Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 2

Etymology of Pachelbel

What is the (or a possible) etymology and meaning of the German surname "Pachelbel"? 96.233.6.203 (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Ayeaye

A combination of "Bach", meaning rivulet / brook and the firstname "Elbel", a variation on Albrecht (as in A. Dürer).

As per http://www.duden.de/duden-suche/werke/famnamen/000/034/Pachelbel.34838.html

"'Pachelbel: oberdeutscher, aus →Pach (1.) und dem Rufnamen →Elbel gebildeter Familienname: >der Elbel am Bach<.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That suggests the main stress would be on "el": pach-EL-bel. Yet it's almost always pronounced with the stress on "pach": PACH-el-bel. I once asked a German friend about this name, and she expressed great surprise - she had never heard of it, and said it was definitely not a German name. But then, she was neither a musician nor an etymologist. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The German article does give the pronunciation as [paˈxɛlbəl]. Initial stress occurs in English. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that this has been answered, I can't resist describing (from memory, so some misquoting may be involved) one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons. It depicts a fellow, with a glazed expression, strapped to a chair in a bare cell. From a speaker in a corner of the cell come the words "And once again, for your listening pleasure, we present Pachelbel's Canon in D." The caption is "Prisoner of Pachelbel." Deor (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Random observation - While the IP in the article Pachelbel says it is pronounced as JackofOz suggests, and if I were pronouncing it as a German word I would pronounce it as described, in my life I have never encountered the man or the canon named with the first l spoken. I've always heard Pak-(schwa)-bel. Strange. Skittle (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard people say it that way, too, now that the Canon in D has entered the mainstream of common musical consciousness and is no longer restricted to the cognoscenti. Park-ə-bel is commonly heard too. Karl Haas did a few programs on the composer, and he always gave all the consonants their full value (although, being a teutophone, it's interesting that he always stressed the first syllable, not the second). I've derived a vast amount of musical knowledge from ABC Classic FM and its AM predecessors, and the announcers there have always got it right. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comprise

I've noticed that an editor appears to be searching the site and correcting usage of the verb "comprise". Essentially, they're knocking out any use of the phrase "comprised of" as in, "The group was comprised of..." and the authority quoted is List of commonly misused English language phrases. The objection seems to be mainly founded on the views of the venerable H.W. Fowler. While I've found his works informative and entertaining I also know he was idiosyncratic in some regards and I wouldn't look to him as the final authority on all things in English language matters.

I see, from a search of the Archive for this desk that this was touched upon before at this thread but I'd like to put the question afresh.

I challenge this ruling by the aforementioned editor and I invite your comments. Retarius | Talk 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple. He is right; you are wrong. It's a solecism. You say "the group comprised" or "the group consisted of". You do not say "the group was comprised of". Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the pedants, language doesn't work by fiat. I don't know about you, but plenty of people are comfortable with the phrase "the group was comprised of".

Unfortunately for everybody else, there is a place for pedantry in editing an encyclopedia; in this genre there are compelling stylistic reasons to avoid "comprised of". --Diacritic (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Fowler on this one. But more to the point is whether said editor is improving the articles and making them clearer with whatever they put in place of "comprise".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Comprise" isn't quite dead yet. Its proper use is the shibboleth of literacy these days, but once I and my kind die off, the kids will be free to use whatever word comes into their heads regardless of what it really means. I would add that "comprise" is actually pretty rarely called for; there are a lot of write-arounds that are plainer and therefore clearer and better. Bottom line: Who is he? I want to give him a barnstar. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's User:Giraffedata and as to whether he's doing better than the efforts he's replacing - I'll leave that for you to judge by looking at his contribs. Best do that before giving a barnstar! Thanks for your replies. Retarius | Talk 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the first ten in his list of contributions, and they look OK to me. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's another usage of "comprise": The president, the secretary and the marketing manager comprise the marketing committee. Which seems to be the reverse of The marketing committee comprises the president, the secretary and the marketing manager, but it means exactly the same thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gateau

I always pronounced this word as Ga-Toe, but the other day I heard someone calling it Gae-Cho. Can someone who is fluent in French confirm its pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasanclk (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your pronunciation is correct. It's ga-toe (although the 'toe' part is vocalised shorter than the equivalent sound in English). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some variants of English (I'm thinking along the lines of the American East Coast accent) have a little -y- palatization between "t" when it's the first sound of a syllable, and following -o or -u sounds. It could be that accent pronouncing it with that little -y- sound, so it's really Ga-t-y-o. Corvus cornix_talk 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. That only happens with certain speakers in certain words, never in this position. Nobody makes "told" "tyold" or "plateau" "platyeau". You must be thinking of "tyune" for "tune" and the like. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine people who don't know French thinking it should be pronounced like gat-ee-oh or gate-ee-oh but shortening the "ee" to "y" (gat-yo or gate-yo), which could then sound like they're saying "ga-cho" or "gay-cho". In other words, it's a combination of a mispronunciation and a mishearing of that mispronunciation. Also, could this be related to the way some (usually youngish and more often female than male) Americans palatalise the consonant preceding the "oo" sound in words like "do" and "too" (they sound almost like "dew" and "tyew", or even "dee-oo" and "tee-oo"). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

About yesterday's "gâteau"

From a frenchie just hapening to be stolling by : in the usual french tongue , "gâ" is brief (more than the circonflex accent usually stresses it ), while "eau" is mouthed a lot longer than "o" , so I think "go-taw" will actually be nearer to the mid-France pronounciation . But never , never say "ga-choe" if you have a Portuguese maid and a cat you love : a friend of mine told her Algarve brunette to put " le gateau en el frigidario" , and fainted the day after when she looked for her morning butter ...Best regards to all GB , specially to GB ladies with a cat ... signé a french user ...--91.165.97.71 (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

whats the difference

whats the difference between am and i'm ?example am gone and I'm gone. 2.Am currently doing 35wpm.on a scale of 1 to 10 how am i in speeds.Am planning to start transcibing.

"Am" is a verb (first person singular of to be). "I'm" is a contraction of the first person singular pronoun, "I", and that verb: I am --> I'm. Aleta ^Sing 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In normal, standard speech and writing, every English verb needs an explicit subject (except in the imperative). So, in ordinary speech or writing, am cannot stand alone. It normally appears with the subject I, often in the contraction I'm. You will find instances where am stands alone, usually in writing. This is an example of "telegraphic" or abbreviated style, often used in note taking, which omits words for the sake of brevity. However, English speakers do not leave out the I in ordinary speech or writing. Marco polo (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement about obligatory subjects is too strong. You can have a lack of subject in coordinated structures like Tom kicked Dick and slapped Harry, in certain wh-questions like what to do now?, which way to go?, why no smiles?, why talk to her?, and in cases where the listener can retrieve the subject via linguistic context like told you so, going to the store (said to someone right before leaving), looks like rain, see you later, gotta go, had a fun time, did you?, hot?, any tea left?, looks good, want some?, etc. The last two types are common in spoken language, it's not restricted to note taking. – ishwar  (speak) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The instances that you cite are idiomatic expressions. Even if my statement was too strong, sentences using the verb am without the subject I are certainly not common in spoken or written American English. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire Demonym

What do you call someone from New Hampshire? (As in, "Virginian" for a Virginia resident; "Bay Stater" for a Massachusetts resident)96.233.6.203 (talk)RedPanda —Preceding comment was added at 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the "correct" term is New Hampshirite, but I'm partial to Granitehead. --LarryMac | Talk 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New Hampster? Paul Davidson (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the Nat King Cole song LOVE say "can"?

I love singing the song L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole. However, I don't understand why the word "can" is at the end of the E line.

L is for the way you look at me
O is for the only one I see
V is very, very extraordinary
E is even more than anyone that you adore can
Love is all that I can give to you
Love is more than just a game for two
Two in love can make it
Take my heart and please don't break it
Love was made for me and you

Any ideas as to why this is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderley (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess: You're supposed to mentally complete the line by appending "be", as suggested by the rhyme scheme. Leaving it incomplete produces an artistic effect that the writer liked. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, April 2, 2008.

My interpretation: For some unspecified action that the people you adore can do, Nat can do it even more. But really, I don't think these lyrics are there to have coherent semantics. You might as well ask what Ella Fitzgerald means by "doodly-a-dop-ba-da-dop" or where exactly is the "Gadda-Da-Vida" that Doug Ingle is in. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida means "In the Garden of Eden". 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Third possible interpretation: The lack of a pause between can and the following love (along with the pronounced pause after the latter) makes that love function ambiguously both as the completion of the verb phrase "can love" and as the subject of is. (Of course the main reason it's there is so that "you adore can" will rhyme with "even more than.") Deor (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Deor's explanation. It's an amusing bit of enjambment in which the "love" that joins the verse and chorus is made to do double duty. - Nunh-huh 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I always heard it. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great ideas here. Much better than what I initially thought. I initially assumed when I sang it in karaoke and saw "can" that they meant "and". And I sang it that way. But then I heard it at the end of "The Parent Trap" remake and what I heard (and the subtitles on the DVD) said, "can".
So, to be true to Nat, I've sung "can" ever sense but had no idea why. I do understand what all of you have posted and it goes to show you understand English verse much better than I. But, I must confess, I like "and" better. "Can" requires too much thinking.
For years the word "can" has stuck out to me. So, now every time you hear this song "can" will stick out to your head - Sorry about that ;-)
If anyone else has any ideas, I'd love to hear. Thanks again.--Wonderley (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think can is there as an internal rhyme for than in the same line. He has swapped the last two words of the line around to enable this. Literally, it would be "...anyone that you can adore." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. And it's two internal rhymes in a row:

V is very very

Extra-ordinary

E is even more than

Anyone that you adore can

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO It is a play on words and timimg: "E is even more than anyone that you adore can LOVE." is the first complete sentence, but he begins the next line with the same word being, I think, very poetic and getting out of a tough spot.

