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

March 24

footnotes and punctuation

Should a footnote be placed before or after punctuation? I thought it made more sense to put it before, but it looks better from an esthetic standpoint to place it after. Which one is right?flagitious 04:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

For Wikipedia. In general I'd say wherever it is the least distracting without becoming contextually confusing. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes also covers the subject in depth, and provides cross-links to other WP:MOS details. The illustrations, and usage I've seen here, indicate after punctuation. But a general guideline would be as Reisio said above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! flagitious 05:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is sometime redundant here?

In the article Marine Midland Building we cn find the statement The bomb ... was placed ... sometime during the evening. In my view, sometime during can be replaced with in. The main argument for this is that in both formulations the event is tied to the same time interval. But the word sometime seems to signal a perceived lack of preciseness. So, one version says This is the time period that the event occurred in. The other says This is the time the period that the event occured in, I think you expect me to constrain the event to a shorter time period, but I am not able to do that. My view is that in an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, we always try to provide as good information as we can and we should assume that the reader expects this. Thus the sometime is redundant in this context. Am I right in this?

Actually I think "sometime" should be in the sentence, indicating that the exact time is not known and may never be known. I think the addition of "sometime" to the sentence has added some precision and some value to the sentence. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the word "sometime" as an adverb in the past tense, for some reason, and I would always say "at some point" in order to avoid it; but that's just me. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "sometime" signaling "a perceived lack of preciseness" is precisely the point. And if the source says "sometime during the evening", that's how we should say it. It reminds me of a minor issue that arose recently where someone died "of natural causes". They wanted to simply say "died" because "of natural causes" was "too vague". But it's what the source had. It's not up to us to "improve upon" the sources with our own spin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Vowel trapezium and the Bark scale

Vowel formants of Received Pronunciation on a linear grid

RP vowel diagram

According to Ladefoged, (for example, in this book on page 130), humans don't hear vowels in a linear scale, and a vowel trapezium such as the one at right reflects vowel space such that "...frequencies are spaced in accordance with the Bark scale, a measure of auditory similarity, so that the distance between any two vowels reflects how far apart they sound." This is different from a linear formant chart like the one on the left. The latter is easy to do (for example, in microsoft excel), but I'm not sure how to convert to the trapezium. Our article Bark scale doesn't help me out in this regard. Anyone know the trick to this? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're better off using something more like the Mel scale these days than the Bark scale. The article has a link to conversion. Alternatively, converting the axes to a log scale is a reasonable substitute for most purposes (if it worked in my thesis, then you can use it too :P). Steewi (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

economically and financially active

Ann is laid off, is eligible for government aid (e.g. Jobseeker's Allowance), and stays on the dole for a few months, watching soaps. She goes onto government statistics as economically inactive. Bob is laid off, is ineligible for the same aid (perhaps he has savings), and volunteers for charitable activities, helping kids learn to read, comforting the dying at a hospice, coppicing trees on a nature reserve. Does he count as economically inactive? He is contributing, but not earning money. I see that both are financially active, in that they continue to spend money, on groceries if not on plasma screen TVs. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying that "economically active" includes those in receipt of JSA, but excludes those not receiving any form of employment-related benefit. So Bob is economically inactive but Ann isn't. The definition is not universally accepted, and the EU seems to have different definitions here, counting only people who are active in the production of goods or services. I couldn't find on a Google search a definition which included people on benefits, however, a Google search for "define economically active" does include them! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, Tammy. Economically active is defined in the EU (and also in the ILO?) as working (whether employed or self-employed) or looking for work. Ann, as a long-term, discouraged job-seeker, should be receiving some targeted help to get her back into the labour market. Bob might be well advised to take some part-time paid work alongside his volunteering so that his national insurance contributions are kept up. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We don't seem to have an article on economic activity (which redirects to economics); let alone economically inactive. It seems kind of vague, though. Any governement definitions (from any government)? Or those of NGOs? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

When I posted what I did above, I did a comprehensive Google for "economically active" which came up with many websites. Some of them were UK local authority websites: some of them were EU websites. However, there only seemed to be two real definitions in use: the EU one being the one "active in the production of goods or services". I'm sure your Google-fu will outdo mine! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Delight, opposite of de-light

A newcomer to English could easily analyse "delight" and come to the view that it means 'de-light', i.e. a removal of light, a darkening. But that's sort of the opposite of what happens to a person's face when they're delighted - it "lights up".

I'm after some other examples of this sort of thing: where the apparent meaning is the opposite of the real meaning. Any ideas? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Proscribe"? Since "pro" as a generic preposition means "in favour of", but to "proscribe" is to forbid. And indeed, to "forbid" something does not mean to be "for" it. Lfh (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this fits your request, but I was always delighted by the word "predate": to pray upon and to pre-date! --151.51.62.111 (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually to "prey upon". Saying "pray upon" would altar the meaning. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What about "until" and "unto"? They look like they should mean the opposite of "till" and "to", but instead they're synonyms of them. And "unless" doesn't mean "more"! +Angr 11:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

All good. I just thought of "denude". That should mean to clothe, but it doesn't. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

All words that start with in-, since it usually means un- but sometimes means en-. Hence inflammable doesn't mean fireproof and incrustation doesn't mean crust-removal... and inconsistent doesn't mean super-uniform. And the im- words, too: to be immortal doesn't mean to be on the verge of death, to be imprisoned doesn't mean to be set free. 213.122.38.148 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I remember an episode of Simpsons with Dr. Nick Riviera exploding a can marked "INFLAMMABLE" with a firecracker, and saying, "Inflammable means flammable? Ugh, what a country!" Kingsfold (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, depredate is the same as predate. Or maybe denominative, deprivation, disgruntled. Usually, an antibody is good for your health. --151.51.62.111 (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Some odd examples: Best is usually the antonym of worst, but they both mean to beat (as in battle), so can be synonyms. Also cleave can be the opposite of itself (to join in marriage, or to split). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 14:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the matter with "disgruntled"? Being gruntled is a good thing. 86.21.204.137 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=delight. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "ravel" and "unravel"? When I was a kid I always thought "extraordinary" was a strange word, because "extra" often means "very" but "extraordinary" does not mean "very ordinary". And, though the prescriptivists here (including me) will shudder, I've heard people use "unthaw" and "irregardless" to mean "thaw" and "regardless". —Bkell (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Irregardless of poor usage, try not to overexaggerate. :) This discussion sounds familiar, as I think the opposite meanings of "cleave" came up some months back. The explanation, typical of English, is that two different words with opposite meanings merged into one. OK, Webster time... "Extra" doesn't mean "very", it means "outside" or "beyond". "Ravel" comes from a word meaning "loose thread", and to "ravel" means to "tangle". Hence to "unravel" is to "untangle". "Disgruntle" is kind of an odd one. It comes from Middle English words "dis-" meaning "apart" (derived from the word for "two", i.e. split into two parts); and the little used "gruntle", meaning "to grunt" or "to grumble". In this case it's used to indicate "to make ill-humored or discontented". I can only guess that "grumbling" implies almost keeping silent, but when you're disgruntled, you're openly angry. "Proscribe" literally means "to write before" and is a synonym for "prohibit (in writing)". "Prohibit", in turn, means "to hold before", related to "inhibit", and from the well-known habere, "to hold" or "to have" (hence habeas corpus, etc.), so the famous expression from weddings would presumably be rendered in Latin as habere et habere. "Delight" comes from Latin words that basically mean "to allure from". That prefix "de-" has many variants, all having to do with "from", some meaning "separating from" or "not", others meaning "derived from". Hence the amusing near-opposite meanings, "delight" vs. "de-light". "Denude" is to render nude. From nudum, the Latin, via French. Interestingly, in Spanish, "nude" is desnudo, which suggests "denuded", although they use a different expression for that. In baseball, a "strike" is a swing a miss (or a called strike if you don't swing at a pitch in the strike zone). If you actually strike the ball, it could be a hit or an out, or a foul ball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts, but I've heard that if a play or movie is critiqued as a "bomb", that's a very good thing in the UK and a very bad thing in the US. Oddly enough, in the US we use "blockbuster" as a good thing, despite the fact that a "blockbuster" is a type of bomb. Also, the modern expression, "that's the bomb", meaning something good or hip or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example could be descript. Present is just the opposite (a present is usually pre-sent). Moreover, for astrophysicist antimatter does really matter... --151.51.62.111 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the comments here are verging on the material treated in the articles Auto-antonym and List of auto-antonyms in English (the latter seeming to me to stretch things a bit), which the OP may want to peruse. Deor (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And maybe find the previous reference to "cleave". Or I'll look for it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhhh... 'delight' is not 'de-light', and does not have 'light' as a root. delight is a spelling transformation of the french delitiere meaning 'to charm'. use your etymological dictionaries, people! --Ludwigs2 23:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "to allure from", as I said earlier. :) I'm also not sure "de-light" is a real word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my question, Ludwigs2, and understand the context. I was talking about someone whose knowledge of English is rudimentary and who could quite easily come to the mistaken idea that it means the opposite of "light" (v.), as de- is often used this way. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone with a rudimentary knowledge of English asked that question, I would point them to a good etymological dictionary. we are here to correct people's mistakes when they make them, not speculate on what further mistakes they might make. sorry. --Ludwigs2 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Then read my 2nd para: I'm after some other examples of this sort of thing: where the apparent meaning is the opposite of the real meaning. It's not necessarily related to what newcomers - or oldcomers, for that matter - would think; that was just an illustration of how someone might form this erroneous understanding of what "delight" means. I'm just after some other examples of the general phenomenon, and some very good ones have been provided, for which I thank the providers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The capacity for misunderstanding is literally infinite. I could just as easily ask whether kabul was named after cable television, or whether kidneys are somehow linguistically related to baby goats. --Ludwigs2 09:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, but only a very small sub-set of the set of all possible misunderstandings are words that mean the exact opposite of what someone might conceivably think they mean. A kidney is decidedly not a baby goat, but neither is it the opposite (whatever that means in this case) of a baby goat, so it doesn't fit my criteria. For the record, I was never suggesting that "de-light" is a word; I was using that as a way of showing how someone might falsely, but not unreasonably, deconstruct "delight" and in the process make 1 + 1 = 59. I'd really appreciate a more positive response to my question. If you're just going to pick it to pieces, well, that just leads to the destruction of delight. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But even in your original example of de-light, the "apparent" meaning isn't really the opposite of the actual meaning, as the apparent meaning is "darken" (or possibly "remove an animal's lungs for food"), not "make miserable". +Angr 12:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I said "sort of the opposite of what happens to a person's face when they're delighted". Sheesh! -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll just point out that if I travel to see a total solar eclipse and get the good weather I need to be able to see it properly, I'll be... delighted. --Anonymous, 00:03 UTC, March 26, 2010.

