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

November 1

The study of borders

Is there a word for an interest in (the study of) borders? I am fascinated with borders, enclaves and exclaves, overseas territories, and tripoints. I'm not as into the countries themselves, rather, where one ends and another begins. Is there a term for this interest? --Codell^Talk 02:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you may have noticed in the Border article, it mentions the study of borders but does not give a name to it. I put [borders study] into Google and the second that came up (after an entry for the Borders bookstore chain) was the wikipedia article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Liminology" has some results on Google that seem to deal with the study of borders of various kinds. The Greek word for "border" escapes me but I suppose you could form an -ology from it. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Quadripoints? They're cute. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't get the same result for "borders study" in Google. The Greek word for border is Σύνορα, so would "sunoraology" be correct? I like quadripoints too but no international ones current exist so I didn't include it in the list. --Codell^Talk 05:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I know at least one quadripoint: China, Mongolia, Russia, and Kazakhstan. I think it would be sunorology in English phonology.174.3.111.148 (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would considered the study of borders a subfield of political geography. I've long been interesting in the topic but cannot think of a term for it. Also, I'd recommend against the term "Quadripoint". It would be nice to have an English term for such things, but as far as I can tell "quadripoint" is a neologism created by Wikipedians, via a translation from some German term, iirc. In short, it is a term that little usage outside Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. The books I have that focus on the history, quirks, etc, of political borders tend to use the word "shape", as in "The Shaping of America", or "How the States got their Shapes". I'm skeptical about their being a non-arcane non-neologistic word for it. Pfly (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quibble: quadripoint was in use by fans of such things before there was Wikipedia. It may be true that the geeks who coined it later put it into Wikipedia themselves, but "created by Wikipedians" is a little bit misleading. —Tamfang (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia and Kazakhstan do not touch so technically it's not a quadripoint. "At present there are no generally recognized quadripoints involving four different countries", but you can look at subnational ones like Utah-Colorado-Arizona-New Mexico.80.123.210.172 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely it should be synorology rather than sunorology - the Greek upsilon is regularly transliterated as y in Latin and hence in most English derivatives. --rossb (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should, although Google has no evidence of "synorology". Adam Bishop (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Meaning

What is "Stype"?174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

From the context given in the article, it would appear that Stype is a person who wrote about ancient history (antiquarian). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a typo for Strype, John Strype to be precise. An "antiquarian", by the way, is basically any early modern historian, who did not use the critical techniques of modern historical study (they didn't necessarily study ancient history, they could have studied their own contemporary history, like Strype). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He was the Vicar of Leyton, Essex - now in east London.Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Russian translation

I moved Party of Belarusian Communists, after noting that ru wikipedia article had been moved and there's a reference that the party changed its name recently ([1]). But just after moving, I recalled that 'Mir' can also mean 'world'. What would be a good translation into English of the name 'Белорусская партия объединенных левых "Справедливый мир"'? --Soman (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has translated the name as "Belarusian Party of United Leftists — A Just World". --Cam (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

grape variety pronunciation

How is the grape variety 'TANNAT' pronounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.21.59 (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: The French WP states that the term originated in the Occitan language. Maybe there is a linguist online who has a grasp of this language / dialect? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Language is the best term. From my non-native knowledge, it should be pronounced [ta'nat] with emphasis on the second syllable. Occitan doesn't have geminate consonants, so the doubled N in the spelling shouldn't affect the pronunciation. Steewi (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What does Sjt. Prefix stand for in English.

Hi

I am from India, and had read a book about Ghandhiji (Father of the nation, India). In that i had found prefix before names. The prefix was Sjt. Could you tell me what does that mean.? 117.204.116.132 (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

It seems to mean Sergeant, the army rank. Tinfoilcat (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Though that is more commonly abbreviated "Sgt." (for obvious reasons). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Serjeant" is an alternative spelling, as in Serjeant-at-Arms. --Tango (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a discussion about the use of "Sjt" vs. "Sgt". -- JackofOz (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Serjeant-at-law.Alansplodge (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It means Srijut. Srijut (Sjt.) is a common title equivalent to "Esquire". Though it went on to become Sri, but the title 'Srijut' still appears in old Hindi texts.

Recording Spanish Internet Radio Talk Shows in MP3 format

Hi,

I have never used an ipod. I am studying spanish and listening to spanish internet radio stations.

Is there a way to record the shows and replay them, ideally on something like an ipod that I can take with me on the bus or when I jog.

Thank you for your help. I really appreciate the services provided by Wikipedia. It is where I look first for information.

Ramona Whyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.231.224 (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of radio stations offer a podcast of certain shows on the Internet that you could download directly to your iPod. If the radio station you have in mind doesn't, I'm sure there are plenty of other Spanish-language stations that do. As far as recording their online radio streaming, it depends: companies that stream media usually don't want people downloading it onto disk space because of copyright violations. This is especially true of TV stations that offer old episodes of shows online. The same probably goes for radio because of copyrighted music. There may be some programs out on the Internet that try to save the stream, but I'd just save myself the trouble and find some Spanish podcasts.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This Google search gives some possibilities for capturing the audio stream. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have used Hidownload for capturing streaming data. If you do this, it's quite possible it will be in Real Audio format, which your MP3 player probably won't play. I have used the ALO converter to transcode this. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange english sentences to latin sentences

Hello, I have in a frenzy of interest, gone "all over" google to find an effective latin sentence translator that doesn't give me a bunch of mangled words. I've failed completly, therefore I ask you nice editors to please translate these following weird sentences for me:

• Fireball, fly
• Special water orb, rise
• Homing (A lá Sidewinder missile)

Thanks in advance

81.228.157.244 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Um... Clarification: are you telling a fireball to fly, and a special water orb to rise? The last one makes little sense to me in English, so I couldn't translate it. I am somewhat doubtful that Latin had a word for fireball, but you never know (I'm going to use "ball of fire"). I'll give those first two phrases a shot, assuming that they mean what I suspect they mean.

• Pila flammae, vola.
• Orbis precipuus aquae, consurge. Falconus^{p t c} 20:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's just some fiction related terms recently orbiting my head, I also used ball of fire in my somewhat dog latin attempt with the help of wiktionary, somehow I wasn't satisfied with pila incendo, vola. 81.228.157.244 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Last one stricken. 81.228.157.244 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin had lots of words for "meteor" which could be translated "fireball". I don't think they had a word for "water orb" though, and they certainly had nothing that could mechanically aim itself like a missile. For fireball you could use "cometes", or "fax", which usually means torch. You could also say "fuge" for "fly", and "fax, fuge!" is nice and alliterative. "Orbis specialis aqueus, surge" doesn't sound like something a Latin speaker would normally say. For "homing", maybe "revertens" for "returning home" but I guess not that's not quite right... Adam

Bishop (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not make use of Latin's volitional subjunctive to avoid awkwardly addressing the inanimate objects? Then you could say "fax fuget," which would translate literally back to English as something like "Let the fireball fly!" but still work as a figurative translation as "Fireball, fly!" Probably would be more likely to come from a Latin speaker's lips, too. (Of course, there's always that weird third-person imperative, which is also an option.)--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean "fax, fugito!"? (Also known as a "future imperative"?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's it!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 05:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think homing has a possible translation. I don't know if they had sidewinders or pigeons in Rome but they definitely had arrows and a likely allegory would be an arrow finding its target --80.189.132.211 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a form of "dirigere" could be used. But I seem to recall that for arrows and spears they used "conicere" or "iacere", which doesn't really have a connotation of directed flight as much as shooting them in a general direction and hoping they kind of land where they were supposed to. I'm sure there must be some phrase for specific aiming of an arrow, but the best I can come up with is the verb "sagittare". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pron. of leucism

Can someone tell me the correct pronunciation of leucism? Is the c hard or soft? Look-izm seems oddly apropos - or is it closer to luke-izm? I'd appreciate a non-IPA answer, but the article needs one. Matt Deres (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the leuc-/leuk- prefix comes from the same Greek word and the same background as leukemia, I'd say pronounce the vowel the same way you would there. For me, that makes it luke-izm. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be convinced by that argument, since 1) 'leuk(a)emia' is spelt with a 'k' not a 'c', 2) the OED gives an '-s-' pronunciation for 'leucine' and 'leucite', and 3) the second element in 'leukaemia' is 'haem' so if the combination had occurred within Greek it would have had a 'χ' (chi) rather than a 'κ' (kappa), and probably come into English as 'leuchaemia' (which in fact the OED does give as an obsolete alternative spelling - the 'k' appears to have come from the German word that was the immediate precursor of the English one).

None of which is conclusive: the answer is 'it is pronounced the way(s) that people who say the word pronounce it', but of course that's not much help. But arguments from analogy, logic, or history, though suggestive, must crumble if in fact it turns out that people do say it in a way that those arguments would imply. FWIW, I would say 'lyoosizm' --ColinFine (talk)

The Etymology section of article says the "correct" pronunciation is with a hard c; but many would be tempted to soften the c (cf. words ending in -icism), so maybe the "correct" spelling is with a k (leukism). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, leukocyte (or leucocyte) has the same kind of issue. Mostly, I've heard luke-ah-site, but I've also heard people who seem to know what they're talking about say it much more like look-ah-site. At least there, "white blood cell" exists as another option :). Matt Deres (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The blog by someone obviously rather ignorant of classical English usage, which our article uses as a reference, is hardly convincing. I mean, he says leuci- should be pronounced with a /k/ sound because leuco- is pronounced with a /k/ sound, which is just silly. There are thousands of pairs of related words in English where a cee in the root alternates in pronunciation between /k/ and /s/, depending on the following vowel. That's the norm. It may be that herpetologists, or some herpetologists, or perhaps just the biology department of the university where this blog writer got his degree, pronounce leucism with /k/, or perhaps there's disagreement between those who use the English pronunciation with an /s/, and those who attempt an "authentic" Greek pronunciation with a /k/. But IMO, this is like saying that decimal should be pronounced with /k/, because decade is pronounced with /k/, and they are both based on the Greek root dec- "ten", which in Greek was pronounced with /k/. And to take his analogy to its logical conclusion, with Greek-derived cee always pronounced /k/, his example of leucocyte would be "correctly" pronounced LEW-koh-kyte (or even better, LEF-koh-keet).

