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

May 15

Addendum vocabulary: Annex, Appendix, and Schedule

From searching online I found a simple explanation of the difference between annex and appendix. Annex is a standalone addendum while an appendix is tacked on to the main document. See http://www.diffen.com/difference/Annex_vs_Appendix But how does a schedule fit in? Mityuy (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The term 'schedule' for an appendix is specific to acts of parliament and similar documents. It means an appendix which contains legally-binding information that is too boring and repetitive to put in the main act - such as the list of all the hundreds of public authorities who must implement the act, or all the former acts which are amended in tiny, almost irrelevant ways by the current one. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Schedule" is also used in things like financial statements, which consist of main statements (profit & loss account, balance sheet, etc) followed by schedules, which give more detail about some of the figures in the main statements. You also see it used in the same way in people's tax returns. --Viennese Waltz 11:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The etymology of "schedule" may provide some insight.[1] It includes the reasons why the Brits say "shed-ule" while the Yanks say "sked-ule". (It omits the joke pronunciation "shed-ooly".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also tonsil. – b_jonas 14:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Concise

Has there ever been a list compiled for "the most concise languages" or something similar? Pass a Method talk 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to a list of archived discussions about the "most efficient language".

—Wavelength (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Slavic place names

This article has a large list of German elements (suffixes/prefixes) in place names: German toponymy. Is there a similar list somewhere with slavic (Russian/Polish/Czech...) elements instead? --151.41.236.64 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything, if it exists the place to start looking would be at Category:Place names and follow subcategories from there. --Jayron32 22:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From that category I found Category:Slavic toponyms. Perhaps some leads there could help you. --Jayron32 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Polish pronunciation for an English-speaker

Look at the sign for the school board candidate in File:Signs at Moravia and Mahoning in New Castle.jpg. How is her name pronounced? The photo is taken in a city with a heavy Polish-American pronunciation, so she probably pronounces it somewhat differently from the way her ancestors did, but the pronunciation probably isn't as mangled as it would be if she lived in a town with no other Poles. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In Polish Przybylski is [pʂɨˈbɨlskʲi], roughly pshih-BILL-skee. I have no idea of how she pronounces her name, but living in a community with other Polish-Americans is no guarantee of retaining an authentic pronunciation; most of the Polish-Americans I know from Chicago pronounce their names in ways that are probably incomprehensible to native Poles. Lesgles (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with Lesgles. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 16

Black lingerie word

I once found a word beginning with mel- in one of those dictionaries or websites that specialize in obscire and curious words. It meant a fetish for black lingerie. Googling "black lingerie" along with "obscure word", or even along with "Phrontistery", pulls up nothing. What was the word? 75.36.237.8 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Melcryptovestimentaphilia. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Wikipedia is wonderful! Now I've just got to see if I can randomly throw that word into conversation somewhere today. (If I can remember it.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A strict classicist would find it problematic that the Greek stem for "black" is in a strangely-shortened form that would more probably suggest "honey" than "black" to an ancient Greek speaker... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But then phobia and philia names are often coined with a view to being somehow eyecatching or memorable, rather than strictly classical, or for that matter of any use in serious clinical diagnosis (which has shied away from narrowly-defined phobias and philias for a while). But I agree that it should be "Melanocrypto..." - and ideally use a Greek, rather than Latin, word for raiment. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern Greek for "underwear" is εσώρουχα ("within clothes"), so perhaps something like melanesoruchophilia? Lesgles (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

speaking of -phobia and -philia

I've been wondering: is there any generic affix that indicates intense hatred, without implying fear like -phobia does? (That is, a more proper opposite to -philia?) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the prefix mis- or miso- from Greek µῖσος (misos) means 'hatred of'. Examples are misogyny, misanthropy, misoneism, misogamy etc. - Lindert (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See the etymology given in the lede section of misanthropy. Textorus (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What's this girls says?