April 3

Japanese Sound Symbolism

What would be the kana for the following?:

• biɕi biɕi 1) the sound of sniffling a running nose
• kaka 1) the sound a bird makes, 2) the sound of gulping word down
• kooro kooro, 1) the sound or manor of stirring a liquid
• sai sai or sae sae 1) the sound or manor in which an object shakes
• saja saja 1) the sound of two objects clanging together
• tawa tawa 1) the sound or manor in which an object bends or sags
• bisi bisi
• kaka
• ko₂woro₂ ko₂woro₂
• moya moya
• sawi sawi (also sawe sawe)
• saya saya
• tawa tawa
• ura ura

Thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The initial response you got was for 8th century examples of onomatopoeia. Next you asked how to pronounce them in 21st century Japanese. There are countless issues just with this premise. So after skipping 13 centuries of phonetic changes, you get the above. Semantically there are numerous problems as well. So now you want to know how to write them in kana. Why not.

びしびし

かか

こおろこおろ

さいさい

さやさや

たわたわ

At this point, the next set are mostly repeats of the above, but in 8th century phonemic. How should I write them? In historical kana or modern kana? Why not both!?

Old: びしびし, Modern: びしびし

Old: かか, Modern: かか

Old: こをろこをろ, Modern: こおろこおろ

Old: もやもや, Modern: もやもや

Old: さゐさゐ (also さゑさゑ), Modern: さいさい (also さえさえ)

Old: さやさや, Modern: さやさや

Old: たわたわ, Modern: たわたわ

Old: うらうら, Modern: うらうら

Bendono (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

O wow, that really did help me, that's amazing! Thank you!68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Full Sized Yoon

In historical orthography,

きや [kja]: や follows き (ki)
くわ [kwa]: わ follows く (ku)

(While the English language article Yōon only lists the the palatal -j, historically and also dialectically there was also a labial -w. For example, kwazi "fire" which once contrasted with kazi "house chores". The palatal -j only followed the orthographic -i. However, the labial -w followed the orthographic -u.)

Additionally,

きゆ <-- acceptable
きよ <-- acceptable
くを <-- unacceptable
くゐ <-- acceptable
くゑ <-- acceptable
すを <-- unacceptable
すゐ <-- unacceptable
すゑ <-- unacceptable

The Yoon indicated as unacceptable are so because they do not occur.

So here is my question. Are き and く the only kana that can use full sized yoon? If not, a list of all full sized Yoon would be most help full, including dialectical and historical orthography, Ryukyuan languages, Japonic languages, and any other langauge that uses kana. Many many thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All yōon were full size until recently, 20th century if I remember right. For dialects, there's no reason you can't use くゑ or く_ゑ (except maybe for typesetting problems); it's simply a choice of orthography. — kwami (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But what about the yoon-kana combinations, for example; above?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the 2 kana combinations I listed, I listed as unacceptable, because they do not exist. When I meant full sized yoon, I meant before they turned きゆ into きゅ, きよ into きょ, etc. etc.. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youon.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand the question. kwami (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bendono&diff=prev&oldid=202471833.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the question I answered above. All yōon were written full-size until the 20th century. All of them. If you want to write CyV, where C is any consonant and V is a, o, or u, you write them with the kana for Ci plus the one for yV. Historically, if you wanted to write CwV, it was Cu plus wV. In practice, only kwa and gwa ever occurred, and since kwa became /ka/ a couple centuries ago, Japanese learned that the w was silent. Therefore, today, kwa would be written as ku plus a, not wa, and mwa (if you wanted for some reason to write that) would be mu plus a. However, if you're designing an orthography for an unwritten dialect, I suppose you could resurrect the original logic and write it mu plus wa, and similarly mwe as mu plus we. kwami (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ku (kana)

Why is q appearing before qw in the "Other additional forms" table? Is it because it appeared first in Japanese literature or is it because it is more common?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does <q> appear at all? kwami (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Appears in onematopia.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's utter nonsense and should be removed. The only justification that I can think of is the the Portuguese used q in a number of their romanizations at the start of the 17th century. All k- sounds, including non labials, were romanized as either c- or q-. See Vocabvlario da Lingoa de Iapam for more details. In modern context without such background information, it is absolutely inappropriate. Bendono (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to kw yesterday. kwami (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Before changing anything:

くぁ is ... used ... in ... giseigo.

— ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time, please quote the whole thing. They way you "quoted" it could give the appearance of me saying something I may not have said (which is the case here). What I actually wrote was, "くぁ is not really used at all (except perhaps in very unusual giseigo), so there is no reason at all to have it listed." (see archive here). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Obscure sound effects are used in comic books. However, that does not say anything about q or qw. くぁ is kwa. Bendono (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And the sound effects in manga are often made up, too, so they use (sometimes) really bizarre combinations that would not be used anywhere else. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference,

「クワ、クイ、クエ、クオ」「グワ、グイ、グエ、グオ」が、それぞれ原音のkwa, kwi, kwe, kwo, gwa, gwi, gwe, gwoにあてられる。[...] なお、「クヮ」は、近年は「クァ」と書く。

— Nikkoku, entry for く

Bendono (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't possible other comic books use it for q and qw?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've traced the edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ku_%28kana%29&diff=next&oldid=83047211) to User:Akanemoto.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The letter <q> is shorthand to represent the phonetic sound [kw]. Contrasting <q> with <qw> is like trying to contrast [kw] and [kww]. So, what kind of sound that occurs within Japanese do you expect to represent with <q> or <qw> that you can not represent with <kw>? Bendono (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl vs. Kyle

Please compare the pronunciation of the name Carl with that of Kyle in British English. They sound exactly the same to my American ears.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In Received Pronunciation they would be [kʰɑːɫ] and [kʰaɪɫ] respectively. In Scottish English they would be [kʰaɾɫ] and [kʰɐɪɫ], in Cockney they would be [kʰɑːo] and [kʰæɪo] respectively... not sure about other accents. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also note that, in my version of RP, Carl is one syllable whereas Kyle is usually two. Skittle (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gray tomatoes

How do the Irish spell gray/grey? I just noticed that Wilde's book is titled The Picture of Dorian Gray. Are they thumbing their noses at the English? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gray" is also an English name, as in Louis Harold Gray. Historically, a lot of English lexicographers, such as Samuel Johnson, preferred that spelling even for the color. In the 19th century, a lot of English writers used both spellings, with grey being a lighter tint, and gray being a 'warmer' colour, maybe with a hint of brown. The current US/UK divide started in the 19th c, but only become standard in the 20th. — kwami (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, would you care to be true to your name and tell us what this question has to do with tomatoes? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You say tomaytoes, I say tomahtoes? kwami (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kwami's guess is kwarrect. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from the surname issue in the book's title, Oscar Wilde was Anglo-Irish and London-based, and was thus fairly unlikely to be "thumbing [his] nose at the English" in the way you suggest. Certainly, he thumbed his nose at English upper-class society, but there is very little in his work to suggest that he did so from the perspective of a staunch supporter of Irish independence.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that your question reveals more about your personal views of Anglo-Irish relations than it asks about language. The idea that the Irish would adopt the American spelling purely to annoy the English is cartoonish, patronising and - it seems to me - could only have come from the country which believes green Budweiser and Lucky Charms are emblematic of an island with 2,000+ years of culture and history. Apologies if I have misjudged you. Rant over. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Everyone knows the Irish drink green Guinness, not Budweiser! kwami (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with the fact that people drink Budweiser at all. - X201 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never tried it, but there is Budějovický Budvar. Corvus cornix_talk 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be an arsehole/asshole. Lantzy ^talk 11:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

dont ignore

2.Am currently doing 35wpm.on a scale of 1 to 10 how am i in speeds.Am planning to start transcibing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.225.250 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to place you on a scale of 1 to 10. Maybe 5 or 6? I do know that I once typed that speed and was rejected by a temporary employment agency in the United States for clerical work. The minimum qualifying speed would have been 50 wpm, with 55 wpm or greater preferred. Marco polo (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

From what my wife (a technical typist) says 35wpm is a little on the slow side for general documents, though employable for general work, i.e. not 100% typing but maybe copying, manning a switchboard, etc. If you can do the same accurately on technical documents (which contain formulae and figures that probably mean nothing to you) then 35wpm would be excellent. My wife types at a sustained 80wpm for general letters, but for a technical publication she would manage 20wpm for typed and checked documents with essentially no errors (one error per five pages was the target). -- Q Chris (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so this question is about typing speeds? Well, bugger me! I thought it was about how high one could achieve on the impertinence scale. I'd just make the point that there's no point getting to 35 wpm if what you type is full of punctuation and spelling errors. (Maybe your question above is not a good example of your usual quality; if so, I wonder why we didn't qualify for one. Was there a question # 1, by the way?) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This question makes more sense if you view Whats the difference, asked on this desk yesterday. While their first question under that heading was answered, the second (as written here) did appear to be ignored. Obviously they have not gone about this the way we would have, but at least it makes sense... Skittle (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Question #1 was:

"whats the difference between am and i'm ?example am gone and I'm gone."

