know if it ever was a word, and if it wasn't, it should be. I never once heard my Dad cuss. He used another word, that I was sure he made up, and it was spizzerinctum. It turns out to be a good word. Thanks. My Dad is dying, and I am thinking a lot about him. He is a great and Godly man. Thanks for your kind attention to this. Jan Kelleher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.92.42 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've heard it before. I think the idea is when somebody mumbles swear words, it sounds something like that. Also, it sounds something like Jehosaphat, which has been used in the same role.StuRat (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Is God really going to think more kindly of someone who says something that sounds like swearing, fills the linguistic place of swearing, but isn't? I seriously doubt if he could be bothered. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The prohibition against swearing is a prohibition against testifying while swearing by God. One is supposed to be honest, and not need to invoke God's name--otherwise one is being dishonest, or using the Lord's name in vain--i.e., lying while sworn to God not to lie.

As for ratsafrats, some version of that is used in Looney Toons cartoons; Sylvester and Tweety I suspect. I couldn't find a relevant link at google r youtube, though. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

— Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 5:33–37

That seems pretty explicit to me — do not swear at all. That's the reason, if I understand correctly, that the US constitution always says things like "swear or affirm", which to me seems like a cheap way out, frankly. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but where I do agree with Medeis here is that the prohibition has nothing to do with taboo language per se. If "rasafrats" is a minced version of, I don't know, "ass farts" or something, that's not "swearing" in the sense the Bible talks about. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me. It's not like I said, "then Jesus said, swear instead by the great hypnotoad". (My comment was made in the context of clarifying to HiLO, who said God wouldn't be fooled by disguised vulgarities, that the issue was one of oaths, not using vulgar words.) I said one was (simply) supposed to be honest. There are plenty of examples of this, such as in Jeremaiah, where the Lord tells the prophet, "There's not a man who says, 'as God lives', who isn't lying." μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I read too fast — somehow I read "testifying" as "lying", probably conditioned by your second sentence. But I don't quite buy your explanation in your second sentence. As I read the passage, I don't see where Jesus is saying that swearing is necessarily lying, just that it's unnecessary puffery that an honest person doesn't need.

You have to take what he is saying in context of prior teaching, like the quote from Jeremaiah that there's not a man who swears "as god lives" who isn't lying. If people didn't lie they would need oaths to get others to believe them. Jesus is saying be as good as your word. He's not just warning against puffery. :) μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, George Fox took this injunction especially seriously. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The prohibition against swearing on Wikipedia has nothing to do with "testifying while swearing by God". HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You were the one who brought up God, not wikipedia. You are terminally unserious. You might want to have a specialist check that out before it's too late. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The first mention of God here is in the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Nor does a bleep censor have anything to do with it, or the cartoon producers' choice not to have Yosemite Sam speak like the characters in Deadwood. They're all just different forms of self-censorship, for whatever reason, and none of this is answering Jan's question. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's often spelled "rassa frassa" or "rassum frassum" or "razza frazza" or ... I haven't found a definite spelling, but you find all sorts of cartoon references. From Looney Tunes' Yosemite Sam to Hanna-Barbera's Muttley, and beyond. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Our Muttley article quotes him saying; "Rashin' fashin' Rick Rastardly!". Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The classic WB cartoons occasionally had the characters mouthing genuine profanities, silently of course, or drowned out by other sounds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It sounds similar to one of my mother's exclamations of frustration, razzlefats, but in her case it's actually part of a language game where you insert the syllable [zl̩f] into each vowel, so that rats becomes razzlefats. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that game, but I like it. It would turn me into Sluzzefuzzezzefelizzefin. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as Medeis points out, that verse has nothing to do with swearing (cussing). But that isn't the verse most Christians point to when explaining why they don't cuss. Those verses are found in Ephesians; usually 4:29, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." and 5:4 "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking...". Some also will quote Colossians 3:8 "But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 09:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well done. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