If you want a counter-argument, leucic, leucine, and leucite, all of which contain the same Greek root leuc- "white", are all pronounced with /s/. Even closer semantically, the perhaps obsolete word leucæthiop (a Black albino) is (or was) pronounced with an /s/. kwami (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, there's a poll in the forum that the article uses to justify its prescriptive stance, which shows 90% use /s/ and 10% use /k/. This agrees with the OED and standard English pronunciation of Greek & Latin. Therefore the pronunciation is /s/, with the hellenic /k/ an infrequent alternate, as is commonly the case with technical words. I'll change the article. kwami (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2

French in Lady Gaga song

What does the French part mean that Lady Gaga sings at 3:48 in Bad Romance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gft1fuUR3s --124.254.77.148 (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't listen, but various lyrics sites say it's "je veux ton amour et je veux ta revanche", which Google Translate says is "I want your love and I want your revenge". --Sean 13:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

She says: "je veux ton amour et je veux ta revanche, j'veux ton amour" ("I want your love and I want your revenge, I want your love") — AldoSyrt (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation and language

following my question on my correct usage of the Welsh to the stationmaster it seems that he was corrrect. that in the context of our nationalities that i should pronounce the town with the English phoneme Ll. that language should be relative is confirmed by Wikipedia's own definition of pronunciation in that language can be spoken in different dialects and ways. Can this be progressed to language itself? It is said that Shakespeare himself introduced new words into the English language, and the language itself has changed in spelling from Old to Middle to Modern. Can we judge the correct speeling and language of others in such a dynamic context?--80.189.132.211 (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no English phoneme 'Ll': there is an English phoneme /l/ (with two rather different allophones in most dialects, but that's not relevant here), which is often written <ll> though not normally at the beginning of words.

I'm not sure quite what your main question means, but see prescriptive grammar and historical linguistics. Insofar as 'correct' means anything, certainly it changes over both time and space. Most linguists (in the sense of those who study linguistics) today, believe that the grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation of a language are whatever is used by its speakers, and the idea of 'correct' is purely a social question, not a linguistic one. --ColinFine (talk) 08:36, 2 November

80.189.132.211 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 2009 (UTC)

I believe from previous discussion that it was established that Llandovery is the English spelling of a Welsh town. Hence it would be an English phoneme that was at the beginning of an English word. The wikipedia entry states that ll is a digraph which occurs in several languages. In English the /ll/ represents the same sound as single /l/.--80.189.132.211 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ll in the English name Llandovery is a digraph, which is an element of orthography; it's not a phoneme, which is an element of phonology. Using angled brackets to indicate orthography, you can say that <ll> represents the same sound as <l>, namely /l/ (in most cases, but not in e.g. poollike, where <ll> really does represents two /l/ sounds). <Ll> is rare at the beginning of English words, but where it occurs it represents the same sound as <l>, hence:

The one-l lama, he's a priest.

The two-l llama, he's a beast.

And I will bet a silk pyjama there isn't any three-l lllama.

(I think that's Ogden Nash; if it isn't, it ought to be.) +Angr 14:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, except he spelled it "pajama", and there's a counter to the last point: a "three-l lllama" is a big fire in Boston. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

thank you. i will not let pride get in the way of the truth. All opinions should be given space. As a layman I accept that LL is a digraph rather than a phoneme. By a quirk of nature the translation of the sound of Ll into English gave an English word that started Ll. Whether that start is described as a fractal, phoneme, allophone or digraph is for others better placed to state. My question, of which this is at the core of, is whether language is an absolute or is relative. I believe that in the present it is relative to the space and the observers in which it is spoken. Over the dimension of time it is prone to whim or fancy and changes like fashion to be correct one century and wrong another.--80.189.132.211 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone agrees language is relative. I don't see what "question" you are asking. Are you disagreeing with the way some people pronounce placenames starting with "Ll"? If you are, just say so. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim to speak for everyone , just myself. It seems that linguists do specify that there is an absolute way to pronounce or spell a word. My original question was the opposite of what you think. I wanted to understand the correct way of pronouncing a word as an English speaker to a Welsh speaker. The consensus would seem to be that the stationmaster was correct: that as an English word, and as an English speaker, I should pronounce the start of the word as 'l'.--80.189.132.211 (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find the same concensus in Wales; good luck on your travels! what will i find in Wales?80.189.132.211 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)62.121.27.161 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What is meant by an "absolute" way to pronounce a word? I'm thinking of an obvious example: "roof", which in some parts of the USA the "oo" rhymes with the "oo" in "look", and in other parts it rhymes with the "oo" in "aloof". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

an absolute way to pronounce a word in the space and time, that the observers find themself in, while also dependent upon the observers themselves. why am i defending what seems to be the jist of these pages that each'editor' has the right way to pronounce or spell a word ?80.189.132.211 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any trained linguist who says there's an "absolute way to pronounce a word". Where are you getting that idea? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

from declaring to speak for everyone you know claim to speak for trained linguists. you answer a question with a question and try to find fault with a scecific than answering the whole. maybe you could epand on an ANSWER.--80.189.132.211 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who has claimed "linguists do specify that there is an absolute way to pronounce or spell a word", and it is up to the person making a claim to back the claim with any evidence. If you can point to a Wikipedia article, or any web page, that states this, then it will be easier to discuss. I'll add to the discussion by rephrasing something that has already been stated: Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. A grammarian could be prescriptive, or an organization like the Académie française, which issues rulings on what the "correct" French language is; but this is not linguistics. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OP: Your original question in this section appears to be "can we be critical about the way others speak and spell when language itself is changeable and changing?" The answer is yes, of course we can, and we do, just as we judge others on their dress, their behaviour, their attitude to personal hygiene, their choice of religion or football team, and so on. Were you rather meaning should we do so? If so, the only answers you will get will be personal opinion, which is supposedly outside the remit of the refdesk. Linguists know perfectly well that pronunciation is wildly variable; spelling is less so but still varies enormously depending on where you are and which authority you consult. Judgement of people for their language use arises from the relative prestige that we assign to the different variants, and why and how we do that is a whole field of study on its own. Why get tetchy with volunteers for their inability to answer a complex question with a simple answer? Karenjc 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The primary purpose of language is to communicate, not to impress, and it is successful if it gets the message across and unsuccessful if it does not. I remember asking for a ticket to Pwllheli at Euston railway station in London 20 years ago, using a velarised alveolar lateral fricative, and immediately being asked, "Can you spell that, please?". Clearly my pronunciation was not a success on that occasion. Ehrenkater (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

i apologise for my tetchiness. the answer was not an answer but a question whereby the volunteer claimed to speak for everyone and then for trained linguists. i wrongly assumed he was one .i said that from previous correspondence linguists seemed to have an absolut for what how something is said . I should have expanded that i think it is relative to the time and space and those involved in the correspondence. My example was fashion- he or she may think that they are in fashion and others are in or out of fashion and everyone else may have fifferent ideas.zzyzzva.--

If by "the volunteer" you're complaining about rʨanaɢ, both of his statements above are correct. By the way, you're agreeing with him, as far as I can tell. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

footnote: out of an innocent and reasonable question I became hurtful and hateful. I apologise.80.189.132.211 (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, you may want to note the differences in pronunciation between North and South Wales. I was reminded on this when the BBC did a feature on the sea defences at Aberaeron last week. The presenter, Wyre Davies, is from South Wales and pronounced it "aber-erron" or something similar, but the local man they spoke to pronounced it "aber-eyeron". If the Welsh themselves can't agree on how their language is meant to be spoken, what chance do the rest of us have? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll find examples of that anywhere you look. Most Australians pronounce Launceston "lawn-ses-tən", but the locals say "lon-ses-tən". A lot of Melburnians say something close to "mal-bən", while the rest of us say "mel-bən". And is it "new-cass-əl" or "new-kah-səl"? It doesn't mean they're at war with each other on how Australian English in general is spoken. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cornishmen and women from Launceston say "lawn-ston".Alansplodge (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a big list of such "local usages" at List of shibboleths. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

November 3

"Only" used as a contrast

Here's a sentence I read @ Miserere (Allegri), talking about a ban on copying the music on pain of excommunication (the 14-year-old Mozart heard it once and copied it down note-perfect, perhaps being unaware of the ban):

Once published, the ban was lifted; Mozart was summoned to Rome by the Pope, only instead of excommunicating the boy, the Pope showered praises on him for his feat of musical genius.

I was wondering about this use of "only" to mean "but" or "however". I know it's common colloquially, but how did it acquire this special meaning, and is it appropriate for encyclopedic text? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just poorly written English. Substituting 'however' followed by a comma makes the meaning of the sentence clear. As so often happens in English (and possibly other languages) if the meaning is unclear it is because the writer has not taken the care to construct the sentence properly and to use the the most appropriate words. It is not appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. Using the word 'only' for 'however' is used only in informal English according to the Collins Dictionary. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to be prescriptive, using "however" clause-initially like that is also improper. However is a postposition. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is an older, acceptable use of "only", in place of "but" or "except that". WordNet lists several uses[2] and a review of Google Books shows it is British English that was popular in the late 19th, early 20th century but has probably fallen out of favor or usage. For example, in 1899, John Stewart Mill wrote (emphasis added): "A reserved from his personal consumption a fund which he paid away directly to laborers; B does the same, only instead of paying it to them himself, he leaves it in the hands of the farmer, who pays it to them for him."[3] Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would reword it like this:

Once published, the ban was lifted; Mozart was summoned to Rome by the Pope. Instead of excommunicating the boy, the Pope showered praises on him for his feat of musical genius.