Aaaargh, I believe I am transcibing. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For Jack, a speed isn't usually just the pace, it's the amount of copy in words minus mistakes which even if it's a blisdstering pace, maybe cut down to 20 for errors. 35 without errors is competent reliable mostly and is a usual starting point for someone with ambitions -- quickness then builds up from drill. Personally, I feel questions are not typing exams, but that's fwiw. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Julia. No, they're not typing exams, and we can usually manage our way through them, allowing for cultural differences and varying competencies in English. In this particular case, I was somewhat negatively impressed by the lack of respect the questioner displayed in the header (not to mention saying nothing about the nature of the question), which was exacerbated by the lack of information supplied in the question. It really was very rude - in any language - and called for appropriate feedback. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Guess I mostly focus on getting the point of the question and the header seemed like a plea implying a reason though I just saw Skittle's clarifier, and yes (phone) texting style does seem blunt or demanding on a larger page. Pity the NZ teachers whose system allowed it as a legitimate language in exams! Maybe it's all about transcribing, : ) or zzz Julia Rossi (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"X-ray" or "X ray"

I'd like to find out if there a correct usage of the hyphen in 'X-ray', or is it always used? I've been informed that certain scientific journals drop the hyphen when 'X-ray' is used as a noun, rather than as an adjective. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Our article "X-ray" uses the hyphen throughout, though it flips between "X" and "x" (which I'll fix as soon as we're done here). The AP Stylebook wants "X-ray" in all uses. The dictionaries at Onelook are split about 50-50 between "X-ray" and "x-ray" for the entry word. AHD likes "x-ray" and says "also 'X-ray'", and for the noun, "also 'x ray' or 'X ray'", which corresponds with your information at least as regards the hyphen. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In essence, it's not so much a spelling issue as a style issue. There is no single "correct" way. But within the same context, be consistent in the spelling. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Writing for several Wikipedias in different languages

--Sibilla Lucrezio (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a German with a Ph.D. in French and Spanish who has lived in the United States for over 40 years. You say, what a problem! I have just signed up with Wikipedia in English and want to know if I can edit and write contributions in Wikipedias of the other languages I know.

Sibilla Lucrezio (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You can, just not on this Wikipedia. We have [1] (French), [2] (German), and maybe 50-ish others. Paragon12321 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are translation projects you can join. Wrad (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_language_family gives a list of Wikipedias by language and language families. I believe there are 255 languages available.

In German you have the choice between

• German (Standard High German)
• Low Saxon (Plattdeutsch)
• Ripuarisch (Rhineland Frankish)
• Limburgish
• Allemannic (home turf of the respected user:Sluzzelin)
• Austro-Bavarian
• Gothic (for which you need the proper font of good old Ulfilas) as well as
• Pennsylvania Deutsch and
• Yiddish.
• Als Betthupferl empfehle ich die Wikipedia in Latein, http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Latina.

Have fun ! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You will, however, have to register separately on each language's Wikipedia (although you can use the same name, provided it isn't taken). -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I might not be understanding this correrctly but since when do you require a near-perfect understanding of a language to edit its Wikipedia? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

April 4

"In bed"

Why can we say 'I am in bed', but not use this structure for other locations? We don't say 'I am in car', 'I am in kitchen', 'I am in chair'. Why isn't there a preposition like 'I am in my bed' or 'the bed'? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage, and because it's a state or an idea, not a placement as such? As in I'm driving rather than I am driving the car along the road; I'm at the table not I'm sitting in the dining chair. Why do we say I am sitting down rather than I am in chair? I like I'm on the phone, when the phone is really on me. You can be logical with language up to a point but what spoken language is completely literal when it just carries ideas? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is the UK construction in hospital. Strad (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also "in Downing Street", "in Yorkshire", "in prison". On the other hand "in theatre" would mean that theatre is your line of business, as opposed to "in the theatre" being in a particular theatre building. The same would go for "in college" (being a student) vs "in the college" being in the building .... I think that the latter is used also for faculty members of University Colleges. I don't think there is much logical constancy. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is whether or not the object is individuated, though partially it's simply lexified. There's a difference between watching TV, where TV is almost an adverb, describing the action, and watching the TV (to make sure it isn't nicked), where TV is clearly the object of the action. Same he's in bed (= asleep) vs. he's in the bed (whichever bed we're talking about) or he's in his (own) bed. Thus the difference between in theatre and in the theatre, I was in prison (incarcerated) and I was in the prison (this morning), etc. *I am in car would presumably mean something like "I am driving", but since we have a perfectly good verb for it, there's no point in ever developing the phrase *I am in car. However, we have no verb for watching TV or being in hospital, and that's where these phrases come in. kwami (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sundays mornings, I am in church. We have some lovely carved pews in the church. My nephew has gone to sea as a cabin boy. Most rivers round here go to the sea. My daughter is at school. I always have problems parking at the school. &caetera

Rhinoracer (talk) 19

00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Julia is closer than kwami. The form without article tends to get used when we're talking about a state or condition, even if it happens to correspond to a physical location: thus 'in bed' is like 'in surgery', 'in conference', and 'in prison'. In the UK, as Strad says, 'in hospital' is the normal idiom: 'in the hospital' would be marked in the same was as 'in the school'. But 'in bed' doesn't mean 'asleep' - it can equally well mean 'suffering with or recovering from an illness', and I'm not sure it would cease to apply if the person were to get up for a little while.

Of course. "Asleep" was only one example of what in bed could be used for. But the construction is not just for a state or condition, unless you consider TV to be so mindless that watching TV is a state rather than an activity. kwami (talk)

There's another US/UK distinction that crops up here, and that's 'at' vs. 'in'. In the UK we do not say 'in school', we say 'at school'. But we do say 'in prison' and 'in hospital' - 'at' there would definitely imply we were talking about a visitor. I've just thought that 'at breakfast' means simply currently eating breakfast, whereas I would only expect 'in breakfast' if 'breakfast' was a communal event taken at a particular place. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or he's at the breakfast, if it were not the normal morning routine but a special breakfast that some organization was holding.

Both in school and at school are used in the US. "In school" means going to school at this time, as opposed to having a career or being in the army: "Is John still in school? —Yes, he's going to college now." "At school" is current location: "Is John home? —No, dear, he's still at school." "At the school" would mean the particular school was a topic of the discussion: "The police arrived at the school within five minutes of the shooting." —kwami (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To/or

Why use for example "One TO two computers" instead of "One OR two computers" when there are clearly no numbers between 1 and 2? 58.168.128.66 (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says that? It sounds awkward to me. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I say it all the time. It's simply a construction: "X to Y Z's", where X and Y are the limits of the quantity. A few to many, six to eight, etc. Also, sometimes there is a number in between: one to two hours. Very little of what we say is thought out: we splice together prefabricated phrases and constructions, which leads to a lot of analogical leveling. Listen carefully to a recording of a conversation. Probably less than 10% will be original. It's just easier that way: "X to Y Z's", regardless of the actual numbers. It's the same reason as saying it's or there's for plurals, or less instead of fewer. kwami (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you say "X to Y" when Y-X=1. Nobody says "I'll be there in three to four hours", we say "...three or four hours." My answer to 58.168.128.66 is that we don't use "to" there. What made you think we do? --Milkbreath (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a somewhat different case, Milkbreath. Events don't occur exactly at hourly intervals. I may get there as early as 3 hours time, or as late as 4 hours time, or at some point in between those 2 extremes, and there are an infinite number of such points. But when there are only 2 discrete possibilities (e.g. one computer or two computers) we sometimes forget there are only 2 possibilities, use the general construction, and still end up saying "one to two". It's not inaccurate; it's just that the number of possibilities between the two extremes happens to be zero. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can easily imagine myself on the road to visit friends in another city, not knowing whether I will face heavy traffic along the way, and phoning to say "I will be there in three to four hours." Depending on traffic, I might get there in three hours, three hours and fifteen minutes, three hours and forty minutes, some other intermediate time, or four hours. Marco polo (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If you were taking an hourly train and not sure which one you would get on you could say "I will be there in three or four hours". The phrase "I will be there in three to four hours" implies any possible time between. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, many people use "or" rather than "to" even when there are numbers in between. "I'll be there in 20 or 30 minutes" does not usually mean that I'm planning to take a train that runs every 10 minutes. And similarly with "3 or 4 hours", although "3 to 4 hours" is also perfectly normal for me. For things counted in whole numbers, I agree that "or" is preferable when the two numbers given are consecutive. --Anonymous, 21:49 UTC, April 4, 2008.

OK, maybe that wasn't such a great example. That is conceivable. But I still say nobody says "one to two computers" if their head is on straight. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds just as wrong to me when people say less for fewer, but I hear it all the time. kwami (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it sounds wrong, I'm saying nobody says it. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Boston University's ad for international language programs: "During the remaining period, in addition to the CIES language and liberal arts program, students have the possibility to take one to two courses at the University of Padova." Maybe a course is divisible? (or maybe the head wasn't on straight?) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good one. That was obviously written by someone whose grasp of English is at near-native level. "The possibility to take" is not idiomatic, so whatever comes next is suspect. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I didn't notice that... Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, I hear it all the time from native speakers. I wouldn't have noticed anything unusual about that ad. kwami (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that in just about any case where the numbers are apparently integers, like computers or courses, you can, in fact, have something in-between. You could have 1.5 computers, effectively, if one of the computers isn't fully functional. Perhaps it lacks an Internet connection or is running outdated software, making it only useful for a few tasks. A partial course can be one which is audited or only attended part-time. Perhaps someone only interested in inorganic chemistry may only take the first half of a general chemistry class, for example. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Extra" symbols in devanagari - sanskrit

The text of various mantras on the Himalayan academy website has some symbols I have not come across before, which also appear on the Roman transliteration. For example in bhojana mantra there are underscores under some of the 'a' characters and vertical lines, for example over the last a in shankaraprana in the first line. I guess these are some type of stress marks. What do they mean? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

They look like cantillation marks. This is a chant, after all, and they occur with several different vowels and consonants, showing that they aren't diacritics. The only thing I can think of is intonation or melody. But I'm just guessing. kwami (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are pitch accent marks. See Vedic accent and this document, linked from the page. Abecedare (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, so the accented syllable is not marked, and the nonaccented syllables are? kwami (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare, that document covers it though it will take me a little while to comprehend what it's saying. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the origin of "to haze" ?

