Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 1

UIR WORDS

The letter combination –uir- seems very uncommon in English. I can think of the following cases:

• Acquire
• Enquire
• Inquire
• Muir (surname)
• Quire
• Require
• Squire
• Squirm
• Squirrel
• Squirt

and their derivatives. Are there any others? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

esquire ? I hold off from trying harder - I imagine there is 'an app' for this somewhere on the internet, some sort of crossword/scrabble solver ?Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'app' must be here --Omidinist (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

here are the results from that app. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Piggybacking here — how do folks here pronounce squirrelly? To me it has three syllables. I was kayaking with my dad one time and a girl told us that a patch of water ahead was "squirly", which it took me some time to connect with the word squirrel. --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

3, swirly has 2 - I think squirly (not squarely) is not yet a word, but would have 2 too.Sf5xeplus (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It has two syllables for me, although it seems like it should have three (just like "squirrel" is only one syllable even though I feel like it should be two). Anyway, acquire, inquire, and require come from Latin, where the root verb is actually "quaerere", "ask". (This is also the root of "question", "inquest", "request", "inquisition", etc). "Squire" is from Latin "scutiger" ("shield-bearer"), with some bits lost, as usual, through its transmission to English via French. Another English one is "Quirites", a poetic name for the Romans, which also comes directly from Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Squirrel is 2 syllables is most non-US dialects. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

For me squirrel seems a little ambiguous, in the sense that if someone were to say squirl I would hear squirrel anyway, and probably not notice. But I do notice squirly (like swirly with a k); that one's clearly distinct from squir-rel-ley. --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I picked up some of these distinctions that don't seem to be terribly common in the areas I've lived. There's a woman at work by the name of Dawn; most of my co-workers confuse me by calling her Don, and I don't know any Don among our colleagues. My sisters pronounce mirror as though it were a Soviet space station. I make a clear distinction between the first words of Los Angeles and Las Vegas (but it's not the one Brits would make). That sort of thing. --Trovatore (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Los" and "Las" are very different on this side of the pond. Possibly they are pronounced similarly in some regions of both our countries. Dbfirs 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but for you Los probably rhymes with dose, no? That's not the distinction I make at all. For me Los uses the caught vowel, whereas Las uses the cot vowel. Probably the majority of Californians have the cot–caught merger, and I'm not exactly sure why I don't. My sisters have it. I'm not sure whether my parents do/did. --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I pronounce "Los" like "loss" and "doss", but I may not be representative of some of my compatriots. Like you, I prefer clarity in pronunciation rather than conformity to local norms. Dbfirs 08:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Quirky wuirds. It's a simple matter to do a wildcard search on onelook. There I find you've missed: buirdly, cuirass, daiquiri, equirotal, faquir, guirland, guiro, jequirity, quira, quirinus, quirites, quiritation, quirl, quirpele, quirt, squirarchy (government by squirrels?), squireen, and tenuiroster. Some of those are archaic, and some are also Scots. 213.122.55.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

After grepping through the "Webster's 2nd" online word list and eliminating words mentioned above and (by hand) those derived from them, I've found one additional commmon one -- quirk -- and a bunch of obscure words (along with their derivatives, which I omit): acquirenda, aguirage, bequirtle, cuir, decemuiri, equiradial, equiradiate, equiradical, fuirdays, inquirendo, muirburn, muirfowl, quirinca, quiritary, quirquincho, squirk, squirr, tenuirostrate, and unguirostral. --Anonymous, 08:45 UTC, November 1, 2010.

You didn't have to mention quirk (quirky being its derivative), because the previous post had already mentioned it: look at the first word in the previous post. Here are two additional words: cuirass, langmuir. Eliko (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, let's not be like that, Eliko. You yourself are the third editor to mention 'cuirass'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you are the third editor. I have been the second editor. Eliko (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag provided it first. Then 213.122.55.156 mentioned it. Then you did. That makes 3 mentions. But whatever, you were having a rather unpleasant go at Anonymous, then followed it up with exactly the same faux pas you accused him of. That's why I put you in your place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I didn't accuse Anonymous of anything, neither did I intend to put them in their place, but rather pointed out that they hadn't had to mention quirk.
2. I didn't count Rjanag, because they only gave a link, without indicating any specific word.
3. If we do count Rjanag (who only gave a link), then Anonymous didn't have to mention cuir, either. Again, I don't accuse them of anything, neither do I intend to put them them in their place, but rather I point out that they didn't have to mention cuir, unless we don't count Rjanag (who only gave a link).
4. Even if we count Rjanag, I'm still the third only, i.e. somebody else preceded me in mentioning the word cuirass mentioned before. Eliko (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. Double sheesh. How about I use your exact words, modified: You didn't have to mention cuirass, because the previous post but one had already mentioned it: look at the 20th word in the previous post. OK. Done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't the first editor to mention cuirass, and I hope you accuse me of nothing, just as I accuse nobody. Eliko (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point: you weren't the first editor to mention 'cuirass'. When Anonymous wasn't the first editor to mention 'quirk', you advised him he didn't need to mention that word because someone before him had already done so. Then you yourself immediately proceeded to mention another word that had already been mentioned by a previous editor (or two others, if you count a link). In the spirit of "what's good for the goose, etc", I brought that to your attention, but instead of simply acknowledging it, all you've done is quibbled about whether you were the second or third in line, when all that really matters is that you weren't the first. I couldn't care less about that, but you thought it was worthy of mention when Anonymous did it, so I've applied your "rule" to yourself, but you seem to somehow not like it. If you don't like things being quoted back at you, don't impose them on others to begin with. That is all. I won't be entertaining any more discussion of this stupendously jejune topic. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in any case Eliko was right. What happened was, when I checked to see if someone else had mentioned "quirk", I made the mistake of searching case-sensitively. --Anon, 06:57 UTC, November 2, 2010.

@Jack of Oz,

Unfortunately, you misinterpreted me! Let me quote you:

• "instead of simply acknowledging it..."

It seems like you haven't read my previous post, in which I did acknowledge it! Look at the first two words of my previous post ("You're right"). I just added that I hoped you accused me of nothing just as I accused nobody.

• "all you've done is quibbled about whether you were the second or third in line".

"Quibbled"? what happened was, when you claimed that I'd been the third editor, then I pointed out that I'd been the second editor - rather than the third one - to mention "cuirass" (because Rjanag didn't mention the word "cuirass"), but this remark of mine wasn't intended to hide the very fact that I wasn't the first editor! You were right! I was not the first editor! However, since it seemed like you had thought I hadn't acknowledged that, then I made it clear in my previous post!

• "but you seem to somehow not like it".

If you think that I somehow don't like it, then you misinterpret me! On the contrary! See again the first two words in my previous post!

• If you don't like things being quoted back at you..."

Why do you think I don't like things being quoted back at me? I really don't care if things are quoted back at me! You misinterpret me again and again!

• "don't impose them on others...".

"Impose"? Where do you see I impose anything? I just pointed out that Anonymous hadn't had to mention quirk, That's all! Where do you find any clue of trying to "impose" anything? Why do you misinterpret me again and again and again?

• "I won't be entertaining any more discussion of this stupendously jejune topic".

It's up to you, because I don't impose anything on anybody, just as I don't accuse anybody of anything. Anyway, I agree with you that this topic is stupendously jejune, excpet for my first remark to Anonymous, which they found helpful, as you can realize by reading their last response (preceding my currnet response).

Eliko (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, back to the main game. Apart from my initial list, we’ve come up with the following non-obsolete/archaic words and their derivatives:

• cuirass
• daiquiri
• quirk.

The non-standard examples we found are very endearing, and I'll endeavour to incorporate as many of them into my vocab as I can (you have been warned). Irony: I created the article La guirlande de Campra in April, but overlooked 'guirlande' here as I was regarding it as a French word. Thanks to all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, it is our pleasure! Good luck. Eliko (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In the field of bank or banking sector

Hello there, I am writing an objective for my resume. Which looks like: "To develop a career in the field of bank (or banking sector) that offers both challenges and good opportunity for growth....." I am bit confused about certain sentences which have been marked as bold. Should I choose "in the field of bank" or the latter one? thanks--180.234.48.221 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The latter is better. "In the field of banking" would also be grammatical. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Bank" is a count noun so it is very rare to use it in the singular without an article, so "in the field of bank" is impossible. "In the field of banks" is grammatically possible, but semantically does not work, because "field of" (in that sense) usually requires an abstract noun. Hence "In the field of banking". As Rjanag says, "In the banking sector" is fine as well. "In banking" will work as well, and is shorter. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Conjunction question

Which of the following alternatives is better?

