Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

WP:RD/L C #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #00f #000 #00f language Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Language WP:RD/L

Welcome to the language reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia     How can I get my question answered? Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right). Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question. Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here. Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context. Note: We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point. We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need. Ready? Ask a new question! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual   skip to bottom

December 4

Pants

What is the origin of the phrase "I am pants at (X)" meaning "I am bad at (X)"? 138.192.86.254 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

England? Recury 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As a Brit, this is a phrase I use a lot (much to the amusement of the Americans I now live with). I'm not exactly use of its origin, but British language has a long standing tradition of both absurdity and toilet humour, which may be applicable here, as pants in British English refers to underpants, rather than the American meaning, which is what Brits would call trousers. Often the phrase "It's pants" will be embellished to something like "It's a load of stinking old-man pants. With skidmarks." (apologies for the mental imagery that may bring up, but it's kind of the point. And I've deliberately not wikified the term 'skidmarks' because if you don't already know, you don't want to. ;P) --Monorail Cat (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a red link anyway... —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not any more ... Neil ☎ 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is it with Brits and clothing idioms? One of my favorites is "oh don't be such a big girl's blouse." --LarryMac | Talk 15:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather you answer this question correctly

The question in question is: What is the part of speech of the word "rather" in the above heading? -- JackofOz 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an adverb meaning "on the contrary". "Would" is a stand-alone verb here meaning "wish". There's an elliptical "that" in there. "Answer" is subjunctive (and we thought it was dead). An equivalent sentence is "I wish on the contrary that you might answer this question correctly." Did I pass the test? --Milkbreath 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We're you hoping I'd reply with "Ra-ther!"?  :) -- JackofOz 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm not a native speaker, but here are my thoughts: Take the phrase: "I'd rather go now". There, rather is clearly an adverb.

I guess the whole phrase "I'd rather" has crystallized into a fixed expression. Hence, it's difficult to analize one of its elements alone.

Take for instance because: Many years this expression was bi cause [1]. And cause was a noun in it. But now such analysis has no sense. Pallida  Mors 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "I'd rather" is now a fixed expression (an idiom) and that its origin is with "would" as a stand-alone verb (the subjunctive of "will", I think) and "rather" as an adverb. However, I suggest that the adverb did not mean "on the contrary", but rather, something like "preferably". It is not quite the same sense that "rather" has in the previous sentence, since the latter sense implies a sort of comparison, but it is related. --Anonymous, 05:00 UTC, December 4, 2007.

So, what you're saying is that fixed idiomatic expressions stand alone, if you like, and cannot be parsed word for word? I certainly accept that the meaning comes from the whole expression rather than from the individual words, but the syntax ....? Interesting idea. Let me think on that for a while. -- JackofOz 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Rather" can be directly replaced by "sooner" which seems to be its synonym. (O.E. hraþor "more quickly, earlier, sooner," also "more readily," comparative of hraþe, hræþe "quickly," related to hræð "quick," from P.Gmc. *khrathuz (cf. O.N. hraðr, O.H.G. hrad). The base form rathe was obsolete by 18c. except in poetry; superlative rathest fell from use by 17c. Meaning "more willingly" is recorded from 1297; sense of "more truly" is attested from c.1380. [2] Surely you can safely parse it as an adverb? SaundersW 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

UN Resolutions in English

Do resolutions passed by the United Nations use British or American spelling in English?--Sicilian-American 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See United Nations#Languages.--K.C. Tang 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Shorthand?

I was doing some work in an archive today and among a bunch of regular writing I found this:

shorthand?

shorthand?

The author was an old-school American scientist (—I am pretty sure it is shorthand? But I wasn't able to really figure out what the heck it meant, and I've never really done anything with shorthand before. Note that this is my re-copying of the original (as best I could!) so there might be little errors in it that are imperceptible to me.

If anyone had any suggestions as to what it might say, I'd be very interested. I'm intrigued that it's the only thing in these archival papers that was written like this (everything else is just in English) and I'm pretty curious as to what it says. Thanks a ton. --Panoptik 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Gregg Shorthand (example). I can't read it, unfortunately, but there is a lot of information about older forms of it on the Web. --Cam 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It also looks like the scribbles of someone writing in Cursive Hebrew. Reading right to left, the first two letters look like unintelligble scribbles, but the rest could read, "רטמיעירלח", or R-T-M-I-E-I-R-L-KH. That's probably gibberish, but it might mean something to somebody. Was your scientist Jewish or an Orientalist by any chance? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I find it pretty unlikely he is writing in Hebrew—he's not Jewish and I didn't get any impression that he'd know the language. --Panoptik (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you upload a photograph of the original with some surrounding text? TheMathemagician (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the original. It looks pretty similar to that, though. There is no surrounding text except for "Re: Section IX:" making it clear that he is quoting someone's comments on Section IX on some report. No context, which is part of why I'm so intrigued by it... --Panoptik (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

attributable

Our results provide evidence that two mechanisms are attributable to the induction of tolerance by transplantation; or Our results provide evidence that the induction of tolerance by transplantation is attributable to two mechanisms. --Seans Potato Business 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand that gobbledygook, the second one. It says that two mechanisms seem to be responsible for the induction. The first one says that the induction seems to cause two mechanisms, which seems unlikely given the ordinary meaning of "mechanism". --Milkbreath 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. The mechanisms cause the induction, not the other way round. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Latinise this title please?

Will someone translate this to Latin, please? It's meant to be the title of a scholarly 17th century treatise.

"Botanical Prodigies of the Middle and Lower Heavens"

Thank you very much.

