Language desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 4

Age/aged 18

In reference to subjects used in an experiment, were they "age 18 and older" or "aged 18 and older"? ----Seans Potato Business 14:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you'd refer to either "people aged 18 ..." or "people of age 18 ...", but not "people age 18 ...". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both sound okay to me, and Google Books shows a statistical dead heat between them. —An gr 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What JackofOz says is grammatically sound, but Angr is correct too about actual usage. It seems that an equal number of authors (I checked Google Scholar) now seem to be preferring "age 18 or older." Since most publications in the list were medical or public health journals, I wonder if this form has arisen out of a need to avoid confusion (among physicians who are strapped for time?) between one meaning of "aged" (i.e. "aged" (adjective) = "having reached the age of") and the others ("aged" (verb; past simple) "grew older" and "the aged" (noun substantive) = "the elderly.") Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although I honestly can't see why any such confusion should arise. I think it's more a product of people getting used to a somewhat casual way of speaking, i.e. dropping the -d (easy enough to do, without even trying very hard), and then transferring that usage into their writing. If they thought for a second, though, they'd realise we don't refer to "people height 1.5 metres" or "people weight 85 kilos", so why should we refer to "people age 18"? But I know these things are not logical, and that usage always prevails over prescription. Still, in formal writing, I'd very strongly recommend "aged 18". If I were approving a text for publication, with "people age 18" in it, I would require it to be changed before it received my imprimatur, and I don't believe that has anything to do with pedantry or even being particularly picky. Think of it this way: a lot of people say "anythink" instead of "anything" - but they know not to write "anythink". So, why not apply the same standard with "age/d 18"? -- JackofOz (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that rather than the -d being dropped, it may have been the "of" in "people of age 18". Not that it really makes any difference. --Anonymous, 17:54 UTC, November 4, 2008.

Saying "My son is age 18" is perhaps illogical, but no more so than saying "What color is his hair?" After all, hair isn't a color, it has a color, just as a person isn't an age but has an age. But, we say it anyway. —An gr 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed there is an exact counterpart in "What age is you son?". Also "What size is that jacket?" and "What temperature is the water?" It appears that there is a rule in English which allows certain properties to be expressed as complements in WH questions, but not traditionally in other constructions - but in at least some cases the use is now spreading to declarative sentences. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could just about accept "He is age 18" in response to "What age is your son?", cf. "It is size 24" in response to "What size is this jacket?". In a group research context, "What age(s) are you studying?" could be answered by "They are age 18", or "They are age 18 or older". But the construction "I'm studying people (who are) aged 18 (or over)" seems to require "aged". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i need prepation sheets of english / secondary school/ Algeria

I want to recieve preparation sheets of English secondary school / new programme / Algeria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.17.252 (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to translate the slashes to something a bit more explicit. —Tamfang (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want materials to prepare to learn (or teach) English at a secondary school in Algeria, then you should ask the school how to find the right materials. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do I get to the lowercase numbers?

the title above of 7 as a letter reminded me about a long problem I've had: getting to the lowercase numbers. I realize they're out of favor these days, but surely I can insert them somehow? Or are they just not even part of the character set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by lower case numbers – could you give an example? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP is probably asking about text figures. You will usually need to purchase a separate or extended font in order to get these. These are sometimes called "expert" or "old style" fonts, e.g. Bembo Expert, and will usually include proper small caps and f-ligatures as well.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I suspect he means the numerals that look like those in the image to the right, where some digits are only as tall as lower-case letters. This is a font issue, you have to find a font (like Georgia) where the numerals are designed to look like that. They don't have separate Unicode points from "normal" numerals. —An gr 14:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side point, I tried to illustrate this by typing <span style="font-face:Georgia">1234567890</span>, but it didn't work: 1234567890 displays in the same font as the rest of the text (for me, Arial). What did I do wrong? —An gr 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CSS property you are after is called font-family, not font-face. I don't have the Georgia font to test it, but this should work: 1234567890. — Emil J. 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it works, thanks! I thought font-family was just for "serif" and "sans" and other general terms, not for specific font names. —An gr 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just discovered that the function for rendering mathematical formulas on Wikipedia uses text figures when the Fraktur typeface is specified. So <math>\mathfrak{0} \mathfrak{1} \mathfrak{2} \mathfrak{3} \mathfrak{4} \mathfrak{5} \mathfrak{6} \mathfrak{7} \mathfrak{8} \mathfrak{9}</math> renders as ${\mathfrak {0}}{\mathfrak {1}}{\mathfrak {2}}{\mathfrak {3}}{\mathfrak {4}}{\mathfrak {5}}{\mathfrak {6}}{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {8}}{\mathfrak {9}}$ . —An gr 12:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road map for peace

Why is this a road map? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the phrase "road map" is simply being used as a Metaphor and is intended to mean that the "road map for peace" provides directions or a path to follow to get from where we are now (strife and unrest in the region) to where we want to go (peace between all groups involved).--Zerozal (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase 'road map' is widely used in technological industries to mean little more than a broad plan: ask Google for "product road map" and you will find many examples. I suspect that for many people it has almost lost its connection with the literal meaning, and has just come to mean a general plan. --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articulating in writing?

