Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

May 25

French book titles again

Hello. If the second word in the book title is a noun, it has to be capitalized, such as tour in Le Tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours, right? --K.C. Tang 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this reference [1] on Google, in About.com. The experts don't seem to agree on everything, though there are many authorities listed that you could check.Bielle 03:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bielle, that's useful. Now at least I know that there's no standard practice. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The above reference (from About .com) refers to Le Bon Usage and Le Petit Robert but in a wrong way. The author tries to guess rules from how book titles are printed in them. I think that we should refer to typographical rules. French typographs seem to agree on most of the rules. See Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale or here [2] and for French Canadians here [3]. (Sorry, all these references are in French). Note that contrary to the above reference (from About.com), the rules are not based on the importance of a word in a title, but on the syntax of the title. It worth reading again the above reference (from About.com) after having studied the typographical rules. AldoSyrt 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The document linked by AldoSyrt breathes a strong air of authority—I think I'll use it in the future myself. In connection with the previous discussion, it would prescribe L'Etre et le Néant because (1) Etre is the first word after the definite article (indefinite doesn't count, pace about.com), (2) Néant is "in parallel or in opposition to" Etre. But, as I suggested previously, the actual usage in well-edited French publications is inconsistent. Note that the current French edition prints L'être et le néant on the cover (as I was aware before; I sophistically left this example out because it complicated my point!). This exemplifies that Angr's original suggestion is the rule followed sometimes. But, again, that cheat sheet by Anne-Marie Mortier of the Département des lettres of the Université de Lyon is so Gallically lucid and logical that I will follow it slavishly for the rest of my days. Wareh 17:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But K.C. Tang's original interest was in an authoritative rule for referring to French titles within English writing. The Modern Language Association Handbook says,

There are two widely accepted methods of capitalizing French titles and subtitles of works. One method is to capitalize the first word...and all proper nouns [= Angr's original suggestion above]... This method is normally followed in publications of the MLA. ...[examples, e.g. La guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu]... In the other method, when a title or subtitle begins with an article, the first noun and any preceding adjectives are also capitalized. [= vaguely stated version of system described in AldoSyrt's link; all the examples have definite article by the way]... In this system, all major words in titles of series and periodicals are sometimes capitalized: Nouvelle Revue d'Onomastique.

I'm sure the Chicago Manual of Style has something similar, perhaps more opinionated or lucid. But the basic point for K.C. Tang's original question is that English stylebooks seem to prescribe following the foreign language's capitalization standards. I am certainly a fan of this; I hate it when English publications print German nouns uncapitalized (in my opinion, unless they've entered English as fully as kindergarten, they keep their capital). Wareh 17:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Laughing Stock"

What is the origin of the term "laughing stock"?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, laughing stock was first recorded in "1519, formed by analogy with whipping-stock "whipping post," later also "object of frequent whipping" (but not attested in writing in this sense until 1678)". Its used in Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors, and its often erroneously claimed he coined the idiom. It probably arose from the custom of mocking and jeering those who where placed in the stocks: our article notes "public humiliation was a critical aspect of such punishment." Rockpocket 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar question on spelling and then writing numbers

Often in contracts one finds a spelled out number and then the number itself written. For example: twenty (20). Is there a formal name for this numerical repetition and is it grammatical? What is not clear about either the number 20 or the word "twenty" that would require both?

It's descriptively grammatical, in the sense that it's a commonly used device in such contexts. I can't see anything prescriptively ungrammatical about it. From my own involvement in formal writing, I believe it's to make the quantity absolutely clear so that nobody can argue about it later. It may stem from the days when contracts were typed on a typewriter, each document had to be separately typed, and no errors or whiteouts were allowed. If a typo did slip through unnoticed (say, rendering the 20 as 200), the word "twenty" would let the reader know there was an inconsistency that they ought to check out before signing it. It may also be a hangover from the olden days when everything in a contract was spelled out in words (Signed on the Twenty-seventh day of February in the year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Sixty Four, etc). JackofOz 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as a side note, there is no legal requirement that numbers be so spelled out, just as there's no requirement that a contract be written at all (though it's a damn good idea, as verbal ones are not easily enforced). At this point in human history, both writing the number and spelling it out is basically legalese overkill, which some folks may think makes a document "more legal": it doesn't. (Keep in mind, of course, that IANAL.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC). Link added -- Anonymous, May 25, 05:07 (UTC).

Of course you mean oral contracts are not easily enforced. All writing (other than mathematical notation) is verbal, i.e., in words. (I assume giggles about one use of the word oral are why verbal tends to displace it.) —Tamfang 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's a good idea is that numbers written in digits are more legible but lack redundancy: any typo is likely to produce a different number with no hint that it was wrong. If a typo turns the number 348 into 384 or 349, there's no way to tell. If it's written out as "three hundred and forty-eigth" or "three hundred and forty-eighy", it's more trouble to read, but you can see the error. (Whether there's an "and" in there depends on what national version of English you speak.) Note that it's not just contracts where the amount is written twice; it's also customary on checks if they are not printed by a computer.

As to grammar, I think "twenty (20)" may be considered a form of apposition. Specifically, it is a parenthesis — the term does not refer to the punctuation mark here, but the construct.

--Anonymous, May 25, 2007, 05:04 (UTC).

A few years ago I noticed, while doing some data entry, that of the 45 pairs of digits there are damn few that can't be confused in sloppy writing. If a number is expressed in two different ways it's harder to get it wrong in the same way twice. —Tamfang 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal language is littered with redundancies, so I'd have been surprised if the lawyers had not taken advantage of such an opportunity to pad their billable hours. To wit: "cease and desist", last "will and testament", "on or about", "null and void", "give, devise, and bequeath", "remise, release, and forever discharge", "aid and abet", "fit and proper", "unless and until", and so on. --TotoBaggins 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has rhyme and reason (hah!) because judicial systems used to use both Anglo and French terms. --Kjoonlee 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In some of those examples, the terms yoked have subtly or not so subtly different meanings. Cease means stop; desist means don't start again. Fit means suitable for the purpose, without respect to ethics; proper means (roughly) ethical, without respect to fitness. Unless and until emphasizes that if you do X before Y happens, Y doesn't retroactively let you off the hook (as it might without until). —whups, forgot to sign it. Tamfang 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

default

It seems to me that using the word "default", as we do in computer science, is wrongly used. Can anyone enlighten me as to how we came to use this word as we do? Thanks wsc

In connection with computer interfaces, "default" is shorthand for "default value", which is the value taken "by default". In this fuller form, the use is quite standard. The shorthand form is not – or, at least, not (yet?) outside the context of computer programs for which some parameter may be specified but may also be omitted. By itself, however, such shortenings are a normal language mechanism, like how "Turkey fowl" (because the bird was traded via Turkey) was shortened to "turkey". Other computer jargon is "to default to", as in: "This option defaults to not selected" ( = "The value taken by default for this option is not selected").