Hello from a frenchie ! I saw recently on my TV Homer Simpon at a university-ex-fellows party ( so he went to some kind of U. ?), flourishing a streamer " Support the hazing" ...Of course my "Webster's 3rd New International Dic., Unabridged" gives me : "to haze : to harass a crew , or to humiliate a freshman ...". But I do not see the link between a light dusty mist and the humiliation ...May-be the glazed misty forlorn look in the eyes of zombies ? Thanks for your suggestions ... P.S. In french , no problem : "bizutage" is the treatment inflicted on the "bizuts" , the freshmen ...But BTW how students , would-be intellectual elite of a nation , happened to forge that word ?--91.168.132.189 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary suggests that it may ultimately derive from Old French: [3] --Diacritic (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary hints at that, too, saying only to compare Old French haser, attested from 1450, which it defines as "irriter, piquer", etc. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I really think the French "Bizut" is a military word originally, not invented by students. --Lgriot (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether it may derive from the french harceler(to harass), as does the informal 'to hassle'? Rhinoracer (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Driving directions

"One day a driver you just passed on the right gets out of his car..." (English)

My question is: after "I" passed that driver, where is my car on the road? Is it on the RIGHT ahead of the driver's (also on the right)? Am "I" driving on a road where "oncoming traffic is seen coming from the left side" and the traffic is "right-handed"? (See "Traffic directionality") This is about "English". I don't understand how "on the right" affects the action here. (The traffic in different countries is different in directions)

--Fitzwilliam (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that this sentence or sentence fragment was written by a North American. In the UK and the Antipodes, one would normally pass on the right. It would be almost redundant to say "on the right" in those countries. However, in the United States and Canada, one is supposed to pass on the left. Passing on the right requires the qualifier "on the right" to indicate this nonstandard maneuver. Because passing on the right is nonstandard and somewhat dangerous or (in some jurisdictions) illegal, one could imagine that a driver who had been passed on the right might be angry. In the United States, you almost expect that the sequel to your quote could be "and pulls out a gun." You are correct that, at least in American English, the quote above implies that the car that has done the passing is ahead and to the right. However, for the driver of the car that has been passed to get out of his car, one assumes that he has pulled over to the right edge of the road. Again, this is assuming that the passage refers to a North American context. Marco polo (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this many times but never had a credible confirmation. Is passing on the right actually illegal? I know the general rule is "faster traffic should stay left and slower should stay right", but is this a convention or a law? People pass on the right in my experience all the time (if some bonehead is going slow in the left lane) and I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for it. (This is in the US by the way.) Friday (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me simplify the traffic situation to just LEFT (like Britain) and RIGHT (like the US). I took this sentence from a German manual in English, and the English spelling and vocabulary are British (so, probably for British readers). According to our article, Britain is LEFT, but the US and German-speaking countries (like Germany) are all RIGHT. The context is that the driver feels somewhat strange that "I" passed him on the RIGHT and thus perhaps (sort of) blocked his way. If the British people generally think it's perfectly normal to pass a car on the right (since their country is LEFT), then a British driver learning German would very probably come across the strange response in Germany where people don't pass on the "right" - so, here it'd be a difference of driving practices.--Fitzwilliam (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In Ontario, Canada, where we drive on the right, the Ministry of Transport has this [4] to say about passing. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, Friday, I had thought that it was illegal to pass on the right in at least one state—Connecticut—but when I checked their driver's manual, I found that it is discouraged but not ilegal. A quick search did not reveal any states in which passing on the right is illegal. So I stand corrected. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of why we don't give legal advice. A quick search found British Columbia, Maine and Michigan all outlawing passing on the right - and that was just the first page of Google results. Rmhermen (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I also thought passing on the right was illegal in at least one state, but Wikipedia's Traffic article doesn't mention any. I do remember on the old TV show The Jetsons a scene where George gets a ticket for "passing under traffic" in his flying car, and I always assumed it was based on such a law. Maybe there once was a law in some states and it has been abolished.

By the way, since British practice has been mentioned in this thread, note that the usual word there would be "overtaking", not "passing". "Passing" usually refers there to what you do to traffic going the other way. --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, April 4, 2008.

I've had people pass me on the right on one-lane roads. I almost forced another driver into a tree to keep him from passing me one time. Corvus cornix_talk 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that on the east coast of the US, places like Connecticut and Pennsylvania, drivers are expected to stay on the middle or outer lanes, and you overtake using the inner lanes, which are left free. People can get quite angry if you overtake them on the outside. However, on the west coast you don't keep to the outside (there's too much traffic for that to be practical), and you overtake wherever there's room. kwami (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another confusion, then! In the UK, the outside lane is the one nearest the central reservation (median, I believe). Overtaking on the inside is (usually, but not always) illegal ([5] item 268). Bazza (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's the Highway Code but it isn't the law as such. Things that are illegal are written "You must not..." and are followed with a reference to the relevant law. So you might be got for careless or dangerous driving, but it's not straightforwardly an illegal thing to do. Certainly if you crash while undertaking like that, you can generally expect to be found at fault. Also, reading the section after it, notice the distinction between passing and overtaking a vehicle. It seems relevant to this discussion :) 130.88.140.121 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Error in NYT headline?

Is it me or is the headline from this story (referred to on RD/M) terrible English? Shouldn't it be "shone"? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster online, they both indicate that either (shone or shined) is acceptable, with M-W suggesting that "shone" is primarily Canadian or British. --LarryMac | Talk 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The MW does not state that shone is British / Canadian English, it differentiates between two ways of pronouncing shone, the first one - presumably - being US usage. The entry says "past & past part shined : to make bright by polishing <shined his shoes>".

A couple of other on-line dictionaries also indicate that "shined" is used primarily in the polishing sense, as in "shined her shoes" or "... his cricket ball". Considering the locus of rubbing the latter, the word "cricket" may be redundant.

Based on this, the phrase "...shined Laser at aircraft..." is incorrect unless he polished it fist. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In my usage, shone is intransitive: "the sun shone" or "the sun shined", but only "shined the laser". If you said "shone the laser", I'd hear it as "(he was) shown the laser". kwami (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

English language going back to the middle ages

How far back in time would I have to go (in England) before people did not understand me and what language where they speaking apart from latin and french?

Thank you for your help

Regards

Terry Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.140.223 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the difficulty many modern speakers of English have with Shakespeare, considering that modern performances of Shakespeare seldom attempt the pronunciation of Shakespeare's day, and considering that we probably have an easier time understanding past forms of English—to which we have some exposure—than past speakers would have had understanding our (to them) future forms of English, I suspect that you would have a hard time being understood much before the late 17th century. Certainly, you would not have been understood before the 15th century, when the Great Vowel Shift began. Before the Great Vowel Shift, in the late Middle Ages, Middle English was spoken. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maltese language: Semitic form vs Romance form

I am posting this here, because I don't know how frequently the talk page of the article on Maltese language is watched. I posted the same query there:

Below the following example:

"Maltese can be spoken using either the Semitic or the Romance forms. A case in point is the English sentence "The temple is situated opposite the village plaza."

• Romance form: It-tempju sitwat oppost il-pjazza tal-villaġġ.

  (Italian: Il tempio è situato davanti (opposto) alla piazza del villaggio.)

• Semitic form: Il-maqdes jinsab biswit il-misraħ tar-raħal."

someone added:

"It would, however, be a mistake to say that both of these sentences mean the same thing. Tempju refers to a temple site such as Stonehenge, for example, whereas maqdes may more often be used to describe a church. Moreover, a Maltese speaker is more likely to translate raħal as "village" and villaġġ as "small town." In fact, neither of the above sentences is likely to be said naturally by a native speaker, as both of them involve a collision of normally separate speech registers."

and removed:

"Both sentences are in Maltese and have exactly the same meaning. Generally though, no one form is ever spoken exclusively, and sentences are usually made up of words from both influences."

All other contributions by this editor were joke edits. But can anyone comment on whether both sentences have "exactly the same meaning" or whether the jokester is making a valid point? Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Maltese, but there's no way that those are going to be "the same" in actual speech, in the sense of being used in the same contexts. Language doesn't work that way. Whether they can be argued to be semantically equivalent is another matter. People are not going to carry around separate Romance and Arabic lexicons in their heads. Just as most English speakers would have difficulty telling you which English words are Germanic and which are French, I imagine most Maltese speakers will not always be able to tell Romance from Arabic. Rather, I expect most pairs of words have either taken on differences in meaning, like pork vs. pig in English, or differences in register, such as technical vs. lay vocabulary in English. kwami (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds likely. Still, I guess I'm curious whether this was a Maltese speaking jester with constructive potential, or just a vandal. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd for vandalism, though I suppose possible. Could check w a good Maltese dictionary. There does need to be more description of the poetic vs. technical registers, which would also clear it up. kwami (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the phonology of classical Arabic and tajwid? Please check this unreverted edit of the jester.  --Lambiam 09:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Appears that is the pronunciation in parts of Yemen. Don't know if it's original to Arabic or an influence of Mehri, though. kwami (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bang the Drum Slowly

There is an entry for this phrase and it refers to the movie of the same name (taken from a book I believe). I suspect that this phrase comes from the military use in funerals of a slow drum beat to show respect for a fallen comrade. My guess is that it goes back to Greek and Roman times, if not early. I looked65cornell (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) around and could not find any references on this. I suspect that a scholar in Greek and/ or Latin would know the derivation of this phrase.

