Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

WP:RD/L C #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #00f #000 #00f language Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Language WP:RD/L

Welcome to the language reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia     How can I get my question answered? Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right). Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question. Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here. Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context. Note: We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point. We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need. Ready? Ask a new question! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual   skip to bottom

December 12

A general comment and suggestion

As I have noticed in WP articles and entrees (by the way, does WP have an alphabetical list of entrees?) proper nouns, mostly persons and places, do not have phonetic representation (and this is a common negative feature in many encyclopedia); i.e. you cannot know how such names as Bagehot (Eng.), Chantilly (Fr.), Feuerbach (Ger.), Guerrazzi (It.) and Xerxes (Gr. from Per.) are pronounced by their native users. If anyone on the WP Language Reference Desk tries to provide this phonetic equivalent for entrees related to his/her mother tongue, it will be an achievement for both WP and its users. Please let me know what you think. --Omidinist (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

An alphabetical list of all pages on Wikipedia can be found at Special:Allpages.

Wikipedia uses the International Phonetic Alphabet for pronunciation guides. A couple of the articles you listed - Walter Bagehot and Xerxes I of Persia - do indeed have IPA pronunciations listed. It would be nice if all articles on foreign or obscure names or words had IPA pronunciation guides, but they unfortunately can only appear if someone adds them - if you're familiar with IPA and would like to add some that would certainly be appreciated. If there are any specific articles you wish to have an IPA guide added to, please list them here, and it's quite possible someone who knows IPA and the proper pronunciations will wander by and add them. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Many articles do contain phonetic representations. As to those which do not, I would say an obstacle that prevents people from adding phonetic representations is that, while the only objective way of representing the pronunciation is to use IPA, many people complain that they can't read IPA. Instead, they want "English" representations as found in a traveler's phrasebook. Here the problem comes - chances are that your "English" is different from mine. By the way, yes, there is an alphabetical list of entries: Wikipedia:Quick index. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a list of entrees but it does have a small list of hors d'oeuvres. (Sorry! I couldn't resist.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Oh, don't be sorry Adam. I am sorry for the wrong spelling. --Omidinist (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with the IPA is that while I can read it (just about and with a crib), I cannot write it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is adding audio files. I have started a sub-project within the UK Geography Wikiproject to provide sound files containing the standard British English (Received Pronunciation) pronunciation of as many British place names as possible. These are then linked in the first sentence of the relevant article, and can be listened to with one click. I recommend this approach, as it is relatively straightforward to produce the sound files and brings an immediacy and clarity that IPA, for all its benefits, lacks for the casual user. In fact, you could make any requests for British names here at the talk page if you wish. The main issue (not really a problem) is that the Ogg Vorbis file format must be used, rather than a more accessible format such as mp3. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job you have done, Hassocks5489. I wish it could be done for each and every proper noun in WP. And then, thanks for all comments. Omidinist (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Letter head

Hi, I am German and I'd like to know how to formally address somebody in a letter head. My first try is "Dear Sir or Madam", so you can see which direction I am heading. Thanks for any helpful suggestion. -- 217.232.38.106 (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dear Sir or Madam" works perfectly well in a formal letter which is sent to an unknown individual (probably in an organisation). The corresponding formula at the end is "Yours faithfully". SaundersW (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're writing to an organisation and don't even have a specific job title to address then you can use "Dear Sirs" but if you're addressing a letter to a specific job title like "Head of ..." then "Dear Sir or Madam" or "Dear Sir/Madam" is standard.86.143.33.38 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm wiki sneakily logged me out. Anyway above comment was me. TheMathemagician (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is usually called the salutation or greeting of a letter. Letterhead is another name for headed paper, that is, stationery with the name and address of the person or organisation already printed on it. Both articles contain references if you wish to learn more. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your answers. -- 217.232.38.106 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if you know the gender of the person you are addressing, then you should use either "Dear Sir" or "Dear Madam", as the person might be offended if you know their name but find their gender ambiguous. Also, "Yours faithfully" sounds very old-fashioned to my American ears, though it would be excused of a foreigner. (It may be normal in the United Kingdom.) The standard formula before the signature in the United States is "Sincerely". Marco polo (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The rule here (in the UK) is (or was. Maybe I am just old!) that with "Dear Sir" one uses "Yours faithully" and with "Dear Mr Polo" one uses "Yours sincerely". However formal letters are probably in decline here, and the rules may fall into disuse. SaundersW (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in my twenties and I was taught at school (UK) that it's Yours Faithfully if you don't know their name and Yours Sincerely if you do. My office uses Kind Regards for all variations though, which is also acceptable. MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dear Sir or Madam" is perfectly acceptable for a formal letter, although somewhat old-fashioned. "To Whom It May Concern" is probably more common. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking straight in my last comment. If you know the name of the person being addressed, then you wouldn't use "Dear Madam" or "Dear Sir", you'd use "Dear Ms. X" or "Dear Mr. X". I am not so young myself, but in the United States we would sign the letter in either case with just "Sincerely," followed by your signature. "To Whom It May Concern" is an acceptable way to begin a letter if you don't particularly care about the impression you make. To my ears, it has a cold, impersonal, offhand tone. If you are merely informing the recipient of the letter of something, then "To Whom It May Concern" would be okay. However, if the letter is asking for something, then "Dear Madam or Sir" is more engaging and probably more effective (if still formal). Marco polo (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To agree with Marco, if you know the name of the person, then "Dear Mr X" (and in the UK, because the abbreviation ends with the last letter of the word abbreviated you don't need a full stop, period, or whatever you might call it!) Mrs X, Dr X or whatever and end with "Yours sincerely". If you have no idea who will read it, but it is a particular person such as the personnel director, or a notional person in charge of complaints, then "Dear Sir or Madam" is a good start, ending with "yours faithfully". If you are writing an open letter such as a reference which the bearer can show to many people, then "To whom it may concern" would be appropriate. In any case you can see that there are regional or national variations which will make a slight deviation from any "norm" or "rule" not very visible. SaundersW (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that you might want to write the salutation and sign-off by hand rather than typing them. I believe it is good practice, if you are typing or word processing a letter, to leave gaps at the beginning and end of the letter, where the "Dear Sir/Madam/Mr or Mrs Whoever" and "Yours faithfully/sincerely" would go, print off the letter and then write them in by hand. This adds a personal touch. You would also have your name printed at the bottom, below where your signature goes. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Japanese help

What does "私は永久にあなたとありたいと思う" mean? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"I wanna be with you, forever".--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Candy-Panda (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But the Japanese sentence is grammatically wrong. It must be “私は永久にあなたと(一緒に)いたいと思う。”. More precisely, it is “I think I wanna be with you forever”. Oda Mari (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need いる for human beings ... but could that be colloquial? I've no idea.--K.C. Tang (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

いる is always used for human beings, animals, whoever/whichever has his/her/its mind and will, including even ghosts! In other words, いる is used for something/body alive. So the (dead) body is ある, and we don't use いる for plants. We never use ある for human beings. Oda Mari (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I remember exceptions. I think, therefore I am is “我思う、ゆえに我あり” and it's an established translation. And “I'd rather be honest” can be both “わたしは正直でありたい” and “わたしは正直でいたい”. These ありたい are literally usage. Oda Mari (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, as ある seemed to be used for both the animate and the inanimate in Classical Japanese. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is impossible to use “ある” in “I wanna be with you forever”. Unnatural and laughable. Oda Mari (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, 「ある」 was used in Classical Japanese for people, so if the OP is quoting from the 源氏物語 or something, it would be correct. The only problem is, 「私」 was not used then, so, as Oda Mari says, the sentence is comical.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Gorge / Ravine / Rift / Canyon etc.

What is the right word to use when describing a very narrow "chasm/passage" that forms up in the mountains between higher points and peaks? I have tried to find out by searching the words but all words always just link to "valley", "Dale", "Vale" and such, which is more down in the flat-land, and much larger than what i am after so i am a bit confused, no longer knowing which word is right to use where exactly when there is so many words meaning almost the same...

Imagine a place high up in the mountains where a passage forms between two peaks or high-points, (or even between two mountain walls could be a possibility) and it is so narrow that one has actually built a bridge from side to side to cross. what is this passage below correctly called?

Though, it might not necessarily be THAT narrow, it might be a quite long bridge you know, considering its location.

gorge, ravine, rift, canyon, chasm etc.?

I find it hard to seperate these words and its meanings from one another...

85.164.187.94 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a way through, it is called a pass. --Lgriot (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

what if there is NOT a way through then? if its rocky etc. that one cant walk there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.187.94 (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't use george, canyon or ravine, since they are created by a stream or river. Chasm or rift seem to be asociated with tectonic activity. What you are describing was simply not elevated (by chance) as high as the two peaks next to it. So I am not sure there is a name in English for that. Anyone else got an idea? I can only think of "impactical pass" --Lgriot (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The low-lying region between two peaks is a saddle. [1] Hooray! My land navigation training is applicable to civilian uses. EvilCouch (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Chasm" is the generic term for such a thing (AHD: A deep, steep-sided opening in the earth's surface; an abyss or gorge.). A "gorge" is defined in some dictionaries as what you want, such as Webster's 1913. I can't say that the word "gorge" calls to mind a "mountain defile", but it does mean that. It's from "throat", you know, so its etymology implies a narrow passage more than it does an abyss. I'm going with "gorge". --Milkbreath (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Our article on topographic prominence calls such a point a col. —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What gets exhumed?