November 17

Russian-to-English translation

What is an English translation of the paragraph beginning with the words "Обширные пахотные территории" at http://www.russkie.org/index.php?module=fullitem&id=30822? I am interested in using it to expand the article "Toxic 100". To avoid copyright problems, I refrained from copying the entire paragraph.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC) and 00:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My Russian is very, very poor, but from what I can understand it points out that DuPont, which is investing in agriculture in the Ukraine, is listed as number four on the Political Economy Research Institute's list of the Toxic 100. Maybe mentioning Lüboslóv Yęzýkin would get the attention of a person capable of a complete translation.  :) --William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw the topic but was doing some other stuff. I'll try to do the translation a little later if somebody does not do it before me.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The vast arable territories not yet leased to the Chinese will become the territory for cultivation of necessary "European" cultures, as experts say, these will be rape, sunflower, maize which quickly impoverish the soil. The experience of investments by Western companies into Ukraine only approves this, money is being invested into production of harmful GMO-plants, for example a campaign is being actively expanded by DuPo, which is in the 4th place of "Toxic 100", the rating of the most environmental unfriendly companies in the USA made by the Political Economy Research Institute. Not to mention the alcohol and tobacco production, the quality of the latter bewilders even omnivorous heavy-smokers.

You owe me 10 bucks! :)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Большое спасибо! (Thank you very much!) I have expanded the article with information from your translation. Maybe in the future I will be proficient enough in Russian to translate such material myself.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dao lo lai le in Putonghua

What exactly would Dao lo lai le mean? My family is on good relations (30 years) with the proprietors of the local Chinese restaurant. I taught him to say Gwei lo lai le. when he enters the restaurant, that it would make them laugh, which it has, many times. This weekend they said he should say Dao lo lai le instead. Can someone give the proper tones? The proper ideograms? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Which romanization system are you using? I only know Pinyin, but by comparing the two phrases you gave, the second one is almost certainly 大佬来了 (da4 lao3 lai2 le1 in Pinyin). 大佬 is a very colloquial word meaning "big shot", "gangster", etc.

As an aside, Gweilo is more Cantonese than Putonghua, even though most Mandarin speakers will understand it. In Putonghua we usually say 老外 as a friendly term, and 鬼子 or 洋鬼 as a racial slur (similar to "nigger" but not quite as negative). --Bowlhover (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, she (the owner) told him it meant "big boss" or "gangster". I was there, and heard the translation, but didn't want to prejudice the result here by giving what she had said. The full story is that I suggested over the summer that my dad announce "Gweilo lai le" when he went to pick up the take out. I told him the meaning, and the proprietors thought it was very funny. They told him they spoke Mandarin, and told him that they said "Gwei lao", not "Gwei lo". I suspect this may be the result of a dialect, I do not know where they come from, and maybe you can comment? This last weekend we went out, and it has gotten to the point that they are disappointed if he doesn't say something in Mandarin. But when he said "Gwei lao lai le" this time they suggested he should say "Dao lo lai le"--"not "da lao", unless I am losing it--and told him it means "big boss" or "gangster". In English one would spell it "Dow low lye luh", in case you doubt my attempted Pinyin. This is very interesting, does it sound like they are maybe speaking some non-standard dialect? (I have said "Ni men hao ma? and Putonghua to them before and been undertood perfectly.) μηδείς (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. The standard Mandarin pronunciation of 鬼佬 is guǐ lǎo, which matches with what the proprietor said. But 大佬 shares the second character with gui lao, yet she pronounced it differently? Did you manage to catch the tones? There might be some dialect in which that's the case (almost every city has its pronunciation quirks), but I'm not at all familiar with dialects. Hopefully someone who grew up in China can comment, or failing that, you can ask on the Chinese reference desk. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, she did say that gweilo in Mandarin was pronounced differently, ending in lao. When you said the term was Da lao, I suspected the second syllable was the same as in gwi lao. I suspect they are mixing Cantonese and perhaps another dialect with Mandarin. Is it possible dao lo is the Cantonese version of da lao?

When I asked, the owner said they spoke Mandarin, and I have heard her say "medeis lai le" to the kitchen when I have gone to pick up things and they weren't ready yet. I have not asked where they are from, or what other dialects they speak. They have been in the US since quite a bit before Tiananmen Square, and the subject seems indelicate.

