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:

• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 31

Hardness as a personal trait

Neue Deutsche Härte is translated in the article as New German Hardness. As far as I can see, this term is most often used to describe physical properties of substances in English. But of course, the term hints at being hard as a personal trait. Is it ok to use this expression? Might there be a better one? --KnightMove (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hard is used in English in this sense. It refers to someone who is unyielding or unsympathetic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it describes such a someone. —Tamfang (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As with Moses and the pharaoh, the latter having "hardened his heart" each time one of the plagues had ended, having previously promised to give Moses' people their freedom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, there's the song Harden My Heart. StuRat (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome,

Knew you not Pompey?" (Marullus, Julius Caesar) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed.. " (Matthew 25:24) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

... which gives new meaning to "A hard man is good to find".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Why should men love the Church?... She is tender where they would be hard, and hard where they like to be soft." T S Elliot, Choruses from The Rock.[1] Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems I got the meaning of hard wrong in English. Let's pose the question in a different way: Does the noun hardness carry the same connotations as the hard in hard rock? If no, is there a better noun for that purpose? Toughness, maybe? --KnightMove (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

See here/. Several of these common definitions involve personality traits. Since I don't speak German, I don't know what the proper sense-for-sense translation should be here, but hard can certainly be applied to personalities. --Jayron32 16:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be asking specifically about "hard" as applied to rock music, which is not really the same as either "hard" or "tough" (or any other personality trait) as applied to persons; it's about the sound. That's not to say it's completely unrelated (my unsourced observation is that hard rock tends to be unsentimental, as compared to several other subgenres of rock) but it's not the same thing. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost as heavy as New German Wellies?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that I've seen a problem where none is. Thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I do speak German, and the word hart, when applied to people, usually does not mean the same as hard in English. Hard in English would usually correspond to something like streng in German, whereas hart in German is more like tough in English. Marco polo (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

... so hart in German means the same as hard in Scouse? Dbfirs 21:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hard rock may have been named by analogy with hard liquor. —Tamfang (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

... or possibly Hard Scousers. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"What is 'hard' about the 'hard sciences'? An investigation of the extended meanings of 'hard' and 'soft'" looks at all sorts of hard and soft pairings (data, money, drugs, pornography, -ware, ...). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That's quite an exhaustive survey, although Victoria Muehleisen doesn't cover, in any detail, rock music, hearts or people, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Cover is perhaps saying too much, and certainly not in detail, but she does classify "cheese" under sense #1 (soft = easy to press; opposite of hard), "rock (music)" under sense #4 (hard = intense), and "-heart(ed)" under sense #9 (hard = unsympathetic, unfeeling). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but she also has a Section 8 "A look at some cases in detail". Apologies my edit summary was meant to be (like 90% of my contributions) an ironic pun. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed your edit summary. Actually what happened is that, sloppy reader that I am, I first missed your "in detail", then had typed out my reply with quotes, then noticed that part in your post, then decided to post mine anyway for the sake of the OP etc, sorry, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't read it, ... and only now did I read, at the very bottom of Muehleisen's text, "Pick your favorite search engine (I recommend Alta Vista)" ... nostalgic sigh. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

awww, that's so quaint Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

High English?

Which variety of English is presented in phrases like "fear not, John, for we shall avenge", "Men of the South, be not dismayed!", "survive we will", "You tempt the wrath of the Khala" or "Tassadar be praised"? That is it may be literary English or the so-called high English, but I'm unsure. Thanks --93.174.25.12 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like good old Will Shakespeare to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's basically just (British) Modern English, but spoken in a slightly more formal or literary mode than is common for the vast majority of current speakers. The speakers/writers are speaking in standard grammatical forms that would have been taught in any school up to the 1950s, and in many schools until probably the 1970s. For what it's worth, my family speak like this at home and with friends (though sometimes ironically when with friends), and with other people like us, and this mode of English is my mother tongue. I generally remember to speak less precisely at work or with people I don't know, of course, because it's polite to speak to people in their own language. One entertaining feature of being part of a minority linguistic community is watching the next generation learn which mode applies in which social situation, and to whom, often with amusing results. RomanSpa (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Literary English is a better description than High English. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This kind of English is not any more or less precise than standard English, or for that matter, any other language. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. For example, in formal speech there is a clear distinction of between future tenses formed with "will" and "shall". In informal English no such distinction exists. RomanSpa (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's archaic literary language. When it's not used authentically, it can be called Wardour Street. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

English in the style of the Book of Common Prayer was still used in the liturgy of Anglicans and other denominations. Until the 1950s, those writing new hymns or prayers felt the need to address God as "thou" and use other quirks of 17th century formal language. I had always believed that this style was called "Prayer Book English" but Google hasn't found anything to confirm this for me. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction: texts in this style are still being written today - see the The Coronation Anniversary Prayer written for a service in 2013, includes the line "thou wilt pour upon her thy choicest gifts" (a version in modern English is also provided). Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Since at least two of these are from Starcraft II, I can say with fair certainty that it's intended to contrast the princely and technologically advanced Protoss with the much more... down to earth... Terrans. "Literary English" gives the sense of education, of class, than vernacular English — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Anfechtung

What are all the linguistic nuances of Anfechtung in 16th century German? How do you pronounce it anyway? 140.254.227.30 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I can't claim to sense all the nuances, as I haven't read that much 16th century German, but if you're referring to Luther, "temptation", "trial", "affliction", and "tribulation" have been used in English translations according to "The Concept of Anfechtung in Luther's Thought" (1983) by David P. Scaer who writes that "each of these English words develops one facet" of Anfechtung ("temptation" for being tested by Satan, "trial" for the probationary period before God, "affliction" for the individual's actual suffering and "tribulation" for the affliction as "suffered by all Christians"). The author wonders whether Anfechtung is perhaps best left untranslated, but admits that this would be "the route of theological and literary cowardice".

