Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:43, 14 May 2010

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/L

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.

May 7

Is "refingerprint" a word?

My current job requires that a retake fingerprints of people whose initially taken fingerprints were determined unreadable. So, I am updating my resume. I say the word "refingerprint" at work quite often, but I am not seeing it in writing anywhere online. I am thinking it might be a bogus word like "irregardless". Thanks --Wonderley (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 569 hits, many from apparently quite official sources. I think you're on safe ground, so Wonder no more. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I have to wonder with it being part of my last name. Your Google search for "refingerprint" gave much better results than what I got from Google. Did you do anything different other than search for "refingerprint"? --Wonderley (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you did. I didn't know you could do that with the "-" in Google. Good to know. Thanks again.--Wonderley (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also prepend a plus sign to the word you're googling, to tell google that you want the exact word, and not similar words such as those Jack excluded by using the minus sign. Just google for +refingerprint. --NorwegianBlue^talk 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that different from putting the search term in quotation marks? +An gr 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it out for "refingerprinting", and it appears the results are identical (2390 ghits, as opposed to 62900 ghits without quotation marks or "+" before the search word). As I'm sure you know, a search in quotation marks only returns the the words in the exact order you typed them, ignoring punctuation. It seems it suppresses matching similar words as well. --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good info. I read a lot about google searching years ago and it looks like there are a lot more options since I looked at it. I'll have to look into it and relearn. - Hey, is "relearn" a word ;-) --Wonderley (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people complain about "irregardless" is that it appears to be a negation of "regardless" but nevertheless appears to mean the same thing. There is no such issue with "refingerprint". "To fingerprint" is a perfectly good verb, and "re-" is a productive affix, so "refingerprint" must be a word. Marnanel (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "irregardless" is close enough to be synonymous with "irrespective", which is a word. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposites of 'well-to-do' and 'well off'

Is there a recognised opposite of 'well-to-do' in parallel form? Such as: 'ill-to-do', 'poorly-to-do' ...? If not, why not?

Is there a recognised opposite of 'well off' in parallel form? Such as: 'ill off', 'poorly off' ...? If not, why not?-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not too badly off" is kind of a fixed phrase; otherwise, I'm not sure "badly off" is very commonly used... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:well off lists badly off as an antonym.—msh210℠ 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What immediately sprang to mind is ne'er-do-well, so I checked to see if it ever had an equivalent opposite meaning, but apparently it has always meant a person who is good for nothing since arising about 1737. The only equivalent I have come up with with is bad off, which is a recognized expression.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why my post (immediately above; writing from a different computer now), which was the first post in response, was moved down by those above hours later? I suppose I am being somewhat petulant; that this is a minor thing, but I am offended when anyone takes credit for something I do, and far more so if it's on purpose. I always scrupulously avoid in my daily life acting in a manner that could give the impression that I am stealing another's credit. That's the way it feels with others posting bad off/badly off above, when I posted that idea earlier and first. I am not claiming that is a brilliant insight or anything, but I certainly would never have inserted my post above another's, were the roles reversed, to avoid giving even the appearance of taking credit for something someone already came up with before me.--173.68.14.136 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I slipped my answer in between the question and your answer, because my comments partially answered part 2 of his question in a direct and uncomplicated way, while your comments seemed to partially explore somewhat tangential issues. Anyone can still compare the timestamps, and I wasn't trying to steal your thunder -- I don't think that the expressions "badly off" and "bad off" are all that similar, since "bad off" seems to have a rather restricted freedom of occurrence (you can say "How bad off is he?", but "Is he bad off?" doesn't sound like a very idiomatic sentence to me, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badly done by ? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the answer to both of Jack's questions is no. As for the reason, both expressions are idioms. Idioms often do not have parallel negations. For example, the opposite of "well-done meat" is not "badly done meat" but "rare meat". As for "well-to-do" or "well off", I think you can take your pick from "poor", "down at the heels", "down and out", etc. Marco polo (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.110.123 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies.

@ 162.83.167.5: I can't see myself ever using "bad off", but others might like it. Badly off? Doesn't sound right to me, except perhaps in "not too badly off" (AnonMoos). Tripartite negatives of the "not too bad" form are triply anathematic to me, though, hence I never, never, never use them.
Re your suggested opposites, Marco Polo: I'd use those if the person was at the extreme opposite end of well-to-do. But one can be "other than well-to-do" without being a pauper. Most normal people would be neither the one nor the other. I guess if one is struggling financially, or has few assets and limited income, but is not yet a candidate for the soup kitchen, a simple "not well off" would suffice. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "hard done by"? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard done by" and Kitty's "badly done by" suggest, to me at least, the person has been unfairly treated in some way, and not just by life in general but by some specific person or group. That doesn't necessarily lead to being impoverished, although it can in some cases. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard up" is my preferred option for the opposite of "well off". "Well to do" sounds to me like the subject is privileged or a member of the privileged classes. In that case, "underprivileged" would be the antonym. (UK English speaker here) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Down and out" has some literary pretensions, being the beginning of the title of one of George Orwell's better books. Zoonoses (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down in the dumps? Vranak (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct form

"Finally, 21 years later She met us. This is what we were expecting for every days, months and years."
"Finally, after 21 years later She met us. This is what we were expecting for every days, months and years."

Which one is correct form? Is there more standard way to write this sentence? Thank you--180.234.151.121 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them have serious problems. You provide 2 sentences in both examples, but seem to be asking only about the first sentence in each case; yet the second sentence needs major reconstruction work, too.

"Finally, 21 years later, She met us" is better than the later version. You can't say "after 21 years later".
I'd recast the 2nd sentence as "This is what we were expecting every day for years". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have the second sentence in the perfect tense: "...what we had been expecting..." --Slashme (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Both of these sentences are non-standard English for a number of reasons. Let me just note a few things. "She" should not be capitalized. "Every" means each one, so plurals cannot follow it ("every day, month and year" would be correct, but it is an odd construction to use here). The syntax is also non-standard. It's difficult to rewrite this without knowing the context—especially what preceded it that informs the reader why the meeting was anticipated or so long in coming. Can you please provide that context. Is this a reunion of old friends? A confrontation between old enemies? Have they ever met? Please advise.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reunion of a cousin. --180.234.141.123 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the non-standard, but you can legitimately capitalize "She". Maybe She's some sort of goddess, or someone who's name is never mentioned (on purpose), and thus the pronoun has to stand out when referring to Her. Rimush (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in "She who must be obeyed" She:_A_History_of_Adventure by H Rider Haggard. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Rimush (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a guess that the meeting was something pleasurable the writer had long waited for, you could have:

Finally, 21 years later, she met us. This is what we had looked forward to every day, every week, every year.

That assumes the writer had wanted to meet the woman, but that the meeting had been delayed. Since "we" had looked forward, I'd actually lean toward "Finally, 21 years later, we met her..." But I'm reading a lot into the samples. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to help me out with my German

I’m writing an article on Weber's piano rondo Invitation to the Dance. The original German title of the piece is most often recorded as Aufforderung zum Tanz, but the last word Tanz is often spelt Tanze. (I even found a few examples of the umlauted Tänze, but I believe this is the plural "dances" and it would therefore be a misprint, so I discount it.)

My knowledge of German is such that I do not know whether Aufforderung zum Tanze is bad German, or whether it means something different from Aufforderung zum Tanz, or both, or neither. Help required, bitte schön. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the declension of the word at de:wikt:Tanz. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you can see there is the declension according to modern Standard German where "zum Tanz" is the correct form. "Tanze" is an old dative form. These days it would sound antiquated, but it isn't "bad" German, nor does it change the meaning. "zum Tänze" is simply wrong, even it were indefinite plural, the correct form would be "Aufforderung zu Tänzen" which doesn't really make sense. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "zum" is a contraction of "zu dem" ("to the"), where the preposition "zu" governs the dative case.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent and quick replies. I've used this information in the article. Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually see the "e" added in the dative case for nouns such as "Hund" (Warnung vor dem Hunde) or "Staat" (dem Staate). These two incidentally seem to have the form with "e" added in their wiktionary entries, so I guess that the antiquated versions for Hund and Staat are still considered good grammar, whereas the one for Tanz is not. Rimush (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that. The datives dem Hunde and dem Staate sound to me (as a nonnative but fluent speaker) just as antiquated as dem Tanze. But the -e dative (which incidentally appears only on strong masculine and neuter nouns that are one syllable long before the -e is added) does appear in a few stock phrases such as im Sinne von "in the sense of", where it would be unusual to say im Sinn von - or rather, im Sinn von would mean "in the mind of" and wouldn't be a stock phrase anymore. +An gr 13:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Use of "often"

Can we use the adverb "often" at the end of a sentence?

Eg. She says that she comes here often. --59.182.39.120 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Do you come here often?" "Only in the mating season!" --TammyMoet (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in such a sentence "often" is normally interpreted as modifying the last verb, so it's equivalent to "She says that she often comes here". If you mean it to modify the main verb, thus applying to the whole sentence, you would say "She often says that she comes here"). --Anonymous, 02:00 UTC, May 9, 2010.