1. Exactly one of the candidates Smith, Jones, and Robinson will win the election.
2. Exactly one of the candidates Smith, Jones, or Robinson will win the election.

The first one seems more logically correct, but something about it sounds a bit strange to me. On the other hand, I'm not sure the second one is any better. —Bkell (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The second sounds more natural to me but I would put a comma between candidates and Smith as well as after Robinson because there would be a "spoken" pause there if I were saying it out loud. You could just as easily say "Exactly one of the candidates will win the election" and it would still be correct. Dismas|^(talk) 07:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, the context is actually a mathematical proof, so the sentence is more like "Exactly one of the numbers x, y, or z is even." A comma between "numbers" and "x" doesn't work there (because there are many numbers in the proof, so the phrase "x, y, or z" is not a parenthetical statement—it is critical to the meaning of the sentence and is in apposition to the word "numbers"), and plainly I can't omit that phrase either. —Bkell (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a difference in meaning. If you put "Smith, Jones, and Robinson" (with or without the Oxford comma) in apposition, then you need a comma after candidates, and another after Robinson, and you are saying that Smith, Jones and Robinson are the candidates, one of whom will win the election. (You could, equivalently, put Smith, Jones and Robinson in parentheses.) The second option, with "or" doesn't imply an exhaustive list of candidates, just that one of these three that you have mentioned will win. For the mathematical statement it is perfectly acceptable to omit the conjunction, but if you prefer to include it then I think "or" sounds more logical. Dbfirs 08:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Either is fine, or to put it another way, both sound wrong. The phrase "the items a, b, or c" sounds strange in isolation, because it implies the items might fade in and out of existence. "One of the items a, b, and c is blue" also sounds strange, because it's redolent of "a, b, and c are blue". In both cases there's a tension between plural and singular - items conflicts with or, and and conflicts with is, but none of that really matters. 81.131.44.250 (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Both are correct, i.e. either is fine. The first sentence states that: In the set which includes Smith, Jones and Robinson, there is exactly one candidate who will win. The second sentence states that: Either Smith, Jones or Robinson, will win. Eliko (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Eliko's interpretation of the first sentence if we use apposition (when the set is the three candidates in the list), but, without the commas, I suppose it could mean "including" (without apposition). Since this is to be applied to a mathematical statement, why not say ""Exactly one of the numbers in the set {x, y, z} ...." ? Dbfirs 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that some commas are missing in the first sentence. Anyways, using the braces (curly brackets) { } - is for a mathematical notation. In everyday speech one doesn't use the braces, but rather the and. for example, one doesn't say: "I bought the set {apple, apricot, onion}", but rather says: "I bought an apple, an apricot and an onion". Eliko (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did say "Since this is to be applied to a mathematical statement ... " Dbfirs 09:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

About the commas: I certainly would distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive apposition by surrounding "Smith, Jones, and Robinson" with commas if it were a non-restrictive appositive. My intent was for "Smith, Jones, and Robinson" to be a restrictive appositive (there are several other candidates on the ballot), so the commas seem inappropriate. (I apologize for not making this clear in my original question—I hadn't thought of the other interpretation of the sentence.) My question is really along the lines that 81.131.44.250 explores above: Should the conjunction "agree" with the other element of the apposition ("the candidates Smith, Jones, and Robinson"—excluding the candidates Miller, Brown, and Davis) or with the singular meaning of the sentence ("Exactly one of … Smith, Jones, or Robinson will win")? —Bkell (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't need commas (surounding the phrase "Smith, Jones and Robinson"), in any case. Anyways, you may use either sentence, because, as I've explained above, the first sentence states that: In the set which includes Smith, Jones and Robinson, there is exactly one candidate who will win, whereas the second sentence states that: Either Smith, Jones or Robinson, will win. Eliko (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could re-phrase as: "Of the three candidates, Smith, Jones and Robinson, exactly one will win." Alternatively, clarify with an "either": "Exactly one of the candidates, either Smith, Jones or Robinson, will win the election." Dbfirs 09:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but in everyday speech (rather than in 'mathematical' speech), when one says: Exactly one of the candidates Smith, Jones, and Robinson will win, one may mean: "Of the three candidates, Smith, Jones and Robinson, exactly one will win". It's not that big mistake, if a mistake at all, as far as everyday speech (rather than 'mathematical' speech) is concerned. Eliko (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, indent error above, though I do disagree with the notion that use of "and" implies that "Brown" could win. Dbfirs 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never claimed that use of "and" implies that "Brown" could win. Eliko (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am evidently misunderstanding your sentence: " In the set which includes Smith, Jones and Robinson, there is exactly one candidate who will win". Dbfirs 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant the following: In the set which only includes Smith, Jones and Robinson, there is exactly one candidate who will win. Note that there may be more candidates, however they are not included in the specific set I'm referring to, which includes three candidates only. Got it? There may be more candidates, but they are not included in the specific set mentioned above. Eliko (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

To convey that meaning, I would say " In the set which comprises Smith, et al. ...", thus avoiding the confusion. Dbfirs 10:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and what I claim is that in everyday speech, when one says: Exactly one of the candidates Smith, Jones, and Robinson will win, one may mean: "In the set which comprises Smith, Jones and Robinson, exactly one will win". It's not that a big mistake, if a mistake at all, as far as everyday speech is concerned. Eliko (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with you. That's what I would mean by the sentence, but I would prefer to use apposition if no other candidates exist, or the alternative phrasing if "Brown et al." are other candidates who will not win. I also agree that in everyday speech such pedantic precision is seldom necessary. I mentioned sets only because the OP said that the use was for a mathematical sentence. Dbfirs 08:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bantu noun classes & multiple nouns

In Bantu languages, what verbal (et al) concord is used for phrases consisting of more than one noun which do not belong to the same noun class? I'm familiar with the "Fifty women and a rooster" rule for Romance languages, but how do the Bantu languages deal with this, especially considering that most noun classes aren't necessarily used for humans? Cevlakohn (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I'm interested to find out. I'll ask one of my colleagues. Steewi (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Gioja

How is the surname of José Luis Gioja pronounced in Argentine Spanish? How would it be pronounced in Italian? The same as Gioia, or differently? LANTZY^TALK 14:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I hear Mirtha Legrand pronouncing it at the beginning of this clip it sounds like /joχa/ (to be rhymed with Rioja). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, her pronunciation seems largely hispanified. I was curious because I've heard names like "Cavallo" very scrupulously pronounced /ka'valo/ instead of /ka'baʃo/ or something like that, and I was wondering if it was standard Argentine practice to pronounce Italian surnames in a more or less Italian way. LANTZY^TALK 17:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Though Gioja is almost surely derived from Italian Gioia, not many Argentines would get the connection, specially considering the current orthography of the name. By the way, Argentines do more or less well at geminating the Italian ll, but perform very poorly at getting Italian groups -cc-, -ch- and -cch- right. Pallida  Mors 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the "-ja" is apt to cause confusion, but I would have supposed that the initial "Gio-" would be a dead giveaway of Italian origin. Mirtha Legrand's pronunciation seems to encapsulate that uneasy hybridity, since she pronounces it like "yoja" instead of "jioja". As for the geminate ll, is that obligatory? For instance, if someone were to pronounce "Cavallo" in the manner suggested by Spanish orthography, would he actually be regarded as incorrect? Or is it merely an optional refinement dictated by personal taste? LANTZY^TALK 22:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean, when you're speaking Italian? It's obligatory, at least in "standard" Italian. In some regional pronunciations (I hesitate to use the word dialect because Italian dialects are often mutually incomprehensible languages) it may disappear.

