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

September 18

Explaining when to use in, at, on and into to someone whose native language is Semitic

So my girlfriend's a fine yekke Israelit (don't worry about those terms if you don't know'em, they're not important). Her native language is of course Hebrew, and in Hebrew, you just say b[thing] in many cases where you have several words in various IE languages. So how do I explain to my little lady when to use the four prepositions above. She's quite confused as a result of the way you construct things in Semitic languages. What about to and for as well L[something]? I'm surprised she picked up most everything else given the complications. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the finer details of preposition usage can vary quite a bit even between fairly closely-related languages (e.g. English and German), so I'm not sure Semitic vs. Indo-European is too relevant. AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, English and German, that is exactly the case (and can be a pain in the ass at times). However, she has more troubles because there are so few prepositions in Hebrew (that I know of, I'm only in my third semester of it mind you). The question still stands; how does one teach the differences? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 14:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few rules of thumb you can come up with, for example, that "into" always implies movement, from outside to inside, but "in" usually doesn't. But they are pretty weak (eg the movement is a bit abstract in "marks burnt into the surface"; and with certain verbs of motion "in" is often acceptable as an alternative to "into" - eg "put it in the fridge"). Given that the use of these prepositions varies even between dialects of English (UK "at school" vs US "in school", for example), there is no shortcut to learning them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

She prefers UK English; she finds it sexy apparently. So she mostly has to learn them on a case by case basis then? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rules of thumb I use:

"In", "into" = "inside of", as "I put the weasel inside of/in/into the car".

"At" = "at the location of", as "I left the flaming car at the location of/at the accident".

"On" = "On top of", as in "The semi was on top of/on my car". StuRat (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So:

In 2011 (in two thousand eleven) = inside of 2011

At 20:11 (at eight eleven) = at the location of 20:11

On 20/11 (on 20 November) = on top of 20/11

???

HOOTmag (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, a rule of thumb is only correct roughly 4 out of 5 times. Including this one, since it's also a rule of thumb.</tongue in cheek> --Kjoonlee 04:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they only works for physical objects. Another non-physical example is a web page. You can post "at" a web page, leave a comment "in" it, or place a picture "on" it. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with these conceptions. Don't we talk about time like we talk about space? You can approach a date, which is in a month, and the particular event is on that date. And then, when the event is over, you go passed that date and leave it in the past, behind you. Time is generally conceptualised like space, isn't it? It might not be natural English to say "inside of 2011", but then "inside of the fridge" isn't natural English in my dialect either. The concept remains the same, so I'd have thought it was still helpful. 86.164.76.231 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Prepostions are a fantastically hard thing to learn in a new language; usage is so idiosyncratic that it is hard to come up with concise rules as to their use; oddly native speakers seem to master these rules in childhood, and seem to be able to keep track of the multitude of "rules" without ever conciously codifying them. Since the only other language I know any of besides English is French, one of the things you learn about French is the difficulty in translating prepositions between the languages; take the French preposition "à" for example. It can be translated into English as "to" or "from" or "of" or "at" depending on the context. You just kinda have to learn all of the little situations where a preposition is appropriate in a specific context; again with the caveat that different dialects even within English will use different prepositions in the same context. --Jayron32 04:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Over the years, I have had several French colleagues who fairly consistently used "into" in cases where it was not appropriate (one instance I recall which actually did cause problems was a phrase "the characters are read into the buffer" - the intend meaning was "read from the buffer"). I assume, but have not verified, that these particular people had been taught a rule of thumb that one particular French preposition corresponded to "into". --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

French doesn't have any short single-word expression which mainly translates English "into". One thing I've noticed about French is that in many contexts, French speakers seem to have little problem using "de"+noun several times close together in a sentence, something which would be stylistically awkward in English... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You talk about what the oddly native speakers do, but what about the perfectly normally native speakers?  :)

Just being serious for a micro-second, though, what do you find odd about the ability of people to absorb the byways and idiosyncracies of their own languages and use them in a completely natural and intuitive manner? Compared with any latter-day learners from other languages, surely it's the native speakers who have the colossal advantage here; they've lived their entire lives being totally immersed in their own language, and children copy every little nuance perfectly from their surrounding environment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not that native speakers are odd; its that the ease of their use of their native language does not jive with the ease of explaining what they do. As you say, it is very normal for native speakers to learn their language, that is obviously common, and in that sense is the most normal thing possible. What makes it odd is the ability to follow a consistent system with ease which is so complex that it can't be explained easily. To sum up: What you say is true, but it doesn't contradict anything that I said. Or, at least, meant. --Jayron32 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But then, children don't sit down and say "OK, we have to master our English prepositions. Let's have a look at all the rules, grammar, idioms and exceptions before we go out and play cowboys and Indians". They don't perceive it as a system of rules - complex or otherwise - at all. Only adults or at least adolescents do that, and you can't compare adult learning with childhood learning, because they're totally different. A person who learns a new language as an adult, and learns the vocab and idioms so well that he can write like a native, will never be able to speak like a native. He might get very close, but there will always be those little tell-tale things that reveal he's somehow "different" from the natives. A young-enough child never has this burden.

So the question is not:

• "Why do children find it so easy to do what is so hard to explain to adults?".

It's:

• "Why do adults assume their way of learning a language is appropriate, given they struggle with rules they find so complex and replete with exceptions, and given that children just accept these things as normal and natural and learn them quickly and easily? Where are adults going so badly wrong in their whole approach". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

JackofOz -- It's quite likely that children have special language-learning brain circuitry, which withers away after the "critical period", so adult language learning can't really be the same thing as child language-learning. AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossword puzzle help

I believe I have the answer to a clue from the surrounding answers but I still don't understand why the answer is what it is. Four letters. The clue is: protectors of tiny shirts. The only thing I could think of was possibly "moms" (or less likely but, "dads") as in they keep their children's baby cloths and would protect them from disposal—reaching I know. It turns out the answer is apparently "libs". Can someone clue me in why?--108.46.107.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Most likely it's supposed to be "bibs" Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Smacking forehead. Of course it's bibs. Thank you. This is one of the weird ones where the surrounding answers all looked correct. The "l" in lib came from luggage, when the answer was properly baggage, and you can see why that might have fit perfectly but still been wrong.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

haha. That is a toughie. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Whose English is most "authentic"?