I don't think it's really wrongly used at all. Default is like what happens if no actions have been acted upon it. So default settings, factory default, winning by default, etc, all seem to fit fine. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard people use the word "delivery" as short for "delivery address" (as in: "The delivery turned out to be an empty warehouse"). Maybe this is not "wrongly used", but it is definitely not common usage. Whether "default", when used as a noun with the meaning "default value" or "default setting" instead of as a modifier, is wrong or not, it is not commonly used as a noun with this meaning outside the context of computer programs - or at least not until recently; perhaps it is escaping from that context as this jargon works its way into user manuals and such. The usual and conventional meaning of the word "default" as a noun is "failure to fulfill an obligation" (such as to appear in court or at a match, or to pay an installment), as in: "Reimbursement of the incurred damages as a result of this default will be levied".  --Lambiam^Talk 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the propriety of the term is not addressed in our article, you may want to read default (computer science) anyway, as it was written, in large part, by a rather brilliant editor. :-) StuRat 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

May 26

Hyphenated gerunds

Which phrase is correct: "came a-runnin'" or "came a runnin'" or "came arunnin'"? And, where can I find more information about phrases like those? Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Came a-runnin'", though I can't tell you exactly why; I've seen constructs like this enough to know that this is correct. (The apostrophe I can explain, as it indicates the dropped ending "g".) My sense is that the hyphen keeps this non-standard formation "at arms length", as it were. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), "Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary", gives aringing as an example of the use of prefix a-, so there is no hard rule that a hyphen be inserted. But putting in a hyphen is definitely more common.  --Lambiam^Talk 05:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The hyphen is more-or-less optional. I wouldn't use a space, though. The apostrophe is to show that [n] is used instead of [ŋ] in an unstressed place; all these features are from Scottish English. --Kjoonlee 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a gerund, is it? Isn't it a supine? Adam Bishop 13:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a- + a present participle. The historical origin of a-, a reduced form of the preposition on, shows that (also historically) the grammatical function of the present participle is a (verbal) noun. In English, the present participle used as a verbal noun is called a gerund, as in "Bob loves swimming". The infinitive can also be used as a verbal noun in English, as in "Bob loves to swim", and then is called a supine. This is a somewhat arbitrary reuse of ill-fitting terms from Latin grammar, but gerund seems to be the conventional term of choice here.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not like that analysis, Lambiam.

The old Germanic participle apparently had -nd, and the gerund had -ng (modern standard German -end vs -ung). In English a phrase containing a gerund, on —ing (later a-—ing), took over the function of the participle, so that today we say the participle has -ing; but this doesn't mean that form was a participle – it wouldn't have been used as an adjective. It is a- + gerund. To those of us whose dialect has forgotten that form and turned -ing into a true participle, it looks like a- + participle, but I say it's wrong to analyze it that way, like it would be wrong to say the word consul comes from the Latin for "minor diplomat". —Tamfang 08:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, please replace throughout "a/the present participle" by "what we now call a/the present participle", if that makes you more happy.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Aid'e Memoir or Aid d' Memoir?

Can someone, please explain or tell me what's the correct U.S.-ENGLISH spelling for and pronounciation for the word or phrase: Aid'e Memoir or Aid d' Memoir? ....Please, remember I need to know the United States (American English), form.

It's French, so it doesn't matter what sort of English you're using. The spelling is "aide-mémoire" (you might write "aide-memoire" if accents aren't available). See here. --Anonymous, May 26, 2007, 01:23 (UTC).

Since it's in most English dictionaries, most people would consider "aide-mémoire" an English word now, with a French etymology. - Nunh-huh 01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New Oxford American Dictionary has "aide-memoire |ˈād memˈwär| noun ( pl. aides-memoires or aides-memoire pronunc. same)," if that helps. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it's now accepted as a word in the English language, we drop the accent over the e (same for cafe, latte etc). JackofOz 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, perhaps because we are supposed to be bilingual, the words User:JackofOz uses as examples, we spell the way he suggests, with no accents; however, we usually pronounce them as if the accents were still there. In England and in Australia, I heard "caff" for "cafe"; even in English-speaking Canada, it is still always pronounced "caffay". Bielle 06:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh indeed, the pronunciation doesn't usually change. "Caff" is encountered here, but only as an informal colloquial shortening - nobody would believe it's spelled that way. On pronunciation changes, some uninformed people say "coo de grah" for coup de grace, assuming (I assume) it somehow rhymes with pate de foie gras, but they'd still spell it "grace". JackofOz 07:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough :), in the English mispronunciation of aide-memoire, I usually hear /ˈeɪdmɛmˈwɑr/ instead of the original /ɛdmeɪmwaʁ/, so the first two vowels got swapped. The accent aigu is useful as an aide-mémoire of the right pronunciation.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The plural is (AFAIK) "aides-memoire" (with or without the accent). Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Daniel (‽) 11:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you drop the accent over the e, but it is by no means a requirement. English words can and do have accents if the writer so chooses. --Ptcamn 12:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I would usually spell it without an accent myself in English -- but the dictionary I cited above gave it only with an accent, so I went along. As we've seen, there is some disagreement on that. By the way, the literal translation of aide-mémoire would be "help-memory", where "help" is a verb, but what it means is "memory helper". French has a number of expressions constructed that way. An aircraft carrier, for example, is a porte-avions, literally "carry-airplanes". --Anonymous, May 26, 2007, 22:40 (UTC).

Other Romance languages also have such forms, e.g. chupacabras (sucks goats) = goat-sucker. —Tamfang 04:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the verb form used is always the present third person singular, but can't think of an example in which it can be distinguished from the imperative. Are there any that use French -ir verbs? —Tamfang 08:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, if you ever see a French phrase with d'[consonant] you can be sure it's wrong (unless the consonant is h, which swings both ways). The apostrophe in French (and Italian) appears where the vowel of the particle is elided before a following vowel. Which also means, by the way, that the spelling d'Angelo reflects a pronunciation identical to Dangelo, not di Angelo. Grr. —Tamfang 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is maître d' in "Matthew informs the Maître d' that he can't be fired" followed by a consonant?  :)  --Lambiam^Talk 14:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since maître d' that is not a French phrase. :P

(The full French phrase is maître d'hôtel, as perhaps you knew.) —Tamfang 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Surname sorting of names beginning with "de"

Is there a preferred manner of sorting surnames where the names begin with "de" "del" such as Francisco de Aguirre, Pedro de Valdivia, and Rodrigo de Quiroga? Would the "de" be included as part of the sir name (ie. de Aguirre, Francisco) or as part of the given name (ie. Aguirre, Francisco de)? Bartlett's English Usage isn't clear on this. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume this is a question about indexing, not about English usage. There are different systems of indexing, but in English language books and directories d', de, and del are usually treated as part of the surname. If you look in a UK phone book you will find the de entries are all together, so that de Sousa, for example, precedes Deacon. This is a fairly standard way to do it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'm concerned about indexing, such as you would find in Category:Royal Governors of Chile. I'd be inclined to follow the phone book example, but I wanted to see if there was some specific treatment preferred in Wikipedia. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One weirdness of that approach is that you could end up with a phone book where almost everyone is under "D". I once read a Far Side book that had an index at the back where the heading letters "A-S" and "U-Z" were all present, but empty. Every cartoon was under "T" because they all had titles like "The one about the prehistoric poodles", "The one with Jane Goodall", etc. :) --TotoBaggins 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of like looking at an index of Irish language authors: virtually no names in "A-L", then a bunch of "Mac"s, a few "Ní"s (there aren't many women authors who write in Irish for some reason), then a whole slew of "Ó"s, then virtually nothing for the rest of the alphabet. —Angr 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One issue is that in Spanish, French and in Italian, the "de" component is not usually part of the surname per se. Thus, Spaniards would file Francisco de Aguirre under A for Aguirre. And we acknowledge this in our article when we refer to him as "Aguirre", not "de Aguirre". On the other hand, an English descendant of this person, say James De Aguirre, would be considered to fall under D for De Aguirre. (There are some exceptions, such as Charles De Gaulle, whose surname is not simply Gaulle but De Gaulle; likewise for Andrea De Cesaris- btw our article spells his name "de Cesaris" but I believe he spells it himself with a capital D.) Similarly for the German nobiliary particle "von". Frederica Von Stade, being an American, has the surname "Von Stade", which comes under V, but her German forebears were "XX von Stade", and they considered their surname to be Stade, not von Stade, so they would come under S. A system that I've employed privately to useful effect is to catalogue a person under the surname they were considered to have in their native country. Thus, I file Ludwig van Beethoven under B, Vincent van Gogh under G, Charles De Gaulle under D, and both Ernő Dohnányi and his grandson Christoph von Dohnanyi under D. Whether this would work for everyone is another question, but it works for me. It does require a certain level of knowledge about the persons involved, though. JackofOz 07:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Wikipedia, there are some hints on this in Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. The transcluded uses of template:DEFAULTSORT illustrate how this is actually interpreted. A few examples:

• Macgrath, Finian (for Finian McGrath)
• Qawuqji, Fawzi (for Fawzi al-Qawuqji)
• Rothschild, Edmond James de
• De Ruyter, Michiel
• Di Cesnola, Luigi Palma
• Beethoven, Ludwig van
• Van Gogh, Theo
• Von Stade, Frederica
• Dohnanyi, Christoph von

 --Lambiam^Talk 09:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

So the current guidelines would have Francisco de Aguirre sorted as De Aguirre, Francisco , Pedro de Valdivia as De Valdivia, Pedro, and similar names in the same fashion unless they are widely known in English by their single syllable surname--JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Valdivia is three or four syllables, but WKWYM. —Tamfang 00:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant single word surname --JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unconclusion

I though this was pretty well concluded but I'd like other users who are familiar with this theme to take a look at User talk:Rbraunwa#Sorting of surnames which begin with "de" the next subsction (below) which is a discussion that prompted me to place this inquiry in the first place. (Perhaps it should have been moved over here, but it wasn't). Your comments please ... --JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Parallel discussion transferred from Rbraunwa user page

Jaxhere and I have also being having this discussion. There are some relevant arguments and examples I would like to add here. I was just going to transfer my arguments, but since this was a discussion, with postings responding to each other, I think it's better to transfer the whole works. Sorry if it's long, but I think there are some good points here, not all of them previously discussed on this page.

I don't agree with the reversion you made to Alonso de Ribera, and I had the intention of correcting the sorting of all articles I could find which don't include the "de" as part of the surname. The fact that it is commonly used, as in the category you cite, doesn't make it correct. I've put in an inquiry to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language to see if there is any existing convention or preference. To further support my position, I just checked in the Chilean Telephone Directory and see that all surnames with da, dal, de, de la, del are sorted with the preposition as part of the surname. It might be different in Mexico but, in the end we need to be guided by English rules, not Spanish ones since this is an English publication. I have, at hand, an old edition of a Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia in which articles such as De Soto, Hernando and De Vries, Hugo are in the "D's", but in some cases such as De Kalb, Barron there is a cross-reference to an article in another location (Kalb, Johann). There is no cosistency, but the tendency is to include the "de" as the beginning of the surname unless the person is well known without it. In Chile, Pedro de Valdivia -- I think -- is more likely to be associated with de Valdivia, rather than Valdivia. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaxhere. Thanks for your message. There is a policy on this somewhere, but I'll have to hunt for it. It says basically that for individuals who are already known in English by a particular variant of their name (de Soto is a good example), the English Wikipedia article should follow that usage. For individuals who are not well-known among English speakers, the article should follow the subject's own usage. This latter proviso would cover most of the historial cases of "de" in Spanish names, I think. There was a debate about this at the Vasco da Gama article awhile back, and there they applied the second part of the rule rather than the first. That one surprised me, but I didn't follow all the details of the debate. I am also surprised about the Chilean phone book information. I haven't looked at Mexican phone books, but I have never (literally) seen a Spanish name containing "de" alphabetized under that particle in encyclopedias or historical works. Also, my unscientific impression about the current state at Wikipedia is that it overwhelmingly follows the rules I paraphrased above. --Rbraunwa 16:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is not the policy I was looking for, but it's also relevant: "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." (Wikipedia:MOS#Identity). I'm still looking for the other policy.

Rbraunwa, I've looked over the links you've provided and several others which seem to relate to the topic but most of these are dealing with the naming of articles, not the sorting of them in a category or list. If we were to follow the accepted practice of naming articles about people, the article about Alonso de Ribera would be in the "A's", not the "D's" or "R's". My concern here is the position of the name in a list, such as the Governors of Chile that you referred to. In a relatively short list, such as the one you mentioned, the order doesn't make a lot of difference, but we have to be aware of the fact that some of these names might be included in very long lists where the sequence becomes important. In the absence of a clear policy, I'd be inclined to follow the example used by the phone books in the US. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaxhere,

There is a problem with using the names and alphabetization of immigrants as a model for the names and alphabetization of historical figures. (The two things are closely related, since a person is alphabetized under his/her last name. The name has to be determined before the alphabetization can be done. Our disagreement is really about the names.) If we applied the U.S. phonebook rule to Polish names, the following names of historical figures are incorrect in Wikipedia because Polish immigrants to the U.S. have overwhelmingly dropped the diacritics: Bolesław Bierut, Ignacy Daszyński, Jarosław Kaczyński, Jędrzej Moraczewski. The same thing applies to Spanish names in Wikipedia (accents and eñes are retained for historical figures), even though some descendants of immigrants to the U.S. have dropped them (Lee Trevino for instance).

Another problem with the phonebook example is this. The link is to a U.S. national listing of telephone numbers. Searching for names beginning with "de " returns "more than 300" entries. That still leaves open the possibility that the overwhelming majority of names of this type are alphabetized under the other system. It would be impossible to check that.

A better model is other English-language encyclopedias. I have tried to assemble some links here that show how Britannica alphabetizes names, and also how various on-line encyclopedias do it. Most of these links are to index pages, because for most of these encyclopedias the article itself gives no clue to the alphabetization (as is also the case in Wikipedia).

Britannica print, Britannica CD and Britannica Online:

Siloé, Gil de, Cervantes, Miguel de, Carranza, Bartolomé de, Godoy, Manuel de, Unamuno, Miguel de, Mendoza, Antonio de, Cueva, Juan de la. Not even Soto, Hernando de is an exception.

1911 Britannica:

Juan de Mena, Pedro de Mena, Antonio Hurtado de Mendoza (alphabetized under "M"), Miguel de Cervantes de Saavedra. Hernando de Soto is not an exception. Notice the absence of "de" entries here and here.

The Canadian Encyclopedia Online:

Bodega y Quadra, Juan Francisco de la, Fuca, Juan de.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Alcedo, Antonio de, Añazco, Pedro de, Abieto, Ignacio de, Azara, Féliz de, Balbuena, Bernardo de. De Soto, Hernando is an exception, but notice the total absence of other Spanish surnames beginning with "de". (There are three or four French ones, however.)

Jewish Encyclopedia:

I was going to check this one too, but the site has been down the last two days. It will have to wait.

Nuttall Encyclopædia of General Knowledge:

Alarcon y Mendoza, Juan Ruiz de, Alava, Ricardo de, Almagro, Diego d', Alvarado, Pedro de. Except for De Soto, there are no Spanish names under "de" (index).

Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography:

Benalcazar, Sebastian De, Acosta, Jose De, Tejada, Miguel Lerdo De (alphabetized under "T"), Balboa, Vasco Nunez De, Mendoza, Andres Hurtado De (alphabetized under "M"), Ocampo, Gonzalo De. Again, notice the absence of "de" entries here and here. Soto, Fernando De is not an exception.

Biographical Dictionary of the Organ

Aceves y Lozano, Rafael de, Alvorado, Dioge (Diogo) de, Aranda, Luis de, Araujo, Pedro de. No names of Spanish origin are alphabetized under "de" (here, here or here).

The same rules seem generally to apply to Portuguese, French and Italian names, although that is outside my area of expertise.

Add to this the current usage in English Wikipedia, where a large majority of these articles are alphabetized under the substantive name, not under the particle. In short, alphabetizing names under the particle "de" (at least from Spanish) is simply not standard English usage. The situation is not that different from "John Doe, Count of X" (or "conde de X"), which would clearly be alphabetized under "X" (or perhaps "Doe"), never under "of" or "de".

--Rbraunwa 13:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rbraunwa, from the inquiry which I mentioned above at the reference desk, finally came the Wikipedia guideline which resolves this discussion:

People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", "van der", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example: [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]] (don't forget to capitalize the first letter of the last name in this case)

Exceptions:

Note that some people are typically called this way in English, for example: Beethoven, [[Category:Classical era composers|Beethoven, Ludwig van]]; similarly: Montesquieu, [[Category:Enlightenment philosophers|Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron de]]

This is from: Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category and I think the lengthy discussion you mentioned but counldn't remember where you'd seen it is on the talk page for this subject. So, will you go along with the sorting order of Alonso de Ribera as De Ribera, Alonso, or would you like to try to get a new consensus on the existing guideline?