Nowadays it's pronounced IPA: [ˈanˌfɛçtʊŋ] (I don't know how to represent the "ich-Laut" without the help of IPA).

It's based on the verb "anfechten" which these days usually means "to contest", "to challenge", "to dispute" etc, but rarely "to bother" or "to afflict"; you might still hear "Was ficht dich an?" ("What's wrong with you?") or "Das ficht mich nicht an" ("That doesn't concern me"), but it has a touch of silliness/irony nowadays. The verb "fechten" without the prefix is a cognate of English "to fight". (In modern Standard German it means "to fence"). The prefix "an-" has many possible meanings. Here I sense it has something to do with initiating the action, making first contact, toward a fight/Gefecht, similar to angreifen ("to attack"). Sorry, this is all a bit unstructured. Hopefully others have more to add. --Sluzzelin talk 11:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

April 1

Eastern European naming conventions

Eastern European naming conventions dictate that a female's surname would end in -ska or -ova, and a male's surname would end in -ski or -ov. Now, suppose we have a female, Miss Jakubowska, and she marries an American man named Mr. Smith. By American conventions, she would be known as Mrs. Smith and her children with the man will be known as __________ Smith. Now, if the same person had been male, then he would be known as Mr. Jakubowski, and his children with his American wife, would be... um, this gets a bit tricky. Would the children typically follow Polish naming conventions or American naming conventions? How about a case where a single Polish woman adopts a male child. Would he receive her exact surname (Jakubowska) or the male equivalent (Jakubowski) or his birth name? What if the said single Polish woman is impregnated by a man but does not marry him? Would the child receive the man's surname if the man is known or the woman's surname (masculine version) if the man is unknown? 140.254.227.101 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, your generalization about surname forms does not apply to all cases. It doesn't apply in Eastern European countries with non-Slavic languages, and even in the Slavic countries, not every surname ends in -ski or -ov in the masculine form. Also, the spelling of those forms varies among Slavic countries. For example, in the Czech Republic, names end in -sky rather than -ski. I can't comment on how Poles handle surnames for single mothers in various scenarios, but I think I can answer the question about the children of Mr. Jakubowski and his American wife. Assuming that the couple did not adopt a shared surname such as Jakubowski-Smith, then the children would normally take the father's surname. The form of that surname would probably depend on the country where the couple intended to raise the children. In the United States, children of Slavic immigrants generally use the masculine form of the father's surname, even if they are girls. In Poland, I expect that the children's surname would take the appropriate form for their genders. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the last question, it's very rare (to my knowledge) for a single woman to give her child the surname of a man she had never married, unless they were in a de facto relationship akin to marriage. Circumstances vary, but generally it would raise too many uncomfortable questions. Or, rather, simple and innocent questions requiring uncomfortable answers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In a country where "gendered" family names are used, the child will always have a properly gendered last name. So a male child of a single mother normally gets her last name, but in masculine form. If you tried to give him a feminine last name intentionally, you probably legally can't, or would find it very hard. Of course, in the US or other places which do not recognize gendered last names, the automatic assumption is that the child just get his mother's name. And you get people with names like Ed Lazowska which seems quite weird to me. --Ornil (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It varies in the U.S. some, but quite often the child is given the father's surname even if the mother has no intention of maintaining a long-term relationship with the father. I would say that in the U.S., while far from universal, such a situation is somewhat more common than not. --Jayron32 23:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

140.254.227.101 -- I have no idea if it happens in reality, but in Greg Bear's Eon, there's a male U.S. character who has a Slavic feminine last name due to ancestral family history... AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In Poland naming conventions are regulated by law. Generally, there are three possible cases, depending on the surname's grammatical characteristics:

• Name declined like a noun – same form for men and women, e.g.:

  Jan Nowak, Łukasz Kowal, Jakub Środa (men);

  Anna Nowak, Olga Kowal, Barbara Środa (women)

• Name declined like an adjective that ends, in the masculine form, in -ski, cki or -dzki – masculine form for men, feminine form for women, e.g.:

  Jan Nowacki, Łukasz Kowalski, Jakub Śródzki;

  Anna Nowacka, Olga Kowalska, Barbara Śródzka.

• Name declined like an adjective that doesn't end, in the masculine form, in -ski, cki or -dzki – if you're getting married and taking your spouse's surname, you may choose whether you want your new surname's grammatical gender to match your sex or not (the same if you're registering your newborn baby). So if a woman is getting married to a man whose name is Biały, Cichy or Silny, she may choose to be called either Biały, Cichy, Silny or Biała, Cicha, Silna.