As for tones, I am useless. I can mimic a phrase when I hear it, but I can't retain the tomes in memory or discriminate contrasts. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Lament of the Negligent Librarian: "I can't retain the tomes". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comma-n situation

Should one use two commas or one in something like "For example, in the article[,] the writer discusses ..."? I see it frequently with just one, but it doesn't really seem quite right to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fowler would agree with you - see here. Tevildo (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (although I may need a translator to figure out what he's saying). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• "For example" itself is set off by commas. It is not seen in the example CF gives, since there are no initial commas. But: One has to be conscious of the tension between adherence to style and adherence to meaning. Translators, for example, in translating the Bible, tend to use far less poetic license than they might with other texts. Of course one might reword that to avoid s many commas, but as written it is correct. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinese help: Xidan Primary School

At http://archive.is/pNVJd I want to make sure it is saying:

• Predecessor was a private school, Jiemin Primary School
• Given to municipal control in 1953
• Not sure what happened in 1958 (merger between two schools?)
• Given current name in August 2002

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes
• More precisely to the Ministry of Education. I don't know if it's municipal.
• Merger between 3 schools: Jiemin, 西单头条 primary school, and 白庙 primary school
• Yes --Bowlhover (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

French subjunctive

Bonjour à tous,

Why is the subjunctive used in the phrases "Maudite soit la guerre" and (in a scientific context) "on obtient r=3/2c, soit 3/2 avec c=1"? They don't seem to follow the typical usage pattern of placing a subjective after que, expressing doubt/emotion. Thanks!--Bowlhover (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There are probably grammar sites that explain it better, but for starters, this is from French Wikipedia's article on Subjonctif:

"Le subjonctif non précédé de que existe :

• des expressions consacrées : Vive le Roi ! ou Vivent les mariés !
• en mathématiques : Soient deux droites AB et CD…
• dans le style littéraire : Passent les jours, les années, ce souvenir ne s’effacera jamais.
• ou bien dans Sauve qui peut !
• en langue soutenue, il existe un emploi atypique du subjonctif pour le verbe savoir à la forme négative : Je ne sache pas qu'il en soit ainsi. Il exprime alors une affirmation atténuée."

---Sluzzelin talk 06:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Effectively it's a third-person imperative in the maudite phrase, which is expressed in the subjunctive in French. The French subjunctive is often translated as "may he verb" in English. I am confused by the intended meaning of the scientific expression. μηδείς (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In the scientific expressiom it just means "that is", like it's explaining the previous statement. That is a pretty normal usage, and although it is literally subjunctive, I bet a typical French person would not even recognize it as such. If you use two of them in sequence (like "soit l'un soit l'autre"), it also means "either...or". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We could translate the maths sentence: "we obtain r=3/2, which would be 3/2 if c=1". The subjunctive goes with the idea that c is not always one. In a non-maths context you could have "on visite toujours la capitale, soit Londres dans le cas de Grande Bretagne"; "we always visit the capital, which would be London in the case of Great Britain". I'm not sure if I can find a parallel with a verb other than être. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

November 18

Movies for Movie Lovers, Music for Music Lovers

Hello. I'm pretty certain there is a word for a piece of art (movie, music, novel, etc) that only appeals to people that already are very familiar with the genre and know how to appreciate it. For instance, casual movie goers probably won't like a film that is all style over plot, but kids who know about camera angles and directing, etc will find it interesting. Is there a word for this in general or a word for one of the specific genres? Thanks! 74.69.117.101 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is such a concept. Various types of jazz and classical music are described as music for musicians. This is mention in Ken Burns's Jazz series. The word esoteric applies in a broad sense. Hopefully someone can come up with a term specifically art-related. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

See cinephilia and audiophile. uhhlive (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In music there are things like chromaticism and modernism (music) where composers, conscious of music theory, purposefully break the rules of harmonic and melodic composition; for instance, insisting on using all twelve notes in the scale just once before repeating any of them. This will be interesting in an abstract sense to other musicians, while appearing ugly, or as noise to non-musicians. Maybe User:JackofOz can help here? μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The people to whom this would appeal might be termed cognoscenti (which redirects to expert, which is not really the same thing). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

How and when did "regular" come to mean "frequent"?

Someone just wrote on another Talk page "Interplanetary probes from the major space agencies are becoming more regular." I'm pretty sure they meant "more frequent". After all, "more regular" could mean "precisely every 20 years". And that's obviously not the case.