No, Jaxhere, I'm afraid I still don't agree. The guideline applies to "the entire last name as usually used in English". That's the rule that gives "De Soto" instead of "Soto", and I have no problem with that. But there is no form of "Alonso de Ribera" "as usually used in English". Hardly any English speakers would know who he was. It's simply not the case that "de Rivera" is his last name as usually used in English. And standard English usage is overwhelmingly in favor of "Rivera", as the examples above show. It's not possible to argue either that "de Rivera" is usual in English for this individual, nor that it is the usual rule that applies to all individuals with this type of name.

Ribera does not have a large presence on the Internet, but here are a few links to English publications that alphabetize his name under "Ribera": from Juana the Mad, from Discourses of Empire, from Hispanic American Essays, from The History of Chile and from Blood and Silver: Piracy in the Americas. I could find no publication that alphabetized this name under "de".

There is another analogy as well. At one time, there were English names that correspond almost exactly to this form, for example, Anselm of Canterbury, Adelard of Bath, William of Ware. These individuals are alphabetized in one of two ways — under the personal name (like the first two examples), or under the place name (like the third example), but never under "of [place name]". Persumably that was the case at the time, and it is certainly the case now, in Wikipedia and other reference works. Many non-English speakers whose names were translated into English (William of Ockham, for example), are handled the same way. He is never alphabetized under "of Ockham". [My mistake: William of Ockham was English. He wrote in Latin, but I don't know the Latin variant of his name. A non-English example would be Rainald of Dassel.]

The situation may be different in Dutch, I can't say. But from Spanish and probably from other Romance languages, English usage is very clear.

--Rbraunwa 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You make some strong points, Rbraunwa, but due to the guideline and the points raised in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Surname sorting of names beginning with "de" I'm not convinced. I've asked participants of that discussion to review your points here but I'd suggest that if you have any further thoughts you move them over to that discussion. I don't think we're doing much good holding our own private discussion to determine a broad concern. JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jaxhere, I'll move my arguments over there. I would have posted there before, but I didn't know about the ongoing discussion. --Rbraunwa 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be true that hardly any English speakers would know who Alonso de Ribera was, but that is not quite the point. Would knowledgeable native English speakers, writing about this person in English, refer to him as "governor Ribera" or "governor de Ribera"? In the first case, apparently his "entire last name" is taken to be "Ribera", in the second case "de Ribera". I don't think you would be able to find an instance of "governor de Ribera", or if you did it would very likely also be quite apparent from the rest of the writing that the author is not knowledgeable about the subject. Conversely, you expect to see "governor De Graaff", not "governor Graaff". Of course, things are not always so clearcut as with these extremes; although "governor Neve" may be the most common usage, there are plenty of references to "governor de Neve", including our own article on Pueblo de Los Angeles and Zanja Madre.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bokmal and Nynorsk (2)

Are Bokmal and Nynorsk mutually intelligible? Heegoop, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

According to our article Norwegian language:

Spoken Norwegian forms a continuum of local and regional variants that are all mutually intelligible.

The emphasis here on Spoken is because Bokmål and Nynorsk are two official forms of written Norwegian — roughly corresponding to extremes in the continuum. The mutual intelligibility of these extremes is not 100%, but is hard to test because all Norwegians get exposed to both. Without the continuum and the political situation, the two would naturally be considered different languages.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How long has it been done?

How old are the current sexual connotations of the verb do? NeonMerlin 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly as old as the verb itself, which may harken back to Proto-Indo European. And don't forget the unmistakable connotations of the pronoun it!  --Lambiam^Talk 23:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But you don't only "do it", you also "do someone", which I doubt is very old. —Angr 05:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And then there are perverts who do the laundry... So perhaps the intended question is: how old is this specific current idiom? It is used several times in the lyrics of the hip hop song "I Used to Love H.E.R.", released in 1994. It may have originated as hip hop slang.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This neither goes back to Proto-Indo-European (cognates in other languages don't have this meaning), nor did it originate in hip hop slang. It seems to be at least a century old.

not that I care two straws now who he does it with

— James Joyce, Ulysses (1922)'

--Ptcamn 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two different idioms here of undoubtedly different ages. One, illustrated by the Ulysees quote above, is "to do it", which is probably quite old, though I'd be reluctant to put it to Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European without evidence. (The German equivalent is es treiben, with the verb cognate to "drive", although es tun would probably be easily understood.) The second idiom is "to do someone" (as if Joyce had written, "not that I care two straws now whom he does"), which is probably younger and may have originated in hip hop slang. There's a definite difference in register between the two, at least for me: "Did you do it with her?" is far less vulgar than "Did you do her?". Perhaps if NeonMerlin is still reading this, he could tell us which of the two idioms he meant (although I suspect either way he isn't going to get a much more definite answer than "I dunno"). —Angr 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I furthermore think that in the older idiom to do it, it is really the word it, used as a euphemism for carnal knowledge, that carries the weight of sexual connotation, while to do is, well, to do whatever it is that is being done. Or does the verb to get also have a sexual connotation? In French you can say le faire avec, and faire, like to do, comes from PIE base *dhe-.[4]  --Lambiam^Talk 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the difference between the two ("to do it" and "to do [someone]") the difference between transitive and intransitive, technically speaking? Which if so, brings up the question of which is more intransigent, the transitive or the intransitive ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Both uses are transitive.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What IL2BA is groping for is the difference between direct object and indirect object: to do someone vs to do to someone. —Tamfang 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, just so. And "groping": nice touch. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I dimly remember that in Lord of the Flies one boy threatens another that if he doesn't watch himself someone is likely to "do you," which I took to mean violence. —Tamfang 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that that book equated sex and violence. (But you didn't really have to worry until they started sharpening a stick at both ends.) StuRat 07:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED gives the following earliest attestations for certain particular meanings of 'do':

• To hoax, cheat swindle, overreach - from 1641
• (slang)To beat up, defeat - from 1780
• to arrest, seize, catch hold of - from 1784
• (euphem) To copulate (with), Phr to do it used colloq. in the same sense - from 1913

--ColinFine 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Add to that list, do her (as opposed to do it or do absolutely), first OED citation is 1959. While actual cognate usages from PIE may not exist, many current European vernaculars have similar expressions. Is French Je voudrais me la faire (or Italian farmela) younger than 1959 & derivative? One wants to know. Wareh 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May 27

Italian wiki article

Not knowing Italian, I was wondering if this Italian wikipedia article was on the same subject as this one from the English wikipedia. Thank you 68.231.151.161 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. —Angr 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Figures of Speech

Which figures of speech are used in the following sentences from the short-story Mrs Bixby and the Colonel's Coat by Roald Dahl? 1. The wily fox was making darn sure he didn't leave any tracks. 2. I'm dying for a drink. 3. It reminded her of an ageing peacock strutting on the lawn with only half its feathers left.

Well, I suggest you have a look at Figure_of_speech#Tropes, and click on the articles listed there - all three types are featured. I admit, it's a long list, so focus on those starting with the letters h, m, and s. Please feel free to come back with your suggestions, and we will give you more pointers or advice. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that in general you cannot tell whether someting is a figure of speech without context. "He lost his marbles" could be the explanation why a little boy is crying (he can't find the glass balls he loves so much), or why an adult is behaving in strange ways.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the game marbles, if the little boy lost them, it's more likely they were won by someone else than that he simply misplaced them ;-) —Angr 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The strangely behaving adult stole them.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May 28

Unknown Language

The question mark language: I went 2 a website and the language was (?)Cant I copy and paste it on a translator or is there a downloadable translator?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.210.163 (talk • contribs)

That would be a language using a non-Latin script that you don't have a font installed for. Could you perhaps post a link to the page, so that we can direct you to an appropriate font? -Elmer Clark 08:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay then ya'll would be able to translate it right?