As I understand the terms in [US] English: a grave is exhumed; buried remains are disinterred. Is this usage correct? NB: I'd initially posted this query on the Talk page of the article on Burial, but have gotten no response there. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to a couple of on-line dictionaries disinter means to remove remains from a grave. This definition is exactly the same as exhume. My understanding is that a grave is opened to exhume or disinter the body or remains therein. Richard Avery (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Richard Avery that there is no distinction between exhume and disinter. In both cases it is the body/remains which is the object of the verb. Graves cannot be exhumed.TheMathemagician (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Chambers Dictionary, 1983 ed., says "Exhume, verb transitive, to take out of the ground or place of burial: to disinter: to bring to light." DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And "Disinter, verb transitive, to take out of the earth, from a grave, or from obscurity." DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that exhume is specific to graves. Disinter can be applied to a grave, or simply somewhere where remains have been interred (buried). Thus exhume is a subset of disinter. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative (if you're into obscure antonyms), 'exter' has been used in print and is thus officially a word. Algebraist 06:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Discworld novels use 'inhume' to refer to the activities of style-conscious assassins as being somewhat classier than 'murder'.195.173.41.66 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaettu maa

What does the Finnish title of North and South exactly mean? --KnightMove (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Divided land. ›mysid (☎∆) 12:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be "Jättää Maa" instead? Saukkomies 17:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just answered my own kuusamus. I was thinking the word would have been "Jättää", meaning "leave or move", but it takes the declined form of the word "Jakaa", which means "to divide". Oops! Thus "Jakaa" declines to "Jake-, and then the passive past participles case ending "-ttu" is added to the end of the word, making it translate into meaning "someone or something has divided...". When the "-ttu" is added to the end of the word "Jake-", the second syllable is closed at the end by the first "t" in "-ttu". This makes it so that the hard "k" in "Jake-" is dropped. So instead of the word turning out to be "Jakettu", the "k" is dropped because of the closed second syllable of "-ket-", so the word becomes "Jaettu" instead. The word "Maa" is pretty straightforward, since it simply means "land" or "world". Thus, when refering to the title of the movie "North and South" that is about the American Civil War, the Finnish translation of the title would literally be "the divided land" (implying that someone divided the land, not that the land divided itself), or something like that... I'm just writing all of this to give people an idea of how the fascinating Finnish language works! Saukkomies 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, question=kysymys, not kuusamus :-) ›mysid (☎∆) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

...Jesus, are there any second-language Finnish speakers in the world?? ;) -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jaettu maa" means "the divided land". End of story. There are second-language Finnish speakers, but all of them live in Finland. No one has ever learned Finnish as a foreign language for any other reason than needing to understand what the people in their new homeland talk about. From my experience, adult immigrants quickly grasp enough of the language to make themselves understood, but make very minor grammatical mistakes in every sentence. They also have a very distinct non-Finnish accent. Their children speak perfect Finnish. Some Finnish people immediately switch to English when realising they are speaking with an immigrant, but I make it a point never to do that unless the addressee clearly has difficulties understanding me. It is insulting to the immigrants to do it otherwise. I personally find it annoying when Swedes or Germans switch to English when I'm trying to talk to them in their native language. JIP | Talk 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"No one has ever learned Finnish as a foreign language for any other reason than needing to understand what the people in their new homeland talk about"... that's a little over-stated, JIP. J. R. R. Tolkien said he taught himself Finnish so that he could read Elias Lönnrot's Kalevala in the original. (He later partly based his Elvish language Quenya on it, so I guess there may well be Tolkien fans who have studied Finnish for that reason.) Xn4 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Count me as one second-language Finnish speaker who does not live in Finland. Okay, well I lived in Finland for a couple of years back in the late 1970s, but other than that I've lived in the Unites States. I currently live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula among many Finnish Americans (although I myself am not of Finnish ancestry), and Finnish is taught in some of the schools here as a second language, including Finlandia University in Hancock, Michigan, which is the town where I live. It is true that I make many mistakes when speaking Finnish (such as the very bad mistake of writing Kuusamus instead of Kysymys), and I undoubtedly have a wretched accent when I speak Finnish, but I find that if I get talking in it for a while I am able to remember things better and so it goes. One of the benefits of living where I do is that I occasionally get to practice my Finnish on some of the old-timer Finns who still speak it as their mother tongue. There's also a weekly (Sunday morning) local television show that has been on the air since March 27, 1962, and is done partly in Finnish called "Suomi Kutsuu", or "Finland Calling". It is hosted by Carl Pellonpaa, and originates from the station of WLUC-TV in the town of Negaunee, Michigan. Pellonpaa invites guests to his show, often visitors to the area from Finland, and speaks to them in Finnish. He also plays old timey Finnish polkas while showing home videos from his many visits to Finland. So I hope that this has settled the question of there not being anyone outside of Finland who is second language speakers of Finnish. It says in your Wiki profile, JIP, that you are an expert in Finnish Culture, so maybe as part of that it would be good to learn about the Finnish culture in America... Just a friendly suggestion. Saukkomies 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

December 13

Poetry Punctuation

Poet Robert Creeley often uses periods in between stanzas that are centered in the space between the stanzas. What are they called? What is the correct term for such line breaks? Regard, Mark Lee--74.138.145.133 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A kind of interpunct, perhaps? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd call the symbols themselves bullets rather than periods. I think this corresponds to what Noah Lukeman calls a section break, "the most subjective of punctuation marks" (A Dash of Style: The Art and Mastery of Punctuation ISBN 9780393060874). There is a wide range of variation in the symbols or glyphs used to indicate such a breaks. A common form consists of three asterisks, sometimes called asterism, also when more or less collinear and with white space in-between rather than in a tight triangular arrangement, but I've also seen fleurons like ❧ and other dingbats used for the purpose.  --Lambiam 09:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a word meaning "devoid of authority."

I am looking for a word meaning "devoid of authority."

Rlemay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemay (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Powerless? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

chaotic, anarchic. Maybe lawless, unruly? The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example sentence in which you'd like to use that word? If you mean an adjective to qualify a person who carries no authority, perhaps amateur, nonprofessional, dilettante, novice, insignificant, low-ranking, undistinguished. For nouns, you could say that someone is a nobody, a nonentity, a little guy.  --Lambiam 09:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also powerless or toothless. In a specific context in US politics, a lame duck. --Anonymous, 19:47 UTC, December 13.

It could also possibly mean invalid (a decree devoid of authority, for example). Wareh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In that context, the decree is void or it is a nullity. --Anon, 19:47 UTC, December 13.

Uncharismatic Steewi (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hollow? Toothless? Extralegal? Unauthorized? Non-authoritative? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vocab Qeustion

I have a sentance in a reccomendation and a word seems to be misused. The sentence is below... any advice will help.

Her sense of self is one of her most endearing traits.

Shouldn't endearing be enduring? Thanks --Devol4 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether you want to say that it's lasted a long time, or that it makes other people like her... AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably make sense as endearing than as enduring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.92.247 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good and somehow sentimental sentence.There is nothing wrong with 'endearing',however ,this depends on what feelings the person wants to convey.In that case any one of the lexis from this sentence can be put on objection.--Mike robert (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, what does "any one of the lexis from this sentence can be put on objection" mean? --Anon, 22:59 UTC, December 13.

He means that if you don't assume that the sentence is supposed to mean what it seems to mean - that a female person possessed a sense of self which was among those of her traits that caused people to like her most - then there's no way to know whether any of the words are right, since the intended meaning of the sentence would then be unknown. (However, lexemes, or even better words, not lexis, should have been used.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people write something in a recommendation that acts as a prompt to get the receiver to call them up to ask what it means. This may be when there is something they feel they can't put on paper. SaundersW (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Using multiple titles for names

I recently was charged with creating a flyer for MLK day at my office. I have seen many different sources refer to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as "Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." I was wondering if there is a general rule for limiting the number of titles used. Generally, the title of Mr. is dropped in lieu of Dr. if the person has attained that level of education, but titles from military service (Sgt., Lt., Col., etc.) and the Church as well seem to be a bit more confusing. I don't think that addressing someone as Rev. Col. Dr. Smith is correct, but I haven't been able to find a documented grammar rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholycross (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Rev. Dr" is not so uncommon, nor is "Professor Sir ...". "Professor Dr ..." is not used. Professor Lord Robert Winston is probably one of a kind. [2] Steve Redgrave's wife seems to be Dr Lady Ann Redgrave (which seems odd to me, as unless she has her own lady title she is Lady Redgrave, not Lady Ann Redgrave). There are a few "Dr Sirs" around, too.

There was Professor Lord David Cecil. As a humble baron (not the son of a duke or a marquess), Robert Winston is Professor Lord Winston, not Professor Lord Robert Winston. Xn4 03:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

True. The examples of "Dr Lady Ann Redgrave", and "Princess Diana" as well seem to show we are becoming less strict in the application of these rules. SaundersW (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Military ranks can be used with "sir" such as "Col Sir Donald Cameron of Lochiel" [3], and also Lord, eg Maj Gen Lord Michael Fitzalan Howard [4].

