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

February 23

Usage of "rapide" in English

There were a British airplane and sports car called "xxxxxx Rapide". Why was the 'e' added to "rapid" ? My guess: used the French spelling to make it sound more classy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.183.13 (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. It also probably made the name trademarkable, as 'rapid' could have been turned down as being too generically descriptive of a vehicle. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Motorcycles, another British manufacturer of motorised road vehicles, produced a series of bikes named Rapide dating back as far as 1936.

There was a car named "Rapid" without the "e" at one point too, a Swiss manufacturer of mowing machines named "Rapid" ran a very limited test series of 36 "Rapids", nicknamed the "Swiss Volkswagens", in 1946. [1]

Yes, I think the French spelling was chosen to suggest elegance and class. See also the new Aston Martin Rapide's press release. How is this model pronounced in English? Like the word "rapid", or in a faux French manner, "rah-PEED"? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Usually the faux French, but more like "rapp-EED". Xn4 02:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Younger Futhark

How does one use Younger Futhark to write Old Norse/Icelandic? There doesn't seem to be a one-to-one correspondence between runes and ON/Icel. letters. --Śiva (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As the article says, the Scandinavians got rid of 1/3 of the letters of the earlier Runic alphabet, even though the Old Norse languages were developing more phonemes than had existed in the "common North-West Germanic" of the earlier runic inscriptions. The Anglo-Saxons went completely the other way, and added new runes for new sounds that developed in early Old English, and also for letters in the Latin Alphabet for which there weren't corresponding runes (q, x)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just my question: If the Scandinavians had fewer runes than phonemes, how did they write their language? What rules did they use to map phonemes to runes? --Śiva (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the rules, but I think that each pair of voiced and voiceless stops were written with the same letter, to start with. AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK; how about the vowels? There seem to be only a, i, and ą. --Śiva (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Languages in India

What was the governmental role of the regional languages of India (pre- and post-independence) before the States Reorganization Act? For example, was Tamil used as a governmental language in the Madras Presidency, or Kannada in Mysore State, or Telugu in Hyderabad, or Bengali in Bengal Province? Or did all these governments just use English (or Persian or Hindi-Urdu) as an administrative language? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Help writing how to pronounce a name

I want to put a reference on how to pronounce a village name on a page - but am not sure how to go about it - help please!! The name is Navenby and it is prounced like the nave of a church - rather than like a navvie. But I don't know the correct little character thingys to use. Thankyou. --Seahamlass 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[nejvn̩bi] (in my dialect). --Śiva (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard transcription for British English (or General American) would be [ˈneɪvn̩bi]. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the {{IPA|}} — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gabba gabba hey!

What does "gabba gabba hey!" mean and where did it start from? JIP | Talk 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi JIP. Please see Gabba Gabba Hey. I say this not to be corrective at all but simply to inform: this is what Google is for. I copied the phrase into Google and found our article on it as the first entry literally less than five seconds after seeing your question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

February 24

Built like a brick shithouse

I've heard the phrase "She's built like a brick shithouse" several times in my life but haven't ever been able to nail down what the speaker means. Is this a good thing? Is the woman in question attractive to the speaker? Is the woman in question solidly built but not someone that you'd want to get into? Dismas|^(talk) 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And yes, I've read the Outhouse article. Dismas|^(talk) 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Straight Dope article? [2] Dforest (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the OED says:

* slang. built like a brick shithouse and variants.
a. orig. U.S. Chiefly of a man: having an extremely solid physique; with a very robust and powerful build. In Brit. use, derogatory when used of a woman.

but seemingly contradictorily:

b. U.S. Also freq. in form built like a brick house. Of a woman: having a curvaceous figure, esp. slim with large, prominent breasts. Also of a woman's figure.

(from brick, n.1, OED Online Edition, Draft Additions Sept. 2001)

--Dforest (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong spot – wouldn't it be more likely for a woman to be "stacked" like a brickshitouse and a man to be "built" like one? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the UK I would say that for a woman to be "stacked" would mean that she was big in the breast department, though don't think that you would add "like a brickshitouse". A woman "build like a brick shithouse" would be a female body builder, lady wrestler or such like - I.E much more muscular than would be classically thought of as attractive for a female, though I have certainly come across men who do find this very appealing. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

---

There was a song Brick House, celebrating an "Amakazon"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Possessive case

What is the proper way to indicate possession when you are naming multiple possessors?

If I am trying to say that: This is the office of Mr. Smith and Mrs. Brown ... which below is correct?

• Sentence #1. This is Mr. Smith and Mrs. Brown's office. (using one apostrophe)
• Sentence #2. This is Mr. Smith's and Mrs. Brown's office. (using two apostrophe's)

More complex example:

• Sentence #3. Here is John, Bill, Mary, and Susan's report.
• Sentence #4. Here is John's, Bill's, Mary's, and Susan's report.

• Sentence #5. Here are John, Bill, Mary, and Susan's reports.
• Sentence #6. Here are John's, Bill's, Mary's, and Susan's reports.

What sentence number (above) correctly tells me the following scenarios?

• Scenario A: all four people collaborated and they wrote one comprehensive report and this is a copy of that one report written collaboratively by all four authors. In other words, on my desk I have ONE report and that ONE report was authored by the whole team (John & Bill & Mary & Susan).

• Scenario B: all four people each individually wrote one report apiece and this is a copy of each one of the four separate reports. In other words, on my desk I have FOUR reports -- one written by John, one written by Bill, one written by Mary, and one written by Susan.

• Scenario C: all four people collaborated and together they wrote several / multiple / plural comprehensive reports and these are copies of all of those several multiple-author reports. In other words, on my desk I have SEVEN reports and all SEVEN reports were authored by the whole team (John & Bill & Mary & Susan).

• Scenario D: all four people each individually wrote several / multiple / plural reports and these are copies of those individually authored reports. In other words, on my desk I have TWENTY reports and John wrote 5 of those reports, Bill wrote 5 of those reports, Mary wrote 5 of those reports, Susan wrote 5 of those reports.

Ugh. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

For sentences 1 and 2:

If there is one object (O) that is owned by two people (P1 and P2), and we indicate the people using nouns as opposed to possessive adjectives, the standard pattern is this:

P1 and P2's O.

Sentence 1 fits this pattern. Sentence 2 might sometimes be used instead because the nouns are compounded, so the possessive ending in sentence 1 is distanced from P1. The following would be unlikely, though:

Sentence 2*: Smith's and Brown's office.

As for your scenarios, here are what I take to be the normal usages:

Scenario A: sentence 3.

Scenario B: sentence 6.

Scenario C: sentence 5.

Scenario D: sentence 6.

Possessive adjectives may be used instead of all the nouns, in which case all that would make a difference in the four scenarios is the number of reports sitting on my desk. I could then be pointing to four people one by one around a table, saying:

Here is (or are) his, his, her, and her report (or reports).

With combined possessive adjectives and nouns, things get stranger: but you would use a possessive ending for each noun. For example (pointing, again):

Here is John's, his, her, and Mary's report.

But this last case is quite odd, and of more abstract interest only. In practice you would probably want to cast things differently altogether.

Incidentally, the plural is apostrophes – with no apostrophe!

Thank you for using the serial comma.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe my example above wasn't getting at what I really wanted. How about this? There are three brothers (X, Y, and Z). All three brothers own either one home or several homes, either individually or collectively.

• Case 1: These are X, Y, and Z's homes.
• Case 2: These are X's, Y's, and Z's homes.

Case 1 tells us that X, Y, and Z together / collectively own many homes. Right?

Case 2 tells us what?

Case 2-A: That X owns many homes, and Y also owns many homes, and Z also owns many homes ...?

Case 2-B: Or that X owns one home, Y owns one home, Z owns one home, and "these are the three homes that they each own individually" ...?

Also, then, what does the following sentence mean? Does the sentence below describe Case 1, Case 2-A, Case 2-B, none of these 3 cases, or all 3 of these 3 cases, or 2 out of these 3 cases ... or what ...?

• These are the brothers' homes.

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Analogies

Zoology : Animals :: Ecology : Pollution

Zoology : Ecology :: Animals : Pollution

Can they be written both ways? I know US prefers the first version, but what about other English speaking countries? Corpx (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I had always thought that

A : B :: C : D

was interpreted and read like this:

A is to B as C is to D

I had not thought that one could automatically convert it into

A : C :: B : D

even when that yields a statement that is true (or false) along with the original (that is, preserves the truth value of the original), in some other "dialect". How would you read it, for a start?

But then, I may be wrong. (It has happened.)

See Analogy#Identity_of_relation.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither is a true sentence.

Zoology : Animals :: Ecology : Pollution

Is a false analogy, and so is

Zoology : Ecology :: Animals : Pollution

The reason is simple. Zoology doesn't have the relationship with animals that ecology has with pollution (first sentence), and zoology doesn't have the relationship with ecology that animals have with pollution.

To make it excruciatingly clear: "zoology is the discipline that covers the study of animals; ecology is the discipline that covers animals' interaction with each other and the environment" so, zoology:animals::ecology:(animals interaction with each other and their environment)

For the second analogy, we could say "zoology is a study of the actors in ecology", so the second half of the sentence would be "toxic particle chemistry is the study of the actors in pollution."

so either of these analogies is more or less correct: zoology:animals::ecology:habitats or zoology:toxicology::animals:poisons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.46.214 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If analogy A:B::C:D is true, then A:C::B:D should also be true. Consider the statement with numerical values. 1:2::3:6, or 1:3::2:6. If both arrangements don't seem to work, then there at least one is a defective analogy. The arrangement you use would depend on the analogy you are most interested in exploring or discussing. SaundersW (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous:

That is not a particularly relevant or accurate piece of analysis. I went off-topic too, when I wrote "even when that yields a statement that is true (or false) along with the original (that is, preserves the truth value of the original), in some other 'dialect'."