Identification of kanji

Last year, while on vacation at Disney World, I bought a souvenir at the Japan pavilion at Epcot, and I only just today hung it up in my room. When I did, I noticed two kanji near the bottom-right. Here is an edited photo of them. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could identify them for me. Technically, all I really require is their reading, either in rōmaji or hiragana; I can easily handle the rest, as I can read hiragana and know the right translation tools. The only thing stopping me is the fact that I obviously can't scan through the thousands of kanji to figure out which they are. :P Thanks in advance! —OneofThem^(talk)_(contribs) 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

it reads 京都. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —OneofThem^(talk)_(contribs) 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"The" before foreign book title

I feel it very awkward to have a "the" added before a work which is transliterated instead of translated. "The Qur'an" is ok, as it's well known, but not for others. We don't add "the" when there's already a "the" in the title (Le Petit Larousse), but sometimes you just don't know. Compare Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal and Xinhua Zidian: one author used "the", one didn't. So has any pundit said anything about this problem?--K.C. Tang 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that "The Qur'an" follows the established form "The Bible". Tesseran 08:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you know the meaning of the title, and you would naturally use the definite article in front of the translated title, then it is natural to also use it in front of the original title in running text (except when used attributively; you also don't say "a the Bible edition"). For example, Bible mean literally "Book", and it would be rather strange to say: I was reading Book last night. Likewise Qur'an means "Recitation", so you would use the Recitation. In Arabic the definite article is used as well: al-Qur’an. Using this rule, it should be "The Xinhua Zidian is the world's most popular dictionary", but "Commercial Press published a new Xinhua Zidian edition".  --Lambiam^Talk 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lambiam, you're correct, though my concern is not exactly grammar, but how it sounds when read aloud: "The"+"some foreign words that you're not sure how to pronounce"+"is"+... It sounds quite jarring to me. Perhaps it's just me. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just you. —Tamfang 21:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes me cringe is e.g. "the H[er] M[ajesty's] S[hip] Pinafore", for the same reason as "A[utomatic] T[eller] M[achine] machine". —Tamfang 21:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cringworthy spelling

My Oxford Spelling Dictionary (1998) has cringing, fringing, and impinging, BUT hingeing, singeing, syringeing, and tingeing. Shouldn't they all have -e- or is there some logic behind the difference that I am missing?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for singeing it's obvious: if you left out the e you'd have singing, which is something quite different. For the others, especially syringing [which my browser's spellchecker accepts and so must be OK in American English], you'd think the e-less spelling would be unambiguous. —Angr 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED gives hinging and syringing as correct (looks like the OUP need some joined-up lexicography). Tingeing needs that spelling to distinguish it from "tinging: the action of the verb ting" Algebraist 12:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a verb ting? Past tense tang, past participle tung? —Angr 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's intransitive, so no "tung:"

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ting (tĭng) Pronunciation Key

n. A single light metallic sound, as of a small bell.

intr.v. tinged (tĭngd), ting·ing, tings

To give forth a light metallic sound.

[From Middle English tingen, to cause to ring, of imitative origin.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--Falconus^{p t c} 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, also transitive verbs usually have a past participle: sting – stang – stung. Furthermore, to ting can also be used as a transitive verb: ting –verb (used without object), verb (used with object) 1. to make or cause to make a high, clear, ringing sound. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).  --Lambiam^Talk 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. Anyway the definition that I was looking at said that it was intransitive. Go figure... I don't know why that inspired me to say that it had no past participle; I know better than that. Sorry for the incorrect info.--Falconus^{p t c} 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, just out of curiosity, what does "Cringworthy" mean - I couldn't find it on dictionary.com.--Falconus^{p t c} 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cringeworthy — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see; there's an 'e' in there. :-) Thank you, --Falconus^{p t c} 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Oxford Spelling Dictionary would appear to be have a touch of style guide in its make-up. A standard dictionary will list all acceptable variant spellings, whereas a style guide will select one and mandate it, for consistency. As regards which variant spelling to select, Britons are more inclined to leave an e where Americans drop it: see American and British English spelling differences#Dropped e. In BrE, the feeling is that for a short word, leaving the e in the derivative makes the root word more obvious; even if there is no e-less word to confuse it with, a reader might spend a fraction of a second wondering whether there is before deciding there isn't. For example "aging" might suggest a (non-existent) word of a piece with "aglow", "aloft", "agley", etc, while "ageing" doesn't. I agree that "syringing" is less dangerous: perhaps it might suggest *syrening??) Of course, to an AmE reader, the e is itself a distraction which might cause a puzzled hesitation. You can't win. jnestorius^(talk) 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious...

Which of the following is more correct?

I know that that grammar makes no sense to me.

or

I know that grammar makes no sense to me.

Also, does the first example count as a Double copula?

Whenever I am writing a paper, I invariably find myself using "that" twice in a row. I usually go back and remove one of them, but I don't know which is correct.

Thanks,

--Falconus^{p t c} 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a double copula because "that" isn't a copula. There are two completely different words "that", in fact, but neither of them is a copula. The first "that" is a determiner (or in more traditional terms, a demonstrative adjective) that is used with a noun to specify a particular one of a class (literally or figuratively relatively distant to the speaker, as opposed to "this", for things literally or figuratively closer to the speaker). The second "that" is a complementizer (or in more traditional terms, a subordinating conjunction) that introduces a subordinate class, as in "I know that apples taste good". The complementizer "that" may be omitted, so "I know apples taste good" is also correct. In your first sentence above, you are using both "that"s next to each other, which is perfectly correct. Your second sentence, however, is ambiguous: it isn't clear whether you're using the demonstrative "that" and omitting the complementizer "that" (saying roughly "I know [that grammar (over there) makes no sense to me]") or whether you're using the complementizer "that" and referring to grammar in general ("I know that [grammar (in general) makes no sense to me]"). So if you're referring to grammar in general, only the second sentence is correct. If you're referring to some specific grammar, both sentences are correct, but the first one is unambiguous. —Angr 16:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; I understand now.--Falconus^{p t c} 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "two-that" form, I think you got it backwards: the first "that" is the subordinate conjunction, and the second is the demonstrative adjective. --TotoBaggins 18:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was being imprecise. I didn't mean "first" and "second" in the sense of "first/second one to appear in the example sentence". I just meant there are two words and numbered them randomly. —Angr 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Angr beat me to it, and did a fantastic job answering the question. I'll just add that even though your sentence is grammatical, if you don't like the sound of it, go ahead and change something! When the same construction comes up again and again in your writing, take a step back and try to think of ways to rearrange the entire thought. --Reuben 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --Falconus^{p t c} 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

explicit and explicitly

i want to know when i should use explicit and when i should use expicitely when i form a sentance , anybody can help?

"Explicit" is the adjective. It therefore is used as "He disobeyed the explicit order." "Explicit" went with "order" in that sentence. "Explicitly" is the adverb; it gets used to modify a verb. Therefore the word "explicitly" is used explicitly with verbs. "Explicitly" modified "used" in that sentence. If that doesn't help, maybe someone can clarify it.