"Of" or "Off"?

We need to the clear the streets of/off hawkers. 59.182.39.120 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're asking which is the correct word? In which case it depends on the sense. If you're saying that hawkers need to be removed from the streets, the correct word is "of". If you're saying that hawkers get dusty and dirty because they are attracting streets and they need us to remove them, then the correct word is "off"! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your initial construction,

"We need to clear the streets of hawkers."

would be correct, but an equally correct construction with the same meaning would be

"We need to clear hawkers off the streets."

You might also be amused by the triple ambiguity of "hawkers": doubtless it is here intended to refer to street traders rather than a variety of falconer, but the term also used to be current amongst English-speaking expatriots in Hong Kong and Singapore to describe those who (in public) noisily clear their throat and spit phlegm (the combined action being called "hawking") - in this sense it is something that Lee Kuan Yew might very well have said! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "expatriots". That could suggest they're actively conspiring to bring about the downfall of their home country. If they live abroad, they are expatriates. Big, big difference. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct, I had a senior moment (though of course they could be both). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a temptation to try to make some kind of joke with "expectorates"...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coughing loudly would normally be called "hacking" (nothing to do with computers), unless they've made a portmanteau of "hacking" and "coughing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm also familiar with that term, but "hawking" was definitely the term and spelling used for the action I described (sounding sorta like "Hhchchaawiik - ptah!") in the mid-1960's when I lived there. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hawking" in that sense is (or was) also current in the United States. In the 1960s I used to hear the act of expelling a glob of phlegm referred to a "hawking a loogie". Deor (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually see it spelled as "hock a loogie". Where I am from, where we don't have the cot-caught merger, it's also pronounced this way ([ɑ] not [ɔ]). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Deor (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in Mount Wannahockaloogie? +An gr 05:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

Translate that phrase

Esselamun aleykum ve rahmetullahi ve berekatuhu. What does it mean? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you all. --Omidinist (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Turkish? +An gr 05:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Arabic as pronounced in some other language... AnonMoos (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not arabic due to the 'v' sound/letter, maybe Farsi--rocketrye12^{talk/contribs} 15:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant by "as pronounced in some other language"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Arabic and it comes at the end of all five daily prayers of Muslims. 'Ve' (meaning 'and') between two words can be read like 'o'. --Omidinist (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See salah. In proper Arabic script it would be السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته. Gabbe (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of different manners to transliterate Arabic into Latin script, but no 'true' version (although there are proposals for scientific and consequent transliteration, which are not used in day-to-day affairs by anyone). Arabic has only three vowels, and vowel sounds can be transliterated into various different Latin vowels. --Soman (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does Не атрымалася надзейна выявіць зыходны мова mean

68.248.235.144 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The results of my Google search for that exact wording indicate that it is in the Belarusian language, which is spoken by some Wikipedians.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It is Belarusian for "Could not reliably detect source language" - which is an error produced by the detect language option in Google translate (when I did this, Google translate claimed to have detected Belorussian and is able to translate fragments such as "мова" = "language" and "выявіць зыходны" = "identify source", so I don't suspect that Google failed me here!) Astronaut (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange language found on shirt

This was written on a shirt at the Chinese Mall in Johannesburg:

Siese ofeiochos hiogse chsoiel;e fcoseihg tiosen

I don't know what language it is, or whether it's just random letters. Does anyone here know better? --Slashme (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit random to me (especially the ";"), but you never know. Rimush (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely to me that six polysyllabic and consonant-laden words in any natural language would be formed solely from the letters c e f g h i l n o s t, unless it was some specially-constructed tongue-twister... AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be one of the official languages in South Africa? Many of the languages in use in South Africa use sounds such click consonants which are sometimes represented on paper by English punctuation marks (though I don't know specifically if the semi-colon is used in this way). Astronaut (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not a South African language. I can speak isiXhosa to an extent, so I can recognize Bantu languages easily; I see various Sotho types of languages all the time, so even though I can't speak them I can recognize them as well. I can also tell the Khoi and San languages at a glance: they have rather characteristic quirky orthography involving lots of slashes and exclamation points to denote clicks of various kinds. --Slashme (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say you saw it at a Chinese store? It's likely to be gibberish. Latin script is considered "cool" and it's not uncommon for people to wear shirts with gibberish on it just because it's in an exotic script. (Westerners do the same thing with Chinese characters.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That had crossed my mind, Rjanag, but considering this store is in South Africa and not China or Taiwan, it's more likely to be catering to native South Africans than to Chinese people, even tourists. I can agree though that 25 years ago or so (when I was in China) I wouldn't have been too surprised to see this at a cheap roadside stall in Tianjin. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a space after the ; might be a typo, so we shouldn't assume it's supposed to be a letter. There may be other typos as well, making lang ID (if it's not spurious) difficult. That said, sequences like init. chs, fc, hg are quite rare. — kwami (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost convinced that it's gibberish by now! Thanks, guys. --Slashme (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other possibility: There is a graphic joke that looks like a foreign phrase on a T-shirt. When you lift the shirt up, bringing the bottom half of the letters on the bottom up to the top half of the letters on the top line, it makes an obscene phrase in English. Kind of like the Mad Magazine tri-fold graphic jokes on the inside back covers (in the 60s at least -- don't know if those or the magazine even still exists). DavidH (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Fold-in... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seen, unseen, heard, unheard

Compare:

1a. The beautiful song went unheard.

2a. The beautiful song was heard.

3a. The beautiful painting went unseen.

4a. The beautiful painting was seen.

With:

1b. The unheard song was beautiful.

2b. The heard song was beautiful.

3b. The unseen painting was beautiful.

4b. The seen painting was beautiful.

To this native English speaker's ear, all of the "a" items are completely natural. Items 1b and 3b are likewise. 2b, however, sounds a bit odd, and 4b sounds ill-formed or just wrong. Why is this? --Atemperman (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because "heard" and "seen" are rarely used as adjectives in front of a noun? Gabbe (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I meant, in 2a and 4a the adjectives "heard" and "seen" are used predicatively, whereas in 2b and 4b they are used attributively. See adjective. Gabbe (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it seems that all you're saying is that they sound odd because they are rare, which sounds a bit tautological. Why aren't "heard" and "seen" used attributively? Especially since "unheard" and "unseen" are, along with words like "perceived" and "observed"? Is this some sort of accident of what happens to be idiomatic? Why does it feel not just unusual but wrong to say, "the seen painting was beautiful"?--Atemperman (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it's because "seen" doesn't help describe the painting in any way. It doesn't identify the see-er (whereas "the painting that Joe saw" does, and sounds fine; and "the unseen painting" specifically says that there is no see-er), nor does it describe the state of the painting (since see is not a causative verb it doesn't change the state of the painting; compare to "the broken vase"). So it doesn't add anything to the description, which is what makes it sound weird. In the rare cases where it does add something to the description (I've read multiple psychology/cognitive science articles where they might mention something about "heard words" or "seen items" in the context of an experiment), it doesn't sound weird. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not that they are wrong, rather that they carry very little meaning, so why would anyone bother to say "heard song" or "seen painting"? Dbfirs 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Livid

Until today, after reading your article, I was absolutely positive that the word livid indicated an emphatic or overly demonstrative point of view or expression.

Ronald J. Rooney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primorjr (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a rock festival is the clear cut main meaning, but Livid (disambiguation) has a wiktionary link. Remember, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the present Subjunctive in English.

Greetings. I'm trying to find an historical rule apropos the present subjunctive tense in the English language. Most sources state something such as "[M]odern writers tend not to feature it as much as past writers did.", or that it —in the present tense— "[A]ppears in modern English to show compulsion, obligation, necessity, or suggestion."

I can't, however, find any dated authority as to when the present subjunctive (as opposed to the present indicative) applies in English vis-à-vis Latin or other Indo-European languages. Specially in the following cases:

1.) After a negative verb and a subordinating conjunction.

Indicative: "I don't think that she is ill."

Subjunctive: "I don't think that she be ill."

2.) After an emotional reaction and a subordinating conjunction.

Indicative: "It's a shame that he doesn't have a job anymore."

Subjunctive: "It's a shame that he don't have a job anymore."

Indicative: "I'm happy that it hasn't rained today."

Subjunctive: "I'm happy that it haven't rained today."

3.) After a verbal (or prepositional) phrase acting as a subordinating conjunction.

Indicative: "I'll give him the money as soon as he arrives."

Subjunctive: "I'll give him the money as soon as he arrive."

Indicative: "She'll lend him her book provided that he returns it."

Subjunctive: "She'll lend him her book provided that he return it."

Indicative: "We'll arrive at the station before the train leaves."

Subjunctive: "We'll arrive at the station before the train leave."

or 4.) After present tenses of "to want" or "to hope." (This one is particularly confusing.)