How and when did "regular" come to mean "frequent"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

By US law, February 17th, 1973. [1]. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it's only in the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The OED has for meaning 3g of "regular": "Recurring or taking place frequently (although not at fixed times or uniform intervals); characterized by recurrence of this sort", with citations from 1824. The meaning is not marked as specifically US, but most of the citations are American. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You may find EO's take on it interesting.[2] It ties to a pattern, as in "at regular intervals". Presumably those regular intervals are implicitly at a normal human scale. The procession of the equinoxes occurs about every 23,000 years, which is certainly both "regular" and "frequent" on the geological scale, but not so much on the human scale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A simple search at google for "define regular" gives frequent as the second sense. It doesn't give a date, or its own source beyond Google's own oracular powers. The semantic development itself is obvious. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Regular is a particularly egregious example of a word that's acquired various other senses that have become almost but not quite "correct", and need to be avoided in careful writing. "Frequent" is one; "ordinary" or "unremarkable" is another.

By etymology, something is "regular" if it corresponds to a rule; thus, a regular expression is a rule defining a class of strings, not an expression that fails to be noteworthy. A regular verb is not the same thing as a weak verb. --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is by no means egregious or not "correct", in the sense that a large number of speakers would recognize the word in the sense that it is being used by the speaker; in the sense that if a speaker used the word "regular" to mean "at a repeated interval", an extremely large number of speakers would fully recognize that as a comfortable and perfectly acceptable use of the word. No other meaning of "correct" is necessary here. --Jayron32 02:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that isn't sufficient; there are different rules for speech and careful writing, and indeed there should be. Now, the meaning you speak of above is perfectly acceptable even in the most formal writing, but the meaning "ordinary or unremarkable" is less so. --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't sufficient, then why is it you don't demand that anyone who isn't speaking Old English is egregious in their incorrectness? If language is not supposed to change at all, if words cannot acquire new meanings, then why are you speaking differently than people did thousands of years ago? --Jayron32 03:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said it can't acquire new meanings! Someday the "unremarkable" meaning may be fine. Right now, it's autological in casual speech, but not quite desirable in precise writing. --Trovatore (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they're good responses folks. Thanks. But the problem I see is that a repeated event can be quite regular, i.e. quite frequent, yet not at all regular, as in the sense of at a steady rate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a joke from (I think) Carry On Nurse - "Are you regular?" "Yes, twice a week, regular as clockwork." Tevildo (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Regular is a relative term. If something happens once a week, it happens regularly weekly, if not always Mondays at noon. μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The word "regular" differs in meaning from the word "frequent", and the word "normal" differs in meaning from the word "common". Someone who uses a word incorrectly might be corrected by someone who knows the difference and who might at first misunderstand a statement with a misused word. Also, people who associate frequently with misinformed people are apt to acquire misinformation.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The level of the wise man's discourse rises to the occasion. Only fools dress up to brush their teeth. I am a pedant, but only during pedanting hours. Tolkien was man of great lore and subtle humour. There is a reason why this is funny.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In English and many other languages, regular verbs tend to be infrequent verbs and irregular verbs tend to be frequent verbs.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC) and 20:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 19

Placement of adverbs in transitive-verb, English clauses. (By Mood.)

Hello, again!

I recently found myself thumbing through some tips on writing from usage commentator Wilson Follett, and something caught my eye. Namely, he states that—in order to produce a neat, writing style—one must place adverbs in between the various, auxiliary verbs in a transitive clause, and that many people misappropriate the rule on "splitting infinitives" to mean that a chain of auxiliary verbs may also not be split. Mr. Follett then goes on to describe the results of this usage as "uniformly bad."

To wit:

Present Indicative

Wrong:	It long had been known.
Right:	It had long been known.

collapse long set of examples
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Past Indicative Wrong: It officially was announced the other day. Right: It was officially announced the other day. Present Interrogative Wrong: Do they always be racing up the street? Right: Are they always racing up the street? Past Interrogative Wrong: Did she ever have been doing so poorly, before? Right: Had she ever been doing so poorly, before? Past Subjunctive Wrong: I wish that they quickly had finished their homework. Right: I wish that they had quickly finished their homework. When it comes to all indicative and interrogative constructions (as well as the past subjunctive), I agree wholeheartedly with this advice.

