Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs for answers to frequently asked language and usage questions.

If you would like to have a text translated, you might want to post on this Wiktionary page.

August 31

Linguistics

How does psychology affect the learning of foreign language?

To start with, do you really want to learn it, or are you just fulfilling a requirement? AnonMoos 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly what you asked, but Sapir–Whorf hypothesis has a lot of food for thought about how the grammatical structure of a language affects the way one thinks. Dar-Ape 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Or how it doesn't. --Kjoonlee 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP has some more info here pointing to a study on motivational strategies in the language classroom. ---Sluzzelin 08:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, it reminds me of how a friend, when we were kids, warned me about computer programming and how it could make people answer questions with just "yes" or "no", which could prove disastrous if, say, a girl asked you to go with her to the movies. :-) Anyway, I wonder if this could be applied to mathematics – would we think differently of mathematics with a different notation? —Bromskloss 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Idioms

What is the meaning of the expression "shoeless in Gaza"?

Thank you.

Literally it means "(being) in Gaza without shoes". While I don't know the context, this is wordplay on Eyeless in Gaza, the title of a novel by Aldous Huxley. The title is derived from a poem by Milton, Samson Agonistes: "Ask for this great Deliverer now, and find him / Eyeless in Gaza, at the mill with slaves, / Himself in bonds under Philistian yoke." This refers to Samson, who was betrayed by Delilah to the Philistines, made a slave in Gaza and blinded. --Lambiam^Talk 06:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Samson rather "hairless in Gaza"? 惑乱 分からん 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

His eyes were also poked out. Unlike his hair, they didn't grow back :-P Skittle 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

hyphen in compound noun

Can we hyphenate compound noun 'fund of funds'? Is it ok to hyphenate it in adjectival cases, e.g. fund-of-funds route, and leave without hyphen in case of compound noun only? Or should it be hyphenated in both the above-mentioned cases? Please suggest.

I'm not sure what "fund of funds" means, but I would say it should indeed be hyphenated as an adjective and without as a noun. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A 'fund' (in UK) normally means a Unit Trust - where investors pay money into a common fund and experts buy shares with the money (so investors benefit from expert choices and bigger spread of investment than they could achieve on their own). 'Fund of funds' normally means a Unit Trust where experts buy into other unit trusts rather than shares (supposedly more expertise and spread). Rentwa 10:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I would suggest too. Mind you, I would cut my own head off before using such an adjectival expression as "fund-of-funds route", but vive la différence!, JackofOz 10:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Calendar dates: BC vs BCE

Does WP follow a policy on whether to use BC or BCE for calendar dates? Click here to understand what I'm referring to. (I'm asking because of recent activity on various pages replacing BCE with BC). Thank you in advance for replying. ---Sluzzelin 10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Either are acceptable, according to the Manual of Style. Of course, BC/AD is not particularly appropriate for certain articles dealing with non-Christian religions. -- the GREAT Gavini 12:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers. The pages I saw used BCE consistently and were (consistently) changed to BC. Of course there are exceptions, but events dating BC/BCE, by definition, frequently happened in a non-Christian context. ---Sluzzelin 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an argument for an official policy. I would support BCE, which is increasingly the academic standard.mnewmanqc 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If some born-again Christian if going through Wikipedia changing BCE to BC for no reason apart than their own agenda, they need a slap on the wrist. Sorry I mean a piece of friendly editorial advice.--Shantavira 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would not have a problem with someone who had such an agenda. I'm not a Christian, but I think it would be a shame if BCE took over from BC as standard usage. Common Era discusses the issues but my personal view is that the Christian system should be allowed to prevail in this case. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Both era notations are allowed under policy, however the guidelines specifically forbid changing from one system to another (without good reason and consensus). If someone is changing BCE to BC (or vice versa) they are breaking policy and are essentially vandalizing wikipedia. Would you mind stating what pages have been effected?--Andrew c 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, for clarifying that. I now reverted it on the Ravenna page. This particular user has a history of vandalism, but I've seen it happening on other pages too. ---Sluzzelin 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's like the policy on American English versus English English. Either goes, as long as an article sticks to one of them. But I should note that I never saw the BCE thing anywhere else than on Wikipedia, so it's not much of a standard. Also, it doesn't change the christian basis because the numbering is still the same. I am not a chrsitian and I don't think it's a big deal, so I don't see the need for a change. It's just confusing. DirkvdM 06:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BCE is frequent in history texts. Of course, it still assumes that the years begin with (presumably the wrong year for) the birth of Jesus, and of course using one form or the other is not a big deal. Still, I would use BCE because, it reduces the christocentrism slightly. In any case, this topich reminds me of an old joke.

A rabbi teaching Hebrew schools at about this time of year says. "This is the Jewish year 5767. The Chinese year is 4704. What does that tell you? A boy responds, "that the Jews had to do without Chinese food for 1063 years?" mnewmanqc 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC) CE

Names in other languages

I have a question about names in other languages. Specifically about the name Ptolemy. What I want to find out is how common the name is in countries like Greece, Macedonia and Egypt today. Where would I be able to find this sort of information? Carcharoth 23:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC

I have the impression that the name is not current in Greece. Πτολεμαῖος gets about 750 hits on Greek pages, as far as I saw none referring to a living person. Compare Παναγιώτης with about about 889,000 hits, Αλέξανδρος with about 688,000 hits, and Ευάγγελος with about 352,000 hits. --Lambiam^Talk 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. Would you be able to "translate" (or rather transliterate) those more popular names? Thanks. Carcharoth 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Παναγιώτης = Panagiotis

Αλέξανδρος = Alexandros

Ευάγγελος = Evangelos. JackofOz 13:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Carcharoth 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

September 1

hindi/silver

i want the language in hindi about silver so i request you to show me the (Could anyone help me find some information in Hindi about silver? Thankyou.) - copyedit by  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 

If you mean an article on silver in the Hindi Wikipedia, unfortunately it seems such an article has not yet been written. --Lambiam^Talk 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they just want to know the Hindi word for "silver". In that case, there could be different words for the element and the color. StuRat 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

According to whois the question comes from India (IP provider Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), so in that case the questioner would more likely just have asked around. --Lambiam^Talk 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They may not speak Hindi is his part of India, however. StuRat 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I must assume that they do, or at least he does, because that's the language that he appears to want his information in. O o;;  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  08:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't somebody want to know a word in a language which is used in an area other than where they live ? StuRat 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

a) I find it hard to interpret "the language in Hindi about silver" in a way that has him looking only for the single world translation. b) Though I'll admit it's not impossible, I don't think he would be asking for a 1 word translation on the language desk.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  10:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Language" is probably a bad translation for "texts" or "material", and "the" for "that", which is a common mistake for native speakers of languages without a definite article. (e.g. Where is the cow? is often translated as something like "Where is [that previously mentioned] cow?)  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Literal translation of Silver in Hindi is "chandi". Silver colour is "chandi ka rang" ("rang" means colour)--Tachs 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

trainor and accreditor

is there such a word as trainor? here in the philippines, the word is in widespread use. same goes with the word "accreditor." however, i can't find them in any dictionary. please answer. thanks.

carl richard

It seems to be a word in Philippine English. In standard English it's commonly spelled 'trainer'. The Philippine Department of Tourism defines it as an individual who conducts training programs. ---Sluzzelin 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

...the agent noun suffix -er being replaced by -or, like actor, doctor, sailor, tailor, etc. Seeing it's from the Philippines, I wonder if it's from Spanish influence? (matador, etc.) -- the GREAT Gavini 06:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The -er and -or endings often seems to be used for no particular reason in English, train is of Franco-Latin origin (although with this particular meaning originated in English), motivator is of Latin origin, in common speech the distinction gets difficult to discern, it isn't difficult to see how the endings could get mixed up. 惑乱 分からん 12:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Usage of "of all of these"

The phrase "of all of these" is used in the manner given in the following paragraph.

Significantly, Fe deficiency in humans can be due to causes other than Fe-deficient soils and low-Fe food crops. It can also be caused by Zn, vitamin A, Se, folate, or vitamin B12 deficiencies, as well as by certain gut bacteria, intestinal worms, and other human parasites and pathogens. But of all of these, Zn deficiency is the most widespread problem.

Please suggest the correct usage of the above-mentioned phrase.

Thanks.