The implication of there being an exception is already included in the word instead. No further elaboration is called for. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still used in colloquial English English, indicating a exception condition. "You can edit this article, only don't mess it up." Bazza (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To its credit, its meaning is perfectly clear. It leaves no ambiguity as to its meaning, when used this way. In that regard it can't be faulted. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I criticized Caesar's Daddy above. There is absolutely no lack of clarity; someone can criticize it for being informal if they like, but saying that "informal language is too unclear" belies a misunderstanding of how language works. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I learnt my English in England, and to my ears the use of "only" instead of "except that" is perfectly acceptable. To me it's a little bookish, rather than colloquial, though. --Kjoonlee 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the initial critique of "only" used "just" in a similar colloquial way. Some folks will emphasize it by saying "only just", as with the song, "We've Only Just Begun". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This use of "only" is also colloquial in US English. This is a case where I don't think there's a trans-Atlantic difference. Marco polo (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, the use of "only" (meaning "but") is common also in other languages. The historical background of this usage in human languages is as follows:

1. Historically, it all began with the word "if", which tends to disappear in many languages, including English, e.g. "Wake up early and you'll be able to see the sunrise". i.e. "If you wake up early you'll be able to see the sunrise".
2. The consequent step was quite natural: a sentence like: "I agree, but pay me", which of course means: "I'll agree only if you pay me", could become (the "if" being deleted): "I agree, only pay me". The process described above shows how the "but" in the original sentence could become "only".
3. Due to such sentences, the speakers interpreted the "only" as "but" - also in other sentences (e.g. the OP's sentence) in which the whole process indicated above couldn't take a place.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Historically, it all began with the word "if", which tends to disappear in many languages, including English, e.g. "Wake up early and you'll be able to see the sunrise". i.e. "If you wake up early you'll be able to see the sunrise".
• The consequent step was quite natural: a sentence like: "I agree, but pay me", which of course means: "I'll agree only if you pay me", could become (the "if" being deleted): "I agree, only pay me". The process described above shows how the "but" in the original sentence could become "only".
• Due to such sentences, the speakers interpreted the "only" as "but" - also in other sentences (e.g. the OP's sentence) in which the whole process indicated above couldn't take a place.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

His explanation was so good he posted it twice. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a difference: The second copy doesn't contain the first sentence in the first copy:) HOOTmag (talk)

Lots of food for thought there. Thanks, all. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Crusader states

What language was used by the Crusader states? I suppose Latin would have been a sort of official language, but the ordinary crusaders came from several different countries. Presumably during the time that the crusader states existed there would have been some generally used language in administrative circles? Maybe lingua franca – but would that be an anachronism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.1.77 (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no real "official language", just whatever everyone happened to speak. Latin was "official" in the sense that it was the usual language of communication for people whose native languages were different, or for educated people writing letters or chronicles, at least in the twelfth century. Correspondence with European rulers/popes was always in Latin, in both the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as far as I am aware. Correspondence with the Muslims the Mongols was also written in Latin. Charters were always in Latin as well. But everyday speech was French - you can see this when people's names and titles are recorded in Greek or Arabic sources, obviously the crusaders had introduced themselves using their French names. The crusade cycle of chansons de geste were always in French and may have originated in the crusader states. The assizes of Jerusalem from the thirteenth century are all in French, and thirteenth-century chronicles are sometimes in French too. Presumably the ruling classes of the different states spoke their own forms of French, at least in the early years (some sort of langue d'oil, maybe Picard, in Jerusalem, Norman in Antioch, Provencal in Tripoli). On top of that there were also a very large number of Italians who used their own customs in every other matter, so they certainly used their own dialects in their own communities. The native populations who already lived there used their own languages - Arabic, Greek, Syriac, Armenian, etc. There are constant references to those people speaking their own languages, and the assizes say they were always allowed to swear oaths on their own holy books. Crusaders who were born in the east sometimes learned at least Arabic or Greek (Reginald of Sidon for example knew Arabic), and there were plenty of multilingual officials in the markets and courts. For the other states carved out of the Byzantine Empire in the thirteenth century, they also used French and Italian (depending on who had originally conquered them). Cyprus remained entirely Greek and there were Greek-speaking officials everywhere, even the assizes were translated into Greek, but the ruling class was entirely French (and later Italian when Venice took over). The Duchy of Athens was well-known as a centre of French culture. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks extremely interesting: should it perhaps be added to the article? --rossb (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but the crusader states article is mostly just a disambiguation page with links to the various states. I've included some of it in the Kingdom of Jerusalem article already. Now to undertake the tedious job of collecting citations... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Bishop gave a great response. I would summarize it by stating that the Europeans who went to the Middle East brought in their language (depending on the nation, or nations), including Latin, but you should also remember that there were already non-Europeans in those lands that also spoke their different languages (Which Bishop mentions, "Arabic, Greek, Syriac, Armenian, etc.").--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

English Scientific Word For Language Area (Not Broca's Area)

What is the English scientific word for language area (not Broca's area) [as in, where a language is spoken]?174.3.111.148 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the Broca's area article, Broca's area refers to an approximate area in the posterior inferior frontal gyrus, more specifically consisting of the pars triangularis and pars opercularis. —Akrabbim^talk 15:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not talking about a part of the brain, he's talking about geographical regions where people use a given language. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

@ 174.3.111.148: I can't think of a word for this off the top of my head, but usually we just refer to a language's "geographical distribution" or something like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel like an idiot. I completely overlooked the nots, twice. —Akrabbim^talk 03:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes in linguistics (even speaking English) you can talk about a language's Sprachbund. Steewi (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article implies that Sprachbund has a different meaning, referring to something like convergent evolution of different languages. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What does OP stand for?

In the way we use it at this noticeboard (i.e., to refer to the person who first asked a question), what does OP literally mean? Just curious. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Original poster." Deor (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Opie Taylor. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a list of this and other commonly used "Wiki-speak" at Wikipedia:Glossary. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

German: Why are umlauts not considered allophones?

There are two types of the sounds represented by the umlaut symbols Ä, Ö, Ü, and ÄU: On one hand those who are undisputedly phonemes, as in "Ähre" /e:ʀɛ/ "Möhre" /mø:ʀɛ/ or "Rübe" /ʀy:bɛ/. Maybe they come from A, O, U finally, but the word they derived from doesn't exist anymore. Anyway, the umlaut sounds can also be part of loanwords. On the other hand, there are umlauts that are grammatical features and derive from A, O, U, AU: Apfel/Äpfel, Ton/Töne, Wunsch/Wünsche, Maus/Mäuse. These umlauts are pronounced like the first type, but are just changed "normal" vowels. So, "Wünsche" is [vʏnʃə], but what would it be like if you want to write down the phonemes? [vʊnʃɛ] or [vʏnʃɛ]? I've only seen the latter. But this brings me to my argument: Think of "Rat" and "Rad". Both are pronounced [ʀa:t], but the phonemes are /ʀa:t/ and /ʀa:d/, respectively. Why does one write the "sound from that it derives" phoneme in Rad /ʀa:d/ [ʀa:t], but not in Hündchen /hʏndçɛn/ [hʏntçn]? My guess is that in the former example it is a difference between "pronunciation environment" and "grammar environment". /d/ is devoiced because it is at the end of the syllable, /ʊ/ isn't fronted to [ʏ], but it is replaced by another phoneme, which is /ʏ/. This "theory" of mine (grammar vs. pron. environment) is not really perfect, because one could also say that /d/ isnt devoiced to [t], but replaced by another phoneme, which is /t/. But I think most people which deem this allophones. In a nutshell: Why are umlauts that derive from "normal" vowels not considered allophones, when devoiced consonants are? --88.74.28.197 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Allophones are different pronunciations of the same phoneme in a different phonetic environment. In the case of "Rad", [t] is the allophone of /d/ at the end of a syllable. The umlauted vowels that you have mentioned in the cases of those plural nouns are different phonemes and not allophones of the singular vowels because 1) They make a semantic distinction, so they are in effect minimal pairs, which define distinct phonemes, and 2) those vowels do not occur in different phonetic environments, as allophones must. Instead, they occur in the same environment, either syllable-initial or mid-syllable between two consonants. Marco polo (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To give examples of minimal pairs:

Fugen (joints) vs fügen (to join)

dampfen (to steam) vs Dämpfen (damping)

Dosen (tins) vs dösen (to doze)

Both words in each pair are pronounced identically —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are examples of minimal pairs. However, what makes them minimal pairs is that they are not pronounced identically. Marco polo (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Allomorphs are variants of a morpheme that don't necessarily depend on phonetic environment but rather differ depending on a number of grammatical aspects. For German, this happens in verb conjugation where you get ich backe ('I bake') vs du bäckst ('you bake'). I'm not too familiar with German, so I don't know all the rules or anything (forgive me if my example is bad). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems the simple answer to this question is that they are just a surface level orthography. That is, 'allophony' is a predictable deep level phonetic representation that is based on its phonetic environment.

'Allomorphy’ is however a phonetically conditioned but a variant form of the surface level orthography that represents to a deep level orthography. However, some linguists contrast these forms and rely on the approach that an ‘allomorphy’ can be of a surface level representation that arises from either morphologically (inflection) or lexically(suppletion) conditioned environment.Is this correct?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, Mihkaw napéw. The answer is not persise enough, of course. It confuses sometimes, so it can not be something of anu or une kinds (must be persise). Do you have any further questions?--An Oxford PhD (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Even Oxford PhDs must be "precise". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know anything about German? In none of the pairs are the words pronounced identically. JIP | Talk 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Two Loanwords With Similar Meanings

I cannot for the life of me work out the difference between 'kitschy' and 'poshlust'. Does anyone know? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Kitsch and poshlost help? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A few lines into the article on poshlost I realized the question wasn't that important. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

cat > feline ; badger > meline?