Hi

I am not a native English speaker. I want to know what the girls in the video says when they screams. I've heard only the word F(u)ck but the girl said something else. link to video at 2:45

Can you translate to French or explain me what's this lines means : I feel nothing Fuck like sick despair In this place only the willing survive

Thanks

"I feel nothing" means that the person feels nothing. "Fuck" means sexual intercourse or may be used as an interjection. "Like sick despair" is comparing the person's emotions to sick despair. In other words, the person feels very sad. "In this place only the willing survive" means that the person thinks that in this place, where she is, only the willing will survive or live. Sneazy (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but the willing means and what say the grils in the video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.48.172.23 (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what part of lyrics is the part you are looking for? If it's part of the lyrics, then you may do a simple search on the Internet. If it's part of the background vocal music, then I don't think it's feasible to understand what the girl is trying to sing. How badly do you want this? Sneazy (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"The willing" means "people who are willing (to do something unspecified)". --ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't actually check the video , but in French it would be something like "Je ne sens rien, merde, dans cet endroit seuls les (forts|volontaires) survivent" - in this context I'm not sure if willing would be "people who have willpower" or "people who volunteer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For the last phrase I would say "seulement les forts survivent ici." I agree fort (strong) is closer to the intended sense. There's also puissant. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Mis padres"

I know that the term means "my parents". But do Spanish speakers make an exception when the parents are both female (Dolly the sheep)? Sneazy (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thought experiment: how do you think hispanohablantes would say "My parents are mothers"? μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you asked "how do you think...?", I am going to give my best guess: "Mis padres son madres." However, I am not entirely sure if it is used this way. Sneazy (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Spanish, but I have a lot of experience dealing with same-sex coupledom and its ramifications. I think that it would depend on the context and whether the speaker wants to communicate an interesting or surprising detail about his or her parentage. The generic Spanish expression for "my parents" is mis padres, and I expect that a person would use that expression when referring to two female parents when their gender is not relevant or important or when the speaker doesn't wish to emphasize it. On the other hand, if the speaker wanted to make clear that he or she had two mothers, then he or she would say mis madres. Marco polo (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you say you have "a lot of experience dealing with same-sex coupledom and its ramifications", what do you mean by that? Do you work with them professionally or something? Sneazy (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would say, "Mis padres son mujeres" or "lesbianas". But "mis madres" would mean "my mothers", not "my parents". To say my lesbian parents it would be padres lesbianas.μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, but who feels a need to give such a detailed description of their parents in most situations? To answer Sneazy's question, my partner and I are a same-sex couple. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Which question haven't I answered? To the original question, I said that, in effect, "my parents" means "my parents" regardless of the parents' gender. (The fact that mis padres usually refers to people of different genders proves that the gender of mis padres is grammatical rather than biological.) To the later question, asking the basis for my experience of same-sex coupledom, I said that I'm in such a couple. So which question did I not answer? Marco polo (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Leave it, Marco. I have come to the conclusion that Medeis is sometimes just trolling. --Lgriot (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP when prompted suggested he though the Spanish might say "Mis padres son madres." Marco responded he just wouldn't mention it--which is indeed not addressing the OP's question, when he specifically wants to know how they would say it if they did go into all the detail Marco doesn't think necessary. So, no, Marco didn't answer the question. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A good approach could be to go to the Spanish Wikipedia and ask this question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Väiski in English & Swedish

In Finnish Scouting, väiski refers to a cap worn as part of the uniform. It's a brimless, peakless cap, rather like the cap hippies wear with a kaftan, or like a large skullcap that covers the whole of your head. It's also very similar to a Swedish style of cap - one that is now sold in tourist-tat shops, but presumably harking back to a traditional style of clothing - a little like a Viking helmet made of cloth and without the horns.