Even today, the subjunctive is universally used in prepositional phrases acting as adjectives modifying the object.

e.g. "I want him to win." Even an illiterate wouldn't say "I want him to wins."

Not only that, but (as in other languages) the present subjunctive is replaced with the infinitive when the prepositional phrase in question is used reflexively.

e.g. "He hopes to win."

—But what about other sentences with "to want" or "to hope?"

Indicative: "I hope he wins."

Subjunctive: "I hope he win."

I, for one, favor the present subjunctive in these cases, not the indicative. I wish, however, I could find some kind of respected authority concerning verbal moods in said situations.

Even if somewhat dated, would it not behoove somebody to favor the subjunctive in highly formal writing? Is there any reliable source out there to back this up (or discredit it)? Pine (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, "to win" is an infinitive, not a finite inflected verb, so subjunctive is completely irrelevant in that case. And in fact, the modern productive use of the subjunctive (as opposed to certain fossilized phrases, and "If I were"/"If he were") is pretty much confined to a few constructions of the type "I demand that he leave the room!" or "I request that he be granted clemency" (and even there, British English tends to use the subjunctive a lot less than American English). AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently alive and well in the US. I heard about a woman who arrived at LA Airport, jumped into a cab, and asked the driver, "Can you please take me some place where I can get scrod?" To which he replied, "You know, ma'am, that's the first time I've heard it in the pluperfect subjunctive". :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the UK and mostly mix with people with well above-average education. I don't think I have ever heard anyone use any of those subjunctive forms. Some of those forms are only familiar to me from TV/books hamming up stereotypes of dialect or poor education and even then mostly from overseas, such as slaves in the USA. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. None of those forms are used in standard English. Although I occasionally use it, one can get by in educated British English without ever using the subjunctive except possibly in a few set phrases mentioned above. I assume you have read the article on subjunctive. Dbfirs 14:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an overeducated native speaker of American English. As others have pointed out, "to win" is an infinitive rather than a subjunctive. Aside from that, all of the examples listed above are incorrect in American English, with the possible exception of "provided that he return it" under number 4. I'm not sure about the exception for "provided that", and I can't think of a rule that would explain the exception. Using the subjunctive with "provided that" sounds old-fashioned to me, but I think that I have heard that usage. However, I'm fairly certain that most speakers of American English (myself included) would say and write "provided that he returns it". Given the questionable status of the subjunctive in that case, I would not advise a non-native speaker to use it. That said, there are a few cases in which American English does use a subjunctive form, which our article Subjunctive describes. Even those uses of the subjunctive are beginning to fall out of use, particularly among less educated people. Marco polo (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same boat as Marco Polo here. The only one that doesn't sound completely wrong is the "provided that he return it" one, which I might or might not perceive as sounding funny if I heard it in an innocent context. It sounds completely natural, though, to say or hear, "It is important that you be early", and this indeed has a different meaning from, "It is important that you are early", although context is likely to make the intended meaning clear even if the indicative is used when the subjunctive "should" be or vice-versa. --Atemperman (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to correct you, but "I want him to win." is very much a present subjunctive, not an infinitive. In the original Latin, it's "Volo ut suus vincet."

And just as in Latin, the present subjunctive is replaced with the infinitive when the prepositional phrase in question is used reflexively. e.g. "Is spera vincere." "He hopes to win."

The question I asked, however, is whether there is any kind of historical rule apropos the present subjunctive tense in the English language (and not just the —somewhat lacking— modern rules).

Does anybody know of one?Pine (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "to win" is infinitive. It's subjunctive in Latin, but that was Latin, this is English. "To win" is not a prepositional phrase, it's a verb in its non-finite form; this is not the same "to" as the one in "he went to the store". rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try "I would that he win" for a subjunctive (not "I want him to win"). Dbfirs 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Twinpinesmall, I know that you think that the existence of a subjunctive adds something to a language, but almost everything that you said in your original posting was either wrong in general or wrong in modern English. For modern English, the situation is pretty much exactly as I summarized in my first posting -- certain fossilized phrases ("be he alive or be he dead" etc.), the use of "were" after 1st. person singular and 3rd. person singular subjects in counterfactual clauses, and a rather narrow range of constructions of the "I demand that he leave the room!" type (mainly confined to American English nowadays). If you're interested in the subjunctive as used in the English of 500 years ago, then there are a number of sources you could consult. In any case, if you want to see an example of a subjunctive which is slightly less decrepit than that of modern English, then you could look at the French language, where the subjunctive is actually used in many of the contexts you originally mentioned. However, despite any romantic linguistic illusions which some may hold, my experience of French leads me to very strongly doubt that the existence of a subjunctive adds anything very valuable to the language... AnonMoos (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in Spanish, sometimes two distinct meanings are conveyed solely by the mood of the verb; in other languages, different words are used. For example, aunque can mean "even if" or "even though", depending on whether the verb in the subordinate clause is subjunctive or indicative. Salgo aunque haga (subj.) frío = "I'm going out even if it's cold", while Salgo aunque hace (indic.) frío = "I'm going out even though it's cold".--Atemperman (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly some languages have a strongly functional subjunctive conjugation, which plays an active role in the language. I was actually referring to languages with moribund subjunctives, which are more decaying fragments of ornamental linguistic bric-a-brac than an essential part of the language. (This is the case in English, and is almost the case in French.) I'm not sure that it serves any real purpose to get sentimental over such subjunctive remnants.., AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proboscis

Apologies for the cross-post, but on reflection, I should probably have posted the question "Pronouncing proboscis" here.

I could do with some of your expert views, (English pronounciation and Ancient Greek etymology in particular) but as discussion is already under way, I'm loathe to move the thread.

Apologies once more for my stupidity. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=proboscis&ls=a and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=proboscis&searchmode=none and wikt:loath and wikt:loathe and wikt:pronunciation. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Re loath, I did include a disclaimer that I'm stupid. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learning a new language

For quite some time I have had strong desire to acquire fluency in at least one other language. My motivations are general, as I think knowledge of a language is priceless, and I'm kind of person that think no knowledge is useless, so this is more of personal development project. I am native speaker of Croatian and I have formal recognition of English competence. I decided I'd like to know another European language, preferably one of official languages of EU. But I have trouble deciding on specific language. I am considering between French, German, Spanish or maybe Polish. I have definitely ruled out Russian, any South Slavic language, Italian, Portuguese. I probably won't try any northern European language or something like Modern Greek or some language with insignificant number of speakers, but if you can make convincing case for it, I'll leave it open.

At this point I really cannot come up with convincing argument for any of those mentioned, and some aspects of those languages scare me (ie. ambiguity of pronunciation in French, compounded words in German). Since I imagine most of you who answer questions on language desk have strong grasp of few languages and their European context, in your opinion, which one would be most useful (ie. languages is used internationally and has greatest number of speakers), relatively easy to learn (I'm all for challenge, but if learning it will be like torture, no thanks), and there is plethora of language learning support materials (online texts, courses, projects like Simple English Wikipedia and so on). Also, I do not want to dabble into a language. If I decide on it, I am striving for relatively high fluency, and ability to hold average conversation with native speaker.

I am also a full time university student of "History" and "Security, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism" which means I cannot commit to any formal classes, there is no way I can fit it in with my job, so, some advice on self-teaching techniques would be great (is it worth to memorise all the grammar rules and basic vocabulary, or just pick up a book or something like Rosetta Stone which attempts to teach it the way you acquire your first language). I acquired English over 8 years so I don't really know how would adult go about picking up a new language, and I am looking to acquire this new language in much shorter time-frame, and without direct involvement in the culture of that language.

Also, I'm considering trying for some kind of student exchange program, so this choice is effectively my choice of country I might go into.