Adambrowne666 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that here "prodigy" is meant to mean "something marvelous" and not a young person with some exceptional talent, you might use De Prodigiis Botanicis Cœlorum Mediorum ac Inferiorum. I have changed the title to "On Botanical Prodigies...", since that would be the typical way to express the title in a Latin scholarly treatise.  --Lambiam 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

that's beautiful, and amazingly quick - but very rudely, can I crave your indulgence a little more and ask if it's possible to come up with a word for Heavens/Universe/Cosmos that's more like its English counterpart, and so more easily guessable by those (me) who don't know Latin? Thanks again, lambiam Adambrowne666 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cosmorum would fit, but I don't know whether it has any subtler meanings that might be inappropriate (my dictionary gives it as universe or one of the chief magistrates of Crete). Daniel (‽) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If the recipient of the fruits of your labour may be expected to be familiar with the word "sphere" meaning one of the transparant orbs around the Earth serving as the mode of transport for the heavenly bodies, you could go with Sphærarum Mediarum ac Inferiarum. The word cosmos, meaning "world", is really Greek and (as far as I know) not used in Latin texts, which would have used mundus (from which "mundane" is formed) instead. Maybe "celestial realms": Regnorum Cælestium Mediorum ac Inferiorum? Or "heavenly bodies": Corporum Cælestium? If all else fails, you could use Universorum. If understandability is an issue, you can also replace the word ac by et.  --Lambiam 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I love you guys. Adambrowne666 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Two very minor tweaks to the excellent suggestions above: (1) inferorum and inferarum (not inferiorum and inferiarum; the former could be a comparative form [3rd decl.], but the latter could only be the genitive of "rites for the dead," and inferus a um by itself means "lower"). (2) Atque and not ac before a vowel, if you want your 17th c. scholar to be more classicizing (ac is freely used before vowels in postclassical Latin, so this is hardly essential). Wareh (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - so if it begins De Prodigiis Botanicis Corporum Caelestium ..." can I ask what the rest of it would be, with your tweaks? - sorry, bit confused now. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

De Prodigiis Botanicis Corporum Caelestium Mediorum atque Inferorum. Wareh (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful! Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wash your mouth out!

Inspired by this page, and its mention of an Inverted Jenny, I was wondering, what's the most dirty sounding, but in fact completely innocent phrase you can think of?

I don't mean euphamism, just something that sounds like some kind of perverted sexual act, but is in fact something completely different, such a a technical term.

Some candidates that spring to mind are:

• "When I told her I was into philately, she offered to give me an Inverted Jenny" (from page above)
• "I needed to flash his dongle"
• Probably just about anything involving mastication

I know this is really childish, but hey, I'm easily amused. Sorry ;) --Monorail Cat (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From Claude Pepper:

• Part of American political lore is the Smathers "redneck speech," which Smathers reportedly delivered to a poorly educated audience. The "speech" was never given; it was a hoax dreamed up by one reporter. Smathers did not say, as was reported in Time Magazine during the campaign: "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy." The Smathers campaign denied his having made the speech, as did the reporters who covered his campaign, but the hoax followed Smathers to his death. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard he was a known heterosexual, too. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And a homosapien! Is there no end to the man's depravity?! --Monorail Cat (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How shocking!! -- JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that matriculate sounded, well...like another word starting with "m" and ending in -ate. :-) So, take a college course that sounds naughty, a college whose initials might be a little off, say you're matriculating there, and that will work well.

As an alternative, the town of Kissimmee, Florida, really did have to change the name of the minor league baseball team, once they changed affiliates to the major league Houston Astros. So, there are some good places to start there, or with a Kissimmiee astronaut (who is matriculating somewhere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.19.1 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

When I went up to Durham, the entire new first year matriculated en masse in the cathedral! DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just about anything involving the word "moist".

Insert a word from a foreign language, especially French - "She kissed me on my bouche". Steewi (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also play the alternative game of using little-known words that actually have a genital/sexual connotation but the listener isn't aware of that and thinks they mean something else. For example, after meeting your old teacher, a Catholic nun, in the street and exchanging pleasantries with her, you could depart with "A merkin for your quim, sister. Good day".  :) JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it say something bad about me that I knew both of those terms without having to look them up? --Monorail Cat (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either merkins or quims. People who like this sort of thing will probably find this is the sort of thing they like. To each their own. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Who was the poet who memorably mistook the meaning of twat? DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Browning in Pippa's Song. [3] Marnanel (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One day at university, many years ago, I was talking to a friend about something or other, and he said, 'Oh, how cunning of you!', and as I was and still am a linguist, this now well-known expression combining these words became my day-to-day nickname, all of 14 years ago. It's impossible to get that user-name on practically any website now. --ChokinBako (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See also festinate and defenestrate, pedantry, Wang Computers, homosocial, heterosocial, ... Steewi (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the old playground favorite, "Your epidermis is showing!" —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am jenticulating as I read this.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cunning linguist reminds me of Mr Spooner and his cunning stunts. Lanfear's Bane | t 11:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the comedian Kenny Everett's 'Cupid Stunt' character?--ChokinBako (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought "Your Eminence" was an inappropriate form of address for one who is supposed to be celibate. Nowadays, though.... --Milkbreath (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so long as you kiss his ring... DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One could always congratulate a builder on his magnificent erections. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Captain, Your coxswain is stuck on the poop deck! Well, get him unstuck and then have some seamen thoroughly swab that deck. hurrr Azi Like a Fox (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought her name sounded like some sort of sexual perversion, Pippa Funnell - X201 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tittle, which is the proper name for the dot on a lowercase i or j. Natalie (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Formication gives me a gentle tickling sensation. Adambrowne666 (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Along the lines of mastication, there is Maceration. You can ask someone "What do you think about when you macerate?" Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything said by Jules and Sandy..hotclaws 03:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's Julian and Sandy. Marnanel (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The children's cartoon from the 1970s, Captain Pugwash, was well-rumoured to have two characters called Seaman Staines and Master Bates, but I read recently on a random website that they were actually called Seaman Bates and Master Staines. --ChokinBako (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Captain Pugwash covers the existence of this myth quite well. Marnanel (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When at church, make sure you congratulate the vicar for his magnificent organ, he may weel appreciate the offer of giving it a good polish from time to time. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

On meeting a Scotsman, one should always ask how often he tosses his caber. DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Many Italians like nothing better than a mouthful of tentacles. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one ever forgets their first seven incher. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to translate a term like bilabial plosive could lead to trouble. Matt Deres (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If your coccyx hurts, give it a rub. DuncanHill (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a joke that goes like this: John, a teenage boy is sitting on the couch at his girlfriend's house, waiting for her to come downstairs for their date. Her parents are also sitting in the room with him. The girlfriend's mother speaks up and says, "We have been wanting to tell you something important about our daughter, John. She has acute angina." "Well!" says John, "That's a relief! I've seen her breasts, and they ain't nothin' to brag about!" Saukkomies 05:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

December 5

Encyclopedic Value

I am not sure if this question is properly submitted here or elsewhere. Please advise. What is a good working definition of whether or not something has "encyclopedic value" ...? And, does Wikipedia have any formal/official definition or policy for this ...? If so, what is the link for the official Wikipedia definition ...? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