If someone born in England in the 16th century would be warped to current times, would he be more at ease in London, Scotland, Texas, New York, Delhi, Canberra or anywhere else? Joepnl (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I was led to believe that the main accents we were stuck with in the US (other than Midwest, Texan, Southern and Bostonian) are closest to the accent in the GB at that time. English has evolved a lot since the time of Early Modern English. We could understand him, but he would not be able to understand a lot of our phrases I bet. Language aside though, I don't think he would feel very easy at all what with all the harnessing of the sun in glass tubes, people talking to themselves in black boxes, horseless carriages that sound unnatural and flying metal machines. I bet he would also accidentally get into a few fights with Irishmen, Blacks and maybe a Jew or two if he saw one and made an off-colour remark. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking the mountains of eastern Kentucky or western North Carolina. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's very common for Americans to make this claim; a big [citation needed] tag is required before we proceed. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hell if I know or even remember where I read that. Must have been one of those silly stories on MSN Today. I'd personally prefer we spoke with the modern accent associated with England. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it would depend where in England he was born. Someone from 16th century Norfolk would quite likely find the current Norfolk accent easier to understand than that of Huddersfield say - accents in remote rural areas have probably changed the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't the oppose it also be true? I mean think of a place like Chile, it's somewhat isolated and that just means the language evolves differently (Chilean Spanish is just strange to many Spaniards). Then again, in the case of Chile, it's a lot of Mapuche influence, so I could just be talking out my ass. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the point Andy was making (which I would have made if he hadn't, and I will now proceed to do in my own words) is that, even in this modern day of global connectivity, there's a huge variety of Englishes within England itself. Take yourself back to the 16th century, and there would have been even more variety. So, it would very much depend on exactly where in England the person came from as to which English they are comparing to which current version. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]}

As the person in question is coming in from the backend of the Great Vowel Shift (which was really still ongoing - see the chart in that link), I would hazard at somewhere like Newcastle upon Tyne or Scotland. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Scotland? How do you figure that? Do you mean the fellows in Scotland who speak Scots or the Scots who speak English with what's regarded commonly as a Scottish accent? Also, what about the hazard of the many wild haggi? :p

Some years ago when I was researching the role of John Proctor in The Crucible, I learned that the dialect of the pilgrims (which would have been similar to one spoken in England at the time) would most closely match a modern "Northumbrian dialect, spoken through clenched teeth". I've no idea how accurate that info was, nor can I remember the source. Also, the play is set in the late 17th century, so may not be applicable to the OP. However, this plus KageTora's observations about the GVS suggest that North-East England may be a good bet.

On the other hand, I've heard it said a few times that the accent of Massachussets, particularly Martha's Vineyard, is the least changed in the past centuries. I don't know if give that much credence though - in my experience it is not uncommon for the upper-class, old-money types to insist that their version of the English Language is the 'correct' one and that everyone is speaking a corrupted variant.

All that said, I'm ignoring Andy's very good point - that presumably there would have been significant variation in dialects back then too, so yes, the location of our time-traveller's upbringing would also be relevant. AJCham 00:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

---

The "Appalachian preservation of Elizabethan English" thing is pretty much a pure myth (language change doesn't work that way). During much of the 16th century, many of the vowels must have been very different from those of almost any modern dialect. Even if any one modern dialect were any "closer" (however that would be defined) to 16th-century English than other dialects, that wouldn't make it more "authentic" in any valid linguistic sense... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we all went with the second part of the question, about where our visitor would feel most comfortable, because we all know that calling any regional dialect more 'authentic' than any other is just nonsense. Even our visitor's English would be no more 'authentic' than any of ours, because English didn't magically appear in the 16th Century and had been around (and called English) for at least a thousand years before that. Our time traveller would have a hard time talking to a saxon warrior straight off one of Hengest and Horsa's boats. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a partial answer to the question. In the United States, the most conservative accent is found in northern Iowa. What this means is that, among Americans, their vowels are the closest to what are hypothesized to have been those of the English settlers in 15th- and 16th-century America. (There isn't a lot of variation in consonants throughout the English-speaking world, so only vowels really matter.)

This doesn't fully answer the question, obviously, because it says nothing about dialects outside the U.S., and also likely because the dialects of those settlers were not representative of England as a whole at that time, which had many different dialects.

My source is here: [1] 96.46.200.119 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any English-speaking settlers arriving in the 15th Century. Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement, wasn't set up until the beginninng of the 17th Century (1607). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As Shakespeare was born in Stratford-on-Avon, England in the 16th century, it would be reasonable to assume that the modern West Midlands accent would be close to what he spoke. At least that's what I was told when I grew up in the Black Country and studied Shakespeare. Certainly some of the words used (especially by the minor characters such as Bardolph or Falstaff) were familiar to me as a native Black Country dialect speaker. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that there's more regional pride than linguistic evidence behind these claims. Certainly when Charles Dickens tries to phonetically reproduce 19th century working class accents, it doesn't sound like anything recognisable today. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be, but most linguists agree that Northern English has always been the most conservative of all the dialects, as it preserves the vowel sounds to a greater degree, and still uses thou/thee/thy, along with numerous other features. A lot of dialect words from Yorkshire can be traced back to Old English (i.e. these words disappeared from other dialects (and hence what became standard English) in the Old English period). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's Stratford-upon-Avon, Tammy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the claims on here need tagging with Citation needed. This would be deleted on sight if it were an article. - X201 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In the book The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics by Henry Rogers, there's a short transcription of a few lines from the play Julius Caesar, transcribed as Shakespeare himself would probably have pronounced it (pp. 106):
'frɛnz 'roːmənz 'kʌntrɪmən
'lɛnd mi juɹ 'iːɹz.
ʌj 'kʌm tə 'berɪ 'seːzəɹ
'nɒt tʊ 'preːz ɪm.
ðɪ iːvɪl ðət 'mɛn 'duː
'lɪvz 'æːftəɹ ðəm
ðə 'gʊd ɪz 'ɔːft ɪn'təːrɪd
wɪð ðəɹ 'boːnz
'soː let ɪt 'biː wɪθ 'seːzəɹ
ðə 'noːbl̩ 'bruːtəs
əθ 'toːld ju
'seːzəɹ wəz æm'bɪʃɪəs
ɪf ɪt 'wɛːɹ 'soː
ɪt wɔz ə 'griːvəs 'fɔːlt
ən 'griːvəslɪ
əθ 'seːzəɹ 'ænsəɹd ɪt. --Terfili (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like that would be easier to say after a few pints of cider :-) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, or if you talk like a pirate, shiver me timbers! AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Scholars like Ben Crystal, David Crystal, and Paul Meier have already worked out the probable pronunciation of English in Shakespeare's time, base on rhymes, mispellings and historical relics in modern dialects. How close it is is anyone's guess, but it's highly likely that it's closer to the original than any modern acccent. There have even been stagings of Shakespeare plays with this "original pronunciation". Just type in >shakespeare original pronunciation< into YouTube to hear the results. There are also recreations of what Chaucer's Middle English and Beowulf's Old English sounded like, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear the reconstructed London pronunciation from that era, I am reminded of certain accents today in rural Ireland (central Ireland, certainly not the North). This isn't so surprising, considering that English came to that part of Ireland for the first time in the Elizabethan era. Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... English arrived Kenya in the 19th century; it doesn't mean that Kenyans speak like 19th century Englishmen does it? Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Australians speak somewhat like 19th-century lower-class Englishmen (to a certain degree)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been to Kenya, but I have been to Tanzania, and they do use some very oddly 19th century expressions. For example, an observation will often be introduced, "I say, ....", for example, "I say, that's a fine-looking chicken, isn't it?" The accent there is heavily conditioned by Swahili and other indigenous languages, so I don't think it sounds much like 19th-century speech in England. Likewise, the Irish accent is no doubt colored by the Irish language. Still, it reminds me of reconstructed Elizabethan. Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just listened to "KU Theatre - Students perform Shakespeare in original and the pronunciation sounds somewhere between a Northumbrian and a Yorkshire accent. I have heard "Yorkshire Dialect" versions of Shakespeare from the Northern Broadsides and its amazing how the language suddenly sounds natural; thee, thy, and nowt (nought) are still in current usage in Yorkshire. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