Unless, of course, if viewing conditions are ruined by bad light. :) (Funny expression that - "bad light"; it's not as if the light has done anything wrong. We should be saying "bad clouds stopped play" or "the horizon stopped play".) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We do say "bad weather". Bad light and bad weather are not moral judgments about those phenomena, they are merely "bad for us" in a particular circumstance. And not necessarily really "bad", just "inconvenient" or "unusable". (Although hurricanes and tornadoes are really bad for us, i.e. destructive.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again...

This is the one I was thinking of: [1] Meanwhile, here's a pretty similar question from around 3 years ago:[2] There are a few others also, pointing out the same oddity about "cleave", all of which I found by searching the archivers for that word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of shar, tsar etc.

I've been looking at the etymology of shah, and trying to work out if it's related to the similar words tsar, czar, etc. The former is a Persian word, whereas tsar and czar apparently come ultimately from Caeser, which also led to Kaiser. Does anyone know if the Persian word is also ultimately derived from the same source, or is the similarity coincidental? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the similarity is coincidental. As Shah#Word history explains, shah comes from the Old Persian xšāyaθiya meaning "king". It's related to Sanskrit kṣatra (see Kshatriya#Etymology). Tsar/czar comes, as you found, from Caesar, which is a Latin family name that only came to mean "emperor" because the first Roman Emperor (Caesar Augustus) happened to be named that. The family name (technically a cognomen) allegedly comes from the verb caedo "to cut" because an early member of the Caesar family was born by cesarean section, but that may be a folk etymology. +Angr 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw the derivation for the Persian word, but was wondering whether xšāyaθiya had come from the Latin (or vice versa). I wasn't aware of the caedo derivation - thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 14:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've heard another folk etymology for caesar, that it is related to "caesaries", "hairy", because one of them was particularly hirsute. Anyway, Persian and Latin are both Indo-European so there probably is a Latin word that is etymologically related. The OED says "xšāyaθiya" is related to "ktasthai" (to acquire) and "kektesthai" (to possess) in Greek (listed under ktaomai in LSJ), but I don't see any Latin equivalents...it's probably something totally unexpected. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pokorny gives derivatives of the root "kþē(i), kþə(i)" only in Indo-Iranian and Greek, so it doesn't appear that any Latin cognates are known.

Tivedshambo, there's really nothing in common between 'shah' and 'tsar', apart from the vowel; and nothing in common between "xšāyaθiya" and "caesar". --ColinFine (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

March 25

what is this study called ?

cross-posting. also posted in wikipedia / reference desk / miscellaneous, as what is this study called ?

Study about words those sound alike in different languages, how their meanings relate to each other. What is this study called ? Any reference in web ? If anything not there, please suggest me a new ?-logy. Also, what we can call if we group words based on how they sound / are pronounced / uttered. For example, we have thesaurus, for grouping words together based on their meanings. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Words that sound alike in different languages are called cognates; words that sound alike but have different meanings are called false friends.

In the same language, words that are pronounced the same (such as English "read" and "red") are called homophones. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, words (in different languages or the same language) that derive from the same earlier word are called cognates no matter how different they may be in sound (or meaning or both). -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding one more reference; consider these two words both mean the same, "Money"

• Cash (English)
• காசு (Tamil) - pronounced as kaasu

--V4vijayakumar (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two possibilities for this. One is that the Tamil word is borrowed from English (so you would call it a loanword). The other is that their similar sound is just a coincidence, and it's a false cognate.

The study of where a word comes from (which seems to be what you're asking about) is etymology. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this[3], "cash" in English is a loanword from Tamil Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the specifics of the OP's question, one might conjecture that such a study could be called "homophonics" or "homophonology". In my Webster's the closest to that is "homophony", meaning "of or pertaining to homophones". I googled both "homophonics" and "homophonology" just to see. It found nothing for "homophonics", but under "homophonology" some things turned up including this:[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the word homophonology. again, homophones are sound alike words with different meanings, but I am looking for a name for this word, "same sound and related meanings". unihomophonology ?! --V4vijayakumar (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking. Are you wondering what to call words in different languages that have similar sound and meaning? Those are generally cognates. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One example is how "ma" is a root word for "mother" in languages around the world, and also often "pa" or "ba" for father. That's covered in Mama and papa. Speaking of which, there's a little editorial comment in there about it being a "false etymology". Is it absolutely certain that languages did not develop until after humans were already dispersed around the world? Because that's what that editorial comment seems to be asserting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is really interesting to group words like this together. As I know Tamil better I am planning to start with Dravidian languages; and then I will move to other languages. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Was I on an "internship" or a "placement"?

I studied in the Netherlands on biomolecular science course which included two periods of several months work in a laboratory where we worked on projects on which we ultimately wrote-up the results. We worked unpaid. Do these periods conform to the definition of "internship", "placement" or both? Is there a difference between British and American English? ----Seans Potato Business 13:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Placement" in the UK, I'm fairly certain. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I'd say that, in Britain, a placement is a formal part of a course of study, and is organised by the college as well as the employer, while an internship is a stand-alone position that you apply for by yourself, and doesn't count towards any courses. So in that sense, you did a placement. The internship page looks pretty detailed though, so you should look there. Lfh (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Placement" is rarely used in American English--71.111.229.19 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like "internship" as we would say in the USA. The term "placement" is indeed used, but usually as part of a "placement service", an agency that helps you find a job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Be Prepared" in Latin

Resolved

A friend claims that the Scout and Guide motto, "Be Prepared", is "Exsisto Paratus" in Latin. It gets a few hits on Google in the blogs of Scouty types, but an online translator comes up with "To be prepared". Is this as good as it gets? Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Online translators for Latin are completely useless. "Exsisto" is "I exist" (or just "I am") so what you have there is an awkward way of saying "I am prepared". If you want to use that verb in the imperative (which is what "be prepared" is, I guess), then it is "exsiste" (singular) or "exsistite" (plural), or "exsistito" or "exsistitote" (singular and plural in the future imperative). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't use exsisto anyway, but sum. The singular present imperative of that is es, but I think the future imperative esto is more likely. I suppose you could also use the passive imperative of paro, namely parare (identical in form to the active infinitive), but I suspect that can only mean "be prepared" if you're talking to your dinner or something like that. Para teipsum would be "prepare yourself". +Angr 15:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to use "esto" there, "es" could be imperative if you were making a verb table or something, but it would never actually be used that way. Another option is "paremur", "let us be prepared", but that might be moving a little too far from the intended meaning. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of organizations use semper paratus. It literally means "always prepared", so it's not an exact translation, but it means the same thing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Using "always" also coincides with some of the translations used in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, German, and other languages too. See Scout Motto in various languages (Latin, semper parata included for Brazilian Girl Scouts). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, one and all. I forgot Wikipedia has an article for everything. Semper Paratus has an elegant ring to it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another candidate: Parare (passive imperative). —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun and the sake of formalism, can anyone come up with a Latin approximation using the initials B.P.? B_____ Paratus / B_____ Parata"? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bene paratus? ("Well prepared") Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple and effective. Bene done! ---Sluzzelin talk 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "If I would be rich I would buy a car." correct  ?

Hello you all English speakers, all over the world. Here are some questions from a Froggy for whom the sentence in the title sounds awful because the equivalent sentence in French is "Si je serais riche j'achèterais une voiture." and this French sentence, though it can be more and more heard, is more than a mistake it is an error of thought. I must specify that we already met such sentences written by English speakers. So could you tell me which ones of the following sentences are correct or nearly correct and which ones are uncorrect.

S1) If I would be rich I would buy a car.

S2) If I was rich I would buy a car.

S3) If I were rich I would buy a car.