As a negative definition, there is the policy What Wikipedia is not. I don't know if anyone has attempted to give a positive definition, but next to importance/notability and verifiability, there is also an issue of relative permanence. It would not make sense to add a paragraph to the article December 5 saying: "December 5 is the date of today.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whatistodaysdate.org|title=What is Today's date?|accessdate=2007-12-05}}</ref>". Of these, assuming the information can be relied on, importance seems to me the most important. It may be true and verifiable that Dennis Rutledge of Middleton has a collection of shoe polish tins, but if we put up all such uninteresting and mediocre content, we soon will not be able to find the interesting things amongst the crud.  --Lambiam 02:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll also find Wikipedia:Notability helpful, Joseph. Notability is really the touchstone which makes a subject suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Xn4 05:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

English: adjectives: people:

Is there a neutral English word or expression, such as 'to be a bachelor', for someone chooses not to get married for the rest of his or her life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.103.4.144 (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Celibacy? AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-celibate bachelor who has no intention of ever getting married, I believe the usual expression is "confirmed bachelor".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed bachelor should be used with care; non-native English speakers may be unaware of its particular connotations! DuncanHill (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The OP was asking if there was a gender-neutral expression for this status. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the status, but the person. People usually use "celibate" as an attributive adjective ("I am celibate"), not a noun ("I am a celibate"), but I guess the latter is possible. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They didn't actually mention gender at all: they merely said "neutral" without saying what it was in regard to. Marnanel (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Celibacy means the state of being unmarried - it has nothing to do with whether a person has sex or not. Therefor, any unmarried person is celibate, even if they are shagging everything that moves. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) To be sexually abstinent? Or nearly, but not quite - to be chaste. Lanfear's Bane | t 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that celibacy means the state of being unmarried per se. Take a person who has no particular reason why they shouldn't marry at some time in the future, and may even have been married in the past, but happens to be currently unmarried. They're asked "What is your current marital status?". The most appropriate answer would be one of "single", "widowed", "divorced" or "none of your business". To reply "celibate" would give the entirely misleading impression that they intend never to marry. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Celibacy, noun,, the unmarried state, especially under a vow. ... celibate adjective, living single. noun, one who is unmarried, or bound not to marry. [Latin caelebs, single]. Chambers Dictionary, 1983 edition, page 203. DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know what the dictionaries say, but I still disagree that's what people mean when they use the word on its own. People sometimes say "I'm currently celibate", meaning they're currently partner-less. But someone who just says "I'm celibate" means something else entirely. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and according to the dictionary they would be wrong to use celibate in that context. Isn't this just an example of the age-old prescriptive v. descriptive argument? Does celibate mean what the dictionary says it means, or does it mean what people mean when they say it? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think that dictionaries ever tell people they're right or wrong (although they're often used to back up or refute arguments about right-wrong issues). Dictionaries record the meanings that people actually use with particular words; but they usually take their time to do this after new meanings come into general use. For example, people now often use the verb "divorce" to mean "separate" (Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife were described as "divorced" only a day after they made their announcement that they were separating; they couldn't possibly have been legally divorced in 24 hours), or the noun "annulment" to mean "divorce" (celebrities are now regularly said to obtain "annulments", when what they're actually doing in most cases is obtaining a civil divorce of a valid marriage, and not a church decree that the marriage was never valid in the first place), etc ad nauseam. While I personally haven't seen such meanings in dictionaries so far, it's only a matter of time imo. In relation to "celibate", Marco Polo tells us below that "Some dictionaries have caught up with the prevailing usage". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It means whatever I use it to mean! DuncanHill (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In French (sorry, I know, not the original question), célibataire is a single person. If an English-speaking person said they were celibate, I would assume they are abstaining from sex for some reason (that's Catholic education for you!), so when I saw that in French it confused me greatly, since it was an article about how much sex célibataires have, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (2001), celibate means "1 an unmarried person, esp. one under a vow to remain unmarried 2 one who abstains from sexual intercourse adj of or in a state of celibacy". Some dictionaries have caught up with the prevailing usage. A person who is unmarried but not sexually abstinent would give the wrong impression by claiming to be "celibate". I don't think that there is a word or short phrase in English that unambiguously refers to people who have chosen not to marry (regardless of their sexual activity or inactivity). I suppose such a person could refer to himself or herself as "single by choice". Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase "in which"

Before I start a potential edit war with an anonymous editor, I would like to make certain that I am on solid ground -- grammatically speaking, at least. The anonymous editor states that the below sentence is incorrect: X edited a column in which Y said such-and-such. Said editor then removed the word "in" so as to create the following sentence: X edited a column which Y said such-and-such.<br. />I think that the anonymous editor is full of him/herself. Which one of us is correct?<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what "such-and-such" is. Please provide the whole sentence. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that the whole sentence is necessary. I'm with the OP - the in is definitely required. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(after 2 e/c)It depends on the context. If such-and-such stands for an adjective describing the column ("sucks" or "was inflammatory") the "in" is wrong. If such-and-such is part of the content of the column (e.g. a quotation) then "in" is necessary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the sentence (sans citations): "Painton edited a controversial November 21st 2007 column by Joe Klein in which Klein published false information regarding legislation that amends the F.I.S.A. law, based upon claims by Republican opponent of the bill Pete Hoekstra." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbahn (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"In which". I don't know what to say about it. It's, well, English, that's all. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor referred to him/herself as The Grammar Police. I think that s/he is nuts.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence could be replaced by 2 sentences: "... column by Joe Klein. In this column, Klein published ...", so of course it has to be "in which" in the original. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If the subject of the subordinate sentence was the column, assuming the column was sentient, it would be fine: "column by Joe Klein which published false information..." Or, "column by Joe Klein, who published..." But those would sound strange. "In which" is obviously the most correct and natural usage here. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Even grammar police make mistakes. I would be inclined to revert it without comment, whereupon this person will probably realize their error, if they even notice your edit. FWIW I never get involved in edit wars. Life's too short.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some poking around, and it looks like the mystery editor is a shared IP registered to Merrill Lynch that has a history of vandalistic activity. Give it a vandalism warning on its talk page and move on. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems a little excessive - this could easily be (and probably is) just a good-faith mistake. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"In which" can't be replaced by "which", but it usually can be replaced by "where". --Anonymous, 23:51 UTC, December 5, 2007.