My Finnish is rather limited non-existent. But even so a search on the term only reveals that it's the Finnish for Bugs Bunny. Can anyone help me with the English term for a cap of this style, or (even better since I'd like to buy one) tell me what the Swedish cap is called? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like what would be called a skullcap in English, which seems to translate to kalott in Swedish. Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Informal names might include beanie hat or tea-cosy hat in English. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I think you're right that it's a skullcap in English, and that kalott is the Swedish translation thereof, but kalott seems to be used for the skullcap as worn by Jewish men and Catholic priests (see here) - I can't see that it's used for the traditional Swedish cap, which is what I'm ultimately after. Any ideas? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Tammy, it's not a beanie since it's made of a thickish fabric, not wool. Kinda like a flowerpot hat but without the brim. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm digressing here, but "beanies" in the sense that Tammy linked to are not made of wool, but as you say of fabric (or sometimes leather or faux leather). They have four seams, in the same location as the four brown straight lines in the picture. But I can't tell whether those lines are seams, or just a different color. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Tammy. Beanie in the UK sense is always a woolen hat - I should have read the article. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actualy, I don't mean flowerpot hat, I mean a bucket hat. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mössa? Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, that seems to be a woolen hat. I want something made of canvas (I think that's what it is - I'm very poor on types of fabric!) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Native Swedish speaker here. I'm pretty certain that kind of hat doesn't have a commonly known specific name in Swedish. I'd call it a mössa or a hätta, though the latter would better fit one of these [2]. Mössa, by the way, is not limited to woolen hats. It is the generic word for any soft hat, including nightcaps, as is evident by the English name of Caps (party). So, I believe the chance of finding a Swedish word for these hats, that people without a specific interest in the medieval or viking ages would know, looks rather small./Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Do you know the type of cap I am thinking of? It is made of thicker fabric than a väiski, and the hätta you linked. To be honest, the name of it actually isn't so important - I just want to buy one! Can you help me find a suitable search term? Nothing I've tried so far in English or Swedish (I speak Swedish well enough to use Google) has turned up the right type of hat. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The man in the first picture on this page is wearing the sort of thing I'm thinking of - although the examples I remember were not so brightly coloured. The caption says I Morastugan visas en vardaglig variant av den lokalt särpräglade dräkten från Mora socken i Dalarna. - 'In the Mora cottage you can see an everyday version of the iconic local costume of Mora in Dalarna.' - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Finnish Scout cap in action

I'm familiar with the Finnish Scout cap (I found a picture) and I'm certain that there isn't an English name for it - "skull cap" is the closest, but that usually means a yarmulka or zucchetto - the Scout cap is bigger and has the distinctive seams. I'd go with "traditional Scandinivian cap". Alansplodge (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

OK, I think I've found it now! It appears to be called a sotarmössa - a 'chimney-sweep's cap'. Apologies to all those who suggested beanie for the English word, since that does indeed seem to be what it would be called in English, and it is very often made of wool. But the one I want is made of thick cotton or felt or something. This gives me the lead I needed! Thanks to all for your help. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18

Is an allegedly terrible historical figure known mainly from later writing a "villain"?

Take Sergius III. Apparently, most or all contemporary records were destroyed when he was banished, and the Game of Thrones-like character we have today may be an invention, and almost certainly embellished by his enemies and their descendants (and uninvolved people who just like a good whoring and murder story, centuries later).

Would it be fair to classify him as a villain, in the literary sense, notwithstanding how his reign actually went down? Judging from the last millenium, we probably won't be clearer on the truth of it anytime soon. But we certainly know the general consensus of historical writers is that he was not a good man or pope, perhaps even the worst.

Thanks for considering. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a request for random personal opinions rather than a request for information, and therefore not suitable for the Reference desk to deal with. (Note: I have edited your post to disambiguate the link.) Looie496 (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a request for opinions from language experts (or afficionados, anyway) on whether a word applies to a certain type of person, preferably with something to vouch for those opinions. Seems the place to me. I appreciate you fixing the disambig, but I've piped it. I only call the current pope "Pope". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Louie is correct. This is not a request for the meaning or connotation or etymology of the word villain. It is a request for our opinion as to whether Sergius was a villain. We can't say. The OP could ask at the humanities desk whether any notable scholars have called him a villain, in which case he might as well just search for the words at google books or scholar. We do not need to and should not give our opinions here. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

He was an example. If I wanted to ask if Sergius III is a villain, I'd have used his name in the title. The question is about people like him, who exist mainly in stories written many years later. There are no villains in real life, but can the word apply to his persona in literature, like it would for a fictional character, or is it strictly for storybooks? If you don't want to answer, ignore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've found the answer. Delete this if you should. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You know, despite the general unhelpfulness above, this is actually a pretty good question. There are lots of issues with historical sources being written more like literature. And certainly we can talk about different schools of historiography and how they treat the history of the Papacy. Personally I would say no, it is not fair to classify him as a villain, because he was a real person and not a literary character. But you could definitely trace how real people are treated as if they are fictional in historical writing. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying there are no real villains in real life only follows if you define that word as referring only to literary characters; but that's definitely not the original usage, it's only been around since the 19th century, see the etymology. On the other hand, yes, historical writing does often have a literary style, and descriptions can come across as vividly as literature. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Problem solved then, Sergius III was not a villain. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What does Maryann chant?