English accents aren't my strong point, but I didn't think that Yorkshire or Northumberland had rhotic accents these days. Of course, Elizabethan English was rhotic, like Irish and American. Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some rhotic accents in Northumbria, the maps in the Rhotic and non-rhotic accents article indicates that its gone but I have heard it recently in farmers I have met while walking in the Cheviots. I expect that it has gone from the larger towns and cities though. A lot of web sources say that there are rhotic accents in parts of yorkshire, but I have only heard this from members of the Asian community and I don't think that is what the websites are talking about! -- Q Chris (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's actually what the article on pronunciation of Yorkshire dialect says - apparently it's more common on the border with Lancashire. I find that odd, because Lancashire dialects are generally non-rhotic. They must be just isolated cases. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

English names for forms of baby motion

My niece recently learned to move on her own. She lies on her stomach and pulls herself along with her arms. Because I am interested in seeing how she develops, I want to know the specific English names for the ways babies move. Finnish has fi:ryömiminen for a form of motion where one lies fully flat on the stomach and uses the whole of the arms and legs to move, and fi:konttaaminen for a form of motion where one rests oneself on the hands and knees, with the upper part of the legs off the floor. I don't know what they are called in English, or even if English makes a distinction between the two. What are they called in English? JIP | Talk 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Planking?  ;) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

English uses 'crawl' for both. If you want to make a distinction, the first would be 'crawl on one's stomach' (or replace 'stomach' with 'tummy', as it's a baby - 'tummy crawl') and the other 'crawl on all fours' (or 'crawl on hands and knees'). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The first can be known as prone crawling or belly-crawling. Personally I only previously knew of the term "prone crawl" in a military context (okay, virtual-military context - video games, paintball etc.). However, it seems the phrase does also apply to babies, as demonstrated here. This paediatric paper uses the terms "belly-crawling", and refers to the second form as "hands-and-knees crawling". AJCham 00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Army crawl, perhaps, for the first, although you're really not flat on your stomach. Lexicografía (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A term used by cavers for wriggling forward on your belly when there isn't room to use your arms and legs effectively is "thrutch". A quick Google shows that it's also a term used by climbers with a rather similar meaning; Wiktionary says: "(caving, climbing (sport)) To push, press, or squeeze into a place; move sideways or vertically in an upright position by wriggling the body against opposing rock surfaces." Apparently from the Old English þryccan "to press". Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Thrutch" is "to squeeze", as into a tight spot. So I don't think it would work for a belly-crawl. Actually, I'm not sure "crawl" works for a belly-crawl: you'd need to spell it out. English doesn't seem to have a word for this. But I think I'd just say "pulls herself along with her arms". — kwami (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, that is what 'crawl' means - to pull oneself along with the arms. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

September 19

Cascella

How to pronounce the surname of the late artist, Pietro Cascella? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In Italian, it would be /kaʃe'lla/ /kaʃɛ'lla/. Hope this helps. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Except with the stress symbol on the second syllable: /kaˈʃɛlla/. Lesgles (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dang! I always put that stress mark in the wrong place..... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And /ʃ/ is always geminate between vowels in Italian, so /kaʃˈʃɛlla/. (Not that that will make a difference when transliterating his name into Hebrew.) Angr (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it might at that! If the [s] closes the first syllable and the [ʃ] opens the second, the proper rendering in Hebrew would indicate the first with the letter samekh and the second with shin. I intend to consult over on the Hebrew wikipedia Language Ref Desk and report findings back here for you interested folks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no [s] in it. It's just one long [ʃ]. Angr (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a bit of fun while we wait, but I've come up with this:
כאַשֶּלָּ
Probably too many dagheshes, though..... :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not enough. There would have to be a dagesh lene in the kaph at the beginning of the word. But in fact, qoph is usually used for /k/ in foreign words, and there needs to be a silent letter like a heh or an aleph at the end so that even in unpointed text the reader knows the word ends in a vowel (so that we can distinguish Cascella from Cashel). I'd go with קַשֶּׁלָּה‎. Angr (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Aye, it was after I posted that I realized there should have been another daghesh in the kaph. I had thought about using qoph, but decided against it - thinking about Arabic qaf. I was also thinking of putting an aleph at the end, but definitely not a heh. Anyway, I was close, I guess (looking at it now, I have no idea why I put an aleph as second letter). I'd go with yours, though, Angr. Let's see what Deborahjay has to say about it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

currently pursuing her PhD (etc.) at/ from a certain university?

from/at a certain university? Which preposition is the more natural one?--117.253.190.252 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with "at". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes definitely 'at'. 'From' seems to imply the doctorate sprouting legs, and making a dash for freedom... :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You "have a degree from X" (if you've finished your course) but "study at Y" (otherwise). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a niche situation where you might say "from", if you are taking a degree accredited by a university but studying at a different institution. I know someone who is studying for a degree from Leeds Metropolitan University at Bradford College. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

By the by, and vis-a-vis an earlier thread, one pursues an academic qualification but not to the point of persecuting it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oojimy?

I have played through the text adventure game Jinxter, and have learned the spells used with the five charms, which seem to be common English placeholder names. However, one of them seems to be unusual: oojimy. Is this word really used in English? At least a Google search for oojimy yielded only results about Jinxter, whereas a search for any of the other four spells also yielded results not relating to the game. JIP | Talk 19:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oojimyflip, Oojimicallit... are like "Whatjamacallit", "Thingummybob", "Wotsit". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup - see Oojamaflip [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What language would be practical?

If i intended to take a trip to visit places including Antioch and Damascus, what language or languages would practically help most? I wouldn't want to be 'trapped' in English, but the only other languages I speak are French and German. It's difficult to tell from our articles on the regions what language would let you practically get by. For example, the official language of Syria is Arabic, but I gather very few people speak 'pure' Koranic Arabic, and you really need the local variant to communicate? If one learnt Syrian Arabic, for example, could one be understood in Turkey? And would ordinary people one is likely to meet speak it? Learning a language is a big investment of time for me, for all that I'd love to speak more of them, so I'd like to get an idea of how feasible this is.