When it comes to the present subjunctive, though, methinks that Mr. Follett erred. In my personal writing style, I never split the auxiliaries whenever utilizing the subjunctive mood in the present tense.

e.g.:

· It remained critical that the conveyor belt not have stopped before production had finished. · Medical science demanded that doctors constantly be learning as they practiced.

Now, if someone followed Follett's advice unequivocally, then he would instead get this:

· It remained critical that the conveyor belt have not stopped before production had finished. · Medical science demanded that doctors be constantly learning as they practiced.

My question is simple: Which of the two forms above (for the present subjunctive, only) would you consider more proper?

--Thank You! Pine (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say you are correct, except that the present subjunctive with "to be" is perhaps a special case; "not have stopped" is preferable to "have not stopped", but "constantly be learning" and "be constantly learning" are both correct (in fact, I would prefer the latter, personally). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your "present subjunctive" forms are actually ambiguous as to structure: they could have finite subjunctive verbs, but they can also be read as having non-finite clauses ("be" and "have" as infinitives), and this has a bearing on the question, because the adverb is more fluid with an infinitive. If the verb is taken as finite, then "be constantly learning" is normal, as in the other cases (and for myself, I find this form preferable, though I find both to be stilted). In preferring "constantly be learning", I think you are taking the "be" to be infinitive. This is even more clear cut for "not": "not" is not an adverb, and has its own syntax different from every other word in the language. It must follow a finite verb (though this is archaic except for auxiliaries, eg "do not") and must precede an infinite verb (eg "not do"). "Not have stopped" is the inifinite "have". "Have not stopped" would indeed be the (moribund) present subjunctive, which reads very oddly because it does not match the past tense of the matrix clause. --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a much better explanation than what I was thinking! Adam Bishop (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• The question alone is over a page long. I have collapsed some of the side examples, which people can look at if they want, in order to prevent the need for endless scrolling here. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Lip reading and tonal languages

Can (totally) deaf people in societies with tonal languages (contour tones like Chinese, Thai, etc) able to understand others speaking said languages by reading lips?--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/message-details1.cfm?asklingid=200338091.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort, that link is only a restatement of my question, no answers were given. I have already done a Google search and cursory Google Scholar search to no avail.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on lip reading. I only skimmed the article, but it does not indicate that lip reading is especially difficult in Chinese. In fact, there is a lot of ambiguity in lip reading even non-tonal languages such as English. In Mandarin and most, if not all, tonal languages, tones are somewhat redundant to the meaning at the utterance (as opposed to the word) level due to context. There are cases where tone is distinctive within an utterance, but most utterances do not depend on tonality for comprehension. Even in those cases, facial expression will help resolve ambiguity, for example, between 他在哪儿？ (Tā zài nǎr; Where is he?) and 他在那儿。 （Tā zài nàr; He is there). While lip reading might be more challenging in some tonal languages than in non-tonal languages, it is apparently useful enough to be known in Mandarin. Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Marco is right. I taught deaf children in Japan (not really a tonal language), but I had to learn Japanese Sign Language. The thing is, people with hard of hearing (PC for deaf) will look at your body language, rather than just lip reading, especially with people who have been deaf since they were born. It's all about context. "This is your milk" can be easily rendered by pointing at the milk, and pointing at the person, for example. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, but harder than in English. Try understanding this sentence without tones:

Yi da li de liang ge zu qiu ju le bu gong tong yong you yi ming qiu yuan de suo you quan bei cheng wei she me?

A few people on this forum say they know how to lip-read in Chinese, or that they know people who know how to lip read. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 20

Non-multigraphs

I encountered the term "Multigraph (orthography)" today for the first time, along with its collateral meanings such as Digraph (orthography) and Trigraph (orthography). Is there any "official" or standard term for a set of letters that function independently in a specific word, even though they're normally used as a multigraph? In English, such situations typically arise with compound words. An example is ⟨th⟩, which typically has the function of þ or ð, the voiceless or voiced dental fricative, but when used in "courthouse", the two letters function independently. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a direct answer to your question, but some orthographies have special devices to distinguish such cases -- in Catalan, "l·l" is quite different from "ll", while in Swahili, ng' with following apostrophe is different from "ng", etc... AnonMoos (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the meaning of following sentence?