Here is Lt. Col. Dr. Robert Bowman [5] though many military folk with a doctorate seem to put that in brackets. I suspect that is why you don't see the Rev. Col Dr: if (Dr) is put into parentheses with a military title, it would then disappear altogether with a Rev. as well. SaundersW (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We had the case of Florence Bjelke-Petersen, whose husband was knighted; and thus she was Lady B-P. Then she was elected to the Senate and became either Senator Florence B-P or Senator Lady B-P. Folks tried to accord her her full title Senator Lady Florence B-P, but that didn't work because "Lady Florence" implies she was the daughter of a peer, or something like that. You couldn't imagine the amount of bureaucratic wrangling that went on in Canberra about her proper form of address. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In Germany you just string everything along: "Herr Professor Dr. Dr.-Ing. h.c.".[6] Something like what Anglo-Saxons do at the end: "Chilton, Charles, M.A., D.Sc., LL.D., F.L.S., C.M.Z.S., F.R.S.N.Z."[7]  --Lambiam 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar in Polish. Here's a real life example: Tadeusz Płoski is a military chaplain, a bishop holding a general's rank. He also holds a PhD in theology. He is therefore officially referred to in Polish as: Jego Ekscelencja ks. bp gen. bryg. dr Tadeusz Płoski (His Excellency Rev. Bishop Brigadier General Dr ...). — Kpalion^(talk) 10:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The same in the Netherlands. A professor at my alma mater, for instance, is Prof.dr. L.W. Gormley, MA MSc Barrister. I'm curious to see his business card. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On the original question: older authorities say Reverend is an adjective, not a title, and does not take the place of a prefix; Reverend Blank is less correct than the reverend Mr Blank. —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

December 14

Help creating page in Hebrew

Perhaps someone can please create a Hebrew page for Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner, משה שמואל גלאזנר and also replacing the aleph in גלאזנר with an ayin משה שמואל גלעזנר and deleting the aleph altogether משה שמואל גלזנר (these are three different spellings I've seen; any of the two can redirect to the third; the most recent publication of his book Dor Revi'i has the ayin in his name, so perhaps that is the best one to be the "homepage").

This page could just have a WikiProject Echo tag {{FAOL|English|en:Moshe Shmuel Glasner}}, and hopefully someone will come along and translate this page into Hebrew. At that point, someone can make sure the two pages are suitably cross-referenced to each other.

My Hebrew skills are still very rudimentary; therefore, when the "cannot find this page" page comes up in Hebrew, I don't know which link is the link to actually create a new page.

Thank you! Sevendust62 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the rules are like at Hebrew Wikipedia, but if I found an article here that consisted of nothing at all but a link to another language's featured article, I'd delete it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Moshe Shmuel Glasner isn't even featured here, so the WikiProject Echo tag would be incorrect. (And it wouldn't work anyway, since there is no template at he:Template:FAOL. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Using `Ayin ע as a Mater lectionis is a feature of Yiddish, orthography, but not Hebrew orthography, and is considered a "Yiddishism" in Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And in Yiddish it represents the vowel /e/. The Yiddish spelling of "Glasner" should be גלאַזנער. I'd expect Hebrew to leave both vowels out (since neither /a/ nor unstressed /e/ is usually written with a mater between two consonants) and just be גלזנר. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Italics

In languages that don't read left to right, how are italics slanted? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, copying some Hebrew from the question above and putting italics tags around it produces this:

משה שמואל גלאזנר

So assuming the Wiki software is handling it correctly, the same direction as left-to-right scripts. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The italic Arabic font on this page slants to the LEFT. But I wonder when italic Arabic is used.--K.C. Tang (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Chinese? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

中文--K.C. Tang (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

日本語 Japanese. Oda Mari (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... none of these writing systems normally uses italics. Strictly speaking, what's shown above is automatically computer-generated oblique forms, not true italics (which involve more than just being slanty, they also involve slightly different letter shapes). As far as I know (and I asked about this once a while back at the reference desk), the only alphabets that use true italics are Latin and Cyrillic. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering italic script is generally based on cursive writing, it should be possible to create fonts that would imitate cursive Hebrew, for example. I don't know if this is actually practiced, though. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When you italicize Arabic on Wikipedia it looks really strange. Imagine slanting English letters the opposite way. Arabic already has it's own styles of writing that look much better, Arabic calligraphy. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Same with Japanese and Chinese. When written in a calligraphic way, the question of italics becomes irrelevant.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Eclampsia

Somebody told me that this word is derived from the Latin for "lightning bolt." Is that true? Fenton Bailey (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nearly: it in fact comes from the Greek for "sudden flash[ing]", "lightning" or "lightning bolt". Last paragraph here makes reference, as does the first sentence here. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Epi-something

I can't remember the word for the part of a name such as Richard the Lion-hearted. I think it begins with the prefix "epi." Epigraph... no. Epitaph... no. Epi- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.89.80 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an epithet. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Malaprop was known for her "nice derangement of epitaphs"! AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh God, I really am the original Mrs. Malaprop! Oh well... Thanks a lot for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.89.80 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ich fing Feuer

I've come across this, and the context doesn't really call for its literal meaning - "I caught on fire". Is there any idiomatic meaning to this? --Bearbear (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can think of some metaphorical meanings it could have. What's the context? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in a song lyric - "Doch als du noch einmal fragtest, kam ich aus der Fassung. Über uns hing, als ich Feuer fing, ein rosaroter Lampion." --Bearbear (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Feuer fangen means "to catch fire", "to ignite". It strengthens, in a poetic way, the speaker's loosing their equanimity. I don't know the context, but I suppose that as a metaphor this is similar to "Come on baby light my fire". --talk 18:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to fit. The entire song can be found here --Bearbear (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it just means she felt like she caught fire when he kissed her. I like the idea of rhyming Fassung with bon / non / Lampion. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Fassung found on the web has "Façon" (whatever that may mean here).[8] What I like is that it rhymes with une poupée de son :)  --Lambiam 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you say it doesn't fit. First she sings how cool it is to dance under a red Chinese lantern, because "red is the colour by which you should fall in love". Who cares, she sings, that "you" [her dance partner] were not good at dancing; it was good, we had the red lantern hanging over us. Then he wants to kiss her, and first she says (you know how women are) "Non, non, non", but then, when he asks again, she "catches fire": he has lit her fire.  --Lambiam 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The "aus der Fassung" thing caught me out. I've seen it as "Façon" too but I don't see what that could mean in this case. --Bearbear (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"jdn aus der Fassung bringen" has a meaning of confusing someone, flustering them, or putting them off balance. I take it as "But as you asked me once again, I lost my (cool/control), and hanging above us, as (my love) was kindled, was a pink lantern." --Narapoid (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That fits really well, thanks! --Bearbear (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize you had not understood that part; it was included in my reply in the form of "the speaker's loosing their equanimity".  --Lambiam 12:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

December 15

œ

How is this pronounced in English? The article on it only has IPA, which I can't read. Other sources say it's pronounced how you sound when your lips are making an ū, but you say ĕ. This makes no sense to me. Does someone know an English word to two where this is used, so I can compare?

Also, is there a word for a private meeting with only members of something, like a panel of judges? Not in camera though. I'm trying to remember it, but I can't. I (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

According to its article, it is pronounced /iː/ or /ɛ/ in most cases. As for your second question, I would suggest "conclave", which specifically refers to a private or closed assembly, and comes from the Latin conclāve, place that may be locked up. However, more informal terms could be "huddle" or "confab", and one can communicate the concept by saying, for instance, "The judges will now confer," which is understood to refer to a private discussion. Lantzy ^talk 03:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If you mean the first IPA on the page, that's just the name of the symbol œ, which is pronounced as I would pronounce the name 'Ethel'. If you mean how is it pronounced in words, that depends on the language, and the word. In English it barely exists nowadays, having been replaced by oe or just e. However it's written, it's normally pronounced ee, as in been. The pronunciation you describe appears to refer to the open-mid front rounded vowel, which is written in IPA as œ. This sound does not occur in English, which is why English speakers have to go through such contortions to try to say it. Btw, IPA is very useful (especially for reading Wikipedia!) and not that hard to deal with; see IPA chart for English for a cut-down version with most of what you need to know. Algebraist 03:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd pronounce 'Ethel' like /ˈɛθəl/, with the unvoiced 'th' of 'thin', not the voiced 'th' of 'then'.  --Lambiam 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two pronunciations of "been". Make that "ee" as in seen. --Anon, 06:38 UTC, December 15.