Sorry for TL:DR and sorry for this question not being really specific or straight forward, but I don't really know anyone who can offer me insight into multiple European languages, since I live in Australia, and second (or third) language knowledge is not that prominent. My university doesn't even offer any languages but Biblical Hebrew and I think Old Greek. Thanks --203.59.83.53 (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Spanish. It's an official language of the EU, it has a huge number of speakers and, being a Romance language, it will help you understand other closely related languages such as Portuguese, French or Italian. Also, being already fluent in English means that you already know an enormous number of "difficult" or "not so commonly used" Spanish vocabulary (e.g. representation->representación, result->resultado, imagination->imaginación...) since English has tens of thousands of Latin loanwords - this last thing doesn't happen with, for example, German, which uses Germanic roots that you'd have to learn. --Belchman (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, "ambiguous pronunciation" in French is almost nonexistent. Once you know the spelling system, almost all pronunciations and spellings are predictable, unlike English. But really, in the end you should choose based on what culture and what language you find most interesting. All of the languages you've listed have a large population of speakers and will be useful, so it's not like you would be "wasting your time" with any of them—just follow your gut. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Croatian language has no grammatical articles (see the map), so you might wish to choose a language which is similar in that respect.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising my comment, by inserting the definite article "the" before the noun "map". -- Wavelength (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

While I agree that Spanish (or Italian) is a good choice, similarity of English and German is, of course, much larger than between English and any Romance language. English essentially is a Low German dialect with several layers of rape-and-pillage words piled on top (other languages may have "loan words", but let's not kid ourselves about how English expands its vocabulary). If I could poof any given Western European language into my brain, I'd probably chose French. There is a large amount of literature (from Dumas to Verne to Leo Malet and George Simenon) in that language, and it has been the international language of polite society and diplomacy for a few hundred years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The compounded words of German are more-or-less just like the noun phrases in English, except without spaces between the words. For instance, if the previous sentence were in German, "noun phrases" would be written as a single word. As a native English speaker, I found it quite hard to understand spoken French, even though I had a strong Spanish background (could read the paper just fine, engage in conversation about somewhat sophisticated topics and understand and be understood just fine) from having lived in Spain for half a year. So even though I picked up the ability to speak French rather quickly, I always had to ask speakers to slow down or repeat themselves. I haven't done research on this, but my impression is that French has more homophones and near-homophones than either Spanish or German, and it doesn't have the rhythm that either Spanish or German have that make it a lot easier for me to understand what other people are saying. Despite what most people think, French doesn't have any inherent stress in words, so only the last full syllable of a prosodic unit (which typically encompasses three to eight words) receives stress -- the rest of the syllables are all more or less the same length and intensity and are not separated at all (to my ear) at word boundaries. German in particular is spoken very clearly (at least among Northerners), even if certain other aspects (for this English speaker, mainly case, unpredictable gender, and knowing which preposition to use) are more daunting. Even though English and German are more closely related than English and Spanish, I found the use of Spanish prepositions extremely logical. Gender is also close to a no-brainer in Spanish. --Atemperman (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can figure out the difference between ser and estar you've pretty well got it covered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your input. What I meant with "ambiguous pronunciation" is that it is almost impossible to me to separate words and sounds. I am not linguist so I can't really say exactly what I mean, but if I had to take any foreign language and write it in Croatian spelling system by how I hear it, English is easy, German is harder but doable, French is impossible. Don't know it that makes much sense. I am aware that its probably impossible to have any messier spelling-to-pronunciation system then English. And yes, I found (still do) articles in English challenging just because Croatian doesn't have them, but I'd like to think that I have solid grasp on them, so I will not base my choice on articles of that language. That bit about German was pretty informational, but I forgot to mention one other thing that I find scary in German: capitalisation of all nouns. Seams like idiotic system. And, do I understand this right: written questions in Spanish are written same way as corresponding statement, difference is in inverted question mark at the start of the sentence? How do you distinguish them when talking then?--203.59.83.53 (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it is not correct that French is not "spelled how you hear it". Once you are used to the spelling system, it is very systematic and much closer to having a one-to-one correspondence of spelling and sound than English does.

As for your other questions... well, capitalization of nouns doesn't make the language any harder to speak or read, and there's nothing "idiotic" about it (there are very little things about languages that are "right" or "wrong", "better" or "worse", "idiotic" or "sensible"). As for Spanish, you can recognize questions by context and by the use of intonation, which is pretty common (in English the word order changes for questions, but that is certainly not the case for all languages). rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All nouns being capitalized in German can actually be helpful, as it provides a clue when reading as to what's a noun and what's something else. I think what the OP might mean about French being "impossible" might just be that it's harder to understand French. With regard to word order for questions in Spanish, when there's a question word (an English "Wh" word like "who", "which", "what", etc., or in Spanish, very often a "Q/Cu" word like "quién", "cuál", "qué", etc.), the word order indeed changes, unlike, say, Chinese (I think). In Spanish as in English, the Q/Cu word gets moved to the head of the clause normally, so the usual interrogative counterpart to "I'm eating a potato" is "What am I eating?" rather than "I'm eating what?". If there's no Q/Cu word, then the usual SVO word order changes to VSO. Spanish is more flexible than English in word order, in speech as well as writing, but as Rjanag said, context and intonation are reliable guides. As an English speaker, I can't ever remember getting confused about whether someone was making a statement or asking a question in Spanish. As with the capitalization of all nouns in German, the inverted question marks in Spanish are a helpful guide when reading.--Atemperman (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with Belchman's recommendation of Spanish. Unless you are intending to travel in Latin America, I think Spanish will be of limited usefulness to you (and even then there will be small differences). If I understand correctly, you want maximum travel and border opportunities for your effort within the EU—Spanish is definitely not the best choice. In terms of simple borders, Spain touches France (both Romance languages, but you would still struggle with French pronunciation) and Portugal (languages are somewhat similar, but you will still have to learn a very gutteral r, ;-) ). France and Germany, on the other hand, both linguistically and in terms of borders, essentially sit in the heart of Europe, and either language will get you far. Belgium (59% English, in cities ~95% speak French iiuc), Luxembourg (60% English, French and German are official), the Netherlands (89% know English, 70% German), Austria (over 90% know German, 58% English, 10% French), Switzerland (64% German, 20% French). And, just to make the figures even more enticing, in France, Spanish beats German by only 5%, and in Germany, about 15% know French. (I pulled most of these figures from the "Languages in ..." articles.) French will also be useful further afield, being an official language in Canada, several countries in Africa, and a few select island tourist destinations (Mauritius and Madagascar come to mind, :-) ). As I said, if you are not planning on visits to Latin America, I think you can see that Spanish has limited "travel" compared to French and German. As for how you go about the studying (either French or German, or both for an ideal choice), I recommend the Michel Thomas introductory courses (see them on Amazon here: [1] [2]). Consistently high ratings on Amazon (not that it says much). They are cheap enough, and easy enough to use, that you could get both and see which you end up preferring, and then follow it with the advanced course. One thing can be said about Michel Thomas: he certainly dispels the "frightening" aspect of a new language, and for not much money and no commitment you can dip your toes in. Maedin\^talk 06:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker of English, but I also speak French, Russian and Spanish. I really wish I also spoke German, but I don't.

I'll begin with my views on difficulty, and then talk about usefulness.

I understand what you mean about French pronunciation. If you hear [œ̃nɔm] un homme 'a man', for example, and your vocabulary doesn't yet include homme, then you will be left guessing as to whether what you heard was un homme or un nomme. (There is in fact no noun nomme.) Final consonants in one word can very well form the onset of a syllable when combined with the following word. In this case, the syllable is {{IPA|[nɔm]}. So there is a problem with dividing utterances into words. Another complicating factor is that in French, individual words don't bear stress the way they do in English or in German. Instead, the last syllable of each "rhythmic group" (or "phrase") is stressed. So while in English you might have

This morning I got up around seven.

with all words except function words stressed, in French you would probably have

Ce matin je me suis levé vers sept heures.

Rhythmic groups can be as long as ten syllables in French. So when you're just starting out, it can be harder to tell where the boundaries between words are. That being said, after a few months, most people stop having this problem, since they recognize most of the words in any sentence.

Since you talked about becoming very proficient in the language, French may actually be a good choice. My personal experience has been that it is much more common for adult learners to reach native-like ability in French than in English.

I can't really talk about the difficulty of German, since I don't speak it. Spanish was easy for me because I already spoke French when I learned it, but I imagine it is about equally difficult. There is not the initial difficulty of words running together that there is in French, but as I said, that is only a transitory problem.

As for Polish, my experience with Russian has been that native speakers of Polish or Bulgarian I've met have been able to become very proficient in it with much less effort than for the rest of us who aren't native speakers of a Slavic language. If you choose to learn Polish, it is virtually certain that the effort involved will be much less than for the other languages.

As to the relative usefulness of these languages, I think French is the clear winner. It's the only language besides English that you're likely to find speakers of practically everywhere. It's happened occasionally that in Italy or Romania, I would address people in English and they would look at me blankly and ask if I spoke French. Polish is the language I've always thought I'd learn if I decided to learn another Slavic language. German, I understand, is virtually as widespread as English and Russian as a second language in parts of Eastern Europe (Hungary, the Czech Republic, etc.), so it seems very useful too. Spanish is useful especially in Spanish America, but is now also the number one foreign language in Brazil (ahead of English, which used to be number one, and French, which was number one before English was.) Spanish is not uncommon as a second language in France.

I'm surprised you left out Italian. I know a couple of Croatian women who speak excellent Italian and say that's not uncommon in Croatia.

Arabic

I was curious about some junk mail I got (I guess it is, first time ever in Arabic) - what does this mean? thanks, --AlexSuricata (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 رسالة أنثى سعودية إإلى حسن عسيري‏

Google claims it means "Message FEMALE Arabia Aali Hassan Asiri". Probably not much use, but until somebody with knowledge of Arabic comes along, it will have to do.--Melmann^(talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a typo, it should be إلى not 'إإلى'. --Soman (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Female Saudi message to Hassan Asiri." Is this all it said? Wrad (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like very good Arabic. Like whoever wrote it didn't write in Arabic much or was careless. Wrad (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would something like 'Message of a Saudi woman to Hassan Asiri'. There a wikipage on Hassan Asiri in arabic wikipedia, http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86_%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A. --Soman (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Looks like he's an actor. Wrad (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The google machine translation says the article is a "girl stub" for some reason. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew inscription?