Personnally, the S2) is closer to a French sentence so sounds more logical to my ears but a friend of mine who teaches English told me that the only correct one is the S3). If two or more of these sentences are correct, we are also interested in knowing the differences of meaning. I thank you very much for your kind attentiveness. Jojodesbatignoles-Rheims-France---82.216.68.31 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

S3 is correct as this sentence requires the subjunctive form of the verb. However, you will likely hear S2 colloquially, and I doubt you'd hear S1 from a native speaker. (That's my Canadian perspective). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Flyguy. Unlike French, English often uses the subjunctive for these, but in informal speech it doesn't have to (i.e., S2, which is roughly the same as French si j'étais riche j'acheterais une voiture). S3 is prescriptively correct, but S2 is also quite common. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with the above. S1 sounds like something I'd hear from a non-native speaker. S3 sounds normal to me; S2 sounds either uneducated or British. (American English is more likely to use the subjunctive were than British English is.) +Angr 16:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I say - "uneducated or British" is not terribly flattering is it? In the UK too, S3 is correct and S2 can be heard colloquially. I would also put a comma after "rich". Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on if there's the same emphasis on prescriptive grammar on this point in the UK as in the US. But S2 is so common in the US (though I don't use it) that it might pass unnoticed. kwami (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

S2 is very common in the UK too. Most people probably only learnt it was incorrect by watching Doctor Who (the Doctor corrects someone that uses the equivalent of S2 in The Sontaran Stratagem). --Tango (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the relative rarity of S1. I hear it, and see it here and elsewhere, all the time; typically from young people, typically Americans but not exclusively, and generally native speakers. And here's proof. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example from today - [5], last sentence. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not every anomalous use of 'would' is parallel to S1. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The couple of sources I looked at online (such as here and here with a cute cartoon at the bottom) make it clear to me that you say "If I was..." when you are trying to make a conditional statement about concrete things, and you use "if I were..." when you are trying to make a conditional statement about hypothetical things, though I suppose people are often casual about that distinction. for instance, you'd say "If I was rude to you (when I did that), I apologize" to talk about some actual thing which is being interpreted the wrong way, but you'd say "If I were rude to you (hypothetically speaking), I would apologize" to talk about some thing which (in your mind) never really happened, but could. There's a lot of gray area there, though. --Ludwigs2 17:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a parallel to Ludwigs2's comment in the way French is often taught in the U.S., though it has more to to with likelihood than with whether something's concrete or hypothetical:

Je t'aiderais si je pouvais. = "I would help you if I could" (with the implication "but I can't, so I won't").

S'il parlait espagnol, il s'habituerait à la vie mexicaine. = "If he spoke Spanish, he would get used to Mexican life" (but he doesn't speak it, so he isn't getting used to it).

The explanation in the text I consulted is that when the outcome is unlikely, French uses an imperfect/conditional pairing for the if/then structure. When the outcome is likely, the "if" uses the present and the outcome is present, imperative, or future:

Quand il pleut, nous restons chez nous. = When it rains, we stay home.

Si tu as le temps, viens me voir. = If you have the time, come see me.

Si Charles s'en va, les LeBlanc se fâcheront. == If Charles leaves, the LeBlancs will get angry.

I'd like to hear the OP's correct version for the original example; my assumption is that it should be Si j'étais [imperfect] riche, j'achêterais une voiture. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello dear "OtherDave", I'm the OP (I've just learnt what means OP!). Your proposal for the French correct sentence is for the most part all correct except the "achêterais" that must be written "achèterais". In case of trouble for French spelling + pronounciation + accents especially for conjugation I recommend this on line dictionary CNRTL that contains many other dictionaries. Thank you for all your answers and explainations. The OP-Jojodesbatignoles-Rheims-France---82.216.68.31 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some resources about English for speakers of French.

• Apprendre l'anglais en ligne gratuitement, cours anglais, British Council France (for French speakers)
• Anglais en ligne - ABA English
• e-Anglais.com: cours d'anglais, exercices, tests, ressources, grammaire

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Merci, Jojodesbatignoles. Sorry about the error; it wasn't misspelling so much as presbyopia. --- OtherDave (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

S3 is correct. S1 doesn't really work. S2 is colloquial; proper phrasing would be, "If I was rich, I would have bought a car. There's a song from Fiddler on the Roof that matches the hypothesis. I got this by googling for the song lyrics, which obviously contains some [nonsense words]. "I'd" is short for "I would", hence this matches S3:

If I were a rich man,

[Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.]

All day long I'd [biddy biddy bum.]

If I were a wealthy man.

I wouldn't have to work hard.

[Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.]

If I were a [biddy biddy] rich,

[Yidle-diddle-didle-didle] man.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example...

"If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,

I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base.

And speed glum heroes up the line to death.

You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,

Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,

Reading the Roll of Honour. ‘Poor young chap,’

I’d say—‘I used to know his father well;

Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.’

And when the war is done and youth stone dead,

I’d toddle safely home and die — in bed. (Siegfried Sassoon (1886–1967)[6]. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

bugs, if we now get a question about the etymology of "Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum", I'm going to shoot you. --Ludwigs2 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone has already dealt with this meaning above, then I apologize: the "if I would be rich" does have a use, I think. "If I would be rich, then I would not buy a car, but rather an appreciating asset. If I would be poor, then I would buy a car." I believe that is all both correct and meaningful. Bielle (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I've never heard anyone say it. Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The conditional present section of the article on English verbs says with apparent approbation that "the traditional rule" is not to put "would" in the "if" clause. Apparently Benjamin Franklin was unaware of this tradition, or discarded it as he did many others, when he wrote sentences like these:

• If you would keep your secret from an enemy, tell it not to a friend.
• If you would be reveng'd of your enemy, govern yourself.
• If you would reap praise you must sow the seeds, gentle words and useful deeds.

This is a common pattern in Poor Richard's Almanac: if you would (want to) do/have/become X, do Y. I read Bielle's examples in a similar way: "If I want to be rich, I will not buy a car." I'd guess this form in contemporary writing is archaic, or at least very dustily didactic. In speech, other than in a period play, it's a harmless trip back to before the war--of 1812. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

March 26

Accent question

Every time I hear Jeremy Clarkson say the word "Michigan" on Top Gear, he pronounces the first syllable like the first syllable of the name "Mitchell". Is this just a(nother) slight at Americans or do people with his accent regularly pronounce it that way? Dismas|^(talk) 04:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, I somehow doubt it's meant as a slight. The pronuncations of English words are notoriously unpredictable from their spellings, and non-USians have to keep in mind an even more arcane set of rules for the pronunciation of American place names. Such as:

• Arkansas does not rhyme with Kansas
• Connecticut starts out as /connet-/
• Los Angeles is not pronounced the way Victoria de los Ángeles said her surname
• and various others.

Sounding out Michigan, Chicago and some others exactly as spelt is not a hanging offence. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Arkansas the state (AR-kan-saw) doesn't even rhyme with Arkansas the river (ar-KAN-zas). Then there's the state of Missouri, some of whose residents pronounce it mi-ZUR-ee and some pronounce it mi-ZUR-uh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And some residents pronounce it "misery", which is actually a pretty accurate reflection of what life there must be like! rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And some pronounce Illinois (ill-i-noy) as "ill-i-noyz". Hence the corrective and ironic expression, "there's no 'noise' in Illinois". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Michigan article indicates that it's a Frenchified spelling, which accounts for the confusion. The Indian name is transliterated as "Mishigama", but the French pronounce "ch" like "sh", hence they spelled it "ch". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a slight. The standard pronunciation of Michigan in the UK - and in many Commonwealth countries - is with a hard ch as in Mitchell. It's no more a slight than when Americansregularly mispronounce the (UK) city names of Birmingham and Derby. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) In my experience as a fellow Brit (though not otherwise wishing to identify with Mr Clarkson), "Mitchigan" is the way I and most other Brits automatically pronounce it, with no notion that this might be considered a "slight." Given that the name is not one likely to occur very frequently in British discourse, the mispronunciation may be due to a common misassumption based on the spelling ("Mich-" words being rare in English and usually pronounced "Mick-" or "Mike-", never "Mish-"), or it may have been promulgated by someone influential in the past and stuck. Also bear in mind that part of Clarkson's schtick is to aim slightly ridiculous insults at virtually everyone and everything, and is not intended to be taken seriously (you do realise he is in part a comedian?) Brits are not generally inclined to go out of their way to slight America or Americans except in retaliation or when it otherwise seems justified - or no more so than for any other foreigners, anyway - but as stated this would not register in the British mind as an insult in the first place. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Michelin Tires - which I suspect is also a French derivation - "MISH-lin" or "MISH-e-lin", whichever it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also the bigger picture: there's hardly a country that doesn't have places the names of which non-locals regularly mispronounce. The capital of Queensland is not Briz-bayn as many Americans would have it, but Briz-bən; the capital of Victoria is not Mel-born, but Mel-bən. Even within this country, people get names wrong: Tasmanians pronounce Launceston as /lon-/, not /lawn-/, but most other Aussies fail to follow suit. And the capital of China has changed from Peiping to Peking to Beijing, but still not anywhere really close to how the locals say it. Is this a "slight" on the part of the rest of the world? Surely not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the fact we call Deutschland by the antiquated name "Germany". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a legend about Australian tourists visiting Loughborough (Luffborruh) and pronouncing it "Loogahboroogah". 213.122.41.91 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And the legend about the foreign businessman in London trying to reach "Hig-hug-atty" when they were looking for "Highgate", pronounced "High-gate". Legends are rife. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

America is full of names that we regularly, but innocently, mangle in Britain. "Cali-for-nee-a", "Lass Vegas", "Los Annjel-eez", etc. It's not meant to be insulting, we just don't know any better. Lfh (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam Yorty, the former Mayor of Los Angeles, was notorious for pronouncing the name as AN-juh-leez. He was always berated for it, but never changed. Woogee (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that most of the state names have non-English etymologies, I doubt that those are pronounced anything like the originals; see List of U.S. state name etymologies. Even in Virginia, we have to have a pronunciation guide.[7] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It works both ways. Like why do they say "Worcester" as "Wooster"? Or "Thames" as "Temz"? Or "Ralph" as "Rafe"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking your question seriously, Bugs, it's because, as with most languages, various pronunciations have evolved over the decades and centuries, but spelling change was greatly slowed by the introduction and use of of printing, so spellings lag behind. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that people who pronounce 'Ralph' as 'Rafe' in the UK today are limited to those who know HMS Pinafore. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Or are referring to RVW. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Ralph Fiennes?--达伟 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I would like to clear up one thing, namely that I was not offended by the way he pronounced Michigan. Nor am I offended by anything he says against America. I simply take it as either humor/humour or his opinion and that's that. He makes fun of so many American things that I just didn't know if there was a joke that I wasn't getting. Thanks for the responses, I've learned something today. Dismas|^(talk) 21:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish translation question

Which is correct Spanish for "I have lost my dove":

1. He perdido mi paloma
2. Yo perdido mi paloma

Or is there a third, better, translation? If it makes any difference, I'm using the term dove figuratively to refer to a woman.

Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha? 06:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

2 is ungrammatical in Spanish (just as ungrammatical as saying "I taken a pill" in English). 1) looks like a correct translation to me. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Grutness...wha? 08:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In some versions of Spanish (such as Caribbean Spanish), pronouns tend to be included in most utterances rather than implied by the verb. So in these versions of Spanish, the usual way of saying this would be Yo he perdido mi paloma. But even Caribbean speakers would recognize #1 as correct and #2 as incorrect. Marco polo (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Does "He perdido mi paloma" not need the personal a? 173.66.150.151 (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this site, the personal a is used with animals when "personal feelings" are attached to it. Since in this case the "dove" is actually a woman, I'd say "...a mi paloma" is probably right. -Elmer Clark (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Even better. Would the "Caribbean Spanish" that uses "yo he" include Mexico? That is, in Mexican Spanish would "Yo he perdido a mi paloma" be the most acceptable form? Grutness...wha? 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Mexico would not be included in the "Caribbean Spanish" description. Both forms are acceptable, but a native speaker in most Spanish-speaking countries (possibly excluding the Caribbean) would only mention the pronoun if there was confusion or for contrast. For example, if someone said they had lost their turtle and you wanted to mentioned that you had lost your dove, you would include the pronoun, probably pronounced with emphasis, as an English speaker would: "Yo he perdido a mi paloma" (I have lost my dove.) And as user Elmer Clark mentioned above, the "a" mentioned is used when we a person is the direct object, never objects or animals (IMO). This case, if referring to a person, would likely be the exception. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 15:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I am not a native Spanish-speaker, but have lived in Mexico for several years. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

United States Census 2010 slogan

Why does the US Census uses the slogan "It's in our hands" and the phrase "You count!"? What does it mean? WJetChao (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be to encourage people to participate. As with voting, the poor are often underrepresented because of the self-fulfilling prophecy that their vote doesn't mean anything. The first one is an old expression, "in our hands" or "in your hands" means empowerment. "You count" is a play on words, since a census is a process of counting the citizenry, and to "count" is colloquial for "to be significant". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict -- Hi, Bugs) I don't know what their ad agency had in mind, but here's my take:

• "Our" implies a shared responsibility (as in, we Americans through our responses create the census; it's not something we passively leave to the government).
• "In our hands" figuratively means "it's up to us," with a sense that "we have the ability to make this happen." Meanwhile, you'll literally have your copy of the census form in your hands when you take it out of your mailbox.
• "You count" likewise has multiple meanings: you can do the counting (the count of people in your household), and you matter (your inclusion is important for an accurate census).

--- OtherDave (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "You count" is a pun, in which count can mean "to ennumerate" - the census literally counts people - or "to have importance" - the Census Bureau would like to give the impression that every individual return matters to them. "It's in our hands" is, I think, another pun - the census form is literally "in your hands" (especially as every household in the US has to complete a physical form - it can't be completed online), and it is also part of the democratic process, which puts the country's governance "in your hands" to some degree. I don't think you should try to read too much into these slogans - maybe the Census Bureau used the same copywriters who thought up our own infamous "Wikipedia Forever" slogan. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the same agency that came up with "There's an Edsel in your future"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not trying "to give the impression that every individual return matters to them"; they're trying to remind people that responding to the census is important because the count determines how much federal money will find its way back to their own communities. Deor (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Also that census data won't ever get them thrown in jail, y'know, for the most part. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The internment camps weren't exactly jails. And we were at war. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Unless we get into a war with Mexico, identifying people as Hispanic and/or Black doesn't seem like a potential problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure no one said that about Japan before WWII :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The modern equivalent would be asking someone if they're Muslim. The 2010 census has no questions about religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It has questions about race, and "japanese" isn't a religion. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The data hierarchy here is first, Address; second, names of people living at that address. For this reason, kids away at college are supposed to report that they are citizens of the school's community (and their parents are NOT to list them on their "home" form).

Locally, I understand one of the concerns -- one of the things that might be "discovered" by the census -- is that there are too many people living at an address, and that The Man will come after them when he finds out.

Whatever reasons Representative Bachman trumpets for not filling in the form completely -- please ignore her.

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Bachmann is good evidence that anyone can get elected to Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While that might be true, Bugs, some on the left and some on the right are afraid of the the census--see the comments about Japanese internment above...so the skeptics or alarmists exists on both sides of the spectrum--达伟 (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and if they end up under-represented they will have only themselves to blame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers to "What if I provide false information?" (fines) "Do I have to fill the form in?" (yes), and "Who sees my information?" (only Census people, not even the CIA/FBI, by law) can be found on the Census FAQNo I do not work for the Census or the government in any way--达伟 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Statements which mean their opposite

What do you call statements which mean their opposite? An example would be a sign stating "Drug dealers unwelcome": I doubt that the sign would be there if this were literally true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.68.101 (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It means that to the people who put the sign up, although they are likely to be welcome by others. StuRat (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, the "Ministry of Peace" makes war and the "Ministry of Truth" spreads lies. The term "double-speak" has been used to describe this practice, although it can also refer to any intentionally confusing speech. (They didn't call it that in the book, but use of terms like "double-plus ungood", to mean "evil", led to that name.) StuRat (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Whereas in a typical modern democracy wars are made by the "Ministry of Defense", which is quite different.—Emil J. 13:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be where Orwell got the idea, don'cha know. He wasn't talking about 1984, he was taking 1948 and exaggerating it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Other examples would be "There are no right or wrong answers", "I won't judge you", and "This is not an offer of prostitution".

If someone simply says something they know to be untrue, that would be a "lie". StuRat (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to statements that are always (or at least usually) lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.68.101 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the assumption that "Drug Dealers Unwelcome" means they are welcome. It could well mean, "We've got a gun and we know how to use it", similar to the implication of a "No Trespassing" sign. Can you think of some other examples? Although I think "doublespeak" is probably the right answer. Another example would be the Soviet newspaper called Pravda ("truth"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean an oxymoron? "a figure of speech that combines normally contradictory terms".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a word that's self-contradictory, but he's asking about a commonly-used word or phrase or sentence that's not self-contradictory, but just plain not true. A humorous example could be the sign supposedly posted on the visiting team clubhouse at Tiger Stadium: "No Visitors Allowed". That's not intentionally false, it's just not thinking before writing. A vague example of the latter could be the Bayeux Tapestry. It's not a tapestry, it's an embroidery. And Cape Cod is not a Cape, it's a peninsula (or an island now, technically). But I don't think that's quite what he's getting at either. That's why I asked him for further exhibits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's a commonly known stock phrase which does not mean the same as the literal meaning of the component words, it's an idiom. If the meaning is directly opposite of its literal meaning, and was made so explicitly by the writer/speaker to express contempt, it's sarcasm. If there is a difference between a simply interpreted meaning and a deeper underlying meaning, it may be classed as irony (depending on how the person doing the classifying interprets irony, and how persnickety they are about the precise definition of irony). Oxymoron, as mentioned, is a two part phrase where the literal meaning of the two parts are in contradiction. And finally, if the statement is opposite from the actual facts, and was done so to deceive, it's a lie, but if it was done so unintentionally, it's an error. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"This is not an offer of prostitution" would, I assume, be a legal or moral loophole? "I won't judge you" is deception if it's untrue, but I'm not sure why it is assumed that a sentence like this would usually be untrue. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"I am committed to be with you and look after you and make you my number one priority (or whatever) till death us do part", while the ink on their pre-nuptial agreement is hardly dry. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." (old cliched example) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps OP was referring to statements (written or spoken) that people assert when in fact they intend to do the opposite. This may be intended as a form of legal protection (though presumably most are only guises or ploys to appear "legal"). For example, if you know a friend wants to burn a copy of a CD/DVD you own, you might hand it to him or her and say, "Remember it's illegal to save a copy of this on your computer," when you know full well they intend to copy it -- you're merely doing so as to have an excuse or to create the appearance of obeying the law...--71.111.229.19 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks more like an example of CYA than a self-contradictory statement. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

бакалжан

In the article Plautdietsch bockelzhonn is mentioned as Russian or Ukrainian loan meaning tomato, without any reference. But the Russian and Ukrainian words for tomato are томат and помідор. So I looked for references and couldn't find any clear reference. I found a reference to a Russian word that is latinized as bakalzan. I tried to cyrillize that and found that the word бакалжан exists and is used in recipes (although it seems to be a rare word). But as I don't speak Russian I cannot find any site that clearly verifies that бакалжан means tomato. Can somebody who speaks Russian verify this? --::Slomox:: >< 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Baklazhan is aubergine/ eggplant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.155.176 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Second that. Note also that in your original request the word is misspelled.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2010; 19:48 (UTC)