Can anybody tell me the Greek-sounding words Maryann chants during the Bacchan revel in episode six of season two of True Blood? If so, please answer here, where I originally placed this question on the Entertainment Desk. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the answer myself at You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usEklHkugp4. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

critter words with a certain stress pattern

Hi language lovers, I'm hoping you can help me brainstorm a list of animals/birds/insects/fish whose names meet the following criteria:

• three syllables
• stress on the middle syllable

So far I have mosquito, hyena and flamingo but would appreciate as many other suggestions as possible. Thanks, 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gorilla; Bonobo. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Opossum, coati, impala, beluga, gourami. Deor (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Koala. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A nubile, but flighty, impala

Wants to marry a handsome koala.

Since gum trees are lacking

In Kenya, she's packing

To seek one in far-off Bodalla. —Deor (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Far worse fared a grizzly gorilla

Who married a cuddly chinchilla,

For now he requests

Paternity tests

When out came a fluffy godzilla. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Piranha, Alsatian, St Bernard, Retriever, Iguana Bluap (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Okapi, Cicada - Lindert (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a long list downloadable as a zip-file here, click on "amphibrach 010" (see also the article on amphibrach). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(Okay, it's quite long, and the animals are scattered sparsley. Of the ones not mentioned so far, I saw arachnid and chinchilla, but didn't go beyond yet). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all, these are great! I will definitely review Sluzzelin's list, that's fantastically useful and I thank you, but if any more do occur to anyone do please keep them coming. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Alpaca, vicuña, guanaco. - Lindert (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Constrictor? Some people say chim-PAN-zee. Dalmatian. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"St Bernard" might work if pronounced as the name of a British church, but it doesn't fit in American English. The rest do. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Rosella, Trevalla, Trevally, canary. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agouti. I think. I read that much more than I hear it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Crustacean. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Panda165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Panda doesn't work, it has two primary stresses, ans doe St Bernard in American. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, I stress it the same way I do all the other words listed above (eg chinchilla)?165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks all. Red Panda actually would work in the context I need (not a limerick, though those were quite amusing!), so I've added a bunch similar to my list, such as king penguin, grey owl. But the true amphibrachs are perfect. Thanks everyone. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Query: Does "owl" have 2 syllabubs in your idiolect? I've never encountered that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely two syllables, not sure about the puddings :) For me it's a perfect rhyme with towel. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's the thing. For me, "towel" is one syllable. Same for "bowel", "foul", "fowl", "howl", "jowl", "Powell" and "vowel". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

JIM CROW What is the origin of this term, meaning discriminatory laws against African Americans

Please tell me who was the original Jim Crow. Was it a character from Dumbo, the Walt Disney Movie and if so, how did come by its current meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.171.238 (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Jim Crow laws. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The name goes back a century or more before the Disney movie, according to the generally accepted story... AnonMoos (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, that term "Jim Crow" was highly offensive, but presumably it's still used because of its historical significance, along with being obsolete now. But in pop culture, crows were used to symbolize black people, long before Disney came along. Moran and Mack,[3] for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the earliest use of the term was the song "Jump Jim Crow", dating from 1828. The song was performed in blackface so the association with crude black sterotypes was already well established. --Jayron32 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

Fuck

Hi, What is an idiomatic expression involving the word 'fuck' which means 'to be very difficult', as said of an exam? I considered "It [the exam] was fucked up" but that didn't seem specific enough and had the wrong connotation. "It fucked me over" seems odd. Obviously "It was fucking difficult" does not meet the idiomatic requirement. Thanks in advance. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe such an idiomatic expression exists? Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could say it was a mindfuck. Especially if it seemed intentionally tricky. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

• That test was a motherfucker. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Or the test was a real fucker. That would do, and is perfectly acceptable in my dialect. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The exam was difficult as fuck :D 109.99.71.97 (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ClusterF#(%; SNAFU165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese names in book pages - What are the characters?

Hi! I would like to know what the Chinese characters are from these book pages?