Sometimes, I see adjective forms of animals used by taking a Latin Subfamily name ending in -inae and changing the ending to -ine. For example, Felinae gives us feline. Is this a creative process? For example, can a biologist or poet use a word like meline for Melinae, even though I couldn't find this word in any large dictionary. Could Homininae be hominine, even though my dictionary only lists that word as applying to humans (and not other members of Homininae)? --Sonjaaa (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The OED has meline but says "rare": "W. H. FLOWER & R. LYDEKKER Introd. Study Mammals 567 Divided..into the Otter-like (Lutrine), Badger-like (Meline), and Weasel-like (Musteline) forms." It says "hominine" is a perfectly good word, although I don't know why you'd prefer it to human or hominid (depending on context). 82.41.11.134 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to look up OED online? Looks like a useful source for some of these obscure ones. Also "hominid" is the adjective relating to Hominidae, not Homininae. But it's useful too, because there is a lot of overlap for those two groups! --Sonjaaa (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's more common when there's an umbrella over a number of species or sub-species: canine (dogs), feline (cats), bovine (cows), ursine (bears), etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to say that the adjective is derived from the subfamily name: words like "feline" come from Latin words that go back to Ancient Rome, centuries before the present zoological nomenclature was invented. --rossb (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OED is available online, by subscription. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But it's cheaper to buy the CD-ROM, which you will then have forever, than to subscribe for one year. And the dead tree edition of the complete 20-volume set is cheaper than 4 years of subscribing. +Angr 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're on a university campus or library or somewhere like that, however, you may have access already. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer and liar pronunciation

Are there any places in English speaking countries of the world where the local dialect is such that people pronounce the words lawyer and liar the same way? 71.161.57.157 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a stereotype that Irish English speakers tend to pronounce 'i' as 'oy', so that may qualify. I cannot say how 'lawyer' is pronounced in that 'dialect', though. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe around Leeds? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"I" and "oi" also tend to merge in the (various versions of the) British West Country accent. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Canadians pronounce "law" like "laa" (or: "lah"). Is any Canadian available here and able to tell us about how they pronounce "lawyer"? HOOTmag (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, and we pronounce it the proper way, with the same vowel diphthong as in "loin". Paul Davidson (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, Canadian English is rhotic, so we also pronounce the 'R'. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course you pronouce the 'R'. Who thought you didn't? HOOTmag (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, 'liar' has got an 'r' in it, too! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of the U.S. pronunciation of "warrior", which, to my ears, always sounds like an exact rhyme of "lawyer". They may well pronounce the final "r", but they seem to omit the central "rr" altogether, and insert a "y" there, as if it were spelt "woyer". Is this just my faulty hearing? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean Jack. Similar things happen with "mirror" ("meeyor") and "forest" ("forrrst"); not too mention the tourist-terrorist merger. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice I pronounce "mirror" and "mere" the same, but I thought I was actually leaving off the end of "mirror". (I am not from the US but I am probably just a lazy speaker.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. The rest of the anglosphere seems to rhyme "mirror" with the first 2 syllables of an anglicised pronunciation of "tiramisu", and "warrior" is like "worrier" apart from the first vowel. Mais, vive la différence! -- JackofOz (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To complicate things further, some (younger?) people pronounce "worry" to rhyme with "sorry", and likewise "wonder" to rhyme with "ponder", in a speak-as-you-spell way. (Though they seem not to go the whole hog and rhyme "wander" with "pander".) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps fortunately, I've never heard any of these people sing the carol I Wonder as I Wander. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have heard someone sing "I Wonder as I Wander" who pronounced the words identically. It was very confusing. As for "worry" to rhyme with "sorry", that depends no whose pronunciation of "sorry" you mean: Americans, Canadians, and RP-Brits all pronounce it differently: /ˈsɑri/ (homophonous with "sari", i.e. to rhyme with "starry"), /ˈsɔri/ (to rhyme with "story"), and /ˈsɒri/ (to rhyme with "lorry" – though for most North Americans "lorry" rhymes with "story" anyway) respectively. +Angr 15:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My (~RP) pronunciation of "wonder" and "wander" are so similar that they are only distinguishable if I make a concious effort to enunciate clearly. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Same with me (northern British but very close to RP) --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We really could have some fun with this. Imagine the results if teachers from different parts of the Englsih-speaking world set this sentence as a dictation test to a class of international students: "There was a panda named Wanda, who wondered as she wandered wanly one day".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful:) And also:

There was a panda named Wanda, who wondered as she wandered wanly one day, but finally won the race.

HOOTmag (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

November 4

Extra. Full. Stops.

In phrases such as "Best. Word. Ever", what do the extra full stops mean? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 06:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They signify small pauses between the words, thereby giving the whole phrase an emphatic tone. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of Comic Book Guy. --Nricardo (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. To me the full stops look as if they give each word a falling sentence-concluding intonation, which sounds ridiculous rather than emphatic. Wouldn't it be more effective to write it with commas? — Emil J. 13:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One man's ridiculous is another man's emphatic. Besides, when it comes to language usage, there's little use in arguing over what's "effective"; what people do, people do. All we can really do is describe, not prescribe. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea of using short sentences for emphasis is well-attested[4][5][6]. The "Worst. Episode. Ever." style of emphasis might be seen as a reductio ad absurdam of this approach (using the shortest possible sentences). Emphasis (typography) mentions increasing spacing between letters for emphasis, which might also be an influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesleyhood (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not "proper" written English but it conveys the intention... provided it's clear what the intention is, which it wasn't to the questioner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a US thing? I've never seen it in the UK.Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's 'U.K.'. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

KageTora; in modern usage the full stops are often dropped from abbreviations - see the UK Government's own website here[7].Alansplodge (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

L.O.L. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's more an online thing, from the generation who grew up with The Simpsons. It's a Snowclone from Comicbook Guy's catchphrase, "Worst. Episode. Ever." (or "Best. Episode. Ever.") 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was thinking just the other day of asking a question about what it was that popularized this. --Anonymous, 22:44 UTC, November 4, 2009.

Doh! Obviously showing my age...Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's used in advertising and poetry too. Adds dramatic weight and a pause to each word.--Sonjaaa (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Standard English usage for "of"

Is there a grammatical term for the structures "method of teaching" and "teaching method" ? Both are correct, but only one uses of. I'm getting ESL students who say things like "the area conditions of environment are..." and am having trouble helping them recognize situations like that where using of is clumsy and the superior "the area environmental conditions are" would be immediately obvious to any native speaker.218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer I'm afraid, but if I was an ESL student and I was being taught to say "the area environmental conditions are...", I'd start looking around for another teacher. You can say "the environmental conditions of the area" or "the area's environmental conditions", but the way you're phrasing it is ugly. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your examples are more or less genitive structures. "The area's environmental conditions" and "the environmental conditions of the area" are both genitive, just the first is marked with a possessive suffix -s and the second with a prepositional phrase. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"of-genitive" seems a standard term for describing things like "method of teaching" e.g. [8][9]. The cases described show the difference between using a pre-modifier ("teaching method") and a post-modifier prepositional phrase ("method of teaching") in a noun phrase. See also English noun phrase. --Lesleyhood (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Being clear is the most important thing, and the one example, "the environmental conditions of the area" strikes me as the optimal, especially for ESL, as it breaks up the sentence a little bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an ESL expert, but I think that there are really at least two issues here. One issue is understanding whether to use a genitive form ("method of teaching", "conditions of the environment") or a modifier before the main noun ("teaching method" or "environmental conditions"). Usually the latter method is clearer and more concise in English, though there are some cases, I'm sure, where it doesn't work. A second issue here is the use of the definite article ("the"). As you can see from my example above, "conditions of the environment" makes sense, even if it is more awkward than "environmental conditions", whereas "conditions of environment" really doesn't make sense, especially as part of a longer phrase. Students need to learn the very tricky English rules and idioms for the use of the article, one of which is that "environment" is one of those nouns that almost always requires an article (except for the indefinite plural, of course). Marco polo (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago on the beachfront in Brighton there were some notice-boards intended to give recent details of the analysis of the seawater. These were called Sea Water Quality Information Boards. Five nouns in a row, each qualifying the next. In German a single word (?"Seewasserqualitätsinformationtafel"?) could have been used. In French it would have been prepositions ( perhaps "Tableaux d'information sur la qualité de l'eau de mer"?) Sussexonian (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "Just So Stories"

In Rudyard Kipling's phrase "just so story", what is the meaning of "just so"? I can see two meanings for the phrase:

1. the story provides an answer that fits "just so" (i.e., very pat and neat and ad hoc to the question at hand)
2. the questions these stories answer (e.g., "why do leopards have spots?") might often be answered (to a child, say) with "it's just so"

I'm interested in both Kipling's original coinage and whether his sense is still the one intended when people derisively call a scientific theory a Just so story. Thanks. --Sean 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

From hearing these first at the age of 5 or 6, I've taken "Just So" to mean "that's exactly the way it happened". Of course I knew that wasn't how it happened and Kipling knew that children would know that it wasn't how it really happened, but would be pleased to be included in the joke. Only my opinion though.[10]. It was published only a short time after the theory of evolution became accepted as science. The stories seem to me to be a satire on the theory, without implying any criticism of it.Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Etiology myths are of course much older than Kipling's Just So Stories. +Angr 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but not as a joke for children.Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name for this odd use of "local"?

I have noticed a disquieting trend of words being used in a manner unrelated to their real meaning. Let's take "local" as the first of these, with an example from a recent Newsweek article. The context isn't for the squeamish, apologies, but the piece offers a clear example of this bizarre use. A girl in Mali was subjected to female genital cutting; as an adult she moved to the US; decades later she decided to see if modern medicine could help:

The doctors wheeled her to the operating room, anesthetized her and got to work. [...] [The surgeon] then scraped away layers of a black, sooty material — the decades-old remnants of the ash poultice the local women had used to stop the bleeding.

"Local" in this usage does not mean "near the subject of the sentence"; it seems to be intended to imply uneducated or untrained. it's almost a scare-word.