It would appear that it's nowhere near that old, and is apparently from a poem/song called The Cowboy's Lament, also known as The Streets of Laredo. This is referenced in the Bang the Drum Slowly article. Also take a look at Streets of Laredo (song), and this page (WARNING, plays sound with no apparent way to stop it). --LarryMac | Talk 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April 5

cretivity and achievement in english

is there a significant relationship between cretivity and achievement in english?202.88.252.28 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)remy

For the question to be meaningful, a definition is needed of the population. For example, the Russian avant-garde, although quite creative, is not particularly known for its achievement in English. A clarification of how creativity should be assessed is also welcome.  --Lambiam 10:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Great minds are thinking alike with the same idea here[6] on the humanities desk. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

horse or reindeer riding accessory

I looked through many pages about riding horses and reindeers, but could not find exact name of the object. This thing was used by Siberian people - Yakuts, and in Russian has the name "tebenki". It was placed on the back of the horse or reindeer under saddle, consisted of two rug-like square parts, connected with two belts, and hung on those belts on both sides of the horse below the saddle on the level of stirrups. It might have some pockets and could have garments made of beads, etc.The names that I managed to find were blanket, shabrack, body-cloth, caparison, horse-cloth, horse-cover, saddle-bag,- but descriptions and pictures of none of them matched my photos. What can be the exact name of the object, wearing Russian name "tebenki"? Thank you.Seaweed71 (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the generic English word for a thing of that kind is "pannier". If you want a more specific name for writing about it in English, I think you can call it by the transliterated Russian name in italics, tebenki, and briefly describe it the first time you use the word. That happens a lot, where a thing does not have a name in English because we never saw one. There might be an English word for a tebenki, but I don't know it, and a search of the OED for "under near saddle" yielded nothing. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a biscuit!

[This sort of food http://www.recipezaar.com/153610] passes for a biscuit in the US. What would we call such a thing in the UK? ----Seans Potato Business 12:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A scone? Deor (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Our biscuit and Scone (bread) articles discuss the terminology. Make sure to note the discussion on the talk pages. Rmhermen (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a standard name but Delia's How To Cook Book One has a goat's cheese, potato and onion "bread" that's very similar (i.e. based on SR flour, egg, milk and cheese). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's like a herb scone but the 30 minute cooking time is too long (about double) for scones. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may redirect the original questioner's puzzlement at the use of the word "biscuit" back in his direction... I've known for a long time that cookies are called biscuits over there. But (from the biscuit article) I now learn that crackers are called biscuits too! Really? Can we possibly take seriously a system of culinary nomenclature which fails to distinguish Oreos from Saltines? Your version of the definition of "biscuit" appears to be so wide-ranging that one must wonder whether it might also include beer and/or rope. This word, as you use it, has nearly the same degree of semantic content as Smurf. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Neither beer, nor rope, nor smurfs are "small, flat, crisp unleavened cakes" (OED def. of biscuit). Nor is the biscuit that was originally the subject of this section, hence the confusion.

One might equally be astonished at the fact that the American use of "cookie" fails to distinguish choc-chip cookies from custard creams. This line of argument seems a lot like the problem of Distinguishing blue from green in language. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's bring in Sapir-Whorf! (I'd add that crackers are only really referred to as biscuits in the context of cheese, in practice. Which is presumably why Cheddars are referred to as cheesy biscuits.) 130.88.140.121 (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Swahili greetings

The Swahili Wikibook states that "Greetings in Swahili are a crucial aspect of Swahili culture; it is not uncommon for a conversation to last five minutes before it actually moves beyond saying 'Hello'." The second part of this has a citation needed tag and seems rather dubious to me (but quite interesting if true). Can anyone shed any light on this? -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is one source; it says This greeting can last between 3 to 15 minutes under normal circumstances. 65.92.188.177 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and they can speak so quickly for those 3-15 minutes that it's hard to follow.

Greetings are extremely important throughout Africa. I've seen strangers spend several minutes saying hello, inquiring about every possible relation and livestock, even when they don't speak the same language and have no idea what the other's actual words are. If you are a teacher running late for class, and someone says hello to you, you stop and greet them properly. The students can wait: If you don't stop, your principal will chew you out for embarrassing the school. If you approach someone and say, "Excuse me, Sir. Could you tell me where X is, please?", he'll likely grunt and point you in the wrong direction: Why bother with you, if you're going to be that rude? However, if you take the time to say hello, in many areas there are no real words for 'please' or 'thank you' (though there are in Swahili, due to the Arabic influence). The politeness is in the greeting, and after that you can just say "Gimme your shirt!" or "Gimme your food!" without causing the slightest offense. (Actually, in some places, "Gimme your shirt!" is equivalent to "What a nice shirt!" — it's not actually a request, the exact opposite of much of East Asia, where if you say "What a nice shirt!" they'll feel obligated to give it to you.) kwami (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one of the worst insults you can make is to tell someone they're impolite. It's equivalent to "your mother!": It means that their entire family is too ill bred to have raised them right. Don't ever tell anyone that their child was disrespectful, unless you don't want the kid to be able to sit down for a week. I've only done that once (he deserved it), and I've never seen a kid so terrified. kwami (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting stuff! Thanks to both of you. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April 6

becoming a conference interpreter without a degree?

I am an American but also fluent in Hungarian, and after doing all my studies in America, where I grew up (taking French in school) I returned to Hungary and did some education here. So, I now speak English and Hungarian at a native level and French at a very high level. The problem is I never got my degree. So...how would I go about becoming a freelance interpreter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.110.205 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You've probably been to our articles on Interpreting and Translation with their many links that might give you some idea about the scope. The bodies arranging conferences might like some proof of your skills and starting in other areas with less formal requirements might be a first step. Otherwise, if you qualify as a special case, there's possibly a way to have university entrance or credits awarded in some other way. Did you start your degree and didn't finish, or are you looking to skip the degree? In that case there may be a non-university qualification you could do. Speaking to a careers advisor at a university or training college can help. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a warning to you: being fluent is never enough to be an interpreter. There are specific techniques that make you a good interpreter, real time spoken translation is very tricky, even if you are completely bilingual. --Lgriot (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Can not" vs. "cannot" in the 1860s

Can anyone tell me if the correct spelling of "cannot" has changed since the mid-19th century? I’d better explain why I’m asking this. Two years ago I raised an issue on the Gettysburg Address talk page – here, and Clio’s recent post on the Humanities desk (with which I entirely agree btw) about the most moving and important political speeches in history, reminded me that it went nowhere. It deserves revisiting.

After reflection, I still think it’s quite wrong to record Lincoln as having said "... we can not dedicate ... we can not consecrate ... we can not hallow ...". It’s not that "can not" is not a valid sequence of words; it's quite valid in some contexts (I can not only tell you what this Urdu word means, but also speak the language fluently) but it means something entirely different from "cannot" (I cannot speak Urdu at all). The "can not" spellings may have appeared in Lincoln’s handwritten drafts, but the sense of what he intended the listeners to understand can only properly be conveyed in writing by "cannot"s.

However, this speech was spoken in 1863, and maybe we need to honour the spelling conventions of the time. One poster said "Perhaps you've simply discovered that common usage of that era often spelled out "cannot" as "can not"". It's become common usage these days too, but that doesn't make it correct any more than spelling "a lot" as "alot" is correct, ubiquitescent as it now seems to be.

So, would Lincoln’s schoolma'am have corrected his drafts to change all the "can not"s to "cannots"? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? "closed" form, cannot, is just a stylistic choice. it's not a special grammatical construction. your style guide will tell you to prefer it, but that's it. you don't have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.24.203 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED has citations for "cannot" going back to 1400. Its only citation of "can not" is from 1451. Its latest citation, from 1827, also the closest to Lincoln's time, also uses "cannot." -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting because I vaguely recall seeing something about newspapers combining words to save white space but can't remember anything about it except that it was some kind of wartime (as in first or second ww) economy – maybe it was just newspeak. Is "alot" all over now? For no reason I've always written it that way, inviting heaps of correcting from other people. Now will just say with confidence, it's ubiquitescent like the ubiquitous drunk. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it really just a stylistic choice, 79.122? The two forms mean quite different things. Just as you can't use "cannot" in "I can not only tell you what this Urdu word means ...", you can't use "can not" in "I cannot speak Urdu at all". Any well-written encyclopedia article, newspaper, novel or thesis will not use "can not" except in special contexts, and they use varying styles. If all the style guides agree on this, then it's not a style issue but a spelling issue. (Btw, I'm tempted to take with a grain of salt any written advice on spelling that spells the first word of its sentences without capitalising the first letter.) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he's right about it being a stylistic choice. The OED calls "cannot" "the ordinary modern way of writing 'can not.'". -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bit thick today, but I remain very unconvinced. There's a world of difference between one's inability to do something (I cannot do X), and a person's prerogative or freedom to not do something that they're capable of doing (I can not do X). How does style enter into such a choice? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way of clarifying the distinction, as I see it, is that the "not" in "cannot" negates the "can"; whereas the "not" in "can not" not only doesn't negate the "can", it has nothing whatever to do with it, since it refers to whatever word follows "not". -- JackofOz (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, are you proposing cannot not? There's a place for that, definitely. Although it's beginning to look like "carrot" Julia Rossi (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Julia, can you not see that I'm not proposing cannot not?  :) However, you've identified yet another valid form of words. (This movie is absolutely superb. You simply cannot not see it! - to which a rebellious type might respond I can not see it if I so choose). -- JackofOz (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider:

"I can NOT only tell you what this Urdu word means, but also speak the language fluently." and

"I can tell you what this Urdu word means, as I speak the language fluently." or

"I can only tell you what this Urdu word means because I speak the language very poorly."

"I canNOT tell you what this Urdu word means because I do NOT speak the language at all."

The word "not" in the first sentence negates the "only". The speaker clearly can tell and will tell what the translation is. The "not" implies that s/he can do more than just (only) translate a single term.