--Falconus^{p t c} 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"memore of his ristrettezze"

What does this mean in plain simple English?--Doug ^talk 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Literally: mindful of his restrictions (or straits, economic difficulties, e.g.). Ristrettezze could possibly also refer to ristrettezza di veduta in which case it would mean mindful of his narrow-mindedness. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is in reference to an inheritance that Petrarch gave to Boccaccio "to Giovanni Boccaccio, memore of his ristrettezze, fifty fiorini of gold in order to buy one winter garment to be worn while studying during the night hours"; so mindful of his economic difficulities might apply or mindful of his straits or mindful of his restrictions might also apply. Now my understanding is that Boccaccio was not hurting ("economic wise"), so perhaps the later two would be more appropriate.....??? Any guesses further what exactly it might mean? I do not think mindful of his narrow-mindedness applies. What do you think further on this? Would mindful of his restrictions or straits apply to money then? It seems to me that "50 fiorini of gold" would have been in excess for a simple winter coat then. The same amount was given to Giovanni Dondi dall'Orologio (scientist and physician) for a "small finger ring". In comparison I see he gave his brother Gherardo a sum of 100 florins or 5 - 10 florins annually (whichever he wanted). This would be like a winter coat and a finger ring for a total inheritance to his brother or a tenth of a winter coat for an annual income. Was 100 florins a large sum then or a small sum? --Doug ^talk 23:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This table lists the value of 1 florin as equivalent to 300 ducats in 1337, when Bocaccio was in his early twenties. So 100 florin would be worth about 30,000 ducats, or the price of a "Luxury townhose (sic) with courtyard". In other words, quite a lot. But I don't know how reliable this table is, whether it applies to later decades in the 14th century, and where it takes this information from. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Petrarch could be mocking Boccaccio. Tesseran 05:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The money makes sense to me. This would be then equalivent to a $300,000 townhouse in the United States (except perhaps for California). Many places you can get a "Luxury townhose with courtyard" for this in the United States (perhaps even Europe). Then the annual income of one tenth this or $15,000 - $30,000 would make sense, since this is an amount one could live on each year. So "50 fiorini of gold" would then be worth (in equivalent approximate today's dollars) about $150,000 = an excessive amount for just a winter coat. A "finger ring" could cost $150,000, especially for a scientist and physician. Also if I am correct, Boccaccio had lots of money so this would not necessarily be a great benefit to him. I do not believe Petrarch was mocking Boccaccio, since he was a very close friend. What do you suppose "a winter coat to be worn while studying and working during the night hours" meant then?--Doug ^talk 12:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

May 29

Asinine

Is asinine an appropriate word you'd use? Or does the word contain more of a vulgar kind of tone? Since one of it's definitions from wiktionary is
Failing to exercise intelligence or judgment; ridiculously below average rationality.
A person being called an ass usually resembles similar properties... if you know what I mean! --Agester 05:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the word to carry any vulgar connotation in most circles; indeed, I don't imagine that most, ven in view of the homophony and the coincidence of meaning, associate one with the other (Random House's Maven seems to concur). OTOH, I recall having (when rather young) heard a (not particularly funny) joke that related the two: (rough recollection) My grammar teacher asked us to compose a sentence involving asinine and ruminate, so I wrote that the innkeeper told the guest, "if there's no room in [room] eight, put your ass in nine" (as I said, not overly clever). Joe 05:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Asinine is a sophisticated way of calling someone an ass, and is not vulgar for anyone this side of Miss Manners (and maybe not even for her). Clarityfiend 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that in American usage, "ass" is a word for "buttocks" that is at least somewhat vulgar (corresponding to "arse" in British usage). "Asinine" has nothing to do with that meaning of "ass", but some people may be uncomfortable with it because of the resemblance (as well as the connection via the animal's name). Whether you think that's worth concerning yourself with is your decision. --Anonymous, May 29, 2007, 22:38 (UTC).

I wouldn't use it unless I wanted to be insulting. While the word technically is not related to ass, some people would still see as related since they would have the genereal understanding that it is not a positive description. You can't count on people to know the real meaning of words. For instance, this guy lost his job for using the word Niggardly, even after it was pointed out what the true meaning of the word was. --Czmtzc 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, asinine appears in Potter Stewart's dissent in the landmark Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut. MattDredd (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Farmers golf

I heard about Farmers golf on the radio and looked it up here. I originally looked it up under "Farmer's golf" since I thought it should be the possessive form. The article seems to be of two minds about this though. The article title is "Farmers golf" whereas the first sentence calls it "Farmer's golf". Which should it be, grammitcally speaking? Dismas|^(talk) 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's played by more than one farmer, so it should be "Farmers' Golf", I think. Neil (►) 11:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Too lazy to chase this up in a style guide, but I think the same principle that gives us Shepherd's pie is at work. Incidentally, that article refers (unsourced) to shepherd's pie as an Irish dish, while I had always assumed it was British. The OED gives first known use as 1877 referring to something eaten by the Scots. Anyone know anything about this? Algebraist 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But a shepherd's pie is for one shepherd. It's a farmers' market, not a farmer's market. Neil (►) 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This website would have us use "Farmersgolf^TM".  --Lambiam^Talk 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Facade(with a long a) or Facade(with a short a)

How do you pronounce facade? Please help me.....camille32 09:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)camille32

Fa-saad, with the stress on the second syllable. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither long nor short, but broad. It has the same vowel as in father, as opposed to gate (long a) or cat (short a). (God I hate this terminology.) --Ptcamn 10:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And strictly speaking it should be written façade, with a cedilla under the c. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I know Ptcamn may disagree with me, but if you're using it as an English word, the cedilla is optional (and, imo, unnecessary). In a French context of course, the cedilla is mandatory. -- JackofOz 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd never come across the idea of it being optional in English before. Can you provide a source for this, Jack? Also, why do you believe it to be unnecessary? Personally I would never drop the accent from a word like café. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AHD lists facade as a variant. --Ptcamn 14:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty standard convention, I think. For example, the Guardian style guide gives:

• Use accents on French, German, Spanish and Irish Gaelic words (but not anglicised French words such as cafe, apart from exposé, résumé)

(the exceptions presumably being for disambiguation). Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an opinion on this, but we have an article titled facade. Algebraist 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Associated Press style forbids all accents (or used to, at least). I believe this was due to the inability of some news tickers to handle special characters. -- Mwalcoff 01:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For writers, I think it is generally a question of following the style your organisation uses, and they all differ in various ways. Hence there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" when it comes to the use of accents in English. The fact remains that accented letters are not part of the English alphabet. However, if a member of the general populace asked me whether it's necessary to include diacritics in the spelling of words borrowed from other languages, I'd say "No". I do not understand the Guardian's insistence on retaining the accents for exposé and résumé, while allowing it to be dropped for cafe. All three are now recognised English words, so why make the distinction? -- JackofOz 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The penny has just dropped that exposé and résumé could be mistaken for expose and resume if the accents weren't there. That's possible, but I believe the context would generally permit the correct word to be understood. We don't seem to need accents to differentiate the many other heteronyms in the language. -- JackofOz 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know of three English words in which a soft g is not followed by a front vowel letter (e,i,y): margarine, judgment, digoxin. Other than facade without cedilla, are there any analogous words for c? —Tamfang 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Another g case in British spelling: gaol (as in The Ballad of Reading Gaol).  --Lambiam^Talk 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on aprostrofy's

If I were to say: "Heres a poem"', should there be an aprostrofy after or before the "s" in "Heres", or even one at all? Hyper flyin' 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there should, before the s. And BTW, the correct spelling is apostrophe. In your heading, the plural would be apostrophes (no apostrophe). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason you would use an apostrophe is because "Here's" is a shortened form of "Here is," and the apostrophe is used to indicate the omitted letter. An apostrophe can also be used to show possession, as described in the linked article. --LarryMac | Talk 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Hyper flyin' 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Contraction (grammar)#English.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bering Strait pronunciation

How is Bering pronounced in "Bering Strait"? __Chaduvari 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Be-ring, with the stress on the first syllable and the 'e' pronounced like the 'e' in bed. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, IPA: /ˈbɛɹɪŋ/. --Kjoonlee 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The dictionaries I've looked at have a few different pronounciations but none of them have the "r" as part of the second syllable. Recury 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at syllable, which mentions ambisyllabicity. --Kjoonlee 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Two name pronounciation questions