This Russian-language web page from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in the Turkish Republic shows a recipe which includes among its ingredients both "Помидоры" and "Бакалжан". -- Wavelength (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The English article en:Eggplant is linked to the Russian article ru:Баклажан. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My Google search for both spellings together reported 20 results. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The word seems to exist and it refers to a tomato. Plautdietsch speakers seem to agree that it's from either Russian or Ukrainian descent. And that's plausible cause it's not from English descent nor Low German. So Russian/Ukrainian is the only remaining plausible source. What Slavic word else could be the source? Is there any chance that the name of the eggplant was transferred to the tomato in some Southern Ukrainian dialect? --::Slomox:: >< 00:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Such a transferral seems possible. The Italian word pomodoro ("tomato") means literally "apple of gold". The French expression pomme de terre ("potato") means literally "apple of earth". The Dutch word sinaasappel ("orange") means "Chinese apple". See also Ketchup#Eggplant sauce. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

But it seems more likely to me that it was the Mennonites who took the Russian word for eggplant/aubergine and applied it to a different vegetable. Баклажан refers to the eggplant in both Russian and Ukrainian; so does Polish bakłażan, Czech baklažán and Lithuanian baklažanas. Regardless of what some websites like this one, which both misspells and mistranslates the word, might say — Kpalion^(talk) 01:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to the earlier answers, my Russian etymological dictionary both gives this word (Баклажан) and says that its etymology is not Slavic, but from Arabic badinjan via Turkic patlydan. I dunno about Ukrainian, but that language has a few Turkic loanwords not found in Russian, possibly under influence of the Crimean Tatars or the Ottomans, so it may well be from there originally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.172.243 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is - but Chinese for "tomato" literally means "foreign eggplant". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Japanese characters

A year or so ago, I put some Japanese characters in my Wikipedia signiture, but not being particularly good at reading or writing Japanese, I really don't remember what it says. Instead of going to google translator, I'll just ask here: what does it say in my signiture and is the phrase correct grammar-wise (if it's not, what should it say) ? I believe it has to do with something about man becoming God. If it's unclear what I'm trying to say, just guess  : ] thanks  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 19:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it says "The man who has become a god". I think it is grammatically correct (if a little archaic), but my Japanese is very rusty, so someone else will have to help out. Steewi (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly OK and there's nothing archaic. Oda Mari (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

More accurately, it means "The person who became a god". 人間 is a gender-free noun, simply meaning 'person'. Also, 'has become' would be more like 「・・・になっている」, in the sense that the person is still a god. 「・・・になった」 is simple past tense and only refers to the act of becoming a god (which happened in the past, and may or may not have been 'fixed'). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

March 27

April fools help required.

I'm trying to get the statement: "Did you know...that the citizens of Picoazá elected foot powder as their Mayor." onto the Wikipedia front page for April 1st (see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know). Sadly the article on Picoazá is too short to qualify for DYK - so I have to find something interesting and relevant to say about the place to pad the article out some. I've found a reference to the history and traditions of the place - but it's in Spanish. Google translate makes an incomprehensible mush out of it:

http://www.picoaza.galeon.com

I don't need a full translation - but if someone could glean a half-dozen interesting/relevant facts about the town from those two pages, it would make a great reference for the article.

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading a poem in New Yorker

Summer Evening by the Window with Psalms is the poem. Here's the first stanza:

Close scrutiny of the past.
How my soul yearns within me like those souls
in the nineteenth century before the great wars,
like curtains that want to pull free
of the open window and fly.

What does the first line mean? --117.204.92.194 (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the past very, very closely, as if with a magnifying glass, as per this definition: [8] --TammyMoet (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, stop (close as verb) scrutinizing the past?--117.204.87.114 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

it's a poem: you get from it what you get from it. without looking at the rest of the poem it's hard to tell, but my sense would be that it's meant as 'careful' not as 'shut'.--Ludwigs2 16:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A poem isn't something imprecise, although imprecision may be a property of some poems. I don't think a poem, or any other work of art, should be understood to be taking a scattershot approach to its own meaning, although there certainly are certain works of art that endeavor to do just that — have their "meaning" arrived at randomly. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A poem is a form of communication. It is written by the poet who (if he is good) uses sophisticated constructions of language to express subtle points, and read by others who interpret those subtleties within the bounds of their own understanding. In a perfect word there would be a 1:1 correspondence between intended expressions and interpreted understanding, but that doesn't even work for the simplest of prose. Ambiguity is not randomness, and the 'art' of poetry lies in the struggle with that ambiguity. And wow, I need some frigging coffee. --Ludwigs2 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree with 117 and not with Ludwigs that "close scrutiny" could and probably does have a double-meaning; double-meanings in the first line of a poem are probably deliberate. In this case, however, the poem is translated from Hebrew, and it seems extremely unlikely that the close/close meanings could have a parallel in Hebrew. On the other hand, the word "shade" in the line "how many valleys of the shadow of death do we need to be a compassionate shade in the unrelenting sun" could very well be an intelligent translation of a Hebrew word that implies both "ghost" and "shadow." As for "close scrutiny," the narator seems to be reading the Bible carefully while thinking of those like Herzl who wanted a homeland for the Jews in an era of violent pogroms -- and so is scrutinizing the Psalms while considering early Zionists, who presumably read the Psalms, too. 63.17.63.71 (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Letter

Hello Everyone,

What is this weird first letter in the title of this article Æthelred the Unready and how do you pronounce it?

Thanks in advance, 89.211.217.89 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Æ Algebraist 12:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that in British spelling, it's sometimes used where an "e" is used in American spellings, such as in encyclopædia and pædophile. I pronounce it like "ay". StuRat (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then you're saying it wrong. "Encyclopedia" is pronounced the same way no matter whether you spell it with -pedia, -paedia, or -pædia. Likewise with the "oe" ligature as in fetus, foetus, or fœtus. This is no doubt why American English normally uses the plain E spelling for both. --Anonymous, 20:19 UTC, March 27, 2010.

I've heard the British say both words, on BBC News, and it sure sounds like "ay" to my American ears. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This quote is from the article Algebraist linked to "In Old English, the ligature was used to denote a sound intermediate between those of a and e (IPA [æ]), very much like the short a of cat in many dialects of modern English." I agree with Sturat about the usual pronunciation. Richard Avery (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the unfortunate Æthelred doesn't enter into everyday speech often in the UK, when he does, rightly or wrongly his name is usually usually pronounced like Ethel. Alansplodge (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

He's pretty commonly spelt Ethelred, too. Algebraist 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of the character æ or Æ is "ash" if you're talking about old English; in the modern Scandinavian languages it's a letter in its own right, so Æ is its name; and when talking about it in modern English, you can say "a-e ligature". --Anonymous, 20:20 UTC, March 27, 2010.

Keep in mind, though, that in general an æ you happen upon could be a distinct letter or merely a stylistic ligature. More at typographic ligature#Letters_and_diacritics_originating_as_ligatures. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, Æthelred is normally rendered as Ethelred, but Æthelstan as Athelstan, despite the first halves of their respective names being the same. Something to do with the nice qualities of the rhyme with the last syllables I assume. 92.4.74.144 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One satirical writer, and I can't recall if it was Will Cuppy or Richard Armour, mentioned several letters invented by the Romans "which were later dropped because no one could pronounce them." Given the many ways to pronounce this one, as per the discussion in its article, Armour/Cuppy was onto something: long a; short a; long e; short e; dipthong. Oy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They were probably on to the Claudian letters. Matt Deres (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Derivation of term

I'm looking for the derivation of the term 'executor'. I guess 'ex' means out, but what does 'cutor' mean? --79.76.129.127 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's "one who executes" (where execute means "to carry out"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha! 'exsequar' is the original latin verb. Does 'sequar' mean follow?--79.76.129.127 (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual Latin verb "to follow" is sequi. As per Webster's, ex- means "out of"; and the rest of it, in its various forms, comes from sequi, "to follow". It started as exsequi, and evolved to exsecutio(n). At some point the 's' was dropped. The "to follow" part is basically the second half of any given action: The first half is deciding what to do, the second is actually doing it: Planning vs. Execution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And as the OP may be leading up to, both "ex-" and "sequi" are fairly diverse roots. Many words begin with "ex-"; and "sequi" appears in words such as "sequel", "sequence", "subsequent", "sequitur", "consequence". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if the Latin root for "second" was also related. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"To follow" in Latin is sequi, in Italian is seguire, in Spanish is seguir and in French is suivre. The English verb form of the Latin root is "to sequence", which seems to have come directly from Medieval Latin into Middle English, hence it looks more like the Latin word than the French word. "Follow" itself comes from the same Germanic root as "folgen", and the various German words for "execute" are more than I feel like getting into here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "secundus" is also from the same seq- root (as is its own derivative word "secundum", "according to"). With the ex- prefix, a word beginning with S usually loses it; you could see "exsequor" in Latin, but not as often as "exequor". By the way, that word does have a narrower meaning of "carry out a punishment", which is one sense that has survived into English. But it mostly means following through, completing anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As, for example, a manager calling for a bunt, and the batter either succeeding or failing to execute the bunt properly. And, yes, technically an execution means carrying out a death sentence, with the meaning having transferred to the prisoner himself, which is technically incorrect, but that's English for ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could do that in Latin too, so that's not new. (By the way, I screwed up above, it's more common to see "exsequor" than "exequor" in Latin...I must have been thinking of some other combination.) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You could do what in Latin too, "execute" a prisoner? — Note that for intelligent software the ultimate penalty would be nonexecution. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, yes, that too, but I meant transfer the meaning of a word like English does. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any transfer of meaning in the case of judicial killings. The person who carries out any order executes it. Where the order is to kill a convicted prisoner, the executioner still carries out the order, and the prisoner is the recipient of the action. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So would you accept "execute the prisoner" as describing the carrying-out of a non-lethal sentence? —Tamfang (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but I've just cottoned on to what Bugs was saying. I strongly suspect this particular transference of meaning from the authority to take an action (the order) to the ultimate recipient of the action (the prisoner) is not just confined to English. -- (JackofOz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly could have said it more clearly. "Execute" means "carry out", so substitute it and it makes sense. The sentence is "carried out". The prisoner is killed by the carrying out of the sentence. The dead prisoner is also "carried out", on a gurney, but that's different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I got it now. There's a term for this sort of transference - meta-something or something-osis or something vaguely resembling something vaguely like that. Or not -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 28

Does anyone know the meaning of ....