Regards Taiyab

Don't begin a sentence with But, that's for sure. Teachers hate that. Usage seems fine to me. AEuSoes1 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And you're just going to let teachers push you around? --Ptcamn 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"out of all (of) these" sounds more natural to me, but "of all of these" is still acceptable. --Ptcamn 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What about just of these? -- the GREAT Gavini 07:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters further, I would go for "of all these". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be pushed around by language prescriptionists and don't think beginning a sentence with But is bad. But in this case, it serves no purpose. The suggestion by the GREAT Gavini sounds best to me, and also comes out with the top score in google hits. I'd further say "common cause" for "widespread problem". The last two sentences would then go: "It can also be caused by Zn, vitamin A, ..., intestinal worms, and other human parasites and pathogens. Of these, Zn deficiency is the most common cause."  --Lambiam^Talk 08:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but if you leave the "But" in, I'd put a comma after it. StuRat 11:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to start a sentence with "but" (or "and")...the problem is when it is just a fragment that should have been connected to the previous sentence. Adam Bishop 14:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Lazy teachers, especially in primary school, proscribe it in all situations, rather than clarify the conditions under which it is acceptable. The situation is similar to the irrational proscription of passive voice, which, as far as some English teachers are concerned, ought to be completely purged from the language. Bhumiya (said/done) 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jokes in other languages

Do English language jokes work in other languages? Would something like "Two cows in a field, one says 'Have you heard about mad cow disease?', the other says 'Doesn't bother me, I'm a duck'" work in anything other than English?

doktorb _words^deeds 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That joke should work, as long as it's actually called "mad cow disease" in the language in question. If you called it "bovine spongiform encephalitis", the joke would be more difficult to figure out. However, jokes using double meanings of English words aren't likely to work, like this one:

"A kid swallowed a silver dollar and was taken to the hospital, where he was to be left for observation until the coin passed. When his parents inquired as to his status, the doctor replied 'no change yet'."

This joke requires that "change" mean both "difference in status" and "coins returned after an overpayment is made". It's unlikely that a word exists in other languages which possesses that double meaning. StuRat 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If the jokes are primarily puns, often not. Sometimes, they would work if the language is closely related to English, or if it has calqued many popular idioms. Puns and poetry always make deliberate usage of a language's peculiarities, and are generally much harder to translate than prose, where words generally are used only for their meaning. 惑乱 分からん 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious, "classically funny" jokes can often be translated easily, but people of different cultures often have a different idea of what is funny, even to the effect that in some (I would assume less western) parts of the world, "sarcasm" doesn't work at all. Disgusting humor doesn't work at all in Japanese, and a lot of Japanese humor relies on raising and lowering the volume of your voice, getting angry or acting timid, and using and mis-using all the formal levels of conversation, all of which are extremely difficult to translate into English, and are almost never "funny". I can't imagine anybody laughing in the English world at a gyagu (gag) where the guy just goes, "Rock, paper," and then screams "SCISSORS!!!" at the top of is lungs.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain that "disgusting jokes" aren't popular in Japan. Since Japan seems to be a culture much based on clean appearance, I think disgusting jokes used for shock effect would be popular. Anyway, I know potty humor often is popular in children's manga, for instance. You might be correct about sarcasm, though. About that Japanese joke, then, I might laugh at that, though, mostly because of its strangeness. 惑乱 分からん 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, you're right, I guess I have to explain that a bit better. Dirty jokes (shimoneta) do have a place in Japanese, but I find most black English humour doesn't work. A typical dirty joke in Japanese uses a lot of punnery, and it's really just "masked" filth, and a lot of "Oooh! I said a bad word!" kind of stuff. Popular Hollywood teen movies that have a lot of sex jokes don't seem to be too popular either, though that might be the fault of the translators.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  08:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, alright. There probably is a place for black humor in Japan, too, (My impression is that it would often be absurd or surreal...) but maybe not so much in mainstream media. 惑乱 分からん 12:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a Dutch joke in English (it's originally in English!):

An Englishman and a Groninger are having a conversation and the Englishman asks "What do you do for a living?" "I fok horses" "Pardon?" "Ja, paorden!"

Of course this requires a little explanation. The guy is a horsebreeder from Groningen. 'Horsebreeding' is in Dutch called 'paardenfokken' and in Groningen they pronounce 'paarden' as 'paorden', which, you guessed, sounds like the English 'pardon'. DirkvdM 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an example of a cross language joke which actually requires a knowledge of two languages. They tend to be better when heard live than in writing, as spelling typically clarifies the ambiguity between the languages. Here's another:

The policeman asked the German immigrant farmer if he had been arrested eight times for having sex with sheep. The German looked offended and yelled "Nein !". StuRat 22:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

These are actually examples of bilingual puns, where the listener is required to be more or less familiar with two different languages to get the punchline. 惑乱 分からん 11:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an old Mae West line that's become a perennial: "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" Culturally that kind of sexual humor might not be acceptable everywhere, but the line itself seems to translate pretty well because the comparison is universal and the reference requires a visual imagination. Durova 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to share with you a joke that does not work in translated form. English is the original in this case, and the other language is Swedish. I'm sure you know it, it's about those tomatoes that crosses the street – one gets run over and the other one exclaims "Catch up!". In Swedish, it's not possible to construct the same word play. Instead, the exclamation reads "Come on ketchup, let's move!". See there, the joke is completely lost, but it's still told as a joke, which is completely beyond me. There must be a meta joke somewhere that I haven't found. Does anyone, by any chance, know the reason for being behind this non-joke? —Bromskloss 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it's mostly told as an example of a bad joke or non-joke, it's probably merely because of its absurdity... =S 惑乱 分からん 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I know that same "joke" in German, and I must admit that I laughed at it when I was a kid, even though I only really understand it now. In German, the punchline is simply "Ketchup!", and since the tomato was run over, that was funny enough for me. But there's an actual pun in there! My mind, she is blown. Rueckk 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it depends on the language. The classic Abbott and Costello routine "Who's on First?" translates well to Spanish. But it wouldn't work well in Czech (even if they used soccer instead of baseball), because the case endings are different for question words like "who" than they are for names. -- Mwalcoff 22:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The mad cow disease joke works well in Arabic. It could be translated as "crazy cow" (jnoun el-baqar). CG 09:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that example actually works well in many languages, since "mad cow disease" is a word very prone to be calqued. It works in Swedish, too, for example. 惑乱 分からん 11:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's "vache fou" in French, I think. Adam Bishop 13:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"vache folle", "maladie de la vache folle", it even seems to have been calqued into (intended) auxiliary languages such as Esperanto and Interlingua, ("malsano de freneza bovino" and "maladia del vacca folle", respectively) which should give a hint about how common the calque is. 惑乱 分からん 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the same in Dutch; 'gekke koeien ziekte'. DirkvdM 06:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was backpacking, I always enjoyed exchanging tongue twisters with people. They may not translate well, but they're a great ice-breaker. And even if people don't have any language in common, if one person recites a tongue twister, other people get it and recite their own. It's a very very fun way to pass the time in backpackers' hostels. Anchoress 15:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In a way, tongue twisters are much more communicable than jokes. To a certain degree, your mouth will be more accustomed to your native alphabet, so a tongue twister in your native language should be easier. But since they are designed to be difficult for native speakers, it's not rare that foreigners are able to pronounce certain tongue twister better than native speakers! On the other hand, some things like "kōkyōkōkokukikō" are difficult no matter where you come from.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  10:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Or 'Plaza de la Revolucion'. DirkvdM 06:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's easy. Swedish 'kvistfritt kvastskaft' on the other hand... 惑乱 分からん 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the joke and the translations, but I would say for the most part, jokes are exclusive to the language they came from -- generally. --Proficient 18:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation from Roma language

Here are the lyrics of one beautiful Roma (gypsy) song from the movie "Time of the Gypsies". Could somebody translate it into English?

Alo mange liloro - Edelezi Avela

Pravdiloda daye bre jek kalo sabata. x2 Alo mange liloro, me ki vojska te dzav. x2

Uke kotar daye bre jekh kalo pampuri. x2 Amaneti daye, te mishta menaya.

Ederlezi avela, me khere na sijom. x2 ala loko nashti ljam me dayatar me dade. x2

Ma rov daye gudlije, pale ka avav mange. x2 Ederlezi ka avel, meda kere ka avav. x2

Thanks!

J. Ugeor

Google is your friend. Here's something I picked up from top hits on google:

My own* mother (daye)
Black (kalo) day has come.
Now it's time for me (mange) **
to go to the army (vojska).

Mother, black (kalo) man came
And took away your son.
I leave my son*** to you
Take care for him strongly.

And on St. George's Day (Ederlezi)
I will not be at home
…

Then (last 6 lines) the matter concerns: father (dade), sweet, goody (gudlije) and again St. George's Day (Ederlezi), that (and something else) should come  (avel, avav).

______________
* Word ‘bre’ means bosom, breast and strengthens word ‘daye’ (mother).
** ‘Liloro’ means small paper, letter, document. So accurate meaning ‘Alo mange liloro’ may be ‘I received letter (call-up papers, summons to army)’
*** I’m not sure about son. May be fiancée (girl-friend)?