How do you pronounce Schrödinger, as in Erwin Schrödinger, and Kerouac, as in Jack Kerouac? Thanks -GhostPirate 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of Erwin Schrodinger has a link for pronouncing the name (http://www.answers.com/schrodinger&r=67) I have heard Jack Kerouac said as in...Ker-roo-ack (like Ker as in kerotine, roo as in kangaroo and ack as in pack)? Sorry it does have one of thoes ipa (?) things in the article but i've no idea how to read them!! ny156uk 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See IPA chart for English. Using this, the article claims that it's ker (e as in bed) uh (like the initial a in about) wak (like the a in lad). The stress is on the first syllable. Don't know where that IPA came from though. Algebraist 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Kerouac article's pronunciation, as rendered in IPA, seems correct to me. As for Erwin Schrödinger, the article gives the IPA for the pronunciation in Austrian German. The problem is that several of these sounds do not occur in English and would be difficult for an untrained English speaker to pronounce. The toughest sound to imitate is the 'ö'. It is the same sound as the vowel in the German schön and rougly the same sound as the vowel in the French feu. It is something like the vowel in "bird" as pronounced in some non-rhotic varieties of English (as spoken in some parts of England, for example). The IPA symbol for this vowel is 'ø'. Rendering the rest of his name in the most similar English sounds, you could pronounce it "EHR veen SHRØ ding uh" with no hard 'g' in the last name. That is, the "ing" in Schrödinger is pronounced like the "ing" in singer, not the "ing" in finger. Marco polo 17:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "a as in lad" is that people pronounce lad differently from each other. See bad-lad split. There are roughly two ways of solving this sort of problem. The first is the IPA. The second is providing sound recordings. Can anyone upload Erwin Schrödinger for me? In exchange, I'll upload a Korean name of your choice. --Kjoonlee 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

According to that article, a as in lad is unambiguous (always /æ/); it's bad that causes trouble. Marco polo: I agree that Kerouac as [ˈkɛɹəwæk] seems correct (it's how I pronounce it), I just wouldn't mind seeing a source on how he pronounced the name or something. Algebraist 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, my mistake, but I wanted to point out that it's not a fail-safe method. --Kjoonlee 17:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

poem

I have a short latin poem that I would like to translate into english. I don't know what it is called or where I might find an official translation, so it looks like I will have to do it myself. What is the easiest and cheepest way of doing this?

If it's short, you could put it here and a Wikipedian might translate it for free. --Ptcamn 18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But only if you cheep nicely, of course. Bielle 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Information Lost in Time

I am looking for the word or term for when information in general (i.e. ancient history) goes from one generation to another and each time this happens a bit of information gets lost in time. Ultimately (i.e. 1000 years - 5000 years) enough information gets lost in time of the "little bits" that some important historical facts are no longer in the history books of modern times (i.e. detailed construction of the Colossus of Rhodes or the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza).What is this "term" or "word"? Is there a term for the opposite of this where then the "original" information is found again (i.e. detailed engineering plans for the construction of the Great Pryamid of Giza found in the center of the structure carved into the walls of a hidden chamber) or another example might be the Rosseta Stone of different languages to be able to then read Hieroglyphs, a skill (knowledge), once lost in time, is then retrieved. This "term"?--Doug ^talk 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost knowledge, no? - Nunh-huh 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lossy compression? —Tamfang 07:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You would think there would be a particular word (or term) for this LOST KNOWLEDGE OF THE GREEKS, for example. Perhaps the recovery of this "Lost Knowledge" might be called the Renaissance, which I understand was a term not actually used by the humanist in the Fourteenth Century. What was the word or term used then for this "rebirth" of knowledge lost of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Cicero, etc.- that was recovered ("Found Knowledge") around the 14th to 16th centuries.--Doug ^talk 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have arcanum/arcana, recondite or abstruse. — Gareth Hughes 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, I believe you are correct.--Doug ^talk 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have observed. When I go to older encyclopedias (i.e. 1914 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 old Catholic Encyclopedia, other older encyclopedias ("Cyclopedias") 50 - 100+ years old, there seems to be bits of knowledge that are no longer in the "modern" versions (for whatever reason). Is this just my observation or is there such a phenomenon? Why so?--Doug ^talk 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly such a phenomenon. It's also entirely possible (particularly on short timescales like you're describing) that the bits have been intentionally omitted for a variety of reasons rather than having been accidentally lost. — Lomn 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Is there then a term as related to this of "intentional"?--Doug ^talk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The amount of stuff that could be put in an encyclopedia increases each year. Publishers of encyclopedias understandably want to limit the total size. —Tamfang 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it - Wikipedia! (paperless)--Doug ^talk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The information has become non-notable. Given enough time, all information will eventually become non-notable, and Wikipedia administrators will roam the world with enormous firepower in order to enforce ignorance. -88.109.200.188 12:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

May 30

Naal

What does "Naal" mean in Punjabi? Thanks

Can't you find a Sikh? —Tamfang 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If English has a hundred words for money...

Do most other languages have as many terms for money as English does, relative to their overall vocabulary size? What about for sex? NeonMerlin 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Er... I'm pretty sure English doesn't have a hundred different words for money. Where d'you get that from? --Ashenai 04:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

accommodation, allowance, assets, banknote, bankroll, beans, bill, bond, boodle, bread, bucks, budget, bullion, cabbage, capital, cash, cent, change, check, chicamin, chicken feed, chips, clam, coin, coinage, collateral, color, copper, corn, credit, currency, dead president, deposit, dime, dinero, dollar, dough, ducats, earnings, filthy lucre, finances, floater, fund, funds, gold, grand, gravy, green, green stuff, greenback, grubsteak, guarantee, hike, increase, jack, jangle, jawbone, kitty, legal tender, line, loan, long green, loot, lucre, mazuma, mint, money, moolah, nickel, note, pawn, pay, payment, peanuts, penny, pesos, pledge, poke, prepayment, principal, property, quarter, recognizance, resources, retainer, riches, rise, roll, salary, score, scratch, security, shekel, silver, single, skin, smackeroo, specie, stake, sugar, surety, take, touch, treasure, two bits, wad, wage, wampum, warrant, warranty, wealth, wherewithal...

I think that's about 100. The problem is, most of these words don't mean "money" and nothing else. Counting "terms for money" depends entirely on your definitions of "term" and "for money". See Inuit words for snow and Sasha Aikhenvald on Inuit snow words: a clarification. When they give some impressively large figure, it always refers to a list like this. —Keenan Pepper 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The list doesn't include emolument or remuneration, but I'm not going to renumerate it. (lol) -- JackofOz 05:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most people won't recognize most of those words as representing money. For example, chips, clam, line, roll, take, warrant... Basically, most everything that has a highly prominent use as something else. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't read Dutch

Can someone explain to me what GVB means in relation to the golf test that golfers in the Netherlands must take? So that you don't have to google it, here's a link or two which I think explains it: [5], [6]. I'm trying to write an article about it which I've started at User:Dismas/golf. Feel free to improve the article if you can read Dutch and thus understand what is on those pages. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A literal translation would be golf skilfulness proof. Its basically a certificate of proficiency and is perhaps best translated as Golf Ability Certificate. Rockpocket 07:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a license that anyone who wants to join an official golfing association and play golf in at official course must have. Like a drivers' license. The best translation would be Golf Aptitude Certificate or more colloquial Golfing license. C mon 08:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I realize now that I didn't ask one of the questions uppermost in my mind which is what GVB expands to. Does the sentence "GVB staat voor Golfvaardigheidsbewijs" mean "GVB stands for Golfvaardigheidsbewijs"? Dismas|^(talk) 09:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It does. -- Ec5618 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Dismas|^(talk) 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Albania

There are indications that Fan S. Noli once used the name "Mavromati". See these Google results. Alas they're all in Albanian, which I can't read. Is there any Albanian who can determine the nature of this name, i.e. when and why he adopted it and dropped it again? - CarbonLifeForm 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This reference (see footnote [2]) states that Theofan Stilian Mavromati was his original name. "Fan" is informal for "Theofan", and "S." is short for "Stilian". If this information is correct (see below), the remaining question is: why (and perhaps when) was the surname changed to Noli? I don't know for certain if this played a role, but Mavromati is very obviously a Greek name, and he may have decided to change this to an Albanian name when he became a supporter of the Albanian nationalist movement. However, on the French Wikipedia the article Fan Noli states that his father's name was Stylian Noli, casting doubt on the correctness of the "original name" claim. Although my knowledge of Albanian is negligeable, I have the impression that the timeline found here is saying something like that in July–August 1904 Noli contributed to the democratic Greek magazine "Noumas" (mentioned in the article Kostas Varnalis) using the name Theofan Mavromati. This may have been his original name, put again to use for the occasion, but also quite possibly a newly invented nom-de-plume. The posting on this site appears to tell us that he indeed used Theofan Mavromati as a pseudonym, other pseudonyms used by Noli being Ali Baba Qyteza, Rushit Bilbil Gramshi, Bajram Domosdova, and Namik Namazi. (Qyteza is his birthplace, according to fr:Fan Noli.)  --Lambiam^Talk 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you call this?

