View source for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 19

<noinclude><!-- From archive header-->
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Special:Undelete| |{{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|<div style="display:none;">}} {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Wikipedia|{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|= |<div style="display:none;">}}|{{error:not substituted|Archive header}}<div style="display:none;">}}}} {{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|</div></div>}}{| width = "100%"
|-
! colspan="3" align="center" | [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language|Language desk]]
|-
! width="20%" align="left"  | &lt; [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 18|June 18]]
! width="25%" align="center"|&lt;&lt; [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/May 2007|May]] | [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/June 2007|June]] | [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/July 2007|Jul]] &gt;&gt;
! width="20%" align="right" |{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 20|[[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 20|June 20]]|[[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language|Current desk]]}} &gt;
|}
{| align=center width=95% style="background: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid #003EBA;" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
|-
! style="background: #5D7CBA; text-align: center; font-family:Arial; color:#FFFFFF;" | '''Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives'''
|-
| The page you are currently viewing is {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 29|an archive page|a [[Wikipedia:Transclusion|transcluded]] archive page}}. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|current reference desk]] pages.
|}


__TOC__
</noinclude>
= June 19 =

== Most readable writing system ==

A native Chinese told me that reading [[fantizi]] is faster than reading [[jiantizi]]. I can imagine that reading [[kanji]] is faster than [[kana]]. Are there any comparisons among different writing systems? (Of course, each would have to be rendering a language for which it is normally used, but I can imagine that there are some ways to estimate the effect the language has, either by comparing languages that use several writing systems, or by a similar experiment where test subjects listen to a recording of the language that is played at different speeds.) &mdash; [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 03:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:Something to consider is that one might be more familiar with reading a certain type of writing than another, and that could vary from person to person.  Some seperate Chinese forms of writing involves symbols which could represent more or less items...I don't actually speak or, in this case, read, Chinese, but know a bit about how it works ;)--[[User:Solar Sunstorm|<p><span style="font-family:fantasy; font-size:x-large; color:orange;">Solar Sunstorm</span></p>]] 03:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Yes there are personal factors, but I am interested in those factors that are independent of that. Similar experiments with [[shorthand]] and [[typewriting]] show that there are such factors. Even if I'm very familiar with [[calligraphy]], I won't be able to beat your [[shorthand]]; and I think similar experiments showed that [[QWERTY]] is not the fastest keyboard system, even though many people are very familar with it. These factors go beyond mere personal factors. &mdash; [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I've heard that [[brail]] is faster than many visual forms of reading. And you're right that QWERTY isn't the fastest system; it was implemented to stop the keys of a typewriter getting jammed when two letters next to each other were used in quick succesion. There is now a keyboard designed to be the fastest to type with, but it is still uncommon[[User:Storeye|Storeye]] 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::You did mean [[Braille]], didn't you?  --  [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

== How to read "router"?==
Somebody asked this, but I just couldn't answer. It seems that many dictionaries don't mention this word. By its meaning, it would be /ru:ter/; but since there is a word "rout", some people also call this device as /rauter/. Is it true that both are acceptable?--[[User:61.92.239.192|61.92.239.192]] 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:From my experience it is more common for it to be said roo-ter in British English (as in a route to a destination) and row-ter in American English. Sorry no good at IPA/whatever it is called. I think both are perfectly acceptable. You say potato I say potato and all that...[[User:Ny156uk|ny156uk]] 08:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:In the Western US, I've never once heard the "roo"-ter pronunciation.  And the thing was probably invented out here, so… [upon checking out our article on the matter, it says that the very firest router was invented in the Eastern US, and then the first multiprotocol rotuer was invented out here in the West.  Either way, the router is an American invention]  [[User:Jade Knight|The Jade Knight]] 09:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::That's a pretty silly argument. I might as well say that aluminium was discovered by a British scientist, so Americans should all pronounce it the British way. [[User:Marnanel|Marnanel]] 13:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Route" is pronounced the same way as "root", so therefore "router" is pronounced just like "rooter". (In American English however, "route" is pronounced like "raute", where as "root" is pronounced as it is spelt - so over there "router" is pronounced like 'rauter'.) --[[User:203.208.110.207|203.208.110.207]] 09:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:In British English, the word ''[[wikt:route|route]]'' (meaning ''path'') is pronounced {{IPA-all|ɹuːt}}, while the word ''[[wikt:rout|rout]]'' (meaning ''disorderly retreat'') is pronounced {{IPA|[ɹaʊt]}}. In US English, the latter is pronounced as in British English. However, ''route'' is pronounced either way in US English; it has a variable pronunciation. Moving on to the word ''[[wikt:router|router]]'', it is clear that its pronunciation in US English can also be variable. However, it seems that the pronunciation {{IPA|[ɹaʊtɚ]}} is standard. In British English, {{IPA|[ɹaʊtə]}} is the pronunciation for the power tool, whereas {{IPA|[ɹuːtə]}} is used for the communications device. — [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::In New England (northeastern US), "route" is usually pronounced {{IPA|[ɹuːt]}} or (more often) {{IPA|[ɹuːʔ]}}.  However, "router" (the electronic device) is usually pronounced {{IPA|['ɹaʊ dəɹ]}} or something like {{IPA|['ɹʌʊ dəɹ]}} by those who speak rhoticly and {{IPA|['ɹaʊ də]}} or {{IPA|['ɹʌʊ də]}} by those with non-rhotic speech.  [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry, I don't know IPA and might be repeating stuff. What I have noticed is that route in the US is pronounced both ways (such as Route 66 being ''root'' 66), as Garzo said, except when you say reroute/re-route, then I've never heard it pronounced as ''re-root''. Same with router, it's never pronounced as ''rooter'' in the states that I have heard. --[[User:Wirbelwind|Wirbelwind<small>ヴィルヴェルヴィント</small>]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Wirbelwind|talk]]) 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:: In the US technical community, I have heard both pronounciations for [[router]] (the data communications device.) In the woodworking community I have never heard a [[wood router]] called a root-er. The [[wood router]] predates the [[router]]. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