It's subtle but there is something wrong with that construction. The pronoun 'which' acts as the subject of the subordinate clause, except here it isn't the subject at all. The subject is Y and using 'in which' like this is fairly horrible. If you want to use which this way then make it the subject. "X edited a column which contained comments by Y" is correct. TheMathemagician (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ARRRRRGH! (knashes teeth and rips out hair) Can't you people come to some sort of consensus on this???!!! God, now I remember exactly why I hated grammar in school -- BECAUSE IT IS SO INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!!!<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Relax. Themathemagician is over-analyzing. Your sentence with "in which" is perfectly natural standard English. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (Takes deep calming breaths and walks away)<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "over-analyzing". He's asked a precise question about the grammar and I've answered it as best I can. It may sound like normal English to you - it sounds gratingly wrong to me. I wouldn't have bothered correcting the original entry had I seen it as there are far worse abuses but why not simply replace 'in which' with 'where'. TheMathemagician (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping not to ruffle your feathers too much with "over-analyzing", but I do it all the time, and I think I know it when I see it. If there was a more apt term I could have used, I apologize for using that one. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "in which" in the sentence ...in which Klein published... And where Klein published would sound "gratingly wrong" to me. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand TheMathemagician's analysis. In which is perfectly normal English, but it's also grammatically correct English. Y is the subject of the subordinate clause, and which is the object to the prepositional phrase "in...". The column is the noun phrase to which which makes reference. However, maybe TheMathemagician hates the phrase for style concerns, which is of course understandable. Pallida  Mors 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The following sounds completely normal to me: Identify the author’s last name, date of publication, and the place where the work was published. I don't think it is an improvement to replace this by Identify the author’s last name, date of publication, and the place in which the work was published. In general, if "in which" refers to something you might call a place, "where" is a good replacement. But in the sentence The plan in which I had put my trust turned out a failure, this replacement does not work. I don't understand the pronouncement that "the pronoun 'which' acts as the subject of the subordinate clause" (except here it doesn't). Is this meant to be a prescriptive rule? Is there something wrong with clauses like this one from Article One of the United States Constitution: any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting, or this from As You Like It/Act IV: the sundry contemplation of my travels; in which my often rumination wraps me in a most humorous sadness?  --Lambiam 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The idiom is "to put ones trust in" so using that as an example is extremely confusing as the "in" is already part of the verb. I'm not convinced that legalese or Shakespeare are useful examples for modern writing. Yes maybe it is grammatical but stylistically it remains horrible. I didn't explain my view clearly but I meant it's preferable to have "which" as the subject of its clause. TheMathemagician (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Permit me to suggest a clarification. It might make it easier if we call X "Peter" and Y "Mary". If the sentence in question had been "Peter edited a column in which said such-and-such", then I agree the "in" would be out of place - it should be "Peter edited a column which said such-and-such". But that wasn't the sentence in question; it was "Peter edited a column in which Mary said such-and-such". That is, it's saying Mary said such-and-such in the column, and Peter came along and changed it to so-and-so; it's not saying the column itself said such-and-such; because, until Mary came along and said it, it didn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

acronyms

i was trying to research an acronym with no luck. is there an acronym database in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.204.197 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the acronym? You just type it into the "search" box - if it doesn't come up, we don't have an article on it. You can also look at List of acronyms. Neil ☎ 14:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Glossary, if that helps. Corvus cornix_talk 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Organic and non-organic military and police ?

What is meant by the terms 'organic military' and/or 'organic police forces', as against 'non-organic' military or police? For example in the Aceh peace agreement (MOU), there is an article that says, "the Gov't of Indonesia will withdraw all elements of non-organic military and non-organic police forces from Aceh. We also don't understand 'elements' in this context. 213.84.41.211 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks if you can enlighten.

It probably means non-native forces. "Elements" just means the military and police forces, so "all the military who are not from Indonesia". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1.4.4 The appointment of the Chief of the organic police forces and the prosecutors shall be approved by the head of the Aceh administration. The recruitment and training of organic police forces and prosecutors will take place in consultation with and with the consent of the head of the Aceh administration in complicance with the applicable national standards. [4]

Organic police and military would be those which are recruited, trained and are under the jurisdiction of the local administration. Non-organic police and military would be those imposed by the central Indonesian government. Withdrawing all elements would be withdrawing not only the personnel but also the structures of the non-organic police etc. In other words, it is agree that Aceh will have its own police and militayry which are under the control of its own administration, and that it will be able to run its own affairs without interference from the Indonesian government. (But it would be a lot more fun if the organic troops were vegans who wore organic indigo uniforms, wouldn't it?) SaundersW (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

not directly related to the question but one also speaks of organic and non-organic sub-units (elements) of a military unit. or organic/non-organic equipment a unit might have. Mct mht (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it condescending to use the phrase: "at any rate"?

While at work yesterday I used the phrase "at any rate" in a meeting. We were discussing a topic, then the conversation trailed off topic. So I interjected with the phrase "at any rate" then proceeded to get back to the topic at hand.

My co-workers claimed that my use of the phrase was condescending.

I did some research, and according to an online dictionary the phrase "at any rate" originally (1619) meant "at any cost;"

Is it grammatically correct to use the phrase "at any rate" to get back to the subject at hand? Could the use of the phrase in this manner be construed as condescending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.16.200 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

'At any rate' originally meant 'at any cost', as you discovered. Its literal modern meaning (from the OED) is 'At all events; at least' or 'Under any circumstances; in any or either case'. When used to derail an off-topic discussion, it is this case that is intended. The meaning is 'whatever may be the case in [the matter under discussion], what about [the thing we were originally talking about]'. There is nothing incorrect in this usage. I personally wouldn't find this specific phrase condescending, but I might be annoyed at having what I was talking about dismissed as unimportant and off-topic (unless I agreed it was, of course). Algebraist 19:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are using the phrase as a discourse marker, in a way I'd use "anyway". It's not condescending, and not ungrammatical. [5] SaundersW (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything condescending in "at any rate", but perhaps it can sound blunt? I much prefer "in any event". The only drawback with that expression is that lawyers use it a lot, and people who know that can think it sounds like legal jargon! Xn4 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of these expressions sounds more blunt or condescending than another. It's the act of using one of them to "derail" a discussion that you see as off-topic or irrelevant that might be seen as blunt or condescending. The issue is the spirit of the remark, not the specific words. --Anon, 23:55 UTC, December 5, 2007.