Right. Although that pronunciation is technically correct and invariable (I think), many words that used to have the ligature in them have changed their pronunciation upon dropping it, "estrus" comes to mind, and that new pronunciation is applied to the old spelling when it is seen (œstrus), however rarely. You see conflict between the old and new in some words, "economics" (œconomics) comes to mind, which is pronounced either "eck" or "eek". You'll sometimes hear "œnophile" (oenophile) pronounced "ween", but I'd say a good rule of thumb is to use the long "e" in words that have retained the separated rendering ("oe") of the ligature ("œ"). In proper names, of course, all this is out the window, and we try to say them the way the person himself would. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a vestige that comes from the early years of when the Anglo-Saxons migrated from the European Continent to settle in England. The language they spoke was closely related to such present-day languages as Dutch, Friese, and the Norse languages. Over the years, however, English changed to become the language it is today. Part of this change involved dropping some of the old sounds that at one time were spoken by Anglo Saxons, and one of these sounds is this: the "œ". As has been mentioned, this sound has been replaced by other sounds in words today in modern English, but if you read old texts they sometimes include this letter just to show what it had once been. The modern day equivalent of the œ is the Ö that is used by many Germanic (and some non-Germanic) languages. This letter is also sometimes written as Ø in other languages such as Danish and Norwegian. There is no corresponding modern English letter equivalent to this, but you can get a close approximation to it if you pronounce the word "her" without sounding the "r". But that still is not quite precisely how it sounds. Saukkomies 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On its pronunciation in IPA, what you describe is actually quite good: make an ĕ, and then holding everything else, round your lips, as you would for u. Drmaik (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Terms 'financially established" "financially healthy"

What they do exactly mean? Wealthy, employed, not bankrupt?217.168.0.96 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they have precise and technical meanings. A start-up company generally needs to burn money in the hope to make a future profit; when such a profit eventually shows up and can be reasonably thought of as being permanent, you can call the company "financially established". The main use would be in a negative form: the company is not yet financially established, which can be a way of saying: "our company is operating at a loss, OK, but just wait and see". A person who is in the beginning of a promising career might get the advice to wait with engaging in a lavish lifestyle until they are financially established, meaning that they earn an income that is more in line with what they can eventually expect, or in any case enough to support the desired level of expenditure. Calling a person or an institution in a steady-state situation "financially healthy" would mean something like: not operating at a loss, and generating sufficient income to take care of possible expenses needed for debts and such. In other words, not likely to go under, financially.  --Lambiam 16:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

presence of digraphs cs and gs in Latin

I'm learning Latin (lvl 1 in Babel terminology) and I've read that the digraphs cs and gs become 'x' whenever they appear. Does this mean that 'cs' and 'gs' never appear? Is there a website that has a frequency table for things like Latin digraphs? Thanks 203.221.126.9 (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My first impression is that x represents two sounds, that could be matched with the digraphs you give: lex=/legs/ and crux=/crucs/.

For entry lookups, I think you will find this handy. Pallida  Mors 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[9] also describes how X replaces other combinations of letters. It's important to remember that Latin was for the Romans a language that was spoken before it was a written language, and the orthography was an attempt to represent the sounds of the language. SaundersW (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

cs and gs never appear in Classical Latin. They may appear in Old Latin inscriptions before classical spelling was standardized. As Pallida Mors says, lex = legs and crux = crucs, hence the g and c in the actual roots of those words (legis, lege, etc). Some third declension nouns are able to take consonant+s (pars, mors, urbs), but g and c did not look or sound pleasant to the Romans, so they were replaced with the conveniently-sounding letter X. It seems to me that cs and gs might occur in Greek borrowings, or medieval/neo-Latin inventions based on other languages, but I can't think of any at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But in the case of lex, don't think it was pronounced gs: it was ks, with the underlying g assimilating in voicing to the following s. Greek did (does?) much the same thing. Drmaik (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Drmaik: With due respect, I have doubts about your commentary. I was always told that leg(s) is the pertaining root for lex. And the fact that you have legis, but crucis (and not crugis), tells us something of a phonetic difference in the roots.

Adam, I guess ecstasis is the example you're looking for, or at least one of such. Pallida  Mors 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good example, from the Greek, where I suppose it must be spelled with xi? Also, Drmaik is probably correct - the root is leg-, but there originally was no separate letter G in Latin. It was pronounced the same as C (which was of course phonetically /k/). That may be a reason they didn't come up with some other letter for the combination -gs-. Or, more simply, the g assimilated to the following s by losing its voicing. Similarly, urbs was pronounced "urps". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

er, wait, no, of course it's not spelled with an x in Greek! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I heard of something called kappa and sigma :p True point about birth of g as a different letter. I forgot about that. I mean, no initial orthographic separation of g and c sounds Pallida  Mors 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Reduced use of case endings, Russian

Would love to read anything available demonstrating how subject tendency works live! I can see how it happened in Latin, but cannot imagine same in Russian, especially genitive. I have, however, seen the preposition 'of' developing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PADRAEG (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Something you might like to explore is the disappearance of case endings in the Bulgarian language and also Macedonian language. SaundersW (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressing a female priest

One addresses a male priest as "father", how should one address a female priest? "Mother" is used for some species of nun, so would seem improper for a priest. DuncanHill (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In the churches I've been to in my life, the priests are usually addressed by their first name anyway, so it's not an issue. We have a female priest in my current church who is occasionally called "Father" as a joke. Someone above pointed out that "Reverend" is not properly a title, but in this case one might make an exception if one were speaking to a female priest (incidentally never called a priestess!) and didn't know her name. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly bring myself to use "Reverend" in that way (it makes me cringe). DuncanHill (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then you'll just have to call her by name, or if you don't know her name, call her "Hey you". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally female priests are from the branch of the church that doesn't use the title "Father" anyway. They tend to be known as "Sue" or something like that where we come from. SaundersW (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglican priests are Fathers. I tend to meet priests when I visit old churches, so would not know their name, and "Oi, you" strikes me as a tad too informal, even in these modern, shirt-sleeved times. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Male nursing sisters and matrons are still called "sister" and "matron", or am I behind the times? Why not female "fathers", particularly now that some churches are ordaining openly gay people. This will lead inevitably to male nuns and female brothers. Bring it on. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the UK (IIRC), male nurses with the rank equivalent to "sister" are addressed as "charge nurse". --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on Minister (Christianity), section "Forms of address", subsection "Anglican Churches" states that "female priests often go by the title Mother or Pastor". No reference. St. Andrew's Episcopal Parish in Leonardtown, Maryland, says: "The proper term is either Reverend or Mother. Our current rector prefers Reverend Paula, or just plain Paula." [10] ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Some more: The rector of St. Christopher's Episcopal Church in Portsmouth, Virginia, says: "Just call me Jane. Some women use Mother or Reverend, but to me there is something wrong with almost every title you can give people, so I use Jane or for little children or people who are not comfortable without a precise title, Reverend Jane" [11].

The Rev. Kimberly D. Lucas from St. Ambrose Episcopal Church in Raleigh, North Carolina: "The titles of clergy are given as terms of respect. If you call a male priest father, it is respectful to call a female mother. But, because I’ve hung out with clergy from a lot of different denominations, I’m not picky. I’m comfortable with pastor or reverend. Ive even been called father, which is ok by me.. Kimberly (Kym) is my Christian name and it works too." [12] ---Sluzzelin talk 01:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The situation I would specifically need it is if one is mooching about in an old church, and a priest walks in. If a male priest, one can say "Hello Father, can I creep into your crypt? (or whatever)". "Hello, Reverend" is clearly wrong, and "Pastor" just don't sound right in the CofE. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "ma'am"? How would you address a respectable-looking woman whose name you didn't know and who wasn't a priest? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd use "ma'am" for a magistrate in court, or the Queen in the course of a conversation, but not otherwise. I probably wouldn't use any specific form of address when approaching a strange, respectable woman ("Excuse me" would suffice). DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's probably safest for female priests, then, too. Just pretend they're laity and address them accordingly. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Entrepreneurs and polyglots

Why do employers like (apparently) polyglots so much? I mean, in which way is it beneficial to have an employee with a good knowledge of German or French? Of course if you wanted to translate something into French or German you'll need one, but that's not my point, I don't mean a translator but an engineer that speaks, say, English, French and German. If that engineer worked for a German enterprise based in an English-speaking country, couldn't he just communicate in English with everyone? Why isn't English enough in some situations? I'm sorry but I couldn't reword my question in a better way. --Taraborn (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The effects of speaking one or more languages besides your native tongue go significantly deeper than just being able to read Grass, Cervantes, Vergil or Dante.

One bonus is, that you can read Finnegans Wake. And whilst that may sound obscure, it indicates - in a nutshell - what other languages do in our mind, when a single language does not suffice. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The advantage would vary immensely based on the business, and the position, obviously, but a key factor might be very simple: speaking multiple languages, while perhaps only occasionally advantageous, is never disadvantageous - that is to say, an individual who speaks English and another given language is able to perform every task an English speaker could, while one who speaks only English cannot necessarily perform every task a polyglot could.

At my (small) business, we have two "full" polyglots, myself a native English speaker who is proficient in German, a colleague speaking native English and nearly-native Spanish. Neither of us are quite as fluent in the second language as the first, but both of us use the second language multiple times in the course of a year. In my case, the vast majority of Germans speak all-around better English than I do German, but there are a few who do not feel wholly comfortable in English, and more who are not versed in the vocabulary specific to the business. For them, having access to a speaker of German - even one who has to circumlocute or pause excessively or ask for clarification - is a tremendous boon.

I have worked with several customers who simply could not have patronized the business had there not been a German speaker on premises, and even those German-speaking customers for whom it has not been strictly necessary have been quite pleased to have the opportunity of speaking their native language, and impressed that the business provides that option. We have yet another coworker who has a very limited command of two more European languages, and even simple greetings or clarifications from him have impressed customers immensely. That goodwill and potential word-of-mouth are a bonus to the business, with no cost or trade-off.