It is even used distinctively — capello cap, cappello hair (sorry, got that backwards — capello is "hair" as in "one of the hairs on your head"; cappello is "cap"). --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Lantzy: Well, Cavallo is a very well-known public man, and his last name has been always pronounced in the abovequoted way; hence, the only motive I would see in someone pronouncing the name the other way is just the humourous one.
I'd say that most renderings of Italian-originated double els would go the Cavallo way. Take notice that I have said above that "Argentines do more or less well" geminating the sound, so, you'll find a gamut of durations of the geminated ll.
Speaking of the sociological perception of Spanish-based or Italianized pronunciations of names, it clearly depends on a series of factors: the most important one being how most of the population pronounces the word. I'll put two examples: it's possible to hear cultivated Argentines pronouncing the last name Bianchi as [correct original] /βianki/, but even they will surely refrain doing the same with Carlos Bianchi. This player's last name has always been publicly rendered as /βiantʃi/ [like in cheese] by the press. So, going the former would sound as hypercorrected.
However, I have heard many (not all) sports journalists pronounce Alejandro Montecchia's last name as indicated by the Italian origin, more or less like /montek-kia/. Hence, a /montetʃia/ is not technically incorrect, but many will frown upon your style. Pallida  Mors 09:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. So it varies from case to case, and you just have to know. It reminds me of the case of José Padilla, whose name everybody in the press used to pronounce /pə'di:.jə/ in approximation of the Spanish pronunciation, until some reporter discovered that Padilla himself, for some inscrutable reason, preferred the pronunciation /pəˈdɪl.ə/. Perhaps because it sounds more Islamic. After that, I remember an NPR newsreader mentioning the name, in the correct but incorrect-sounding fashion, and then hastily adding, "We happen to know, that is how he pronounces his name," as if to dispel the impression that he, the newsreader, was making a crude error. LANTZY^TALK 14:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

the extent to which languages sound alike

When I hear native speakers speaking Spanish, and when I hear native speakers speaking Hebrew, the languages sound very similar to me. I have two questions: (1) Why? Is it because the sets of phones used (or used in abundance) is similar (and sufficiently different from that used in English, my language, to make me note it), or because the patterns of stress is similar (and, again, different from English's), or what? (2) More generally, is there any measure devised of the extent to which languages sound alike?—msh210℠ 18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes languages sound alike, is primarily their common phonological system (consonants and vowels). For example, Spanish and Modern Hebrew - about which you're asking - sound alike, just because of their having the same phonology: they have the same set of consonants (including /x/ which is missing in English, except for the /x/ in the word loch), and also have the same set of 5 vowels: /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ (while English has 11 vowels, and some dipthongs missing in Spanish and in Hebrew). However, note that Spanish speakers, as well as Hebrew speakers, won't be able to "hear" this similarity, just as you won't be able to "see" the similarity between your face and your parents'/siblings' faces, although foreigners will. As for English, I suspect there is no other language which may sound (to a foreigner's ears) similar to English, mainly because of its special set of 11 vowels, and because of its special /r/, which is really existent also in Chinese, but Chinese has an absolutely different vowel system (and also has its special tonal system absent in English), so Chinese can't sound similar to English, even to a foreigner's ears. Eliko (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That "r" you speak of in English might be the reason that a Spanish-speaking guest on Carson once (possibly Fernando Lamas) said that to a Hispanic's ears, English sounds like "barking dogs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, try to say "burrrrrrrrrrr"....

When pronouncing it in a French accent, you don't sound like a dog, whereas, when pronouncing it in an (American) English accent you do sound like a dog :)

Eliko (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

on "/r/, which is really existent also in Chinese" Eliko. There are no trills in Standard Mandarin. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mandarin has some accents. Listen to this speaker. Cohneli (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding no other language sounding like English. I think it depends on the variety of English, some Northern British dialects sound Germanic to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

24.92 – I don't think Eliko was claiming that either English or Mandarin has a trill, but rather, that the English rhotic consonant (which people often write as "/r/", without implying a trill) is similar to a consonant found in Mandarin. Lfh (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The two languages don't actually sound all that similar to me. Spanish doesn't have a "back" r, or a [s]/[š] contrast, or non-allophonic [b]/[v] contrast, while modern Hebrew doesn't have a [ð] sound, or [č] affricate, or ñ, or "trilled" r. In terms of phonotactics (patterns of sound occurrences), the two languages are quite different, with modern Hebrew having a much higher frequency of consonant clusters and freer occurrence of word-final consonants, as well as medial glottal stops or syllable-break contrasts (however one wishes to describe the pronunciation difference between לירות vs. לראות). I suspect that [x] occurs rather more frequently in spoken Hebrew than spoken Spanish, and it's more usually uvular [χ] in Hebrew in any case. Hebrew also has a rather restricted occurrence of words ending in word-final unstressed vowels as compared to Spanish (except in names), etc... AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, The two languages don't actually sound all that similar to you, because you're not a foreigner. However, they do sound similar to the OP's ears! I've already clarified that in my previous response, havn't I? Anyways:

• Spanish doesn't have the "back" /r/, just as formal Hebrew speech doesn't: listen to the news in Hebrew on the radio! The OP may have meant that when a foreigner listens to the news in Spanish and in Hebrew, the listener finds them similar.
• Spanish does have the [š], in the cluster [tš], e.g. in the word "mucho", and the like.
• Spanish does have both [b] and [v], whereas the fact that this distinction is allophonic only, can't be noticed by a foreigner's ears, about which we're talking!
• Modern Hebrew does have the [č] affricate, e.g. in the word [čuva] (=an answer), and the like.
• Modern Hebrew does have the [ñ] sound, e.g. in the word [iñan] (= a matter), and the like.
• Modern Hebrew does have the "trilled" /r/, in the formal Hebrew speech, e.g. on the radio (listen to the news in Hebrew). The OP may have meant that when a foreigner listens to the news in Spanish and in Hebrew, the listener finds them similar.
• Re the glottal stop, yes, but it's quite rare in Modern Hebrew, and is only used when a confusion may arise. Re [ð]: yes, and you forgot to mention also [θ]. Regarding the uvular [χ], phonotactics, and likewise: Yes, you are right, but don't forget that we are talking about a foreigner, like the OP who's a native English speaker, and who's more influenced by the identical vowel system, than by the phonotactics or by the (rare) glottal stop (which is generally skipped) or by the exact difference between the almost-identical sounds [x] and uvular [χ], both of which are not existent in the OP's native language. Anyways, as I indicated above, I agree that Modern Hebrew doesn't have [ð], and that Spanish doesn't have the glottal stop (being rare in Hebrew), and that's why those languages sound "similar" (to a foreigner's ears), rather than "identical".

Eliko (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never taken a day's lessons in Spanish in my life (though I live in an area where many people do speak it), and I'm not remotely fluent in Hebrew (most of my studies having been in ancient Biblical Hebrew rather than modern Israeli), but I could probably tell apart Spanish and Hebrew most of the time on the basis of two or three normally-spoken sentences. And some of your points do not really apply -- if [š] is freely occurring in Hebrew, but confined to the unitary affricate [č] in Spanish, then its status is not at all comparable between the two languages. Similarly, Hebrew does not have a unitary ñ palatal nasal sound, but rather merely an [ny] consonant cluster. And Spanish spoken in the area where I live does not have a [θ] sound. I'm not saying that User:msh210's perceptions aren't genuine, just that if he has a little more exposure to both languages, then he'll probably fairly soon be able to tell the languages apart most of the time, as long as he's somewhat observant (but without actually needing to fully learn either language). AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

When I was talking about a "foreigner", I didn't refer to somebody familiar with those languages (as you are familiar with them), but rather to a foreigner, e.g. to the OP. All of the differences between both languages (e.g. the difference between [ny] and [ñ], or the difference between a "free" [š] and a [š] followed by [t], and likewise), are really differences, but they are still slight differences, which are not noticed by a foreigner. Anyways, I agree that if the OP had a little more exposure to both languages, then they would probably notice that Hebrew doesn't have the [ð] and the like, and then they would fairly soon be able to tell the languages apart most of the time, even without actually needing to fully learn either language. However, in such a case I wouldn't call them a foreigner. Eliko (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean that I would confuse the two languages, merely that they sound similar. I have, let's say, to pay attention for a second to know which is being spoken. That doesn't happen with native-speaker-spoken English and Spanish, for example. Thanks very much for your replies, folks, they've IMO satisfactorily answered my question 1. But no one has yet answered my question 2: anyone know?—msh210℠ 16:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Greek sounds more like (European) Spanish to me, because of the [θ] and the s's. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Brandywell Stadium