It may not have been the words themselves, but the tone. "At ANY rate...", with a sigh and a rolling of eyes, could be taken as insulting. Corvus cornix_talk 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to try "Let us return to our sheep" in future, this will baffle the less well-educated of your colleagues, and amuse the others. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf

... moved ...

Try asking this at the Humanities reference desk. Although, language-wise, many words in the English language are first used (according to what has survived) in Beowulf. Wrad (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Meant to ask this at the Humanities desk... zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Word conveyor?

There's a phrase I came across recently (in wikipedia, I think) which describes an observed phenomenon of words gaining pejorative meanings over time, such that they start out as the common parlance and become terms of abuse - examples: mongol, spastic. What's the phrase? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to the euphemism treadmill. Algebraist 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the chappie; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Though on closer inspection, I see that the general process of a word becoming pejorative is simply called pejoration. Algebraist 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

December 6

failure

Does it have a perfect rhyme, both in sound (pronunciation) and form (ending spelling, i.e. _ure)? 217.11.17.251 (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the perfectly rhyming word would need to end in -ailure, not just -ure. There are various rhyming words (dahlia and Australia come to mind), but I can't think of one spelled -ailure. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

torture, triplicature, sure? I did some quick Googling to find a rhyming dictionary; it returned no matches for failure. I'm not a phonologist, and perhaps it depends on dialect, but the difference in pronounciation between most "-ure" words and "failure" is so miniscule that I feel I may be making it up! Maybe you could point out the differences to me? (IPA would be fine.) — gogobera (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As Jack said, it has to be -ailure (IPA: eiljə), not just -ure, since the stress is on -ai-.--K.C. Tang (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

torture and failure?! Do you see any resemblance in ending sound or pronuciation? Except the sound of r or perhaps er which are common in thousands of words? It seems to me that the only possible rhyme for failure is xailure, in which x might be replaced by any letter, but the result will be a non-lexical (meaningless) word. Am I correct? 217.11.17.251 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except x could also be replaced with a group of letters, as long as the primary stress still falls on -ailure. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cf. Feminine rhyme.--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Accents can play a *big* part in rhyming. For some American accents, torture and failure do rhyme to an extent. For me (Australian), like JackofOz, dahlia is a good rhyme (although the spelling looks different). For an American, the rhyme is (IPA: e:ljɚ). Unfortunately I can think of no rhyme. A close one is tenure, but it wouldn't sound right. Steewi (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"I'll mail ya", "derail ya", "email ya", "jail ya": "dailier" (more daily *cof*) gailier (more gaily), "hailier" (more haily)... Not perfect rhymes, but enough to pass muster in UK RP, after a beer or two. SaundersW (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Derailleur is very close (depending on accent) and has the benefit of actually being a word. Algebraist 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The only one I can think of is 'scalier', as in Your skin is scalier than usual. That seems to be a legitimate word, and a fairly close rhyme, though not exact. Lantzy ^talk 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Australia rhymes perfectly well with failure, in British English and Australian English.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

'jailer'? -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fruitful imaginations. Thank you all. Omidinist.

Hello, sailure.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! What is sailure? I don't find it in dictionaries. Omidinist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.11.17.251 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke spelling of sailor. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot depends on how loose you are with your rules. For instance, one song I've heard goes "When you attend a funeral, it is sad to think that sooner'l, later those you love will do the same for you. And you may have thought it tragic, not to mention other adjec, tives to think of all the weeping they will do." You don't always have to end a sentence, or phrase, or even a word at the end of a line. That means you can end it with "your", pronounced "yer" or "yur" as it usually is. Nail your, fail your, sail your, regale your, "stale. Your", impale your, mail your. Year might work too, as would you, her, and lure, and (following "scalier") the suffixes -ier and -er. Any word at [6] could have at least one of these applied to it. Also, don't forget that you can cut the last word off, like "adjectives" above, and use the first few syllables for the rhyme instead. This is like internal rhyme, but less common. "I feel like a failure, I tried to mail your Christmas bread but it's stale, you're gonna have to tell Kaylee, 'er daughter'll wail, yearning to" ... or something. Notice the clumsy use of the first syllable of "yearning". It could be done better. [7] might also help. Black Carrot (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's We Will All Go Together When We Go. See also enjambement... AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

December 7

Chinese characters

Hi, could someone help me convert these three Traditional characters into machine-readable format: [8]? I was told it's a historical person's name. Thank you very much! DHN (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There should only be two: 達觀 (pinyin: dáguān), which means "having a comprehensive view of things" or simply "optimistic". The only historical person with this name I can think of is Zhou Daguan. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks K.C. DHN (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a culture where it is ordinary for people to know 5 languages?

What about 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.225.183 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't know for sure, but I doubt it. There are a good number of cultures in the world that have two languages that are regular (some examples would be Catalonia, the Quechua regions and other minority places). There are a number of regions where there is a main language, and a couple of minor languages. For exapmle, there ie Switzerland, each region is either Italian, German, or French, and often a citizen will speak one of the other languages, but not too well. In Kenya, there are many parts where people will speak the local tribal language, Swahili, and English, bringing the number to three. However, I don't know of any place in the world where a good number of people speak more than three languages; it simply becomes too cumbersome, and only a few people will speak more than 3. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a friend from Finland who once told me he had to learn Swedish as well. That would up it to 3 if that's common. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Learning Swedish is compulsory in Finnish schools, but most non-native speakers never really advance beyond the basics of Swedish. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading List of multilingual countries and regions, there are some places that are officially trilingual (such as Luxembourg) but there don't seem to be any where there are 4 official languages in use. Of course, the poor translators at the United Nations or European Union who have to translate speeches and texts into all kinds of strange forms may know more. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

86: Thanks for the link. Looks like it's normal to speak 4 in the Dutch West Indies: In the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, where Dutch is the official language, but most inhabitants of Curaçao, Aruba and Bonaire are multilingual and speak Papiamento, Dutch, English and Spanish. 66.91.225.183 (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere like Malaysia you have to learn Malay, English and Mandarin, and if you're ethically Chinese you might know Cantonese, Hokkein or some other dialect/language (language in the sense that if you don't speak that, you cannot understand it). --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT SINGAPORE?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.59.14 (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be normal for an educated Berber living (there are probably 100,000s of these) somewhere like Casablanca, or even in a Berber town like Agadir to use Tashelhiyt, Standard Arabic, Moroccan Arabic and French on a daily basis. Of course, I'll let that person decide whether that's 3 or 4 languages, but it certainly is 4 distinct varieties.