Does anyone know the meaning of the French phrase "à la venue des cocquecigrues."

The English translation I have is About the coming of the cocklicranes

The phrase comes from Gargantua by Rabelais

I think it might be something like "when hell freezes over" in the sense of never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.222.9 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That phrase is all over google, and your literal translation is correct. A "cocklicrane" is a fictitious creature, presumably part-chicken and part-crane. "When hell freezes over" would be one way to put it. A close English equivalent might be, "When pigs fly." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Correct answers. I'm French. I checked, Rabelais created this word in 1534. It means a non existent bird. In this phrase it means never.Jojodesbatignole-Rheims-France---82.216.68.31 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian newspaper published in the UK

Is there a Russian-language paper published in London called (something like) Russkiy Misl'? I've googled it but not found anything, so the transliteration I remembered must be badly wrong. I'm beginning to learn Russian language, and someone told me this paper is a good way to practice reading. The papers I have found are Angliya (http://www.angliya.com/) and London Courier (http://www.russianuk.com/) so I will try reading them! Thanks everyone :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.13.107 (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Russkaya Mysl' (Русская Мысль, "Russian Thought"). You almost got it right, except that mysl' is feminine, not masculine, so the adjective must be feminine as well. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Robespierre (Or the "Incorruptable")

The WP article Robespierre has an epithet on the subject

(Or the "Incorruptable")

Since it is in quotes I want to confirm its validity. The correct spelling of course is Incorruptible. Why this anomaly is not explained in the article.--117.204.81.64 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It was most likely a spelling mistake. I removed it from the infobox altogether, as it's just a nickname. It's still in the lead, correctly spelled. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly a nickname he was often known by, particularly in english by Thomas Carlyle from his The French Revolution: A History as "the sea-green incorruptible" of which there is a discussion here, although as to if he was actually incorruptible is debatable. meltBanana 15:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Swedish island toponyms

Most "-holm-" islands in and around Stockholm end in "-holmen" (Kungsholmen, e.g.). Then there are rarer examples ending in "-holme" (Reimersholme) or "-holma" (Arholma). What is the linguistic explanation for these varieties? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Swedish grammar#Articles and definite forms gives at least part of the answer. --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It explains that the frequently occurring "-holmen" must be in its definite form. I still don't understand the variety or how "-holme" and "-holma" fit in. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right answer, but the indefinite form in Reimersholme might be due to the way it got its name: the island is named after a particular man called Reimers, and to my ear that, and the genitive, would require the word "holme" to take the indefinite form, as in Sergels torg vs. Hötorget, or Olof Palmes gata vs *Palmegatan. It's also a pretty recent name (1798, according to Swedish Wikipedia).--Rallette (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with North Germanic languages, but I guess many such variants might stem from the fact that language and orthography are not uniform over space and time. If you can't find explanations in 21st-century standard Swedish grammar, those may be dialectal or older forms. 84.46.65.115 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The indefinite/definite distinction for "holme"/"holmen" is correct (I speak Norwegian, not Swedish, but I do not think there is any difference between the languages on this account). This presumably authoritative dictionary has "holma" (and "holm") as archaic variants (if I have not misunderstood the abbreviations in the explanation). Jørgen (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Word for being taken in by your own phony image

Is there a word meaning something like "pretender" or "masquerader" with the particular implication that the person is fooling himself and believes in the image he projects? Best I can think of is pseud, but that tends to apply to writers and artists (not, say, a doctor or a politician), and the implication of self-deceit isn't very strong. 213.122.27.130 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a Walter Mitty character, although I'm not sure that's exactly what you're after. Mikenorton (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It only seems to describe harmless fantasists, not the dangerous ones, but that's not bad, thanks. Come to think of it "fantasist" is pretty good, but it implies the deluded person never does anything much. Doesn't fit very well with an insane dictator. I may be asking too much seeking a word that covers all the bases. 213.122.27.130 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Delusions of grandeur? A legend in his own mind? Believing one's own lies? To tell a lie so often that you begin to believe it yourself? Unrealistic self-assessment? I know — these are not single words. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Megalomaniac? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-delusion ? StuRat (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Believing one's own press clippings" is sometimes used for public figures. In the last chapter of The Way of the Weasel, Scott Adams states that while we're weaselly with others, we are also weaselly with ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Amour-propre 63.17.64.4 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rold?

What is rold?174.3.113.245 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A typo of roll ? StuRat (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a typo or something. I removed it. If anybody disagrees I will stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit the content of other people's posts like that, even if they are anonymous. And, in this case, it makes the link provided by the Original Poster useless for others trying to determine the meaning. So, I undid it. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes — I'm sorry. I wasn't aware I was editing on the Reference desk. I thought it was an article! Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Rold" is not a word in any language I can find. (Although Rold Gold comes to mind, I don't think food counts.) In other words, going to Google and typing "define:rold" only gives a Dutch Wikipedia article on a place in Denmark. Perhaps our anonymous friend meant "roll"? At least on QWERTY keyboards, however, "d" is nowhere near "l"; since his IP locates to Canada (firm QWERTY territory, even Quebec) perhaps he meant "role", as in a typo of "roll"? In any case, I read the post when it was newly written, and "role" was there, so that rules out any sort of vandalism. Xenon54 / talk / 20:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff of where it was added, along with the rest of the paragraph, which absolutely proves it's not vandalism to the post by another user: [9]. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I managed to find an obscure English meaning, it's a plant oncogene, spelled rolD: [10]. It seems odd that such a simple, single syllable word like this wouldn't have more English meanings. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Food counts (why not?), but trademarks don't. —Tamfang (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So, if we look up roll, we see that the 7th definition of it's noun usage is "...an official or public document; a register; a record; also, a catalogue; a list". In this sense the author used "leap year roll" to mean a list of leap years. Have we now officially beaten this Q to death ? StuRat (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(multiple ec) On the basis of what's clearly the intended sense, I'd say that it should have been rule. A slightly odd keyboard lapse, but I've seen (and committed) ones quite a bit worse. Deor (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was meant to be "rules". Not sure what my brain got up to there. I'll fix it in a few minutes. --Anon, 02:28 UTC, March 29, 2010.

Maybe you were eating pretzels at the time? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that explains why I was posting about "æ", too -- it looks like one, doesn't it? --Anon, 17:15 UTC, March 30, 2010.

Japanese Onomatopœia

I'm looking for a list of Japanese onomatopœias regarding insects. The Japanese language is rich of terms that imitate sounds (for example: Japanese sound symbolism). I'm searching for words for: the humming/buzzing of bees, droning of beetles, singing of cicadas, buzzing of flies, the sound of mosquitoes, hornets, ... I'd like expecially to find the equivalent for the sound of cicadas.--151.51.45.45 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many dedicated dictionaries on this topic. It is impractical to duplicate all of that here. But for your specific request, the sound for cicadas is min min. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Various kinds of cicadas makes different sounds. Minminzemi (lit. 'minmin cicada', Oncotympana maculaticollis) sings as minmin, hence the name. Tsukutsukubōshi (Meimuna opalifera) sings as tsukutsukubōshi. Higurashi (Tanna japonensis) sings as kanakana. --Kusunose 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The buzzing of insects are usually described as "bun bun" or "būn". The sound of cicadas varies a lot. It sometimes varies from person to person. There are "jī jī", "shan shan", "gī gī" , etc. As for minminzemi, it is also described as "mīn minmin"(mean min min). You can hear some sounds of cicadas here by putting your mouse on the images. The pink one at the bottom of the page is minminzemi. Oda Mari (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Opposite of Empowerment

Someone can go through a process of empowerment. What word would describe the opposite of this process? Thanks 78.149.251.99 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Disenfranchisement ? (The Wikitionary def doesn't seem to include this figurative usage of the word, but only the literal meaning "to block from voting".) StuRat (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Castration ? (Again, the figurative meaning.) StuRat (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Repression or subjugation? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply disempowerment? Grutness...wha? 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling your dog by your kid's name