The question was about whether one and the same statement concerning analogies could be presented in two alternative ways. What you say is a critique of the content of two statements. That is interesting also, but flawed, in my opinion. There are many analogies we may be concerned with involving the four terms (however they are to be identified, precisely). You have not considered this, for example: ecology and zoology both have four syllables; animals and pollution both have three. The original statement, interpreted with regard to these facts, is true, yes?

And so on.

SaundersW:

Again, interesting. But not everything that is relevant and true about ratios is relevant and true about analogies (in general).

We have all been a bit vague here.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why is this funny? If not a paradox, what is it?

Imagine the following hypothetical, but not unrealistic, conversation.

Joe: "I'm flying out tomorrow. Do they still have the National Guard patrolling the airport?"

Jim: "Yup"

Joe: "How can I tell which people are the National Guard?"

Jim: "Easy. You can't miss them. They're the ones wearing camouflage".

I'm convinced the last line is funny, but can't tell why. It's not a paradox, but there's something slightly paradoxical about it. Is there a word to describe that type of humor? Bunthorne (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But why is it not a paradox?--K.C. Tang (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a subtle fault in this 'joke'. As it stands the final line implies that the NG are wearing camouflaged clothing, the sort with blotches of different colour. Now, had the last line been ". . . they're the ones who are camouflaged", or ". . . they're the ones who are disguised", the joke would be a tad (but only a tad) better. I think the humour style is good old irony. The fact that the NG are disguised/camouflaged but obvious by this fact is a paradox in itself. Richard Avery (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would vote both "irony" and "paradox" --- echoing the sentiments of Richard Avery's above post. It is indeed quite ironic that the NG members will be easily distinguished (i.e., they will readily "stand out") by their camouflage dress (i.e., with which they are supposed to "blend in"). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm reminded of an advertisement with Marcel Marceau, inviting customers to call some number, "and if no one answers, it's me." —Tamfang (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of a road sign that there used to be on a slight bend near the wooden bridge a few kilometers from the village store–"Secret Gully".—Newbyguesses - Talk 12:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And I am reminded of the friendly telephone system voice that said "If you do not speak English, press 1". 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this famous sign near Kelvedon Hatch in Essex... Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The surest way to lose all humor in a joke is to analyze (or in this case, over-analyze) it. But here goes;

The reason I don't consider it a paradox, or that Richard Avery's comment is correct (so sorry, nothing personal) is that no one thinks the National Guard is trying to blend in or disguise themselves. The fact that they're wearing camo is a sort of accident. They need a uniform that will work for them in case it's needed in combat, but in this case, they've been called upon to do something that (at the time) was unexpected. And we can't expect them to have a different uniform for any eventuality.

Certainly no one is saying "What a joke, do they really think they're invisible?". No, everyone knows that the camo is just a uniform, and not intended to make them invisible.

I'm kinda-sorta tending to think this is a sort of "irony", but still not sure. Maybe the humor (such as it is) springs from the fact that on first hearing, it DOES sound like a paradox, but one (or some) quickly realizes that it ain't.

Oh, and thanks to who(m)ever changed my somewhat insipid title.

Since I just read our very fine article on irony, I'm even less sure. As the article suggests, it might be merely incongruous.

... or not. But thanks for your ideas. Bunthorne (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese

How to write in Japanese, for a Bee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.56 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

蜂、はち、ハチ. The pronunciation is hachi. Oda Mari (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I love me some digital cameras

Who says things like that?Mr.K. (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan said "I love me some Bo Bice" in a Saturday Night Live skit. I don't know why I remember that. But I suppose it is faux-hillbilly or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I love me a good phrase question! A google search shows that "I love me a [whatever]" is reasonably common usage; I suspect it is frequently tongue-in-cheek, or used as a way of stressing a particular or slightly amusing preference. Yet, despite its high occurence, I can't seem to find reference to it in any phrase/word/idiom dictionary. I wonder if it has anything to do with a 1968 hit "I Have Loved Me a Man" by Allison Durbin. But since Durbin was 16 at the time, I presume the song was written by someone else. I got bored googling for that, but someone else might know. Gwinva (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Latin grammar, the me would probably be called an "ethical dative" AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a "syntactic feature of dialectic (Southern and Appalachian) U.S. English", according to the paper "I love me some him": The landscape of non-argument datives by Laurence R. Horn. He calls it a "nonsubcategorized 'personal dative' pronominal in transitive clauses that obligatorily coindexes the subject and whose semantic contribution is somewhat nebulous." For the song, see I Love Me Some Him. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Sluz. Excellent digging. Horn's description, though, seems to apply only to the "me" there. (I can't be sure because the link doesn't work.) It's the same "me" as in "Ah gots ta git me wunna deeze." --Milkbreath (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the html version works? He does list other examples

you : "O, get you a copper kettle" (from the Appalachian song "Copper Kettle", recorded by Bob Dylan, among others)

her : in "She needs her a new pickup truck."

him : in "My husband used to love him some Jack Daniels" (from the film Monster's Ball)

Like AnonMoos, he compares them with the "ethical" dative in other languages and in Old English, He also contrasts them with the more universal "bound pronouns" (example: "New York didn't destroy me, I destroyed me." or "You belong to you.") where we have two "coreferring coarguments of which the second must be referentially independent", while the status of the object pronouns in the I-love-me-some-him-examples is "non-argument (and hence non-co-argument)" having no argument to be bound. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with writing Persian

Can someone please write this in text: [3] The transcription goes:

Dilam dar aashiqui aawareh shud aawareh tar baada,

Tanam az bedilee beechareh shud beechareh tar baada.

Thanks, deeptrivia (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "write this in text" while you have the text?! It is from a song by the Afghan Ahmad Zaher: [4]. I hope it helps. --Omidinist (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably he means he wants it in the Arabic alphabet in textual form (as opposed to part of a GIF image)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here you are, if that's what you want:

دلم در عاشقی آواره شد آواره تر بادا تنم از بیدلی بیچاره شد بیچاره تر بادا

--Omidinist (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I wanted. Sorry not to be clearer. This is a couplet by Amir Khusro. deeptrivia (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

February 25

Three nuns

Joseph A Spadaro might appreciate this. I'm writing about the adventures of a group of three nuns, whose names are Sister Mary Benedicta, Sister Mary Perpetua, and Sister Mary Vaticana. When I introduce them, I want to spell out their full names, but in later references this seems arduous and unnecessary. In most cases I will refer to them simply as Benedicta, Perpetua and Vaticana. But where I'm referring to all three of them and the context demands their titles be included, such as a police report of their allegedly nefarious doings ("Sisters Mary Benedicta, Perpetua and Vaticana were observed lurking lustfully in the vicinity of Michelangelo's David"), I have a problem.

It's ok to use the plural title "Sisters". But "Sisters Mary ... " seems to jar. And "Mary" is actually part of their clerical name, not part of their title; moreover it belongs just as much to Perpetua and Vaticana as it does to Benedicta. A part of me is saying "pluralise the Mary, Jack", which would produce either "Sisters Marys Benedicta, Perpetua and Vaticana", or "Sisters Maries Benedicta, Perpetua and Vaticana". Two problems: (a) both of them look odd and wrong, even more so than "Sisters Mary ..."; (b) "Maries" is also the plural of "Marie", and I don't want to convey the impression that any one of their names contains "Marie".

A kind of analogy is when we pluralise "King Edward" in order to refer to "the eight King Edwards". But I've also seen "Kings Edward", and indeed "kings Edward", but never "Kings/kings Edwards". This analogy doesn't quite work because: (a) there's only one name in "Edward", compared with two names in "Mary Benedicta", etc; and (b) that is collecting various kings all named Edward, whereas I'm collecting various nuns with the same first name, Mary, but different primary names. Thinking about it a bit more, we do talk of "the 2 John Pauls" (popes), and that doesn't seem to confuse anyone, but if there were ever a Pope John Leo, and we were talking about him and Pope John Paul II, would we say "Popes John Leo and Paul", or "Popes John Leo and John Paul"? I think the latter, because the "John" in those cases has as much "status" as the "Leo/Paul", whereas the "Mary" in nuns' names is extremely common and they're often referred to as just "Sister Benedicta", etc. The context I've described above, however, requires the "Mary" to be included.