Or an educated Suba in Western Kenya would speak Suba, Dholuo, Kiswahili and English. One could probably find quite a few examples of people like this speaking a local, regional, national and international language (again, all used within the society, potentially on a daily basis). Drmaik (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland is multilingual and has four national languages: German, French, Italian and Romansh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaundersW (talk • contribs) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but very few people actually know all four of them. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, yet virtually all native Romansh speakers are functionally bilingual with German as their other language. If you count the Alemannic/Standard German diglossia, they could be characterized as trilingual, and if you add the standardized Rumantsch Grischun to their native dialect (Sursilvan, Vallader etc.) I guess you could count it as quadrilingual. In addition, all native Romansh speakers with higher education that I have met also learned French, Italian, and English before they graduated with a Matura in their late teens. There are not very many native Romansh speakers in Switzerland, however, and even less who studied Romansh as a second language. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In Mauritius, I've heard most people know English, French, and Mauritian Creole French; in addition, lots of Indo-Mauritian people know whichever of the languages of India is appropriate to their ethnic group. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This has all been very helpful. Can we agree that the Dutch West Indies is the only place on earth where you will find non-minorities speaking 4 languages? 128.54.77.37 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have spent a fair amount of time in Switzerland and it is quite common for people to speak several languages. All children are required to learn German, Italian, French and Romansch in school, and most people speak English as well. And people who know Spanish are not unusual either.--Filll (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is unusual almost anywhere for a majority of people to have a real command of more than two languages. In the case of Mauritius, I would bet that only the well-educated minority has a real command (conversational near fluency) of both standard French and English. Even in Germany and the Netherlands, where everyone is supposed to speak English, I have found that, outside of professional and managerial circles and the travel industry, most people have a limited English vocabulary at best and struggle to communicate beyond the most simple exchanges like "Where is the train station?", "Over there." People who may have studied a language in school (years ago) typically do not develop or maintain a real command of that language unless they use it regularly. In Tanzania, where most people speak a tribal language at home but learn Swahili and English at school (though not everyone goes to school), few people have a real command of more than two languages. Typically, this would be the tribal language and Swahili, but in the main city, Dar es Salaam, it might be Swahili and English. I suspect Kenya is similar. Well-educated people will have a command of both English and Swahili and maybe a tribal language as well, but they are a relatively small minority. Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The cleaning lady in the office where I work is from Mauritius and is not especially well educated, but she is certainly fluent in English, French, and Mauritian Creole, not to mention German since she's lived in Germany for the last 26 years. She doesn't speak her ancestors' Bhojpuri, though. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I once read a linguistics article about how in earlier times a certain region of South America (probably somewhere in inland northern Brazil) was marked by fairly extreme multilingualism (since a number of relatively small tribes speaking rather different languages lived in somewhat close proximity). AnonMoos (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Austrian postal service slogan

The slogan of the Austrian postal service is Die Post bringt allen was. Please could someone (a) translate and (b) parse this sentence for me? My guess is that it means something like "we deliver everything", but I'm sure this rough translation could be improved upon. And why allen - what case is this, and why? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Post (Office) brings everyone something. I suppose they are trying to give it a personal feel. Lanfear's Bane | t 11:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's word play. Literally: "The mail/postal service brings something to everyone." (In the form of letters and packages.) But also: "The postal service benefits everyone." Jemandem etwas bringen can also mean to benefit someone. "Allen" is dative (plural). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So was in this sentence is short for etwas, is it? How is one supposed to spot that, given that was is also a word (I was trying to work "what" into the slogan somehow). Is this a common short form of etwas? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's an extremely common form of etwas. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Query about Flemish

I've been asked by a work colleague who is interested in learning Flemish to see if I can find information on it (e.g.language books, cds, etc.) for her. I didn't really know anything about the language, except that it was related to Dutch, but I'm really confused now after reading the article here!

Most language books and cds I can find seem to be for Dutch, with many fewer for Flemish, and I'm wondering if there is enough of a difference that she should choose a specifically Flemish one, or would Dutch be ok?

Any information or thoughts on this would be appreciated!

Snorgle (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely someone with specific knowledge on this will pop out a precise answer. In the meantime, I suggest reading Flemish. Pallida  Mors 11:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Maybe you have read it already! Flemish can be thought of a family of dialects of Dutch, as far as I understand. Hence, there will be surely more material on Dutch than on Flemish.

If your colleague wants specific information on Flemish, I would suggest getting specific Flemish material. But if she just wants to learn some of it, Dutch material could be handy, I guess. Pallida  Mors 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