Of course, these conventions do not apply outside Poland. So if an American woman married a Polish man by the name Kowalski in the U.S., she would likely adopt the name Kowalski. If she then moved to Poland and became a Polish citizen or resident, her surname would not be automatically changed to Kowalska. If she wanted to change her name to a grammatically correct one, she would have to legally request such a change.

Sources:

• Ustawa z dnia 17 października 2008 r. o zmianie imienia i nazwiska [Given Name and Surname Change Act], Dz. U. z 2008 r. Nr 220, poz. 1414 (2008-12-12)
• Rozporządzenie Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji z dnia 26 października 1998 r. w sprawie szczegółowych zasad sporządzania aktów stanu cywilnego... [Ordinance of the Minister of Internal and Administrative Affairs on the Rules for Preparation of Acts of Marital Status, etc.], Dz. U. z 1998 r. Nr 136, poz. 884 (1998-10-26) — Kpalion^(talk) 17:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Word request

What word would best fit this case? A researcher decides to do a study on whatever, and after collecting data and performing a statistical analysis on the data, he concludes that he's not rejected the null hypothesis and that there is no significant correlation between X and Y at .01 alpha-level of significance. But he further changes the .01 to a .05, giving him more power, and justifies the change. At this point, he declares that he's rejected the null and that there is a significant correlation between X and Y at .05 alpha-level of significance. Obviously, this is academic dishonesty... or perhaps it's pseudoscience? 140.254.226.242 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success to include whatever you did." StuRat (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Artificial intelligence is that which hasn't been done." —Tamfang (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tamfang -- "What's easy is hard and what's hard is easy" is a valid maxim in artificial intelligence. Things that are very hard for humans (e.g. long laborious mathematical calculations) are easy for computers, while things that are very easy for humans (vision, motion, language) are extremely difficult to implement in machines. In the 1960s, before this was fully understood, some people imagined that the development of such things as a computer program which could beat many people playing checkers (draughts) meant that big breakthroughs in achieving artificial intelligence were just around the corner, but that wasn't the case... AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether there's a word. It reminds me of stories about someone who shot a gun and then drew a target around the bullet hole. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On which subject, of course, we have an article. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience can be a lot of things, but generally it doesn't include deliberately falsifying results. So I wouldn't use that word. The best I can find is "scientific misconduct." See the Wikipedia article for Scientific misconduct.--Dreamahighway (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not dishonest at all. The fact that he was expecting 0.01 doesn't change the fact that the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level, and there's nothing wrong with reporting p=0.03 (for example) if that's actually the case. Scientists have to deal with unexpected sources of error all the time. It's frequently the case that their results are weaker than what they were hoping for, but that doesn't make the result any less valid. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

140.254.226.242 -- Often such "significance" testing isn't what's most practically important anyway, since these numbers have very little to do with effect size. Something can be significant to the .00001 level and still have semi-negligible effect size... AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Academic fraud. See Academic dishonesty#Fabrication.
Sleigh (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly not fraud or pseudoscience, or even academic dishonesty if the researcher reports the actual data, because then any statistician can make an appropriate inference about statistical significance. A scrupulously honest researcher would report that he was originally intending to test at the 1% level and that the results obtained are not significant at this level, but he could then perfectly justifiably go on explain that the results are significant at the 5% level and that further research might be called for. Testing of medicinal drugs in the past has often been unreported when the required significance level has not been reached, but regulations in the UK are now requiring all results to be published, even the ones that don't turn out as expected or hoped. Dbfirs 18:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• • YES to this! About the worst we could call it is "lowering the bar" or some such. As long as the appropriate statistics are reported, there is no misconduct. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2

Asia languages

examples of countries or communities in a country where many people fluent in two asian languages but only basic english? i know one is the chinese malaysians fluent in both mandarin and malay. --121.7.10.138 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In many parts of China, people will be fluent in their local language as well as Mandarin. See Languages of China. --Jayron32 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Probably the majority of urban Javanese people are fluent in Indonesian, with good (low) Javanese, but middling English. It's quite common to be bilingual in Indonesia, considering the vast number of languages spoken in the country./ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Our list of multilingual countries and regions in Asia might be of help here (for example the large minority of Azeri Turkish-speakers in Iran who also speak Farsi. Or the Kurdish- and Aramaic-speakers in Iraq who also speak Arabic). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Papual new Guinea have over 850 languages on a population of 7M, and knowledge of English exists, but is not good, see Languages of Papua New Guinea and Papua New Guinea. A friend who has been there once told me that it is quite common for children to speak five local languages just to be able to communicate with all the other children that they play with. (No reference, just hearsay, I am afraid). Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Some areas of New Guinea practice linguistic exogamy, where a female marries a male of a group speaking a different native language. This often means a young woman knows the native language of her father's group, the language her mother brought into the family, and the language of her new husband. See William A. Foley The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've heard of a town in western(?) India where effectively everyone speaks three languages, each in its own domain, e.g. all commerce is done in one language. Two are Aryan and one is Dravidian (or vice versa) but they have converged in syntax though not in vocabulary. —Tamfang (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, that would be Gumpertz & Wilson's classic 1971 study of the village of Kupwar (Maharashtra, India), with Urdu, Kannada and Marathi spoken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The situation the questioner describes is common in several Asian countries. It is especially widespread in India and Pakistan, where most people speak a local language or dialect, at least one regional lingua franca such as Hindi or Urdu, and at least the rudimentary English they learned in school. The Philippines are similar: a local language or dialect, Tagalog, and at least rudimentary English. In Indonesia, the pattern is a local language, plus Indonesian, plus maybe a little English. In Malaysia, members of the non-Malay minorities will speak a home language, Malay, and probably a little English. In Singapore, most of the native-born population will speak a home language, Singlish, and some standard English. Someone else has pointed out this pattern in parts of China where the local language is not Mandarin. The same is true in the Arab countries, where people speak their local vernacular, some degree of standard Arabic, and maybe a little English (though I think English is far from universal in Arab countries other than perhaps along the Persian Gulf). Ethnic minorities in other Asian countries often speak their minority language and the national lingua franca, but apart from Sri Lanka and Nepal, English knowledge is not widespread (beyond maybe a few words) in other Asian countries with linguistic minorities. Marco polo (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese merchants in Phnom Penh, Cambodia will often speak their ancestral Chinese dialect, Khmer, be at least familiar with Mandarin, and, to varying degrees, conversant in English (for tourists). Some of the older generation will also still be able to manage some French.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Existing features under lost estates