So I seem to have to choose between various evils. My intuition tells me to go for the sentence I first wrote without thinking too much about it: "Sisters Mary Benedicta, Perpetua and Vaticana were observed lurking lustfully ...". If I do this, I'd be assuming that readers would know the "Mary" applies to all of them, and not just to the first-mentioned. I think this would be a fair assumption, particularly as this sentence will appear nowhere near the start of the piece, and readers will already know who's who. I think that in the course of writing this question out, I've arrived at the best solution (this often happens with me), and so maybe I should take my recent advice to Noetica and trust my intuition. But since I've gone to the trouble of writing it out anyway, does anyone have any suggestions or recommendations? (PS. I have considered "Sisters Mary Benedicta, Mary Perpetua and Mary Vaticana were observed ...", but for reasons I can't quite explain, I don't want to go that way.) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, your last rejected idea is the only one I'd dare use. —Tamfang (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with "Sisters Mary". It's like "Brothers Grimm". In the police report situation, I am tempted to write, "The Sisters Mary–Benedicta, Perpetua, and Vaticana–were observed..." Also, this story sounds awesome. HYENASTE 02:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a lovely situation to consider, and you are right to only want one Mary: it sounds so much more amusing and delightful. Now, looking first at Edward, I would say "the three King Edwards were involved in local wars" (using the title as part of a name, as we'd say "the two John Pauls") when I was considering them as individuals (who shared common characteristics) but "Politics were complicated in the time of the kings Edward" when I was looking at them more collectively. But looking at them collectively and individually at the same time (ie considering their characteristics as a group, but also wanting to identify the individuals within the group), I would say "the Kings Edward -Longshanks and Caernarfon- were plagued by the Scots." So, that arrives at the same answer as Hyenaste. Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can understand you not wanting to write out the whole thing, but your options generally don't sound good (Marys/Maries doesn't sit right at all). I like Hyenaste's suggestion, using a dash to expand on the Sister's Mary, but to avoid confusion, I'd have another character use each of their full names at some stage (possibly while telling them off - "Sister Mary Perpetua, what on earth are you doing?!"). I also think of it as a really interesting linguistic situation, and a good plot hook for a story (my guess is a murder-mystery of some kind). Steewi (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While having Mary in front of all three would be accurate (as it's their name) I think the best alternative is one that you actually used without even realizing it: "...it belongs just as much to Perpetua and Vaticana as it does to Benedicta." That's right, take out Sister and Mary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the parenthetical suggestion, then go with your first instinct; it reads nicely, and is far more charming for the context than adding extra Marys or dropping them entirely. Talking of which, if you do want to refer to them in the plural then "the Sister Marys" is good; don't get clever with "Maries", unless you have a character who wants to appear clever, and thus pontificates on the grammar. In fact, you could have a riot finding different ways to refer to them collectively; a little linguistic adventure for them along the way! Thanks for sharing your dilemma, Jack. The three sisters Mary have already taken lodgings in my head; I look forward to meeting them properly. Gwinva (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's not another group in lustful competition lurking with them would just "the nuns" do – or is it necessary to sort out for the film poster? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Am I too late for this year's Oscars? Hmm .. perhaps. Maybe I'd better finish writing the damn thing first. Yeees, that seems best. To Hyenaste - the "Brothers Grimm" analogy doesn't work for me as such, because "Grimm" is the end of their name, whereas "Sister Mary" is missing the main name by which they're known. But it's not far off; a better analogy would be between "These books were written by the brothers Grimm - Jakob and Wilhelm" and "Over there ogling David are the Sisters Mary - Benedicta, Perpetua and Vaticana". Which is pretty much what Gwinva was driving at. To Steewi, thanks for confirming that Marys/Maries doesn't sound right, and it wasn't just me. To Julia Rossi, the plot requires a police report to be quoted, in which their names are mentioned. "The nuns" will be used at some points, but in this situation and in this sentence I need to refer to them by name. To Tamfang - can you explain your reticence to use any but the version I rejected? To Aeusoes1, your suggestion seems to avoid the issue - nothing wrong with that, I do it all the time - but in this case I need to grapple with it. A police report, particularly in Italy, would not refer to a nun as simply "Benedicta", but by her full title. Have I forgotten anyone? Special mention here of Gwinva, who hit the nail on the head about why I don't like "Sisters Mary Benedicta, Mary Perpetua and Mary Vaticana" - it doesn't have the charm of "Sisters Mary Benedicta, Perpetua and Vaticana", and if a story doesn't have charm, what does it have? That pretty much settles it as far as I'm concerned, so thanks to everyone for your excellent suggestions. (I wonder if Tolstoy agonised over every sentence like this). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we could be of help, Jack. While I can understand you can't afford to agonise over every sentence if you ever want to finish the thing, from my perspective I would be pleased if you did: then we can enjoy more insights into the lives of the Sisters Mary! Gwinva (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm amazed at the level of lively interest this question has elicited. The only thing you lovely people know about these lubricious nuns is that they're somewhat excited by David - to which one might ejaculate "And?". But having let the cat out of the bag about this particular literary project of mine (there are others ... oh God, don't remind me of all the unfinished masterpieces in my computer and my head!), I know I have to finish it now. Stay tuned for progress reports. My only question is, how on Earth can I be a committed Wiki-addict while writing this .. this .. whatever it is? But if Clio can do it, that shows it can be done. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It comes to us all: the realisation that our life's ambitions and dreams are just stumbling blocks in the path of our Wikipedia commitment. Hence you have offered it here, so that it might gain some validity. Now that it has been Noticed, it is no longer the thief of your Wikipedia time, but the life blood of our discussions. It has worth! Gwinva (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You will by now have noticed my reticence in not explaining my reluctance. —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What else is there but wikipedia? Publication, international distribution, miniseries and film rights, is what. Go Jackoz! Julia Rossi (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that respected historians of the archaic Oz Lit today unanimously agree that the "Bard from Down Under" was in reality the obscure Australian actor Willy Shakesbeer, whose Perpetual and lustful lurking in the Vatican, accompanied by vile and expletive Maledictions - only recently deciphered in the fossil records of the cryptic scrolls of the WP:RD - remains the sole ducumented proof of his seminal existence. Good luck, JoO. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Smirk). Thanks, C.e.Z. (What happens when you take off Shakesbeer's mask? You find Edward de Beer, naturally.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All fun and games, till someone loses an eye.

This phrase, or variants, goes back to C19. See thread at User talk:Newbyguesses#All fun and games. But I still think it traces back to the gladitorial schools of the Romans, maybe. Can you help? Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 11:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been ascribed to the rules of wrestling during the Roman period, as the oft-quoted rule of "anything but eye-gouging" was said to have existed. Whether it was in use at the period or was attached to it later by modern comedians or writers is unknown (at least to me as it doesn't appear in the Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable). Nanonic (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's just a pessimistic extension of the phrase "all fun and games", meaning "exciting goings-on" (and frequently used ironically). The Penguin Dict. Cliches dates "fun and games" to early 20th C, as does the OED. Interestingly, during WWII it was forces slang for "any brush with the enemy at sea". The gladiatorial link is just wishful thinking. Gwinva (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, users Nanonic, and Gwinva! Can anyone supply links to the WP:ARTICLES which discuss gladitorial training schools of the Roman era? I thought that's where i got this idea from, but i could be mistaken, and can't recall now which article I was looking at. Thanks again. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in the article on Pankration. It seems to be mentioned in On Gymnastics by Philostratus too, who added that the Spartans even eliminated the sissy "no-eye-gouging" rules. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou user:Sluzzelin, Pankration has In fact, there were only two rules: contestants were not allowed to gouge eyes or to bite.[citation needed]. And, from Greek wrestling (redirects from Ancient Greek wrestling) - Rules - No gouging the eyes or biting is permitted, since even the Pankration does not allow these. Now, does any learned editor have further information about an article, or talkpage, which discusses in particular the training schools for gladiators? Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on the Ludus Magnus, the main gladiator training school in Rome. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, Adam Bishop, I will look at that article. I suspect I may be on the wrong track here, or flogging a dead horse. The other possibility is that i came across this discussion on a talk page somewhere, so it could be anywhere, I vaguly recall a discussion of the ins and outs of gladiator schools,. and how the teams of gladiators were, I think, Red, Green and Blue. but, I have to get back to other stuff. I will still check back for any late comments, but I must thank everyone who has helped so far. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this has anything to do with ancient sports, it seems unlikely that they would describe something as "just a game" like that. And the reds, greens, and blues were factions in chariot racing, the soccer of the ancient world! Adam Bishop 03:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Better phrasing for "assuming no..."

A colleague has asked me if there's a better way to say "assuming no interference..." or "in absence of interference...". She was thinking of writing "foregoing any interference" but "foregoing" isn't the right word. I can't help thinking there's a single word similar to "foregoing" or "notwithstanding" that fits in this context but I can't put my finger on it. Any ideas? — PhilHibbs | talk 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could try "Absent any interference..." Marco polo (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedants with computer science backgrounds like to say "modulo any interference ...". I'd stick with "assuming no" or "as long as there is no". KISS! --Sean 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue with "Interference notwithstanding, ..." Steewi (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That has a different meaning.  --Lambiam 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm always unsure whether "notwithstanding X" means "unless X" or "even if X", though I think "X notwithstanding" always means the latter. —Tamfang (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"In the absence of any interference", or, in the right context, maybe "ceteris paribus" (other things being equal). SaundersW (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be formal/pedantic, you can always say "if one assumes there is no interference..." Grutness...wha? 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

charges/complaints

charges/complaints are brought against a person what is the difference of the 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minmag (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaints can be brought by a citizen and may be without confirming evidence or credibility. Complaints may form a basis for charges, which only law-enforcement authorities can make, and they are supposed to be made only on the basis of credible evidence, possibly including complaints. Marco polo (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect textbook (again)?