According to our article Flemish (linguistics) the term applied to language is rather ambiguous. It can refer to a specific Dutch dialect, West Flemish, which is spoken in parts of the Netherlands, Belgium and France, and may or may not include Zealandic. Or it can refer to a group of dialects also including East Flemish. The areas where dialects from this larger group are spoken include most of the former County of Flanders, from which the dialect has its name. It does not include all of the areas of Belgium where a Dutch dialect is spoken, because there are also the Brabantian and Limburgish dialects. For example, Brussels and Antwerp are in the Brabantian region. Then an entirely different but quite common meaning is the variety of standard Dutch heard from Dutch speakers in Belgium. I assume this is mainly a matter of accent, while there will of course also be a continuum of shifts in vocabulary as you move from North to South (or from East to West, for that matter). It will be hard to find language books on the dialects, in the unlikely case that that is what is intended, but then also it has to be made clear for which of the various meanings of Flemish. There is supposed to be no difference between Standard Netherlands Dutch and Standard Belgian Dutch; there is just Standard Dutch, which is officially regulated by the Nederlandse Taalunie.  --Lambiam 12:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm dutch and I understand spoken flemish, but it's not that easy. If your colleague wants to learn flemish, I would strongly recommend s/he uses courses in flemish, not in dutch. Speaking and understanding a new language is hard enough as it is, there is no need to complicate matters by learning a different dialect. Just do a search with "language course" flemish on the net to find courses.Lova Falk (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If your colleague is primarily interested in learning to read and write the language, keep in mind that the written language of Flemish-speaking Belgium is essentially identical to the written language of the Netherlands; the differences between Flemish and standard Dutch are pretty much exclusively in the realm of the spoken language. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Flemish generally refers to the form of Dutch spoken in the Flemish Region of Belgium. The only differences between this Flemish Dutch and Dutch Dutch are in the pronounciation of certain words and letters (most notably the g), and in the word order in some sentences. It would be comparable to the difference between US English and Australian English. But when the various dialects of Flanders are concerned, there can be strong differences. West Flemish, for instance, is barely comprehensible to someone from the Netherlands; it's even barely comprehensible for most Flemish people. But these are all dialects and variations within a single language, which is Dutch. I assume that your colleague is misunderstood; I suppose he/she wants to learn the language of Flanders, which is just Dutch. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a person who has learnt to speak Flemish as a second language I think you will find it close to impossible to find a manual or course that teaches Flemish as a separate language. Since WWII there has been a major effort to standardize what is referred to as NederlandsItalic text. This effort has largely taken place under the aegis of the Taalunie (Language Union) a joint consultative body comprising academics and politicians from both sides of the border. The result of their work was the creation of an artificial language known as Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands "General Civilized/polite Dutch" or ABN, which was subsequently renamed Algemeen Nederlands or AN. Critics argue that AN stifles creativity and wit, and furthermore that it gives too much weight to the Dutch component. Proponents point out that the Dutch spoken south of the the Moerdijk was so fragmented that something had to be done to standardized the language sufficiently for it to return it to the status of "a language of culture" (cultuurtaal) instead of remaining an ethnic curiosity. There can be no doubt that Flemish nationalist aspirations played a role in the process. However, current developments seem to underline that language is difficult to control. In the south (northern Belgium) we have seen the emergence of something called "verkavelingsvlaams" (housing estate Flemish), whereas the Dutch spoken north of the border continues to be influenced by the language of the Randstad (Holland's highly urbanized coastal strip). Other divisive factors include divergent legislation, and the changing media landscape. The latter in particular merits attention. Until the establishment of VTM (an independent Flemish cable television broadcaster)in 1989 the sole source of televesion broadcasts in Flemish was the (Belgian Radio and Television) and many Flemings would tune to the Dutch broadcasters as an alternative. Since 1989 other commercial cable broadcasters have joined VTM, thus diminishing interest in the Dutch broadcasters. At the same time the already chaotic Dutch broadcast system was further fragmented by the arrival of purely commercial cable broadcasters such as Veronica, which cannot be received in Belgium. As a result "Flanders" (which includes parts of Brabant and Limburg as well)is developing its own TV culture. This is a "homogenizing force" that tends to amplify the influence of "verkavelingsvlaams" as the dominant Dutch dialect south of the Dutch border. Augusta2 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cunning linguists required

Inspired by this thread, I feel compelled to ask if any other language enjoys the rich potential for good clean filth that English does? DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

German certainly does - two of my favourites are "Schwesternschaft" (sisterhood, but it sounds more like the sisters' nasty bits) and "Damenstift" (about the same as above). In the German translation of The Meaning of Liff (which is pretty excellent), the word used for something that for some reason sounds terribly naughty while being totally innocent is "Schwarzenstein". I guess that German's propensity for composite words, along with its wide array of words used for naughty bits (pretty much any word meaning "long, thin thing", "very hard thing" or "very soft thing" can be used with a sexual connotation) helps a lot with creating lots of perfectly innocent filth -- Ferkelparade π 13:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me saying, but Ferkelparade sounds like some frightfully efficient display of something quite disgusting. DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I copy/paste that as a quote to my user page? -- Ferkelparade π 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest! DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In Argentina, coger (quite a common verb in Spanish) has evolved into a very dirty word (i. e. fuck). Hence, the phrase porcino cojo (which elsewhere only means "lame pig") sounds exactly as por si no cojo, which means to an Argentine "in case I can't get laid"). Pallida  Mors 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that have anything to do with "old codger" = old f***er? (Tangent: And why aren't there any young codgers? If they're all old, "old" seems redundant to me.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe there's no relation. As coger means to take in Spanish, I guess that the verb started to get a meaning like the one of have in "to have her". Then, other verbs started to be used for take, like tomar, and coger's main meaning remained that of strong sexual connotations. Disclaimer: Remember that the responder is not a qualified etymologist.

In regard to poor old codgers, I guess the old gives just a touch of tenderness. Doesn't it? Pallida  Mors 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a common Dutch joke about this, how innocent words can become rude in another language. A Dutch horse breeder is trying to explain his profession to a foreigner: "I fok horses." "PARDON?" "Yes, paarden" Fok comes from the verb fokken, which means "to breed". Paarden (singular: paard) means "horse". Aecis^Brievenbus 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

origin of the phrase "the whole nine yards" 24.233.154.150 (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for the origin and source of the phrase "the whole nine yards" please. Thanks. 24.233.154.150 (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We have an article The whole nine yards. Friday (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which fails to state plainly that the origin of the phrase is not known. Okay, now it does. --Anon, 03:03 UTC, December 8, 2007.

Added link to further earlier attestations on article talk page... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

December 8

"payed out"?

The official past tense of "to pay" in virtually all senses is "paid". You'll occasionally see "payed", which is usually wrong, and tends to be listed in dictionaries only as an archaic form. However, in one sense -- to pay out a cable or line -- that spelling seems almost right to me, and perhaps even preferable to "paid out". Am I making this up? Some google searches I just did are suggestive (i.e. that the usage is out there), but by no means conclusive. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Chambers Dictionary, 1983 ed. shews payed as obsolete except in the nautical sense (paying out a line, as you mentioned). I may have to start using payed, it looks so much nicer on the page. The different verb pay, meaning to smear with tar, has as its only listed past form as payed. DuncanHill (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Chambers is British, so I looked at some American dictionaries via http://www.onelook.com. Merriam-Webster and American Heritage both list "paid or payed" in connection with paying out a line, but Encarta does not. The Random House Unabridged as quoted by dictionary.com says that "payed" is non-obsolete in "senses 12 and 24c", but their numbering is wrong; there is no 24c. Presumably they mean 30c, which is the sense in question. 12 is another nautical usage, "to let (a ship) fall off to leeward", not mentioned in the other dictionaries.

For the other verb "pay" that Duncan mentions, the one about smearing with tar (which I'd never heard of before), M-W and AHD both show "payed or paid" and RHU shows only "payed".

--Anonymous, 05:37 UTC, December 8, 2007.