Is there anything wrong with this sentence:

"The Hodbarrow Drain is a mine working under the 17th-century Huddleston Estate, then in the historic county of Cumberland."

To my mind, this mixes tenses, unacceptably, in a single sentence. Or is it acceptable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's acceptable but it seems to me you're trying to cram a lot of information (about the mine, the estate, and the county) into one short sentence. If it's a "lost" estate, how about "The Hodbarrow Drain is a mine working under the former Huddleston Estate, which was founded in the 17th-century in what was then Cumberland." Also it might be more relevant to provide the date of the mine rather than the date of the estate (are they connected in any other way?), and "Cumberland" is rather a vague identification of the location; how about "X miles north of Y-town" so that the inclusion of an historic county is unnecessary?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition, it would be clearer to say "... is a mine working which lies beneath ...", to make it immediately obvious that the word "working" goes with "mine" and not with "under".----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is "working" a noun or a verb. Is it that the mine is working, or is a "mine working" a thing? If, as I suspect, the latter, then there's only one verb in the sentence, and the question of clash of tenses doesn't arise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It was intended as a noun. But it might just as well be mine-shaft, or tunnel, or whatever. Please ignore it. My basic problem is with the word "is" occurring before the word "then" - the 17th-century Huddleston Estate no longer exists, nor does the county in which it was located, but the tunnel beneath it still does. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I'd pretty much echo Shantavira's first sentence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It was the estate that was founded in the 17th century. "Mine working" is OK as a technical term, not identical to mine-shaft (which implies verticality). Ergo: The Hodbarrow Drain is a mine working under the 17th-century Huddleston Estate, in the historic county of Cumberland." Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How can a mine-working be under something that no longer exists? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How can a mine-working be under something that now longer exists? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's under the location of the former estate. I'd state that explicitly. Also, "mine tunnel" sounds a lot better to me, in US English, at least. I'd also prefer parens in this case: "The Hodbarrow Drain is a mine tunnel under the former 17th-century Huddleston Estate (then in the historic county of Cumberland).". StuRat (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. But it's all hypothetical. Fortunately, the actual problem has been now solved, by a clever editor, at Great Haigh Sough. lol Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Port/dock terminology,

Naval nomenclature is the bane of my existence!

There seem to be an enormous number of words describing places where ships dock. Warf, pier, quay, dock...to name just a few. Are they all just synonyms or is there some subtle maritime reasoning behind what bit of planking/stone stretching out over the sea is called what? Dictionaries seem confused on the topic. SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Shipping Law Blog: What is the Difference Between a Port, Quay, Pier and Wharf? has answers in words and pictures.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pretty good brief summary of the differences. Recommended for those confused on those particular terms. Palmeira (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, linking to this discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoever invented all those terms should take a long walk on a short jetty. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Dock also has the connotation of exposing the hull for cleaning or repair, usually as the noun drydock, but sometimes as a verb without the dry- prefix.