In the last case the "not" negates the "can" as the speaker is illiterate in the specific language. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I'm on about. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have to be one meaning or the other? Sure, there are times when "not" can follow "can" without meaning "to be unable to," but there's really no reason to believe "can not" doesn't also sometimes simply have the same meaning as "cannot" (whew!). Language isn't that logical. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this beginning to be about the not-Urdu word for carrot not in a can or not carrot-can? Because I can't... not as in cannot see it. PS Elmer Clark can't not be valiant in this attempt to stick with it, the not of it. Nor the can. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack's question is really about spelling, which was catch-as-catch-can back then. I think the comparison with "a lot" is valid; the adverb should be "alot", I love you alot, but we stubbornly spell it like the noun. Spelling is arbitrary and has no correlation with meaning. It is true that we can now make the distinction between "can not" and "cannot", a distinction ably if necessarily confusingly described above, but it should come as no surprise that it was not always so. It is a simple matter to construe "can not" the way we now construe "cannot". As for Lincoln, it was a speech, and it doesn't matter how he would have spelled it or how it would have been spelled in his day because it isn't a written thing. It has to be spelled so as to make sense to the reader now, and "can not" has come to mean something other than "cannot". It is no longer a stylistic choice; "cannot" is not a spelling option but a separate word. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As it was a speech, I would suspect that Lincoln's drafts reflect how he intended to deliver the speech, emphasizing the "not" in "cannot" by pronouncing the two words distinctly, rather than trying to be grammatically correct. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

---

As a side note, Lewis Carroll was fond of the spelling "ca'n't" with TWO apostrophes... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then, let's delve into this a bit more.

• @ Elmer Clark: You're saying that when we read "I can not understand <whatever>", we automatically interpret it as a statement about my inability to comprehend something, not as anything else. Your mind isn't tricked, even momentarily, into thinking it's going to be about something I can do? Well, I have to tell you that my mind is tricked. Maybe that's because it was thoroughly ingrained in me in my younger halcyon days that "cannot" must be used in statements of inability or incapacity (or, as in Lincoln's speech, statements about what we must not do), and "can not" is reserved for other meanings. Maybe I would have been tricked anyway; I'll never know now. I never momentarily misinterpret "I do not understand ..." as if it's going to be about something I do (rather than something I am failing to do). "I can not understand ..." is a different ball game, though. I suppose people who were never taught this rule are lucky not to have become its psychological hostages, and maybe I'm just an inflexible old git.
• @ Julia: I'm speechless. (I'd have said that in Urdu, but I cannot speak the language.)
• @ Milkbreath: I think you're agreeing with me, that the text of the Gettysburg Address should use "cannot"s rather than "can not"s. Welcome to the team. You'll receive your instructions shortly.
• @ Laura Scudder: Normally, in a neutral context, I pronounce "cannot" with a slight stress on the "can". But it's curious that when I want to emphasise my inability to do something, I tend to stress the CAN part, not the NOT part. The more fervently I deny my capacity, the more I stress the CAN part. I know it isn't logical, but we're all agreed logic has no role here. Perhaps the NOT part is normally stressed in the USA. If a writer wishes to stress a particular syllable, there are ways of doing this. We underline, we highlight, we use stress marks, we capitalise the syllable etc; but we never simply separate the syllable, except maybe in a rough handwritten draft of something. If your theory is correct, I cannot think of any other case where the way of stressing the final syllable of a word is to separate it out as an independent word.
• If the advocates of the style theory are right, "cannot" and "can not" are just different ways of spelling the same thing, and if one uses both versions in the same text, all they're guilty of is stylistic inconsistency, not of any spelling error. Well, try re-spelling the example I gave above: A - This movie is absolutely superb. You simply can not not see it!. B - I cannot see it if I so choose. That doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. This proves, if nothing else, that are cases where you have to use "cannot", and there are cases where you have to use "can not". Is that not sufficient to demonstrate they're different in nature and meaning, and not simply spelling variants of each other? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wunnerful, Jack. Just wunnerful. Use and choice is everything. I'm glad to have a lot cleared up, too.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can use the spelling difference with cannot, with can not meaning "able to not do", but I'm not sure it would be enough on its own to get the point across. In other cases you need italics or some other form of emphasis: "I'm not talking to my brother. Well, I'm not not talking to him, I'm just not talking to him." kwami (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I be wrong in using the word "reinstatement" to recall an employee who resigned the job voluntarily

where does the word "reinstatement" orginate in employment law? (or) what is the meaning of the word "reinstatement" in employment law? (or) One of my employee resigned from the job voluntarily and I want him to come back and do the same kind of work in the same position he held before. Can I write to him telling that the company is offering you "reinstatement"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.21 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The good old dictionary gives the definition of reinstate as "to put back into a position formerly held" Looks like the right word to use in your situation. I'd doubt that the word originates from employment law though, as that is a relatively new concept. D0762 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or use Plain English and write: "We are offering you your old job back." 64.228.89.112 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reinstatement" doesn't sound quite right to me - it has overtones of the situation where someone has been unfairly or illegally fired and gets their job back. I'd agree with 64.228 in recommending plain English in this case. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it suggests a rank, standing or other capacity in which the person was first instated, but which was revoked. Dictionary.com has this example of use: to reinstate the ousted chairman.[7]. Since your company does not "instate" its employees, they can't be "reinstated", even if they were "ousted". If you really want the former employee to return, why not use warmer language: "We miss you and would be happy to see you come back."  --Lambiam 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lambian. Can you please explain the meaning of instate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.21 (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"whose" or "of which" - when referring to inanimate objects

• What's more grammatically correct: "a house whose door is red", or "a house the door of which is red"?
• What sounds better: "a house the door of which is red", or "a house of which the door is red"?

HOOTmag (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the grammar of the particular construction, but "a house with a red door" sounds best to me. 64.228.89.112 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but (in my first question) I would like to know whether "a house whose door is red" is grammatically wrong. HOOTmag (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"A house whose door is red" is perfectly acceptable standard English. I've occasionally seen this usage hypercorrected to (for example) "a house that's door is red", but that is just plain wrong (IMHO) . AndrewWTaylor (talk)

P.S. to answer your questions more specifically : (1) they are equally 'correct', but the construction with 'whose' is more natural and flows better; (2) I find both of these quite ugly: the second perhaps slightly less so, again on grounds of 'flow'. Use 'whose'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I still don't know why Collins Dictionary (being a british dictionary) translates "Whose": "Of whom" (rather than: "Of whom, of which"), and gives examples all of which are for persons rather than for inanimate objects.

However, See "COMMOM ERRORS IN ENGLISH AND HOW TO AVOID THEM" (1943, the auther being american), p. 90:

• "Of which is commonly applied to things; whose to persons. Thus: my farm, the acreage of which, etc; Tenth Street, at the end of which I live. whose may be used of any object that has life...whose may also be used of objects in personification...To avoid awkward constructions, whose may be used for of which in speaking of inanimate objects. Thus: a city, whose builder and maker is God, a cube whose sides are made of metal."

Do you agree? HOOTmag (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I use "whose" to refer to inanimate objects in professional writing and have never been corrected. I think things have changed since 1943. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear response. HOOTmag (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What was originally the neuter-gender form of who. That is, these were inflections of the same root. The genitive of both was whose, which was later extended to cover which as well. Later still, when gender was lost in English and who and what came to be seen as distinct words, whose was reanalyzed as the genitive of who, leaving what as defective, without any genitive form at all. There have been various ways of remedying this, none of which have been fully accepted: whats, thats, or re-extending whose.

The OED says that whose is "The genitive case of WHO (and in [Old English] of neuter WHAT)", but then goes on to give modern example of neuter whose, from

1382 The loond of oyle and of hony, ... whos stones ben yren, to

1981 There were pictures whose context she understood immediately.

BTW, the same relationship held between he and it (originally hit), the genitive of both was his. That's why you get his referring to inanimate objects in the King James bible. Paralleling whose, his was reanalyzed as the genitive only of he, but in this case a new form was universally accepted for it: its. "Whats", on the other hand, doesn't even make it into the OED.

—kwami (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx a lot. HOOTmag (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"London, England". D'oh!

Why do American films invariably say "London, England" when indicating by a title where a scene is? This seems absurd, since surely even Americans know where London is, they cannot be that ignorant can they? They never say "New York, USA" (or "Washington, USA" if you like) or "Paris, France". Even if there is some Canadian place called London, its unlikely an audience is going to confuse them. And from a film title I understand there is a "Paris, Texas". Yet I've never seen "Paris, France" as a title. 80.0.106.237 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a London, Kentucky and a London, Ontario. Don't want to confuse the viewers. Of course, they usually show an establishing shot pf the Big Ben tower, too. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Americans in movies virtually always do say "Paris, France". I've heard that far more often than "London, England". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I'm picturing a movie, scene change, stock long shot of Big Ben and the Thames, caption says "London, England". That seems right. I think you don't appreciate how insular America is. If it simply said "London", it's not that we wouldn't know which London is meant, it's that it would give too much weight to a city not ours. When a Brit sees the caption "London", the name resonates with lost dreams of empire, with the tolling of that stentorian bell, the very grandfather's clock of history. When an American sees that caption, he thinks, "Just like a Brit; they still think they're the center of the universe." "London, England" takes it down a peg. Same goes for "Paris". Not "Moscow", so much, oddly. I don't know why that should be unless it's the prosaic infelicity of USSR or the importance accorded an enemy. In newer films I'd expect "Moscow, Russia". --Milkbreath (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Moscow" as a personification of the USSR is like "Washington" as a personification of the US. You get the same with "Tokyo" in WWII films, or these days "Bagdad". Us vs. them: there's no possibility of confusion. You'll see "Moscow, Russia" when it's just a city. And once the scene is set, you no longer need the country: meanwhile, in London, ...