What does this inscription say? -- noosphere 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it's trying to say is כשר לפסח (kosher for Passover), but the last letter of the first word looks more like a ד to me than like a ר. +An gr 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The letter U inside an O means that the product is under the Rabbinical supervision of the Orthodox Union situated in New York and the letter P means that it is Kosher for Passover. Simonschaim (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Orthodox Union may be headquartered in NY, but they certainly have supervisors living in many locations around the globe. And there are traditions from Persia (such as in modern-day Iran) that the ד and the ר look nearly identical or actually identical, and that letter usage is determined via context. I just heard about such a thing last week when I listened to this lecture by R' Aharon Kahn from Yeshiva University. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish word for bottle

In Nicaragua I heard a word for bottle which I can't exactly remember. The reason it stood out to me was because it sounded like chingar, but with another syllable at the front. pachinga is coming to mind, but that doesn't seem to be a word. Anyone know what word it is? 149.169.84.149 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pachinga. It's in this list:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a Japanese pinball machine? PhGustaf (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

[PhGustaf, you might be thinking of pachinko. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Among the many internet references, imititating a repetitive sound is among its uses. I wouldn't be surprised if pachinga is somehow related to chingar, given its shape and operation. Except you wouldn't expect that to be a mainstream term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wiktionary entry for bottle, pacha is used in Nicaragua to refer to a baby bottle. Perhaps it's a derivative of that? Deor (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

First names with other meanings

Looking for information (etymology, list, etc.) for Names(persons) that have evolved into other meanings. For example: John(restroom); Dick(appendage); Peter[ed out] (exhausted); and so on. Must be a reference out there. Thanks in advance for any help. 70.177.189.205 (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack has hundreds of other meanings. How versatile and useful jack is. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy boy (gay man). Sheila (traditional Australian term for a woman). Colleen (Irish term for a woman). Judas (traitor). Jezebel (harlot). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen isn't a name that came to be the word for a woman; it's the Irish word for girl, cailín, that came to be used as a name - but mostly by Irish immigrants to other countries, not in Ireland itself. +An gr 08:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom? As in tom cat. Dismas|^(talk) 08:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy (goat), Mavis (thrush (bird)), John Thomas (cock (male appendage)). DuncanHill (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger (message received, or in some slang it can mean to fornicate) Dismas|^(talk) 10:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence "Roger and out" to mean both penetration and withdrawal. DuncanHill (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of this bit from the film Airplane!

Roger Murdock: We have clearance, Clarence.

Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?

Tower voice: Tower's radio clearance, over!

Captain Oveur: That's Clarence Oveur. Over.

Astronaut (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew (in merry andrew). Charles (see Charlie#Other uses + "He's a right Charlie"). Jerry (German). Charlotte (a dessert). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin. Jenny (wren). Reynard the fox. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly (fish). Dolly Varden (fish). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The victoria, a type of carriage. Named after you know who, but still spelt with a lower case v for some reason. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and history of the term "Indian subcontinent"?

We now know that India and the countries around it actually constitute a subcontinent (or, at least, a distinct tectonic plate). However, the term "Indian subcontinent" predates the acceptance of plate tectonics - it was common in Kipling in the 19th century, back when plate tectonics wasn't even a crank theory, let alone accepted science. So what's the term's origin and history?

(I asked this just recently on Talk:Indian subcontinent and then noticed I'd asked the same question on the same talk page six years ago ... so I thought here might be a better place.) - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers gives the meaning as "a great portion of a continent with a character of its own" - no mention of tectonics. I'll have a look in the OED for some early uses which may help. Off the top of my head, as well as India, both South Africa and Asia Minor may also be called subcontinents. DuncanHill (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. But "the subcontinent" means the Indian one - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and oddly OED has nothing from Kipling, and the first use they have for India is from 1971. Earlier uses are for South Africa (mainly) and South America. There is an 1863 citation from Huxley with an Asian context, but it is unclear which landmasses are meant. I really must see if I can find it used in Kipling, as it could be worth sending in to the OED as an additional early usage. DuncanHill (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now wondering if Kipling did actually use the word in his fiction! I can't find it on a quick search of his works ... apparently he used it in a letter or two - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a feeling he used it somewhere or other - describing the traffic on the Grand Trunk Road in Kim perhaps? DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Google News Archives, I see that the word "subcontinent" was originally used in the early 20th century to refer to South Africa. It was first used to refer to India in a 1910 Chicago Tribune article. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot think of the name of a logical fallacy

I'm having a slow burning argument with someone over something, and he raises the point that since I am not able to create something like what we're talking about I can't comment on it. An easy example would be "If this programs so bad why don't YOU make a better one?" or "You're no artist, how can you say what is and isn't art" but I can't think of the name of this. Is it actually a fallacy or have I gone wrong somewhere? Gunrun (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fallacy, specifically tu quoque: "A makes criticism P. A is also guilty of P. Therefore, P is dismissed." The personal qualities of A are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of P - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A colloquial term could be "diversionary tactic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting "Rubbish!" may be more common in colloquial use, but it is useful to know the name of the fallacy and why it's a fallacy ;-) When I hear this particular phrasing of the fallacy, the person making it is entirely serious and thinks it's a good argument - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that although logcally it remains a fallacy, it is possible in general conversation that the person has a point, e.g. that the person is just being critical from envy of the criticised person's ability. However, in general "well, you do better" is utter rubbish as a refutation. In this particular case, you're a viewer of the art and quite entitled to an opinion as the viewer (IMO, YMMV) - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rubbish as refutation, but it's not always a bad point. Back when I was an academic, I would frequently get annoyed at books and articles that had been published in which a particular theory or analysis was attacked but no better theory or analysis was proposed. Being a critic is easy; coming up with a new idea that solves the problems you've identified in someone else's work is a lot harder. Of course, that doesn't mean I had refuted the books/articles that served only to criticize and not to propose something new, but I do think it's a fair point that a book that only says "So-and-so's theory is crap" without going on to propose something better isn't really a very successful book. And if I had ever had occasion to publish a review of such a book, it's certainly a criticism I would have made. +An gr 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also {{sofixit}}.—msh210℠ 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a formal fallacy, but you can think of it as a valid argument with a false premise:

If you are not a skilled practitioner, you cannot come up with valid criticism

You are not a skilled practitioner

—————————————————————————————————

You cannot come up with valid criticism

The first premise is false because you don't need to be a cook to be able to judge whether a dish is tasty or not. --173.49.10.146 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fallacy, but what your counterpart seems to be getting at is that winners don't complain. Vranak (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word related to fanfic

Is there a more specific word for work like fan fiction, but not concerned with telling stories so much as elucidating aspects of the original creation? Stuff like speculation on how Star Trek technology works, or trying to bend the Sherlock Holmes canon into a consistent timeline? --Hence Piano (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's "Fanon" (i.e. fan-canon). There used to be a separate Wikipedia article on it, but it got merged long ago... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like The Physics of Star Trek, right? The word doesn't appear in that article, which you'd think it would if it existed. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within fandom, things that do that rather than telling a story are often called meta, treated as a noun. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kechemeche

What does KECHEMECHE mean in the lenape language? they were the indiginous people of cape may county along with the tuckahoe.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)kgb[reply]

The Lenape are a group of bands of Native American peoples, Lenape language is redirected to Unami language, Cape May County is disambiguated to Cape May County, New Jersey, and Tuckahoe is disambiguated. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that we don't have any speakers of Lenape/Unami on the Reference Desk, you might want to contact these folks to see if they can help you. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kechemeche is the name of a Native American tribe that lived in the area generally known today as the southern portion of Cape May County, New Jersey, an area bounded on one side by the Atlantic Ocean, and the Delaware River Bay on another.—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I've been searching all over the internet for a while, so I've been to all those sites you listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try http://vark.com/ and http://www.google.com/Top/Reference/Ask_an_Expert/. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple places to try:

Dunlap A.R.,Weslager C.A. (1958) "Toponymy of the Delaware Valley as Revealed by an Early Seventeenth Century Dutch Map." Bulletin of the Archeological Society of New Jersey. 15-16, pp. 3-4. OCLC 5665723.
Weslager C.A. (1954) "Robert Evelyn's Indian Tribes and Place-Names of New Albion." Bulletin of the Archeological Society of New Jersey. 9, pp. 1-4. OCLC 35448915.
"A description of the early Delaware Indian communities in New Jersey is found in a letter written by an Englishman, Robert Evelyn, first published in 1641 in an anonymous tract and reprinted in 1648. Weslager uses the 1641 version in his transcription...Evelyn's letter name nine Indian communities in New Albion, the designation for land in New Jersey patented by Sir Edmund Plowden. Weslager places these communities on a map with suggested interpretations of the Indian names."