Sailors may have devised a portion of their vocabulary for hazing apprentices. When securing the lines mooring the ship to shore, pity the line-handler who doesn't know the difference between Bitts, Bollards and Cleats.Thewellman (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah, just specific, technical language. There are much cleverer things for hazing. Sending some poor soul off to the bridge with grease to "grease the relative bearings" was always fun. The best was the mail buoy back in the old days before electronics made ships part of the regular world with e-mail and phone calls. When mail sometimes took months to catch up with the ship newbies were suckers for sometimes spending hours, often in foul weather, searching for the mail buoy where mail for ships was deposited for pick up (Oh sure!). It was sometimes fairly elaborate. There is a goodly list of such diversions for old hands. Palmeira (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As with any field specialized terms actually do indicate different things the layman may not recognize. There are lots of specialized names for hammers and using just any hammer as if those names make no difference can make a job difficult to dangerous. While nautical terms may seem mystifying they are not there to haze or confuse apprentices. They'd better learn the subtle differences, in some cases to avoid real problems. There is one hell of a difference between a "dock" and a "pier" with the old Bowditch definition of "dock" being illustrative: "dock: The space between two two piers, or a basin or enclosre for reception of vessels and controlling the water level." The ship lies in the dock alongside a pier. Pity the poor mariner that puts the ship onto the pier—you just had a wreck. Similarly if line handlers ashore with cleats and bollards available are told to put a line over "that bollard" and instead put it on a cleat the line is not where intended and probably not secured as intended. Don't think any of us would appreciate going into surgery where a surgical nurse thinks all those specialized names for sharp, clamping, spreading and other such instruments are just for fun! "I've got a bleeder! Hand me the clamp" then fumble, bumble while the scalpel is exchanged for the spreader and then maybe the clamp. Palmeira (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely relevant anecdote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Heh. I must share an experience I had some years ago. My then partner and his best friend took me out sailboating on a lake. They'd both done it many times, but it was a first for me. They were doing the steering, and I was basically a passenger just enjoying the ride. We were going along OK, then a wind sprang up. It was getting choppy and getting harder to steer, then at a certain point they both yelled out to me "Uncleat the jib", because apparently I was closest to whatever the jib was. When I stared back uncomprehendingly, they just shouted louder "UNCLEAT THE JIB!". That increase in volume had zero impact on my knowledge of what a jib was or what the verb "to (un)cleat" meant. We started taking in water and before long we were overturned. We're all good swimmers and we weren't too far from shore so it was OK. We managed to upturn the boat and get back to safety. Then came the postmortem. Somehow I was supposed to have known, without any training whatsoever, what to do in such a situation, and to understand nautical terminology. To this day I refuse all responsibility for the outcome. But I mention it from time to time in jest, never failing to include the immortal words that my friends will never live down: "Uncleat the jib". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC) A similar story comes from my dad going sailing with my (maternal) grandfather. They're both good sailors, something I've spectacularly failed to inherit from either of them. Unfortunately, one of them knows all the terms in English, and the other in Polish. This led to a lot of arguments, and exchanges such as "Ready about!" "Yes, of course I'm ready, what the hell are you shouting for?" MChesterMC (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC) And anyone not getting what is going to happen tacking or coming about on a small sailboat may have a hard head knock, or worse, as a learning experience. It is why it is a good safety policy to make sure clueless visitors do not get involved in big ship operations and on tourist or private sail boats where some interaction is going to be necessary are given some instructions before setting out. The working parts of ships and ports are fairly dangerous places. Ever seen a five inch mooring line start "smoking"? Ever seen that line visibly narrow to an inch or less, snap with a crack like a small saluting gun, and then whip across 2-3 inch steel pipe stanchions bending and laying them flat? Take your head off or maybe, particularly if steel cable doing the same, slice you in two. Scary thing, particularly when, as I once watched, there were casual passers by standing about a lock and just luckily not in line with that whipping monster. They stood about like cows as ship's crew yelled warnings as water vapor began "smoking" on a part of the line being used to pull the ship forward in the lock. That's why sailors and port workers treat lines under tension like the dangerous beasts they are. Palmeira (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Fundamental problem there; expecting a passenger without any background to understand what has to be done. Then it appears you were on a very small boat near the cleat where a scramble to get to it might itself be a hazard. If someone does not know what the jib is and what it has to do with a cleat, whatever that might be, explaining it in an emergency in other terms will probably be after whatever disaster befalls. Maybe "There's a rope to that sail up there wrapped around that little two horned thing on the deck. Take it off!" would have worked—if your friend had managed the translation fast enough. It isn't a bad idea to give even casual guests aboard a quick run down of what happens and the need to either stay in place out of the way or learn enough to not get in trouble. Palmeira (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC) We're definitely on the same page. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Struggling back on-topic here... :-)

So, to summarize the discussion so far (many thanks!) I think that we've established the following highly informative distinctions:

• A Port is the entire place - a place on the coast with services for ships - often including a town or village.
• A Wharf is a man-made structure on a river or by the sea, which provides an area for ships to safely dock. Some ports have just one wharf, others have many.
• A Quay is, a part of the river bank or coastline which has been modified so ships can dock at it parallel to the shore.
• A Pier is a, normally wooden, structure which protrudes from the shore at a level above the water level, allowing ships to disembark passengers in the deeper water further out.
• A Dock is the space between the piers where ships may go.

So a port may have many wharfs each of which may comprise multiple quays and piers - interspersed with docks. That's a nice clear set of definitions.

I'm still not sure about the following though:

• Harbor -- I think it's a coastal inlet that may or may not include a port. That's kindof a surprise, I thought a harbor was just a port.
• Jetty -- Kinda vague but maybe ANY kind of man-made prominance out in to the water? So a pier is a jetty but a jetty isn't necessarily a pier?
• Berth -- Same thing as a dock? Or maybe just the space in a dock that one ship might occupy? Not sure.
• Haven -- A harbor that's a good place to go in a storm?
• Slip/Slipway -- A sloping bit of concrete to get boats from land down into the water and vice-versa maybe?
• Landing -- Eh...same thing as a Slip? I don't know, honestly.
• Embarkment -- A bit of a pier where people get on and off the ships?
• Marina -- A kind of port...a part of a port? Not sure.