: As a British English user, I cannot remember ever using route as a verb, so the word router will always be ɹaʊtɚ, partly too (as above) with deference to those who created the technical term and indeed item. [[User:Theediscerning|Theediscerning]] 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::If you mean, Theediscerning, that '''you''' will always pronounce the word as {{IPA|[ɹaʊtɚ]}} (should you need to pronounce it at all) then your statement is unexceptionable, though your hearers may conclude that you acquired the word from Americans. If you are asserting that the word in British usage will always be {{IPA|[ɹaʊtɚ]}}, then you are plain wrong. There are probably British network specialists who say ɹaʊtɚ, just as there are British computer scientists who pronounce 'z-buffer' {{IPA|[zi: bʌfə]}}. But in my experience the piece of network equipment is invariably {{IPA|[ɹuːtə]}}. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Australians usually pronounce 'route' as 'root' but will usually pronounce 'router' as 'rowter', because a rooter in Australia is someone who is actively engaged in the sex act. [[User:Natgoo|Natgoo]] 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective of a computer geek in the Mid-Atlantic US, I encounter the noun [[route]] pronounced sometimes as {{IPA|[ɹæut]}}, but more often as {{IPA|[ɹut]}}.  I've never heard anyone call the networking device a {{IPA|[ɹutəɹ]}}, only a  {{IPA|[ɹæutəɹ]}}.  But, on the other hand, If a telephone operator were saying, "Hold on, and I'll route that call through," it would be rendered as   {{IPA|[ɹut]}}.  [[User:PaulTanenbaum|PaulTanenbaum]] 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of an Australian "rooter" already being in use - a router (pronounced "rowter") in the UK at least is a small hand held power tool used in carpentry so is already in use. A router for an internet connection, however, as any (British) IT engineer will tell you, properly pronounced (in the UK) as "rooter" as it "routes" connections. Pretty self explanatory. Obviously pronounced different in other countries as any word with a common route (wahey!!).
As for "It was probably invented there anyway" It's a bit like saying "The car was invented in Germany so we're all wrong - it's an Auto, not a car!" the words were already in use before, the invention was to aid that use! We all know where the word came from, what is the language called again?

== Farging ==

What does "farging" mean? Is it Norwegian? --[[User:124.180.235.124|124.180.235.124]] 10:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:''Farge'' means 'colour' in [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]]. I think it's more likely you're looking at [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=farging this]. — [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

: Perhaps from [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087507/quotes Johnny Dangerously], you farging icehole. [[User:65.203.61.77|65.203.61.77]] 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

== World War II related sentence ==

Have a look at this sentence:

"The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country, as did the Wehrmacht soldiers."

What does the subordinate clause express?

:a) The Wehrmacht soldiers swore an oath to Adolf Hitler.
:b) The Wehrmacht soldiers swore an oath to their country.
:c) Both is possible, the sentence is ambiguous.

(PS: I know that in truth <small>a)</small> is the case. This is not in question. I just want a judgement of the sentence given.) --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the second comma. [[User:195.35.160.133|195.35.160.133]] 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Martin.

c) It is ambiguous. [[User:SaundersW|SaundersW]] 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's poorly constructed, and could be ambiguous, I suppose, but to me "as did" implies "in the same way as a previously mentioned subject", so it's option A.  --[[User:TotoBaggins|TotoBaggins]] 15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:I vote for answer a. To get the meaning at b, move "did" to the end: "The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country, as the Wehrmacht soldiers did." However, the sentence will easily lead to a misunderstanding, and should preferably be rephrased; for example: "The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country, and so did the Wehrmacht soldiers." &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clearly ambiguous as written.