For the purposes of the question, assume I'm just poking around Antakya and Damascus, plus I guess the route between them. What language would I need, practically speaking, and would it be enough to effectively communicate with most people I meet? 86.164.76.231 (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question, what language do people speak in the Hatay region? I imagine many would speak Turkish of course, but it only joined Turkey in the 30's. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria#Demographics includes a link to Syrian Arabic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Depending on your purpose for learning, and how much time you intend to spend conversing with the locals, you may find that Egyptian Arabic will be sufficient for your needs. It is the most widely spoken colloquial dialect, and the one used on TV (except for news, of course), and music, etc., and also the one for which it is easier to find learning materials. If you learn Egyptian Arabic, you will have no trouble communicating in Damascus, or anywhere else in the Arab world. Antioch will be a different matter. I guess if you don't want to use English there, you will only be able to use Turkish, but with it being so close to the border, Arabic may prove useful. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Standard Arabic or colloquial Egyptian Arabic in Syria, and Turkish in Turkey. Arabic and Turkish are completely unrelated, though you will undoubtedly find Arabic speakers in a border town like Antioch. It would be impractical to learn the local Arabic dialect unless you plan on living there for a long time and really need to communicate directly with uneducated locals. With English, German and French, though, you'll have little trouble finding someone to communicate through. Even with English alone. I can't imagine what you have in mind when you say "trapped". English gives you quite a bit of freedom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkey has been pretty successful in wiping away traces of Arabic from Hatay over the decades it has controlled the territory. Having visited the place, I can tell you Turkish is the everyday language there. But since it's also a touristic area, there are lots of persons, particularly in tourism-oriented businesses, who speak English or German - French less so. In Damascus, which I've also visited (not that you would want to go there now), the local dialect is very close to Modern Standard Arabic, i.e. the language spoken by newscasters and understood by every Arab with a primary school education. The Egyptian dialect is quite a bit different. French, English and German are spoken by some, but not nearly as many as in Antakya, given Syria has been a much more closed society than Turkey in the past 50+ years. --Xuxl (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of German spoken in Turkey, so Arabic would probably be a better return. But Turkish is such a fun language! — kwami (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria used to be administered by France, and I once had a conversation with a Syrian woman in French because it was the only language we had in common. But I don't know how far French will really get you in Damascus. Probably farther than German at any rate. Angr (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so far. I've been holding off thanking people so far, because I didn't want to discourage anyone from answering. I'm still interested in further contributions, particularly as there doesn't seem to be a consensus above. I'm getting the impression that people agree Arabic, combined with English and German (and possibly French) will get me understood in many situations, and that although I am likely to run into some people who speak none of these in Turkey, I should almost certainly be able to find someone to translate or help if necessary? So I'd guess a few Turkish phrases, combined with learning Arabic, would be a feasible solution?

Could I hear some more on what sort of Arabic I should concentrate on? I see some suggestions that Egyptian Arabic would be best (including the suggestion that there are more easily available learning materials), and some suggestions that Modern Standard Arabic would be best. While, obviously, it's nice to know you're learning a language that has broader application, could I hear more about which would be more helpful in this situation? 86.164.60.149 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If the map at Levantine Arabic is accurate, that is the variety of Arabic spoken in both Antakya and Damascus. Angr (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would still go with Egyptian Arabic. Based on my own experience, Egyptian Arabic is the most widely known of the colloquial dialects, and you would be understood throughout the Arabic speaking world. I used to work at a university in the UK, looking after foreign students, and many of them came from Arabic speaking countries. Most of the students from the Gulf area actually spoke Egyptian Arabic or something based on that (except, perhaps, people from Saudi or UAE or Bahrain). Moving further west, the dialects did become increasingly difficult to understand (for these students), until we get to Morocco, where only standard Arabic seemed to work. Iraq has it's own version of Arabic, but this also is heavily influenced by Egyptian. Levantine Arabic, and Syrian specifically, is odd in that the tenses of the verbs have been heavily modified to fit a European model - e.g. there is actually a present progressive compound tense, normally absent in Semitic languages. As for the learning materials, definitely Egyptian Arabic has more - due to its prominence in cultural aspects such as TV and movies, music, etc. Syrian Arabic may be of more use to you in this specific situation, but if you plan to travel to the Middle East again, and to somewhere else, I believe it would be better to learn Egyptian. Standard Arabic would be good to learn, of course, but you'd have trouble understanding people who are not from Saudi. This is all based on my experience, and I cannot provide references or citations. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My answer above was given based on personal travel to both places, and knowledge of the various languages mentioned. You can discount it if you want. The problem with the Egyptian dialect is they may understand you, but you won't understand them... Modern standard arabic is not Saudi Arabic; it's the language used on television programs such as the news all over the Arab world. You'll be understood everywhere and everyone with a bit of education can produce it, although they don't usually talk that way themselves. However, Arabic will be pretty useless in Antakya today (it would have been different 60 years ago). Turkish is the language to know there, but barring that, you'll be able to get around with either Turkish or German as plenty of people know those two languages - French will be less useful. --Xuxl (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I did not mean to discount your input. Don't get me wrong. Every input is valid here. As for Standard Arabic, colloquial Saudi is not exactly it, but Gulf Arabic is as close to Standard Arabic as the colloquial dialects get. This is the point I was trying to make. Also, it is true that it is used on news programs across the Arabic world, but not so much for general TV, which tends to use Egyptian (and other dialects, depending on where the program is set/shot). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Is kennen lernen treated as if it were one word?

See topic. It seems that way to me, because when I wrote something like "Habt ihr euch gelernt kennen", it was incorrect, and kennen gelernt was correct. the only way that could be is if this (err... phrase?) is treated as if it were one word. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I use the word expression as an umbrella term for words, phrases, and other types of expression.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the actual question I had. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You will find kennenlernen listed as a verb in German dictionaries. It behaves like other separable verbs. In this case, kennen is the separable prefix. Separable verbs form past participles, such as kennengelernt (all one word) by compounding the prefix with the past participle of the main verb. Marco polo (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, seriously? O_O Es ist ein trennbares verb?! That thought hadn't crossed my mind. I'm used to things like um, aus, an, etc being separable prefixes. Any other unusal trennbares Verbs? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while this verb was once always spelled kennenlernen, since the reform it can also be spelled kennen lernen. You have free choice; the choice of spelling does not express any nuances. (The old spelling is the one recommended by Duden.)

This is not an unusual verb at all except it is one of a relatively small number for which the old spelling is still allowed. Some other verbs formed in the same way: schwimmen gehen, liegen lassen, sitzen bleiben. Whether it's spelled together or not does not matter for how you form past tenses, and never did, to my knowledge. You say: schwimmen gegangen, liegen gelassen, sitzen geblieben.

I don't know what pattern you were overgeneralising when you were saying "gelernt kennen", as I can't immediately think of any similar expressions that would be handled like that in German. Therefore it looks like a confusion between Imperfekt (simple past) and Perfekt (present perfect) to me. You actually do say lernte kennen, ging schwimmen, ließ liegen, blieb sitzen. Hans Adler 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, schwimmen gehen, but I don't know the others. I think we say setzen for taking a seat. I don't think we have learned das Imperfekt yet though. Probably later in the year. I was talking putting it as first verb then subject or w/e [third verb in English] [Second verb in English]. The way I figure is that the basic sequence of verbs at the end of the sentence are in the reverse order of what they would be in English. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not reversed. They are only reversed in Imperfekt, but not in Perfekt. This may be one of the reasons why Perfekt is getting more and more popular in German, to the point that Imperfekt has basically died out in many southern dialects. Hans Adler 23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, sich setzen and sitzen bleiben mean different things. Sich setzen is to take a seat, to move from a standing position to a sitting position; it's a dynamic verb referring to an action. Sitzen bleiben is to remain seated, to not get up from a sitting position; it's a stative verb referring to a state. Sitzen itself refers to the state of being seated too, but it doesn't have the "remain" meaning of sitzen bleiben. Angr (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sitzen bleiben" can also mean... having to repeat a school year... Does English have a word/phrase for this "phenomenon"? If it does, I can't think of it right now. EDIT: I think it's "being left back" or something like that. A shoutout to Everybody Loves Raymond. ElMa-sa (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What about the simple past? Would you really say Ich schwimmenging? I'm guessing no? --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Never mind; I didn't read your last sentence carefully. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

September 20

Translation wanted over at the Science desk

See the thread "What is a chest node?", please. There is a short letter written in Japanese that could clarify an opera singer's medical condition, if translated.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of terms

The Wikipedia search intitle:Glossary terms currently gives 80 hits. intitle:Glossary -terms gives 158. Do we need all those names with "terms" at the end, and is there any system in when to include "terms"? Having one name saying Glossary of Hinduism terms and another Glossary of Islam appears arbitrary to me. English is my second language but "Glossary of ... terms" sounds a bit redundant when a glossary is generally of terms. Is it more formally correct or clear to include "terms"? WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says:

• Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long?