Its not complete, but should prove a good start. Shinhan 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How to refer to unwed other parent of child

If I and another person to whom I am not married are the parents of a child, then what is the name of my relationship with the other parent? She is my ___________. (Other than "the mother of my child.") I need a gender-neutral term if at all possible. This came up at work when we have the names of all sorts of relatives for emergency contacts, this case being by far the most common use of the "other" option. Someone suggested "coparent" but that isn't in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and the answers.com dictionary defines it only in relation to divorce. I can't believe the English language doesn't have a word for this. HQW2 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "partner"? There is also "babymama" or "babydaddy" but I don't suppose you should put that on an official form. Adam Bishop 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If the context is always the parent's of a child, how about "Child's other parent"? And if it's too awkward to come up with something on the form to use, what's wrong with still having the other box. That's seems to be a perfectly good reason to have it and use it. - Taxman ^Talk 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the context of your question, it doesn't seem to make any difference whether you and the child's mother are married or not. There is still the same lexical gap with a married couple. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Partner" assumes they are still together as a long-term couple. A lot of people would also use "girlfriend/boyfriend", but it's a "younger" feeling word.--Sonjaaa 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

'Common law husband/wife'? —Daniel (‽) 18:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been a problem for me in the past too. I have four children, and three partners. Occasionally when relating some family matter to someone at my work, it is tricky. If I am speaking about specifically, something like "My partner, 'Story'", or "[child name]'s Mom. It is tricky in situations where suggesting that you have an alternative family is not possible, and I have resorted to "My Wife", when that isn't strictly the case, but it is understandable to the audience, and complete accuracy isn't important. One time, for some legal reason, a clerk asked me about one of my partners, and wanted to know the relationship, and I gave her a general answer, and she pushed for the specific relationship. I couldn't say "wife" or "spouse", and so I said, "She is the mother of two of my children". I suppose if the culture were more flexible, as well as more tolerant, one could say "one of my partners." The problem with "partner" though is that some people, from movies and such, have gotten the idea that "partner" is a euphemism for "same sex lover", or think that you may be gay. I have no problem with that, except that it isn't accurate, and social judgment from them thinking that could be equally problematic in a work environment. I used to use "spouse" thinking that it was a biological term, but in fact found that it is well defined legally to basically mean "wife". If I were married to all three of my partners, I could just say "wife" and not feel funny about it, but that isn't legal in this culture. And again sometimes it is necessary in talking about one partner versus another, and I couldn't say, for instance, my wife, versus my concubine. In summary, using "my partner, [her name]", or "My wife" is what have ended up using most frequently. Atom 12:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Atom, my only question is, how do you find time to be involved in Wikipedia? JackofOz 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

word definition

When people of different races interbreed for many generations, the decendants will all share (mostly) the same physical characteristics, such as color, or etc. There is a word that describes this process. What is the word.19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)4.158.156.86

Miscegenation? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with just plain old "interbreeding". StuRat 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In plant breeding I always heard it referred to simply as 'stabilisation', although I have a feeling this was just an ad hoc term and there's a proper word.

The opposite is known as a throwback, ie when a cross with very disimilar individuals in its recent ancestry bears little resemblance to its more immediate ancestors (a frequent cause of unfounded suspicions of infidelity in mixed race communities I believe). Rentwa 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Homogenization?AEuSoes1 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the correct word. Buz W

There is no such word because there is just one human race. Well, ok, that doesn\t sop people from coming up with such a word - I just wanted t point this out. :) DirkvdM 03:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Term for music project manager?

If I hire a composer to compose some music based on some themes and vision I have, then I get some other people I know to perform it, and get it recorded somewhere and make a CD to share my vision to others..... then what is my title? I was only the vision and the project manager, but did not do any of the music myself at the detail level, just at the idea level. Am I the "producer" or something? Or is there a word that describes exactly this job or role?--Sonjaaa 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the United States' Media and Entertainment industry, the term "producer" is commonly used to refer to those responsible for coordinating the various contributors to a final piece. Some prefer to use the term "associate producer" for those who play only a coordinating role, reserving the unqualified "producer" for those who also contribute a vision or some high-level creative direction. You seem to fulfill both roles, so you should be very comfortable describing yourself as a producer. dpotter 03:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

September 2

Lexical similarity between English and Spanish

I have a question about the table in the lexical similarity article. There is a dash seemingly indicating "no similarity" between English and Spanish. I have only a modest Spanish vocabulary, but I can think of a couple dozen words between Spanish and English that are similar - things like "interesante" (interesting), "rata" (rat) and "tren" (train) - even one or two very common words like "no" (no) and "es" (is). If English and French, another Romance language, have a similarity of 27%, I'm surprised that Spanish and English would have zero. I'm not sure if this is Wikipedia's problem or if there is something about the concept I've failed to grasp. Why does the table report zero similarity? --Grace 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the dash in the table means that no data were at hand for this particular cell. In other words: '-' does not mean '0', it means 'no data available'. ---Sluzzelin 08:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish "no" comes from quasi-PIE ne oinom (and is used as a verbal negation), while English "no" comes from quasi-PIE ne aiwom (and is used as a nominal negation). AnonMoos 11:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

But at least the first part n* is the same, the *o part is a false cognate. Would that make 50% lexical similarity? Anyway, I don't know how lexical similarity is calculated, but looking at what Spanish and English I know, I estimate the similarity should be at least between 10-20 percent? Personally, I think the table is slightly off balance, though. Of 11 languages, 8 are Romance with only 2 Germanic and 1 Slavic examples. 惑乱 分からん 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They probably use a binary measurement, that is a given word is either 1 (understood) or 0 (not understood). In that sense, French non might count as a 1 or a 0 with English. That would probably explain why Spanish and Portuguese are at .89. They've got a lot in common but their phonologies are quite different. AEuSoes1 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Still seems like a very rough judgement, especially for English which often has both Germanic and Latinate synonyms, where the Germanic word could possibly be understood by a Germanic speaker, and the Latinate by a Romance. 惑乱 分からん 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the dash in the table must mean no data.

Weird German accusative and dative, and a tiny extra question.

Hello,

I am refreshing my German back from high school, and I noticed that I didn't quite understand some things.

I was listening to some music in German:

1.In "99 Luftballons" by "Nena" (lyrics : [1]) "99 Jahre Krieg Liessen keinen Platz für Sieger" Now "der Sieg"="the victory" is a male noun, and here the accusative is used. As I understood the accusative, I don't have to change the noun itself, only adjectives or articles accompagnying it. Is this some strange rule for uncountable nouns or something.

2. In "Engel" by "Rammstein" [2] they sing "Wer zu Lebzeit gut auf Erden wird nach dem Tod ein Engel werden"

"auf Erden" is a dative, right? But I thought that in the singular case, the noun itself was not changed in the dative? Again : are we dealing with a special rule for uncountable nouns?

And extra question, can anyone provide a very literal translation of the first six words? I understand that all of it together is something like "who.... will after the death an angel become." But the translation on that site gives a "is"(who is good in his lifetime on Earth), where did that "is" go?

Thanks! Evilbu 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The Nena quote means: "99 years of war left no room for victors". "Sieger" is male (here in its accusative indefinite plural form) and means "winners"/"victors". If it meant "victory" it would be "keinen Platz für (den) Sieg", if it meant "victories" it would be "für Siege".

2. "auf Erden" is indeed an old female dative with an archaic ring (as in "Friede auf Erden": "Peace on Earth").

extra Q: "(He/she) who (is) good on Earth while alive, will become an angel after death". Poetic freedom. The "ist" is implied. ---Sluzzelin 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems there are quite a few grammatically weird things in that Rammstein song...Evilbu 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Russian Accusative / Genitive question

Sometimes in Russian you say:
Я люблю этого человека, which means I love this man. However, "этого человека" is a Genitive, "this man" is an Accusative. I heard that Russian accepts direct objects both in the Genitive Case and in the Accusative (Я вижу этот человек). My question is: is there any way of knowing when to use the Genitive and when to use the Accusative, or is it verb-dependant? Thanks. --Danielsavoiu 20:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically этого человека from the first sentence is in the accusative, it just so happens that, because it is a masculine animate noun (a noun of masculine gender that denotes a living thing) the accusative form is the same as the genitive form. In standard Russian grammar, the accusative of animate nouns like человек is always человека. So Я вижу этот человек is not correct. (Disclaimer: I only know the grammar I learned in the courses I took; Russians may not really speak this way!) --Cam 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Cam. By the way, when I say "У меня нет наследников", why do you use the Genitive? Or is it the same situation as above? --Danielsavoiu 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's another initially surprising, but universal rule of Russian grammar: the direct object of a negative verb goes in the genitive, not the accusative. (And нет is a negative verb, though it's often not thought of as such). I suspect it's originally a partitive ('none of'). ColinFine 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Learning Hebrew

Arabic is my native language. Would it help me to learn more easily Hebrew, since they are both semitic languages? And do you know good websites? Thank you. CG 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think so, yes, in that they are similar. On the other hand, you might inadvertently interchange words between the two languages, since they are so close. However, this would be more of an issue if you knew two similar languages, where neither was your native language, so you should probably be OK. StuRat 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends, for languages being very closely related, such as Spanish/Portuguese or the Scandinavian languages, language interference is prone to occur. The advantage is that you will likely learn the language much faster, the disadvantage is mixups of false friends and a high likelihood that manners of speech from your first language always will slip through. 惑乱 分からん 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew actually has a number of specific resemblances to Arabic colloquials (as opposed to standard written Arabic); I should think it would be much easier for an Arab-speaker to learn than English or French... AnonMoos 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Afghan biscuits

Hi

I'm looking for the origin of the term "afghan biscuit". The best I've found so far is pretty much "something to do with Afghanis in Australia". Can anyone here do better?