I kinda have a feel for some of them - but, I'm trying to get to the more exacting maritime meanings.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

See Glossary of nautical terms.—Wavelength (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you confusing embarkation (the act of embarking, ie getting on board) with embankment (an artificial raised area, not necessarily nautical but certainly including some dock fronts)? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Harbor emphasis is on a place to find shelter from heavy seas. The harbor may or may not have developed shore facilities for fueling, maintenance, loading, offloading, etc.

Jetty glossary definition is good. Jetties almost never have mooring fixtures, and are seldom surfaced to be safe for vehicle or personnel access. If provision is made for access, the structure is typically called a Mole (architecture).

You have the right idea for berth (parking space) and haven (refuge).

Slipway article is useful, but slip has another meaning for ferries which may be a specialized type of landing. The slip is typically rather like a funnel which receives the bow of the ferry and aligns the ferry so a loading ramp is immobilized for vehicles to roll on or off the ferry.

Marina article is pretty good. The emphasis is on recreational rather than commercial vessels.Thewellman (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wharf above is too limited. It includes the facilities ashore, including warehouses and accessories to store and transship cargo. The description and photo in the link, The Shipping Law Blog: What is the Difference Between a Port, Quay, Pier and Wharf?, gives the idea.

• Another aid would be the chart symbols and glossary in American Practical Navigator (commonly just "Bowditch"). They are available by section in .pdf form from NGA, but the easiest link for the whole 5.7mb .pdf is NOAA. Part F, Ports, is the section most applicable here and the chart symbols will help in understanding shapes and locations. Here is a quick web version of a limited selection giving the idea of those symbols. You might have to do some further research to really understand things like "Deviation dolphin" or "Gridiron, Scrubbing grid" if you are interested. For fun, look at the photos of the old "scrubbing grid here and the concept here. Note that those symbols are in U.S. public domain documents so people wanting to illustrate the definitions here can do some snapshot and upload work if they wish to take the time. Palmeira (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The NGA publications selection is a useful resource for this type of thing. For example, select American Practical Navigator and then, way down below highly specialized tables such as "Meridional Parts" (from which you can hand build a Mercator chart) you will see a 3mb "Glossary" option for download. Palmeira (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody want to try to tackle the modern (mis)use of many of these terms by property developers to make the latest housing estate or commercial retail development sound attractive? HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure developers have been as misleading as cartographers who portray piers, jetties and moles with the same symbol causing users of their map legends to conclude the three are synonymous. Jetty has the same root word as jettison, and often originated as unwanted rubble arriving as ballast in empty ships being deposited in locations to protect loading port facilities from wave action or to preserve navigable channels. Loading facilities similarly protruding from the shore were either solid Mole (architecture) or pier platforms supported on piles or pillars similar to Pier (architecture).Thewellman (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Words on a Chinese date stamp

I bought a Chinese date stamp. I notice that I am able to stamp Chinese words after the date, like in the image here: http://postimg.org/image/77p1j1yzh/ Please tell me what these Chinese words mean. 96.57.219.74 (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Production (of goods, etc)

2. Produce (things that are produced)

3. Effective (as in "it works")

4. Ineffective (as in "it no longer works")

5. To purchase (generally a big purchase, not something you buy at the store)

6. To sell (generally a big sell, not you selling something to a friend)

7. "Payment received". Signifies that the receiving party acknowledges the receipt

8. "To be paid": as in, "this bill was duly paid" (antonym of 6)

9. To give approval to (i.e. upper court giving approval to a lower court's rulings)

10. Expired, became invalid

11. To cancel, to write off

12. To put to the test (i.e. to test a hypothesis, to check quality)

If you want, I can give you the Chinese characters themselves. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So I guess this stamp was made for big businesses and such. Well, I guess I can still use phrase #8.

April 3

Breakfast Cereals Business

I want to start breakfast cereals business. please send me detials of business and where i registration my business? and what licence i need to start breakfast cereals business? Please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.12.87 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your IP address indicates that you are probably asking about licensing and registration in India. You might have to wait a while before an expert on Indian law reads this, and even if they do, we are not allowed to give legal advice. Meanwhile, you might like to look at our articles on Indian business law especially Registrar of Companies, India or just consult a local lawyer. Dbfirs 18:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

reworking a sentence

I'm working on an article about the medieval Latin poem Si linguis angelicis and I'm getting stuck with the wording of a particular sentence. What I've got right now is "...the second stanza begins with the opening lines to Pange Lingua Gloriosi Proelium Certaminis, a sixth-century Latin Easter hymn attributed to Venantius Fortunatus." My worry is the placement of Latin and Easter; being together and both capitalized like that, it seems to be a discrete thing (e.g. "We celebrate Latin Easter two weeks after the usual one!") I've reworked it a few ways, but they don't sound right either. I could rework it into multiple sentences, but I think that would interrupt the flow too much. Any help? Or am I fretting over nothing? Matt Deres (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Try re-ordering the adjectives - "a Latin sixth-century Easter hymn". Or leave Latin out entirely, and trust that readers will know that Pange Lingua Gloriosi Proelium Certaminis is Latin; or will know as soon as they click that link. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the leaving-"Latin"-out suggestion, but if you want another possibility, one is "...the second stanza begins with the opening lines of the sixth-century Latin hymn Pange Lingua Gloriosi Proelium Certaminis, an Easter hymn attributed to Venantius Fortunatus". There are other ways of rewording, of course, such as "a sixth-century Latin hymn for Easter, attributed to Venantius Fortunatus". Deor (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't "the opening lines" be "the opening words", since Pange, lingua is the only bit that actually corresponds to the earlier poem? Deor (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Another alternative "a sixth-century Easter hymn written in Latin and attributed to Venantius Forutnatus" MChesterMC (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that you aren't fretting over nothing. I agree with you that "Latin Easter" is awkward and suggests something besides "in Latin and for Easter." I vote for leaving "Latin" out or for MChesterMC's version above.--Dreamahighway (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, everyone; I suppose this is a good example of me thinking myself into a corner. Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