Sometimes for the fun of it, I like to make other verbs that end in -ay follow the pattern of lay/laid, say/said, and pay/paid: "I staid there three days", "The children plaid outside", "The donkey braid", "We praid for forgiveness, saying 'We have erred and straid from Thy ways like lost sheep...'", and so forth. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The OED (online version) simply says "Past tense and past participle paid, payed." While noting "payed" is "chiefly Naut.", it doesn't mention anything about the form being archaic or obsolete. Pfly (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the corroborations. (Sounds like I wasn't just making it up!) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To perfect in French

How do you say 'to perfect' (ie the verb perfect) in French? Computerjoe's talk 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the first dictionary Google gave me, you want 'parfaire'. Algebraist 18:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good word, and so is perfectionner. Wareh (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. And be civil, Algebraist :P. Computerjoe's talk 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did that come across as uncivil? I was just citing my sources... Algebraist 15:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pidgin

Sit two people in a room who speak two completely unrelated languages.

What is the first thing they will likely communicate? How long before they can start exchanging abstract concepts?

Any experiments that did this? Caffm8 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a conjecture: each would point to him/herself and give his/her name. —Nricardo (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't help thinking of the poem by Susan Marr Spalding, which appeared in the New York Graphic in 1876 and has been much collected (see below)... Xn4 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Two shall be born the whole wide world apart;

And speak in different tongues, and have no thought

Each of the other’s being, and no heed;

And these o’er unknown seas to unknown lands

Shall cross, escaping wreck, defying death,

And all unconsciously shape every act

And bend each wandering step to this one end,—

That, one day, out of darkness, they shall meet

And read life’s meaning in each other’s eyes...

December 9

Closed word classes

I was reading something about English grammar and it said that certain classes of words were "closed". The classes included "determiners", "prepositions" and "conjunctions". I was wondering if it was possible to come up with new words to fit this category that actually have a degree of usefulness. Perhaps other languages already have words in these categories for which there is no English equivalent. Do we limit our ability of expression by not having those analogues or does it not make a difference? I'm not sure which category "a" and "the" etc fall into, but I think Japanese or Chinese or both don't have either one or both - what limits does this impose on the way they express themselves, their culture, scientific progress (alternatively, what limits does it remove)? --Seans Potato Business 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer the part I can answer, 'a' and 'the' are articles, a type of determiner. As an example of what we can gain by adding to closed classes, a second person plural pronoun is something many languages have which is lacking in English. Unless, of course, one is in certain parts of the United States, in which case one has y'all. Algebraist 17:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What can we do with a "second person plural pronoun" that we can't do currently? --Seans Potato Business 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It would eliminate any confusion when you're talking to a single person among many. To specify it now, we need to add another word like "all" afterward. Consider the difference between "You are crazy!" and "You all are crazy!". Matt Deres (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Call me a reactionary, but there's a solution to that. Just reintroduce the second person singular pronoun "thou", leaving "you" as plural only, which was the way it was originally. That would eliminate the need for "you all" and such barbaric expressions as "y'all" and (cringe) "yous". Going back to a pre-existing solution that worked just fine for a millennium seems a better approach than inventing a whole new one. Thou many thank me for this idea one day. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't have "a" or "the" in the Slavic languages, and as far as I know, they don't have any difficulty expressing themselves. They may, however, have trouble understanding The The. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian has a definite suffix on nouns. To answer the original question, "closed" means that changes to the class of words are very rare, but they do happen. From the 16th century onward, they, them, their was expanded from just a plural pronoun to a singular, gender-nonspecific pronoun for certain antecedents. There are other examples not only in the pronouns but with auxiliary verbs and other closed classes as well. To what extent does the presence or absence of these kinds of words influence a culture? Not much. The Welsh have no word for together, the Moken no word for when (maybe), the English no word for Pecht, the Chinese no word for the... and yet they all have no difficulty expressing whatever they want (but don't tell that to popular journalists; they practically make a living spinning B.S. out of minor language things like this). Strad (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian has a set of pronouns for its "dual" number meaning "we-two", "you-two", etc: [9] Some languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive we, French (and many other languages) have two distinct verbs for "to know" (to know how or that, and to be acquainted with), Spanish has two verbs for "to be" depending on whether the sentence concerns a temporary or an intrinsic quality... Just a few things that English doesn't have! (Just remembered: Croatian has a particle "li" which indicates the irterrogative. SaundersW (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Finnish has no articles and next to none prepositions - it mainly uses word inflections, and postpositions (and a few prepositions) in addition to them. But it still has very many closed word classes. All conjuctions, all particles, and what little there is of postpositions and prepositions are closed. Pronouns are also closed. As a rule of thumb, it's just the nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs which are open. And the inflective and agglunative nature of Finnish can result in words such as juoksentelisinkohankaan "I wonder if I should run around aimlessly after all". JIP | Talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're taking requests here, I'd like English to come up with a first person plural pronoun (or maybe we need two) that specified whether the active listener was included or not. There have been many times when I've said something like, "We're going to the shop" and wanted to tactfully but specifically exclude the person I'm talking to. If you're in a quiet enough setting or if the person is a good listener, they could hear a difference emphasis on the word, but it's far from clear. Matt Deres (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for SaundersW. She (is Saunders a girl's name or a last name?) can put it on urbandictionary.com and we'll all vote for it, and just like that, a new first person plural pronoun! In the meantime, I suggest using "Lou Ferigno and I are going to the shop", so as not to use plural pronouns at all --Seans Potato Business 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Given Lou's situation, the plural might be required anyway. Matt Deres (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Need catchy title for English report

It's about why humans need to work on colonization of Mars. 'Colonization of Mars' is a boring and bland title. Thoughts? Bellum et Pax (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Marz roxxorz..23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotclaws**== (talk • contribs)

Brave New World

The Martians are Coming!

Better Red Planet than Dead Planet

On Mars one day, we'll work rest and play. [may not work outside the UK]

Life on Mars. [Especially recommended if your English teacher is a Bowie fan]

DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Better Red Planet than Dead Planet is pretty hot. Thanks! Bellum et Pax (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

December 10

Pronounce this way... or...

Is there a name for a phrase which, if pronounced differently from the word structure therein, has a different meaning? A simple example would be Mike Law transposing to my claw. This is not homework. hydnjo talk 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like incorrect segmentation, an exampe of phonetic ambiguity. I don't know if there's a specific name. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)