This might be related to the extension of semantic range to the point of meaninglessness (e.g. "terrorist"). Or it might be more of a euphemism. I'm not sure what it represents, but it does seem to be spreading.

So a two-part question: Does anyone have similar examples to quote (with "local" or other words)? And is there a name for this phenomenon? in a way it might be construed as parallel to the eggcorn: a linguistic phenomenon that has been around for awhile and deserves some attention. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "local" in this context means the women who were in the place at the time the mutliation was done: nothing about scare-words or derogatory epithets as far as I can see.--TammyMoet (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Local" there carries the implication of non-cosmopolitan. The perspective of the reader is assumed to be the educated urban person, I think, and "local" is assigned the role, in this usage, of referring to the area to which modernity and education has not yet come. "Backwoods" is the implication of "local," I think, in this usage. It is unlikely that a publication produced in a small town would refer to the population in a great city as the "local" population, or the "local women." You point out an improper implication of a word in a particular use. It is a sort of code word, conveying more than what it ostensibly says, I think. But I don't think this is at all uncommon. Words are commonly assigned meanings that are not basic to their definition. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think it merely means "in the place at the time". I think 70 years ago the sentence would have read "the native women", and "local" is being used as the modern politically correct equivalent of "native". It doesn't directly denote "uneducated"/"untrained" but it does connote it because the reader will assume that the women who live in the village do not have Western-style medical training. +Angr 16:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no negative implications...It means what it always means. The women would have been local to the girl at the time the cutting occurred. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are no negative connotations here. 'Local' is often used to refer to people who are native to an area, in this case, the area where the girl came from. If the word had been left out, it would have said, 'remnants of the ash poultice the women had used', which could be anyone. The writer has felt the need to specify which women were involved, and, with no other information available, has simply referred to them as 'local women' - as opposed to the women around the area where the girl lives now. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Angr. I quite often hear people talk about how "the locals" react to something, with a clear connotation that the speaker is cosmopolitan and thus not a "local", even if they are living in the area they grew up in. Something of this is being played with in the League of Gentlemen sketch about the "local shop for local people": there is the expectation that the "local" people will be closed-minded and intolerant of outsiders, as opposed to the cosmopolitan visitors. I can only assume that people who do not see a negative implication have not met or read people who do this: perfectly fine, as it gives some indication of how widespread this usage is or isn't. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't meant to imply that a lack of cosmopolitan sophistication, I don't see why the expression would be used here at all. I think the implication is clearly present. --Anonymous, 22:48 UTC, November 4, 2009.

It was meant to emphasize the more rural treatment for the bleeding. It was kind of a traditional technique or recipe for making the poultice. The implication is a culturally unique practice specific to this locale. That's just my take on it. —Akrabbim^talk 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The complete expression, which you're not likely to hear nowadays, is "local yokels". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On further consideration I'm going to back down part way and say that in another context "local" could refer to people with valuable local knowledge ("the locals know that Smith St. will get you there faster"); it's not necessarily short for "local yokel" as Bugs says. But in the genital mutilation example, I don't see it at all that way. I do agree with the mildly negative implication there. --Anonymous, 22:56 UTC, November 4, 2009.

To clarify, it doesn't always mean local yokels, it depends on the situation. I think that saying "the locals" is just a way of restating the city (or other "locality") being referenced in a given situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is not interpreting the word "local" in some kind of derogeratory way a uniquely British trait? Vimescarrot (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see a problem with the use of the word, whether it refers to locale, local customs, or local yokels, because as the article on female genital cutting points out, the practice is now illegal (not when the event in question took place - but in any case it has been made illegal for a reason), so why should the article Newsweek not refer to the women who performed the cutting as 'locals', whether meaning 'women living around the girl at the time' or 'women lacking in knowledge [as to what this practise can cause]'. Maybe it is in there to deliberately make the reader decide for him/herself and possibly provoke discussions like the one we are having right now. However, I shall state as I did earlier on that I had no problem with the word - it can be used with derogatory connotations, sure enough, but it can also be neutral, and in as many cases as it is used in a derogative sense it can be used in a very positive sense, as pointed out by Anonymous upstairs. It just so happens that the Newsweek article is talking about a practise that is considered wrong, and this may help to give the reader a negative feeling about the word 'local' used here. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with TammyMoet; there's nothing derogatory about this at all. It was some local women who applied the poultice - as opposed to the man who mutilated her, or nurses at a clinic, or she herself, or her parents. Matt Deres (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Indirect Speech; and a second question which is about the Use of If and When

I have a question about the exact meaning of sentences like

Mary thinks that Tom is a good singer.

I am not sure because in standard German, there are three possibilities of indirect speech:

• If I say: "Mary denkt, dass Tom ein guter Sänger ist",
  that means in standard German that Mary thinks so, and that I agree.
• If I say: "Mary denkt, dass Tom ein guter Sänger wäre",
  that means in standard German that Mary thinks so, and that I disagree.
• If I say: "Mary denkt, dass Tom ein guter Sänger sei",
  that means in standard German that I just say that Mary thinks so, and that I don't comment on whether I agree or disagree.

Is it true that the English sentence Mary thinks that Tom is a good singer has the third meaning?

My second question:
In my text above I used the word if. Was that correct? Or should I rather have used the word when?
And, if the correct word is if, did I use the correct grammatical forms when I used the present tense indicative mood of to say and to mean? -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As for your first question: yes.

As for your second question: both "if" and "when" are grammatically correct, although "if" is (in my opinion) slightly more accurate.

As for your third question: yes.

HOOTmag (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Or as my German colleagues would say, Sehr gut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a little addition: the English sentence has the third meaning, but can be given the second meaning in spoken English with intonation and facial expression. It's harder to give it the first meaning, and I think most native speakers would say something different instead. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. :-) -- Irene1949 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

@86.142.224.71 : actually, it's very easy to give it the first meaning, in the right context. Imagine, for example, that you're arguing with Jim about whether or not Tom is a good singer; Jim thinks Tom is a terrible singer, and you're doing everything you can to prove that Tom is a great singer. You can say, "Mary thinks Tom is a good singer"; putting stress on "Mary" like that, in this context (and probably also having a bit of a rising intonation at the end of the sentence), gives it the first meaning. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That was the only way I could think of too, and it's really saying "Mary agrees with me", so I wasn't sure whether to count it. Outside that context, I couldn't think of one. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The original German example actually reminds me of yet another Finnish expression I can't directly translate to English: the verb luulla, roughly meaning to believe something to be true when it's really not (at least the speaker thinks it's not). For example, Maryn mielestä Tom on hyvä laulaja means "According to Mary, Tom is a good singer" but Mary luulee että Tom on hyvä laulaja usually means "Mary thinks Tom is a good singer, but he's not". The "according to" construction is the most direct way to translate "Mary thinks" to Finnish, as Finnish has no single verb directly corresponding to "think" in this sense. The closest approximation would be Mary uskoo että Tom on hyvä laulaja, meaning "Mary believes Tom is a good singer". Mary tietää että Tom on hyvä laulaja means "Mary knows that Tom is a good singer", where the speaker asserts that Tom being a good singer is a universal fact. The weird thing about luulla is that depending on context, it can also mean "suspect", usually when the speaker is talking about him/herself. For example, luulen että Tom on hyvä laulaja means "I suspect Tom is a good singer, but I can't be sure", not "I falsely believe Tom to be a good singer, when I should know he's not". Also, mitä luulet? is a very popular question in Finnish, meaning "what do you think (about this)?", not "what do you falsely believe to be true?". On the other hand, it's entirely possible to say, for example, lapsena luulin että keijuja on olemassa, meaning "as a child, I thought faeries existed (now when I'm an adult, I have realised they don't)". JIP | Talk 19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Parents

I was sitting in French the other day and it occured to me that pere (father in French) was similar to the word parent in English. Furthur French deduction led me to think that -ent was similar to the -ent ending in plural verbs (ils parlent). Just out of curiousity, is there any proof that "parents" literally means "father plus others"??EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Here is the etymology. French 'pére' comes from Latin 'pater'. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

-ent in French has nothing to do with -ent in English (in French it's a grammatical inflection, in English it has no meaning whatsoever, it's just a sequence of letters). As for your last question... a more common thing to see is languages that don't have a word for parents but just say "father+mother". For example, Chinese uses 爸爸妈妈 or 父母 (both literally mean "father mother"), and Uyghur uses ata-ana (same thing). I imagine editors with more language background can name other languages that do this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese actually has '家长' ('head(s) of household') and '双亲' used to mean 'parents'. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but AFAIK 家长 has some extra meaning (for example, if I were a kid, my schoolteacher might want to send a note to my 家长, meaning my dad--I've never seen it used to refer to just parents in general and in an unmarked way). Never heard 双亲 before but it makes sense...not sure how often it's used in informal speech, though? (But since I'm not a native speaker, you can take all of the above with a grain of salt ;) ) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I added the clarification that it actually means 'head of household', after all, some people unfortunately don't have dads or are otherwise living with other relatives.'双亲' is used, though it's not an extremely common word in normal speech - your examples would be more common, but that doesn't mean that words for 'parents' do not exist in Chinese, as you were stating - they are just not very commonly used. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that parere, "to bring forth", "to beget" (i.e. "to father") is not derived from the same root as pater? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. [11], [12]. To Rjanag's point, 100 years ago Irish had no word for "parents", but one just said "father and mother". But since Irish has started to be used in schools and official documents and the like, they revived a long-obsolete Old Irish word to serve as the word for "parents". +Angr 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not totally convinced. But one thing I found interesting is that in the link given by KageTora, it said that "parents" replaced "elders" in common usage. The old saying, "respect your elders", presumably then referred specifically to parents, more so than just those in one's parents' generation in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

-ent in the French word parlent is a grammatical inflection that is usually needed for the third person plural of a verb, the way -s in English is usually needed for the third person singular of a verb.