Maybe the extra word isn't worth it even if it is more correct. Some of them would need modification of another word if "terms" was removed, for example Glossary of botanical terms to Glossary of botany. I know the requested move process but would like some general language input before considering whether to go further when so many articles are involved. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

'Glossary of Terms' is a set phrase. This Google Search gets over 13 million hits. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, "glossary of terms" is widely used, but that doesn't mean it's good usage, or that it should be naively followed ;) I think there is value to consistency in naming conventions; it would be better if all glossary articles conformed to either choice, rather than have both forms. The OP has a pretty good point. Glossaries contain terms by definition. We could also consider the potential merit of including the extra/ superfluous word: is there any meaning change between "Glossary of Islam" and "Glossary of Islamic terms"? Would "Glossary of X terms" be more descriptive or communicative? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

True, and I do see the point. I am merely answering the OP's subquestion of whether it was formal to include the word 'terms'. It seems to be so. In any case, even though glossaries are restricted to only containing terms, I don't think the word 'terms' is redundant here. After all, gaggles exclusively contain geese, but we still say 'a gaggle of geese'. Anyway, if a vote was cast either way, I'd say go in favour of the current majority of cases (where the word 'terms' is not present). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, on second thoughts, glossary can also mean a 'bilingual dictionary' (see). In this case, the verb 'to be' and things like that would never be considered 'terms', so the full phrasing 'glossary of terms' actually clarifies what type of glossary it is. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There should rarely be risk of confusion with a bilingual dictionary. Later this week I expect to post a mass move suggestion at WP:RM. I will omit a limited number of "Glossary of ... terms" where dropping "terms" would sound unclear to me, or I can find no good replacement for "...", for example in Glossary of nautical terms. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

September 21

Translating Ionesco

It's been over eleven years since I read Ionesco's La Leçon, and I've been wondering about this ever since. Has anyone translated La Leçon into English (or any other language, but for the sake of discussion I'll assume an English translation). If so, how did the translator handle the line in which the Student asks the Teacher, "Comment dit-on 'grand-mère' en français?" A literal translation would lose the absurdity. An obvious (and appropriately Ionescian) solution would be to translate it as "How do you say 'grandmother' in English?" but I'm not sure how this would square with the translator's responsibility to maintain the integrity of the author's words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.124.236 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Translators make decisions like this all the time. Ever read poetry translated from a foreign language into English which still rhymes? The translator's job is to maintain the integrity of the original work while also working to present the reader in both langauges with the same experience, and that often requires idiomatic vs. literal translation, and all sorts of other choices that a translator makes. It is not an easy choice to make, and one which isn't unique to translating Ionesco. --Jayron32 04:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You can find the translation by Donald M. Allen on Amazon (in the collection The Bald Soprano and other plays) and use the preview, a trick that often works when Google Books fails you. Allen translates as follows:

Pupil: Oh well, one would say, in French, I believe, the roses... of my... how do you say "grandmother" in French?
Professor: In French? Grandmother.

As it's understood that both are speaking French, the absurdity remains, though of course it's still not quite the same.--Rallette (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of patent leather

Where did patent leather get its "patent" name? I followed up the government invention patent idea, but the process seems to be very old and not originally patented. There are government invention patents on the process, but I don't think the term originated via invention patent. This website says patent leater came from: "After the Patten shoe which the young women wore in the buttery. When the cream spilled on their shoes, the fat would tend to make the leather shiny." Sounds good, but not sure whether it is true. Etymonline.com does not have an entry. -- Utmoatr (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The OED says:

The process of making patent leather was improved and commercially developed by Seth Boyden (1788–1870), U.S. inventor, but was not invented by him: see Sci. Amer. (1850) 3 Aug. 368/3.

Many of the other etymologies on that site seem pretty fanciful, frog in your throat probably wasn't about medieval doctors using frog medicine, the "chew the fat" etymology is rejected here so I wouldn't put much trust in their folk etymologies. meltBanana 12:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a large dose of conjecture but it seems likely that Boyden named his development "patent leather" to suggest a wholly new process and one that was protected by patents to warn others off from it. Lacquered leather was a considerably older and similar invention from China, while this article mentions Edmund Prior and someone called Mollersten as earlier developers in 1799 and 1805 respectively. meltBanana 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That, to me, also seems the most plausible explanation, having regard to the meanings of the word patent. Is it possible to do a search on an online database to see if there is a 19th-century patent for this form of leather? Also, perhaps the Scientific American article has more information on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't really [3] - all it says is that patent leather, a European product, was known about in America, but nobody had any, except for a small group of coach-makers: and Seth Boyden, who worked for those coach-makers, "happened on one occasion to discover a small piece of patent leather" and, as it were, ripped it off. Wikipedia's patent leather article (which contains a lot more information now than it did when I last looked, thanks to the OP's editing work) says that what Seth Boyden had to work from was a German military cap front; I don't know what that would be doing in a coach maker's shop in Newark, New Jersey. It also cites three earlier inventors as holding (overlapping?) patents for shiny leather (starting with "Hand's patent leather" mentioned in The Bee).  Card Zero  (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, doesn't the fact that the article refers to the patents confirm the etymology of patent leather? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There are thousands of patents related to leather, and not just the shiny kind. There are millions of patents, and the subject matter of those patents do not automaticaly take on "patent" as part of the popular name. The automobile is called automobile, not patent automobile. Pants are called pants, not patent pants, even though there are early patents related to pants. I haven't seen any reliable sources that establish "patent" in "patent leather" came about because such leather is patented. Even the short version of the OED did not take on the task of figuring this out (If someone has access to the long version OED, please check). Patent leather's name originating from patten (shoe) seems more plausable, but still no reliable sources on that, either. The German military cap front[4] was shiny leather and Boyden used that to improve the process. -- Utmoatr (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Patent" leather refers to Edmund Prior's 1799 patent and Charles Mollersten's 1805 patent, both of which were only effective in England and its colonies of the time. Boyden's 1818 process -- which was in all essential details identical to Mollersten's improvements on Prior -- merely popularized the method and the term used to describe it. 70.91.171.54 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for that, we can put it in the article. -- Utmoatr (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And e-mail the information to OED. :-) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ngrams shows a popularity of the term "patent leather" over time. There doesn't seem to be any dramatic jump in usage of the term. -- Utmoatr (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Regional accents of Northern Ireland

While it's very easy to differentiate between a Belfast and County Tyrone accent, I personally think the Portadown and Lurgan accents sound alike. But are they really? Are there any noticeable differences between the two accents, despite the towns being close together geographically? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd seriously struggle to find any difference between the two, especially since the two towns are little more than five miles apart. -- the Great Gavini 20:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

To my ears they sound exactly alike, but I wanted to be absolutely sure. In one of the neighbourhoods I lived in Dublin, the accents changed drastically just one street away!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether you're from that area or somehow familiar with the local accents. I can clearly (and instantly) hear the difference in accent between the town in Scotland where I grew up and that of the next town, just 5 miles away, but I doubt anyone from the other side of Scotland could hear the difference, let alone anyone from even farther afield. I suspect the situation will be similar in Ulster. Zedeeyen (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

BBC's at it again

How does this sentence strike a non-Japanese speaker?