Thanks for your help.

Hi, Afghan biscuits were made by the early Afghan settler/cameleer who came to Australia. They have rich history and if you’d like to learn more about them, get hold of the book titled “Tin Mosques and Ghan Town” by Christina Stevens. Thank you Aaadddaaammm 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Afghan biscuits what an Afghan dog leaves behind when you walk it ? :-) StuRat 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if anzac biscuits are muddling your search? Skittle 13:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Are you perhaps thinking of Anzac biscuits? JackofOz 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I win Skittle 14:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You won a skittle? That's not much of a prize. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have won if I hadn't dallied about whether or not to query StuRat about his increasing tendency to make references in his witticisms to excrement, bodily fluids and associated smells. I was wondering if he had anything he wanted to get off his chest, but I guess he'll tell us in his own good time.  :--) JackofOz 00:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Nico and I have been accused of being a strange person. I really need to know where the name Afghan comes from for these lovely biscuits. I saw somebody them on Shortland Street the other week, and I haven't been able to sleep because I have been wondering whether their name has anything to do with Afghanistan?? Can somebody please help me??

September 3

IPA and Phonetics

I am interested in learning the IPA and about phonetics in general. I can write phonetic transcriptions for most english words in the IPA, but that's about it. Could somebody recommend some books for me to get to learn how to read all IPA characters and diacritics, and also some books about phonetics? Thank you so very much!!! --Life 02:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Books? Who needs books when you've got Wikipedia's International Phonetic Alphabet page.

You can also try the Handbook of the IPA AEuSoes1 03:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Phonetics. Any decent textbook on linguistics should have a phonetics section. I think Language Files from the Department of Linguistics of the Ohio State University is better than Fromkin and Rodman's textbook when it comes to phonetics and phonology.

If you want to dig deeper, Peter Ladefoged's A Course in Phonetics (CD supplements) is probably what you should read next. --Kjoonlee 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ladefoged is good, very good. The problem with most of the general ling textbooks is that they mostly insist on using the symbols of the Americanist tradition, with, for example [y] representing the palatal glide ([j] in IPA). I don't remember if that's the case with Language Files; it is with most, including some phonetics texts. One you might look at is Yavas Applied English Phonology, which I'm using in a course this semester. You would want that kind of book rather than Ladefoged if you were interested in a slightly less technical treatment, a less strictly phonetic one, and an application to English. Though I can't say enough about how good Ladefoged's book is. mnewmanqc 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The book that I like is "A practical introduction to phonetics" by J.C. Catford. It's a light read, with a more practical, do-it-yourself approach. There are lot of diagrams in there as well. (Note: it is an introduction, so don't expect it to be a full course on phonetics) Alex Ng 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your suggestions! It's a big help. --Life 22:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Swedish names in Finnish

Does anyone know how the names of Finland-Swedes like Runeberg or Svinhufvud are pronounced in Finnish? Are they pronounced as in Swedish (/rʉːnəbɛrj/) or as if they were Finnish names (/runəpɛrk/)? Rueckk 19:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume they would be pronounced as in Swedish, or as similar to Swedish as the speaker could manage. 惑乱 分からん 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think, too, but if possible I'd like some cold, hard IPA. There must be some finländare here who can provide that. Rueckk 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, otherwise, I guess you could pose the question in the appropriate talk pages... 惑乱 分からん 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As a rule the Finland-Swedish pronunciation is considered the most correct, but it is often approximated by Finnish sounds. Common names like Runeberg seem to have evolved separate Finnish pronunciations: in Finnish Runeberg might as well be spelled as "Ruuneperi" (/ruːnepæri/) or "Ruunepäri" (/ruːnepæri/). Svinhufvud transforms into "Svinhuuvud" (/svinhuːvud/), but the name is much less common, so many people attempt a proper Swedish pronunciation. 84.239.129.42 18:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. My curiosity is satisfied. :) Rueckk 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

German.. curse

I have tried translation tools to no avail, so does anyone have the German or Dutch equivilant to:

Motherfucking Snake?

Much appreciated. Christopher

I think Germans curse differently than anglophones, so it can't be translated literally... Possibly "verdammte Schlange" (lit. "damned snake") would be a good translation... 惑乱 分からん 22:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, does this have something to do with Snakes On A Plane? In that case, I guess an official dub will be released soon, or has already been released... ;) 惑乱 分からん 22:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am quite certain there will no dub in Dutch. Flemings and Dutch people should take pride in being subtitle-people (at least I am proud). The idea of a dub in Dutch ...yes it even slightly offends me :).Evilbu 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, of course... It's the same situation in Scandinavia. 惑乱 分からん 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

'Snake' may mean something other than the animal here, I don't know. But how do you translate 'motherfucking'? I can't imagine many other languages have a literal equivalent because it's so incredibly rude. In just anbout any culture on of the worst insults must be to insult someone's mother and a good way to do that is to refer to her sexuality (as in the Spanish 'hijo de puta'). Btw, a possibly worse one, though in diguise, is 'son of a bitch'. Anyway, being very rude also works with a reference to God. In Dutch a possibility is 'godvergeven gluiperd', which means something like 'godforgiven sneaky guy'. The Dutch word for 'snake' is 'slang' (with a short 'ah'), but that probably doesn't have the same meaning. What does 'snake' mean here? DirkvdM 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean godvergeten? --Lambiam^Talk 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That not only makes more sense literally ('godforgotten'), but is also the correct word. But 'godvergeven' is also used a lot. DirkvdM 06:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Snake" in this context means "snake". --Lambiam^Talk 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

According to my Dutch informants, you can use "kutslang", as in: "Ik ben die kutslangen in dit kutvliegtuig helemaal zat!". --Lambiam^Talk 10:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lit. "I am completely sated with these arsehole-snakes on this arsehole-plane", I think... ;) 惑乱 分からん 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that "kut" is a different hole, with which only half of humanity is endowed. --Lambiam^Talk 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure? Maybe I mixed up kut and kont, then... @_@ 惑乱 分からん 19:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"kont" is Dutch for "buttocks", I don't think it is often used for the anus, the hole through which fecal matter passes, itself.Evilbu 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A literal Dutch translation for "motherfucking snake" would be "moederneukende slang".

In German that would be 'mutterfickende Schlange'. Or 'mutterbumsende Schlange'. DirkvdM 05:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it as the other suggestions... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But would any native speaker ever say that, unless they were joking? 惑乱 分からん 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not unless they had a real(ly) fucked up motherfuckin' snake.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The joke might be the bad translation of the English word 'motherfucking', but the 'snake' bit would ruin that a bit because people would wonder what that is about. DirkvdM 06:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

September 4

Pauses within pauses

Are there any rules governing the use of pauses within pauses, like for example:

blah blah blah -- yada yada yada; woot woot -- blah blah.

--Impaciente 05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the answer, because it will explain the question to me. ---Sluzzelin 10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that there are rules concerning such things - style guides will vary. I can't think of a sentence in which you would actually use such a construction anyway. —Daniel (‽) 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even give him a chance to speak—the last time I saw him, he said, "Eat beans, fart bag!"—though I wonder if I should have. Does that answer your question?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"A parenthesis is a convenient device, but a writer indulges his own convenience at the expense of his readers' if his parenthesis is so long that a reader, when he comes to the end of it, has little chance of remembering where he was when it began." H. W. Fowler. MeltBanana 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a writer use a three-level deep nesting of parentheses, but for jocular effect. I can't remember the instance, but something like: "Our villain, whose father (if it was his father, but in any case the husband of his mother (if his mother was indeed his mother)) was also a villain ...". (That was only two levels.) If you use dashes here to offset the parentheses, it becomes hard to decipher: "Our villain, whose father – if it was his father, but in any case the husband of his mother – if his mother was indeed his mother – – was also a villain ...".  --Lambiam^Talk 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I read a similar Swedish cartoon once. The speaker was jumping back and forth between the different levels and it was barely intelligible. 惑乱 分からん 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

French: "de manière à ce que" vs. "pour que"

In French, what is the difference between:

• de manière à ce que
• pour que

Perhaps to make it more concrete, I was doing the following exercise where I had to fill in the blanks. I put "pour que" but the answers say it should be "de manière à ce que". Why is "de manière à ce que" better?