A vocabulary textook of mine states:

“ Complete the analogy:

odometer: ________ :: Croesus : ________

You are given the choices:

a. alphabet / dog b. intelligence / loyalty c. surprise / monster d. distance / wealth

”

I answered d, but the textbook says the answer is a. I'm 99.999% sure that I'm correct, but I would like some verification from a third party. Thanks. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say you are correct. The only way I can think of to link odometer to alphabet is by using the phrase "has nothing in common with". Which I suppose would also work for Croesus and dog, but that would make b and c just as valid. --LarryMac | Talk 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks always make typos. One of my ways to pass time in class is to look for them. One of my textbooks back in college was so consistantly wrong that our teacher gave us questions asking what the book got wrong and what is the correct information. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)(outdent) The analogy is faulty in any event: an odometer is a device for measuring distance traveled, but Croesus is not a device that measures wealth. (OK, in the phrase "as rich as Croesus" he might be taken as a measure of wealth, but a standard of comparison is not the same thing as a measuring device.) The only connection that works for both parts of the analogy is "has something to do with," so the correct answer is "None of the above." Deor (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The question was poor in the first place, before the typo. Steewi (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Most or possibly all such questions are imperfect, since analogies can work so any ways (see an earlier section). This one is not bad at all if we take d to be the answer; d joins to each item the most strikingly obvious measurable quantity that is associated with it. In isolation, I could even ask you "What abstract noun is associated with Croesus?" I would expect the answer wealth. And for odometer, distance.

Playful side question: what could conceivably make a right? Well, alphabet has one syllable fewer than odometer, and dog has one syllable fewer than Croesus. And many more quibbles could be adduced: whence the imperfection of such puzzles.

And a playful side-puzzle:

nutation : ________ :: shaking : ________

a. nictitation / nodding b. negation / affirmation c. nubilation / hiding d. nugation / cache

Also imperfect!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with b. as my answer. - Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You could say that an odometer counts miles (or kilometers), and Croesus counts his wealth. Awkward, yes, but a little closer as a valid analogy.--Eriastrum (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a) is correct because an odometer is a relatively rare creation of man, the alphabet is a commonly seen creation of man, people called Croesus are rare live creatures, and a dog is a commonly occurring creature. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So rare that one is found in every car? Dforest (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bonus articles

Hmm I wanted to lookup bonus....but I got none...

Isn't this a normal term....

Can I give you a bonus?

Or can I have one? Where to get it..not in the wikipedia...or wiki dictionary....

How cooooool is that!

Anyway I will start an artivle tomorrow if noone else does ---- azalin (not logged in)85.81.121.107 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It most cetainly is in Wikionary - [5]. --LarryMac | Talk 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An article on bonus would be about the concept of why one might recieve a bonus (christmas, commission, etc.) but I'm not sure whether that meets WP criteria for an article. Well, if it doesn't, it'd end up on AfD anyway, so Be Bold. Steewi (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was created before, but failed AFD unanimously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonus. If you disagree with this, you could dispute the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Dforest (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

February 26

TEXTBOOK --- its etymology, perhaps

Hello there! I have actually read an article here in wikipedia about textbooks; however, I am curious about its etymolgy.. Why are schoolbooks called TEXTbooks? Thank you for any answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.99.18 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello right back at you! We had no conclusive answer to this question when it was asked almost two years ago. I hope we do better this time around! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, text-book is from 1779. One meaning of the word text is textbook. The relation of these words may be that text in this sense is a shortened form of textbook, but another possibility is that text in the sense of "written material for a course provided next to the orally presented lectures" is older, and that text-book originally referred to a collection of such material bundled into a book.  --Lambiam 08:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Snowplow in Spanish

How do you say Snowplow in Spanish? My guess is "quitanieve"? The only way that I can think of describing it is Camiones removedores de nieve or maybe Limpiacalzadas?Icamepica (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The TV news uses 'quitanieves'. And oddly (just like the UK) they always seemed to be taken by surprise by the first snowfalls. Richard Avery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When it snows in Mijas on the Costa del sol, the children get the day off school. It has only happened once in the last 30 years or so. They are justified in being surprised, I think ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons episode "Mr. Plow" was called "El Sr. Quitanieves" in Spain, and Don Barredora in Latin America. --Sean 15:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Metric feet

How is it decided where one metric foot ends and the next one starts, if there are several ways to divide a given verse? For example, is each of the following lines from the chorus of "Nymphetamine" a tribrach followed by a primus paeon followed by a spondee, or a quartus paeon followed by a dibrach followed by a bacchius?

Six feet deep is the incision

In my heart, that barless prison

Discoulours all with tunnel vision

...

Sick and weak from my condition

This lust, this vampiric addiction

To Her alone in full submission

NeonMerlin 05:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the song, but I could scan the verse mostly in trochees, with a sprinkling of amphibrachs at the starts of the lines. The simpler the better!

Six feet deep is the incision

In my heart, that barless prison

Discolours all with tunnel vision

...

Sick and weak from my condition

This lust, this vampiric addiction

To Her alone in full submission

SaundersW (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But then you end up with vampiric which can't be right. Surely the emphasis is the inverse of that? 130.88.140.108 (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it can be right. -pir- is definitely the least stressed syllable in "vampiric." The syllables that Saunders stresses and I don't are partly stressed in the song. But it's definitely two fully stressed syllables at the end of each line. NeonMerlin 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. -pir- would be the stressed syllable when I say it, so I wondered if this was a US/UK thing. However, Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary agree with the OED that the second syllable is stressed, so I don't know what's going on there! It is the only vampire-rooted word I can think of or find in which vam- does not carry the stress. Skittle (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with vampiric in general, but vampiric is needed here, I think, otherwise the meter trips very oddly. Is the verse spoken or sung, by the way? SaundersW (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some words do change their metre when they're made into adjectives: maniac becomes maniacal, because maniacle sounds like a made up word; and vagina becomes vaginal in the USA (although it's still vaginal most elsewhere). But in poetry, we have much more freedom to stress words wherever we damn well want, in ways we wouldn't normally contemplate, in order to make the poem work. This is the "freedom of stress" principle - unfortunately for the poor poets who have to grapple and struggle with these things, it doesn't equate to "freedom from stress". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. So it wasn't that people are saying they normally stress 'vampiric' is this manner, just that the lyrics are sufficiently carelessly written :P to require it. Personally I would say that called for a rewrite, unless it was for comedy purposes. But what do I know? Skittle (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Stroke Orders For Writing Dakuten And Handakuten

What are the stroke orders for writing dakuten and handakuten? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As illustrated:

--Sushiya (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Splitting clauses

1. Schools with green uniforms suck; to the core!
2. Schools with green uniforms suck! To the core!
3. Schools with green uniforms suck. to the core!
4. Schools with green uniforms suck - to the core!

Which of the above is/are correct? Or would other punctuation be better? (I know I can simply not use any punctuation after "suck", but doing so would not achieve the intended effect.)

What do you call this literary device, whereby one adds a punctuation mark to split the sentence into two clauses to emphasise one part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The only incorrect one is 3. If you have a period (full stop), you must commence the next sentence with a capital letter. The ones that appeal to me most are 4 and 2, in that order. Number 1 is ok, but doesn't have the same impact. If you make the "t" in 3 a capital, it would be acceptable, but it would come last in my list. It's all a question of style, and having the greatest impact with the tools you've got, not of correct/incorrect as such. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sentences 2 and 3 are Sentence fragments though aren't they? (I.e. not complete sentences). --Joe^Talk_Work 10:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A sentence is a unit of thought, not grammar. It would be too restrictive to permit only "sentences" that stood up to the schoolmarm's definition of one. It becomes obvious in dialogue that what we call a "sentence fragment" can be a complete sentence. "How?" is one example.

To describe the sample sentences above as splitting a sentence with punctuation is only one way of thinking about what happens there. "To the core" is not a clause, either. I don't think there is a name for this. There is nothing incorrect about the samples provided (except for the mistake Jack has already pointed out). The overall impression conveyed is one of forceful juvenile exuberance, so by the only standard of correctness I can think to apply, that of form being consistent with style, number 2 is right. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the dash is best, the exclamation mark next best, and the period is third best and requires the next word to be capitalized. I consider the semicolon wrong.

On the matter of sentence fragments, I suggest that the word "sentence" has two meanings: it's either a unit of thought delimited by certain punctuation marks (or in speech by the manner of speaking), or else it's a grammatical construct. In other words, a "sentence fragment" in one sense can be a "sentence" in another sense. And having said that, I can say that the semicolon is wrong because grammar requires a semicolon, in the use seen here, to combine two things that each are complete sentences in the grammatical sense.

I said "the dash is best" rather than "4 is best" because 4 was actually written with a hyphen instead of a dash, and that's wrong -- although it is something people get lazy about. (Here I've used a double hyphen instead of a dash; that's a typewriter-ism and also lazy.) --Anonymous, 23:23 UTC, February 25, 2008.

Pardon my curiosity, but wouldn't it have been simpler and less laborious to just use the dash, as you're advocating, rather than do the very thing you've just said is "wrong" and then justify why you did it? You took about 90 keystrokes to do that; a dash is one. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But those 90 keystrokes are a lot quicker than remembering that your new keyboard doesn't have a dash key, forgetting the alt code for en-dash, looking it up, hitting show preview to make sure it works, discovering that it was actually "฿", going back to the internet to find a correct alt-code, only to come back and realize that there is a dash on the Insert: line right below the Save page button, then getting frustrated because you get an edit conflict, then having to retype everything because IE doesn't save your edits like Firefox does, then hurrying so as to not get a second edit conflict, so forgetting to sign, so SineBot comes in here with his little tag, then going back to erase it because you don't want to look stupid because you forgot to sign. 199.67.16.60 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, 199.67. My curiosity is assuaged. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong guess why. If I wanted a proper dash I'd just type —, no muss, no fuss. But "--" is still 5 less keystrokes (counting the shift). And I didn't do what I just said was wrong, i.e. failing to distinguish between hyphen and dash. I just used a lazy form of dash. --Anon, 04:55 UTC, February 28.