Whereas -ents in the English word parents is supposed to be corresponding to -entes in the Latin word parentes, where it is the grammatical inflection that is needed for the present participle of parere in the plural of the nominative case (the way -ing is needed in English). -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

November 5

Threat?

I have a question. What could be considered a threat? Here are some possibilities:

• If you touch that cord, I will make you regret it.
• Ricardo, if I ever hear you talking about Keynes's opinions again, I'm going to close this classical thread.
• Don't come close to me, or else I'm going to scream.

I think all 3 of these things are threats. Some are worse than others (I'd rank 1st, 3rd, and 2nd, in terms of "threath seriousness"). What do the rest of you think? Can anyone provide me a good definition for "threat"?

Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is obviously a fine line between a "threat" and a "promise". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Often dictionaries are good with definitions: "A declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course." Threats can be conditional statements (if X, then Y) or they can omit the conditional with the assumption that the conditions have already been met.

By the way, Bugs, I find the distinction between threat and promise to be disengenuous. Threats and promises are not mutually exclusive from each other. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the point. In essence, they are the same thing: a pledge to take action of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

... except that a threat is always a pledge to do something bad, whereas a promise may be (and often is) a pledge to do something good. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

... except when someone says, "That's not a threat, it's a promise!" Which is what I was originally alluding to. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If a sadist said to a masochist that he/she (the sadist) was going to deny him/her (the masochist) sexual favours, that could be said to be a threat from the sadist's perspective, and a promise from the masochist's perspective. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. So, based on what has been argued here, the 3 statements I posted could be considered threats (or promises, which depends on perspective). Yes, dictionaries are good with definitions, but the discussion here was better.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a fine line between a "threat" and a "warning". "Warning" meaning a statement that is made in order to protect someone. -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that just makes it a tad more confusing. Wouldn't a "warning" be something along the lines of the common Wiki warning: "Please don't vandalize articles in Wikipedia, further disruptive behavior may result in a block." The effective uses of "please" and "may" are effective ways of warning without being threatening, but the three options I originally posted at the start of this discussion are not warnings (they're threats). Or, does anybody have another opinion?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that one may "warn" (as opposed to threaten) of both potential (rather than absolute) negative consequences as well as those that are not caused by the speaker (e.g. Don't play in the street or you'll get run over). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Old Norse

I'm curious about the meaning of the *, R and RR symbols I found in a lot of Old Norse given names and common words. For example: *SvartgæiRR, HrókR, ÁvæiRR. Do they have a specific influence on pronunciation? --151.51.14.218 (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The * will be asterisk#Historical linguistics. Algebraist 11:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The R is the transliteration of the Younger Futhark rune "yr" (an upside-down algiz), which represented a sound that is reconstructed as z in Proto-Germanic but is spelled r in Old Norse texts written with the Latin alphabet rather than runes. It's uncertain what its exact pronunciation was; all we know is that it's a sound that used to be /z/ and later turned into /r/. +Angr 14:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Main

Does the Spanish have an equivalent for the English Spanish Main? (By the way, I don't find a Spanish Wikipedia. Is there one?)--Omidinist (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your second question, the Spanish Wikipedia can be found here. You can get to it from Wikipedia's main page and clicking on the bit where it says 'Español' on the right. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Trollope's book The West Indies and the Spanish Main seems to be translated in Spanish as Las Indias occidentales y el continente español. Actually, continente means continent, mainland, but not coast, so I'm not very sure about it. --151.51.14.218 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The English is a romantic phrase without equivalent in Spanish, AFAIK. I've only ever heard it referred to it as las costas del Caribe, even with reference to pirates and the like. Continente in the context above obviously doesn't refer to the coastline at all, and perhaps shows the English phrase to be understood as a descriptor for the whole region. mikaul^talk 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So far, so good. Thank you all people. More comments are welcome. --Omidinist (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tierra Firme.[13] —eric 20:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tierra firme is a general nautical term. Maybe tierra firme de las Indias Occidentales can be an option. As it has been said, there is no direct equivalent in common use. Up to now, the most precise term in general use I have found is es:cuenca del Caribe, but I'm not convinced. :( 200.49.224.88 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The central response is that there is no direct translation to Spanish Main. Las costas del Caribe español (The coasts of the Spanish Caribbean) is the closest translation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen "Tierra Firme" used on some maps as an appareant equivalent for "Spanish Main". --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Switching syllables in two words to comic effect

I'm scratching my head here, because I should know this, and it's on the tip of my tongue... What's the term used when someone switches syllables in two words giving an amusing result? One of the anchors on the BBC just said "snifer riples" instead of "sniper rifles" and for the life of me, I can't think of the term. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoonerism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew that I knew it. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd've said that was wrong. While some people use the word in an extended sense, a real spoonerism is a swap of the initial sounds -- in this case giving "riper snifles", which isn't bad either! The general term for a switching-around of sounds is metathesis, a word that (considering that the accent is on the "tath", not the "the") might be quite a bit easier to pronounce if some metathesis was applied to it... --Anonymous, 04:32 UTC, November 6, 2009.

Wow! I've never seen two apostrophes in the same word. Is that grammatical? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary describes that one as nonstandard. However, forecastle can be contracted with three apostrophes as "fo'c's'le", and this you will find in dictionaries. --Anonymous, 07:58 UTC, November 6, 2009.

Interesting. It might not be suitable for professional writing (which may explain why it's described as "nonstandard"), but in a film script or play text, it could be very appropriate, and I'd've thought there's no better way of writing it. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was curious what other languages called this. Most have their own native terms, but Turkish has just "spoonerism", and Polish has "spuneryzm", while Russian has "cпунеризм" (spunerizm). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the spoonerism article and look at the links to other languages down the left-hand side (below the toolbox and stuff) you can see the names for whatever language currently have a WP article like this. (If you hover your mouse over each language, you should be able to see the name in a tooltip, status bar, or whatever, depending on your browser.) Some appear to be transliterations of the word "spoonerism", whereas others have their own words (like 'Antistrofe', etc.). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's how I got the results I reported above. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the first time I heard of the word spuneryzm in Polish. If it's actually used, then only in specialist literature, but the common expression is gra półsłówek (literally: "play of half-words"), the spoonerism of which is sra półgłówek ("a dimwit is shitting"). Kpalion 194.39.218.10 (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Polish article acknowledges gra półsłówek. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Such things are also common parts of word games in other languages, such as Verlan and backslang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.25 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Verlan and backslang both apply within a single word, whereas spoonerisms are generally switching sounds across two words. They also have different stylistic effects—spoonerisms are usually either slips-of-the-tongue, or jokes; verlan is a form of slang that is used in all seriousness. Back slang isn't really used except in a couple words that have already been lexicalized. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dumb words and expressions

Sort of related to the above question. There's a suite of words and expressions that have achieved currency here, originally as jokes or casual colloquialisms, but I'm hearing them more and more, and for some people they're almost at the point of replacing their originals. Examples include "ginormous" (a hybrid of "gigantic" and "enormous"), "Brisvegas" (apparently coined in a nod to Las Vegas when Brisbane gained its first casino), "Taswegian" for Tasmanian, "one foul swoop" (instead of "one fell swoop"). And many others. I don't know how one might classify these other than as "words and expressions that some dickheads constantly and irritatingly use". Is there a more professional way of describing them? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They're a sort of mix of different word formation processes. Ginormous and Brisvegas are examples of blending and I know that one foul swoop is an eggcorn. I'm not sure what Taswegian is an example of; it might also be a blend.

Unfortunately, there's no objective classification of your examples. One man's dick-head term is another man's vocabulary choice. What do you make of burger or the use of fridge for any refrigerator that isn't a Frigidaire? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume that "Taswegian" is a blend of "Tasmania" and "Glaswegian", suggested by the rhyme, although I don't know enough about mainland Australians' views of Tasmanians or English folks' views of Scots/Glaswegians to know whether there is some disparagement intended. Deor (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Ginormous', 'Brisvegas', and 'Taswegian' are all meant to be humorous, or at least slightly amusing. Other words that would probably bother you, besides the aforementioned eggcorns, would be unnecessary or redundant back-formations, most notably orientate. —Akrabbim^talk 05:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd always assumed - and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees - that fridge is simply an abreviation of refrigerator, not derived from a particular brand name. Thus presumably it might once have been ’fridge’, with apostrophes indicating the missing letters (much like influenza -> ’flu’ -> flu), although note that the fridge has an extra letter "d" in it. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ginormous" is a great word. I accidentally said that to one of my thesis advisors and he gave me a funny look, but didn't say anything, heh. Adding "Vegas" to a dinky little town is kind of common, and doesn't always have anything to do with a casino. I've heard the little town of Strathroy, Ontario referred to as "Strathvegas", for example (just as a sarcastic remark about how dinky and unglamourous it is). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where Adam Bishop is from (too lazy to look at userpages right now) but I've also heard this used for dinky little towns. Around here, Morrisville, Vermont (article?) is referred to as "MoVegas". Dismas|^(talk) 06:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Taswegian' seems to be used by Tasmanians and mainlanders alike, without anything pejorative intended. The first few times you hear it, it's slightly amusing, but after that ... I never knew whether it's connected to 'Glaswegian' or 'Norwegian', to both, or neither. There are far more people of Scots descent in Australia than of Norwegian descent, but apart from that I can't see any obvious connection between Glasgow and Tasmania. It seems to hook into an Australian penchant for finding ways of saying things in a non-standard way (but the new way then becomes the standard for a lot of people - which doesn't seem to matter because anything goes, as long as they're not being seen to be kowtowing to authority, except the peer group they wish to be associated with, i.e kowtow to). I'd guess that very few people who regularly use this expression have ever asked themselves "Why am I saying 'Taswegian', rather than 'Tasmanian', other than because other people are saying it?" -- JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, "eggcorns" are all too common and annoying for language pedants (no names mentioned...) One that seems to have a fair deal of currency here that makes me wince every time is "the proof is in the pudding". As for the blendings/conflations, the constant reference to all political scandals as "X-gate" and all film industries as "X-llywood" (e.g., Bollywood, Wellywood) wears a bit thin after a while... Grutness...wha? 08:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And "the devil is in the detail", and somebody has "signed off on" some proposal, and "we've done the hard yards". Oh, they're endlessly mindless and mindlessly endless. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Would that be a Tasmanian devil in those details? Come to think of it, has the use of "Tasmanian" as an adjective for an animal influenced the use of a different term to apply to the people? Contrast that with Canadian people and Canada geese. The latter are often mistakenly called Canadian geese, as if they were citizens, eh? As for words like "ginormous", that's kind of a portmanteau, as Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice about words like "chortle", which is a combination of snort and chuckle. I looked for "fridge" in my old Webster's, and it's not there - so the unanswered question now is whether "fridge" came before or after "Frigidaire". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Or independently? As a Briton I've seen plenty of fridges but never a Frigidaire, and it might explain the Webster's/Oxford difference. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia article, as well as this one[14] indicate that the Frigidaire was the first commercial refrigerator. Wiktionary is of no help, as it basically says "we need an answer". I've got a hunch that Frigidaire became synonymous with refrigerator, and hence "fridge" actually stands for both of them. Like "Victrola" as a synonym for "record player", even if it was a Columbia Grafonola, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But if the brand name didn't cross the Atlantic either as effectively or until much later, it's not inconceivable that the slang would develop independently of it. I've not heard of a Victrola either, but I'm not willing to rule out being born after their demise as a reason for that. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, although "Hoover" is an American brand, it's never used by Americans as a generic term for a vacuum cleaner. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I brought up fridge as an example of a brand name being applied to similar products made by other companies. Other examples include xerox, iPod, and possibly Tivo. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Jack is just noticing the normal progress of language. I don't think it's uniquely Australian, since I see it happening all the time in the UK. Even online: I now find I default to 'internets' rather than 'internet', which is slightly scary. Different language fits different registers, and a lot of these words and phrases that start out as clever jokes become gently humorous or light-hearted markers that indicate light-heartedness of the conversation. They aren't necessarily meant to be funny any more, just indicators that the conversation is in a lighter register. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, thanks 86.142. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