"He had to accept defeat in his brother's favour." Can it mean that the person accepted defeat for his brother's sake? 14.139.82.7 (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

The way I interpret it is that his brother is the one who beat him, but it's so oddly phrased, I'm not 100% certain. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Give us the paragraph around it, and it might be easier to figure out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both of you for your responses. In the context its meaning is exactly what Clarityfiend proposed. I just wanted to know whether it could mean anything else in isolation or not. 14.139.82.7 (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

Sure, why not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The first word with the meaning "word" written

In which language was the first word with the meaning "word" written? Tried to find that without success. Hornblower (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Cuneiform was probably the first form of writing to develop, so assuming the concept of "word" existed, probably Sumerian or something else from early Mesopotamia. Rojomoke (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that "word" has a number of different meanings, as does its equivalent in other languages (consider "the word of God"). The meaning "An element or unit of speech", which is what I guess you mean, appears in the OED entry on "word" as meaning 12. I suspect that this meaning arose later than other meanings, and it is possible that Sumerian, for example, had not word for "word" in this sense. --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• The answer is easily Sumerian, which has the word inim "word". You'd have to get the appropriate volume of the Sumerian Dictionary of the University of Pennsylvania Museum to find the word's attestations. In many languages the word word evolves from either name > "noun", or call/command > "verb" (from PIE *wer-). μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this book, the notion that "inim" means "word" is mistaken. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No analysis is given there, just the bald assertion. Halloran gives more than half a dozen compounds from inim with the sense "word, thing spoken" http://www.sumerian.org/sumerlex.htm. There are plenty of other sources, such as this UPenn site and other Sumerian terms for word or thing spoken.. Given exact one-to-one correspondences do not exist (compare word to Fr, parole, or wesiZulu igama "name, word") I fail to see the exact point of the objection. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 21

Copy Editing Guidelines

I wanted to know the basic copyediting guidelines which will make my article stronger without any grammer mistakes. I want to know what punctuations to use, where and when. What small mistakes can be avoided and make the article a good copy which can be published.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.115.222.123 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a web link to the "General Writing" page Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL).Consider subscribing to the highly active Copyediting List ("CE-L") online forum of English-language editors, where you can lurk and also ask particular queries. Note that copy editing basically covers correct word usage, spelling, and grammar at the sentence level. Unless you're talking about self-publishing, a publisher will generally employ a proofreader to catch typos, punctuation and capitalization, etc. and correct these before the material goes to press. However, the matter of "good copy" that's suitable for publishing may require general editing and even rewriting. For this, I highly recommend a book by William Zinsser,On Writing Well, that deals with non-fiction, especially magazine articles. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Diabetes

How does the humorous pronunciation "diabeetus" differ from the regular pronunciation of "diabetes"? --Komischn (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The other pronunciation is "diabeeteez". But "diabeetus" is also a regular pronunciation, it's not meant to be humourous. I'm not sure why it is seen that way...maybe because that's how Wilford Brimley says it, and he's a funny guy? Pauline Chan, a health reporter for CTV in Canada, also says it like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Know Your Meme discusses it here. Dismas|^(talk) 11:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguously parsed sentence

There is a well-known Finnish poem starting with:

Olen unessa useasti sinun kaduillas', koulutie

meaning literally "I am in my sleep often on your streets, school-way". The intended meaning is "I often dream of walking on your streets, school-way", but schoolchildren discovered fairly early that it can also mean "When walking on your streets, school-way, I am often walking in my sleep". Can a similar construction be used in English? Can anyone attempt to describe how the two ways of parsing work linguistically? JIP | Talk 18:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this anything like "Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" or maybe "Eats Shoots and Leaves, both of which are famous sentences that play on ambiguous meanings of words? --Jayron32 18:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. Each word has an unambiguous meaning by itself. However, the entire sentence can be understood in two different ways, depending on how the words in the sentence relate to each other. JIP | Talk 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Syntactic ambiguity is what you're looking for. Thincat (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Last night after dark I shot an elephant in my pajamas! What was the elephant doing in your pajamas? μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Very funny line. For the record, I think the original quote is "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know." 86.160.216.217 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite so; see Animal Crackers. Or from The Goon Show - Eccles: "How do you open a door?" Bluebottle: "You turn the knob on your side." Eccles: "I haven't got a knob on my side!" Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)