I see. Thanks, Anonymous. (Btw, do you drink coffee, and have you ever considered applying to become Secretary-General of the UN? You could call yourself "Coffee Anon".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Guess I should've previewed that last item before posting it. What I meant to say I'd "just type" was —. I wrote it as <nowiki>&mdash;</nowiki>, assuming wrongly that the <nowiki> tag would prevent the entity from being recognized. I should have typed —, as I did earlier in this paragraph. (And, of course, to get that, I just typed —. And to get that... well, never mind.) --Anonymous, 00:44 UTC, February 29, 2008.

Grammar: "is" or "are" for a group?

which is correct please

"helping hands" ARE a group of ladies formed to help animals

or

"helping hands" IS a group of ladlies formed to help animals

• I'd say "is". But then, I'd spell "ladies" without an "l" after the "d", and I'd be more likely to say "women" anyway. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Using "are" here is British English, "is" would be American. --Kannan91 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually this Brit would use is, but some might use are: Americans often think we always say The government are... but we also say The government is..., depending on the way the subject is viewed. This misperception is because people notice difference more than sameness. Drmaik (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ladies formed to help animals" sounds... wrong. SaundersW (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, out of context - yes. But in context we can see that "formed" is refering to the group, not the ladies. As for the actual question, I would use "is". Group is a singular noun, so the verb should also be singular. The usage of "are" exists when if you use it in such a sentence as "'Helping Hands' are doing so-and-so", I believe. I really don't know because I, as a person from the US, would actually never use "are". Hope that helps. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my instinct as an Australian, too. I'm not sure why it is "Helping Hands are doing X..." rather than 'is', but using 'is' in that context sounds wrong. Perhaps because when you are talking about them performing an action, you are referring to the members, rather than the group? Steewi (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 6#invitation question....  --Lambiam 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The ubiquitous A or An question

I'm pretty sure of the answer but just need others to confirm. An IP user keeps changing "a ubiquitous cigarette." to "an ubiquitous cigarette." I'm pretty sure "a" is correct but I've decided to check here just in case there's some odd English language clause that I've missed

From our Team Fortress 2 article:
The spy is dressed in a team-colored pin-stripe suit with a full-face balaclava and smoking an ubiquitous cigarette.
or
The spy is dressed in a team-colored pin-stripe suit with a full-face balaclava and smoking a ubiquitous cigarette.

Thanks - X201 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Phonetically, "ubiquitous" begins with a "y" consonant sound (IPA [j]), so "a" would be correct. There are some cases where there are legitimate grounds for dispute ("a historic" vs. "an historic" etc.), but "a ubiquitous" is not one of them. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That sentence has problems other than the a/an one, though, including a poor use of ubiquitous and a lack of parallelism of "is dressed" and "smoking". Deor (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a ubiquitous question. To avoid a tiresome duplication of effort concerning a and an, h and u, see this answer from the archives.

Absolutely definitive. :)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I pronounce "ubiquitous" with an "oo" sound at the beginning... Adam Bishop 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

That pronunciation is not even ubiquitescent. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I've never actually heard anyone pronounce "ubiquitous"! I just assumed it started with "oo" based on the Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And fair assumption too. It's just not pronounced that way, though. See also universe, unanimity, uniform, etc - all "yoo". Even the letter "u" is pronounced "yoo", unlike the way the Romans did. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But all those words begin with [un]. Surely [ub] is different since the second letter is a bilabial. Like umbrella and all of our wonderful uber-words. 199.67.16.60 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the entire group of words that begin with the un- prefix. 199.67.16.60 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the inconsistent correspondence between English orthography and pronunciation, one can hardly be faulted for guessing the wrong pronunciation of a word like ubiquitous. But a deficient orthography doesn't change the fact that the word has only one accepted pronunciation. --Diacritic (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Adam, tThe root of those words is not un- (not) but uni- (from the Latin unus, one). In the unanimity case, the i is dropped. Ubiquity is from ubi, meaning "where?". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

True. But I am not 199.67 :) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Entirely OR, but I've never heard anyone say "oobiquitous" instead of "yuubiquitous". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've never heard the other. Let's call the whole thing off! Personally I blame it on the word not coming up enough in conversation. The first time I used 'eunuch' out loud I had a similar problem. Skittle (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If words such as "eunuch" and "ubiquitous" don't appear regularly in your conversation, you don't do enough talking. The art of conversation seems truly lost. Alas. (lol) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jack :) In case I was misleading previously - what I meant to say is that I have heard "ubiquitous" spoken fairly often, and have never heard it pronounced with an "oo". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My original reply placed the blame on the poor vocabulary of those with whom I talk, but that seemed slightly unfair. Sadly, much of my vocabulary is confined to the written word, locked away for the sake of social harmony. There are few people I chat with who would correct a mispronounced word such as "ubiquitous". It was my luck that the first time I used "eunuch" I was talking to one of them :) 130.88.140.10 (talk) 12:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (Skittle on a public computer. 130.88.140.10 (talk) 12:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

It occurs to me that I must have heard "ubiquitous" spoken at some point, so either everyone pronounces it wrong (unlikely, as I know a wide variety of Canadians and Americans), or I just never paid attention (more likely!). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

February 27

Stroke Order

Hi, I was wondering what are the stroke orders for the following:

• (yi)
  
• (wu)
  
• (ye)

Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never learned to write these, but by analogy to チ and テ I would expect the two horizontal strokes of wu to come first, in the order from high to low, and the vertical stroke last. By analogy with イ I expect the diagonal stroke of ye to come before the vertical stroke, and in general I'd expect a horizontal stroke at the bottom to come last. This is all in conformance with the basic rules of stroke order. The stroke order for yi cannot be clearly deduced from the basic rules, and I see no obvious analogon among the other kana, but the top-to-bottom rule suggests that the vertical stroke comes before the diagonal.  --Lambiam 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; where do the strokes start?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Applying the op-down, left-to-right rules seems to resolve the stroke orders for the first and third kanas fairly easily. The second apparently derives from the Chinese 于 (yu), which is written horiontal top, horizontal middle, vertical and tick. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; where do the strokes start?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The strokes are made left to right for horizontal strokes, and high to low for vertical and diagonal strokes: .  --Lambiam 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That rule appears to be violated by the diagonal stroke of yi, and is definitely violated by the long stroke of シ. How about this rule: – strokes left to right, | strokes top to bottom, \ strokes top left to bottom right, / strokes thick end to thin end? -- BenRG (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Thick end" is hard to tell in "sans serif" fonts. To really work out the stroke order/shapes of kanas from scratch, one really needs to know its etymology (i.e. the radical or character from which it derives via cursive script), and then the cursive script writing convention of that original radicial or character. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Plural Letters

This subject has been bugging me for a while - how do you write the plural of letters? I've seen people do it in 4 ways:

-My name has many Os.

-My name has many "O"s.

-My name has many O's.

-My name has many "O"'s.

Which one is correct? Or are they all wrong? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd always go for the first of those options. Some people might prefer option 2. And the use of apostrophe's in plural's is illiterate. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the apostrophe rule changes for single letters, numbers, and acronyms (and its, oppositely). All four look acceptable to me, although number 4 seems overly punctuated. I would use 1 or 3. 199.67.16.60 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Don't forget". Apostrophes indicate possessives or the omission of letters (as in it's for it is). They are not used to form plurals. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken in this case. As The Chicago Manual of Style says, "To avoid confusion, lowercase letters … form the plural with an apostrophe and s." Milkbreath has it right below; italicize the lowercase o and add a roman apostrophe and s. Deor (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Selective quotation on your part. The CMS also says "Capital letters used as words ... form the plural by adding s". The OP, as you will observe, used capital letters, so the apostrophe is redundant and ugly. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The OP also said, "Or are they all wrong?" There's no reason for the letter to be capitalized, so Milkbreath is still correct. Deor (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What if that makes the statement false? Ophelia Orchid O'Olney has many Os, but no o's. Capital letters are sometimes absolutely necessary. 199.67.16.60 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Or, of course, you could write Ophelia Orchid O'Olney has many capital Os, but no lower-case Os, and thereby avoid looking like a greengrocer.) 80.254.147.52 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mind your Ps and Qs. Or should I say Mind your p's and q's? There will never be a consensus on this.