How about "a hymn for Easter"? —Tamfang (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 4

Etymology of "order" -- illogical?

How did the Latin ordinem come to mean order, as in monastic order? Order as a series of arrangements seems to be the more logical etymology, but where in the world did people get the etymology of order to refer to a specific branch of monasteries? 140.254.227.76 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymonline has this to say on the matter. --Jayron32 16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The OED entry on "order" contains:

"II. A rank or class of people or things (characterized by similarity of structure but not necessarily by sequence).

5. A body of people living by common consent under the same religious, moral, or social regulations and discipline."

(in case it is not clear, meaning 5 is one instance of class II of meanings). This doesn't explicitly answer your question, but it seems to me that it implicitly does so. Incidentally, looking for "logic" in language is likely to be fairly fruitless. There is some, certainly, but it's rather unpredictable where you'll find it and where you won't. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Passover seder likewise means order or arrangement.[2] Regarding logic, "order" can be thought of as any kind of sequence or hierarchy or arrangement. It's totally logical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My Latin dictionary says the oldest meaning is "a straight row or line, a regular series." From there it was applied to a company of soldiers (compare rank and file), and metaphorically to an organizing principle; both of these senses can contribute to the sense of a group of people living according to a specific set of rules, which is what a monastic order is. —Tamfang (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Two Chinese questions

1. In File:Taiping_Cable_Car.JPG there is a sign stating "Three hour waiting zone". The Chinese I know: "3小时??区" - What are the missing characters? 2. What are the Chinese characters in this picture? http://www.interlink-direct.co.uk/templates/ja_ruby/images/interlink-logo.png

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

From Google Translate, "three hour waiting zone" translates to 3小时等候区 -- I don't know if this is correct.--Dreamahighway (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell from the picture. Thank you for trying to find it out! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is 3小时等候区 in the picture. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The characters in the second picture are 億達行, or in simplified characters, 亿达行。 Their website is here. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you so much! Do you know what the Pinyin is? I can't tell which Pinyin is used for 行 in this case... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's presumably yì dá háng. 行 probably means company/industry in this case, in which case it would be pronounced háng. --Bowlhover (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Medical terminology

There's a type of surgical procedure which involves inserting a tube or catheter or some such into an artery in the groin, and going up into the heart, for example to insert a balloon. Does anyone here happen to know what the term for that kind of procedure is? Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Balloon angioplasty via percutaneous surgery, specifically the Seldinger technique. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be it, in general terms. In this case, it has to do with trying to get a weak heart valve to work, in lieu of replacement. After posing the question, it occurred to me that catheterization was what I was looking for. All related, methinks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course that has a broader meaning, including things like a urinary catheter. In any case, can we mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – You bet. :)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Japanese help: Are the authors of this report independent of the Liceo Mexicano Japonese?

Can someone please check if the authors of this report are independent of the Liceo Mexicano Japones? The document and info are in Japanese.

• Martínez Saito, Sakura (齋藤 さくら) and Kyoko Tanaka (田中 京子). "日本発の国際学校で学んだ子どもたちは今 : 「日本メキシコ学院」の二文化教育の成果を探る/What has become of the Children who studied at Liceo Mexicano Japones? Outcomes of Bi-cultural Education" (Archive). 16-Oct-2006. Journal of the Education Center for International Students (ECIS, 名古屋大学留学生センター紀要), Education Center for International Students, Nagoya University (名古屋大学留学生センター). v.4, 2006, p.29-42. (Information). ISSN: 1348-6616.

Also, I hope you don't mind, but please check to make sure the source is reliable and usable @Oda Mari:

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The pdf file says that Tanaka was a teacher from 1984 to 1987, mainly teaching ja to Mexican students and Saito was born and raised in Mexico and had been a student of the school for 10 years, from 1982 to 1992. But there's no mention that Saito was Japanese Mexican or Japanese in Mexico. It's RS. Oda Mari (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mari. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Mari, I am assuming none of the information/data came from Saito's term as a student. Did any data originate from Tanaka's term as a teacher 1984-1987? If not, would it be fair to say that it is "independent" in that the data did not come from the women from when they had association with the school? By the way, I posted something about this here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#The_Spanish_Wikipedia_is_requesting_Japanese_speakers_to_evaluate_Japanese-language_sources_for_an_.22Articles_for_Deletion.22_debate - would it be acceptable to post this request for Japanese speakers here too? @Oda Mari: WhisperToMe (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 5

anecdotally

"Anecdotally, I can tell you people are just as likely to click on negative stories as they are to click on positive ones." How can "anecdotally" be understood in the above sentence? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.128.176.239 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This smells of homework, but I'm happy to refer you to our article that explains what an anecdote is.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Provisionally, I'd describe it as an adverb in apposition, but that's only my opinion. Hopefully, a grammarian will clarify. Meanwhile, you might like to read the article on Disjunct (linguistics). Dbfirs 20:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In case the querent (whose IP geolocates to China), is merely asking for the sense of anectotally in the sentence, it means that the person speaking or writing the sentence is basing the statement on personal experience, of either their own or others' actions, and not on scientific studies or the like. Deor (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Language with only three verbs