OK, y'all, how's your Gaelic? Does anyone know if the Irish name for the stadium is "Tobar an Fhíoruisce" and that it translates into English as "the well [of] pure water"? I could have posted on the Irish wikipedia, but as it's all in Irish that puts me at a handicap. Thanks, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My Irish is scant, but just from reading Seamus Heaney I can tell you that "Anahorish" (anach fhíor uisce) means a "place of clear water". Assuming that Seamus Heaney is not a gobshite, it would therefore seem likely that a valid idiomatic translation of the stadium's name would be something like "Clearwater Well" or "Well of Pure Water". Either would be valid, because "fíor" literally means "true", as in Flann O'Brien's "truly true Gaelic Gaels who speak in true Gaelic Gaelic about the truly Gaelic language". Here is a company that uses the term, and even uses the translation "true water", whether out of pedantry or pretentiousness I can't say. As for "tobar", it certainly means "well", but I believe the word casts metaphorical shadows which I'm not qualified to expound upon. It has been used, for instance, in the titles of anthologies, as the word "treasury" would be. However, in this instance it's probably just a straightforward literal "well". It's curious that the Irish name would not be a direct translation of the English name, or vice versa. Perhaps "fíor uisce" is here used as a tongue-in-cheek translation of "brandy"? LANTZY^TALK 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't always have a direct translation for English words into the Irish language or vice versa for example and using the alcohol theme, Whiskey is "Uisce beatha" which translated back is "Water of Life". Or another example were we have 2 different ways to say Dublin "Dubh Linn" or Baile Átha Cliath. Mo ainm~Talk 13:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I imagine that recent, perfunctory, bureaucratic translations are quite often literal or hyper-literal, so the fact that this translation isn't literal strongly suggests that it is "organic", that "Tobar an Fhíoruisce" is or was the authentic, everyday toponym of the area where the stadium was built. Of course, the only way to know for sure would be to find an Irish-speaking denizen of Derry. LANTZY^TALK 14:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What's probably needed, then, is for someone to go to the Irish wikipedia and ask them what's up with the Irish name. That should answer the question and also hopefully satisfy the current complaints at the article. I'm sure the reason it's hard to find a "reliable" source is simply that it's not very important. It's just a trivial fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

English is tolerated at the Irish Wikipedia, so you can feel free to post questions there. But Irish Wikipedia is also fairly low-traffic, so it might be a long time before anyone notices and answers your question. Anyway, I can't confirm that Tobar an Fhíoruisce is the Irish name of Brandywell Stadium, but I can confirm that it means "Well of pure water". —Angr (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

French 's'

In certain words (for example, garçon, sur, sortie, some better examples that I can't think of right now), even though their IPA transcription is /s/ the English s sound (represented by the same character) seems too "thin" or "weak" compared to how I perceive native speakers rendering, which is warmer or "fuller". I substitute a sound which has no IPA character that I know of; I will try to describe it. The tip of the tongue is very lightly pressed to the back of the bottom teeth such that the tongue is slightly arched. The upper teeth are very close to touching the tongue, but airflow is redirectioned and not obstructed. The lips are tight and in a shape like the beginning of the /enwiki/w/ sound, and do not move from that position (i.e., there is no release as in the full w sound), but they are not extended as if kissing. The sound is otherwise produced like the normal /s/. This gives it a slightly lispy quality, but by no means as whistly as the /ʃ/. Is this a correct realization of the French s? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds like a labialized s to me, [sʷ], but maybe I'm wrong. My intuition is that the "stronger" sound of a French /s/ comes more from the following vowel than from the /s/ itself, but I haven't studied French phonetics formally so I'm not sure what the academic literature has to say about this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct form

Are the following statements right?:

• "Achieved a certificate in General English Course with the British Council, Bangladesh in a class at the level of Intermediate"
• "Achieved a certificate on Basic Photography Training Program, held by Notre Dame Nature Study Club, Notre Dame College, Dhaka."

thanks--180.234.56.75 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "Earned (or awarded) a certificate in the intermediate-level General English Course offered by the British Council, Bangladesh". "Achieved" doesn't really go with "certificate". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In my (Brit Eng) experience, "..in a class at the level of Intermediate" would be more usually expressed as "..in an Intermediate-level class". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As a British-english speaker I would write: "Awarded a certificate in the Intermediate General English Course of the British Council, Bangladesh." I assume the course was at intermediate level, rather than the grade of award being intermediate. 92.29.115.229 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• • So what about the second statement?--180.234.55.190 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Awarded a certificate in the Basic Photography Training Program of the Notre Dame Nature Study Club, Notre Dame College, Dhaka." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2

German to English translation request

Can anyone oblige with an accurate English translation of the following? Not to worry about the Latin.

RGM Köln. Altar für die Göttin „VAGDAVERCVSTI“

DEAE VAGDAVERCVSTI TITVS FLAVIVS CONSTANS PRAEF (ectus) PRAET(orio) EM (inetissimus) V(ir)

Für die Göttin Vagdavercusti (errichtete diesen Altar) Titus Flavius Constans Seine Eminenz der Gardepräfekt

Als Praetorianerpraefekt war Titus Flavius Constans Oberbefehlshaber der Kaiser- garde, ranghöchster Beamter der römischen Verwaltungshierarchie. Sein Rangtitel: Eminentissimus vir (Eminez) kennzeichnet seine Bedeutung. Wahrscheinlich hat sich der Stifter selbst als Opfernder am Altar darstellen lassen.

Um 160 n. Chr. Fundort: Köln, Wolfsstraße Ort der Ausstellung und Begleittext: Römisch Germanisches Museum in Köln.

The text belongs to: File:RGM-Köln-Altar-für-die-Göttin-VAGDAVERCVSTI-160-n-Chr.JPG. I don't know how to provide a link without summoning a monstrously large picture onto the page. Thanks to whoever can help. Haploidavey (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the large picture, that's easy. All you have to do is exclaim "Evil spirits, begone!" and use this piece of markup. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Here's the link to the file (the trick is to add a colon before "File:..." >> [[:File:RGM-Köln-Altar-für-die-Göttin-VAGDAVERCVSTI-160-n-Chr.JPG)]]).

My translation:

Titus Flavius Constans, his eminence the Praetorian prefect, (built this altar) for the goddess Vagdavercustis.

As Praetorian prefect, Titus Flavius Constans was supreme commander of the imperial guard, highest-ranking official of the Roman administrative hierarchy. His title of rank, Eminentissimus vir (eminence), indicates his importance. The donator probably had himself depicted as sacrificer at the altar.

Around 160 A.D. Place of discovery: Cologne, Wolfsstraße

Location of exhibit and explanatory text: Romano-Germanic Museum in Cologne.

---Sluzzelin talk 00:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the line that Sluzzelin translated "Titus Flavius Constans, his eminence ..." is the German translation of the Latin inscription that is transcribed immediately above. And the line above that, which he didn't translate, is just "RGM [Romano-Germanic Museum], Cologne. Altar for the goddess 'Vagdavercustis'." Deor (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Deor. I missed that line. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You are all great beings, rulers of firmaments and worthy of cult. As for me, I'll keep bashing my rocks together and see what happens. Haploidavey (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't affect the translation of the German, but also note that our article Vagdavercustis interprets the "EMV" in the Latin inscription differently from the German museum. I'm not versed enough in second-century Latin epigraphy to know which interpretation is more likely. Deor (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deor. Me too. I can probably chase that up with a Latinate colleague. Haploidavey (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The "egregiae memoriae vir" in our article is sourced to a book about Latin inscriptions. That one makes sense, since the letters are pretty evenly spaced. (But I'm not versed in 2nd-century epigraphy either.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

'On accident' or 'by accident'?