• p. 92 - Poplar Island Press/Pappelinsel-Werkstatt/Yangshudao, Vincenz Hundhausen/Hong Taosheng, Sonderausgaben/Tekan
• page 93: Herbert Mueller/Mi Songlin, Forschungen and Fortschritte/Yanjiu yu jinbu, Wolfgang Franke/Fu Wukang

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yangshudao = 楊樹島 - a person name, Hong Taosheng = 洪濤生 - a person name, Tekan = 特刊 - special publication

Mi Songlin = 米松林 - a person name, Yanjiu yu jinbu = 研究與進步 - research and advancement，Fu Wukang = 傅吾康 - a person name -- Justin545 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) (in the case of Yangshudao it seems like it was used as the name of a publishing company but it could easily be the name of a person too) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Because 楊 is one of Chinese last names, but I could be wrong... -- Justin545 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

楊 is a Chinese last name. It also means "poplar" and that is part of "Poplar Island Press" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Homologate and prolepsis

I'm wondering what's a clear definition of these words in the context of epic simile, or just simile in general. I'm attempting to rewrite that article, and I've come across these words several times in my research. Context tells me that homologate essentially means that there are precise parallels between what is being compared and what it is being compared to. Prolepsis essentially seems to mean foreshadowing. Neither our article homology nor prolepsis seems to give a reasonable definition for this context, and I feel like my contextual inferences lack. Here is one of the articles that uses these terms. If anyone could shed some light on these terms generally (in the context of epic simile) or, especially, explain more specifically how they are used in this article, I would be forever grateful. ÷seresin 09:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the term "homology" comes from the Greek originally meaning "to name alike", and can mean several different things depending on the context, sometimes times it just means "agreement", (see, for example, homologation), but it can be used to indicate certain types of comparisons or analogies; for example in chemistry a homologous series is a group of molecules which differ by a single, repeating unit (c.f. acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, butyraldehyde) that is the group has a common thread (in this case, the "straight chain aldehydes"). Homology (sociology) seems to be broadly similar, indicating common threads in sociological constructs. However, other uses of the term seem widely different in definition. Perhaps Autological word is the best link, since it deals with a linguistic concept like a simile. --Jayron32 17:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So in the Whaler (1931) you see he calls the details of the metaphor which correspond to details of the object homologues. So the comet is the metaphor for Satan, because they are both radiant and ominous, etc. Satan appears as a serpent. The comet is in the sky among the constellation Ophiuchus, whose name means "serpent bearer". So the treatment of the comet in relation to this constellation corresponds to the treatment of Satan as a serpent. So that's the homologue there. Homologation is just the creation of such homologues by the author.

Prolepsis is exactly as you say: foreshadowing or anticipation. See p. 1073: The brushing of the honeysuckle against the man is the metaphor for the brushing of Hoder against Hermod. The man thinks a ghost went by him. Later Hoder kills himself. So the fact that the man thinks the honeysuckle is a ghost is anticipation or prolepsis of Hoder's suicide. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21

Wash the car? Not my remit.

Is the word "remit" in the sense of "scope of responsibilities" widely used in the English-speaking world? The dictionaries that I have (from 1980's) and the online dictionaries that I have access to (from the New Age, perhaps) do not convincingly tell me that this word is utterly understood everywhere. --Pxos (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tended to encounter this usage from (quasi-)military types of people, if that's any help. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, there is nothing unusual about this usage. However, I notice that http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/remit?view=uk calls it "chiefly British" (I am British), which may be why people from other parts of the world aren't as familiar with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.222.57 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A peculiar usage. To "remit" is to "send back". How did that evolve into "job" or "responsibility"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because it's chiefly UK (confirmed by Wiktionary) doesn't make it "peculiar". I don't find anything unusual about it either. --Viennese Waltz 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So how do you get from "send back" (verb) to "responsibility" (noun)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OED says only that the noun is derived from the verb, but doesn't provide an answer to your question. One sense of the noun is "the transfer of a case from one court or judge to another, or to a judicial nominee. Also: an instance of this." Perhaps there was a transformation of meaning from "an instance of a case being sent from one court to another" to "the jurisdiction or scope of the authority of a court to which cases are sent". — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And in British English, it's usually "Not in my remit". Bazza (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way, "remit" is a verb, not a noun. The noun is "remittance". And either way, to remit something or to send a remittance is the fulfillment of a responsibility, but is not the responsibility itself. But maybe Brits evolved the word as some kind of short cut. Or maybe it's an abbreviation of some other word? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh, no, I don't think so. When we talk about something being within an individual or organization's remit, we are using the word as a noun. OED confirms this. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Except they don't explain why or how it got to be that way. So apparently they don't know. It's just one of those English-language peculiarities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In British English it most certainly is a noun - confirmed again by Wiktionary. It has a different meaning to "remittance". Bazza (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary, as with Wikipedia itself, is user-entered, and is not a reliable source. It's obviously used in British English. I'd just like to know how the verb "remit" got to be a noun with a different meaning than the verb or its noun form. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the same way "permit" became a noun? (Though etymonline doesn't explain "how" that happened). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that the verb and noun forms are connected: I permit you to do this, or give you permission to do this, by giving you this piece of paper called a permit. That works. It doesn't work for "remit". But it appears that usage's evolution has been lost (or at least not found yet). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See [4](16). Bazza (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain the usage "responsibility", but it might have evolved from that legalistic definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