tho they look like they might be hard to get ahold of.—eric 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mystery! guess its harder than I thought. its funny because it sounds a little like "cape may" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be so hard if you try one of those external links, particularly the one I suggested above, where you can connect to people who speak the Lenape language. Marco polo (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will likely be a dead end also, but you could try wikt:WT:TRREQ.—msh210℠ 21:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are "no known speakers" (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=unm). -- Wavelength (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more lead - David Zeisberger was supposed to have written the definitive Unami dictionary, and it's available online. You might look there to see if he recorded the word. Note you should check G words as well as K, and ch might be transliterated as tch, tsch, sh, etc as well. Marco Polo's idea would probably be quicker. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those worked. I emailed marcos people, havn't heard back yet. I found this site http://www.gilwell.com/lenape/m.htm, and these words Kitschii: verily, truely; and Mechen: great, big. any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.254.154 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also keechi, supposedly meaning "how many?"; and the mech- root seems to mean "much" or "many". This could suggest something like "How many? Many!" If that's right, it might be an exonym used by other Lenape for the group on Cape May. It could even be a European misunderstanding. (I can imagine some Englishman or Dutchman asking in English or Dutch "What is the name of your people?" while some Lenape shouts from behind cover "Keechi?", to which his compatriot standing in front of the ship full of white people answers "Keechi? Mechi!" And the satisfied Englishman or Dutchman concludes "These are the Kechemeche".) However, you really should run this by someone with a command of the language before drawing conclusions. Marco polo (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had an active imagination! that is priceless, and I mean that with appreciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Knockoff'

Resolved

I just got an email from CNET advertising an iPod Shuffle 'knockoff' at $9.16. I have no intention whatsoever of buying it, but one thing caught my eye. Where I come from (UK), 'knockoff' means 'stolen'. I doubt that CNET would advertise cheap stolen goods and I'm guessing that someone at CNET uses this word to mean 'at a discounted price' or something. Which dialect would this be? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An iPod knockoff would be something that does what an iPod does, but isn't actually an iPod. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it just occurred to me it can also mean 'counterfeit' or 'copy'. I have just looked at the advert on their website (should have done that first), and under the picture it says "It may look like an iPod Shuffle, but it's definitely not priced like one", so I guess that's what it meant. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically in the US, at least, it means a cheap (and very possibly inferior) imitation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

Language disorders

Im not sure if this goes here or somewhere esle so bear with me here. My friend told me that Chinese speakers have a lower incidence of certain kinds of dyslexia because Chinese does not use an alphabet. Are there any languages that people with certain language disabilities would be better off with? 68.248.230.97 (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One with no "r" or "w" sounds would suit me. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Straight Dope article: [4] implies that dyslexia occurs in Chinese, too, but the nature of the dyslexia is different, because of the logographic nature of Chinese versus the alphabetic nature of English. It cites an article in Nature, and a study on a bilingual Japanese/English speaker, who has trouble with English, but not Japanese. It sits pretty well to my background knowledge that this is correct. Steewi (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dyslexia definitely occurs with Chinese speakers. It just doesn't look the same since, when reading Chinese, they're not dealing with the same kind of writing system as what we are. But saying that dyslexia doesn't occur in China because they have a different writing system is like saying housecats don't get sick because you never see them going to the pharmacy—they still do get sick, the result just doesn't look the same. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good analogy if other cats do go to the pharmacy, Rjanag. But do they? I can't say I've ever seen any sort of cat getting a prescription filled or asking a pharmacist for something for the weekend. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some must do, or at least have someone go for them..... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question on a similar vein, specific to stuttering. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a reference just now, but as far as I know there are more people suffering from dyslexia in english speaking countries compared to finnish and italian speaking countries, because in finnish and italian spelling is more "what you see is what you get", whereas in english the relationship between how the word sounds and what is written is much weaker. For example the sound u can be written both as you and as hugh (at least as a foreigner I can't hear the difference between these two.) Lova Falk 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I've never heard "Hugh" pronounced without an aspirated 'h' sound at the start, which makes it clearly different from "you". But "ewe" or "yew", ah, now you're talking homophones with "you". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of an anecdote one of our high school teachers liked to tell us about another teacher at our school. The teacher in question was from the south of England, and when he came up north, he was surprised to hear all the kids constantly saying, 'Hey, Hughes!!!', and he wondered if Hughes may be a very very common name up here - not realizing, of course, that the kids were actually saying, 'Hey, youse!' (and 'youse' is the plural of 'you' where I come from). Basically here, the 'h' is very rarely pronounced, and, just as an example, the name Howard Hughes sounds exactly like 'How are Jews'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I learned English, my teacher assigned us a story we should read. In this story there was a man called Hugh, and in my "inner speech" I pronounced this as hug-h, but it was terribly tiresome to think the h behind hug, and I never finished the assignment... Lova Falk 07:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Son House

In the Steven King novel The Stand, the phrase "Son House" is used to mean "hatchet". (This occurs on pages 499-500 of The Stand (The Complete and Uncut Edition), 1990, New York, Doubleday: "Just inside the woodshed door, she found Billy Richardson's Son House hanging on a couple of pegs..." and "She put the birds into the towsack and then hung Billy Richardson's Son House hatchet back up.")

According to this, Son House was American southern black slang for hatchet, based on the weapon that musician Son House supposedly used to kill a main (I think he actually shot the man, but whatever).

I wrote a Wiktionary entry for this, but I can't find any other references to this. A writer of King's stature wouldn't have just made this up, would he have? Does anyone know of any other references to this, or how to find them? Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He might have. I read lots of Stephen King and often come across expressions that I've never heard before, and when I try to research them I can't find any non-King uses of them. Another example is the boogeymen called "Tommyknockers". +An gr 06:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then is this (scroll down to the last comment, by Drumbo) just trollery? If so, it's awfully good trollery, and Drumbo, a senior member of that discussion board, seems an awfully unlikely troll. I have not been able to contact him, though. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) The Tommyknockers (more usual name in the US) or Knockers (more usual name in the UK) were spirits said to inhabit mines, especially Cornish tin mines (hence the Cornish Knocker beer brewed by Skinner's brewery in Cornwall), who made knocking noises in the darkness. Belief in them was/is centuries old. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, the world isn't divided into verifiably correct answers and trollery. He might be 100% correct, or he might be making a good-faith but unfounded assumption. 87.81, thanks for that info re (tommy)knockers. But what about Langoliers? Any folklore about them outside of Stephen King's imagination? Or the expression "Good enough for government work" - has anyone other than a King character ever said that? +An gr 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A work colleague of mine (from the UK) used "Good enough for government work" on a regular basis, he said that he picked it up from his dad. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know several people who say "close enough for government work" all the time. Don't know if people got it from King or vice versa. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, the expression has been around for a while. Mikenorton (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, but we're getting off topic now, and it's my fault. So back to the issue at hand: can anyone verify the use of Son House as a slang term for "hatchet", apart from its use in The Stand? +An gr 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Son House was the name of a seminal Delta blues guitarist (real name: Eddie House, Jr.). Since guitarists have called their instruments "axes" for quite a long time, I wonder if the use of "Son House" to mean "axe" is based on this relationship - no murder required. Anyway, my Google checks seem to indicate that the issue may be discussed in The Complete Stephen King Encyclopedia by Stephen J. Spignesi, though the book seems to be out of print and no previews are available through Google Books. Maybe your local library has a copy. Matt Deres (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophily

Resolved

Found this change in the article from a troublesome source.
It was "philos" (φίλος) (love, attraction)" now "philos" (φίλος) (friend)". Can't judge if it is correct or not.
To be a bit more specific, should "philos" be translated as "love, attraction" or as "friend" ? Feel free to correct the article! 220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:φιλία, wikt:φίλος, wikt:ξένος. wikt:-xeny, (hospitality, el:φιλοξενία, http://multilingualbible.com/romans/12-13.htm, http://multilingualbible.com/1_peter/4-9.htm). -- Wavelength (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter all that much, because both the Greek words are closely-related forms derived from the same root or stem phil-, but technically the second half of "Xenophily" most closely corresponds to ancient Greek φιλία... AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I've already edited the article to indicate. +An gr 15:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of expressions into single words

For some years I've been noticing a trend developing whereby certain two-word expressions are being merged into a single word. Some examples I’ve noticed are:

a hold > ahold
a lot > alot
as well > aswell
at all > atall
at least > atleast
a while > awhile ('awhile' does have its place, but it means something different from 'a while')
in case > incase
in store > instore
no one > noone
under age > underage.

There are doubtless many others. What has caused millions of people to suddenly start doing this, and where will it end?