I don't think anyone would think "just like a Brit" if "London" appeared without "England". Hardly anyone in the US knows or cares whether Brits think they're the center of the world, anymore than whether the Chinese or French do. But you're right, Usonians tend to think they are the center of the world. Not including the country wouldn't be so much a problem of ambiguity (hardly any Usonians have heard of London, Ontario), but of people getting lost: "Wait, we're in England now?" Either that, or the city isn't mentioned at all, and the audience has to deduce where the scene is set. kwami (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been to Berlin, Rome, Paris and Vienna without ever leaving a 30-mile area of Ohio. So if you're standing in, say, Newton Falls, Ohio, you really have to give the country name when mentioning a foreign city. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am from the Canadian London (we even have a fake Thames!), and the local newspaper always puts "London, England" when necessary. Elsewhere in Ontario, newspapers just say London, and "London, Ontario" if necessary. This reminds me of the Jeopardy contestant a couple of weeks ago, who said she travelled from California (or something) to London to see some band...but she meant London, Ontario, har har. (By the way, I could go to London and Paris and Delaware and Melbourne in the same day!) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't London, Ontario, residents sometimes refer to the city in England as "The Other London?" Anyway, to flip the original question on its head, one can accuse Britons of erring by not including an "England" or "UK" when they speak geographically. For example, when I saw that Wikipedia had a featured article called List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland, I assumed it would talk about the site of the Michelson–Morley experiment at Case Western Reserve University or the salt mines where they count neutrinos. Instead, it's a list of stuff in England. British people also talk about "Manchester," "Birmingham" and "Bristol" without a qualifier, perhaps unaware that those words mean different things to different people. (As does "Boston," I guess.) To me, Birmingham, unless otherwise differentiated, is in Alabama, Manchester is in New Hampshire and Bristol is in Connecticut or Virginia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it "the other London". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In "Glitter and Be Gay", Cunegonde sings "Here I am in Paris, France", which usually gets a laugh because although it's an American musical, the character is, after all, French herself. But the "France" is required for a rhyme with "bitter circumstance". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can imagine how being in Paris, France, would be a bitter circumstance. Or anywhere in France, for that matter. --ChokinBako (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the habit of many Americans when naming US cities to add the name of the state for clarity, as in "Nashville, Tennessee", or "Tucson, Arizona", and mightn't the "London, England" simply be an extension of this? Koolbreez (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If Americans say "Nashville, Tennessee" (not "Nashville, USA") and "London, England" (not "London, UK"), then I would also expect them to say "Paris, Île-de-France", "Rome, Lazio" and "Berlin, Brandenburg". For some reason, I've never heard them saying that. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No. In the Usonian mind, at least, European states are more-or-less equivalent to US states. Paris, France is entirely equivalent to London, England and Nashville, Tennessee. Saying Paris, Île-de-France would be like saying Nashville, Davidson County.

You hit on the difference yourself, by linking Île-de-France, which tells me you understand that most people aren't going to know what that is. Having to look the clarification up in an atlas defeats its whole point. kwami (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Koolbreez is on the money. They distinguish the Ohio Springfield from all the other Springfields in the USA by saying "Springfield, Ohio". They distinguish the French Paris from the Texan Paris by saying "Paris, France". That does the job, and there's no need to get as specific as Kpalion suggests. If there were another Paris in France, say in Provence, then they'd need to specify which French Paris they're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the original question needs a big "citation needed" banner. --LarryMac | Talk 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Many areas around the world with historical British influence use English and European place names. For example, there's Paris, Ontario, Delhi, Ontario, and Lucknow, Ontario, and there used to be a "Berlin, Ontario", before it was renamed Kitchener in WWI. Also, many place names in England adn elsewhere in Europe are street and town names in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, such as Abbotsford, Aberdeen, Adelaide, Amsterdam, Arthur, Bathurst, Birmingham, Brant, Brisbane, Bristol, Britannia, Brock, Buckingham, Burnaby, Caledon, Camelot, Cambridge, Canterbury, Charleston, Cochrane, Cockburn, Darlington, Delaware, Denmark, Don, Dorchester, Dublin, Durham, Edinborough, Essex, Exeter... you get the picture. In fact, a large percentage of formerly-British places have such names. Checking my atlas, there's at least 4 Londons, 4 Berlins, and 7 Parises. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, while from non-Americans "Washington" is usually sufficient, people in the U.S. will invariably write "Washington, D.C." to distinguish it from Washington state or the many small towns also named Washington. --D. Monack | talk 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In my American experience London and Paris by default mean the ones in England and France, unless there's a local context. And to add to the list of placename duplicates -- there is the fun example of Vancouver (British Columbia) and Vancouver, Washington. The wikipedia page names tell you something about which tends to be the default, yet the Washington Vancouver is quite a bit older and seems to harbor a low-level, semi-fun resentment of that upstart Vancouver up north. And to add to confusion, if you get onto I-5 in Washington you can go north to Vancouver or south to Vancouver. I have even heard about people who have driven for hours before realizing they were going the wrong way. Pfly (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 7

A plus...

Reflecting on the "in bed" question above, it seems there are words with an a- prefix which mean being at something and it seems like a remnant thing that is sometimes in use now but some have faded out. I'm thinking of await, abide, aside, asleep, abed, even awake. Some might not be the right thing (I'm just a-guessing), but were these abridged from at+ and now have changed back to having at instead and what is this a+ called? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the OED the a- in words like abed and ashore is from the Old English preposition on (= "in"). In words like afresh and anew, it's from OE of. And there's a few other origins in other kinds of words—for instance, in your await example it's already there in the French word from which the English word comes (Fr à). Deor (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'a' in 'awake' comes from OE 'gi', which in this sense means an action which has happened, so "I am already wakened".--ChokinBako (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that in bed and abed show the same evolution of grammar: in both cases preposition plus noun phrase has been reduced to almost a single unit, so that the noun no longer has much independent existence. In neither case can the noun occur in the plural, or be modified by an article or an adjective. There's very little difference between a prepositional phrase such as in their new beds, where the preposition links a noun with a verb, and an adverbial phrase such as abed, where the noun modifies the verb. In bed is now practically an adverb.

This a-, by the way, can also be found in phrases such as nowadays, three times a day, ten cents a sheet. —kwami (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that "a" just the indefinite article? I've always assumed these expressions were abbreviations of "three times in a day" etc. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, three times on a day → three times on-day → three times a day.

The OED has,

a, prep. : A worn-down proclitic form of OE. preposition an, on. [...] In 11th c., on began to be reduced before consonants to o, which from its tonelessness soon sank to a (ə). [...] The separate form a is now rarely used, [...] except in a few verbal constructions, as to go a begging, to set a going; and in temporal distributive phrases, as twice a day, once a year, where it has been confused with the 'indefinite article.' [The use for rate, as tenpence a pound, is a later extension of this.] But the preposition a really remains in a large number of combinations, where present spelling treats it as a prefix to the governed word, and the whole as a compound adverb, as abed, afoot, aback, around, atop, afloat, asleep, alive.

Other modern remnants: aboard, ashore, afield, afore, ahead, aside, asunder, apart.

As a preposition, the original construction was a plus a noun: a live, a sleep, a work, a jar, a thirst, a blaze, a fright, a float, (the float was the foam on the water) a stare, but some of these were homonymous with verbs, and so in modern times the construction was reinterpreted and extended to any verb: a-wash, a-swim, a-blow, a-run, a-gaze, a-howl, a-tremble, a-shake, a-jump. kwami (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. And how is this related to Scottish English? "My heart's in the highlands, a-following the dear deer" for example. --Kjoonlee 11:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That comes from the Gaelic construction 'ag' or 'aig' + present participle to show the present tense and the present progressive. (There is another simple present form, but it is only used in writing, mostly, and hardly ever in the spoken language.) --ChokinBako (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Things like "a-following" are used in English dialects that have never been in contact with Gaelic. It's from "on" as well. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazed, thanks all. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

British English vs. American English

The following questions refer to every native english speaker:

If you're British (or Irish or Australian or New-Zealandian), then please tell me which way you find better (in formal speech):

• "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad".
• "He claimed that when he were dead - nobody would be sad".

If you're North-American, then please tell me if you can say (in formal speech):

• "He claims that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad".
• "He claimed that when he is dead - nobody will be sad".
• "He claimed that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad".

If you're a native english speaker, then please tell me if you can say (in formal speech):

• "He claims that when he be dead - nobody will be sad".

Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a BrE speaker: I would always use ".. when he was dead .. " for the first question. For the third, I would say "no". (All this applies to standard, modern, non-dialect English.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Should one prefer: "He said that if I was late I'd be punished"? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All of those sound incorrect somehow. "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad" sounds okay, but "He claimed that when he died - nobody would be sad" sounds better, meaning either that he would die someday or he already died between his claim and the report of it. "He claims that when he dies - nobody will be sad" sounds good for a present claim. The subjunctive and future perfect don't sound right in any of these sentences, especially the last one. (Note that I am Canadian which usually falls in between British and North American somehow). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What about: "He said that if I were late I'll be punished"? Should one use the subjunctive here? or should one prefer: "He said that if I was late I'll be punished"? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of those would require "I would be punished" (but "He said that if I am late I'll be punished"). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Is it wrong? and what about "He said that if I was late I'd be punished"? Wrong? HOOTmag (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sound fine to me, although "if I were late" is less likely to be used. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm North-American and the middle phrase of my options is the only one that sounds correct. The last one is similar to Ebonics, though to be more correct in that dialect it would be "he claim that when he be dead - nobody gon' be sad." This probably doesn't make grammatical sense considering the semantics. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about the first option of the three, i.e. "He claims that when he will be dead - nobody will be sad". If you think it's incorrect (or uncommon) so how would you say? "He claims that when he..."? HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

after EC:

The only one that I would use (as a Brit) is

• "He claimed that when he was dead - nobody would be sad".

I imagine that you are using "he were" as the rarely used subjunctive. "If he were" would be correct, because it is a conjecture, but "when he was dead" is a certain event, and so the subjunctive or any other conjectural mood is not appropriate. SaundersW (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Would you like to tell which english you use?