In future, I will continue to write letters-as-words as capitals with no apostrophes, and you will presumably continue to write them in lower-case with apostrophe's (sic). That way, everyone's happy. Except the OP, who remains none the wiser. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(quintuple ec) As are common letters. Is are less common. These letters are capital, but they arguably need apostrophes. 199.67.16.60 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Or you could rephrase it to avoid ambiguity, rather than pebbledashing it with apostrophes. The letter A is common. The letter I is less common.) 80.254.147.52 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You can always rephrase a sentence, but that doesn't really offer a solution. If the As/Is example were spoken, how would it be quoted verbatim? "As are common letters", the speaker said. "Is are less common". 199.67.16.60 (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* They're all wrong. Your name has many Os, which strikes me as odd. I would think your name had many o's instead. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen more distinct opinions and we'll have all the bases covered. My advice: change your name. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The example phrase refers to my online game tag, "Dr. Nooooooooo", which officially has infinite...o's. The joke being that it is impossible to spell it correctly. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have struggled with this on many occasions, and no matter what you do, someone will think it's incorrect! The only thing to do is to reword things to avoid the situation at all. You could write in this instance: "The letter "o" is repeated frequently in my name." (Although I'm sure that someone will say this sentence is incorrect, too.) This kind of lose/lose situation reminds of similar cases; for example, speaking the word "forte"--no matter how you pronounce it someone will think you are an ignorant twit!--Eriastrum (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What? I've always pronounced it "for-tay", everyone I know pronounces it "for-tay" - including people I would deem quite intelligent. I've also just noticed that nearly everyone I know is a musician.206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I should have been more precise (although I suspect 206 knows perfectly well what I meant). I meant "forte" meaning "strong point", which is taken from the French and pronounced as a single syllable, and not as it is in Italian with two syllables (and hence in music meaning loud). The problem is that (in the U.S. anyway), the Italian pronunciation is often used for the word meaning "strong point" and is in fact so prevalent that it is accepted as standard usage (according to Webster's Unabridged on line dictionary).--Eriastrum (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, I'll have to remember that in the future. Isn't it the basis of the English word "fort"? Is it pronounced similarly? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, forte in the sense of strong point is a relatively recent borrowing (I think) from French where it means strong, and it is pronounced pretty much the same way as the English word fort. I think that they all have their ultimate origins in Latin, however.--Eriastrum (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The two-syllable pronunciation doesn't appear to be a USism either. According to Oxford, it is pronounced (ˈfɔːti, ˈfɔːteɪ, formerly fɔːt). Dforest (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Identification of a song

I apologize in advance for asking a question in this manner, but I see no other way. Here --WARNING: Pornographic content-- [6] is a link to a video. I am interested (well, for the purpose of this question) in the song playing in the clip. I am most interested in knowing the title and artist of the song, but I figured it would be best to start at this ref desk looking for the language. Thanks! Tuckerekcut (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Russian to me. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the answer. How confident are you in this? Are you sure it's not a Western Slavic language? I ask because a Polish friend (who does not speak Polish, but has been around family that does) told me it was reminiscent of Polish or Czech. Nonetheless, thank you much for your opinion. Tuckerekcut (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anyone can translate a relatively unique few words of the song, that would be of much help. Perhaps with a few words in order I could more easily search for lyrics, and find the song thus. Tuckerekcut (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Relatively unique" is a pretty tough call for a Language Ref Desk volunteer, but I'll do my best. I have a hearing loss and have a particular difficulty where music is present with words. Also, the "accent" was quite different from the standard spoken language - which I attribute to the stylistic context. But with those disclaimers, what I picked up were fragments like "она любила его" (she loved him), "она бежала" (she ran; but it could be a mishearing of "она печала" - she bought), "даже" (even) and "столько" (so much). Best I can do, sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

February 28

Hardenstein

I've got a stub worked up in my sandbox about the castle described in this German Wikipedia article. What would be the proper English translation of the title? Hardenstein? Hardenstein castle? Hardenstein Castle? Hardenstein ruins? Hardenstein castle ruins? None of the above? Thanks for any help. — Dulcem (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Short followup: A check of Category:Castles in Germany shows that there is apparently no standardization in the naming of German castle articles. I guess I can take my pick, though suggestions are still welcome. — Dulcem (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've decided to put it at Castle Hardenstein, as that name gets exactly one more Google hit than the reverse does (when removing text swiped from Wikipedias). — Dulcem (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, but I believe one criterion to be considered is the usage of the words Castle v Schloss in published references in English. Neuschwanstein Castle is very famous, and English uses the translated name more often than not. Schloss Leonberg is not very famous, and here the German name might be preferable for en.wikipedia's lemma. (Interestingly, the article on Schloß Pötzleinsdorf even uses orthography before the German spelling reform of 1996 - Schloß instead of Schloss). Here are all the lemmas starting with Schloss (redirects are in italics). There's a similar discussion going on right now at Talk:Lake of Gruyère. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also consider that the terms Caste and Schloss (or Schloß) are not synonyms.

• A castle is a medieval structure, real or faux architecture (as Neuschwanstein).
• A Schloss is, typically, a Baroque building. The translation proper would be palace or - when smallish - mansion.

In Vienna, for instance, you will find the Hofburg (13th century) and Schloss Schönbrunn (construction 1696).

There seems to be some inconsistency in the titles. Ambras in the Tyrols is called Ambras castle in the en.wikipedia and Schloss Ambras in the de.wikipedia, for instance. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Schloss Hardenstein actually gets a few more hits than the other alternatives, but not to any English sites. I guess I'll just take the German Wikipedia's lead, which calls it "Burg Hardenstein". — Dulcem (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

precum in spanish

how do you say it, preeyaculado? i had trouble explaining this term while in latinaméricaCholga^talK! 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia calls it líquido preseminal, and precum even redirects to that article. I suppose fluido de Cowper might work too. I don't know a colloquial word, but wordreference.com's forum offers some suggestions. --Sluzzelin talk 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

江宜玲 in english, pinyin etc

is it joyce chang?Cholga^talK! 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A google search suggests "Joyce Chiang". Chiang is more likely than Chang in any case, because the pinyin of the Chinese name is Jiāng Yílíng. See also 江宜玲 (links to wiktionary). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammar: before me, or before I did?

Which is right here:

"You knew the answer before I did" or

"You knew the answer before me"?

I have a feeling it's the first choice, because "before" is acting like a subordinate conjunction and not like a preposition here, correct? I'm sorry, I really wasn't sure when I started typing this, but now I'm almost positive. I only submit this question know to make sure. Thanks in advance.

There is no right or wrong here. Both are seen, and both are commonly accepted. More pedants will object to the second sentence than to the second first [*ahem*], for what that's worth. The first sentence is more likely to turn up in formal contexts, and the second sentence in less formal contexts.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Of there there's right here -- both versions are right.

If there are pedants who object to #2, they are seriously misguided. They are presumably "reasoning" from analogy with these sentences:

3. You are smarter than I am.

3A. You are smarter than I.

4. You are smarter than me.

among which they think that #4 is wrong because it uses "than" as a preposition. But even though they may think (wrongly) that "than" cannot be a preposition, nobody thinks that "before" cannot be a preposition.

--Anonymous, 05:02 UTC, February 28, 2008.

Quite so, Anonymous. They would be mere pendantasters, would they not? Not worthy of the badge. Nevertheless, since almost no pedant would object to the first sentence and some recreant pretenders would censure the second, what I say holds good, no? (Allowing for the digital slip that I have just corrected, that is.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

However, there are some situations (the original question isn't one of them) when writing "before" followed by a personal pronoun where you do have to be very careful in order to avoid ambiguity. "He urinated before me" could mean that he urinated in front of the speaker, splashing their shoes and trousers, or it could mean he urinated first, and then the speaker did. Context usually helps, but even with context it's not always absolutely clear what the writer's trying to communicate. If the second interpretation was the right one, to avoid any possible misinterpretation the writer would be duty bound to write "He urinated before I did". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this specific "in front of" meaning of "before" is obsolete in the US. We understand it with difficulty in some contexts (e.g., swine and thrones), but if he urinated before me in the US, my only concern would be that he got it all in the urinal so I wouldn't have to stand in it when I got there. Nobody would say it that way if he meant "right in front of". Is that "before" really the usual way of putting that Down Under?

It's certainly still a current meaning in the UK. "He stood before me..." and other such constructions. Although it can sound a little formal, and I don't think it is used in all places "in front of" can be used. Skittle (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

-How dare you fart before the Queen!

-I'm sorry, I didn't know it was her turn. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

urinal in spanish

how do you call it in spanish, i wan't to translate the article.Cholga^talK! 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mingitorio or urinario. The interwikilink to Spanish Wikipedia was missing in the English article on urinal. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement

1. What is the proper verb (singular or plural) when you have a noun and a parenthetical noun that differ in number?

2. What is the proper verb (singular or plural) when you have a compound subject, each of which differs in number?

3. What is the adjective / relative pronoun (singular or plural) when you have a compound subject, each of which differs in number?

• 1. I think that even one hazing incident (not to mention, the fraternity's three incidents) _____ inexcusable. Do we use "is" or "are" in this sentence? And why?

• 2. The parents or the child _____ required to show identification at the door. ( that is, 2 parents OR 1 child must do so ) Do we use "is" or "are" in this sentence? And why?

• 3. The parents or the child must show _____ identification at the door. ( again, 2 parents OR 1 child must do so ) Do we use "their" or "his" in this sentence? And why?

It is clear that any of these sentences can be rewritten to avoid this problem. Nonetheless, what is the correct grammatical form for these sentences as currently presented? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

For 1, the parenthetical text can be ignored, as if it weren't there. Solution - use "is". For the others, I'm ambivalent. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For 2, I think the answer is that there is no right answer. Neither "is" nor "are" is correct, so rewriting the sentence is not only possible but essential.