Why do the same people go against their own trend by:

separating the single word 'cannot' into two words (I recognise that there's a place for 'can not', but it's used in the positive sense: I can not only play the ocarina, but also …, whereas 'cannot' is the negation of 'can'); and
dehyphenating many words that are better left hyphenated (e.g. the single word 'great-uncle' is often seen as the two-word expression 'great uncle', which means something rather different)? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether pedants a hundred years ago lamented the modern trend of writing "today", "tonight", and "tomorrow" together as single words instead of hyphenated "to-day", "to-night", and "to-morrow". At any rate, those examples show that the habit of making single words out of phrases that used to be written separately isn't really new, and people didn't "suddenly start doing this" a few years ago. Anyway, the reason it happens is surely that these phrases are perceived as being single words at the semantic level. In the case of noone, the single-word spelling is backed up by its synonym nobody as well as its cousins nothing, nowhere, everyone, and someone; indeed I suspect the two adjacent o's are the only reason this word isn't usually spelled noone. Underage is very convenient as an attributive adjective, as in "underage drinkers", because writing it as two words ("under age drinkers") is potentially confusing. Cannot, on the other hand, is reasonably felt to be two words, just like must not, may not, will not, etc., so it gets spelled that way. +An gr 22:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 50 years ago, I was taught to write "to-day", and being a pedant, I still do sometimes. I can remember seeing "today" and reading "toady" because I was unfamiliar with the unhyphenated form. Dbfirs 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying English to some degree has a similarity with German in this propensity to concatenate 2 words to make a new single word? Are there other examples where this occurs in English? I'm aware of cases like handshake, toothache etc, but doing this with articles and prepositions seems a different ballpark. I mean, will there ever come atime when aman will go towork eating anapple and awoman will come home fromwork eating anorange? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "&", aka "and per se and." Curiously, "as well" ("also") in Spanish did likewise: tan bien evolved into tambien. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a trend to merge words at all.

"ahold" is something different from "a hold" (take a look a few questions above where it says: "they look like they might be hard to get ahold of.—eric 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)" I could not imagine eric's comment would make sense if you were to separate "ahold"),
"awhile" is something different from "a while" (as the OP points out),
"alot" looks like a misspelling of "allot",
"instore" and "underage" seem to have always been like that when referring to "instore promotions" or "underage drinkers", but saying to a friend "have we got a party in store for you when we get home" would be very odd with "instore",

As for the rest, only "noone" seems like a genuine merging and I have never seen the others without assuming it was a typo. Astronaut (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'get ahold of' vs. 'get a hold of' vs 'get hold of': see this, this, and this.
'alot' does indeed look like a misspelling of 'allot': but many, many people nowadays quite deliberately write 'alot' to mean what was traditionally spelt 'a lot'. My strong impression is that it's hardly ever a typo as such, but the way this word is normally spelt by a significant proportion of the population. I'm sure one could find citations going back many decades, but it seems to have taken off in a big way only in the past 10-15 years. That's what I mean by "they suddenly started doing this". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, Jack, pure laziness. I'm able and willing to provide more examples of poor grammar—no need to even ask.—eric 04:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering the question, but I'm sure you'll appreciate this link: [5]. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Correct legal terminology

Say that two parties (A and B) enter into a valid contract. Later on, both A and B mutually decide that they do not want to have that contract after all. What is the legal word that describes this? At first, I was thinking "rescind/rescission", but that does not seem to be the correct term. I guess what I am asking is ... what is the correct legal term for "both parties changing their minds and mutually agreeing to cancel the contract"? Is "cancel" the right word? Or is there a more precise legal word? Thanks! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What's wrong with rescind/recission? That seems right to me, at least if one party changes their mind. Do you mean you think there is a different term if both parties do it? I don't think there is one. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the rescission article, it seemed that the term refers to some outside party (like a judge) throwing out the contract, as a remedy for some dispute about the contract. In other words, one of the contract's parties has a complaint or an issue about the contract, and the judge's remedy to fix the controversy and to resolve the dispute is to rescind the contract. That is how I read the rescission article. And, in my question, no one is complaining or claiming any breach of contract. Both parties mutually simply changed their minds and want to get rid of the contract (legally). Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"Annulment by mutual consent" comes to mind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Annulment" seems to me to nullify the entire contract. I am not sure that that fits with what I am asking. Let me give an example. Let's say that a landlord and a tenant enter a lease contract on January 1st (2010) to run for one full year, ending on December 31st (2010). Both parties live up to the contract, lease terms, tenancy, etc. There are no breaches, nor allegations of breach whatsoever. Then, in the middle of the contract (let's just say July 1st), both parties change their minds and "want out" of the contract ... even though the contract still has 6 full months more to go on it. "Annulment" seems to indicate that the whole contract was nullified (even the January through June component). In my scenario, the January through June component is still a valid contract, with both parties having rights and responsibilities. None of that is void or nullified. They just want the July through December component to be thrown out or "undone". That is the word I am searching for. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If the parties were going to change the terms of the July through December component, I assume that this is called "modifying" the contract. What I want is the word when both parties agree that on July 1st, there is no more contract whatsoever. So, they are not modifying anything ... they are essentially simply ripping up the contract and throwing it out the window (as if it never existed, in terms of the July through December piece). But they are keeping the January through June piece legally intact. There must be some legal term for this? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's perfectly common, and is usually referred to as 'termination by mutual agreement' - one of several ways of terminating a contract (performance and breach are two others). Maid Marion (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquially known as "tearing up the contract." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Education level', 'educational level' or 'level of education

Which of the phrases above best describe how educated people are? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Educational level and level of education are both equally acceptable. Each might be better than the other for a particular context. Education level is not quite incorrect, but to my native-speaker ears it sounds awkward and unnatural. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My native-speaking ears agree with Marco. DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Canadian ears thinks differently. To me, educational level sounds awkward, almost as if it was referring to the grade level itself rather than the person's accomplishment. For example, I might ask a prospective employee about their education level (or level of education), but I would talk with the school principal about the relative funding available for the various educational levels. Matt Deres (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My British ears like "level of education" best, "education level" second best (I'd probably only use that as a heading in a table or something rather than in a sentence) and I don't like "educational level" at all (I would think you were talking about how educational something is, but it would be a weird way to do so). --Tango (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So educational level may be a United States thing. On the other hand, education level does not sound right in the United States. So, if you want to be safe everywhere English is spoken, probably the best form is level of education. Marco polo (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consent versus assent

What exactly is the difference in meaning if someone consents versus assents to something? Example 1: I will paint the home blue only if all of the homeowners consent. Example 2: I will paint the home blue only if all of the homeowners assent. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In your examples, I don't think that there is a practical difference. In both cases, the word in quotes could be replaced with the word agree. However, I do think that there is a subtle difference in meaning between the two words. Consent means to actively agree to something. Assent means to allow something, or to choose not to disagree. Assent suggest a more passive agreement. Marco polo (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I somewhat see what you are talking about, in terms of a subtle difference. But, would you mind giving an example sentence for each word to clarify/illustrate what you are saying in your above post? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

My Webster's defines assent as, "to agree to something, especially after thoughtful consideration; to concur." It defines consent as, "to give assent or approval; to agree." So there's a lame example of the use of "assent", which I don't think is really used that often compared with "consent". As per Marco Polo's grounds, "assent" is more passive, "consent" is more active. Like "I won't stand in your way" vs. "I'll go along with that." Both come from the Latin sentire meaning "to feel", with the prefixes "ad-" meaning "to" and "con-" meaning "with". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly consent is more active than assent. Just try to imagine "two assenting adults" having sex (without the help of a third party). LANTZY ^TALK 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Can someone please offer two good example sentences, to illustrate and contrast the more active agreement sense of "consent" versus the more passive agreement sense of "assent"? Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Have you looked on Google at all? This is beginning to sound like a homework question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A homework question! I am 50 years old. That homework would be long overdue! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In Commonwealth countries, laws must be given Royal Assent before they become effective. The monarch is above politics, and in practice the withholding of assent is unthinkable. The term 'assent' implies an aloofness, a profound official disinterest in the details of the law (as compared with what is often a very keen personal interest); the Parliament can run its affairs quite nicely without any interference from the queen or the governor-general, so whatever the parliament legislates, she will sign it unquestioningly. Same deal for regulations drafted by the government under the authority of a law; they just get assented to regardless. Whereas, 'consent' would suggest the monarch/g-g has read through the proposed law and gives it the big tick only because they agree with its general thrust. Assent has nothing to do with the monarch's personal agreement or otherwise, and is not taken as that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine a situation where the Queen might refuse, for example if a "rogue" coalition of Parliament passed a law that the Queen truly believed would harm the nation severely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To get through all stages in both chambers is pretty difficult. The "rogue coalition" would have to have control of timetabling, etc. Many bills with support on both sides of both Houses fail simply because they cannot get parliamentary time. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're making it up as you go along, Bugsy. It's not like the US presidential system where the prez can veto a bill he doesn't like. Tbe parliament is supreme, which is why even the queen could not abdicate without the parliament's agreement. Whatever the party numbers may be, all decisions of the parliament are decisions of the parliament, not decisions of the governing party or coalition of parties. I'm sure the queen has been asked to sign laws that she has found pretty distasteful, but signed them regardless. She does have a regular chat with her PM, where she can exercise her constitutional rights to be consulted and to warn. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aside is interesting. But, can someone please give me two good sentences? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There is another american context in which consent and assent are distinguished: there is a medicolegal difference between the two. Consent can be given to a medical procedure only by an "informed" adult with an ordinary understanding, whereas assent is a degree of agreement to a procedure or research project given by someone (typically a child) who is not considered legally competent to give "informed consent". These days, at least in the US, informed consent forms for human biomedical research have separate lines to sign for consent and assent. alteripse (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into "small" languages