• Yokosuka resident Atsuhiko A-chan Hayasaka said strong winds were battering his house.

How does the 'A-chan' fit into this gentleman's name? Is there nothing strange about it? In actual fact, this is a nickname, or term of endearment, and not part of the gentleman's name at all. I find it odd that the BBC has even included it in the news item. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, it doesn't strike at all; it's entirely overlooked by this westerner, who presumes it might be part of the chap's name. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as I thought. Cheers. To me it's like having a news item about a hurricane which has just killed five people, etc., and an interview with William "Billy the Kid" Wilson, or something. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's his facebook page [5] which links to "A-chan's Official Home Page!!" - Atsuhiko-A-chan-Hayasaka seems to be what he calls himself.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I really did not expect that..... :) Maybe that is actually how he has got in contact with the BBC - through Facebook. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's bad form in English, where such nicknames are usually put in scare quotes: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in quotes, if anything. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If I didn't know anything about Japanese, I would have thought it was his middle name. Knowing a tiny bit about Japanese, I would have thought it was a woman (first name ending in -ko, the use of a kawaii nickname ending in -chan) if you hadn't said "this gentleman". Angr (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

'-ko' is indeed a female ending, but in this case it's 'hiko', which is generally male. 'Chan' can be used for men, but it's jokingly said, or as an extreme form of endearment, which is why I was surprised that the BBC were using it. As you know, Japanese don't have middle names (generally - some children from international marriages do, but they are not official). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

asterisks for multiplication

Some (all?) computer programming languages required everything to be written using only characters on standard keyboards. One can write 3 x 4 (with the letter x as a substitute for ×) when one types a letter, but in programming languages one wants that letter to be available for other uses, so a workaround was adopted, the asterisk: 3 * 4.

But within Wikipedia there's a little menu from which one can chose the "×" character, and in TeX and LaTeX and the like one can write

$3\times 5,\qquad 3\cdot 5,\qquad 3\otimes 5,\qquad 3\boxtimes 5,\qquad 3\odot 5,$

etc., etc. There's no need for uncouth substitutes or workarounds.

But within Wikipedia and elsewhere, even today, one finds people eating mashed potatoes with their hands when silverware is available, writing

$3*5\,$

in TeX!

Are people being taught in school today that the use of the asterisk for this purpose is a standard thing rather than a substitute used in the remote wilderness when limited to keyboard characters? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: I will post this to the math reference desk as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fewer keystrokes to enter, displays correctly in text console (nope, VGA text mode still doesn't do Unicode), can be pasted directly into a program, and can't be visually confused with an "x". There are many points in favor of the asterisk. The fancy symbols are just snobbery as far as I can tell. 67.162.90.113 (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The "×" was never a good idea, as it could easily be confused with the "x", which is widely used in algebra and up. Perhaps it's use should be restricted to when talking about a vector cross product versus a dot product. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think people are being taught to use an asterisk in schools, but keep in mind that many people who know how to use TeX are also people with experience with programming, and thus using * for multiplication probably seems natural to them. Also, the use of the asterisk makes some sense given that even on paper people often use a dot rather than an "x" for multiplication. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Schoolchildren are certainly taught to use the asterisk for multiplication within computing, IT, and business classes, owing to its widespread use in programming languages and in business/financial software. There's a wide range of ways of representing multiplication, and it seems surprising to single out the * for a rant on Wikipedia, as it is considerably less ambiguous than the alternatives "x", ".", or placing letters side by side with no symbol. But I hope you feel better having got this off your chest. After all, Wikipedia is here to help you. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The asterisk was actually used for multiplication at around the same time as × was first used (1628 or 1631). It was used in Johann Rahn's Teutsche Algebra (1659), the source of our modern symbol for division, the obeliscus (or obelus): ÷. The obeliscus, as is obvious, is the direct opposite of the asteriscus, long before they were used for math. Both were originally used for editorial notation and invented by Greek scholars. The asteriscus for editorial additions, the obeliscus for editorial deletions - both surviving into modern typography as the notations *, †, and ‡; and in mathematics as ÷. So while the switch back to the asterisk might have been forced by keyboards, it was not entirely without precedent-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a far better answer than that writetn by Colapeninsula. Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See the images at Tuf | Board Game | BoardGameGeek.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

September 22

Freshman, sophmore, junior, senior

Why does the US use these naming high school/college/university students for their years? The articles for each don't really explain why, just what they mean. Mingmingla (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Straight Dope Science Advisory Board" has this to say on the subject: [6]. It starts out explaining just the origin of the term sophomore, but does go into the rest of the class names, their origins and how they came into use. --Jayron32 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Studying English

Im an student from Iran and Im studying english language. I would like to continue my education on master degree at your university but Im not sure wether you have this major at your university or not? Do you have it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.149.94 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We haven't got a university. We are Wikipedia, an international encyclopaedia. Many universities in Britain (and I suspect elsewhere in the English speaking world) have courses in English, but I think that at Master's level they will generally be courses in English Literature. There may be some departments that are more linguistics-oriented which will do a Master's. What are you hoping to study at that level?

You could try List of universities and colleges by country, and investigate some universities that seem attractive to you. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As the others said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a university. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction, or in Persian, ویکی‌پدیا:آشنایی با ویرایش در ویکی‌پدیا. Once you find a university that you would like to attend, you can look at its website. Examples: University of Illinois, University College London, University of Tehran. Lesgles (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See English Schools Worldwide - Guide to English Language Schools & ESL Programs

and ESL Links - Learning English.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The questioner might be thinking of Wikiversity, which does have an English language division. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian Translation

I would not normally ask this, being a translator myself - because I understand the amount of work involved. But, can anyone translate this song for me? I'd like the original Hungarian and a translation into English, if possible. My Hun mate said he would do it, but he has been busy with work (primary school teacher, and needs to make his own materials). Cheers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Hungarian but this page seems to have the original Hungarian lyrics.--Cam (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, that gets me half way there. I could use Google Translate (which is being discontiuned in a couple of months), but I would prefer a proper translation. Cheers, though. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not being discontinued. Only the API was going to be discontinued, but they decided against that as well. See Google Translate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, from what I heard the whole schmoogle was getting binned, as there were too many idiots offering 'alternative translations' for things and it was costing them too much sorting the chaff from the wheat, because the human propensity to do bollocks is right up there at the 100% mark, when you add interntet anonymity. Google! Thought you guys needed at least some sort of ability to think in common sense. Anyway, this is not relevant to my question. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"carpet" vs. "carpets"

When I was growing up, we always used "carpet", the way fabrics are generally referred to (as non-countable substances); so it never had a plural "s" at the end. Eg. Wool, silk, and denim, which never have a plural "s", unless one is describing several different types (as in, "Various denims have different care requirements").