For 3, you don't need to use either. "Show identification" is fine on its own. But if you must use something, refer to the answer I gave to 2 above. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For 2 (and possibly applicable to 3, though I agree with Richardrj that the sentence is best recast), the usual advice in style manuals and grammar guides is that the verb should agree with the nearer of the parts of the compound—thus, "The parents or the child is required …" but "The child or the parents are required …" Deor (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Neither of those sound like good English to me, although I stand to be corrected. Do you have a source for a style guide that says this? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer you from what I have at hand; most of my style guides are at my office. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (first ed., s.v. or) says, "If alternative members differ in number &c., the nearest prevails." In the examples given, such as "either he or you were"/"either you or he was," the difference happens to be in person rather than number, but the principle has been stated clearly. Words into Type (page 352, under "Plural and singular substantives joined by "or" or "nor") has "When a subject is composed of both plural and singular substantives joined by or or nor, the verb should agree with the nearer." Examples given include "Neither money nor men were lacking" and "Others are trapped by the fear that their interests or their property is being threatened." Deor (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For 3, "their" is the simple solution. But then you may be swooped upon by people who insist that Shakespeare was PC gone mad... Skittle (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this. English isn't like Boolean algebra or anything; we fly by the seat of our pants a lot of the time. I think that natural speech in my part of the USA has it 1. "is", 2. "are", 3. "their". For number 1, "is" is the only way to go; basic grammar, dude. As for 2 and 3, I think we usually hear a plural when it's a compound subject, but not always. This time, though, yes. The "or" is construed like an "and" for counting. We get caught in these conundrums in speech, and we do our best at the time; we paint ourselves into a corner and just have to walk on the fresh paint to get out. Nobody dies. In writing, though, we should avoid such constructions wherever possible. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Green eye-shaded

What does green eye-shaded mean? I suspect it means something like "shrewd" or "penny-pinching". Bonus points if you can explain how it came about.

Here is the context:

They had two reactions," Stiglitz says wearily. "One was Bush saying, 'We don't go to war on the calculations of green eye-shaded accountants or economists.

from The Guardian [7] Dforest (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's explained in the article on green eyeshade. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. How did I miss this? Dforest (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Japanese) イラク日本人青年殺害事件 in english

what does this say?Cholga^talK! 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Iraq Japanese Youth Killing Incident" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A Japanese young man killed in Iraq. 事件 is an incident or a case as User PalaceGuard008 translated, but I think it can be omitted. Oda Mari (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

¡Ou!

Why is D'oh! translated into Spanish that way? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because that is the term used in the Spanish episodes of the Simpsons and is a relative equivalent of the vocalization in Spanish. D;oh was made up in English. But in Spanish it didn't make sense to borrow D'oh but the existing Ou to express annoyance or discomfort was close enough sounding and voilà!Cholga^talK! 09:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

English to Vietnamese translations

How would you say, "He works exclusively for Falcon Studios and is famously one of the only men to have topped Matthew Rush." This is regarding this article.vi:Erik Rhodes (diễn viên khiêu dâm).Cholga^talK! 09:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd have better luck asking in that article's talk page. I'm not sure about Vietnamese gay sex terms, I guess I can ask someone how to translate "top". For now, I'll leave that blank.

“ Anh chỉ hoạt động cho hãng Falcon Studios và nổi tiếng là một trong những người đàn ông duy nhất đã _________ Matthew Rush. ”

DHN (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Simplest Sinoxenic Character

Which is the simplest sinoxenic character? In other words, which Sinoxenic character has the fewest strokes? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of the word "sinolexic", but by deconstruction assuming it to mean "Chinese word" -- then "一", pronounced "yi" in pinyin and meaning "one". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

乙 also consists of only a single stroke. -- Visviva (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the most enigmatic threads I've ever seen. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That might be because 68.148 originally used the word "sinolexic" both in the subheading and in the question. Both occurrences were changed to "sinoxenic" after PalaceGuard had replied to the original question. See sinoxenic languages for which languages the querent is asking about (Bai, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Zhuang according to the article}. This is why it is better to strike out your error and add the correction when someone has already responded. Now people might think PalaceGuard is dysxenic dyslexic.---Sluzzelin talk 11:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Woe is me. =( --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sinoxenic" excludes Chinese, but the one-stroke character "一" is also used in Japanese kanji, and I don't think you can get simpler than that.  --Lambiam 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my response after you changed "sinolexic" to "sinoxenic", and the response itself uses the term "sinoxenic" and refers to its meaning ("sinolexic" would definitely not exclude written Chinese), so no, that does not chnage my response.  --Lambiam 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but maybe it depends on exactly how the term is defined. 乙 and 一 both occur in Korean (and Japanese), although 一 is certainly much more common. Both can occasionally occur in isolation, 一 as "1," and 乙 as "B" in contracts etc. -- Visviva (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know old Zhuang (sawndip), but can we also approach the question from another direction? Given that we've identified "一" as our upper limit in terms of complexity, how would we describe a character that is "simpler" than that? My view is that the only thing that can be simpler than "一" would be a dot, something like "•". Is that a meaningful character in any of these languageS? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yoon

Before yoon were diminished in size, did yoon follow only after [i] morae/graphemes/sylables/kana?68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question, so I don't know to what extent the following is an answer. In actual use, a yōon always follows a kana ending in the sound i and forms one mora with it. The kana used as yōon are diminished versions of standard kana; used in normal size, they are a mora by themselves, also when following a kana ending in i. For example, キヤ "Kiya" is the 2-mora name of a brand of lingerie.  --Lambiam 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the change from キヤ to キャ historically preceded the introduction of combinations like ティ? I think it did, but I'm not certain. -- BenRG (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing phonetics with orthography, which makes answering your question a little difficult. Yōon are phonetic sounds and were never "diminished in size"; only the orthography used to express them later diminished them by size. So I will attempt to mix to the two together in an attempt to answer your question.

While the English language article Yōon only lists the the palatal -j, historically and also dialectically there was also a labial -w. For example, kwazi "fire" which once contrasted with kazi "house chores". The palatal -j only followed the orthographic -i. However, the labial -w followed the orthographic -u. Bendono (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Islamic versus Muslim

Can anyone advise me on the proper usage of these two terms? I have, at different points in my career, heard different opinions on their appropriateness. Several years ago, a colleague of mine who is an Islamist told me that Muslim should be used (as an adjective or noun) only when referring to people who are adherents of Islam, whereas Islamic should be used in all other contexts (e.g., Muslim worshipers, but Islamic civilization). More recently, I have been told that Muslim advocacy groups prefer that the term Islamic be restricted to features of the religion itself and that all worldly things produced by Muslims come under the term Muslim (e.g. Muslim civilization). Can anyone offer arguments for one or the other of these views, or for yet another view? Should it be Muslim civilization or Islamic civilization? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The first way, I would say, especially because Muslim literally means someone who adheres to Islam. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As a noun, Muslim means: a person who adheres to Islam. Therefore, when used as a modifier, it should mean: "pertaining to adherents of Islam". So it is quite reasonable to use the Muslim community as an English phrase for the Ummah. I'd prefer Muslim doctors over Islamic doctors; the former refers to doctors who happen to be adherents of Islam, while the latter has the connotation of doctors practising some Islamic form of medicine, which is presumably not intended. Conversely, I'd prefer Islamic court over Muslim court if the idea is that the court bases itself on Islamic law. This is not a matter of political correctness, but of the normal rules of assigning meanings to English phrases. I'd say that you can legitimately use either the Muslim world or the Islamic world, where the choice should depend on what you want to convey. If you want to convey the fact that this is the world formed by Muslim people, go with the former; if you mean the world of Islam, go with the latter. If you can call America a Christian country, then Turkey is a Muslim country but not an Islamic country.

For civilization, assuming you are referring to the civilization that came forth from the Islamic Renaissance, I have a mild preference for Islamic civilization. You can also say: the Golden Age of Islam, while the Golden Age of Muslims sounds weird to me. It is true that this civilization was produced by people, the vast majority of whom were Muslims. Nevertheless, the meaning to me is not "the civilization formed by Muslims". Rather, it is the civilization that came forth from the Islamic Empire, which was a caliphate, based in Islamic theology. But if enough people prefer Muslim Empire, I'll eventually follow; the meaning of words is grounded in how people use them and not in linguistic considerations.