In other fields or positions... a polyglot is able to read trade-based articles without translation, better understanding the original intent, and/or accessing information or developments faster, from multiple sources. Businesses with international offices save every time a translator is not needed for an employee to communicate with headquarters. Employees who speak the language are more likely to understand the culture of, and better interact with, employees from abroad. This, again, while it may provide only the barest nominal advantage over someone who speaks only a single language, is at no cost to the employer, only to their benefit. All other factors being equal, it's only logical for an employer to prefer a polyglot. --Narapoid (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Impressive answers, thanks. In my particular case, what made me begin to learn German was, generally speaking, the great presence of an almost completely unintelligible language to me in the Internet, sooner or later I ended up stumbling upon a German site and not being able to understand a single word. Actually, the main responsible for this was my wish to being able to read the German Wikipedia. --Taraborn (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, perhaps, to what has already been said (which I fully agree with), the very fact that someone has gone through the process of learning another language indicates something about them: they can work hard and learn new skills, and are probably moderately intelligent. This is also a boon for employers. Daniel (‽) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proper use of semi-colon?

Is the grammar, especially the use of a semi-colon, of this sentence correct?

A sense of looming tragedy hangs over this excerpt, as Othello is adamant about the fact that his wife must die; yet he is hesitant and utilizes copious and apt metaphors in an attempt to tip the balance in favor of his wife’s survival.

Thanks. Wesley. 99.240.177.206 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed is that Othello's determination that Desdemona must die is just that, his determination - it's not a fact until it happens. I'd change it to "... as Othello is adamant that his wife must die". I see no problem with the semi-colon. Some might say a comma is needed after "yet", but imo it's not mandatory. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I leave the grammar to the natives, but I feel the sentence could be made more concise. For instance, you have "a sense of tragedy...", "...looming tragedy..." and "tragedy hanging over...".

These are somewhat synonymous figures of speech, which may be considered partly redundant. Mind you, once your sentence gets "improved" by the full treatment of assembled linguists, grammarians and nitpicking semiologists it will be about as healthyas Desdemona :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a very simple test as to whether to use a semicolon or not. Take the 2 parts of the sentence on each side of the semicolon and make them separate sentences on their own. If they both work as complete and grammatically correct sentences, then you may connect them with a semicolon. So in your example, here's what we do:

A sense of looming tragedy hangs over this excerpt, as Othello is adamant about the fact that his wife must die.

...AND...

Yet he is hesitant and utilizes copious and apt metaphors in an attempt to tip the balance in favor of his wife’s survival.

Although the second sentence is a bit awkward, and probably needs the comma after "yet", it is a complete and grammatically correct sentence on its own. So, to answer your question: yes, the semicolon is okay to use there. Saukkomies 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The simple test is very useful, but I interpret the use of it a little differently. If the second part doe not work as a standalone sentence, then you can't use a comma with no other revision. You can a semicolon, or break it into two sentences, or probably something else. But if the second part doesn't stand alone as a sentence, your options are open--you can use a comma, but a semicolon is often acceptable even when it's not necessary. There are other uses of a semicolon too...

But I do agree with the conclusion that it's OK in this instance. Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would actually break with previous posters, and hazard that the semicolon is actually not fully correct in this sentence. The semicolon is used to join two fully freestanding clauses; they should interrelate in concept, but not be connected in flow.

In a way, it depends on your intent: Is it that "A sense of looming tragedy hangs over this excerpt" solely because "Othello is adamant about the fact that his wife must die", or does it loom because "Othello is adamant that his wife must die, yet is hesitant"? If the latter, the comma seems more appropriate, and the use of the conjunction (yet) further argues against the semicolon. Generally, a semicolon replaces a conjunction; it generally only supplements one when the number of commas in a clause would make the use of a comma confusing.

As an example: "A sense of tragedy looms over this excerpt, as Othello is adamant that his wife must die, yet hesitant to see it happen; despite the stated necessity of her death, he utilizes copious and apt metaphors to tip the scales in favour of her survival." These are two fully freestanding clauses, but their conceptual connection is highlighted by the semicolon.

I highly doubt anyone would object to the semicolon used as you have in the original. Some likewise might object to how I've used it above - it's not a device I use often, for just that reason. Your Mileage May Vary. All the same, if the question is one of purely objective right or wrong usage, I tend to think "not quite right." --Narapoid (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Narapoid. To my ears, your "yet" is functioning as a conjunction, which makes the semi-colon unnecessary. However, it could be interpreted as an adverb (modifying "is"), in which case the semi-colon works just fine. I would probably re-phrase the passage as above. Matt Deres (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

December 16

How can I find enything about Hermann Toelcke

Moved to entertainment where it will get more replies

Mandarin Immersion Programs

I'm interested in enrolling in a language immersion program for Mandarin Chinese this summer. For some reason, I'm having a hard time finding anything on Google, although I did find Middlebury College in Vermont, which looks pretty good. Does anybody know of any other good summer programs, preferably in the US? By this summer, I'll have had two semesters of Chinese language study. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GreatManTheory (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You did mention preferably in the US, however, you might wish to compare costs to attending a Chinese language school. Some of them can be quite inexpensive, although you should check their reputation online, as there are some schools that are simply moneymaking schemes. Steewi (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the FALCON program at Cornell university? http://lrc.cornell.edu/falcon/index.html 71.58.58.66 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Gisele Bündchen

How do you pronounce her name a) in Portuguese and b) in English? --KnightMove (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion before; see Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 9#IPA for "Gisele Bündchen". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation needed of Inscription to the sacrifice of the Swiss Guard

The following is a transcription of an inscription on an altar in a memorial chapel in Lucerne. I am not sure if the word in the sixth line is haeres or heres.

“X. AUGUSTI Iuratæ fidei decus est perstare tenacem, Perstantem decus est in statione mori, Hæcce monere meum, sæclis memorando futuris Perstando fidos et moriendo viros. Ne temnas monitum generosi nominis hæres Helveta gens: prisca stare memento fide! Stabit tuta salus, stabit tibi nomen avitum Si tibi perstiterit virtus avita ____ fides.”LShecut2nd (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it is quite grammatically correct, but: "It is a virtue for a tenacious man to stand firm with sworn faith, it is a virtue that one standing firm dies at his station, to remind my (my something?) about these things by remembering future ages, to remind the faithful by standing firm, and to remind men by dying. Swiss nation, heir of the noble name, you should not despise the warning: remember to stand with the ancient faith! Salvation will remain safe, the ancestral name will stand for you if..." Then "ancestral virtue" and "faith" but the missing word would help. "Meus" sometimes implies "my army" or "my men" or something, so maybe that's what it is here. I assume the word is "heres", since "haeres" means "you adhere" and that doesn't really seem to fit, and "generosi nominis" could go with "heres" or "monitum" (the warning of the noble name). I hope that is of some help. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to a transcription in Mémoires (inédits) de Charles Barbaroux (1822), the word in the sixth line is hæres, and the last word is capitalized: " - FIDES". Nothing is missing in Hæcce monere meum. Xn4 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well then maybe it means "You remain, Swiss nation, so that you do not despise the warning of the noble name" or something like that, taking "ne" as a result clause. Or it is a hypercorrection for "heres". Adam Bishop (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, it also seems that nothing is missing between avita and FIDES. Xn4 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The 19th-century manuscript I am working on has "heres." I picked up the possibility of "haeres" from the same source (Mémoires de Charles Barbaroux). If only someone living near Lucerne could go and take a look!LShecut2nd (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, usually these guys are pretty meticulous in copying down inscriptions. It would help if we could go back and ask the author what he was trying to say! Also, if there is no missing word at the end, then I suppose it says "Salvation will remain safe, the ancestral name will stand for you if ancestral virtue stood for you - faith!" Meaning, "have faith" as a kind of interjection (like Dan Rather exclaiming "courage!"). Also, perstiterit can be future perfect or perfect subjunctive, and since it comes after "si" I would want to assume it's subjunctive, but it could work either way. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness of the Chinese writing system

The advantage of the Latin script versus the Chinese one is obvious: simplicity. But I was wondering... what could be said in favour of the Chinese one, aside from facilitating the communication between speakers of different Chinese modalities? --Taraborn (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese characters have nothing to do with "facilitating the communication between speakers of different Chinese modalities". You may as well say that the Latin script "facilitate the communication between speakers of different English modalities". Chinese characters are not "above language", because no script is.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I must have misunderstood this: "Cognates in the various Chinese languages/dialects which have the same or similar meaning but different pronunciations can be written with the same character.", from our article Chinese character, have I? --Taraborn (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why, an American and an Australian can understand the same Times article, while they pronounce the words differently (sometimes quite differently)! Think also of Latin during the medieval times, when a German and an Italian scholar certainly read the same Latin text quite differently! So why are Chinese characters so special in this?--K.C. Tang (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because a Japanese person and a Chinese person, who know only completely unrelated languages, can communicate to a degree using the Chinese script, as the same ideograph is frequently used for the same concept in the written form of each language. It's not perfect, and it's not above language, but it certainly helps smooth out some communication difficulties in a way that an alphabet or any semi-phonetic script couldn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the script. Not at all. A Japanese who has never studied the Chinese language cannot communicate with a Chinese, in writing as in speaking. You may say they can communicate "clumsily" by writing characters. But an English man and a French man can also communicate "clumsily" by writing letters: the French man writes ange, and the English man can guess he means "angel". To quote you, "it's not perfect, and it's not above language, but it certainly helps smooth out some communication difficulties...". There can be misunderstandings, no doubt, but a Japanese and a Chinese can also misunderstand each other by writing characters. What will the Chinese think when his Japanese counterpart writes 娘? Anyone who knows the ABC of Chinese and Japanese can bet. But no one wants to admit the above, anyone? Because everyone wants to think Chinese characters are "special", in the positive or negative sense of the word.--K.C. Tang (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that French and English are deeply related languages, unlike Japanese and Chinese. Chinese character are "special"; for one thing, they take up more codespace in Unicode than the rest of Unicode combined. The only real question is what ways are they special in?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It's certainly pretty easy to do so, "ange" and "angel" are just one letter away, aren't they? It would be somewhat more difficult if we wanted to do so with Indonesian and German, I'd say. --Taraborn (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The standing tradition is a big mark in favour of characters. The task of convincing 1 billion and more people to start reading in a script they aren't used to reading in is an enormous one. Although a Chinese person can read in pinyin if they have to, it is actually quite difficult, and takes a lot of concentration. Furthermore there is a cultural heritage ingrained in characters and a character heritage ingrained in Chinese culture. It would be very difficult to leave them behind. Most Chinese people would tell you that there are extra meanings and the like inside the characters that would be lost in a transfer to a romanised version of Chinese.