isn't the original question's classification of people who use such words itself dumb and irritating?--80.189.132.211 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. That's why I was after a more appropriate description of these forms of expression. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

November 6

Is the following sentece acceptable?

I would like to know English native speakers opinion about the acceptability or grammaticality of the following sentence:

For what did you hit me?

Thanks 121.242.23.197 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Vineet Chaitanya

It's not really acceptable. You would say "What did you hit me for?" or "Why did you hit me?" instead. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very technically, you aren't supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, such as for, but almost all native speakers I know ignore that rule when speaking. Falconus^{p t c} 12:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

For very good reason, as there is not, and never has been, any such "rule". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew beat me to this: it's not a rule. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's back-to-front, but in terms of being understandable it's fine. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"For what did you hit me?" would be considered a funny way to say it, by someone being pretentious or something. There's a quote somewhere about Winston Churchill being criticized for his grammar, for ending a sentence with a preposition, and responding that that was a complaint "up with which I will not put!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Language Log for what they say on ending sentences with prepositions, I found this investigation of that anecdote.

On topic, Language Log unsurprisingly says that it's perfectly fine to end sentences with prepositions. They quote The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (co-written by a Language Logger) saying the rule against ending sentences with prepositions is a made up one,

"apparently created ex nihilo in 1672 by the essayist John Dryden, who took exception to Ben Jonson's phrase the bodies that those souls were frighted from (1611). Dryden was in effect suggesting that Jonson should have written the bodies from which those souls were frighted, but he offers no reason for preferring this to the original."[15]

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Churchill quote is fun, but apocryphal. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence can be understood easily as it is than if it were grammatically correct. However, the sentence is grammatically incorrect. That is: a) if ‘for’ is a preposition, it cannot begin with an interrogation; b) if ‘for’ is a particle, it has to follow the verb in order to complete the sentence. Allthough if a deixis can be understood anaphorically as an ellipsis, but here again, the ‘wh’ interrogation ‘what’ is not a correct semantic substitution. Is this correct?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Either I'm misunderstanding you, or almost all of that comment is wrong. First of all, the sentence is not grammatically incorrect (see my other comment below). Secondly, a prepositional phrase can begin an interrogative sentence ("With whom did you go to the party?"—slightly uppity, but not awkward like the 'for what' sentence here). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. You are correct. However, a preposition does not always not act as a prepositional phrase, i.e. it can be of verb particle, ect. And the question and many comments here are about the treatment of ‘for what’ in the context of an interrogation. So my comment was that a preposition cannot begin an interrogation. However, a prepositional phrase does. Let me simplify this further. That is, ‘whom’ is a pronoun but ‘for what’ as it is mentioned here for ‘why’ is not a pronoun. Is this makes sense now, or do you have further comment?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If something is acting as a particle, then it's not a preposition, it's a particle. And in any case, I don't see how that's relevant, as the "for what", "for what reason", "for whom", and whatever other thing you use in this sentence is a prepositional phrase. Structurally (i.e., from a word category point of view]], "for what" and "for whom" are absolutely no different. The difference is semantic: they're both prepositional phrases made up of a preposition head and a noun complement (in this case, a wh-word). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you this question. Can you begin an interrogation in English with any prepositions plus ‘why’ like, in why…, to why…, with why…, etc.? However, the answer is, yes, if there is pronoun like, what, whom, etc. Why do you think these are different?--Mihkaw napéw (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, yes, a question can begin with a preoposition. More specifically, a question can begin with a prepositional phrase, and a prepositional phrase begins with a preposition. (For example: "At the football game, what did you eat?") rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence doesn't really make sense to me: I'm not sure what you were trying to say. As to "what for": "what" by itself would not be the correct interrogative word, but "what for" means the same as "why", as does the archaic "wherefore". Using "what for", or "for what" as the sample sentence does, is unusual and sounds slightly arch, but is understandable and grammatical to a native speaker. However, it would be more natural (and pretty common) to separate them as "What did you hit me for?". 86.142.224.71 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

it would seem that the passage is arranged so forth because it is archaic. the other would be for emphasis. 'For what' would ask the reason directly why you hit someone- for what gain, for what purpose. i would agree with the text on one point- that is the contextual use of 'wherefore' by Shakespeare in "Romeo and Juliet" which indeed asks why are you Romeo and not where Romeo is. 80.189.132.211 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.132.211 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to ask "For what reason did you hit me?", but "For what did you hit me?", while comprehensible, is ungrammatical. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you find "For what did you hit me?" ungrammatical, what do you think of the (twice) suggested "What did you hit me for?" -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with that. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@JackofOz: it's not ungrammatical. It's just bad. The grammatical structure itself is fine (real ungrammatical would be something like "Max's of pizza" or "He's in the going").

@ 128.104.112.237: it's just like people said, "what did you hit me for is fine". More specifically, "what for" (or "what...for") in English generally means the same as "why". But "for what" can't be extended like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In many European languages, the question "why" is expressed as "what for"/"for what". English is a bit of an exception in having a distinct word. Vadför?, pourquoi?, почему?/зачто?, perche?, ¿porqué? So it would be quite natural for a learner to construct "For what...?". But in English For what did you hit me? would be understood as "for what thing" not "for what reason". It could be answered by "For a bet" or "For you kissing my girlfriend just now" or "For a hundred dollars". Not a usual construction. Sussexonian (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Not ungrammatical", Rjanag?: It's certainly not prescriptively grammatical, and it's such an unusual formulation that it would hardly have been recorded descriptively. So how does it get to be grammatical? You say it's grammatical but "bad"; I say it's comprehensible but ungrammatical. Maybe we're really agreeing without appearing to. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't violate any grammatical rule. It has a well-formed prepositional phrase ("for what") acting as an adjunct, and the rest of its structure is also well-formed. The reason it's awkward is that the preposition phrase "for what" doesn't have the meaning you want it to. As a linguistic example, it would probably be written with a # mark rather than a *. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a non-native of English, and I think the expression is a ellipsis in colloquial English. In grammar, it can be:

• For what purpose did you hit me?--purpose in question
• Why did you hit me?--reason in question. Nevill Fernando (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not ellipsis. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Medieval word meaning

What is the meaning and etymology of "discryued" and "discryuying"? 64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the context? Looks like an alternate spelling of "describe", with a V instead of a B (and with the V spelled as U). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In this[16] comparison between Old, Middle and Early Modern English (BCP), "discryued" is translated as "taxed".Alansplodge (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There it's used in translating the Latin "ut describeretur universus orbis" and "haec descriptio prima facta est praeside Syriae Cyrino", referring to the taking of the census (for the purpose of taxation). The basic meaning of the Latin and the English is nonetheless "described" and "description"—although a better translation might be "enrolled" in this case. An example of a more normal use is The Assembly of Ladies, ll. 512–13: "Of this lady hir beauties to discryve / My konning is to symple verily." Deor (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the OP asked for the etymology, I should have added that it is, of course, from Latin describere, "to write down". Deor (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the meanings and etymology. 64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Palatalization in English

Is it acceptable to pronounce the word “never” with a word-initial [nʲ]? --88.78.239.53 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What Not where I am (in the south of England). Algebraist 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Algebraist means "Not where I am" (based on his/her edit summary). It would sound odd to me (a Northerner) too. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any variety of North American English that would have that pronunciation. In fact, it doesn't sound like a pronunciation I would associate with any part of the world where English is spoken as a native language. That pronunciation, however, is pretty common among people whose first language was Russian or another Slavic language. I think that most native speakers perceive it as a foreign accent. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of the following words are pronounced with a word-initial [kʲ]: key, cue, coo? --88.78.228.228 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cue. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

These sound like homework questions. Check out palatalization and English phonology. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to pronounce the word “knee” with a word-initial [nʲ]? --88.78.2.122 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well a native English speaker wouldn't, if you did it would definitely mark you out as being foreign. Whether that equates to "acceptable" I really couldn't say.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Term/name for different "flavors" of a (math) denotaton?