I've just been informed that 'on accident' is a thing. I've never heard it before today, but apparently a lot of people consider it correct. I've used 'by accident' all of my life, but the more I think about it, the more 'on accident' seems to make sense...so, save me RD/L! Which is correct? Which one do you use? Is this solely a US thing? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a paper by Leslie Barratt, Indiana State University which discusses both forms in some detail. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've lived in a few places, all east of the Mississippi, and I've heard both. I can't say which I've heard more or if one area used one more than the other but they are both used often. Dismas|^(talk) 01:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How odd. Never heard that one before. Death by natural causes; by homicide; by accident. "On" accident??? Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There's something new for me: I've lived in many places in Canada, and travelled widely in the U.K. and the U.S.A. and never have heard "on accident". I would have marked it as an error in a paper. Bielle (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Has it derived from the structure of on purpose? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd think so, since I talked to a friend (in New Zealand!) and asked which one he used. He answered, "on accident sounds right in my head, because you wouldn't use 'by purpose'."Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 02:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"On accident", from what I've heard, is an expression that is growing up with the younger generation (30s and under); anyone older will most certainly say "by accident". Lexicografía (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"On accident," by one explanation, includes a cynical "accidentally on purpose" implication. I find this:

"In the ADS-L discussion, Carson suggests that some on accident users have a semantic difference between on accident and by accident with on accident meaning "accidentally on purpose" i.e. purposeful but disguised as accidental. In the context of my survey, subjects were given one meaning, yet many of my subjects used both prepositions and the vast majority of those under 25 said they could use both prepositions, so a semantic distinction such as Carson suggests was not supported by the present study."

...in the link supplied by Sluzzelin above. To my ear it sounds like the inclusion of part of the word construction of on purpose. Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

One interesting bit in that lengthy paper was the usage of "waiting for" vs. "waiting on". They might seem to mean the same thing, but not exactly. "Waiting for" I would see as more neutral or factual, whereas "waiting on" suggests a greater degree of impatience, like maybe waiting too long, or waiting "on and on". If "on accident" is intended to mean "accidentaly on purpose" (which I'm not sure is the case, though) then it would be a similar semi-subtlety. !!!!

When I say "waiting on", I mean it in the technical sense in computer science. It refers to the thing that will signal that the wait is over. A print spooler might be "waiting for the previous page to finish printing" or "waiting for the printer to be reloaded with paper", but either of these is "waiting on the printer", or specifically "waiting on the printer-ready bit", or that sort of thing. --Anonymous, 07:04 UTC, November 2, 2010.

... and in Northern UK, "waiting on" is waiting at table. I've never heard "on accident" and would regard it as either a joke or a mistake. Dbfirs 08:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard "on accident" all my life. I don't think it's particularly new. It sounds slightly careless or informal, but not jarring outside formal contexts. --Trovatore (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As a native British English speaker, I have never heard "on accident". Not only have I never heard it in use in the UK, I'm pretty sure I've never heard it on US TV programmes or in any other use either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither have I in Australia. Ever, anywhere. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I heard "on accident" from my 7-year old daughter when we lived in Leeds, UK. It must be very regional because when we moved 20 miles away she said that the other kids corrected her for saying it. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard "on accident" for decades--mostly in upstate New York, not so much here in the Pacific Northwest. It always reminded me of "waiting on line" vs "in line", though I suppose the two differ in how they came about. Pfly (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm from the Eastern US, and probably count as what people have been calling "young" but "on accident" sounds completely wrong to me. I've definitely heard it used though. Rckrone (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref Pfly above - "waiting on line" is a new one on me (although "waiting online" is what I do frequently, thanks to a slow broadband connection). Could I just ask how it's used, and how it differs from "waiting in line"? BTW, another native speaker of British English, and I have never heard "on accident" in my life until now. Karenjc 14:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Waiting on line is a New York-ism. The rest of the world says waiting in line. Lexicografía (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

One talks about "being on the breadline" but if one were literally waiting in a queue to be given some free bread, one would be "waiting in the breadline". "On the breadline" is used metaphorically, not usually literally. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So while I would never say "on accident," I do say "waiting on line" and didn't even realize before now that it was unusual. I guess it is explained by the fact that I'm from New York. Rckrone (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kanji variants

Hi, are the following two kanji forms interchangeable and equally acceptable?

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?161995_%CE%E1
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?154e61

81.151.36.130 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes. The first one is the standard in handwriting in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 86.161.82.129 (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Butt

What does the word "butt" mean and what is its grammatical function in this sentence (from The Pilgrim's Progress): Yes, there are many ways butt down upon this; and they are crooked and wide  ? Lexicografía (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is butt, v² 4 from the OED: "to butt on, upon: (of a line) to end in (a point); (of a road) to issue or lead into." The OED even gives this quote as an example. Algebraist 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So there is an implied "that" in the sentence, then — "many ways (that) butt down upon this". Thanks. Lexicografía (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Akin to "abut"? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

November 3

Lieutenant Governor

In US American state government, why is it Lieutenant Governor and not Vice Governor? Dismas|^(talk) 04:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? It appears like Lieutenant Governor is common throughout the Commonwealth as well. Is Vice Governor used somewhere that would give you the impression that it should be used in the US? Grsz¹¹ 04:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Many other things are "vice", not the least of which is the presidency, but this is the only example in the US that I can think of that uses lieutenant. Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably by extension to the British/Commonwealth office of "Lieutenant Governor", which is unrelated to the American one, except in name, however the existance of the British/Commonwealth office may have influenced the naming of the American one; American ears may have been predisposed to the sound of that term over Vice Governor. The name of "Vice President" may have been influenced by that of viceroy, or "vice-king". --Jayron32 04:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant is a veritable combination of Lieu and Tenant, so, someone who occupies something instead of someone else. Vice- come from latin for 'in place of.' As to the practice of calling lieutenant governors what they are it is most likely a holdover from commonwealth law like Grsz and Jayron mention. schyler (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But "lieutenant" is just a French form of locum tenens, which is Latin for "place holder" ("vice" is just a pithier and more Classical Latin way of saying the same thing). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It should also be noted that, where it exists, the secondary executive after a mayor is often a deputy mayor, which would establish an interesting pattern where none of the three levels of chief executive (President-national, Governor-state, Mayor-municipality) uses the same term for the secondary position (vice-president, lieutenant governor, deputy mayor). Just another oddity along these lines. Another one is Undersecretary, which is the second to the various Cabinet Secretaries. So that's 4 different prefixes for seconds in line. --Jayron32 04:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Secretary has its own logic of underlings. There are both assistant secretaries and undersecretaries, as well as deputy assistant secretaries, assistant undersecretaries, and deputy undersecretaries. Sorting all that out from outside of the affected bureaucracy seems quite daunting... ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It didn't daunt the makers of that fine old Doris Day film April in Paris (1952), in which Ray Bolger plays S. Winthrop Putnam, the Assistant Secretary to the Assistant to the Undersecretary of State, and formerly Assistant Assistant Secretary to the Assistant to the Undersecretary of State. Got some great songs too. It's well worth a look next time it comes on TV. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In both US and Commonwealth armies, there is the rank of Lieutenant-General, which is more important than a Major-General. In the UK, we also have Lords Lieutenant, who are stand-ins for the Queen in each County. Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Both terms, "lieutenant governor" and "vice president," date at least to the 16th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. A governor could be a military position, as in the governor of a fortress, which is perhaps why a governor's second-in-command was known as a lieutenant governor (like lieutenant-general). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Adverbesque words

A. Some adverbs answer the question "How?". Words like beautifully, well, slowly, completely, thoroughly and many others all fit this bill.

B. Then there are adverbs that cannot answer "How?", because the adverb itself calls into question whether the action was done at all, or at least whether it was done by the subject. Words like allegedly, supposedly, reportedly and some others are like this. In the future tense, we have hopefully.

The words in group A can be safely removed from their parent sentences without losing any of the essential meaning. He slowly made his way outside and He made his way outside are both providing the same basic information, differing only in the speed of the action.

But the words in group B cannot be removed without making a large change to the meaning. He shot his wife and He allegedly shot his wife mean very different things. One is a statement about what he did. The other is a statement about what someone has claimed he did, and he may not have done it at all. In the future case, We will all be dead 150 years from now is a statement of belief, whereas We will all hopefully be dead 150 years from now is a statement of hope. Sort of related, but still quite different. These words are not modifying the verb, they’re modifying the meaning of the entire sentence.