In some education systems, many students, try to study "for the exam" instead of properly learning the contents of the textbook. For example, History students here are taught to always present their answers in a certain format - no one dares to deviate, even if an answer using a different format may be better. Rather than trying to learn how to write good compositions, many students here memorise paragraphs from model compositions which they will use as opening and ending paragraphs - and more often than not, they don't even understand the paragraph they are memorising!

They do this because they think it's more important to get good marks than to learn properly. They don't do this only on the day before an exam, but throughout the year.

Anyway, what do you call this habit of studying only "for the exam"?

Rote learning, perhaps? -- Azi Like a Fox 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You could say "studying just for good grades", or "studying just for the exam". Might the inclination of students to do this, which may be shared by all education systems that have exams with grades, be the reason why more than a few schools have the motto Non scholae, sed vitae discimus?  --Lambiam^Talk 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a widely used phrase "teaching to the test". See, for example, the fourth paragraph of Standardized testing and public policy. By analogy, what you describe could be referred to as "learning to the test". Marco polo 13:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of overlap with observer effect#use in the social sciences and Goodhart's law. jnestorius^(talk) 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

May 31

Czech language

I'm curious as to how difficult would it be for an American English speaker (with no knowledge of any other foreign languages) to learn Czech? I found a language difficulty rating, it equated Czech with Finnish and Vietnamese, but that seems inaccurate to me. I'd like insight from someone who's actually learned Czech (preferably from English, but any other Germanic language would suffice), with details as to how one learned, how long it took, etc. I'm really interested in learning it, and would like some insight. Thanks. -Anthonysenn 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Inherently unpleasant words?

If there are inherently funny words, are there inherently unpleasant-sounding words? It was always an old Latin class joke that pulchra (Latin for beautiful) was an incredibly ugly-sounding word. Vultur 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd honestly have to say, yes, there are. I personally think "whilst" and "maths" are annoying as all get out, but there are some others that are also ugly. I thought of one, but got up to get a drink, now I can't remember it. Sorry about that. -Anthonysenn 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A friend and I once had a fun day thinking of our favourite words and least favourite words. We didn't like "amicable" because it described such a nice thing but was such a nobbly word. Storeye 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My newest least favorite word is fistula. I've seen it a couple times on the Science Desk recently and I find it an inherently distasteful sounding word; one that has been periodically coming unbidden to my mind, making me shudder everytime it does so. I'm not even sure exactly what it means, not having mustered the courage to click the link yet...but I know I don't like the sound of it. -- Azi Like a Fox 05:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At the top of my list of ugly-sounding words are usufruct and palimpsest. -- JackofOz 05:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Smegma. Urgh. --Kurt Shaped Box 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I like that word. It always makes me think: penis lava. ;) -- Azi Like a Fox 06:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's definitely unpleasant, even if you don't know what it is. If you know, it's even worse ... JackofOz 07:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out sound symbolism. Most words in English beginning with sl- are unpleasant, and also often have something slimy (slowly flowing?) about them: slug, slag, slurry, slut, slog, slob, while slow, and sluice are not so unpleasant, but still have something of the second idea. sn- and sm- seem similar but less strongly so. Words ending in -g (not including -ng) are also often a bit un-nice: bog, shag, snog, snag.. But I think these facts are facts about English (and to some extent closely related languages), rather then truly being inherent. Slobbily yours, Drmaik 06:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be extremely rude, but how about cunt? (And by the way, I think "pulchra" is a beautiful word, and it's superlative form "pulcherrima" is even nicer!) Adam Bishop 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate sounds familiar! If we are looking for some sources: in 1946 the National Association of Teachers of Speech complied their top 10:

CACOPHONY, CRUNCH, FLATULENT, GRIPE, JAZZ, PHLEGMATIC, PLUMP, PLUTOCRAT, SAP, TREACHERY.

and the The 1990’s edition of The Book Of Lists quotes:

AASVOGEL, BROBDINGNAGIAN, CACOPHONOUS, CREPUSCULAR, FRUCTIFY, GARGOYLE, JUKEBOX, KAKKAK, KUMQUAT, QUAHOG.

There was also a study into the "most beautiful words.": Rockpocket 08:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant coincidence: The word Aasvogel - I didn't even know it existed in English - is German for carrion bird, the most commonly specified example being the Aasgeier or Egyptian Vulture. So, in a way, the original poster is the answer to the original post. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a challenge for someone with a bit of time on their hands (eg. a Wikipedia editor). Compose a paragraph containing all of the unpleasant words people have mentioned so far. -- JackofOz 08:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LarryMac#Jack.27s_Challenge

When someone does something really really bad you need a truely ugly word and journalists reach for heinous, presumably because it rhymes with anus. meltBanana 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The english language is causing me headaches!

Had sleepless nights ad long hours looking through the dictionary lately as I can't remember the single word term for the old saying "It's not what you know but who". Anyone have any ideas?

Cheers,

Deanowills 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Deano Wills.

Could you mean nepotism? Rockpocket 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or cronyism ? Rockpocket 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or old boy network or jobs for the boys, although they're not single word terms. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or being connected or having juice. --Anon, May 31, 08:08 (UTC).

Or having "connections". Marco polo 13:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A single word for the old saying is cliché meltBanana 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Der Wörter?

Die Lehrerin erklärt durch einfache Beispiele der neuen Wörter und die langen Sätze.

Is there anything wrong with this sentence? I'm doubtful about "der Wörter"... :(--61.92.239.192 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And rightly so, it has to be accusative "die Wörter". Was erklärt die Lehrerin? Die neuen Wörter und die langen Sätze. --Dapeteばか 11:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's from a book. That may be a typo :P. Thanks.--61.92.239.192 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean

What is the correct pronounciation of Caribbean?

You get to choose! You can pronounce it either [kəˈrɪbiən] or [ˌkærɪˈbiːən], whichever you like better. (If your accent of English has the merry-marry merger, then your second choice is [ˌkɛrɪˈbiːən] instead.) —Angr 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dedis

Can someone give me a good definition for "dedis"? I believe it to be an old English or Middle English word.--Doug ^talk 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a context? It doesn't look Old English, but I can imagine it could be a Middle English spelling of deeds. It's not in my CD-ROM version of the OED, though. —Angr 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The context would be "Dedis of the Apostles" as in Acts of the Apostles, written as John Wycliffe (Middle English) as he wrote it. Looking for a more defined definition than perhaps just "acts". Deeds sounds correct! The word "actions" perhaps comes into play. Any other guesses?--Doug ^talk 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

French Translations

Hello there! I'm in the process of translating the Benfeld article from the French Wikipedia (it's at User:Bioarchie1234/Translations/Benfeld). It's a simple enough article, but there are two phrases giving me difficulty: "armoires électriques" and "pôles d'emplois". I gather from the context that a "pôle d'emploi" is a "Pole of work", a place where there is a lot of work, but I'm not sure how to phrase it. Does anyone know what they are? Thanks very much. Bioarchie1234 20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)