What is the term/name for a math (or other) character/symbol that has a modification to denote a relationship to a base character symbol? The most common example is the appostrophe or "prime" to denote a function's derivative: F = function; F' = the function's derivative. Another example would be a reduction or expansion of a variable:

$\scriptstyle {{\widehat {Q}}=\arctan(\cos(M)\tan({\tilde {Q}}));\qquad \;{\tilde {Q}}=\arctan(\sec(M)\tan({\widehat {Q}}));}$

I'm not sure if it was somewheres here in Wikipedia or an 1800's book from Google.Books, but I believe the word is "s___" or "sa___" something. ~Kaimbridge~ (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In general language use, a symbol added to a letter, often to modify it, is a diacritic. For Unicode names of mathematical symbols, you can visit Code Charts, scroll down to the heading "Mathematical Symbols" in the second of four columns, and select from various charts. You might find what you are seeking. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If forced to give it a name, I would call them modifiers. Diacritic is a better word for those which are indeed diacritics, like the ${\widehat {Q}},{\tilde {Q}}$ above, but the prime symbol $f'\,$ is not a diacritic. — Emil J. 14:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

subject vs citizen

Are the people who live in Canada subjects or citizens? Googlemeister (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose in some arcane way we are subjects of the Queen, but otherwise there is normal Canadian citizenship. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they are subjects of the Queen and citizens of Canada. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In older Canadian passports( until the 1970s I think), it was written that "the holder is a British subject". This is no longer the case. --Xuxl (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be until the British Nationality Act 1981.Sussexonian (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See also History of Canadian nationality law —— Shakescene (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bird law

what does it mean to refer to something as "bird law" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.201 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Added title to question --Lesleyhood (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

In what context? --Tango (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests either a firm of lawyers from Atlanta, Georgia[17] or law relating to birds (the feathered kind).Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What does khazh mean?

What does the word khazh mean? Is it really an English word? It is used in something called a khazhsuit, which is a form of one-piece suit I think. The Great Cucumber (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean a Hazmat suit ? --Xuxl (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I have taken the word litterary from the name of the group http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/snowkhazhsuit/ The Great Cucumber (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And there is the slang term khazi, meaning lavatory. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a Warcraft character[18]. Whether he wears a one-piece suit or not I don't know!!!!Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And there is the fabric, khaki, which could certainly be used to make a one-piece suit if you wanted to. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are these guillemets?

《 》 . These are often used in Chinese (around book and movie titles, for instance), and are bigger than normal guillemets (which look like «» ). I'm just curious, is there a name for this punctuation? (Typing them in the search box just redirects to Bracket.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They are given a mention in the article on Chinese punctuation, but unfortunately there is no name given. Maybe this could be added when you find one. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unicode has "300A 《 LEFT DOUBLE ANGLE BRACKET" and "300B 》RIGHT DOUBLE ANGLE BRACKET" (http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U3000.pdf). -- Wavelength (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia has the article zh:書名號, which discusses them. Maybe someone reading this Reference Desk page can provide a translation of the most relevant information. The one interlanguage link is to the English Wikipedia article Quotation mark, non-English usage, which seems to have no mention of them. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello? 書名號 literally means book name mark, and is used around the names of books, articles, journals, music, pictures etc.F (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rusyn people

I'm trying to find a list of people capable of speaking (preferably at a native level) Carpathian Rusyn and/or Pannonian Rusyn, either ancient kings, saints, politicians, modern writers, actors... --151.51.14.218 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose most of the people listed at were able to speak, or at least understand, Rusyn. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Geographic appositives

I have a question about what you might call geographic appositives - putting a city's location immediately after its name, for example "Boston, Massachusetts", "San Francisco, California", "London, England" or "Paris, France". Is this a distinctively American thing? I ask because I often hear British people use the preposition "in" in these cases - for example, the Scottish-born talk show host Craig Ferguson will say that he's reading an email from "Springfield in Missouri" or "Toronto in Canada". --140.232.10.216 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is mainly a North American thing (not just the USA but also Canada) to use these appositives outside of postal addresses, for example in conversation. These appositives do occur in postal addresses elsewhere in the Anglosphere, but occur less commonly in sentences elsewhere, at least in Britain. Marco polo (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We do use them in Britain but they aren't needed as often since we don't duplicate place names as much as the US does. To us, "London" unambiguously refers to the British capital city, similarly with Paris. In the US there are often multiple places with the same name so specifying the state is necessary. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is about exactly how the British specify the different places. For example, if it were necessary for a Britisher Briton to distinguish Paris, Texas from any other Paris, would they tend to say "Paris, Texas" (U.S. style) or "Paris in Texas" or "Paris (the one in Texas)", or what? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Britisher? What's wrong with Briton? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, really. I've changed it now. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Any one of those could be used. The first one feels a little more formal to me. In informal speech you might hear something like "Paris (the Texas one, not the real one)" - we don't like to miss an opportunity to insult America! ;) --Tango (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The British have never been known for their warm and cordial relations with the French (and vice-versa, I hasten to add). So it's interesting that they'd opportunistically pal up with the French when it comes to a chance to insult Americans.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Paris, Illinois! Regarding Texas, your typical Texan will say, "[city name], Texas" to anyone who's not a Texan, because they like to brag about being from Texas. And you wouldn't want to hear what they would probably say about "Gay Paris" in France. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) FWIW, I'd say that - here in New Zealand, at least, but possibly elsewhere - the usual system is to use the appositive you mention but only when the place mentioned is a less well-known one either through importance/"well-knownness" (San Francisco vs San Francisco in Colombia) or through it being in this country (Hamilton vs [[Hamilton in Scotland or Hamilton, Ontario). We would talk about London (meaning the one in England), but of "London, Ontario" or "London in Canada". Oddly, it seems to be common, when needed, to refer to "Foo, X" when X is a subdividion of a country and "Foo in X" when X is a country, but that may just be me. Given that a surprising number of placenames are either unique or only have one really frequent usage, they're not used particularly often. There's seems little point in saying "Melbourne in Australia", "Los Angeles, California", or "Kathmandu in Nepal" if "Melbourne", "Los Angeles", or "Kathmandu" alone gets the point across 99.9% of the time. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue from All in the Family:

Mike: A lot of places have the same names; like Portland, Maine, and Portland, Oregon.

Gloria: Birmingham, England, and Birmingham, Alabama.

Edith: New York, New York.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, duplicate names often have a descriptive tag added: hence Newcastle-under-Lyme, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Newcastle Emlyn. In normal speach you would just say Newcastle unless you needed to clarify. You're right, I would say "in" too. Reading the para above I was thinking "Ah yes, and there's Portland in Dorset too..."Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is too far off on a tangent, but... when talking about the entire set of British islands, how common is for a place name to be exactly duplicated? I believe all US states and Canadian provinces expressly forbid exact duplication within their own borders. So, while there are many Springfields, there's only one Springfield, Illinois. What I'm getting at is that if it had been the norm for there to be a London, England and a London, Wales, and a London, Scotland, etc. that the UK would probably have adopted the same kind of pattern you see in NA. On the other hand, if it was the case that only one city on the entire set of islands could have a particular name, there'd obviously be no reason to use the comma-subregion form. Matt Deres (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

November 7

English - "Metropolis" or something else

When we talk about colonies of some centuries ago, which is the correct english word to denote the country that they depended from? For example in the Americas, England for north america, Portugal for modern Brazil, or Spain for the rest of south america. I though that "Metropolis" was the word for it, but checking the article metropolis, which is mainly about a completely different thing, it seems that such a use would be outdated for this modern one. Is there then a better word for this concept, or should I use "metropolis" anyway? MBelgrano (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of metropolis meaning anything other than a big city. It was apparently used in the way you describe in Ancient Greece, but they were all about cities and city states, so they would have come from a specific city, rather than a country. "Polis" means city or town, so it wouldn't make sense to describe a country as a metropolis. I would say "homeland". When referring to them in the context of a now independent country a common term is "former colonial power". --Tango (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Metropolis is not an incorrect term, but I think Metropole would be clearer; however it's a rather specialized term that wouldn't be apparent to those who don't study history, geography, politics or international economics at least in an amateur sort of way. See Wikipedia's article on Metropole which should give you more of the information you're seeking. You might even put a WP:disambiguation note at the top of Metropolis to save others who might be making the same search from the confusion you just encountered. ¶ As for the substance of your question, there's no single term that's in common use: there are several, which differ slightly depending on the relationship. "Mother country" applies better to the home of colonies settled by those from the mother country (e.g. Britain in relation to the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand); and "colonial power" is a term that many Americans would not accept in regard to the U.S.'s relation to Cuba, Panama, Puerto Rico or the Philippines. "Imperial power" is often accurate, but again sometimes resented by its citizens, e.g. those of Russia or China. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Who would describe the US as Cuba's colonial power? The US never colonised Cuba, it was colonised by Spain... The US took control of it later, that wasn't a colonisation. --Tango (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a commonly used neutral term for this, but "mother country" is a somewhat positive term for the relationship while "colonial masters" (referring to the people rather than the country) is a negative one. Or that's how they seem to me, anyway. --Anonymous, 03:02 UTC, November 7, 2009.

I don't think either of those really fit, though. No native would refer to the colonizing country as his/her "mother country", while no settler would use "colonial master" to describe, well, themselves. Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In Swedish we use a word which translated would be "colonial power", so that Spain would have been the colonial power of Mexico e.g. Would that be a possible word for this in English? The Great Cucumber (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin ↔ Cyrillic converter for Tatar

I want a converter between the Latin and Cyrillic orthographies for the Tatar language. --88.78.13.59 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)