From the OED: - Sense 2a) "The referring or consignment of a matter to some other person or authority for settlement; (Law) the transfer of a case from one court or judge to another, or to a judicial nominee. Also: an instance of this." - earliest example 1650. Sense 2b) "A set of instructions, a brief; an area of authority or responsibility. Freq. in within (also beyond, etc.) one's remit." - earliest example 1870. So we have: - (verb) to send back > (verb) (for an authority) to send (back) (to a responsible person) (a specific matter) to decide > (noun) the act of sending a specific matter from one authority to a responsible person to decide > the terms of reference under which a specific matter sent from another authority must be decided > the terms of reference under which a matter not specifically sent from another authority must be decided. Seem like a logical progression to me from the particular to the non-particular. Valiantis (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that, just as with permit, the verb form of the word in Br.E takes the stress on the second syllable [/rɪˈmɪt/], whereas the noun form meaning "purview" stresses the first and elongates the vowel sound: [ˈriːmɪt]. I haven't heard the alternative meaning for the noun form - a different take on remittance - before, but a look in my Oxford dictionary suggests it's pronounced the same way as the verb rather than the other noun form. And yes, as a Br.Eng speaker I'm entirely familiar with the usage, and an example landed on my desk in a memo only today. - Karenjc 17:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What about "remission" which is listed as a noun and does mean to lessen work-load?165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Remission" doesn't mean to lessen a workload, it means "a sending back" or "a slackening", like what happens when a disease goes into remission. Remission may lighten your burden, but that's not its meaning, it's just a possible outcome. It's the etymological opposite of "mission" which is a sending forward, or sending abroad. All of these words (and also including "message") derive from the Latin mittere "to send". The "responsibility" meaning which the Brits have assigned to it does not make sense by itself. I wonder whether the idea of sending a "remit" within a court of law suggests a play on words like "the ball is in your court", i.e. it's your responsibility to do something. That's the closest I can come to seeing any sense behind that usage of "remit". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

More kanji variants

Hi, please see:

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/183/kanjivariants3.png

On the left-hand side is what I understand to be the usual kanji form. On the right-hand side is a variant, with the feature of interest highlighted. What I would like to know, for each pair, is the status of the right-hand variant in Japanese (e.g. commonly used / occasionally used / never used). 86.160.222.57 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They are never used except #5. #1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 look like simplified zh. #2 is simplified zh and #3 is traditional. The difference of #5 is the design of font and the one on the right is more like handwriting. I'll check the kanji later as I may be wrong. BTW, did you see my reply on 葛? And please consider creating an account. Oda Mari (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I did see your reply about 葛. Is there a specific connection between that kanji and the ones I'm asking about here? 86.160.87.28 (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As for #1, 穴+犬 is traditional ja and zh, and it's acceptable and occasionally used in ja. I didn't know, but the origin of the character was, as the combination tells, the way "A dog suddenly runs out of a hole". I couldn't find whether the right side 雨 is simplified or not. But we do not write that way in ja. #8 is an acceptable and occasionally used variant in ja. As for the reply of 葛, did you understand it? I wasn't sure if I could explain about it well as I don't know much about computer fonts and the history. Oda Mari (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I understood about 葛 quite well -- certainly well enough for my needs. 86.160.82.229 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

neuter sanskrit gender in asana names

What is meant by User:Khamgatam's edit summaries:

[5]

[6]?Curb Chain (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be changing each word from an abstract stem to a specific neuter nominative/accusative singular form. In all the "classical" Indo-European languages, the nominative and accusative case forms of words with neuter grammatical gender are always identical to each other, and in the Sanskrit a-declension neuter singular, the nominative-accusative ending is "m"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Odd message received by me

Sakide dec fanol

Sadren moj aero de f'astren la nomadic vase nik gas bunto zar ozea. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd ignore it. That user seems to be inserting gibberish on several people's talk pages. Rojomoke (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandal, sock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the verb “to deface” implies a bad faith?