I remember hearing about a language that only has three verbs (do, go and something) but I can't remember what it is called. I think it was an Australian aboriginal language. (A google search suggested Jingulu but our article Jingulu language says nothing about this. There was also something about Igbo not using verbs as we think of them but again nothing at Igbo language). Anyone remember the name of this language so I can read up on it? RJFJR (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Our article on Kalam languages in general, and on Kobon language in particular, mention that they are among the languages with the least number of lexical verbs, but gives ranges of 100-120 and 90-120.

Where have all the verbs gone? Remarks on the organisation of languages with small, closed verb classes (2006) by Andrew Pawley has more on the verbs and "paucity of verb roots", for both Jingulu and Kalam. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha, here is perhaps what you read:

"Jingulu spoken in Australia has only three verbs: do, go, and come. Igbo (Ibo), a language of approximately 18 million speakers in Nigeria, does not have verbs at all. Instead, Igbo uses clusters termed ‘inherent complement verbs’ (ICV) that have the structure –gbá plus a noun."

See On the Nature of Syntax (2008) by Alona Soschen. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

April 6

History of netiquette conventions

How did certain conventions of modern netiquette come about? Like why does italics mean a particular word is pronounced with a stress? OR WHY DOES ALL CAPS USUALLY MEAN SHOUTING? excuse me, but why does small letters mean a whisper? --TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

In old style Usenet, e-mail lists (LISTSERVs), and dial-up BBSs, italics and font-size variations were generally not an option. The convention against indiscriminate use of ALL CAPS presumably came about because some people posted messages entirely in capital-letters throughout, which made them somewhat difficult to read. In a few cases, such uniform all-caps messages were due to the use of obsolete technology or obscure computing systems with character sets that were not fully ASCII-compatible, but such possible explanations were already starting to wear a little thin by about 1993... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought it originally had something to do with comic books printing dialogue in ALL CAPS. Though sometimes ALL CAPS can be used effectively without conveying the appearance of shouting, e.g. on advertisement billboards and the like. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

In regular typesetting of physically printed material, all-caps can be very effective for "display text" (i.e. relatively brief captions or headlines which seek to attract attention), not so good for lengthy "book text"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The use of italics to indicate emphasis is of long standing in typesetting, although our article doesn't indicate its origin. You see italics quite overused in material printed in the 1700's for emphasis of all sorts. I'd guess its use restricted just to indicate verbal emphasis developed after this era. It is certainly in use by the 1940's and must predate that by a good amount. I wonder if Lewis Carroll used it. μηδείς (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the following can be found in an 1897 edition (for example) "That you won't!" thought Alice", and "It was such a thunderstorm, you can't think!". I can't see enough pages to be sure that he didn't use italics for other non-spoken & non-thought emphasis, but I haven't found any. Dbfirs 20:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hindi (?) -> English translation

Hello, I got as a gift these two keyrings with hindi word on it. I would be very thankful to anyone that can translate it. Thank you very much in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.208.187 (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the top word is शुभ (Hindi pronunciation: [subʰ] "auspicious" or "lucky") and the bottom word is लाभ (Hindi pronunciation: [laːbʰ], "profit" or "increase"). The two words are often seen together as a blessing or on talismans and such.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct wording

I just used this sentence in another Reference Desk posting: "Will the seller know that it is me specifically who is watching his item?". On second glance, it seemed that the correct wording should be: "Will the seller know that it is I specifically who am watching his item?". But, that also seems awkward. What is the correct way to word this sentence, if I want to keep its structure? That is, I don't want to rearrange the wording. So, in other words, which pronoun is correct, "me" or "I"? Which verb is correct, "is" or "am"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

They're both correct. The first wording is more colloquial, the second sounds pedantic. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

But, how (or perhaps why) is it that the first can be correct? I am confused. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a term for that sort of mismatch between pronoun (1st person in this case) and verb (3rd person, I suppose)?

Another example that comes to mind is from "Clancy of the Overflow": Clancy's gone to Queensland droving, And we don't know where he are (which sounds authentically like C19th country talk, but also rhymes with the preceding line ...written with a thumbnail dipped in tar). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro -- you can read in Otto Jespersen's big "Modern English Grammar" how finite subordinate clauses with relative subject pronoun rarely take non-3rd-person verbs in modern English, even if the relative pronoun refers back to something in the 1st or 2nd person in the main clause. As the question is posed (non-3rd-person in main clause referred to by relative pronoun which has the role of subject in the subordinate clause), there simply might not be any answer which is both logically and stylistically satisfactory ("All grammars leak" as Sapir said). AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)