In thie case there is a simple way to resolve the ambiguity: since the comma that separates
the words "rather than to their country" from the expression that "rather" is contrasting
with is optional, remove it.  That is, remove the first comma to choose sense a; remove the second one to choose sense b.

However, I think this might still be misinterpreted if sense a is intended.  The reason is
that there is a much simpler way to express sense a by compounding the subject: "Waffen-SS
and Wermacht soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler rather than to their country"
(or "Waffen-SS soldiers, and also Wermacht ones, swore..." or other forms like that, depending
on the emphasis desired).  So if you see the original word order, there is a tendency to
misread it as b, as I did originally, by the way.

--Anonymous, June 20/07, 00:55 (UTC).

:You (KnightMove) posted the identical question in March on the "English only" WordReference Forum, and did not even bother to fix the grammar error in option c before reposting it here.[http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=552960] I agree with Liliput's reply given there (and none of the others). &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 08:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::Get your facts straight. It was not March, but immediately before I posted it here, and only after that I was informed about the error. There was no necessity to fix it, as the meaning is clear, and I demonstrated by posting this question not to be a native English speaker. --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::PS: It would be nice if you give a ''reason'' for Liliput's and your opinion (here or there, I ''really'' don't bother). There is definitely no English grammar rule I would have learned in 10 years of English language course at school, supporting this opinion. --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] 09:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry, I misinterpreted a date I saw. As to the reason, the English word ''as'' can have several grammatical functions: [[adverb]], [[conjunction]], [[preposition]], and [[pronoun]] (and it can be the plural of the [[noun]] ''a''). We can rule out the role of preposition, while those of adverb and pronoun are hard to separate. With a conjunction, we always retain the normal subject–verb order for the second sentence joined by the conjunction: ''John drinks vodka '''like''' Mary does.'' You can't say: *''John drinks vodka '''like''' does Mary.'' Only with an adverb do we find an inversion: ''John drinks vodka, and '''so''' does Mary.'' If ''as'' is a conjunction, it is synonymous to the conjunction ''like'', but if we replace ''as'' by ''like'' in the ''Wehrmacht'' sentence, it becomes ungrammatical. If ''as'' is an adverb here, it is synonymous to ''and so'', and if we replace ''as'' by ''and so'' the sentence remains grammatical. ''The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country, and so did the Wehrmacht soldiers'' has only one meaning: a. Likewise, ''The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country like the Wehrmacht soldiers did'' has only one meaning: b. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 12:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::This explanation in fact convincing, and I agree now - thank you. Only one question remanins: Is ''The Waffen-SS swore an oath of loyalty to AH, rather than to their country<span style="color:red">,</span> like the Wehrmacht soldiers did.'' ambiguous, or also definitely meaning b? --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Only a case of one too many commas! Definitely ambiguous.
Read "The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler rather than to their country, as did the Wehrmacht soldiers." for "a" and
"The Waffen-SS soldiers swore an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, rather than to their country as did the Wehrmacht soldiers." for "b"

== Word ending in ....advert ==

Recently in a book I was reading I saw a word that I had never seen before. I did not write it down, and could not find it in the book again. I do remember that it ended in the letters ....advert. Could anyone suggest any rare words ending in ...advert please? [[User:80.0.132.197|80.0.132.197]] 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:''Animadvert'' is a fairly rare word.  It generally means "to comment critically (on), to utter criticism (usually of an adverse kind); to express censure or blame" (to quote the OED on the most current sense).  [[User:Wareh|Wareh]] 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Oddly, the noun form (''animadversion'') is not quite so rare.  &mdash;[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:''Advert'' itself was used (according to OED) as recently as [[1861]] to mean "To turn one's attention in a discourse written or spoken; to refer to...." --[[User:Cyrusc|Cyrusc]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

== Hindi(?) translation: ==

Hey, everyone:

I got the following message randomly from someone off the internet, but I can't fathom what is says. It looks like a transliterated Indic language, perhaps Hindi:

''kabhi mere saath, koi raat Guzaar, tujhe subhah tak mei karoon pyaar
tu hi mere jaan kabhi mere saath koi raat guzaar''

If anyone could decipher what it means, I'd be grateful (and rather intrigued)..

--[[User:82.46.209.85|82.46.209.85]] 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's from the lyrics of this[http://www.bollywoodlyrics.com/categories/showET.asp?id=1&lyricid=1945] Bollywood film song. --[[User:169.230.94.28|169.230.94.28]] 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::Kabhi means sometimes and pyaar means love. (Watching Bollywood has finally paid off for me..) --'''[[User:Kjoonlee|Kjoon]]'''[[User talk:Kjoonlee|lee]] 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)