Is expression “don’t deface” really an insult so serious that a proportional response to it could be a two-days-long flamewar?

Several apparently native English speakers try to convince me that it is, but I suppose that they say so because defend their friends in conflict with me, and/or because of antipathy towards me. Suggestions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly a language question (more behavioral) but depending on context, it may seem insulting. Flame wars are frowned upon, however, and may lead to other consequences. The trick is to be the one that decreases the conflict. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is a flamewar called for? Of course not, a flamewar is never called for. Does "deface" assume bad faith? Yes, it definitely does. Look at [Merriam-Webster's definition: "to mar the appearance of : injure by effacing significant details". Look at the examples it gives: "The building was defaced with graffiti. He was fined for defacing public property." The synonyms: "vandalize (!), trash". Certainly a negative word that implies bad faith. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the implications still depend on context: "Don't do that bad act" may imply nothing about the good or bad faith of the actor -- it may just be, "don't do that bad act," regardless of motive or faith, which is a message similar to many of our policy pages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, though I'm not sure I totally agree. The context relevant to the OP's question was that the word "deface" was used in a warning to another editor, so it was used in a context of "that was defacing" and/or "don't deface again", which I would say does imply bad faith, as it's calling a previous action that the editor did defacement. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. But if I say to you "you have rendered that infobox unreadable by adding that code, please don't deface it." It does not matter to my statement that you thought it a good faith idea (ie., that you were acting with the best of intentions), or bad faith idea (that is you were trying to render it unreadable out of malice). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't think I agree; if you don't mean to imply that the person messed up the infobox in bad faith, then I think "deface" is the wrong word, because it implies that I did (as evidenced by the "vandalize" synonym; one cannot vandalize with good intent). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not if I am using it in its descriptive sense (eg. "to render disfigured"). That is just the consequence of your act, whatever your good or bad intention, or even if you had no intentions at all, in that regard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To "deface" is equivalent to "vandalism", a term that gets abused in Wikipedia from time to time. So, yes, it does imply "bad faith". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In this context, I'd say deface does have a negative connotation. However, note that the term is also used in a technical sense in relation to coats of arms and flags to mean altering an existing coat of arms or flag by adding an additional element to it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If English is a second language for the person using the term "deface" then we should be interpreting that term's meaning with greater latitude than we would if that person were a native speaker. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably, but they should know that it does imply bad faith, and that they shouldn't use it unless they mean to imply bad faith in the future. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Deface" has a thoroughly negative connotation.[7] The "technical" sense would more likely be called a "reface", or a "face lift". If someone's using "deface" that way, they're using it incorrectly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The technical term is as SMUconlaw stated; it's not "reface" or "face lift". Bazza (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A bizarre but thankfully obscure usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has been speaking and listening to English exclusively every day for the past 36+ years (give or take), I have never heard the word "deface" used where it didn't have a pejorative or negative connotation. YMMV, and like any word, I'm sure there are arcane or specialized definitions which don't have the same usage as the most common one, but if someone said something was being defaced, nearly every native English speaker would assume that meant it was being ruined. --Jayron32 15:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Flags are said to be defaced when an additional symbol is added to them, but this vexillogical usage has no negative connotation. Textorus (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that would qualify as "arcane or specialized" usage of the term. Even vexillogists would get pissed if you told them you defaced their car with a can of spray paint. --Jayron32 03:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the Chinese on the sign?

What is the Chinese on the sign in this picture? File:Buford Highway.jpg

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It means "Warehouse Farmers' Market". Marco polo (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What are the hanzi characters? I want to annotate the file with them. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

倉庫農夫市場 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.87.28 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese names

José Luís do Amaral Nunes was a member of the Portuguese parliament in the 1970s and 1980s. He gets almost no Google hits (even when I don't exclude Portuguese), so I wonder if I formatted the name wrongly. I know that Spanish people often have two last names and use only one of them; is this also commonly done in Portugal? Or are there any other names that people in Portugal have but don't commonly use? Basically I'd like to know if there's another combination of names more commonly would apply to this guy. 2001:18E8:2:1020:2974:F1B5:B231:24B3 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article named Portuguese name. Perhaps that could help. --Jayron32 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"do Amaral" is part of his full name but in practise it wouldn't be used (sort of like an English middle name). Jose Luis Nunes seems to have been leader of the socialist party in Parliament under the Mário Soares government(s). It's hard to find him on Google since this is a pretty stereotypical combination of Portuguese names, heh...He's listed on pt:Partido Socialista (Portugal), but he doesn't seem to have a Portuguese article either. He's also listed with his full name at pt:Assembleia_Constituinte_(Portugal), and seems to have been a deputy from Porto, where he has a street named after him, which may be useful info. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot device terminology