Les aiguilleurs du ciel suspendront leur mouvement de grève pour le weekend ....... le retour des vacances de Pâques se fasse normalement.

Thanks! Rugops 14:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the first one fits better in this sentence because the auguilleurs are about to perform a motion. My French is bad, but my instinct says "pour que" would mean "because" or "because of", not "in order to". Hopefully, some true Francophone would come up with a better explanation. 惑乱 分からん 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pour que" implies intention. In the sentence above it would mean that the controllers interrupted their strike with the intention of letting Easter traffic return home normally. "De manière à ce que" does not imply intention, merely causality. It just means that they suspended the strike in a fashion that allowed the traffic to run normally.---Sluzzelin 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Which means that you can't fill in the blanks like "they" want you to unless you have additional knowledge. How should one fill in the blanks in "The air controllers will suspend their strike over the weekend ... the return from the Easter weekend will proceed normally", with a choice between "so that" and "in order that"? --Lambiam^Talk 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Astute, as usual! ---Sluzzelin 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the formulation awful. "afin que le retour", or "de manière à faciliter le retour" should be enough. Frech people discovered "à ce que" quite recently and use it sometimes well, but it occurs (recurs frequently) badly, e.g. : "attendez à ce que" instead of "attendez que" (wait for). -- DLL ^{.. T} 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"ça bouge"

I noticed alongside the motorway in Belgium some safety posters warning that children move, so to beware when driving. However I don't understand the way the French is written. The English translation is I'm pretty sure something like: "Children, they move (about)". However the French says, "Les enfants, ça bouge!". Now, why does it not say "Les enfants, ils bougent?". Why does it use "ça" rather than "ils"? Why is "bouge" in the singular? My guess is that it is a sort of poetic way of saying children as a grouped object. Mais vous les francophones, qu'est-ce que vous en pensez?

Thanks, Rugops 14:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, "bouge" is in the singular, because its "ça", but I'm not sure that it even refers to the children. 惑乱 分からん 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ça bouge, ça roule, ça joue. Maybe it's referring to a national exercise campaign sponsored by Danone (with Zizou as their spokesperson). Their slogan is "Faut que ça bouge" ("You gotta move") and is directed at children and teachers. ---Sluzzelin 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By itself "ça bouge!" is an idiomatic expression, having a positive connotation, like "that swings!", or "it's very much alive!". An English campaign on not leaving kids in overheated cars might use: "Kids, that's cool!", where the verb is also singular. You wouldn't say: "Kids, they are cool!". --Lambiam^Talk 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I would. Quite often they are cool, although there's always exceptions. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I approve Lambian's word, and I would add something about the singular found in English for flock/herd : in the posters, children (les enfants) is really plural but still conveys a collective sense, something like "youth". Is it a little more clear ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a campaign in Montréal that went ça bouge au centre-ville (it's cool in downtown?). Anyway, I ran into this kind of construction in Le Déclin de l'empire américain. The guy was annoyed by all the discussion and one of the women said "les intellectuels, ça parle !" The English subtitles said something to the effect of "intellectuals love to talk." From what I gather, this type of construction refers to something habitual. You may also want to check out the lyrics to the show Un gars, une fille on this site - it's used extensively there. --Chris S. 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good noon?

If there'ssuch a thing as good morning, good afternoon, goo evening, and good night, is there such a thing as "good noon"?

No. Though there is "good day". Rugops 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And "good night" is not a greeting like "good morning". It is an expression of farewell, like "goodbye". --Lambiam^Talk 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When would you need to say "good noon"? At exactly midday? It's not a fixed phrase. -- the GREAT Gavini 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In English, noon is considered a point in time, not a part of the day. Greetings are only for parts of the day.--Cam 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I want to greet someone around noon, like when entering a store, but I'm uncertain whether the transition happened already: my watch says 11:57, but the store clock has 12.05. It would be useful for such occasions to have the expression "good noon", so as not to have to resort to "Hello love!" or worse. --Lambiam^Talk 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with just, "Hello"? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, jokingly, when it was 12:05 or something. Technically, you should just switch from "good morning" to "good afternoon" as soon as it strikes twelve, but it doesn't really feel like afternoon at 12:05. In any case, the phrase could only be interpreted as a joke, unless you are obviously not a native English speaker, in which case it would most likely be seen as a mistake. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fond of "good morning or whatever". --π! 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Good morning" and "Good afternoon" are short for "Have a good morning" and "Have a good afternoon". So, even if it's still a.m., there's nothing wrong with saying "Good afternoon", particularly if there's so little left of the morning that wishing the person well for that tiny amount of time would seem ludicrous. They may already have had a crappy morning, so hoping their afternoon turns out to be better is always a positive. JackofOz 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And if you just can't be bothered working it out, try "Good day", or in Aussie-speak, "G'day". That covers all the bases. JackofOz 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, if "good morning" is short for "have a good morning" then why is it a greeting? It's possible to use such phrases as a farewell, but it feels archaic. "Good day." "Please sir, could you, perhaps, reconsider?" "I said good day!"AEuSoes1 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it making much sense unless it stands for "have a good morning". But maybe sense doesn't come into it. JackofOz 10:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As a native speaker of American English, I'd say that "good afternoon" is formal and not very often used. "Good morning" is used more often, but usually fairly early in the morning, especially upon running into a person that you see nearly every day, such as a family member or coworker, for the first time that day. "Good evening" is also fairly formal and not so often used. "Good night" is used a little more often, but usually between family members, close friends, or intimates at the end of the evening before going to bed or (if already both in bed) to sleep. In other settings, in the United States, people just say "hi" or "hello" or use a slang greeting, like "hey" or "wassup". Marco polo 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek vowels

I've been studying Ancient Greek for a few days and have found it to be fairly easy, phonologically speaking, with the exception of the pronunciation of certain vowels. What exactly is the difference between η and ε and o and ω? Is it a matter purely of length? Bhumiya (said/done) 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This page has the various phonetic values in IPA for each of the letters you mentioned. They are indeed different: η is /ɛː/, ε is /e/; ο is /o/, ω is /ɔː/ . -- the GREAT Gavini 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although I still see very little difference between the two O's. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The first is a little like the "o" in hope; the second is like the "o" in doll. Sort of. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And the "o" from doll is lengthened (which is important if you're reading hexameters and such). The truth of the matter is, however: (i) We can only guess how the sounds were pronounced, and while the guess is not entirely uninformed, we can't be really sure that, say, η has not the value of /æː/, or ω of /oː/; (ii) "Ancient Greek" is a collection of dialects, and different dialects must have had different vowel values – sometimes reflected in writing, like a (presumably long) α where Attic has η, but possibly often without change of spelling. --Lambiam^Talk 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See IPA chart for English. There is, of course, going to be difficulty learning vowels of another language but that might help you understand the symbols. Most dialects of English don't have a pure /o/ and /ɔ/ only occurs in American English before /r/. AEuSoes1 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. This has been very helpful. I realize the phonology of Ancient Greek is a matter of interpretation and reconstruction, but I just want to be on the same page as a well-informed philologist of Greek. I'm learning it mostly so I can read Greek literature, but it wouldn't hurt to be able to pronounce it intelligently, and I'm curious anyway. Poetry demands recitation. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Learning a foreign language

Hi

I am frm Delhi,India) doing my CA(PE-2) n B.Com(hons.)2nd yr..(frm a regular collg).

I'd like to ask that which foreign language, i.e. french, german, russian r ny othr wd b worth learning for me.. n how can i proceed towards doin' the same.

Also, lemme know if such learnin' can b done online through some websites or e-newsletters etc. and how much time will it take to learn a lang.

An early reply'd b appreciated..

Thanks..

User:Geetika007 [e-mail removed]

Well...French would be a useful language to learn, considering it's widely spoken and fairly simple to learn. french.about or ielang.com would be good places to start. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

French... simple... can those words be used in the same sentence? --π! 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Every language is incredibly complex, so they're about the same in simplicity. So it follows that French is just as simple as English. --Kjoonlee 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Toki Pona is simple, albeit useless... ;) 惑乱 分からん 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If people actually started using it, I'm sure it will grow complex just like pidgins and creoles do. ;) --Kjoonlee 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Sonja Elen Kisa. She'd have need to enforce language regulation to protect the speakers from communicating. She'd already have unleashed a monster by slipping out the ability to use the word for hand/arm for the secondary meaning of five. @_@ 惑乱 分からん 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(After Edit Conflict) My first impression is that you should start by learning English spelling... =S Otherwise, If it would be worth the effort to learn another language is a question you probably are better equipped to answer, yourself. 惑乱 分からん 19:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure he's just trying to be informal through his spelling. But you're right - he's probably better equipped to answer himself. -- the GREAT Gavini 19:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The question didn't sound too serious. If someone seems to completely lack any particular interest in the culture, poetry and people associated with a certain language, I'd absolutely doubt he or she could maintain enough motivation to learn it to any useful level. My impression is that Geetika007 has begun at the wrong end. Otherwise, any of the languages mentioned could clearly be useful for a various number of reasons. 惑乱 分からん 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Gulbenkian

Hi dear Mr>Gulbenkian

I am Meganush Boghosiam, i am armenian from Iran.

i want to ask u about your foundation educational helps likes scolarships or other educational helps.

please answer me. thank you.