Sometime since my childhood (possibly due to internet access) I started noticing an increased use of "carpets". By my understanding, this is only technically correct if specifically referring to carpet segments that consist of different carpet types. However, this practice appears to be much more universally applied, with "carpets" replacing "carpet" whenever it's the object of a sentence (though not as a descriptor, as in "carpet cleaning"), since carpet can be said to be always plural.

Again, according to my understanding, if carpet is correctly referred to as a fabric (or substance, think linoleum or ceramic), then this is wrong, and more than 1 segment of the same type would still be referred to without the "s". Am I crazy or is this one of those grammar mistakes that caught on and is now widespread? References would be great (since I can't find them, and everyone grows up hearing stuff they assume is correct). Thanks in advance. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:37, 22 Sep 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether the word "carpet" is being used as a count noun or a mass noun. If it would be possible to refer to a single floor covering as "a carpet" as in "I have a carpet in my living room and another carpet in my bedroom. Therefore I have two carpets.", would be a grammatically correct usage (replace "carpet" with "rug" and it works as well). I don't think carpet is a word like "fish" or "moose" which are count nouns that don't take modified plurals, instead I think it is a normally mass noun (referring to "carpet" as a fabric like "denim", as you say) which can also refer to discrete objects in a slightly different sense (i.e. a floor covering made of carpet is called a carpet). --Jayron32 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

September 23

Dash it all man, what's a Canuck to do?

In British English, is it "south west", "southwest" or "south-west"? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Googling might help. Whichever gets the most hits may well be the answer you need. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

For me, 488,000,000, 239,000,000, and 1,140,000,000 hits, respectively. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't they teach English in Canada? μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

They have some strange dialect of our language, 'Murican. Also, Southwest is how we say it typically. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 03:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC x 3 ) Aye, an inexplicable and unsatiable desire to tell everyone how bear ate grandma, but no idea how to live in a foreign country which has no bears, no loghouses, no wild animals, etc. Lovely people. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

KageTora, your search results are faulty for the hyphenated term. Maybe I should rescind that--Google is not apparently distinguishing between strict (quoted) search terms for me. In any case I get 104,000,000 hits for south-west. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My numbers were copypasted from Google. Have a problem, then shall it not be with me, but with Google. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on context? Here in the Kingdom of UK, the wind often blows from the southwest, but the Wurzels definitely come from South-West England. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wurzels certainly come from South West England (no hyphen). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Have we really reached the point where people at a language reference desk, when asked a question about spelling, refer the questioner to Google hit counts, which are a meaningless metric, rather than referring to, say, a dictionary? —Bkell (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

and that dictionary would be..... pray tell.... :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, the Oxford English Dictionary, perhaps? Or any of the other various dictionaries published by Oxford? Or the Chambers Dictionary? —Bkell (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

For example, both the OED and the Chambers Dictionary list "south-west" with a hyphen. The OED has many citations of its use with and without a hyphen, but lists only the version with a hyphen as an entry; Chambers does not mention any variant spellings. —Bkell (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems, if the OED's citations are representative, that since the 18th century the spelling "south-west" has been the most prevalent in the UK (by a pretty comfortable margin), while the spelling "southwest" is the most prevalent in the US. —Bkell (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, by a pretty comfortable margin there have been more years since the 18th century than there have been years in, say, the last fifty years. Is the hyphen really still prevalent? I pick up The Economist from time to time and I would have thought I might have noticed that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't choose "since the 18th century" in an attempt to distort the facts. Here are the British uses since 1961 given by the OED:

• 1966 H. Davies New London Spy (1967) 241 To the south-west lies Chelsea, the arty quarter of London.
• 1968 Ann. Reg. 1967 326 The South African Government remained completely unmoved by United Nations' efforts to plan the implementation of the 1966 General Assembly resolution that South West Africa be removed from South African control.
• 1968 L. Blanch Journey into Mind's Eye (2001) vi. xxv. 309 Hardly less furious is the Koultouk, or south-west wind, and the Bargouzine, which rages across the lake from east to west.
• 1969 Times 30 Jan. (Ethiopia Suppl.) p. iii/3 The south-west corner of Ethiopia is an area inhabited by Sudanese lowland fauna.
• 1972 Nature 8 Dec. 339/2 The discharge curve for Iceland was constructed‥by extrapolating seafloor spreading isochrons from the ocean floor immediately southwest of the aseismic ridge.
• 1972 B. Fuller West of Bight 133 Why, in the south-west, the term should be ‘falling’ and not ‘felling’ I cannot say, but so it is.
• 1976 ‘R. Macdonald’ Blue Hammer xv. 83 Mildred was the most beautiful woman in the South-west.
• 1980 Times 14 June 1/8 The Middle East, or south-west Asia as the Americans now call it.
• 1981 P. O'Brian Ionian Mission ix. 255 This is part of a poem about the Courageux, Captain Wilkinson, running plumb on to the Anholt reef by night, wind at south-west, double-reefed topsails and forecourse, making eight knots.
• 1993 Vintage Roadscene Sept.–Nov. 149/3 Goodall had now started to work out of Devon Concrete to all parts of the South West.
• 2002 D. A. Agius In Wake of Dhow ii. 26 The seamen embarked on their long journeys towards India before the monsoons blew south-west and made their homeward journey in winter with the northeast winds.
• 2006 K. Mitchell in B. Edwards Courtyard Housing iv. xvi. 178/2 The primary visitor's entry occurs on the south-west façade and leads to the public areas of the house.
• 2008 Nature 6 Mar. 24/1 On 3 January 2005, a fisherman working 25 kilometres off the southwest coast of Florida noticed that the baitfish in his seawater tank were spinning and dying.

When used as a short form of "South West Africa":

• 1976 J. McClure Rogue Eagle i. 22 Ma‥said she'd write to her family in South West, but he said that was just another Bantustan these days.
• 1978 S. Naipaul North of South ii. vi. 245 Abraham had been in Namibia (‘South-West’).‥ It was in South-West‥that he and Tessa had met.

—Bkell (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that, if you haven't noticed "south-west" in The Economist, it may be because their house style omits the hyphen. It seems from the above citations that Nature uses "southwest". —Bkell (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Nature abhors a vacuum. That's their problem, though. "Southwest" makes as much sense to me as "vicepresident", "bluegreen algae", "referencedesk" or "alot". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See how the fates their gifts alot

For some are happy; Jack is not

American usage, obviously, but see Southwest Airlines and North by Northwest. And in Canada, History of the Northwest Territories. And in Australia, Southwest Australia. But in England, South West England. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, I believe the tendency is not to use a hyphen. To describe places, two separate words would almost invariably be used (South West England, etc.), but to describe a wind direction, for example, they would often be combined as one word. For example, "winds today in South East England are expected to come mainly from the southeast" - or more likely, "...from a southeasterly direction." But I could be wrong, and alternative variants would probably not be considered odd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