See also the section Islamic Golden Age#Criticism of Ascribing the Golden Age to Islam, but note that the objection expressed there to the term Islamic civilization equally applies to Christian civilization; in fact, the argumentation can be turned into a stronger objection to Muslim civilization, as the latter would even more strongly tend to exclude the contributions of non-Muslims to the Islamic Renaissance.  --Lambiam 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of their use as adjectives - is there any difference between 'ismlamic' and 'muslim'? I can't detect any, except on the level of how it feels to say either. Does one seem more respectful than an other for instance. (I must say that 'islamic' sounds more historical, more cultured, and more general than 'muslim' which seems for personal, modern, and human.) So is there any reason why I shouldn't use either (as an adjective) with no fear of making a mistake?87.102.84.112 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also would not some of the answers given above be likely to change quite quickly eg cf 'black' and 'negro'; both of which mean exactly the same thing except one will offend the other delight?87.102.84.112 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. With negro, the word changes because people start using it pejoratively. The same thing happens with whatever word refers to the mentally challenged. Idiot, then and retarded used to not have negative connotations. In addition to people not using Muslim pejoratively (Islamifascist seems to be the epithet of choice), I'd imagine that there are enough pedantists to ensure that changing the meanings of muslim and islamic would take a while. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would use either, there are good points made in favor of Muslim, however precedent would pressure you to use Islamic as would be the "correct" term, especially with regards to a paper.Cholga^talK! 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to describing individuals, you have to be careful. A person may be called Ahmed Abdul Mohammed, and have been born in Saudi Arabia, but for all anyone knows could be a Christian, Buddhist, Jew or atheist. Describing him, without knowledge of his personal beliefs, as "a Muslim doctor" or "an Islamic chef", just because of his name, origin and appearance, may be way off the mark. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I would never presume to ascribe a religion to someone without first consulting reliable sources! Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note also that "Islamist" almost always denotes something much different to "an adherent of Islam". It generally denotes someone who is an ideologue of Islam as a political system, and often implies extremism and/or militancy. --Sean 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts

I support Obama, so I'm not trying to beat up on him: but is it just me, or does he pronounce my home state's name as [ˌmæsəˈtʰusəts], "Massatoosetts"? Many people have commented on this, but it's hard for me to tell definitively whether he's really using a plosive, or just a strange, weak sort of affricate there. What do you think? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard him say it, but I do know there are lots of people who pronounce it that way, so maybe he's one of them. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

spelling of h'or dourve/h'ors dourves

How do you spell these correctly, and where is the article for this item?Cholga^talK! 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hors d'oeuvre--Eriastrum (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that's a redirect to Hors d'œuvre, which then uses "d'oeuvre" throughout the article. A rather emotive naming debate too! So what do our linguists here think? Hors d'oeuvre or hors d'œuvre? -Gwinva (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) p.s. I knew that was a redirect since I recently learnt a nifty trick to make redirects green instead of blue. Gwinva (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In English, we don't use œ generally, like æ. In fact, it's rather non-standard to use letters outside the usual 26. That's not to say that using æ and œ is wrong, but rather it comes across as quirky, and perhaps a little arrogant, like showing off. For this reason I say keep it as 'oe' rather than 'œ', but I'm not a hardliner. Plus, most people use English based keyboards without a simple shortcut to write æ, œ, etc. without resorting to Alt+X combinations, so it will be the more common search. Steewi (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seldom seen the OED so out of step with the AHD. We Americans know what an or durve is, and the French are free to spell and pronounce and indeed pluralize it any way they want back home. The ligature is passe [sic]. (I am not a linguist.) --Milkbreath (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Was not there a time when the English language was enriched with terms like "Freedom Fries" ? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is about French letters, nést-ce pas? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what it's about. I just want to be able to type in English without a having to have a toolkit for it. Maybe Steewi isn't a hardliner, but I am. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, Milkbreath. The d'œuvre version would never be used by an English-language newspaper, my benchmark for such things (note, I didn't say standard). Whether the letters o and e are tied or not, they're still counted as 2 letters, so why confuse people with antiquated typography that just makes the outcome of debates such as the one Gwinva referred to make Wikipedia seem silly and pompous. Ban all ligatures, I say - that's everywhere, for all time, in all circumstances. What other languages do is their own affair, and if we borrow words from them, we're free to re-spell them in our own English-language way. We drop the acutes, graves, circumflexes, and cedillas from French-source words - because they're not part of the English language - so I just can't understand the resistance to removing the ligature in this case (the argument was that we borrowed hors d'œuvre from French, so we have to spell it precisely as they do - to which I opine "Bollocks"). If some cookbooks want to spell it with the ligature (and most don't), that's their choice - but the rest of the anglophone world is not required to comply. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Gwinva (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On an OED note, while the biggie has "d'œuvre" the Concise has only "d'oeuvre". Gwinva (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since horse is a regular English word it should be noted that for the plural you can use the regular horses d'oeuvre.

February 29

Proofread some Japanese, please.

In this article: Subject Object Verb

私は箱を開けます。is transliterated as "watashi wa hako o akemasu."

Should that not be "watashi wa hako to akemasu"?

を = to

I do not speak Japanese, but I am studying it. I fixed it [8], but then I reverted myself because I thought I might be wrong because the person made the same mistake twice. Plus, with all of the Japanophiles on Wikipedia, this kind of a mistake is not likely. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

O is correct. It "o" when it is is a particle. See Japanese_grammar#Objects.2C_locatives.2C_instrumentals:_.E3.82.92_.28o.29.2C_.E3.81.AB_.28ni.29.2C_.E3.81.A7_.28de.29.2C_.E3.81.B8_.28e.29.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Also see Wo (kana). I don't think it's ever to. See hirigana.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I misread it. I mistook を for と.

Sorry! Thanks! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct Sentence

Hi guys, just wondering which of these is correct:

“Train’s the way to go,” said Bob.

OR

“Train’s the way to go”, said Bob.

Thanks 58.168.63.181 (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The first way is the correct American way, and the second way is the correct British way. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No; the second is not correct in UK English. Gwinva (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

British and US usage differ when the quote finishes the sentence.

• UK: Bob said "Train's the way to go".
• USA: Bob said "Train's the way to go."

But where the quote ends in mid-sentence, they actually speak the same language. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on that last US version, it should be: Bob said, "Train's the way to go." Don't forget the comma after said. Useight (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The comma's needed in British English as well! Bazza (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically there are two styles of placing other punctuation marks with quotation marks. What people here are calling the American style places commas and periods before the closing quote. Other punctuation marks take their logical position according to whether they belong to the quoted text. This is the style I was taught as the only correct style when I was in school in Canada. What people are calling the British style places all marks in their logical position (although if there would logically be punctuation both before and after a closing quote, in most cases only one of the two marks is used). This is the preferred style for Wikipedia articles and where the other style might cause confusion. See Quotation marks#Typographical considerations for discussion and WP:MOS#Quotation marks regarding Wikipedia style. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, February 29, 2008.

Could Gwinva or some other British English user answer the following question: Are you saying that "Train's the way to go," said Bob. is the correct way to punctuate that direct quote in British English (as opposed to "Train's the way to go", said Bob.)? Or are you saying that the word order or the omission of the definite article is incorrect? The omission of the definite article would be nonstandard in American English, but I didn't comment on that because I thought that the questioner was asking about punctuation. Surely the word order, with said Bob at the end of the sentence, is permissible in British English, as it is in American English? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

“Train’s the way to go,” said Bob. is correct in UK usage. SaundersW (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation in English

My punctuation needs improvement. Does anyone know a reliable online resource listing rules or guidelines? (Not WP:PUNC, please). I know they vary and are elastic, but I'm just looking for one authoritative and consistent body. It doesn't matter from which side of the pond(s). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's my area. But I can't recommend any online resources that are as good as the many books I know. For general use, and as a source that we could well learn from here at Wikipedia, try [Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors]. Some American bias, but pretty damn good all the same. There's a Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style, but you might be better off with the first one I mention. A basically Chicago Manual of Style approach, but more friendly, readable, and refreshingly rational. (I say that as a veteran of the WT:MOS-wars.) There's also a much smaller but very serviceable sibling: [Merriam-Webster's Pocket Guide to Punctuation].

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, as a lighter introduction to the subject, try Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss. Bazza (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, Noetica and Bazza. I've always meant to borrow the Panda book from my sister one day, and will order one of the suggested hardcopies eventually. I guess I need an online version because I write (and edit) from all sorts of places, and would like to look things up when not at home too. Well, I suppose the pocket guide might fit in my coat pocket. Still, if anyone knows a reliable online version, I would be deeply gratified. I found a citation guide that looks alright, but I'm really looking for punctuation in general. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wedding Wording

'X and Y request the pleasure of your company in celebrating their marriage at...'

Is this a grammatically legitimate sentence? Can it be accepted in the context of an invite? 195.60.20.81 (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. It has all the elements a sentence requires, provided you finish with the location.

• X and Y = subject
• request = verb
• the pleasure = object, of your company = prepositional phrase
• in celebrating their marriage at... = prepositional phrases

—Dforest (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what does "in celebrating" modify? I sense conflation. We "take" pleasure "in" things, but we don't "request" pleasure "in" them. We "join" others "in" celebrating, but we don't request company "in" it. We have company "on" a trip or "for" an occasion. This reads to me like a failed attempt at elegant language. Don't ask me how to fix it, though. I'm far too plain-spoken for your mother-in-law-to-be. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can just say "to celebrate". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In the construction in + <gerund> in English, in can mean "at the time of", "on the occasion of", or "by means of". For example, "We ask you to join us in celebrating our marriage." So this is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verb phrase request the pleasure of your company. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't just define "in", the little words have to be used idiomatically. Your "join someone in something" is idiomatic, but our "request something in something" is not. And "X and Y request the pleasure of your company to celebrate their marriage at..." is no better. What does "to celebrate" belong to? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't 'belong' to anything. It looks to me to be a purpose clause (I'm thinking of Latin ut) which follows the request for company; i.e., We request the pleasure of your company with the purpose of celebrating our marriage. IMHO, the first sentence was fine too - I agree with Marcopolo's assessment, in+gerund (that's celebrating, a verbal noun) can indicate at the time of; the OED, among its very comprehensive definition of in, gives: "In the process of, in the act of; in case of: often equivalent in sense to a temporal clause introduced by when, while, if, in the event of." СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the most ferocious creature in the world?

The Panda.

Anyplace with Pandas will be pandamonium... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.6.248 (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)