Given this, can the words in group B truly be said to be adverbs? If not, what are they? Are they actually malformed words that shouldn't exist at all, e.g. should He allegedly shot his wife be written as It has been alleged that he shot his wife, or would that be taking the demands of pedantry too far? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that there's any requirement from either traditional grammar or modern linguistics that adverbs only be "extensional", never "intensional". In chapter 12 of Steven Pinker's Language Instinct there's a basic discussion of "verb phrase adverbs" vs. "sentence adverbs"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There are still pedants who object to the use of all or most "sentence adverbs". I would use them colloquially, but would re-phrase to avoid them in formal writing. Dbfirs 10:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well then they'd have to object to a number of impeccable Classical Latin words too (vere etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sentence adverbs seem to be widely accepted, but, hopefully, they are not extensively used in Wikipedia articles. Dbfirs 13:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This online dictionary's entry for hopefully may be of interest (specifically, the usage note). Pallida  Mors 11:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks, PM. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, if you're concerned that adverbs like "allegedly" change the meaning of the sentence, you should be especially concerned that "not" is an adverb. —Bkell (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's a doozy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "not" is especially odd. Jack, the adverbial article addresses some of your concerns, doesn't it? I mean, it seems like a bit of catch-all category, but it's generally used to describe things-that-act-like-adverbs-but-aren't. Indeterminate (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See also wikt:category:English modal adverbs.—msh210℠ 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you believe in generative grammar, this is explained by saying the first class of adverbs you list ("quickly", "beautifully", etc.) are VP- or TP-level adverbs, whereas the second class ("allegedly", "reportedly", etc.) are CP adverbs. (Which is essentially the same thing Anonmoos noted above without resorting to jargon :P ) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The category for such adverbs is 'evidential modal adverbs'. They are indeed adverbs but a very restricted kind (cannot be used in interrogatives "#Did he allegedly shoot his wife", negatives "#He did not allegedly shoot his wife"...). Interestingly their elliptical variants are similar to raising verbs: non-finite>"He seems to have shot his wife / He is alleged to have shot his wife." expletive subject/finite complement>"It seems that he has shot his wife / It is alleged that he has shot his wife" ALTON .ıl 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some adverbs answer "When?": yesterday, today, tomorrow, always, never, sometimes, soon.

Some adverbs answer "Where?": here, there, everywhere, nowhere, somewhere, inside, outside.

Some adverbs answer "To what degree?": very, slightly, quite, rather, somewhat.

Some adverbs answer "In what manner?": carefully, quickly, skillfully.

Some adverbs answer "In what respect?": linguistically, grammatically, scientifically.

There was a period of time when the suffix -mente was limited to an adverb describing the state of mind of a person performing an action denoted by the verb modified by the adverb. Eventually, the application of the suffix was widened to include adverbs modifying verbs or even adjectives or other adverbs, without reference to the state of mind of the subject of the verb, which might even be inanimate. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mente.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that gives a more general slant to the first part of my question. Yet these words I'm talking about (and also including "not") don't answer any of those questions. They answer the questions "Did?" or "Will?". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Esperanto has the word ĉu ("whether") which introduces a "yes-no" question.

Polish has the word czy, which introduces a "yes-no" question.

Japanese uses ka at the end of a question, even if it already has a question word like Doko ("Where").

Latin has the enclitic -ne attached after the main verb in a "yes-no" sentence.

English and many European languages use subject-verb inversion (sometimes involving a pronoun, sometimes involving an auxiliary verb) to form a "yes-no" question.

If English introduced a "yes-no" question with Whether, and shortened the question to Whether?, the situation might be clearer. An approximate equivalent is Truly? or Really? or a similar expression.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

[See Subject-auxiliary inversion. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)]

[See Yes-no question. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)]

In French, the phrase est-ce que (literally: "is it that...?") serves a similar function of introducing a yes/no question. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This question is an example of a kind of question that is quite often asked here and at other sites like this one, that goes "Is <this word> a <traditional part of speech>"? The meta-answer, usually, is that the traditional classification of parts of speech is inadequate for the level of analysis that the question makes, so the question has no clear answer. "can the words in group B truly be said to be adverbs?" Yes. No. Whatever you want. Most people will answer yes in this case, but as the OP indicates, some of the traditional characterisations of "adverb" then don't fit. --ColinFine (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All my worst suspicions have been confirmed. Thanks, Colin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

French sound

Hey, me again. I was surprised that in a lot of your wiktionary entries (I know that this is Wikipedia, but still) for French words ending in -ais, -ait, -ez, -aie, etc. represent this sound [ɛ]. Is this correct? I've always been used to pronouncing it [e], or somewhere between [ɛ] and [e]. Could this be a dialectal thing? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Partly explained by Broad transcription... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Recently I saw this being discussed at a Wiktionary talk page – see here. Some editors were arguing that in certain contexts the French -ait, -ais etc... really is [e], rather than [ɛ] as the dictionaries always tell you. I'll have some time to try and find it later. Lfh (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Vocab questions.

We have a word in the English language for someone that's never had sex before, right? Virgin.

But do we have a word that means never been in a relationship before?

Also, are there words (preferrably ending in -ist like atheist/theist) that mean "believes men should pursue women," "women should pursue men," and "neither or both." Thanks. 216.45.144.150 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

I suggest "male chauvinist" ("pig" optional) for "believes men should pursue women", and "Sadie Hawkins-ist" for the reverse. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

216.45.144.15 -- The closest commonly-used phrase for the first is probably "never been kissed" (the title of a movie, and recently prominent in connection with Susan Boyle). As for pursuing, someone who pursues women could be a mulierisequax in Latin, while someone who pursues men could be a virisequax in Latin, so how about "mulierisequacist" for someone who thinks that women should be pursued and "virisequacist" for someone who thinks that men should be pursued? They're not elegant, but they have the specified meaning based on Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You could have french kissed and yet not have been in a relationship before. Rimush (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

meaning of abbreviation ROC

What may abbreviation ROC mean in the name of ROC Professional Training School in Apeldoorn in Netherlands?Seaweed71 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Regionale opleidingencentrum", apparently meaning "regional training center". The actual name of the school to which you refer seems to be ROC Aventus. Deor (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

November 4

"Deep and profound"

What does it mean? I thought profound and deep are the same word, but of different origin. Was the author saying anything or just trying to sound deep and profound? Source: "An independent investigator for the UN says racism in Japan is deep and profound, "Quest09 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds to me like an author who doesn't know that he's repeating himself. It's similar to a sports commentator some time ago who informed us of an Olympic weight-lifter that "his strength is his forte". Tonywalton ^Talk 11:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just a rhetorical figure of speech for emphasis. AnonMoos (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound as a very good rhetorical figure. He could also have said: "deeply profound" or "profoundly deep." Quest09 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank heavens he wasn't talking about a pianist ("the piano is his forte"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 15:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like they're using "profound" as if it meant width or breadth. I think they're saying that racism is both deeply ingrained and also very widespread. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy just didn't stop to think. Maybe he had said "deep and far-reaching" and then decided to change the one word "far-reaching" to "profound" (a synonym of far-reaching, i.e. having wide consequences) and did not realize that, literally, he was repeating himself. What was in his mind was: It is deeply ingrained, and this has wide effects. 84.153.188.184 (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, piffle. it's a common enough phrase: 'deep' means it runs deep into the culture, 'profound' means it's significant and resistant to change. --Ludwigs2 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Profound means, er, "deep". Tonywalton ^Talk 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

@Philip2: how does it come that 'profound' means now 'resistant to change'? The problem is actually this: it doesn't mean anything different than 'deep.' Quest09 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

'deep' is an archaic use of the word 'profound' (according to my dictionary). the primary definition is "(of a state, quality, or emotion) very great or intense". --Ludwigs2 18:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2 that the phrase is okay as is. The two similar terms have an intensifying effect when paired, and their meanings are not quite identical. Certainly the meanings of the two terms overlap, but profound has a meaning that goes beyond deep. It has an additional meaning of "thorough and pervasive". Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"thorough and pervasive" is a different case. Being 'thorough' means you check all the area of an object, being pervasive, you check its interior. I still find 'deep and profound' to be repetitive and redundant.Quest09 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Figure of speech (permanent link here) mentions commoratio (red link), hermeneia (red link), and tautology (blue link).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymologically they may be synonyms, but actually they are not, if only because they have different connotations. They are not strictly interchangeable. LANTZY^TALK 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Profound," to me, has a bit of a different connotation. If someone says something and you say it's profound, you're really paying a compliment. But if you say it's deep, you're simply saying it's philosophically complex. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This must be subjective. To me if someone says something is profound they're saying it's deep. Literally. A deep hole is no deeper if it's described as profoundly deep; a profound piece of philosophical thinking is no "deeper" for being described so. If the journalist had meant "far-reaching" there's a phrase for that - "far-reaching". As for "complex" that's neither profound nor (its synonym) "deep". It's complex. It's far too easy for journalists to convince people that something is important, or complicated, or complex, merely by using inappropriate sesquipdalian prolixity. 213.122.151.216 (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Was logged outTonywalton ^Talk 01:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think they're entirely interchangable, then you've gone off the profound end. Rckrone (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Westerners have dug themselves a profound hole, and are in profound shit, by eating too much food that's been profoundly fried. Sounds deeply weird, doesn't it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Deep applies both in the literal and figurative senses. Profound (as far as I have ever heard!) only applies in the figurative. Although I think you can make both a profound and a deep bow or yawn. Perhaps simultaneously. Lexicografía (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're onto something, but it's not quite that simple: "deep defense", "deep undercover" and similar uses are not exactly literal, but you can't replace "deep" with "profound" here. 84.239.160.59 (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. Perhaps not eloquent, but certainly not grammatically or semantically problematic. You can look for shades of different meaning in connotation, or as AnonMoos suggests, accept it as a form of rhetorical redundancy, i.e. Pleonasm. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Spanish dictionary