British English is a foreign language to me (though one of my stronger foreign languages). Given that, I wonder whether an attentive British editor would use the unhyphenated south west or South West when the term is used as a noun and the hyphenated south-west when the term is used as a modifier, in which case compounds are usually hyphenated. In my native language, American English, southwest is always one word, except in references to the historic South West Africa, where American editors would want to defer to the official spelling of that territory's name. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, note that written Canadian English often follows British standards, but not always. The authoritative reference for Canadian English is the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, and, if you are in doubt how to handle south-west/southwest, that would be the source to check. Online access requires a subscription. For what it's worth, googling within the ".ca" domain, southwest gets 17 million hits versus ~10 million for either south west or south-west. Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not helping much but see also Sou'wester[7]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for the right format for directions in a British article. [Flip coin] I think I'll go with south-west and its ilk. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that in many cases where it is spelled as one word in American the stress still appears on the second syllable. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Google thing is severely flawed; there are a vast number of English speakers in the world, only some of whom come from Great Britain (as the question asks). Therefore the Google results will post what has been written by everybody, whether or not they came from England, and whether or not they speak English well at all. Falconus^{p t c} 06:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Grammer (sic)

Is this one of the most commonly misspelt words in Wikipedia? It's certainly one of the most annoying misspellings. I reckon I see it as at least part of the Edit summary for grammar corrections around once a week. Today's example is here. How can people so interested in getting the language right get this so wrong? (Yes, I know this is really just my pedantry on display, but isn't that what the edit is about anyway?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any statistics, but it's a commonly misspelled word; I'm not sure what more there is to say about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as commonness in WP goes, one I see very frequently in articles is lead for led. In discussions, "reign in" and "free reign" for "rein in" and "free rein" are very frequent, and those are ones I see a lot even in professionally published (though obviously not professionally edited) prose. Deor (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I write "lead" all the time. Had it corrected 28 times, I think. Have it wrong in my head, clearly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Using "-er" not "-ar" when the sound is the same is perhaps understandable; even if you believe not, the problem is also repeated in "calendar" and perhaps more (possibly "alter" supposedly meaning the part of a church). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that my post was a bit of a rant. I can accept minor misspellings much of the time, but when they occur in the context of correcting someone else's language use, they stand out a lot more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Those who correct others (and there is still a place for this, despite the politically correct times in which we live) must be triply sure to have their own houses in order, lest they be shown up as hypocrites or idiots or laughing stocks.

This project operates on consensus, yet how often do we see editors waxing lyrical and spelling it as "con" tacked onto census. It's nothing to do with counting heads - or votes - despite appearances. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That example îsn't quite ironic, because it is a spelling and not a grammatical error. (The spelling of that edit summary you mentioned is really in the toilet.) What I find hilarious is when people say pronunciation as [pɹʷˤəˈnɑʊnt͡siˌeɪʃən] instead of [pɹʷˤəˈnʌnt͡siˌeɪʃən](that's how we Canadians say it, anyway). Everyone whom I have corrected on this topic has appreciated the irony and laughed. Interchangeable|talk to me 22:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone complains about my pedantry, I apologise for being such a "pi-dent" or "pay-dent" and wait for the correction. If none comes, I at least assume they took the apology. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And not just the edit summary, Interchangeable. The edit itself changed:

• Diseases, including cholera which affects some 3 million people each year can be largely prevented when …

to:

• Diseases, including cholera affect some 3 million people each year can be largely prevented when …

Still hopelessly wrong (worse, in fact, than the original). It ought to be something like:

• Diseases, including cholera, which affects some 3 million people each year, can be largely prevented when …

The 2 parenthetical commas are essential to the meaning. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I have seen grammer here so often I assumed it was one of those silly affectations like gaol, not an unwitting error.

You are spot on with the commas, Jack. But I would also change "can be largely prevented" to "can largely be prevented." The former sounds somewhat like saying the pregnancy was largely prevented.μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Medeis. I'd agree with your other idea, too. But I don't see "grammer" as an affectation - nobody ever writes "grammetical" (not even New Zealanders :). Many write "grammer" because they've seen so many others doing so that they actually think it's correct. Maybe one day it will become the accepted way of spelling the word. Not in my lifetime, hopefully, and not if I can help it - but one lone voice has so little influence over these things. That's how a great deal of language change starts out - a ripple of error and ignorance, which soon becomes a tsunami of correctness, and what was once indisputably true and right becomes relegated to "old hat" or "pedantry". Some people jump on the language-change bandwagon very early, usually with indecent haste; others, like me, do so only when a loaded gun is pointed at their head. I still see value in commanding the tsunami to stop and go back whence it came. Some losing battles are worth losing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I see misspelt Edit summaries as part of that tsunami. I wish we could correct such errors.

Deeply popular

There are 712,000 ghits for "deeply unpopular" but only 35,000 for "deeply popular". Why would that be? Is it that popularity is a shallow, ephemeral sort of thing, but people only get really serious when discussing how unpopular somebody is? What is the corresponding adverb to go with "popular", and who makes these decisions anyway? Why wasn't I consulted? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of deeply, highly, and heavily, we can simply say very.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As semi-fixed phrases, I would think that the commonly-used opposite of "deeply unpopular" would be "highly popular"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. 'Good' is above 'bad' in most (perhaps all?) cosmologies. - 'heaven' is above, while 'hell' is beneath our feet. As for why, Claude Lévi-Strauss may give us a clue, and I'm sure that evolutionary psychology has an opinion on it, but it just seems to be the way we visualise things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. But "deeply" does not imply "lower". One who studies a subject deeply gets into complexities; this doesn't lower their thinking, it broadens it. In the unpopular case, it just means dislike/hatred of the person is widespread. The like/love of another person could be just as widespread, just as "deep". But I guess people generally have a mental scale that's vertically oriented, with good/positive attributes on top and bad/negative ones at the bottom, hence the highly vs. deeply allusions. Pianists tend to see things in a left-right horizontal paradigm, where neither hand is either good or bad. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

But the deep notes are on the left.... HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Deep notes"? I know not such terminology. I know about high and low notes or pitches. People with deep voices can still sing high and low notes, within the limits of their ranges. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not blessed with soaps for two hours every night, with omnibus editions at the weekend, and when the soaps aren't on we have interviews with the actors and telly people giving themselves a pat on the back by showing us compliations of excerpts from past episodes. People love to kick off. It's not surprising that 'deeply unpopular' gets more hits. People love having a go at other people, even if they are fictional. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, Jack, that you both pose the question as if you are ignorant, and dismiss the answers given as if you were an expert. Which is it? I find it hard to credit that you fail to undestand deep means profound only when the surface is the superficial. Nor do I think you fail to comprehend the contrast of high versus low. You play the sophomore par excellence. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, one more thing I do well, to add to the 3 other things in my micro-panoply. But wait, I don't even know what "play the sophomore" even means; that's how much of an "expert" I am. I haven't dismissed anything. Or anyone, but I might be tempted. We're having an interchange of ideas and opinions here. You got a problem with that? If you can contribute something meaningful, please be my guest. Otherwise, less armchair analysis of my modus operandi would be appreciated. None at all would be excellent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sophomore, that's one of those American words never used anywhere else that I've never bothered to work out the exact meaning of. Something to do with college (whatever that really is in America) or university, I gather.

I'm well aware what sophomore means; and for those who don't know, we have links here. But "play the sophomore" is a phrase I am unfamiliar with. I'm sort of getting it was meant as a put-down in the guise of a compliment; but I remain welded to AGF until that's confirmed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

September 24

how do we write the word "india" in himachali language?