Is it OK to say that someone "was able to articulate himself well in writing" or "was able to articulate complex opinions in writing"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second sounds okay. I'd say "express himself well" for the first one. —An gr 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is capable of articulating complex ideas may be perceived as an idiot, because true ideas are clear.--Radh (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radh: Are you implying that if something is true then it is easy to explain clearly? CBHA (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be easy to explain, but if something "in the world" is true (and we are not talking about some deep religious truth hidden-to-the-uninitiated), it should be possible to make it clear. If you cannot make it clear to others, you yourself probably have no real knowledge of the thing. Complex situations still have to be explained step by step, the complexity has to be reduced in analysis. Muddled ideas and "perceptions" are in reality not necessarily bad and probably all we ever get about 99.99% of our common sense "knowledge", but to read "not capable to have a clear thought about the stuff he is working on everyday" in an evaluation would look pretty grim to me.--Radh (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You may appreciate these quotations:

"When a thought is too weak to be expressed simply, it should be rejected." - Luc de Clapiers, Marquis de Vauvenargues

"You may say that it is a matter of semantics, but semantics make a good test. As a writer I can tell you that trouble in writing clearly invariably reflects troubled thinking, usually an incomplete grasp of the facts or of their meaning." - Historian Barbara W. Tuchman

IMO, one of the ultimate tests in this regard is being able to a) comprehend and b) explain quantum mechanics. CBHA (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the clear thought theory applies to sciences even more than anywhere else, but you need a certain basic training?--Radh (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radh, someone who is incapable of articulating complex ideas clearly may also be perceived as an idiot. That doesn't seem to leave much room for us non-idiots. Is it possible you meant "incapable"? If so, does this mean you yourself were incapable of expressing your idea clearly? And if so, what conclusion might we draw about your sanity? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where was I talking about sanity? I am all for expressing complex ideas clearly, but have obviously not managed this to do myself. People who are incapable of articulating complex ideas may also be perceived as idiotic...Like Noam Chomsky in politics or more like Derrida?--Radh (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. You were talking about those who are capable of communicating their ideas clearly - who still, according to your thesis, can come across as idiots. But I'm not sure why you'd think that, which is why I wondered if you actually meant "incapable" when you wrote "capable". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There surely is no need for us to disagree? The beauty of clear expression is that it is dangerous, some people may see through you right away. Clear ideas don't equal right or clever ideas, why should they? But if you say that because the world is a chaos each and every muddled chaotic unarticulated idea is true and right, you have given in completely. How do you distinguish one muddled inarticulate thought from the next? Even in religion simplicity counts.--Radh (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure I'm disagreeing with you. I just don't follow what you're saying, and your message on my talk page has, if anything, made it less clear. Sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn’t he explain this in simple language.' He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in A Canticle for Leibowitz

—Tamfang (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that sentiment completely! —An gr 22:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. I mean, what general reader can be expected to know what a "voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate" is, or even bother trying to track it down. There's got to be a better way of describing what the IPA symbols mean, otherwise it will never get widespread acceptance. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also the Sokal affair. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

"This study showed that both the lutein- and the zeaxanthin-enriched eggs significantly increased the plasma levels of each of these xanthophylls, respectively." - Does this sentence say that each egg type respectively increased the level of xanthophyll for which it was enriched? It's supposed to say that. Any mistakes? ----Seans Potato Business 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its ambiguous... Did the xanthophyll levels go up in the plasma, or did the plasma levels go up in the xanthophyll? Yes, I know what you are trying to say, but the phrasing makes it hard to follow. Perhaps ""This study showed that both the lutein and zeaxanthin enrichment significantly increased the xanthophyll levels in the plasma of eggs." That seems much less ambiguous... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to 5 feet 10 inches, I have all my hair.

The sentence above is quoted from a translation of Guareschi's Little World of Don Camillo. It's not English, as far as I am concerned. But what might explain it? (The rest of the translation, by Una Vincenzo Troubridge, has not thrown up any more such oddities.) I can't find the Italian original - and don't speak the language - but don't imagine Italian uses "to have" for both height and hair. (No doubt I'm wrong.) So is it ye olde English (the translation dates from 1953)? And did Guareschi actually write that he was 177.8cm tall?GBViews (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the original said 178 centimetres. If so, 5 feet 10 inches would be accurate to better than 1/10 of an inch. CBHA (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In French you can use "to have" for height, weight, and age. Italian seems to be the same; Googling "ho 175 cm" suggests it is normal usage for height. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an odd combination of facts, though, even for a funky book like Don Camillo. It would be more likely for someone to say "I'm 83 and still have all my hair". Is it possible it's a mistranslation of some sentence like that? Or maybe this gets us into the untranslateable world of idiomatic expressions; they either have to be recast in the target language in order for them to have similar meaning, or translated accurately but with the attendant risk of exactly this sort of question being asked. Maybe the translators decided not to meddle with it too much and take the risk. Or maybe, in the context, they had no choice. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can well believe that such a syllepsis may be used for comic effect in the original. I don't think the English really works, but I can't come up with a better rendition. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd be about 5'10...if I didn't have all this hair..."