Is there a term for the mistake of speech in which you accidentally call your dog by the name of your child, or call your child by the name of your dog, or call your infant by the name of your 4 year old, or call your child by the name of your younger sibling? I have seen this error of speech repeatedly over the years in parents, and have always assumed that the particular name accidentally spoken was determined mostly by the social hierarchy — the error is never across genders and I don't think it is often backwards in age — that is to say, I wouldn't expect a parent to accidentally call their child by the name of the parent's older sibling, but I've seen a parent call a child by the name of the parent's younger sibling. (Not a philology question but I think this is a question for the Language desk anyway.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My Mom regularly called us kids by each other's names. She once called me by the cat's name, too. Since then, whenever she calls me by the wrong name, I say "I'm Felix" (the cat's name), just to rub it in. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an example of automaticity. I'm not sure about the social hierarchy assumption. I suspect that we have more automatic responses for people (or pets) we don't respect so much (those who annoy us), so we are more likely to hit the cues which trigger these. A friend of mine tends to call me by her husband's name when I do something oafish; he's not exactly beneath her in the social hierarchy, except when being told off for something. It's just that her long familiarity with him has bred certain habitual reactions. 213.122.37.153 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ISTR an interview where Sam Neill said the greatest compliment he'd been paid during the making of Jurassic Park was when co-star Sir Richard Attenborough accidentally called him David. It's a type of parapraxis, I'd assume... Grutness...wha? 02:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My spouse's grandmother just used to run through the names of all "her" men (husband, son, grandson) and whoever was handy would reply. If the wrong man answered, she's just say, "Not you; the other one." (And, yes, I know there were two "other ones".) My spouse is still called "DavidMichaelDoug" by his three children when he confuses their names. Bielle (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the age difference theory. One of my brothers and I are often referred to by the other's name by several family members. We look about as different as brothers can and there is a 15 year difference in our ages. The only pattern that I've noticed is that it's only the women in my family that get our names confused. Dismas|^(talk) 06:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's called morphemic metathesis, it's a normal human speech error, not necessarily or even provably a Freudian slip.Synchronism (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to challenge that; I was asking about a whole-word substitution and not a substitution or rearrangement of morphemes, which seems entirely different. (And "morphemic metathesis" gets 66 Google hits, which casts extra doubt on your answer.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but with metathesis involving words, you rarely switch the entire word, affixes and all, so if you wanted to say "the dog's bone" you might accidentally blurt "the bone's dog", but you'd be unlikely to say "the bone dog's".Synchronism (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've derailed the thread; from the look of the metathesis article, that's not what I was asking about in this question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How exactly? Please know, my intention was not to derail the thread. Let me tailor some better examples. You might say, "Spot, clean your room", or "Is Spot's room clean yet?" Or you might say "I put the ovens in the bun". You would be less likely to say , "Dog, clean your room"", "Is dog room clean yet? or "I put the oven in buns". The substitution involves a comparable morpheme typically, in your case two names, not just any word. While these errors (which are most common during rapid, spontaneous speech) may indicate what someone is thinking, it's ambiguous; it is not necessarily the expression of a subconscious urge or desire.Synchronism (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list of common speech errors [11], while "morphemic metathesis" is not mentioned verbatim it is an accurate description of some of the substitutions they do describe.Synchronism (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way of explaining this: people grow into speech habits, repetitive behaviors. Let's say the only infant they talked to very much is now their four-year old, when new baby Bar comes along it's easy to slip back into the old habit of addressing infants as Foo. If Spot is the only creature that usually gets called by its name or instructed in the home, when Foo is able to walk into the other room, it's easy to slip into the old habit of calling out to Spot. The unintended names are readily available in the mental lexicon for substitution, even if they weren't part of the planned utterance.Synchronism (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't correctly parse what "morphemic metathesis" means; I struck my claim about derailing the thread above; I apologise. Thanks for the references. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 29

Could you please remind me...

... what was the term for words that inflect for gender, as lion and lioness do? I couldn't find the answer while glancing down the Grammatical gender article. Thanks. --Магьосник (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Masculine and Feminine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["-ess" gender suffix] and the closest I can find to a term so far is "feminine suffix". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.)-ess is not clearly an inflectional suffix. It's similar to inflection in that it does not often change the syntactic class (consider: 'temptress'), but more like derivation in that it does not apply to an entire syntactic class (nouns, verbs etc). It has rival forms (-a, -ette), it's often optional, as it is in this case, there's often a different word (dog/bitch, bovine/bull/cow) that can be used. Where grammatical gender is relevant, such as Spanish, all nouns are either feminine, masculine, or some other gender. Words that inflect for gender are often adjectives. English nouns do not have arbitrary grammatical gender, this suffix specifies something different, sex. As far as a word for the set of words that can take this suffix, I'm stumped. Synchronism (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned "derivation". I saw "derivative" in one of the googled items. I'm not so sure that's the term the OP would be looking for, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out Derivation (linguistics). Most English suffixes are derivational, there are only four inflectional suffixes -s, -s, -'s and -d.Synchronism (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You left out "-ing", "-en" (of strong verb past participles and a few irregular plural nouns), and "-er", "-est" (of adjective comparative/superlative forms). AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the possessive 's is generally considered a clitic nowadays, not an inflectional suffix. +Angr 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, syntactically it's a clitic but it has the regularity and productivity of an inflectional morpheme. @Moos Yeah, I left those out for simplicity they behave like derivational suffixes sometimes, I shouldn't have said only though.Synchronism (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs you're right that OP wasn't probably looking for derivation, but it helps to explain why we don't speak of grammatical gender and English together that often. Feminine affixes in English are typically applied to animate nouns, living ones usually. There are exceptions though: suffragette, cigarette, seamstress, governess. There are also words that would be just rude or funny by today's standards if they took the suffix: *lawress, *officerette, *captainess, *Teamstress, *arbitratress, *colleaguette. From a different perspective, 'widower', I think, is by itself, alone that is, in being suffixed for masculinity. I wonder, is fembot a portmanteau?Synchronism (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How does the less common (and male) drake vs. the more common (and either non-gender-specific or specifically female) duck go? Probably not any kind of affix to the root d- but a different word altogether, no? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymonline gives this for 'duck' and this for 'drake'. It appears that the words are unrelated, and that 'duck' is actually the more recently 'adopted' word, replacing earlier OE 'ened'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for a term for a word that is capable of changing for gender or a term for the words' capability of changing for gender. I can remember once knowing such a term that applied mostly for words indicating the name of an animal, job, or nationality, and a few days ago I was asked about it. I couldn't find anything in An Introduction to Common Linguistics by Zhivko Boyadzhiev either. That book only mentions the ways of forming the feminine - by means of affixation (waiter/waitress, Latin victor/victrix), adding a word or particle meaning "male" or "female" (he-wolf/she-wolf, Khoekhoe aoré zkoab/tararé zkoab), and heteronymy (brother/sister, French bouc/chèvre). --Магьосник (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

English word for (normal) pigment spots on skin

What is the English word for a small (normal, non-pathological) pigment spot on skin? Do you call it a mole even if its not raised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.11.130 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Age or liver spot. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly also freckle. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Or blemish, or beauty mark. "Spot" works, too, though. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Spot" might not work for a British person, for whom it might mean "pimple." See the theme song to Life of Brian. 63.17.65.73 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But a mole doesn't have to be raised. A big one might be a birthmark. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Angry FAce

What is the meaning of this phrase and its etymology: chewing on this wasp?174.3.113.245 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"chewing" (eating / enduring / tolerating / participating in) on a "wasp" (something you wouldn't want to eat / endure / participate in | something that would in fact likely sting you and cause pain). Etymology: long, long, long ago some guy in a moment of original thought or based on actually witnessing the literal act (less likely, I'd wager :p) spat it out. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This has many forms: the one I'm most familiar with is "a face like a dog chewing a wasp". Imagine what a dog chewing a wasp looks like (especially a bulldog) and then try and transfer that to a human face! It's used to describe someone struggling to hide anger or another strong emotion. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This only vaguely relates, but I just have to bring up the ballplayer Hank Bauer, whose face[12] was said to resemble "a clenched fist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Even farther astray: Bugs, your post suddenly made me recall that the baseball glove I used in my youth was a Hank Bauer signature model. I wonder whether any manufacturer ever dared to market a Dick Stuart first-baseman's mitt. Deor (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If they did, it would have been a strange glove. Probably would have had stone fingers. Or maybe a hole or two in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A related phrase used in London is "face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle" which means disgust more than anger. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

'Bulldog licking piss off a nettle/chewing a wasp/trying to lick its ear' are all terms used up North to mean 'ugly', not angry/disgusted, etc. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, you can use it that way down here too - so either pulling a disgusted face or having a face that permanently looks that way. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's a personal attack?174.3.113.245 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's more like he's saying, "This is y'all's problem to deal with; I won't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Films 'shot on location in'...

Resolved

Why do articles about films say they are 'shot on location in' a place. Why not just say 'shot in'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"On location" specifically means "An actual place or natural setting where filming takes place, as opposed to one simulated in a studio." (quoting SOED). See also Filming location. By contrast, "shot in" could just refer to the location of the movie set. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just what I thought. So the article on the film Red Mist is not accurate when it states that although the film was set in the USA, it was shot on location in Northern Ireland? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's not enough information in that statement to tell whether or not it is accurate. It's entirely possible that the plot takes place in the USA, but filming took place in Northern Ireland. --Onorem♠Dil 12:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article amended. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the filming took place outside of a film studio in Northern Ireland (in the countryside, in pubs, in people's houses, whatever), it's still "shot on location" in Northern Ireland even if the film isn't set there. Many scenes in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy were shot on location in New Zealand even though the films certainly weren't set there! +Angr 12:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, if anyone wants to revert my amendment to the article, feel free to do so. I asked here first because I wanted to make sure before I did anything. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that that setting of the story is a red herring here. The "on location" bit means it (or parts of it, at least) was filmed outside a studio, e.g. in a city street, on a highway, in a desert, among hills, on a river, etc. So, "filmed in Ireland" means it was filmed in a studio in Ireland, while "filmed on location in Ireland" means they went to some rolling hills or some city location or wherever in Ireland to do their filming. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of the filmmaker or producer who had a yacht that was named "On Location". When someone would call his office looking for him, his secretary would tell them that he was, well, on location. 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one. :) I may be wrong, but I think the term "on location" is typically used to mean it was filmed where it was set, as opposed to simply a generic "exterior" shooting location vs. studio or maybe backlot. I'll look into that further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, looks like I'm wrong and Jack's right. I googled ["on location" exterior] and one of many sites that came up was this interesting one [13] which uses the term "location shooting" the way Jack is using it. Principle filming can be done in a studio (i.e. on a soundstage), possibly with background screens allowing for post-production effects like mattes and CGI; on a pre-constructed backlot; and/or on a location that's not necessarily built for the movie, although often there is some construction done to make it fit. A good example that includes all three approaches is Blazing Saddles, which parodies not only the western genre but also filmmaking itself, near the end when the camera pulls back to reveal that all the street scenes were done on the Warner backlot. A great example of location shooting would be Monument Valley, the exterior for many a John Ford western. On and on it goes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Texts in German, Spanish, Italian and Japanese with mouse-over pop-ups featuring translation or grammatical information

Does anyone know if such websites exist? I am thinking of an interface much like that of John Dyer's Reader's Version of Greek and Hebrew Bible.