As an English speaker, I take it for granted that a vast amount of world literature will be translated into my language. But how much literature is translated into a language like Icelandic, which has fewer than half a million speakers? If you're a well-read Icelander, is it more common that you would read books untranslated, or translated into a second language like Danish or Swedish? What about a slightly "larger" language, like Finnish? How much is translated into Finnish and how do Finns generally gain access to foreign literature? (Or any other language? My curiosity is open-ended.) LANTZY ^TALK 19:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly fewer books are translated into "small" languages than into English. However, books are translated into these languages. According to this article, Icelanders may be the world's busiest translators on a per capita basis. UNESCO collects statistics on translation in its Index Translationum. According to its report on translations published in Iceland, several hundred titles are translated into Icelandic most years (though oddly only a handful some years). As you'd expect, the number of titles translated per year is somewhat larger for Finland. As for how speakers of "small" languages gain access to foreign literature, as you can see, some translations are done. However, educated speakers of small languages tend to master at least one more widely spoken foreign language, often including English these days. Finns are required to learn Swedish in school, so they could read titles in Swedish. Many can also read English, as can probably most Icelanders. Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Finland translation work is pretty generously supported by the government as well as private foundations, so there is much more done than a free market would provide for, especially in fields where the commercial market is pretty small. Meaning serious scholarship, classics, etc. So for example the works of Aristotle and Plato are available in Finnish, and the translations are good as well. The major publishers take care of fiction pretty well. There are also minor commercial publishers who publish up-to-date popular science, and so forth. But obviously all this can only account for a fraction of what is published around the world, and many people read in English a lot. As for Swedish, it is true that Swedish is compulsory in school for Finnish speakers, but I'm afraid many walk away from those studies without a working command of the language.--Rallette (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my impression is that the English-language publishing industry is quite insular, and not very much of the world's best literature is translated into English at all. To read a popular European work, you're more likely to find a French or German translation. Most great Japanese fiction cannot be found in English at all. Paul Davidson (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I remember listening to a podcast on which several noteworthy translators were complaining that much more is translated from English than into English. LANTZY ^TALK 07:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will the real * please stand up

Where does this phrase come from and what does it mean? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the game show To Tell the Truth, although I suspect it was also popularized by its user later in the Eminem song "The Real Slim Shady". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 :::::::All nouns being capitalized in German can actually be helpful, as it provides a clue when reading as to what's a noun and what's something else.  I think what the OP might mean about French being "impossible" might just be that it's harder to understand French.  With regard to word order for questions in Spanish, when there's a question word (an English "Wh" word like "who", "which", "what", etc., or in Spanish, very often a "Q/Cu" word like "quién", "cuál", "qué", etc.), the word order indeed changes, unlike, say, Chinese (I think).  In Spanish as in English, the Q/Cu word gets moved to the head of the clause normally, so the usual interrogative counterpart to "I'm eating a potato" is "What am I eating?" rather than "I'm eating what?".  If there's no Q/Cu word, then the usual SVO word order changes to VSO.  Spanish is more flexible than English in word order, in speech as well as writing, but as Rjanag said, context and intonation are reliable guides.  As an English speaker, I can't ever remember getting confused about whether someone was making a statement or asking a question in Spanish.  As with the capitalization of all nouns in German, the inverted question marks in Spanish are a helpful guide when reading.--[[User:Atemperman|Atemperman]] ([[User talk:Atemperman|talk]]) 05:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 :I very much disagree with Belchman's recommendation of Spanish.  Unless you are intending to travel in Latin America, I think Spanish will be of limited usefulness to you (and even then there will be small differences).  If I understand correctly, you want maximum travel and border opportunities for your effort ''within the EU''—Spanish is definitely not the best choice.  In terms of simple borders, Spain touches France (both Romance languages, but you would still struggle with French pronunciation) and Portugal (languages are somewhat similar, but you will still have to learn a very gutteral r, ;-) ).  France and Germany, on the other hand, both linguistically and in terms of borders, essentially sit in the heart of Europe, and either language will get you far.  Belgium (59% English, in cities ~95% speak French iiuc), Luxembourg (60% English, French and German are official), the Netherlands (89% know English, 70% German), Austria (over 90% know German, 58% English, 10% French), Switzerland (64% German, 20% French).  And, just to make the figures even more enticing, in France, Spanish beats German by only 5%, and in Germany, about 15% know French.  (I pulled most of these figures from the "Languages in ..." articles.)  French will also be useful further afield, being an official language in Canada, several countries in Africa, and a few select island tourist destinations (Mauritius and Madagascar come to mind, :-) ).  As I said, if you are not planning on visits to Latin America, I think you can see that Spanish has limited "travel" compared to French and German.  As for how you go about the studying (either French or German, or both for an ideal choice), I recommend the Michel Thomas introductory courses (see them on Amazon here: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0340938919/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0340780630&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1KWA39R3E2JD76TTES24 ] [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Michel-Thomas-German-Foundation-Course/dp/0340938927/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273819493&sr=1-1 ]).  Consistently high ratings on Amazon (not that it says much).  They are cheap enough, and easy enough to use, that you could get both and see which you end up preferring, and then follow it with the advanced course.  One thing can be said about Michel Thomas: he certainly dispels the "frightening" aspect of a new language, and for not much money and no commitment you can dip your toes in.  [[User:Maedin|'''<font color="#4B0082">Mae</font><font color="#008080">din\</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Maedin|talk]]</sup> 06:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
+I'm a native speaker of English, but I also speak French, Russian and Spanish. I really wish I also spoke German, but I don't.
+I'll begin with my views on difficulty, and then talk about usefulness.
+I understand what you mean about French pronunciation. If you hear  {{IPA|[œ̃nɔm]}} ''un homme'' 'a man', for example, and your vocabulary doesn't yet include ''homme'', then you will be left guessing as to whether what you heard was ''un homme'' or ''un nomme''. (There is in fact no noun ''nomme''.) Final consonants in one word can very well form the onset of a syllable when combined with the following word. In this case, the syllable is {{IPA|[nɔm]}. So there is a problem with dividing utterances into words. Another complicating factor is that in French, individual words don't bear stress the way they do in English or in German. Instead, the last syllable of each "rhythmic group" (or "phrase") is stressed. So while in English you might have
+:''This m'''o'''rning I g'''o'''t '''u'''p ar'''ou'''nd s'''e'''ven.''
+with all words except function words stressed, in French you would probably have
+:''Ce mat'''in''' je me suis lev'''é''' vers sept h'''eu'''res.''
+Rhythmic groups can be as long as ten syllables in French. So when you're just starting out, it can be harder to tell where the boundaries between words are. That being said, after a few months, most people stop having this problem, since they recognize most of the words in any sentence.
+Since you talked about becoming ''very'' proficient in the language, French may actually be a good choice. My personal experience has been that it is much more common for adult learners to reach native-like ability in French than in English.
+I can't really talk about the difficulty of German, since I don't speak it. Spanish was easy for me because I already spoke French when I learned it, but I imagine it is about equally difficult. There is not the initial difficulty of words running together that there is in French, but as I said, that is only a transitory problem.
+As for Polish, my experience with Russian has been that native speakers of Polish or Bulgarian I've met have been able to become ''very'' proficient in it with much less effort than for the rest of us who aren't native speakers of a Slavic language. If you choose to learn Polish, it is virtually certain that the effort involved will be much less than for the other languages.
+As to the relative usefulness of these languages, I think French is the clear winner. It's the only language besides English that you're likely to find speakers of practically everywhere. It's happened occasionally that in Italy or Romania, I would address people in English and they would look at me blankly and ask if I spoke French. Polish is the language I've always thought I'd learn if I decided to learn another Slavic language. German, I understand, is virtually as widespread as English and Russian as a second language in parts of Eastern Europe (Hungary, the Czech Republic, etc.), so it seems very useful too. Spanish is useful especially in Spanish America, but is now also the number one foreign language in Brazil (ahead of English, which used to be number one, and French, which was number one before English was.) Spanish is not uncommon as a second language in France.
+I'm surprised you left out Italian. I know a couple of Croatian women who speak excellent Italian and say that's not uncommon in Croatia.
 == Arabic ==