These reasons are more cultural than anything else. A latin script, from a purely utilitarian perspective, is probably much more appropriate. However, the other reasons are very important and should be considered, too.

From a psycholinguistic perspective, a latin script is a little strange from a Chinese perspective. Where we think in individual sounds (pengyou is p-e-ng-y-o-u), the Chinese perspective is more syllable based (pengyou is p+eng, y+ou), probably something to do with the syllable being the tone bearing unit, therefore the idea of breaking the sounds down further is a little counterintuitive. Keeping a script syllable based seems more intuitive then breaking the syllables up into more pieces. Steewi (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see you transcribing pinyin back into Chinese. Learning to read Chinese has quite a steep learning curve, but once you get the system, you can pronounce most unknown character without any thinking at all, and in most cases you will be correct. Chinese characters aren't actually that hard, it's just made up of a number of simple elements (same as Latin script made out of alphabets). It's just that Chinese requires 2D memory, remembering the location of each stroke's (or more appropriately, each radical's) X- and Y- location, as opposed to the 1D structure of Latin script. But even then there are only so many common character structures, so you don't really have to remember much more. In Chinese there are bazillions of homonyms; in Chinese characters each look different, but with romanisation and it take considerable effort to decrypt the message, which very much defeats the "simplicity" of Latin script. Also the aesthetics, the compactness of Chinese characters, and their often very logical etymology of the Chinese characters are some other advantages. I really suggest you to actually know the thing you're trying to improve on before blindly making assumptions. PS: In response to Steewi, pinyin is taught in chunks, so pengyou it's separated as p-eng y-ou, not to each individual letter. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Initially, the Chinese had a bit of an advantage in pre-developmental stages of the printing press. Since their characters didn't have to be lined up perfectly they developed a stamp-ink system a while before gutenberg. However, the huge number of characters proved damaging in the end when it came to printing, as a printer would have to have thousands of stamps, rather than several copies of the same simple alphabet. Wrad (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that if the Chinese actually wrote text the way they spoke, it wouldn't take any more effect to decipher written Chinese than it does spoken.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Advantages of the Chinese system are several. It's compact. In a sample text on the Unicode website, Chinese was one of the smallest (byte-wise) translations, even at three bytes per ideograph versus 1-~1.5 for Latin text. In the Handbook of the IPA, the Cantonese text written in ideographs takes up half the space of the phonetic transcription. It's easy to typeset; each character fits in a standard square, and there's no kerning, no hyphenation, no ligatures to worry about.

And it's the existing script of centuries of Chinese. One of the things about English, is that anyone can pick up a book that's up to 200 years old, and have no problems reading it; after reading long s, they should be able to read most books back to about 1650, at which point they need to start figuring out blackletter. For the Turkic peoples, material written prior to the last script change, which in many cases was after the fall of the Soviet Union, is illegible to the most recent generation. Cutting off all the past that's not commerically valuable enough to be republished is probably a cost not worth paying.

It's beautiful,isn't that enough?..hotclaws 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

December 17

Hindi and Tamil

How you write "Jilani Adam" in Hindi Devanagari and Tamil script? Sorry if I use my name on the site. please answer the question, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.89 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It will only be a transcription (linguistics) and most probably doesn't mean anything in the respective scripts. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation, Please

What, if anything, does this collection of characters translate to in English? A new user has just registered with this name. 荣耀之神 Bielle (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It means "the glorious God".--K.C. Tang (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, K.C. Tang. It wouldn't bother me to have a user with such a name, but I suspect there are a host of others it would bother. I appreciate the promptness of your help, though it took me a while to get back to the question. Is that "God" with a capitalized "G" specific in the Chinese text? Could it mean "a glorious god"? Please understand, I am not trying to second guess your translation, but there is a huge difference in English, as you know. That may be why you have been so exact. I'd just like to confirm my understanding. Thanks again. Bielle (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Without context, it can be "a glorious god/glorious gods/the glorious God". It's not a set phrase in Chinese Christian discourse, although 荣耀 is a common word (used as both noun, adjective and verb) in it. So the phrase sounds rather Christian to my ears. But perhaps it's just me.--K.C. Tang (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew use of the words "hummus" and "za'atar"

Should the word "hummus" used in a Hebrew text be considered an Arabic word (like quiche is a French word)? And likewise for "za'atar"? The reason I'm asking is that there is an editor whose sole purpose appears to be to expunge references to Hebrew and Israel from our articles on Hummus and Za'atar. While this has the appearance of being politically motivated, perhaps it is reasonable, just like we wouldn't include in the Haggis article the information that in Russian this dish is called хаггис.  --Lambiam 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

well, the words are originally Arabic, so that would surely be enough for the lead? Unless one of the other languages was a major source for English usage (e.g. in couscous there's both the Berber and Arabic, as it is the different Arabic form which is the source for the English word), but I doubt that in these cases. So I'd say just have the Arabic there. Drmaik (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of my prev. question

How do languages that don't use Latin or Cyrillic alphabets (and apparently don't have the benefit of italics) emphasize words on paper? Do they just make do with bolding or SHOUTING? A related question: how do they capitalize? Do they even have capitalization? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See Emphasis (typography) and Capital letters.--K.C. Tang (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It can also be done with word order and by using certain words which denote emphasis. Latin itself did this, since it didn't originally have any punctuation. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

but all languages "didn't originally have any punctuation"!--K.C. Tang (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point...so how would any language emphasize words without punctuation or typography? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope we're still only talking about written languages here -- spoken languages always manage to indicate emphasis without italics, capital letters, or punctuation. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardest language

This question has probably been asked a few times before. I know that the difficulty of learning a new language depends a lot on the learner's mother language (i.e., a Swede will learn Danish much more easily than a Zulu), but which is the hardest language on average? -- Danilot (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify what you mean by on average. If someone were able to produce a list of mother languages, population speaking the language, and hardest language for them to learn, how would you calculate the average? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. This question has been asked before, and more than a few times. There almost certainly is no definitive answer. (General note: We really do need some FAQs for questions like these. I'll be raising this on the talk page.) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

By saying on average... I mean, a language with five cases is easier than one with twenty cases and harder than a language with none, a language with only one definite article is easier than one with three definite articles, a language in which one letter = one phoneme is easier than a language in which the same letter may represent different phonemes, a language with many irregular verbs is harder than one without any irregular verbs... simply because there are less words and exceptions to be memorised. So, taking all this and maybe other factors into account, which language is the hardest, or at least, the most complex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danilot (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This question is typically predicated by "which is the hardest language for a native speaker of X to learn". When X is English, a quick Google survey reveals several sources which go for Chinese ([13], [14]), but "also rans" include Japanese [15], Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian, Basque and Arabic. For non-English speakers, English itself seems to be ranked quite high in the difficulty stakes. I think the real problem here is coming up with an objective measure of difficulty. Surveys will suffer from selection bias, as the people with first-hand experience of learning a language such as Estonian will be (a) relatively few in number and (b) more likely to be highly motivated and experienced linguists. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

By corollary of what you just posted, it most likely is a choice between the swing and the roundabout.

A language with "simple" declension and unisex gender may have a more complex syntax or use grammatical mood and lexical aspect which are somehow implied in the "harder" language. A language with a simple vocabulary may well require prolix constructs to express subtle semantics and thus turn simplicity into complexity.

When starting to learn a new language you at first may stumble over the threshold of the hard bits and find later that the rest is an easy ride; alternatively, what you perceive to be a simple language at the beginning may show itself to be a confusing quagmire of barely noticeable shifts in meaning by virtue of syntax or the wealth of synonyms. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As Cockatoo says, there are swings and roundabouts. English has little inflection, but a complex system of tenses, a large lexicon and non-phonetic spelling. It is my own private hypothesis, never properly explored, that all natural languages have comparable complexity, one way or another, and the difficulty of learning them depends on how far one can assimilate the structures within. SaundersW (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

English is easy for almost any speaker, especially for native speakers of Romance languages. Its grammar is extremely simple: no declensions, no genders, few verbal tenses, few irregular verbal forms (you just have to learn the simple past and past participle form of them, and they aren't many), verbs remain almost unchanged when preceded by different personal pronouns, relatively easy pronunciation... the list goes on. Non-phonetic spelling doesn't complicate things much since any decent dictionary provides the IPA transcription and, with a little practice, you can guess some pronunciations (and, honestly, I find it much easier to remember that "door" is written with double o rather than that "fenêtre" needs the circumflex accent). Additionally, almost all of its "difficult" vocabulary was borrowed from Latin and French. Words that may be unknown by young speakers of English are straightforward for Romance languages speakers. The Latin background also helps with English spelling.