Anyone knows a website that is a Spanish dictionary has pronunciation in Spanish way of pronounce it. Thanks.75.168.174.122 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary has pronunciations for some of its words, Forvo has some, and SpanishDict.com has pretty good pronunciation audio. Lexicografía (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Free Dictionary's Spanish version has Castillian pronunciations for most words, as far as I could try. SpanishDict.com seems to hold more pronunciations, but please note that they're meant to be pronounced under a kind of neutral Latin American Spanish. Pallida  Mors 09:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

November 5

Verbs in French

Hi. Do French verbs have both formal and informal (similar to Spanish) in the second person, or is there only one second person form? Regards, Lexicografía (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

French does make the T–V_distinction. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

However, it only does it in the singular, whereas Spanish (in at least some countries) does it in the plural as well. In French the formal singular is the same as the plural. For example, "You are" is "tu es" (informal singular) or "vous êtes" (formal and/or plural). The two forms are derived from the original Latin second person singular and plural. --Anonymous, 03:51 UTC, November 5, 2010.

Just a little trouvaille from the article:"Tu can also be used to show disrespect to a stranger, such as when surprising a thief or cursing other drivers on the road." ---Sluzzelin talk 03:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "foutrez vous" doesn't sound quite right, does it? --Jayron32 05:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For sure (though someone once did say "Vous êtes con" to me). What threw me off was the bit about surprising a thief. Hasn't happened all that often in my life, as opposed to swearing at drivers :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Paris riots in 2005, the main grievance was cited as: 'they (second-generation immigrant youths) want police to stop insulting them with use of the familiar form for you: "tu".'[1]. Still, the French love a good riot, even more than us Brits. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Lexicografía (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't Google's translator have an option to translate Austrian into English?

--75.33.217.61 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because German is the official language in Austria. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

see Languages of Austria (there is no austrian language)Sf5xeplus (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ureter

How do you say ureter in Latin? And internal sphincter muscle of urethra in German (Austrian :-) )? --151.51.29.169 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably Galen or another ancient anatomist knew of the ureter, but knowledge of anatomy was much more limited in ancient times, and I doubt that there was a standard term meaning "ureter" in Latin. An author wishing to refer the ureter might use a descriptive phrase such as canalis de rene ad vesicam. As for the German term for the internal sphincter of the urethra, German tends to use Neo-Latin terms for muscles. In this case, the term would be musculus sphincter vesicae. Marco polo (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ureter comes right from Greek (well, through Latin), and Galen did know of it, according to Liddell and Scott. Earlier authors (I don't know whose those abbreviations refer to) use "ureter" and "urethra" interchangeably. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this source, the term ureter comes from ancient Greek but was not incorporated into Latin with its modern meaning until early modern times. Marco polo (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems likely. According to Lewis and Short, "urethra" was borrowed into Latin, but they (well, Celsus, at least) used the phrase "iter urinae". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 6

–st

While, whilst; among, amongst; unknown, unbeknownst. Is there a difference in meaning in these pairs, or only an ocean? —Tamfang (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

On the American side of the ocean, the -st forms are simply not much in use; there is no difference in meaning for Americans. Marco polo (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article about while and whilst. We don't have an article about the difference between among and amongst, even though the difference in usage (in Britain) is more pronounced: "amongst" is often used to imply dispersion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Think "unbeknownst" is a little literary/archaic/affected on both sides of the Atlantic, with no marked cross-pondal difference. The word reminds me of the title scroll to Spaceballs: "Unbeknownst to the princess, but knownst to us...". AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that unbeknownst is more common in the United States than unbeknown, and I agree with AnonMoos that it is only used in a lofty register, at least in the United States. However, this is the only one of the -st forms that is more common than its suffixless counterpart in the United States. In the United States, you rarely encounter amongst or whilst except among transplants from Britain (and maybe other Commonwealth countries except for Canada). Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing my darndest to eradicate the abominable words 'whilst' and 'amongst' from Wikipedia for years now, and I will be continuing on my glorious quest. They're often used by people whose talk page language leaves something to be desired, which leads me to conclude that they believe these words are the written or formal counterparts of the colloquial words 'while' and 'among'. There's no such rule. 'While' and 'among' are just dandy even in the most formal of registers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I have no wish to defend usages that seem offensive or pretentious to our American and Australian cousins, I shall continue to use "whilst" whenever I consider it conveys a shade of meaning not contained in "while". If it was good enough for Shakespeare, Middleton and Thackeray, then I don't see why the word should be banned. I shall avoid using it in Wikipedia articles, however, since I don't wish to create any extra work for Jack, and I don't like edit wars. Dbfirs 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern for my welfare, Dbfirs, I do appreciate it. But tell me, what's the shade of meaning in "Whilst I have no wish to defend usages ..." that isn't there in "While I have no wish to defend usages ..."? I honestly cannot see any difference in meaning whatsoever. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably very little, to be honest, but it is conventional to use "whilst" for this sort of contrast in my regional variety of English. I've read the criticisms, but it just sounds more natural and clearer to me. I'm wondering whether it is just a leftover from the usage that was common a few hundred years ago (from the King James Bible to the authors above), or whether it is a reaction to the (mis)-use of "while" to mean "until" in a small area of England south of where I live. Dbfirs 00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But what is "this sort of contrast"? Between what and what? —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I know we've discussed this before. While your dialect considers whilst pretentious, and many American dialects do too, it is a normal, everyday, load-bearing word in British English. See this pleasant source. As such, if you must remove it from American and Australian-themed articles, I won't be kicking up a fuss, but there's no need to impose your aversions on British-themed articles, nor read your own dialect's registers into the words of people speaking another. 86.166.42.171 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting link. I'm glad I'm not alone. To me "while" just means "during the time that" when used at the start of a sentence, whereas "whilst" indicates a contrast between the juxtaposed situations. Like all prescriptivists (including Jack, most Americans, and Australian Pam Peters whose stated agenda is language reform), I tend to want to impose my usage on all other speakers of the language, but I'm gradually learning that the English language is surprisingly diverse, and once-common usages, considered obsolete by most, will often still be in regular use in some (perhaps remote) part of the English-speaking world. Like most Americans, I would consider "whilst" to sound slightly pretentious when used to mean just "during the time that", but substantial such usage in older literature (I can easily give you a dozen citations) would indicate that it can hardly be considered "wrong", just "dated". Dbfirs 07:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Whilst is one of those words that comes naturally to some editors, but they never really need it, whereas it's jarring to readers from other parts of the world. I think there's a list of such words somewhere. One I hadn't realized, that goes in the other direction, is overly — it's a word I personally find natural and useful, but I see no need to use it in WP articles (even ones with strong American national ties), given that it's apparently jarring to British readers, and is easily replaced with something like excessively. --Trovatore (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that, in Wikipedia articles, there are many words best avoided to ensure easy readability for an international readership. Most of Jack's "adverbesque words" ( see above) are also best avoided since they usually convey the opinion of the writer. Dbfirs 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Crimson and Clover

In the song Crimson and Clover, the title phrase is repeated several times. I can't make sense of the phrase in the context of the lyrics. Does it have any real meaning? --173.49.17.239 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the article Crimson and Clover, no, there's no real meaning, the words just fit there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Greek or Latin for database

what would they have called it? (or is a clever use of another Greek or Latin prefix or suffix that would get people to think of a database?) 84.153.222.232 (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It would not be "Database", which combines a neuter plural Latin form and a Greek form in a manner unknown to classical compounding. A word which appears in dictionaries of ancient Greek is Γνωμολογια. You could coin something with Θησαυρος as the second element, but I'm not sure what the first element would be. Modern Greek seems to use Βάση δεδομένων... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of neo-Latin computer terms. Here is a list of "vocabula computatralia", which has "datorum ordinatrum", simple "data", and "plicae datorum". Many years ago when we were setting up the Latin Wikipedia, I attempted to translate MediaWiki code into Latin, and I think I may have invented "basis dati" and "basis datorum", but I don't know if those translations are still in there. (I hope not, because that's terrible.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

anchor off, anchored off

Hello does "anchor off" actually mean the ship stays or leaves? thanks for help --Avoided (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As in "anchored off the coast" of something? That means the ship stays there. Think of it as "anchored, off the coast". Adam Bishop (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Glossary of nautical terms has several expressions with anchor, but not that one at this time.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm working on José María Narváez to translate it for the german wiki, and wasn't certain with this. thanks so far --Avoided (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase in that article is, "While at anchor off Point Grey..."