Who is Mr. Gulbenkian, and why do you think you'll get an answer from him, here? 惑乱 分からん 20:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Calouste_Gulbenkian is an article about an Armenian called Gulbenkian, but he is long dead.

So, that would mean that the best bet to get in touch is possibly a séance? 惑乱 分からん 20:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And he has a foundation, reinforcing the hypothesis that the late Mr. Calouste Sarkis Gulbenkian is the intended addressee. --Lambiam^Talk 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Meganush, please forward the question to the foundation's official website: http://www.gulbenkian.org/english/main.asp , and excuse my earlier irony... 惑乱 分からん 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All in favour of nominating Mr. Gulbenkian to be used as the official name of the omniscient being that is so frequently addressed as "dear sir" on the reference desk raise your pipes.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

*pipes under the table* -- the GREAT Gavini 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. — Jéioosh 23:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for Gulbenkian ? StuRat 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little busy right now. - Gulbenkian.

Anyone else think this would just be another cliquey in-joke that could put new-comers and nervous English-as-a-second-language questioners off? Skittle 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

September 5

You're welcome or your welcome?

Which is correct? It seems to me that "you're welcome" meaning "you are welcome" is correct, but what do others think? I actually see more "your welcomes" written than "you're welcomes." What do you use? Which is more correct? Thanks in advance. --Proficient 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"You're welcome" is correct. "Your welcome" is plain wrong in the usual context, but this is more often spoken than written.--Shantavira 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're going to see more of your welcome simply because it's the easier of the two. Of course, I've seen people using they're when they meant their or there which is more work in addition to being wrong. AEuSoes1 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Guest: "Your welcome was much appreciated".

Host: "You're welcome".

We see similar confusion between "to", "too" and "two"; and between "affect" and "effect". Not to mention "its" and "it's" (eh, StuRat). JackofOz 06:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That isn't confusion, I reject the rule. If "Bob's" means "belonging to Bob", then "it's" SHOULD mean "belonging to it". StuRat 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconding the above: a surprisingly large proportion of native English speakers misuse apostrophes. Durova 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(Just to confuse matters) you could say 'thankyou for your welcome' ('your' meaning 'that belonged to you').

(Although some people object to 'thankyou' and insist on 'thank you'. I don't mind 'thankyou' - I see it much more than 'thank you', but I don't like 'alright' for 'all right'. That had nothing to do with your original Q btw, I just like the look of my own typing.)

We say 'you're' because, as you say, it's a contraction of 'you are'. Rentwa 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Google counts 10'900'000 hits for "you're welcome" and 4'280'000 hits for "your welcome". Of course "Your welcome" includes phrases such as "Improve Your Welcome Message" or "Your welcome party is a not-to-be-missed event" etc. The first "your welcome" on google's list discusses the spelling; it is used intentionally and correctly here too. So the actual count of wrongly used 'your welcome' hits is probably less than 4 million. I guess it depends on what you read, but I don't think you generally see more "your welcomes" than "you're welcomes". Still, 4 million is frightening enough. ---Sluzzelin 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For something really scary: "Thank you. You're welcome." gets about 21,800 Google hits. "Thank you. Your welcome." gets about 535,000 Google hits. --Lambiam^Talk 09:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that is scary. A ratio of 1:25! I guess Proficient's observations can be generalized after all.---Sluzzelin 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what is the most misspelled word on the Internet. From where I sit, Google.co.uk suddenly looks different and seems to have stopped counting hits, and I can't get Google.com. Is this an upgrade perhaps?--Shantavira 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Both worked fine for me just now. --Lambiam^Talk 09:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't rely on Google for correct spelling. The internet is a place that has a surprising large population of users that can't spell correctly, probably due to sms/texting shorthand. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but, by definition, whichever spelling is most often used is the correct spelling (or, at least, one correct spelling). StuRat 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The day a dictionary lists "your", "you're" and "yore" as acceptable alternatives for each other, I'll quit the language business and go and do something worthwhile. Your philosophy (or maybe I should now say "You're philosophy ...") is a vote for the dumbing down of the language and a net decrease in humanity's knowledge of itself and its roots. JackofOz 04:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you really mean that? I agree that any literate person ought to wince at "your welcome" and "thankyou", but if language can indeed be "dumbed down" and thereby alienate its speakers from intelligence itself, we must be a hell of a lot stupider than the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who incidentally couldn't read or write. We lost declension. We're down to depending on word order! Looking at the big picture, we appear to be speaking a pretty "dumbed-down" language, wouldn't you say? I doubt that the transformation of "you're welcome" (itself a drunkenly slurred bastardization of "you are welcome") into "your welcome" would strike a speaker of Latin or Sanskrit as a meaningful downturn in linguistic integrity. "The shitty language doesn't even have gender, and this they're ashamed of." Language change is inevitable. It's awkward and inconvenient, but it's usually slow enough to maintain continuity in time, and it certainly doesn't mean that everyone will become stupid. That's just silly. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly meant the basic thrust of what I said, particularly the last bit about losing knowledge of our roots. I've read your post a number of times, but I can't discern the essence of what you're saying. You say literate people should wince at "your welcome", but later argue that we have no option but accept change. That confuses me. Are you arguing for acceptance, or for resistance? I never said that everyone will become stupid, but we do stand to lose our cultural memory, in the long term. Again, you might argue that that is inevitable too, so why fight it. I understand perfectly well that language changes, and that is a healthy thing. I don't oppose that concept. What I do oppose is the attitude that says confusing a "verb-adjective" construction ("you're welcome") with an "adjective-noun" construction ("your welcome") is somehow okay. And what I do oppose is the education system that obviously no longer provides the first-principles-based skills to understand the difference between them. To a linguist, confusing different parts of speech is as disastrous as confusing carbon with sulphur would be to a chemist, or confusing bricks with steel would be to a builder, or confusing rhythm with melody would be to a musician, or confusing prime numbers with differential equations would be to a mathematician. If that's not dumbing down, what is? JackofOz 11:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear my comments on the Google search have been misinterpreted, so I will attempt to clarify:

• A spelling or usage which is most common on Google is likely to be correct, because, while many people make errors in spellings or word usage, I don't believe that the majority typically do. An example would be "their" (7.49 billion) vs. "thier" (25.3 million).

• Also, once a neologism gets more hits than the original word or usage, then it should be taken as one acceptable form of the word. An example would be "blog" (2.88 billion) vs. "weblog" (431 million).

• I did not, however, mean to say that something which is demonstrably wrong, but still has the majority of hits, should be accepted as correct. For example "could care less" (4.27 million) vs. "couldn't care less" (2.17 million). This is quite a rare occurrence, however, where the majority uses a word or phrase incorrectly, and I acknowledge that I did not account for this exception in my original statement. StuRat 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I need to know how to pronouce the firm "Neuberger Berman"

If it's in German, something like NOY-berr-gerr BERR-mun, I'd guess... 惑乱 分からん 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The IPA would be something like /'nɔɪbɛʁgɐ 'bɛʁmən/. -- the GREAT Gavini 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

eu represents /ɔy/ in standard German, not /ɔɪ/. AEuSoes1 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To be exact, apparently /ɔ͡ʏ/. 惑乱 分からん 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange, considering the IPA for neu is /nɔɪ/ at de.wikitionary... -- the GREAT Gavini 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neuberger Berman and its founders are US-American. I'd pronounce it "Newburger Burman".---Sluzzelin 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd just call up the company and (after about twelve circles of voice mail hell) see how a receptionist actually answers the telephone. Some German names retain their original pronunciation in the States, but I wouldn't be surprised if this has shifted. Durova 18:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a possibility I hadn't considered... -- the GREAT Gavini 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

translation into Greek

Hi, I'm looking for the greek translations of "our world" and "one world".

Thanks, Deb

In Modern Greek "our world" = ο κόσμος μας and "one world " = ένα κόσμος. Disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker. --Lambiam^Talk 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(After Edit Conflict) Would you like Ancient or Modern Greek? 惑乱 分からん 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In doubt about the correctness of two Latin sentences.

Hello,

on a forum there was a topic about Latin.

However, there was some doubt :

1. "Who will put himself on this"(="Who will add here") (we were talking about a list of people who had taken some Latin)

Now the proposed translation was "Quis ad hic addent?". I proposed "Quis ad hoc se addet?"or... maybe simply "Quis ad hoc addet?" is better?