Regarding the original question, it's very hard for us to answer that since there are countless languages in the world, but I'd say that I'd be frightened if I had to learn the fascinating Silbo Gomero, despite it is based on Spanish. --Taraborn (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

English mayn't be seeming difficult to a native speaker but there never the fewer are for certain certain very not obvious rules which, while not comprehension preventing, may be triping up a person who was not in an English speaking culture birthed.. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything "relatively easy" about English pronunciation. Far too many vowels for my tastes and the spelling is horrible at representing them. The double 'o' in 'door' is one thing - but distinguishing between the vowels in 'boot' and 'foot' is a nightmare. Haukur (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 April 30#Easiest / Hardest language.  --Lambiam 15:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Relatively easy pronunciation? Complex consonant clusters that appear at the end of words is very hard for many speakers, and English combines that with 11 vowels. The r/l distinction and the dental frictives are also notoriously hard. Non-phonetic spelling means that it's hard to write, and it's hard to read much casual writing, as it's hard to look up misspelled words. I'm not sure that most learners of English are really impressed with how much easier it is than Spanish or German.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You clearly don't know the meaning of the word "relatively" and I'm not going to explain it. Native speakers of English aren't precisely the most reliable source if you want to know the difficulty of English since they never had to LEARN it as a foreign language. And, incidentally, I find the fact that native speakers of a language are outraged when someone says their language is easy to learn rather interesting. It is not an insult to your intelligence, believe me. --Taraborn (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that Germans consider English easy to start learning, but difficult to master, while English speakers consider German difficult to start learning, but then comparatively easy to progress with once the initial hurdles are overcome. I have long shared SaundersW's hypothesis that all languages are equally difficult, but they distribute their easiness and difficulty in different areas. I have no idea what the morphosyntax of ǃXóõ is like, but I bet it's fairly easy, to "make up for" the incredible complexity of its phonological system. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. English seems fairly simple to begin with (as people may assume due to its lack of grammatical gender), so the initial hurdle is small. However, the deeper you go the more difficult it gets. I found German to be the opposite. Once you got all the cases and grammar down, it becomes more logical. But that's just me! --Bearbear (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

we need a hardest language article... at least in the form of a disambiguation page like "oldest language", if not something similar to "oldest tree". We might even need "SaundersW's hypothesis" (if we can find a more canonical name for it). here is a "Hardest Language to Learn Survey". dab (𒁳) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started that article. Contributions are welcome. I haven't been able to find an equivalent of "SaundersW's hypothesis" in any citable source so far. dab (𒁳) 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Late contribution - the availability of pedagogical texts and teachers will also have a large impact on the learnability of a language. Steewi (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I once attended a two-month language training center that taught more than 130 languages, primarily to native English speakers. The faculty there repeatedly mentioned that of these languages, three were considered to be the most difficult for English speaking people to learn: Icelandic, Korean, and Finnish. The reasons were due to complex grammar and, in the case of Korean, an added difficulty of learning a very different writing system. Icelandic was considered the most difficult of the three. It is a very archaic language, having been preserved almost intact from the Old Norse language the Vikings spoke. It has very many exceptions to its grammatical rules, so I hear. Saukkomies 20:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic is fairly closely related to English so I can't believe it's unusually difficult for English speakers to learn. Here's a little puzzle, see if you can figure out what the following means, using only your knowledge of English and some guesses: "Anna og Jón komu heim. Þau voru hungruð. Þá kom Pétur. Pétur gaf þeim gott brauð að éta. Þau voru líka þyrst. Pétur gaf þeim mjólk að drekka. Köld mjólk er best." You can mentally replace 'þ' and 'ð' with 'th'. Of course I wrote this text specifically with English cognates in mind but I didn't have to go out of my way to do so. It should suffice to illustrate that Icelandic isn't particularly alien to English speakers - even if Chomsky supposedly calls it "the ebola of linguistics". Haukur (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

at/in usage in this sentence

This is a caption of an image. Which one would be correct?

• The starting line-up of the team that won the tri-championship in 2000 in their home ground, the Estadio Monumental.
• The starting line-up of the team that won the tri-championship in 2000 at their home ground, the Estadio Monumental.

I think the correct one is the second one, but they both sound funny. --MicroX 14:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On their home ground? Oda Mari (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On sounds most natural to me. But whichever word heads "__ their home ground, the Estadio Monumental," there remains the question of whether the phrase functions adverbially (that's where they won) or prepositionally (that's where they are depicted). The caption context results in the prepositional reading, but the style is problematic. Something like "Starting line-up for 2000 Tri-Champions Universitario de Deportes on their home ground, the Estadio Monumental"? Cyrusc (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bestevend?

I'm having trouble finding the meaning of the Dutch bestevend, from the title of this map. "The Coast of Chicora between Florida and Virginia by Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón and others, sailing from Hispaniola"?—eric 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that in this instance it means 'as described' if I apply my knowledge of German word order to sort of reverse engineer the Dutch to the translation here and hoping that their translation is correct. So, The Coast of Chicora between Florida and Virginia as described by Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón, and others, from Spain.. Best estimate I can muster. Lanfear's Bane | t 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The word is not in a Dutch dictionary I have, although it occurs as a verb form in a list of Dutch words from 1914, which – alas – does not give a meaning, but only the spelling. In general the prefix be- turns an intransitive verb into a transitive one. The intranstive verb would then be *stevenen, which is not in the dictionary either. But steven is, as a noun; it means "the front part of a ship", "stem", "bow", "prow". There is a Dutch word bezeilen, which means "to sail on (a given destination)". My guess is that the verb bestevenen basically means or meant the same. Looking at Google hits for the word (also in inflected forms), there is definitely a connection with ships and sailing, and the maps using the term typically mention a captain or navigator who did the bestevenen, like in this case Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón. This van der Aa map states that the bestevenen was done in Twee Scheeptogten, which also is not in my dictionary but can plausibly be assumed to mean something like "two ship voyages". Of course, for the cartographer to benefit from the navigator's having sailed on some coast, the latter would have needed to make some description, so the message implies that the map is based on a description of the navigator referred to.  --Lambiam 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Enter the cavalry... or the Dutchman, whichever you prefer :) Bestevenen, as Lambiam indicates, is no longer used in Dutch. It comes from the noun "steven", which indeed means bow. Literally, bestevenen would translate as "to turn one's bow towards", or "to sail upon". The title, "De Vaste Kust van Chicora tussen Florida en Virginie door Lucas Vasquez d'Ayllon En Andere, van Hispaniola Bestevend", translates as "The coast of Chicora between Florida and Virginia by Lucas Vasquez d'Ayllon and others, sailed upon from Hispaniola." Aecis^Brievenbus 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. The Chicorans, they are the ones shown milking their domesticated deer in the map illustration, thank you also.—eric 16:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How much does morpheme:syllable ratio vary, why, and with what result?

I don't know if I'm posing that question right with "morpheme" and "syllable"--the specific question that prompts it would be "why does Latin verse use fewer syllables than English translation of the same?". But I want to know how this effect plays out globally, and especially what does a given language have to "gain"--what selection pressure could explain a historical process of taking on more syllables in order to say effectively the same thing? I'd rather not get into the Orwellian "such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them." Unless that can actually explain it on a millennial and not just millenarian scale.Cyrusc (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Book Critique Help

Okay, I have a last minute question on a Book Critique due for my english class. I have to have some cited allusions from the adventures of huckleberry finn. The last time I got some but the teacher said that those weren't allusions.

--80.148.24.133 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What allusions have you found? We need to start with the work you have done already. Bielle (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried a google search on the word allusions and "huckleberry finn"? Lots of promising links from the look of it. Pfly (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

meaning of a Welsh word

What is the role of "dydy" in dydy hi ddim yn darllen? The meaning of the sentence, of course, is "she does not read", but why is "dydy" necessary? -- Danilot (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dydy is necessary because it is the only finite verb form in the sentence (just as "does" in English "She does not read" is the only finite verb form). In form, the Welsh sentence is parallel to English "She is not reading" (and it can mean that as well, in addition to "She does not read"); dydy is the form of the verb "to be" used in negative sentences. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So does dydy change according to person and number, just like bod? -- Danilot (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dydy is a form of bod. Basically, dydy...ddim is the negative of mae. If you know French, think of dydy as "n'est" and ddim as "pas". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LAKE

A small water in the forest, approximately on the size of half a soccer-pitch, this can be called a LAKE, yes?

Becoz LAKE can be in many sizes?

Pond would get to small to call it, no?