The sentence might convey: "I'm tall and I'm not even starting to go bald. I'm a handsome guy." What is the context? CBHA (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd say "As well as being..."

Una pregunta

Qué es la diferencia entre "jornada" y "día"?

Gracias —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostCrimes (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Día" is the generic word for day -- one day as opposed to another -- or day as opposed to night (the time when the sun is above the horizon). Jornada implies a span of time, such as day in the sense of the 24 hours from midnight to midnight, or a working day, or a day of travel. For more details, check out the dictionary of the Real Academia Española. --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same idea as "jour" vs. "journée" in French, then? --Anonymous, 02:14 UTC, November 5, 2008.

My French is rusty, but this site confirms that the answer is yes. --NorwegianBlue^talk 17:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learning about other cultures

I request that a linguist responds to my suggestion to find out whether or not the word "surculturation" would be an apporopriate usage in my Text's third edition ("Understanding Cultural Diversity in today's Complex World?" The word "enculturation" is already exists in our Lexicon, meaning learning about your own culture. I have no word to use when I tell my students learning about other cultures is as equally important as learning about ours. I did some research and found nothing about "surculturation." Please help me to feel confident using this word in my text. I appreciate your response75.72.123.5 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, "enculturation" means "the gradual acquisition of the characteristics and norms of a culture or group by a person or another culture". Since sur- means both super- and sub-, which meaning do you need? Also, you will get more linguists at the language desk here[1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming "sur" to mean "under" or "below" (as in the French or Spanish), then my guess is that surculturation is the assimilation of a minority culture into the hegemonic culture; i.e. the loss of cultural idenity of an underclass and the assumption of that underclass of the culture of the power class. That is a TOTAL WAG, however... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions I've seen have listed both "below" and "above" (even for French), but I think the most accurate is probably "beyond" or "additional" (e.g. surcharge, surfeit). Wiktionary has an entry[2], but it doesn't have any sources. Anyway, "surculturation" is (to my mind) a bit ambiguous: is the "sur-" or "-ation" morpheme more closely bound to "culture"? I.e., does the word describe a process of exceeding or going beyond culture itself? Or does it describe some process that is similar to, but beyond culturation (perhaps more advanced or more extreme)? If you're going to coin a word for learning/acquiring more than one culture, I'd suggest multiculturation or omniculturation. They're a bit of a mouthful, but I don't think the implications of "acquiring an excess of culture" from "surculturation" are really what you're going for. But feel free to use it; I think confidence is more important than accuracy when creating new words. Indeterminate (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does sur- mean 'below'? Everywhere I can think of, it is a form of 'super', meaning 'above', or 'beyond'. The OED gives only this meaning for the prefix. In any case, to me your word suggests no immediately obvious meaning. You are of course free to use it as you wish, but why is it so important to have a word for it that you're willing to accept that sesquipedalian monstrosity? --ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely though they exist e.g. surreptitious and surrogate. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia, it may be misleading to identify the sur- in those words as standing in for sub-. Perhaps it is better to think of the prefix proper as represented only by the su-. Sub- sometimes loses its b (as in suspect), or has it assimilated by internal sandhi to a following consonant (as in succumb, suffuse, and your rare examples with r). Sometimes sub- becomes sus-, as in suspend, sustain (original Latin elements sub+pend-, sub+ten-), though this is not what happens in the similar-looking suspect (original Latin elements sub+spect-). Sometimes there is no assimilation: substance (original Latin elements sub+stant-.) See the start of the SOED entry for "sub-", showing that the details can be construed in various ways, I think:

f. or after L, f. sub prep., = under, close to, up to, towards. In L sub- was reduced to su- before sp- and usu. assim. before c, f, g, m, p, r; a by-form subs- was normally reduced to sus- before c, p, t.

Finally, it is worth noting that Latin sub and Greek ὑπό (hypo) are from the same PIE source. Subcutaneous = hypodermic, substance = hypostasis, etc. Similarly for Latin super and Greek ὑπέρ (hyper). Supersensitivity = hyperaesthesia, etc.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Noetica – pity my dictionary didn't have you at the pointy end before it came out. It only goes to Latin "sub" for these examples. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin phras:e question

I am looking for the latin phrase that includes the letters muti, ta;, nia, nov - I am playing at game that I must answer a question that asks for a phrase that includes these letters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.71.207 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question was discussed in September. Michael Slone (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]