Quis hic (nominem suum) addit? (Latin isn't my mother tongue though)---Sluzzelin 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so "Quis hic (nominem suum) addet?" for the simple future? But now you are not using "ad" anymore and you use "hic" as adverb instead of pronoun. Is there something wrong with "ad hoc", when saying "right here, at this" without "this" being a pronoun, simply THIS.Evilbu 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Which of these sentences is correct : "Nos omnes moribundi summus?" or "Nos omnes moribundi sumus"? I'd go for the last one (I make sense with that "nos")... or is it possible the adjective summus could be used here after all?

Thank you very much,Evilbu 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for the last one, 'sumus'/'we are', too. I don't think the adjective summus fits here, especially not in its singular form.---Sluzzelin 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Apponere" might be a better verb here, I don't think "addere" has that sense in Latin. "Quis ad hunc (indicem I guess) se apponet?" You can't say "ad hic", although maybe you could say "quis hic se apponet" (so "hic" means "here", not "this"). Perhaps "apud" might be better than "ad" (but it also takes the accusative). By the way, the accusative of "nomen" is also "nomen" - it's neuter. For the second one, "sumus" is the first person plural form of "esse", which is presumably what you want ("summus" means "highest"). What are you trying to say though? "We are all dying?" Like, you are sick and about to die? Maybe "nos omnes morituri sumus" would work but that probably also implies an imminent death. Adam Bishop 23:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hic as an adverb means "here", but this word can also be a masculine demonstrative pronoun meaning "this" (hic, haec, hoc). Moribundus can also be used in the sense of "mortal"; Vergil has used it that way. The futurus does not necessarily have a sense of imminence; the context can determine a wider time frame, like that something will happen at the end times – you can't get much more respite than that. --Lambiam^Talk 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi..Question about a Scripture on a necklace..

hi there.. my name is Lynn,

i've recently purchased a necklace that is very old. on the back, there is a writing and a pictorial-like image above that. i, for the life of me, have had no luck in trying to translate this. although i've ruled out tibetan, hindu and similar scriptures like that. ANY info would be sooo greatly appreciated! im totally stumped on this one. the only thing i do know is i cant wear the necklace because i have trouble with accidents (such as flat tires, car stallings, locking in keys, bad equalibrium, etc.) the necklace was purchased with the notion SOMETHING was up with it.. i didnt know it brought such bad luck though. so maybe the script on the back can give me some insight about this little treasure ive acquired... the link where i put the photos has been added at the bottom of this page...

thank you soo much, lynn sheridan

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/astrally_visible/album?.dir=/b012re2

Maybe Thai. The art certainly looks Thai-ish. I can’t read Thai at all, though. It could also be one of the other Pallava-derived scripts. See Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic for more details. — Jéioosh 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Looks like Hebrew to me. But it's really hard to tell from those photos/that particular engraving. Rueckk 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for Hebrew as I can recognize some Hebrew letters quite clearly in the second photo. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Hebrew, but the only word I can make out is the last one ("עול" - it appears to mean "evil" or some related concept). --π! 00:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur that it's Hebrew. It's extremely difficult to read. The letters look like they were badly formed to start with and (if this is a very old necklace, as you say) they've probably eroded slightly over time, too. I suggest you do a rubbing of the necklace, as this may give a much clearer impression than a photograph (it also gets rid of shadow problems). If you, please post an image of the rubbing. One other, less palatable thought is that it may be a pseudo-old necklace written in pseudo-Hebrew. I've seen items like that, where the "Hebrew" has been written by someone who's simply copying letters he likes the look of in a fairly random way (i.e. "art") and because he's unfamiliar with the script, inadvertently makes errors. On balance, given what you've said and what I've seen so far, I'm still inclined to think you've got a "real deal" Hebrew item; it's just dang difficult to read. --Dweller 09:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Postscript: For the sake of accuracy, it's worth pointing out until the text is actually read and understood, all that can be said is that it is using Hebrew script, not that the language is Hebrew. Languages commonly written in Hebrew letters include Yiddish and Aramaic and just about any other language can be less transliterated into Hebrew letters, much as can be done with Hebrew, Russian, Thai (etc) into English. --Dweller 09:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

September 6

Being Annoyed

One of the above questions about your/you're welcome made me remember something that happens quite often: if there is a grammatical error somewhere in public, it really bugs me. A lot. One specific instance is when a sign said said, "please fill out YOURE papers and sit until YOUR ready" There wasn't any apostrophe in that sentence. It bugged me so much, I took out a sharpie and changed it, and I was asked to leave. I did feel better afterwards, though. What's wrong with me. Some kind of OCD or something? schyler 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I regularly amend restaurant menus, shop signs etc that perpetrate atrocities like this. Lynne Truss, in her wonderful book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves", advocates that people do exactly this. Some sins are simply unforgiveable and they deserve whatever correction they get. Apostrophe power forever! JackofOz 03:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The checkout lane sign that says "10 items or less" is a common offender, which should properly say "10 items, or fewer". StuRat 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that you're being overly proper. "10 items or less" is short for "10 items or less than 10 items." Proper spelling is one thing, but I will not stand idly by and watch a prescriptivist correct a signmaker on word usage. AEuSoes1 05:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no - "less than 10 items" is incorrect. StuRat is right. As for the first post in this thread, it is of course not just the lack of apostrophes in the sentence that is wrong, but the fact that 'your' and 'you're' are the wrong way around. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"10 kilograms or less" would be correct.~ Edison

• Correct. For integers, the word is "fewer" ("fewer coffee beans"), while for real numbers, the word is "less" ("less coffee"). This is quite an oddity in English, especially considering that "more" works for both integers and real numbers. StuRat 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In Belgium they've got maximum speed signs that read '60 km'. People shortening units to other units is irritating enough, but to do that on an official sign ... DirkvdM 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, you said in answer to an earlier question today that "by definition, whichever spelling is most often used is the correct spelling (or, at least, one correct spelling)." I took you to mean that, with spelling, two wrongs don't make a right, but a million wrongs eventually do. Applying that same argument to grammar, if most supermarkets use the "10 items or less" words, that common usage would by definition make it correct. But now, you’re saying it's wrong, because of an oddity with the English language which we must respect. Why do you support that oddity, when you refuse to support other oddities, eg. you insist on spelling both the possessive "its" and the abbreviation "it's" with an apostrophe, your argument being that you're supported by logic, which apparently takes precedence over "correctness". Can you explain why it's ok to make up your own logic-based rules about some things, but remind others of the commonly agreed rules about other things even when they're not very logical? JackofOz 06:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If I believed that they knew the proper word was "fewer", yet choose to use the word "less", in an intentional effort to change this odd grammatical practice, then I would have some sympathy for the attempt. However, I'm quite sure they're just morons who don't know the current grammar rules, and that annoys me. To summarize: "rebellion I like, ignorance I hate". StuRat 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but people who use 'your' for 'you're' do so out of ignorance. Your position is untenable. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How so, I don't support the confusion of "less" with "fewer", out of ignorance, and neither do I support the confusion of "your" and "you're", out of ignorance. In the case of "your" and "you're", I don't even see any logical argument that could be made for swapping the two. StuRat 12:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Spot on, Richardrj.

Stu, doesn't that undermine your "By definition, whichever spelling is most often used is the correct spelling (or, at least, one correct spelling)" comment. "You're" is slowly being morphed into "your", not out of anything but pure ignorance. You seem to think that's fine. What's different about "fewer" vs. "less"? Why does ignorance of the rules in one circumstance attract your support, but in another, attract not only your opposition but your judgment of the individuals involved, whom you label "morons"? Why do you reserve your invective for the victims of ignorance rather than for the hopeless education system they had to endure? JackofOz 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's fine. My comments on the use of Google hits have been misinterpreted. See the section where I first made the comment on Google hits for a clarification. StuRat 12:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread is dangerously close to violating WP:CIVIL. Please be careful and try to lower the temperature here. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is ? Nobody has even questioned my parent's marital status at the time of my birth yet, or suggested that I perform a physically impossible sex act upon myself. StuRat 12:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

David Crystal is promoting his new book which calls Truss's approach elitist and pedantic; but then he did say to Truss punctuation books don't sell. Im with David on this and find your annoyance annoying. MeltBanana 13:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

finding out a word for similar words

the words would sound the same, but they have a different spelling and meaning. examples: tow/toe, knew/new, blue/blew etc... could someone please inform me of what the word is for this example? Thanks!

That would be a homophone. JackofOz 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I could add a comment here about Jack's telephone, but I'm far too polite for that. :-) StuRat 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I take this as a sign of your great personal respect and trust of me, which is perfectly understandable. JackofOz 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a slightly confusing area. Wiktionary contains an excellent chart explaining the differences between words like homophone, homonym and homograph.