What about: "He said that if I were late I'd be punished"? Should one really use the subjunctive here?

HOOTmag (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

GA speaker: None of the first three are any good. GA does not have relative tense, and you cannot use the modal will in a relative clause. (This is often given as evidence that English has no grammatical future tense.) The last option (he be dead) sounds archaic, but I don't know if it'd actually be acceptable. For me, the one Ƶ§œš¹ liked would only be acceptable if it were gnomic rather than present tense: He claimed that when he is dead, nobody is sad — that is, he's been dead many times, and it never bothers anyone.

He said that if I were late I'd be punished.

He claims that when he is dead, nobody will be sad. —kwami (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question which I asked Adam Bishop. See below my comment. HOOTmag (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Australian) The tenses don't match: his death is in the future relative to his time of speech, so you might say "He claimed that when he would be dead, nobody would be sad." Or better yet, "He claimed that if he died, nobody would be sad."

I also think it would be better to use a comma rather than a dash. The dash separates the two parts of the sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about: "He promised that when he [is/was/were/will-be/would-be] in the US he would visit me"? HOOTmag (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can also say He claimed that when he died, nobody would be sad, if it's clear that that is just the past tense of He claims that when he dies, nobody will be sad. That would probably pass unnoticed in conversation. However, if you stop and think about it, it sounds like he's saying that he died, which may be why PG8 prefers He claimed that if he died, nobody would be sad — another example of why to look at corpora of actual conversation rather than rely on grammaticality judgements, which are often unreliable. kwami (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What about "He promised that when he [is/was/were] in the US he would visit me"? HOOTmag (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He promised that when he was in the US he would visit me, or

He promised that when he is in the US he will visit me, or

He promised that if he were (ever) in the US he would visit me, or

He promised that if he is (ever) in the US he will visit me. kwami (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. I assume that whatever you've indicated is according to GA usage only, whereas in British-English, which does have relative tense, one would never say: "He promised that if he is...".

By the way, what did you mean when you wrote: "you cannot use the modal will in a relative clause"? Can't the Americans say: "he claims that if he will.."? Can't the British-English speakers (as well as the Americans) say: "He will claim that if he will..."? HOOTmag (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of this has to do with English/American differences. I (an American) agree with everything the non-Americans have said here and have never heard that things like this change in different forms of English. Both "He claims that if he will..." and "He will claim that if he will..." certainly would sound unnatural here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree with the Americans here? for example, what about: "He promised that if he [is/was/were] in the US he would visit me"? and what if we changed the "if" into "when"? HOOTmag (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elmer. To the best of my knowledge, this is basic English grammar and there's no difference between British and American English. Jack^(Lumber) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you did not answer my second question! what about: "He promised that if he [is/was/were] in the US he would visit me"? and what if we changed the "if" into "when"?

HOOTmag (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He promised that if he was in the U.S. he would visit me. Same if you substitute when for if. "If he were" implies a condition contrary to fact. Jack^(Lumber) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. Anyway, you disagree with kwami, who (like you) uses American English, and you also disagree with SaundersW, who hasn't indicated which English he uses. HOOTmag (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Kwami only said that "...were..." would be acceptable with if and speaking in the subjunctive - "was" is more likely to be your intended meaning in the "if..." sentence; in the "when..." sentence you can never use "were," since "when" can't take the subjunctive. Again, this has nothing to do with American/UK usage. Read English subjunctive for more information. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankxs a lot. And what do you think about PalaceGuard008's reply? He indicated that he's Australian, and stated that one might say: "He claimed that when he would be dead, nobody would be sad." HOOTmag (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand the insistence on seeing these questions as related to dialect, despite several editors having indicated that such is not the case. You also left off an important part of PalaceGuard's reply, giving a much more natural sentence to use in place of the tortured syntax that he indicated one might say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryMac (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got me really confused here. It seems like you're trying to prove some point rather than actually get a useful answer. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Who? Are you talking to me or to LarryMac?

I just want to know whether the subjunctive usage has the same rules in all of the english dialects. If you say it has - then I believe you, but I still want to know why other users have given apparently different replies, That's all. If you say that all of you have given the same reply - then I believe you again. I don't want to prove anything. HOOTmag (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"[Noun] is bias"

Why is the phrase "[noun] is bias" being used in place of "[noun] is biased?" For example, I frequently find people saying that a particular "article is bias". As can be seen by the link, this form of incorrect grammar is not isolated but quite common throughout forums and Wikipedia talk pages. Is this a product of international users using incorrect grammar? Is this a case of English speaking peoples omitting the easy to ignore "-ed" sound in biased? Is this an emerging trend that is rapidly being accepted? Lastly, is anyone else frustrated by how common this phrase is used? 128.227.81.59 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it with the "not hearing the -ed sound" conjecture. You also hear people say things like "you're so prejudice" - I'd imagine that this is the same phenomenon. To my knowledge this is not considered correct by anyone, and yes, it is rather annoying. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A great example is this About.com page which manages to correctly use "prejudiced" but incorrectly uses "is bias" in the same sentence. Thanks for mentioning "[noun] is prejudice." I had completely forgotten how common that phrase is especially since it was probably around before "[noun] is bias" became popular. 128.227.81.59 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialectically in the US, final consonant clusters are reduced, so that for example friend rhymes with Ben, as in the delightful Michael Jackson theme song of that light-hearted movie, Ben. I think it's probably not that people don't hear the final C in these particular words, but that they don't have such sounds at all. kwami (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in my dialectic :) Clearly, in the idiolects of the people who use "bias" instead of "biased" and "prejudice" instead of "prejudiced", the final consonants in these words are absent. But I bet most of these people have words in their idiolects that, phonologically if not phonetically, exhibit word-final (homorganic) consonant clusters such as /st/ and /nd/ (a case in point is the phrase "so-and-so is bias against", where the final word ends in /st/). I don't think the tendency for some dialects to simplify consonant clusters can account for the majority of cases where an English speaker uses "bias" as an adjective. --Diacritic (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect that the words are used by people who do not do a lot of reading. If you have only ever heard these words, the endings are easy to miss. It happens easily if the language is not your native one, and the construct is not familiar to you. I do similar things in French all the time, having heard a phrase, and then repeated it with some of the "swallowed" bits missing. It sounds fine to me, but not to a native speaker. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but could also be that the writer says bias agains, but knows that against has a silent tee at the end. Then, if the words were used rap music, people which do have final consonant clusters might be first exposed to them that way, and learn them without the ending. kwami (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When did that 't' in against go silent? --LarryMac | Talk 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 8

Words

I know this is a stupid question, but do we have any idea of how many words there are in the English language? The estimates given there are a bit unspecific on what counts as a seperate word, whether they count both hurried and hurriedly as seperate words or not seems like a bit of an issue. But ROUGHLY speaking, what number seems about right? Thanks a lot, and again, sorry for the stupid question. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a stupid question. The Oxford English Dictionary provides meanings for over half a million English words, which are listed under about 300 000 head words. Many of these are archaic, and thus rarely (if ever) encountered in modern works. Gwinva (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you correctly spell, "dubious"?

I was reading an interesting book, and I kept happening upon the word, "dubious", and I have no idea what it means. Please help me out of this dire situation. --The'yellow'poet (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Try dictionary.com rather than wikipedia. kwami (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or Wiktionary. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 00:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hint: Most words with this suffix "ous" go back to a Latin root. In this case it is dubius -a -um [doubtful]. (1) act. , [wavering]; in opinion, [doubting; uncertain]; as to action, [hesitating, irresolute]. (2) pass., [uncertain, doubted, doubtful]; n. as subst.; 'in dubium vocare', [to call in question]; 'procul dubio', [without doubt]. (3) fig., [doubtful, dangerous, critical]. Adv. dubie, [doubtfully]; 'haud dubie', [certainly]., as per http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=dub&ending=io. Any old online Latin dictionary will do. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew translation

I'm looking for the Hebrew translation for the word Zest. This word was used to describe the name of that particular day you were born. Not sure of its orgin. But I would like to see the Hebrew interpreation based on the Zohar or any other mystical teachings. Thanks for your help. P.Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.141.64 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Which language is "zest"? kwami (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The English word "zest" does not "describe the name of that particular day you were born".

The Hebrew lexicon does not contain such a word pronounced ZEST.

The Hebrew word "of that particular day you were born" is: יום הולדת. Sometimes (and in the bible all along) it's spelled without the fifth letter, i.e. יום הלדת, but it's not the usual spelling.

Eliko (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Synonym for "split up"

I'm currently reviewing a potential FA candidate for LOCE duties, and I come across the phrase "split up" pretty frequently. I've consulted two thesauri for a possible synonym to replace it but haven't come to a good word yet. Any ideas? --^LaPianísta! 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Divide, subdivide. Wrad (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, fast response! However, Wrad, that isn't the context of the word. Here's the sentence: "However, on April 21, 2003, during a live onstage performance, S Club announced that they were to split up." --^LaPianísta! 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Break up", "separate", "go their indivdual ways", "dissolve" the group or partnership? ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Disband = "to break up or cause to cease to exist" as per http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disband is a possibility. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sponsored run?

What do you call a race where people agree to donate a certain amount of money to charity based on how far you run? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.121.36.232 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Charity run?[8]  --Lambiam 06:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also fun run, which is when you do it dressed as a banana, and other silly stuff. Also, sponsored run, as you say in the title. --ChokinBako (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What does "to be instructed in the ways of sth" mean?

I'm trying to translate some text from english and I need some help. Can someone tell me what does "sb is instructed in the ways of the world" mean. I supposed that it means that that person knows very well how to live, how to work and she or he knows social reality. But I'm affraid that it has some other specyfic meaning. I would be gratefull for the answer! Rafał —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.11.252 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They learned / were taught not to be naive. kwami (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!79.173.11.252 (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)