Thank you in advance,

148.60.182.153 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See VoyCabulary.com - Online web dictionary & thesaurus word linking lookup reference tool. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Passivization

Please explain how to transform the following sentence into passive form.

• " The kingdom needs you "

My doubt is about the preposition 'BY ' or To ' something other than these.Kasiraoj (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are needed by the kingdom. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Illustrious 14 Romans

Petrarch's last "Illustrious Romans"

Who are these men?

The first is obviously Scipio Africanus.

Caesar is Julius Caesar.

Pompeo is Pompey.

Octaviano is Augustus.

Vespasiano is Vespasian.

Can someone give me the names of the others.

What does the very last line say?

Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The very last line says, "And finally Trajan". +Angr 16:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthiocore de Asiae may be Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, although calling him "Roman" is a stretch - he lived in Rome for a time, and was recognized as a client king of Syria.

Quintus Caecilius Metellus is any one of the 10 or so members of the Caecilius Metellus family with the same name.

Marco Porcio Catone is probably Cato the Elder.

Mario Arpinater is Gaius Marius, known as Marius and born in Arpinum.

Scipioneafricano emilianae is Scipio Aemilianus

Tito Vespasiano is Titus.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last one that hasn't been mentioned (Pavlo Emilio) is Aemilius Paulus. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there also is "Tito Quinto Flimmio", who probably is Titus Quinctius Flamininus. You are in a maze of twisty Latin names, all nearly alike ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What language is that anyway? Italian? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Petrarch wrote primarily in Latin, but also in "Italian". I'd guess that in the 14th century the difference between vulgate and Italian is not that big, especially not in spelling. "Classical" Latin always was a bit of an artificial language, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was most helpful. I think I may be misunderstanding one: SCIPIONENifict, which is probably one you gave me. Can you tell me who this one is again. He is between Anthiocore de Asiae and Pavlo Emilio. I see Scipioneafricano emilianae (Scipio Aemilianus) is between Quintus Caecilius Metellus and Mario Arpinater. Muchos gracias.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we missed that one so far (because, counting Trajan, there are 15 illustrious Romans on the list ;-). I don't know who that is. The Scipiones were a very old and important family, so there is no lack of candidates. See Scipio_(cognomen)#People_of_known_relationship. A lot of them apparently had pointed noses ("Nasicia"), which might be a source of that "N". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess, with what little knowledge I have on this, is that SCIPIONENasiae is Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, the younger brother of Scipio Africanus (the hero of the epic poem Africa).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking again, it might actually read "Scipio Nasica" (with a very small "a"), which probably indicates it's Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, as all the other candidates have additional nicknames. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Scipio[ne] Nasica" is what it says. Deor (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take your recommendation on this - as I certainly don't know.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you guys are so good at this, can you give me your best "guess" what this says. It an introduction to Petrarch's 36 "Illustrious Men." --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Repertorio" woud normally mean "collection", in context it's probably best to translate it as "index". I'm also not quite sure if "miser" is an old variant spelling of "messer" or if inclito miser is meant as an ironic paradox. I'd translate the whole sentence as "INDEX of the book here present where will be shown the chapters on 36 leaders/important men whose deeds are extensively described by the honorable poet, Sir (or miserable/poor, depending on the translation of "miser") Francesco Petrarca, and beginning as appears below." --Ferkelparade π 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be something like: Repertorio del presente libro ove seranno signati i capituli di xxxvi Capitani li facti de quali sono diffusamente descripti per lo inclito poeta miser Francisco petrarca et primo cominzando come qua di sotto apare:.

Given the fact that it's in convoluted old Italian, it's somewhat difficult to translate (I'm Italian). I'd say something like: Repertory of this book, where will be marked/noted down the chapters of 36 Captains, whose facts are widely descripted by the illustrious poor ("a form of humility I suppose") poet Francesco Petrarca, and the first one starts as it appears here under. Sorry for my broken English...--151.51.45.45 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the split "mi-ser" be some sort of spelling of "messer" rather than meaning "poor"? Deor (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the great translating work.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of words in English sentences

May I ask that which of the following forms is/are correct?

1. "The request shall be submitted to the court by the party."
2. "The request shall be submitted by the party to the court."

And

1. "The party shall submit the court the request."
2. "The party shall submit to the court the request."

(Generally, it is written "The party shall submit the request to the court.")

Thank you so much, just confusing about word order. Sorry if I am disturbing anyone.

— 118.172.78.246 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No disturbance, that's what we're here for. As a native English speaker, I would prefer 2 in the first set, although I wouldn't immediately think anything was wrong with 1. English doesn't really have strict adjective/adverb ordering rules like some other languages. The difference between the two comes down mostly to emphasis. In the second set, however, I strongly favor 2. In English, indirect objects are only used for certain verb, and "to submit" is not one of them. In general, you'll find that the dative case is rarely used implicitly, and is most frequently signaled by prepositions. Overall, I think that "The party shall submit the request to the court." is the best (active voice rather than passive voice) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the second group, No. 2 is definitely better; but I'm not sure there's any point in choosing between the better of 2 poor options when a best 3rd one ("The party shall submit the request to the court") is readily available. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As a native speaker and professional editor, I agree completely with Jack. Both options that you have offered in the second group are awkward to the point of being incorrect. Jack's phrase is the only one that is idiomatic. In the first group, neither option is incorrect, but I strongly prefer the second option. The reason is that in English passive constructions, it is best to keep the passive agent ("by the party") as close to the verb as possible. This also sounds more natural. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To amplify what 140 has said: with some common verbs like "give" and "show", either

1. give the letter to him, or

2. give him the letter

would be normal, but not

3. *give the letter him, or

4. *give to him the letter.

With "submit", 2 would not be idiomatic either, leaving only 1. --ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out (just pro-forma) that legal jargon tends to make very, very heavy use of constructions like this because they try to make everything appear as though it were the action of the law itself, not the action of a court or a person. Thus "the request shall be submitted to the court by the party" is shorthand for "it is ordained by law that the request shall be submitted to the court by the party". It's ritualized language, not much to do about it. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

May I further ask that it should be ("which" in "of which" refers to "printed form."):

1. "The party shall use such printed form while the cost of which shall be designated by the Minister of Justice." or
2. "The party shall use such printed form the cost of which shall be designated by the Minister of Justice." or
3. "The party shall use such printed form of which the cost shall be designated by the Minister of Justice."

With thankfulness ^ ^ (Ludwigs2 is right. I am a third-year law student and attempting to cope with the complexity in rendering legal "jargon".)

—118.172.69.117 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct version is #2, but there should be a comma after "form". Marco polo (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But not in legalese, which tends to avoid commas entirely, in case somebody bases an argument on the presence or absence of a comma in a particular place.

No. 3 is less natural than no. 2; but I would not be at all surprised to find it in a legal document (I suspect lawyers would prefer it because it keeps the 'which' close to its antecedent and the 'cost' close to its verb).

No. 1 is certainly not normal English: you can't use a subordinating conjunction and a relative pronoun in the same clause.

However all three are odd in their use of "such". "Such" can refer back to a previous description (i.e. the form has already been defined), but usually then takes "a" in the singular ("such a printed form"). "Such" without an article is common in legal writing, but is always followed by a defining clause introduced by "as": "such printed form as the Secretary of StateMinister of Justice shall direct". --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely #1 makes sense in certain contexts? Ludwigs pointed out the implicit "it is ordained by law that...", but we could also have:

Q. Who shall submit the request to the court?

A. The request shall be submitted to the court by the party. 81.131.39.254 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 30

Goal, aim

What is the difference between a goal and an aim? Thanks 84.13.173.45 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's like the difference between a target and a trajectory, an end and a means, or a destination and a direction. But they can also be used synonymously, "Our aim/goal is to please". It depends on the context.Synchronism (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A business context is what I'm interested in. They may have more defined meaning than in general use. 84.13.180.45 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In my company, at least, "aim" would be more qualitative (kind of like a mission statement or marketing plan), whereas a "goal" would be more quantitative (e.g. a unit sales goal). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the connotation of a "goal" is that it is somewhat more achievable than an "aim". If you have a goal, the idea is to meet it; but if you only have an aim, that's implicitly an acknowledgement that you may miss the target. Of course this can be used rhetorically: one can call an unachievable aim a "goal" in order signal commitment to it, e.g. the goal to end world hunger. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coteries

What is the etymology of "coterie"?174.3.113.245 (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See:[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition

What is "gross breach of trust"?174.3.113.245 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See Position of trust. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

144 times. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rimshot! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't speak English as a first language, Clarityfiend's making a pun on Gross (unit), a different definition that has nothing to do with this usage. Buddy431 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A "breach in trust" is an offense committed by someone in a position of trust. Depending on the context, it could have a legal meaning for an act carried out by someone in an "official" position of trust, or it could simply mean that someone, who should be someone that can be trusted, did something wrong. Gross in this context means "blatant" or "excessive". If my parents trust me to look after my little brother, and I give him to my drug dealing neighbor to look after while I go party, I could be said to have committed a "gross breach of trust".Buddy431 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Must and can

I have been studying French, and in French there are two verbs devoir and pouvoir. These correspond (roughly) with English "must" and "can". But to say "to must" or "to can" is rediculous. So what part of speech are must and can in English?