Different Meanings table
.	Same spelling	Different spelling
Same sound	Homonyms Homographs	Homophones (cat) Homonyms
Different sound	Heteronyms (cat) Homonyms Homographs

Hope that helps further. --Dweller 10:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

word usgin

using word to a friend, he said it was icorrect but a dictionarry tells us using it is very correct who is being ight? sorr y for english usage! Jasbutal 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please restate the word. I have not heard of an English word "usgin." Edison 05:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

don't patrozine me. Jasbutal 06:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

When you spell "patronize" wrong, it's very hard not to. Otherwise, I would trust the dictionary more than your friend, but I'd like more information about the word you're speaking about. 惑乱 分からん 13:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jasbutal, we don't understand your question. Are you asking about whether the word using is correct English? (It is.) Can you give us a sentence with the word in context, so we can say whether it is correct? Philbert^2.71828 06:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you can assume your dictionary is correct; and your spelling looks just fine in your other contributions, so hopefully this is only a temporary lapse.--Shantavira 07:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the word "using" is entirely acceptable if you're using it correctly. --Dweller 09:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes dictionaries contain mistakes, but generally I'd trust the dictionary more than my (or your) friend. If you tell us what the word is, we might be able to say more about it. --Lambiam^Talk 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

use of question mark in compound sentences

Can anyone tell me how to punctuate the following sentence: "Can someone lend me a pencil, because I've lost mine." Should it end with a question mark, because it is interrogative, or a full stop because the last clause is a statement? The Mad Echidna 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

full stop according to my MLA guide 70.225.173.251 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to say, "Can someone lend me a pencil? I've lost mine." Treating "because I've lost mine" as a statement is a bit dubious, so a full stop would be questionable at the end of the sentence as written. Philbert^2.71828 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article (and what I've heard on occasion over the years):

It can also be used mid-sentence to mark a merely interrogative phrase, where it functions similarly to a comma, such as in the single sentence "Where shall we go? and what shall we do?", but this usage is increasingly rare.

...which hints that "Can someone lend me a pencil? because I've lost mine." would be appropriate punctuation. I don't think it needs to be said that this is purely colloquial and would never be acceptable as written prose.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Would this be correct: "Can someone lend me a pencil (because I've lost mine)?" ? This is a double question - about the rephrasing of Echidn's phrase and about the way I wrote the question.

Note that this would never be a problem in real life, though, because punctuation only matters in writing and what would you be writing with then? :) DirkvdM 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Freshgavin's this is purely colloquial and would never be acceptable as written prose. Maybe not in some contexts, but for a play or a film something like this could very well turn up. Most characters in movies don't speak like English professors, but like real people. How would they punctuate it in the script? JackofOz 07:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

However they like, because most actors aren't idiots. :) What about reported speech, as in a novel? "Can someone lend me a pencil? I've lost mine." is an elegant solution.... but it doesn't answer my fellow madman's question, which is specifically about how to punctuate a single sentence in its compound form. I would have thought that the answer was "Can someone lend me a pencil, because I've lost mine?" But I could be completely wrong. However, I'm quite sure (?) that using a question mark mid-sentence is absolutely wrong. Morally. TheMadBaron 12:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This type of error, where a person adds an afterthought to a complete sentence, while not grammatically correct, is quite common. I suggest writing it as "Can someone lend me a pencil ? ... because I've lost mine" to emphasize the afterthought nature of the addition. StuRat 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Question marks were formerly acceptable in the middle of a sentence, and still may be, in rare cases. For example "Do you have any ham ? beef ? chicken ?". It would be better to write this as "Do you have any ham, beef, or chicken ?", but this form doesn't reflect that the items are being asked about individually, rather than collectively. An answer to the first question might be "Yes, yes, and no" while the answer to the second question would just be "Yes". StuRat 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Still confused about French consonant followed by vowel

Hello,

I have made a topic about this earlier (which I couldn't find anymore, which is weird) but I still don't get it. (Mostly due to having learnt this language from books)

1.Ils ont un ami.

2.Ils sont amoureux.

3.On travaille.

4.En travaillant...

5.Ils aident un ami.

6.J'étais amoureux.

7.Il était amoureux.

8.Ca plaît aux jeux.

9.Je finis un devoir.

Do you have to pronounce those consonants in bold?

I am using this site to learn more, but I don't know whether or not I can trust it at all times : [3]

If there is any good place on the internet, or an article, or whatever, that addresses this issue so I can get over with it once and for all I will be very happy. Thanks,Evilbu 11:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The answers can be found in Liaison (linguistics). I do remember the question being asked and this answer being given before, relatively recently, but, oddly, there was no Reference-desk page in the "What links here" for Liaison. --Lambiam^Talk 11:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly wouldn't pronounce the 'n' in your third and fourth examples, nor the 't' in the fifth. Most of the others, I would be tempted to pronounce, but I might be wrong. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember there being a difference in the pronunciation of the 't's in 1 and 2, but I can't remember which is which. Skittle 12:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a difference between 6 and 7?Evilbu 13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that such verb endings are ordinarily liasoned except in inverted questions, where the "t" has become a sort of independent question transition element (e.g. Y a-t-il? etc. etc.). AnonMoos 14:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In On travaille and En travaillant, there is no liaison because the second word does not start with a vowel. Both on and en are pronounced as a single nasalized vowel here. Although the n is not sounded as a consonant, its influence is heard. --Lambiam^Talk 12:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Normaly there are strict rules which state when you can or not pronunce a liaison. But don't worry, it is so complex that except purists nobody know them, so it will depend on each person. Spontaneously here's how i would pronouce thoses sentences. The sign - show when I would pronunce the liaison

1.Ils - ont (none here) un - ami, but I would say "ils sont - amis"

2.Ils sont - amoureux.

3.On travaille.

4.En travaillant...

5.Ils - aident un ami.

6.J'étais - amoureux.

7.Il était - amoureux.

8.Ca plaît aux jeux. (this sentence doesn't mean anything ?)

9.Je finis un devoir.

The pronunciation of the s liaison is always "z" ils -z- ont un -n- ami

word meaning

i want to ask about the linguists ideas for 'directing' and maintaining' words. i got difficulties for my thesis. please send me the meaning of that words. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.209.20 (talk • contribs)

It is not clear to me what you are asking. Is it that you want to know the meaning of the words "directing" and "maintaining"? They are derived forms of the verbs "to direct" and "to maintain". For such "-ing" forms, see Gerund and Participle. For the meaning of the verbs, try for example http://dictionary.reference.com/. You can also use Google to see how the words are used in context. --Lambiam^Talk 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have a question about some particular usage of words, but we'd need some clarification and explanation to understand what you're talking about... 惑乱 分からん 13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He probably means language planning... AnonMoos 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

differeces between "laugh" and "laughter"

220.20.35.13 13:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)What are the differences between "laugh" and "laughter"?

I know laughter is a noun, but laugh is also used as a noun.

Is it OK to say "Laughter is good for your health"?

If this is OK, how about "Laugh is good for your health"?

Thanks in advance,

taked4700

'Laughter' is more abstract as a noun in general.

'Laughter is good for your health' is correct, 'laugh..' is not.

'A laugh is...' would be grammatically (sp?) correct, but isn't an expression. Rentwa 13:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "laughter" could be used as a mass noun, while "laugh" has to be marked either in singular or plural. ("one laugh", "a laugh") 惑乱 分からん 13:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. "This one gave me a good laugh!" is quite idiomatic. "Laughter" is wrong here. You could say that "laugh" is a countable noun, whereas "laughter" is a mass noun. A further difference is that "laugh" can also be used to refer to the object of derision. --Lambiam^Talk 13:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, "laughing is good for your health" is fine, and in fact might be preferable to "laughter", especially in spoken English. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"At the coal face"

What does this phrase mean?

It means close to the centre of the action, as opposed to being on the outside. Someone who is "at the coal face" of an activity is personally involved in doing that activity. It is derived from coal mining. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

crossword help

roman general who fought the volsci(10)

Coriolanus. --Lambiam^Talk 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

one who doesnt belong (or is'nt fancied)(8)

outsider. --Lambiam^Talk 15:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If they aren't fancied to win something, then maybe underdog... -- the GREAT Gavini 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

last part of race (course)(4-7) home stretch --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

biscuit-banger-brilliant one (7) cracker --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

moving target (4-6) clay pigeon --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

small bit (of comfort)(5) crumb --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

burns county (8) Ayrshire --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

say out and out (5) state? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)it cant be state (v_t_r)Mightright 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

flat -consistent-plausible (6) smooth --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

formal gathering (8) assembly --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

only just-not quite(6)

almost? --Lambiam^Talk 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC) or nearly--Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

or barely? -- the GREAT Gavini 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

here is the pattern (h_R___) environmentally sound (5) green --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

or clean... -- the GREAT Gavini 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(repulsive-looking) fruit (4)Mightright 15:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ugli. --Lambiam^Talk 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

tnanx for your help dudes and dudettesMightright 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)