• "at anchor" means the ship is anchored, ie. stationary
• "off Point Grey" means near Point Grey

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Because if you anchored AT Point Grey, you'd get stuck on the rocks ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

When I gave my first reply, I had not considered the context (permanent link here), whose parse tree indicates that "off" is more closely associated with "Point Grey" than with "anchor" and "anchored".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding South Indian Dravidian Langauges.

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I was going to the information avilable on varoius links of Wikipedia where it has mentioned that Tamil is oldest of the Dravidian Language based on evidence dating back to 300 BC. If going my centuries or dates. Then I think Kannada should be mentioned as oldest language of the Dravidian language. I have even read saying some(2) of the alphabets in Tamil have been taken from Kannada Language.

In the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_history_of_India and varoius other links related to Kannada only mentions about the Brahmagiri edict. I think itself is sufficient evidence to mention Kannada has the oldest language.

The first written record in the Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 BC.[6][15] The first example of a full-length Kannada language stone inscription (shilashaasana) containing Brahmi characters with characteristics attributed to those of protokannada in Hale Kannada (Old Kannada) script can be found in the Halmidi inscription, dated c. 450, indicating that Kannada had become an administrative language by this time.[16][17][18] Over 30,000 inscriptions written in the Kannada language have been discovered so far.[19] The Chikkamagaluru inscription of 500 AD is another example.[20][21] Prior to the Halmidi inscription, there is an abundance of inscriptions containing Kannada words, phrases and sentences, proving its antiquity. The 543 AD Badami cliff shilashaasana of Pulakesi I is an example of a Sanskrit inscription in Hale Kannada script.[22][23]

Tamil is having one of the oldest literature amongst world languages, with epigraphic attestation dating to the 300 BC.

Literary works in India or Sri Lanka were preserved either in palm leaf manuscripts (implying repeated copying and recopying) or through oral transmission, making direct dating impossible. External chronological records and internal linguistic evidence, however, indicates that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime between the 3rd century BC and the 2nd century AD.

So I request wikipedia team , If your team find that above infromation is right. Then please update the same in relavant information in your database related to Dravidian languages and related to Kannada/Karnataka.

The references for the same are avialable in below links,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmagiri_archaeological_site

Ghosh, Amalananda (1990) [1990]. An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology. BRILL. ISBN 9004092625. Kennedy, Kenneth A. R. (2000) [2000]. God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology of South Asia. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472110136. Peter Neal Peregrine, Melvin Ember, Human Relations Area Files Inc. (2001) [2001]. Encyclopedia of Prehistory. Springer. ISBN 0306462621. Kipfer, Barbara Ann (2000) [2000]. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology. Springer. ISBN 0306461587. Ian Shaw, Robert Jameson (1999) [1999]. A Dictionary of Archaeology. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0631235833. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sravindra s (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages edited by Roger D. Woodard (2004) ISBN 0-521-56256-2, intends to cover all languages sufficiently attested by 500 A.D., and includes Old Tamil but not Kannada. AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The tree diagram in our article on Dravidian languages shows Tamil and Kannada having a common root and diverging at around the same time. Because languages evolve gradually, it is very difficult to determine which modern language is "oldest", but there seems to be better evidence of early Tamil than of early Kannada. Your own dates also seems to suggest this. Dbfirs 22:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sravindra, there isn't a Wikipedia team (or rather, there is a team of millions, including you) and we haven't got a database. What we have is articles, which anybody is encouraged to improve if they can. On the subject of your question, I don't know which articles you are talking about, but note that if they claim that "Tamil is the oldest of the Dravidian languages" then they should be removed but not replaced with an alternative claim, as this is not a matter whose truth can be ascertained. If on the other hand they are talking about something like "the oldest surviving literature" or "the earliest known examples", then these are factual claims which you can certainly correct if you have references with updated information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

November 7

Term for coincidental repeated appearance of a word

I'm trying to find the term for the coincidental recurring appearance of a particular word or concept. Annoyingly enough, I was looking up déjà, jamais, and presque vu, and related phenomena, when this question occurred to me, but I'm sure I'm not just falling prey to a cognitive illusion; this term exists, at least informally, I am positive! My search-and-wiki-fu has failed me; can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.229.125 (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Try Apophenia. The tendency to imagine patterns in random events is called apophenia. --Jayron32 06:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; there's lots of general terms that cover related ground -- obviously, it's like some form of priming or clustering or synchronicity illusion -- but I'm really looking for a very specific term for this particular phenomenon. I don't know, perhaps it's something I've only seen or read somewhere in sci-fi, or dreamed up myself.76.69.229.125 (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon [2][3] Mitch Ames (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Eventuated?

I came across this word in Merchant submarine#Soviet Union, but is it actually a word in English? Astronaut (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The OED has cites back to 1789. It also notes "First used in U.S., and still regarded as an Americanism, though it has been employed by good writers in England." Algebraist 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=eventuate&ls=a. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It eventuated that I replaced the word. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

...eventually. —Tamfang (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Under the subject. Vitamin D

Sub category Cancer, third para. last sentence. What does this mean for male smokers? I have read this sentence 10 times and looked up the meanings but still don't understand what it is trying to convey. Is vitamin D harmful to male smokers? It's not clear. It seems that something was left out of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.187.110 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Vitamin D#Cancer — The sentence in question appears to be: However, in male smokers a 3-fold increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the highest compared to lowest quintile of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration has been found. The structure could be improved, but the meaning seems clear to me: someone took a group of male smokers, ranked them by the concentration of a D metabolite in their blood, split them into five equal groups according to that ranking, and found three times as many pancreatic cancers in the highest-D group as in the lowest. It doesn't quite say that D is harmful for male smokers; their 25-HO-D concentration could be high for some reason other than their diet. —Tamfang (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apparently this study did find that high blood levels of vitamin D actually were found to increase the risk of pancreatic cancer in male smokers in Finland. This is surprising, since so many studies of late have found quite the opposite relationship in the general population, not only for cancer but for many other diseases as well. This site: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/20/9802.full offers some information on the study and a few suggestions for the reasons of the findings. Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, you always have to be careful with regional studies. seemingly insignificant differences in culturally-specific behavior can have significant statistical impacts. I remember reading about contradictory research which showed that heavy coffee consumption led to higher rates of heart disease in Europe but lower rates in the US - the difference turned out to be that US drinkers used paper filters which absorbed the natural fats in the coffee beans. fascinating stuff, if you share my geekdom. --Ludwigs2 20:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

November 8

Confused by grammatical terms

I used to think that terms like "noun phrase", "verb phrase", etc. were defined in terms of their functions in a sentence. When I looked up their Wikipedia entries, they were explained as defined in terms of their heads. It seems to me that these terms and similar ones are defined syntactically, based on their structures rather than their functions.

1. Is the concept of a head universal among different types of grammars and schools of thought? Is it a term that's used only in some types of grammar?
2. What are the grammatical terms for phrases that function as

• a noun?
• a verb (say a verb together with its auxiliaries and modifiers, but not including any objects and complements)?
• an adjective?
• an adverb?

I may have misunderstood something. If so, please point out my mistakes and help unconfuse me. Thanks. --173.49.78.4 (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)