I'm curious which term (if any) is used for the plot device in which one character says or does something seemingly benign or irrelevent but in turn provides a clue or solution to a problem being worked on by another character.

A classic example would be in Independence Day when the father mentions David catching a cold, which in turn provides David—in a moment of clarity—with the idea for a computer virus. The closest I've come in my searches is MacGuffin. However, using the previous example, I think that would describe the virus itself, not the plot device which provided the idea to the character.

I'm assuming the term will be something in Latin, à la Deus ex machina. Thanks for any help. DKqwerty (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I don't know about an official literary term, but I've seen it referred to as a Eureka moment, which on wikipedia, redirects to the Eureka effect. Is that closer? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Chekhov's Gun. ÷seresin 05:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, see this. Woe to any man who clicks that link without hours to spend.÷seresin 05:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"believe" or "believe in"?

When is it ok to add the preposition, and what difference does it make? Is this one of those verbs where the transitive and intransitive forms have no or little distinction?

• When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher disbelieved the story.
• When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher disbelieved in the story.
• When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher did not believe the story.
• When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher did not believe in the story. Sneazy (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One believes or disbelieves a statement or a testimony or a proposition. So in your examples the teacher disbelieved the story, and did not believe the story. The word "in" is out of place in those cases.

"Believing in" is used in much broader contexts, like believing in God, believing in the afterlife, beliving in reincarnation, believing in democracy, believing in capitalism, or believing in one's partner in the sense of trusting they will always tell the truth and never be unfaithful. The expression "disbelieve in" does not exist, as far as I'm aware.

It can get confusing, though. In a conversation, Person A might say "I believe in reincarnation", and Person B might reply "I don't believe that there's any such thing". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Items 1 and 3 are good, and 3 is better than 1, which sounds kind of formal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To state it simpler than above: You believe someone, you believe in a concept. So, you can say "I believe my Rabbi," but "I believe in Jewish theology". "I believe the President when he speaks" but "I believe in American democracy". There are uses of "Believe in" with people, but that usage means, roughly, "I have trust or confidence in this person". That is, if I say "I believe Bill" it means I think he's telling the truth in regards to a specific statement he's made. If I say "I believe in Bill", it means I think that Bill is generally worthy of respect or faith that he'll get the job done. When your mom says "I believe in you" she's saying "I think you'll be successful because I have faith in you", in the exact same way that if she says "I believe in Communism", she thinks Communism is going to be successful because it is a sound concept. If your mom says "I believe you" it just means she thinks you're telling the truth. --Jayron32 23:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Believe--truth, Believe in--existence. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Key comment in an old Andy Griffith Show. Opie meets a telephone lineman named Mr. McBeevee. Opie doesn't fully comprehend, and his story sounds made-up. But in spite of a threat of punishment, Opie won't recant his story. Barney to Andy: "Do you believe in Mr. McBeevee?" Andy: "No. But I believe in Opie."[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To believe means to accept something as true in a specific case. To believe in means to have faith in the existence or reliability of a person, thing, or concept in general and absolutely. Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Trucker lingo

Two questions here: (1) What are "swindle sheets"? Is this some improvised device for dodging scales? (2) What does it mean when they say that the rig is "low"? Is it the same as being "bingo-fuel" (in aviation lingo), or does it mean something else entirely? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You could have answered the first question by typing "swindle sheet" into Google, with a lot less effort than it took to put the question here. Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see looking at your contribs that you've been turning into a serial ref-desk-abuser -- "deballockers" and whatnot. Looie496 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A random look at this user's contributions hints that we have an obvious sock, but the questions themselves seem quite reasonable (falconiformes/psittaciformes/passeriformes and red vs white darwf capture) although some seem obvious. But none seem abusive or debate inciting. I have a feeling we have quite a few regulars with socks. Enough that I think a general check user of all contributors is warrented. But again, these questions seem benignant. μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)