85.164.187.94 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I would go with "pond" for something half the size of a soccer pitch. To me, that feels too small to be a lake. Hundred-Acre Pond in Mendon Ponds Park is about three-eighths of a mile (600 m) in diameter, and it's still called a pond. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on pond opens with "A pond is typically a man made body of water smaller than a lake. However the difference between a pond and an artificial lake is subjective." Pond#Nomenclature offers a variety of definitions: shallow enough to walk through, shallow enough for sunlight to reach the bottom at its deepest point, "generally smaller than one would require a boat to cross", or surface area smaller than 10 acres (but see also Great Pond at 34 km² (13 sq mi for those living across the pond)). The article on lake is far less specific and starts out with "A lake (from Latin lacus) is a body of water or other liquid of considerable size contained on a body of land." (my emphasis). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In some parts of the US, especially the west it seems, the word "lake" is used even for quite small ponds. Wikipedia doesn't have pages on most of them, because they are so small not notable. But in the city of Seattle there is Haller Lake at 15 acres and Bitter Lake at 19 acres. Up in the mountains there are many named lakes of a much smaller size. But in general, yes, I would tend toward "pond" for the OP's description. Pfly (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The "pond" in On Golden Pond was definately a lake. DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

December 18

Gender proportions

Out of curiosity, is there any information available on what percentage of nouns are of each gender in German, French, Spanish, or any other language with grammatical gender? Either for the full lexicon or for the _______ most common words. Thanks. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume that in Romance languages (French, Spanish, ...) masculine nouns are more common than feminine nouns. After all, vulgar Latin has dropped the neuter, which was largely absorbed into the masculine gender.

As a native speaker of German I would guess that masculine nouns are also the majority in a colloquial vocabulary of this language.

Unfortunately, I can not find any hard figures which give a percentage anywhere. A program which parses some lengthy texts would be less than trivial, as gender is falsified by declension and plural number. Most of the time the article is merely implied in any sentence.

Sorry, this is not really of much help. Maybe user:Schlüsselchen knows. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Names

1. In names like Mairi, Saigo, Taika, and Daito, how "i" is pronouced? In the first syllable, as Mai-ri, Sai-go, etc., or as a seperate syllable, like Ma-i-ri, Sa-i-go, etc.? 2. In names like Heike, Meiji, Teika, and Seito, how "i" is pronouced? In the first syllable, as Hei-ke, Mei-ji, etc., or as a seperate syllable, like He-i-ke, Me-i-ji, etc.? 3. If a sound is lost in this transcription, what is it? Is this kind of transcription honest at all? --Omidinist (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Japanese phonology would help you. And "i" is always read as "ee". So mairi is like my-re or smiley without s, Saigo is sigh-go, Taika is tie-kha, Daito is die-toe. Heike is hey-ke, Meiji is may-ji. I described them in a convenient way. Think "i" is in separate syllable. Oda Mari (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume that Oda Mari is interpreting "syllable" as 音節. However, note that Japanese is a mora-based language. Mairi, for instance, consists of two syllables: mai.ri. However, at the same time, it contains three mora: ma.i.ri.

In regard to #1, "i" is [i]. Part of the first syllable, but a separate mora.

In regard to #2, the vowel cluster /ei/ has a tendency to become [eː] (long vowel; repeat e twice) in normal speech. Thus, [heːke], [teːka] etc. Again, part of the first syllable, but a separate mora. Bendono (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry for my misunderstanding. I'm not a phonologist. And thank you Bendono. Oda Mari (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Conflict/Irony in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"

I have tried to google conflict/irony in the book, but all that has been showing up are websites offering to sell me papers. I am not going to buy a paper to find what someone else has written, I am just looking for some examples of Conflict/Irony. Any help would be well appreciated.

Thanks.

--Devol4 (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try at the Humanities desk. This desk is for questions about languages and linguistics, not literature. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks. --Devol4 (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also try hunting through this [16] site for helpful links. SaundersW (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Person who knows the most languages

Is there a world record for being fluent in the most number of languages? --Candy-Panda (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Try reading this. Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is defining fluency precisely. What to most people would look like fluency would seem only intermediate skills to linguists, and this holds especially true when cases of polyglots are reported on the media - the more astounding a story seems, the easier it is to sell it.

Taking that into account, Giuseppe Caspar Mezzofanti could be your man. -- Danilot (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the media is often unreliable. This man 'speaks' 60 languages but you are probably right, not fluently. Even if he did Giuseppe Caspar Mezzofanti would beat him! Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Harold Williams is listed in the Guinness book of Records as being able to speak 58 languages 'fluently' but this still doesn't seem to beat Giuseppe Caspar Mezzofanti. And you have to take 'fluently' with a pinch of salt. As it is highly unlikely that he spoke 58 languages as if they were his first, which is what fluently should mean. For instance a friend of mine is considered remarkable for being able to speak 4 languages fluently, I mean really fluently and many others unfluently (which isn't a word but I am unable to think of the proper one just now). So anyone who spoke 58 languages fluently (which word I am getting sick of now) would, I would say be impossible, if I were not forbidden by the almighty Guinness. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "fluently" should mean "like a native language". Literally it just means "flowingly", so any language you can converse in without having to stop and mentally translate either what your interlocutor just said or what you want to say, you speak fluently. It doesn't have to mean you speak it without an accent or that you don't make occasional grammatical errors, just that you can jabber away in it without significant impediment. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. From my personal experience, I can tell non-experts tend to be easily amazed by mediocre language skills. I speak five languages fluently, two more almost fluently, and have got a basic knowledge of five or six more. The thing is, when I speak in those languages of which I have only got an elementary knowledge (even when I speak with natives!), people tend to be very impressed and even natives say I can speak their language "very well" (which I contend is far from being true). So sometimes I find out that people have been exagerating my language skills, not maliciously, but because they honestly believe I can speak a given language very well.

On the other hand, if I spoke with linguists, they would certainly downplay my language abilities in several of the languages I speak. Therefore, I believe there is a selective bias in determining fluency - it all depends on to whom you speak.

So, going back to Candy-Panda's original question... I think the best help we can give you is to provide you with a List of Hyperpolyglots, and then let you decide for yourself if their claims are well founded. -- Danilot (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch this [17]. "Professor" Ziad Fazah showing off his skills in 58 languages. It's from the Chilean TV, so it's in Spanish, though the most important messages are communicated using "international" language :) --Taraborn (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkish and Arabic

As a worldwide stamp collector, I see little bits of many different languages. For quite a while, I've wondered: is the Turkish Cumhuriyeti (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti, the official name of the state, Republic of Turkey) related to the Arabic الجماهيرية ("Jamahiriya", part of the official name of the state, Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Obviously, Turkish and Arabic aren't related, but with apparently similar meanings and somewhat similar souns I wonder: did one language borrow from the other? Or is it simply a coincidence? Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that it is a loanword - I would suspect from Arabic to Turkish. Our article Turkish language has some information about loanwords from Arabic, it appears that there are many, particularly in governmental vocabulary, but there is also a movement to replace loanwords with words of Turkic origin. I hope that someone with more expertise in Turkish and Arabic will turn up to enlighten us further. Good question, by the way. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No coincidence. Turkish and Arabic are related. Turkish has borrowed many many words from Arabic. As a matter of fact, almost all Muslim peoples have borrowed from Arabic. The reason is obvious. And, Jamahir (جماهیر) is the plural form of Jomhur (or Cumhur جمهور) meaning people or nation. --Omidinist (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not related at all, they are as different as English and Arabic. Due to centuries of contact, it has lots of Arabic loanwords, as Duncan said. It also has lots of borrowings from Persian (which is also as unrelated to Turkish as it is to Arabic, although it is actually related to English). The Turks were originally nomads and didn't have much vocabulary for government bureaucracy. They also borrowed "state" (devlet, from dawlat), "province" (vilayet, from wilayat), "sultan", etc. I don't know any Persian, unfortunately, so I'm not sure what they borrowed from it, but the Ottomans and their predecessors used Persian as their literary language, so sophisticated terms for literature and language probably come from there (what is Turkish for "book"? Probably something like the Persian "nameh" - in Arabic it is "kitab"). Arabic also borrowed heavily from Persian, which was the dominant language during the initial Arabic conquests. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A language, having borrowed words from another, does not automatically become related to the latter. Were it so, then English would be related to Nahuatl by the token of using the term "tomato".

I doubt wether an indigenous Peruvian, on a trip to London, would consider this to be a visit to linguistic relatives :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

English has "borrowed" many words from other languages. (See The Mother Tongue (book) for examples) What worries me is this. What will happen when they want thenm all back and see how we have mangled them? SaundersW (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What language can communicate the most information, while using the least amount of ink?

In other words, what language can communicate the most, while remaining short and concise? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a highly agglutinative language; maybe Georgian. -- Danilot (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Languages that use logogram-based writing systems instead of an alphabet would presumably communicate more information with "less ink" when written, but I assume Danilot's answer is more in line with what you're asking. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Verb tense

I was trying to make some edits on Wikipedia and was having some difficulty with correct grammar. Ultimately, I realized that I was utterly confused about the distinction between past tense and past perfect tense. Can anyone offer a very brief summary of this distinction, perhaps in a sentence or two, to make it clear? Just a quick "Cliff Notes" version so that I can capture the basic gist of it. These below, for example, are the types of sentences that were giving me trouble and causing me confusion.

Example A:
John Smith broke the world record in 1973 by eating 100 donuts.
Prior to that, the record-holder was Joe Blow.
(OR) Prior to that, Joe Blow held the record by eating 50 donuts.

Example B:
John Smith broke the world record in 1973 by eating 100 donuts.
Prior to that, the record-holder had been Joe Blow.
(OR) Prior to that, Joe Blow had held the record by eating 50 donuts.

So, are some sentences correct while the others are incorrect? (Which are correct and why?) Are they all correct? Are they all correct, but each is stating something a little different than the others? Please help. Thanks. I would like to know which are correct ... and, more importantly, why. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC))