Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 28

make money

hello?i'm in africa and i have the previlege of having internet acces throughout.Im a great writer and wondered if theres a sit they pay when you submit your letters online.Any genre of letters stories u can write he post on the net.please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.113.117 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the Language Help Desk and your question is not directly related to anything linguistic. Better to ask this on the Miscellaneous Help Desk. --ChokinBako (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, however, the linguists at this desk can take this opportunity to assist our anonymous friend in re-wording his or her question in a more coherent manner.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a (possibly unintended) example of an affirmation. Saying something as if it were already true ("Im a great writer") can't hurt, and may actually help. Every day and in every way, the questioner is getting better and better. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually assumed the OP really is a great writer, but perhaps in another language. Or perhaps s/he writes in English, but in an experimental vein.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Urgent comma help

The Fat Man is scouring a featured article candidate with a fined tooth fine-tooth(ed) comb looking for errant punctuation, grammar and word choice. I keep seeing commas used as in the following example: "She joined the female social club known as the Valentine Club, and helped to inaugurate the first sorority on the UT campus." This flies in the face of everything I was taught in sixth-grade English class (The Fat Man, never a remarkable student, nonetheless regularly achieved perfect marks on the verbal portion of standardized tests). I always believed we must never use commas in such situations unless the clause following "and" introduces a second subject (e.g. "She joined the club, and she helped to inaugurate). Am I not as smart as I think I am?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it's as rigid as that. Sometimes, commas indicate where a natural break would occur if the sentence is spoken aloud. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm..... there must be some sort of rule you can refer me to.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All the rules I've ever seen say that commas shouldn't be used in this way unless they're in between independent clauses. I've never seen anything to support the use of the comma in this situation without the addition of a "she". Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about it for a while, I would agree that the comma shouldn't be there. --ChokinBako (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

At heart, I deeply agree with the Fat Man. I was born and raised on correct grammar, as he was (except, of course, in using the occasional fragment in conversation). However, I'm afraid that the general, previously-colloquial use of the comma as any general pause in a sentence (that is, as if in speech) overrides any other rules in regards to comma use, thus agreeing with Jack. Naturally, one would pause where the comma lies. It's sad, though, that most grammar is disregarded nowadays, even in FA candidates...--~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is perfectly acceptable, and it is an example of two independant clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction. If the comma was removed it would become a run-on sentence; if the "and" was removed it would become a comma splice. Divinus (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case it would be a matter of personal choice. To take another example, "The Fat Man Who Never Came Back" would have a different stylistic effect from, "The Fat Man, Who Never Came Back", both of which are plausible. Personally, the sentence given by Fat Man, to me, does not need a pause, and therefore no comma. --ChokinBako (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo, Fat Man! If you can find the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss and the time to read it, it should give you plenty on the whole topic of punctuation, including your question. Retarius | Talk 07:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with The Fat Man Who Never Came Back and I'm with him all the way. I hate those commas which creep in where they shouldn't be. Xn4 08:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it this way. There are certain situations where it's plain wrong to put a comma in, because it alters the sense of what you're trying to communicate, or, there's, simply, no, justification, for, it. There are other situations where it's plain wrong to leave the comma out. Then there the situations such as Fat Man's sentence, where it comes down to matters of personal style, personal choice, and general readability. In these latter cases, it's a little futile to argue about a rule whether you should or you shouldn't have a comma, because different so-called authorities will give different perspectives. It's certainly possible to over-commatise even without losing the sense of the meaning; but I don't see this as such a case. It's not as black-and-white as "you must or you must not and there's no third alternative". Sometimes it's more like "a comma here is not absolutely necessary, but no harm is done by choosing to put one in". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's Noetica when you need...it? We went around with this not long ago. The archive is here. I can't think of anything to add to what I said in that archived exchange. To summarize, though, that comma is extraneous—wrong, even, in my book. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation. That discussion pretty much more or less concluded with what I said above, which was that it's not about right or wrong in cases like this. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was unclear there; I meant to summarize my position, not the archived exchange, which leaves the whole thing up in the air. That's what you get whenever you let a committee decide anything. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Where to put a comma, thank goodness, isn't a matter to be decided by a vote on this Reference desk. In "She died and went to heaven" there's no comma after died, and it would be a mistake to put one in the middle of The Fat Man's sentence. (I would, though, say 'fine-tooth comb' rather than 'fined tooth comb'.) Xn4 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh; I believe I only claimed reasonable competentcy with the English language (my aptitude as a typist and proofreader are far more suspect). Thanks for all the replies.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you would want to write that as "fine tooth comb". A comb that uses teeth is called a "tooth comb" and when those teeth are small and densely packed, that quality is called fine. (cf. small lap dog, which neither has a small lap (small lapped dog) nor is designed for small laps (small-lap dog)). Divinus (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the comma shouldn't be there. Its presence indicates (to me at least) that joining said club and helping with the event are distinct, and not necessarily related, activities; perhaps separated by a period of time. Leaving it out infers that the joining and helping were part of a continuous activity, in the same hour even. Bazza (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a free world, and you're entitled to your view, but it isn't shared by grammarians. Xn4 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks God most grammarians agree that the art of punctuation, to a certain degree, is part of the sphere of style and personal appretiation of the writer. It is true that grammarians (or better, grammar considerations) prohibit a comma placed in certain positions, and demand commas in other stances. But it is also true that the comma arose as a sign of pause in the discourse, as true as the fact that this use adds to the list of the sign's significances in modern days there is still space in the sign's significances to allow for style considerations. Pallida  Mors 20:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Writing is about communicating, not about adhering to the most arcane rule you can find in some grammar text book or to a black-and-white "rule" your teacher taught you in 6th grade. School "rules" are necessarily broad because of the audience, and they usually leave aside all sorts of exceptions and nuances and creative possibilities, because such students usually know nothing of style. If I read "She joined the female social club known as the Valentine Club, and helped to inaugurate the first sorority on the UT campus." embedded in a paragraph, I wouldn't give it a second glance, and I certainly wouldn't mark it as wrong or even query it if I were editing it. The comma there is perfectly natural; it would have been just as natural if it weren't there. Getting too fraught about these sorts of things is likely to send you into a comma-induced coma. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, things people learn about grammar in elementary school are not always correct. For example, some people learn that split infinitives are ungrammatical. If you learned that "and" cannot be preceded by a comma in sentences like this, you learned wrong.

Second, in this particular sentence, the comma improves it. Forget about "pauses"; its function is to make it explicit that the things being joined by "and" are clauses several words long, rather than just a few words. Without a comma, the reader is apt to first try to parse "Valentine Club and helped" as a unit and then have to realize that this is ungrammatical. In this case that's an easy realization because "helped" could not be a noun, but if you're in the habit of not using commas in such situations, it's easy to find yourself writing garden path sentences like "The movie director found himself in complete sympathy with the crew and cast the defective light meter into the garbage." --Anonymous, 21:36 UTC, March 29, 2008.

Indeed, punctuation (like spelling) can be a matter of personal taste if all you want to do is to communicate a meaning, although irregularities in either can sometimes cause confusion. "Use a comma before 'and' when what follows has a different subject" is still the rule and is a soundly based one. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back said he was "scouring a featured article candidate... looking for errant punctuation", so he was (perhaps still is) aiming to achieve an encyclopaedic standard. Irregular punctuation is almost never found in good encyclopædias. If anyone can find an example of that particular rule being broken in the Encyclopædia Britannica, then I shall be surprised. Xn4 11:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If your quote is the precise wording of the rule, then it's open to interpretation. It doesn't say "Use a comma before 'and' only when what follows has a different subject". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Groan. That was a shorthand. For a more restrictive version, please see the first post in the thread. But surely we all know the rule? Xn4 08:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper demonym for New Zealand

Hi there. I'm just wondering if anyone knows the correct demonym for a person from New Zealand. In Karen Walker (Will & Grace), at the top it says "For the New Zealand fashion designer, see Karen Walker (designer).". However, saying "New Zealand fashion designer" doesn't really sound properly.. you don't say "Canada singer", you say "Canadian singer", you don't say "America President", you say "American President", etc.. is this correct or is there a better word? Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is one. Some countries just don't seem to have them, like Greenland, for example. I think a better wording may have been 'fashion designer from New Zealand'. --ChokinBako (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeeland --> Zeelandic; thus New Zealand --> New Zealandic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard "New Zealander", but only as a noun. --Masamage ♫ 04:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, 'Greenlandic' does exist, too, but I've heard that only once or twice. I've never heard 'New Zealandic'. --ChokinBako (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Icelandic" too! But what about "Laplander"? Doesn't that take "Laplandish" as the adjective? I think you've discovered a defective; nobody's ever got around to determining a correct adjectival form, so it floats according to the inclination of the speaker. I think the New Zealanders themselves prefer to use "New Zealand" as the adjective. Retarius | Talk 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lappish" Paul Davidson (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct form is "New Zealand fashion designer", and does not need rephrasing. Equally correct are "New Zealand singer" and "New Zealand prime minister". This is the case in all forms of English, including New Zealand English, and would be seen in a New Zealand dictionary. I know this, since I am a New Zealand Wikipedian. You might find Icelandic, English, Scottish, and so forth, but we simply have New Zealand. Although, we might want to get parochial and refer to the North Island fashion designer, or the South Island singer. Unimaginative, perhaps, but we cope. Gwinva (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use Kiwi? :) -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's really informal, is all. You also wouldn't say "George Bush is a yank" in his Wikipedia article, even though it's true. :) --Masamage ♫ 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

True. Despite his phony Texas accent, he was born in Connecticut and is thus a true Yankee. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I news article in britain might use yank as a synonym to avoid repetition. aussie and kiwi are widely used in the u.s. and aren't very informal if ya ask me. And on will and grace kiwi would be very appropriate. You do say "Canada Geese" though don't you? I think using a noun as an adjective is fine in certain circumstances it just is more pleasing to hear as opposed autitively pleasing, its just an exception.NewAtThis (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the tone of the whole piece, you might see "Kiwi" as a descriptor in a headline, and/or later on in the text, but not in the initial text. For example: "KIWI WRITER WINS OSCAR: The New Zealand novelist Gertrude Splinge has won the inaugural Academy Award for Creative International Auxiliary Persiflage. ... blah blah blah blah ... Her work has raised the profile of expatriate Kiwi writers around the world. ... blah blah blah ". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AUSSIE CONTRIBUTOR MAKES A GOOD CASE: The Australian Wikipedian JackofOz provides a masterly example of the use of "Kiwi" in journalism, and thus increases respect for all Aussies at the reference desk. "Kiwi" is appropriate in semi-formal or imformal situations; ie. when Yank, Brit or Aussie would be equally acceptable, although it is worth noting that some people might take exception to it. It is never inappropriate to use "New Zealand" as an adjective, and it doesn't sound odd to us, at least! Gwinva (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No odder than "New Hampshire", "New South Wales" or "New England" when used as adjectives. The latter 2 don't become "New South Welsh" and "New English", but keep their form. (Thanks, Gwinva.)-- JackofOz (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unusual name

While watching Western Kentucky lose to UCLA tonight, I was surprised by the name of one of the players: Boris Siakam. What kind of a name is Siakam? My first guess is that it's Southeast Asian, since it vaguely seems to resemble perhaps Laotian or Thai names that I've heard. However, the man is plainly of African descent: I can't imagine that he's from anywhere in Indochina. Any opinions? Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He's from Cameroon. --ChokinBako (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A better question might be, why on earth is his first name Boris? Paul Davidson (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured: who knows, his parents might have heard it somewhere and liked it. It's easier to get an atypical first name :-) Nyttend

His parents might have been educated in Eastern Europe or the USSR. I have a Russian friend in the United States who's occasionally addressed in perfect Russian by African immigrants, which threw him at first. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbite

Possibly the Science desk would be better equipped to answer this, but it is etymology so I guess this is where it goes. Columbite aka Ferrocolumbite. Why is it called that? --superioridad ^(discusión) 09:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the primary ore of "columbium", now called niobium. According to the OED, Columbium got its name because it was discovered in rock from Massachusetts (Columbia = America). — kwami (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

English compound words and hyphens

I don't think this rule is covered in the article I linked above. How would you hyphenate something like "golf ball sized" when it's used as an adejctive, like "golf ball sized" piece of candy? Would there be a hyphen between all three word? Would there be just one, between ball and sized, because "golf ball" is the phrase? Thanks, Fbv65edel — t — c // 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do what you think is natural. If you want to hear some other people's opinions, some are given at The Trouble With EM ’n EN in the en dash section. However, kindly note opinions are not rules that should be blindly obeyed or worshiped. --Kjoonlee 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless, of course, it is the opinion of the wonderful and infallible *me*. It's "golf-ball-sized", if those little horizontal lines between the words are considered to be hyphens. Writing is not a natural act. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you say so. Writing is a very arbitrary act. ;) --Kjoonlee 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The rule I've always seen is that when a hyphenated phrase is in turn hyphenated, the original hyphen drops. So, a golf-ball dimpler, but a golf ball-sized piece of candy. However, I've sometimes seen hyphens vs. en dashes used: golf-ball–sized piece of candy. The latter is more precise, but the former follows the less-is-more philosophy of modern punctuation. More than one hyphen is normally only used when all the elements are linked at the same syntactic level, as in less-is-more philosophy. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, I see I'm just repeating Kjoon's link, and not as well. — kwami (talk))

It's just three hyphens, that's all. "Golf ball-sized" is plain wrong; that says it's ball-sized and leaves "golf" swinging in the breeze. This ain't a hard one. Look in any competent stylebook; the Wikipedia MoS is of no use for this. The en-dash is used when there is a multi-word proper noun (post–World War II), not any time a conceptual difference can possibly be discerned among the elements. [I'm trying to flush out Noetica.] --Milkbreath (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In Kjoon's link "Golf ball–sized" is the recommended one-mark form, as the en-dash shows that a hyphen was dropped. But by using two hyphens, you're implying that golf modifies size rather than ball, which is just as wrong. Thus the conundrum. In any case, I see a single hyphen/dash much more frequently than two. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement in Kjoon's link that you seem to be referring to cites The Chicago Manual of Style as its source, but it oversimplifies the practices actually recommended in that work, which in fact accord with what Milkbreath advocates. Two examples given in CMS (15th ed.) that are more or less parallel to "golf-ball-sized" are "wheelchair-user-designed" (p. 263) and "time-clock-punching employees" (p. 303). With regard to the first example, it says that to have used an en dash between user and designed (as in your "golf-ball–sized" above) "would merely have created an awkward asymmetry; the meaning is clear with hyphens." Deor (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I co-wrote the hyphens and dashes sections at WP:MOS. It's a triple-bunger, not ideal, but it requires either two hyphens (golf-ball-sized) or the occasionally used en dash, which I personally dislike: golf ball–sized yuck. If the item comes after the noun it qualifies, you can get away with "golf-ball sized". TONY (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek word

I give you here below a list of entries in Oxford dictionary:

Euhages, or Eubages [L ( Amnianus Marcellinous). The form euhages is due to a misreading of Gk οὑατεῖς, Strabo’s rendering of a Gaulish wd = L vates.The other form is a scribal error.] (Celt. Antiq.) An order of priests, or natural philosophers, among the ancient Celtae.

Ovate [ f. an assumed L pl. ovates, repr. οὑατεῖς = vates, soothsayers, prophets, mentioned by Strabo as a third order in the Gaulish hierarchy.] An English equivalent of Welsh offyd, now applied to an Eisteddfodic graduate of a third order, beside ‘bard ’ and ‘druid’.

Vates [L]. 1. A poet or bard, esp. one who is divinely inspired, a prophet-poet. 2. pl. One of the classes of the old Gaulish druids.

The Latin Oxford dictionary:

Ouates ( Uatis ) [ of Italo-celtic origin, cf Ir. fath, ‘bard’, Welsh gwawd ‘ song of praise’; cogn. Also in Goth. Wods ‘frenzied’, ‘possessed’] 1. A prophet, seer ( regarded as the mouthpiece of the deity possessing him). 2. A poet ( regarded as divinely inspired), bard.

I tried to identify the Greek word ουατείς but was unable to trace this word. Could you please help me in this endevour?

213.207.169.158 (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.165.245 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 

Um, doesn't the first definition state that it is not, in fact, Greek, but Gaulish (or Italo-Celtic)? It says the Latin cognate is vates, look up vates.

Aas217 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Business name change

Wikipedia to me is my google,and i always use it,.I am changing my business name from xxxxxxxx Group to xxxxxx Wealth Management and want to inform my clients of the name change.Can someone help me on this,i would be greatly indebted to wikipedia. i need a sample letter asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.113.117 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do your own homework... or rather, fee-generating business marketing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Transitive procrastination

How do you construct a sentence using "procrastinate" to say what responsible activity you were avoiding? Is it "I procrastinated my homework," or "I procrastinated from my homework," or what? --Masamage ♫ 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED only has "to procrastinate the matter", but I've always said, "I procrastinated doing my homework". — kwami (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. I would have sworn that "procrastinate" was always intransitive. I can't say "I procrastinated my homework", and I don't know why. Maybe I'll try to find out tomorrow. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't say "I procrastinated my homework" either. However, the two OED examples sound okay, even poetic. (The other is "procrastinated the truth".) Maybe it's okay to use an indefinite or generic object, but not a definite object like "my homework"? It would be less transitive. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You can always say "I put off my homework," which may be a bit more natural. --Diacritic (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's technically transitive but it's simply become unidiomatic to use it that way. I'd notice if someone used it that way, and ask them where they learned English. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this phrase isn't used as much in Australia? A quick Google search using the terms "put off homework" suggests that many English speakers are completely comfortable with this construction. --Diacritic (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the phrase "I procrastinated my homework", or "I procrastinated <any direct object>". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I agree with you. --Diacritic (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh, kwami's is interesting. "Procrastinated [verb]ing" actually sounds okay to me. --Masamage ♫ 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My ancient dictionary lists the transitive meaning first, but it sounds quite wrong to my American ears. Even "procrastinate [verb]ing"; 'Procrastinate' is strictly intransitive for me. However -- I love that heading phrase: "transitive procrastination"! Elphion (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I could see it evolving from transitive to intransitive, as procrastination tends to be a character defect, and not restricted to any particular action. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to agree with you 100%, except I can't quite find the time and energy to get around to it. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to get on with it, but... --Masamage ♫ 02:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What took you so long to post that?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Harakat

Arabic vowelling marks are called tashkil, and the consonant-distinguishing dots are i'jam. However, our article is harakat. Does anyone know if that's synonymous with tashkil, or does it cover both? — kwami (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on tashkil, which describes it as "the Arabic word for vocalization". I do not agree with that. The word tashkil connotes 'design', and like harakat it refers to the vowel diacritics. So yes, both essentially mean the same thing. It's possible that the use of either term varies by country; in the Standard Arabic used in Egypt, tashkil is the common term for the vowel marks. — Zerida ☥ 04:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We also have an ʼIʻrāb article. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Irab is basically morphosyntax. It covers both Classical Arabic declension and constituent structure. — Zerida ☥ 05:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I merged taŝkīl with ħarakāt. However, this link[1] claims that taŝkīl is the same as i'jam. Looks like it may be a mistake. — kwami (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Classical Arabic originally did not have either dots or vowel marks as you might know, so it's theoretically possible that at one point they were all described as tashkil. This is not true today because while it's perfectly acceptable to write Arabic without the vowel marks (i.e. tashkil), as is always the case in handwriting, it's not at all possible to eliminate the dots because one would not be able to distinguish the consonants otherwise. The merge was a good move; some of it sounded like OR to me. — Zerida ☥ 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The i'jam are *never* left out? I saw a building in Turkey with Kufic script inscribed over the door, where there was no pointing at all, but I forget how old it was. (Not terribly, though.) Maybe it was an archaizing effect, like subbing i and v for j and u in English? — kwami (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen Kufic script used except for decoration, so I would assume it was an attempt at archaism. Another possibility is that what you saw was actually Osmanli not Arabic, but I am not terribly familiar with the former. BTW, I should mention that the term i'jam for the dots must be another regional variation, since it would never be called that in Egypt for one, where the literal word for 'dots' is used: [noʔɑtˤ] in spoken EA, [niqɑ:tˤ] in the local Standard Arabic. And the answer to your question is yes, they are *never* left out if the intention is to be able read rather than décor. For example, I haven't the slightest clue what this 7th century passage from the Qur'an says, but I have no trouble reading Classical texts if they're otherwise marked. — Zerida ☥ 20:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

riddle mania

my name was changed for fear of connoting an insult.What is it? i thot it was bic which changd itd name coz guyz thot it was bitch...Help

I don't understand. Do you mean your Wikipedia username? What was it, exactly? --Masamage ♫ 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

S/he's quoting a riddle. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh. Narf. --Masamage ♫ 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual with these 'riddles', it is far too poorly-defined to have a unique answer. James Bond was called Bondo-san (not Bon-san) in Japan to avoid insult. Legend of the Five Rings used to have a family called Otaku before it was changed to Utaku to avoid perceived insult. But I'm sure there are many more possible answers, and neither of these is the intended one. Algebraist 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're right about the bic biro, sorry, ball-point pen – Marcel Bich did change it for that reason. Clever you, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Political correctness has forced changes to many names. I remember hearing that the Fat Controller in the Thomas stories had had his name changed, although I don't know if that was anti-PC hyperbole. 195.60.20.81 (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Fat Controller suggests it is not as straightforward as all that. And I don't really see how changing a product name to avoid people thinking it is a swearword, and thus being reluctant to buy your product, is 'political correctness [forcing] changes'. If you'd given the example of Darlie... Skittle (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

warden in spanish

is it gerente? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think gerente makes a good translation of the term. A word from the business world, gerente is the analog of chief officer.

Anyway, what's the relevant context, NewatThis?. For prison warden, I'd suggest alcaide (not alcalde). For an enforcement officer, alguacil is, in my view, the best option. Encargado may be suitable for designing a chief administrator of an institution. Does this help? Pallida  Mors 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, the first two come from Arabic al-qadi (judge) and al-wakil (someone with authority in general). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

wow very interesting, thank you. i meant prison warden, alcaide is very intriguing nevertheless. How do you say chief petty officer, chief warrant officer, or private by the way? And is Master Sergeant Sargento en jefe and is Gunnery Sergeant Sargento de artillería?NewAtThis (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting too, Adam... Arabic derivations account for a great portion of the hypertrophied A section (and in particular, the Al subsection) of the Spanish vocabulary.

I'm sorry, NewatThis, if I'm of little help with your beligerant pursue. :p I have relatively scarce knowledge of military ranks, either English or Spanish. Sargento Mayor corresponds to Sergeant Major, which may not be equivalent to your Master Sergeant. Suboficial is more or less equivalent to warrant officer, so suboficial mayor is the apparent translation of chief warrant officer. Private is soldado raso. Is petty oficer an equivalent to warrant officer in the navy? This site translates (chief) petty officer as contramaestre, for what it's worth. Pallida  Mors 19:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Spaetzle

How do you pronounce it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.28.8 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See Spätzle for an audio file and an IPA transcription of this word. --Diacritic (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is if you want to say it in German. An American pronunciation is here. We know of and eat the things, too. -Milkbreath (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That looks tasty. --Masamage ♫ 00:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, there is this Swabian tongue-twister Dr Babschd hots' Schpätzlesbschdeck z'schbäd b'schdelld ("The pope has ordered the Spätzle cutlery too late.") German Wikipedia lists it as an example of a Swabian shibboleth. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dialect and accent domination

This is more of a sociological question than language usage question, but I´ll go ahead anyways. Let´s say a young person has lived her entire life in a rural region or a region where most of the inhabitants have the same accent and speak the same dialect, and those two are seen as inferior to another dialect that is seen as standard in the country, and the inhabitants know well that their way of speaking is looked down upon by others. Let´s say this person moved out and studied in a larger city or a region where the way of speaking was the dominant one, realized his/her way of speaking is wrong or ugly to those around her, went back to her place of origin, and spoke with his/her family and friends in the new way this person has just learned. My question is, what leads people to think that youre being snobby if you talk in one way and not the way they do. And more, what leads people who know how to speak correctly speak incorrectly. Lets use for example many african americans: many have learned to speak Standard American, if such a dialect exists, yet with so much stigma and prejudice against their culture and their dialect now and throughout history, wouldnt the majority want to change others´attitudes and start speaking correctly. I think, in their case, that many are undermining what they have fought for by continuing to speak incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.19.134 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to discuss sociolinguistic behavior in terms of "correct" and "incorrect". In fact, there's no reason to suppose that any dialect of English is linguistically superior to any other dialect, and linguistic research conducted since the 1960s has demonstrated, for example, that African American Vernacular English is every bit as systematic and grammatical as variants of English spoken by whites and promoted in American schools. Language opinions, like language policies, have nothing to do with language and everything to do with social factors and issues of power.

Societies use linguistic features as social markers. When groups make conscious decisions to speak a certain way, they do so for different reasons, but ultimately most people speak the way they were raised to speak; it expresses solidarity with other members of one's in-group and asserts one's identity.

One group's prejudice toward a particular dialect should not obligate speakers of that dialect to switch dialects. Clearly, the ones who need to change are those who are prejudiced, not those who are prejudged. --Diacritic (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the prejudiced should change, not the prejudged, but in practice there are prejudices and people do change their accents, intentionally or otherwise. Some people change their accents depending on the audience without even realising it. I moved to Yorkshire when my daughter was 8 years old, and now at 16 she speaks RP with slight regional influences at home, but on the phone to her friends she speaks with a strong accent. She knows she changes accents when it is pointed out to her but says it "just happens". -- Q Chris (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical instance of code shifting. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

March 29

Pronunciation of Vortigern

I would like to know how to pronounce the name Vortigern. Is vɔː(r)ti'gɜː(r)n correct? Any ideas why my signature (two dashes and four tildes) does not work any longer? --Babeuf 08:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert at IPA, but for RP the best I can do is [vɔː(ɹ)tɪgə(ɹ)n], with the stress on the first syllable, or else [vɔː(ɹ)tɪgɜː(ɹ)n], with the stress on the first and last. Some English dialect speakers would pronounce both rs, and no doubt many Americans would, too. Xn4 12:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to log in for your signature to work. --Omidinist (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

....says the man with the red signature....--ChokinBako (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation from Russian

Can someone please translate the text on this poster into English? --superioridad ^(discusión) 08:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here goes. I'll use L and R for the person on the left and right, respectively. The lightning-like word above the L head says "crisis". The text on the scroll the L hand says "military plans". The bold font text at the bottom of the poster says "Same years, different "weather" [sic]". The words years and weather rhyme in Russian, but it still sounds quite lame. Sorry. The L and R thermometers say "American industry" and "Soviet industry", respectively. The text in a box under the thermometers says: "American figure - minus 22 per cent - indicates the nascent economic crisis in the US and, with it, the growing crisis in all the capitalist countries. Soviet figure - plus 20 per cent indicates the further mighty rise of Soviet industry". The signature says "Molotov". That's it. That's the very soap the brains were washed with. Scary... --Dr Dima (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Around 1932-1933, it wasn't that outrageous to claim that industry in "capitalist" countries was declining, while industry in the Soviet Union was rising. Of course, Soviet agriculture was collapsing at the same time... AnonMoos (talk)

The poster is from 1948, though. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Plural of "die"

Why does "die" have different plural forms depending on if you're talking about the metalworking equipment or the random-number generator? Are there any other nouns that have more than one plural form? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Index" has plural forms "indexes" and "indices". I suspect the "regular" plurals "dies" and "indexes" arise from linguistic analogy. --Diacritic (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They have different plural forms because they are completely different words that just happen to be spelled the same. I can't think of any other examples of the plurals being spelled differently, but I'm sure there are some.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED has quite a little essay on the matter under "die n.¹". "Dice" is the older form arising from the older sense of "die" having to do with luck or chance. It originally formed the plural with a siblant "-s", but over time it took "-ce" like other collective nouns such as "lice" and "mice", it being construed that way, retaining the siblance in that spelling. The "metalworking" sense came later, and it took "-s", it almost being construed as a different word. The OED mentions "pennies" as a similar development, that being a later, non-collective sense of "pence". (The two senses of "die" are not different words.) --Milkbreath (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "sibilant" and "sibilance"? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeth. Urk. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict - same source] The plural dice was once the regular form. Perhaps because it was often collective (you hardly ever spoke of just one), the plural ending was not seen as plural and did not change from /s/ to /z/ when that happened to other plurals; the spelling then had to change from dyse to dyce to show this. Other words this happened to were pence (from penny) and truce (from true - an old generic plural like news). Like news, dice is almost always the form used for the game; it's hard to even understand what people are talking about if they say 'die'.

In the mechanical sense, on the other hand, the plural form did change normally with the other plurals of the language, perhaps because the word was found often enough in the singular for people to keep track of it. You might argue that these are now two different words, but they originate from the same French source. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found some other examples, but really they are the same word used in different contexts: staves (music)/staffs (sticks); mice (rodents)/mouses (computing); media (broadcasting)/mediums (spooky people); cloths (rags)/clothes (apparel).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two things going on here. On one side, specialized usages may become fossilized when a word changes elsewhere. That's the case of staves, which is the form normally used in music, but is dropping out of use for sticks. The other side is metaphorical extension, where the object isn't seen as the same, and irregularities don't carry over with the root word. That's the case with mouses, though recently I've seen computer mice as well, perhaps because people are now completely comfortable with the object. You also see that with staff: as personnel, you can never have the plural staves, even though you can still use that form when the meaning is stick (especially in archaizing contexts, such as fantasy games). The same thing happens with verbs: a potted plant is hung, but a convict (metaphorical extension) is hanged, though of course a lot of people speak of a pot as being hanged and others of a convict being hung. Few of these are 100%. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rarely heard 'mouses' even in the computer context, and have thought it odd when I have come across it. In The Language Instinct Pinker discusses and rejects the theory that it is transferred meaning or metaphorical extension which leads to words' losing their irregular inflections (one counter-example I remember is 'oil-mice' - people who steal small amounts of oil from small oil-wells. His explanation is that the special forms are lost when a word goes through being another part of speech (one of his examples is 'fly out', which he argues comes from the phrase 'fly ball', and therefore has lost its connection with the verb 'fly'). However, while I am sure there is something to what he says, I can't buy it all the way: in my idiolect, 'broadcast' is present and past, like 'cast', disagreeing with his statement on it; and though I do not use 'mouses' for computers, some people evidently do. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've rarely heard "mice" in the computer context. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw it in an in-store advertisement just a couple weeks ago; in speech, I know a lot of people scratch their heads and don't know what to say, since both mice and mouses sound wrong to them.

Colin, I wouldn't put much stock on anything Pinker says. With metaphor, I think the relevant issue may be how transparent it is to the speaker. With something like "oil-mice", the image is very much alive, whereas a lot of people won't relate to a computer mouse being a kind of mouse. Once the connection is broken, the two uses are free to evolve independently, and the one without an established history is likely to lose irregularities. — kwami (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You might not put much stock on 'anything Pinker says', but I do. I am well aware that he is an arch-Chomskyan, and that some of the things he says are therefore contentious, and that he goes to some ridiculous lengths in How the Mind Works, but I think his analyses are worth taking seriously, even if I don't accept them all the way. I think his demolition of 'the language mavens' is masterful. --ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

rebbetzin

What is the etymology of rebbetzin (rebbitzin)? The rebb is obvious (the root), and -in is the German feminine, but what about the -etz-? It doesn't look like the Hebrew feminine. Is it maybe the Latin feminine found in English as -ess? Are other Yiddish feminine nouns formed with -tzin? — kwami (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the -etz- is borrowed from Slavic and is related to the feminine suffix of tsar-its-a. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I might be able to find an intermediate form ?rebbitsa. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In a meeting (date unknown / reference http://www.hagalil.com/deutschland/berlin/frauen/rabbinerin.htm) in Berlin / Germany the subsequent question was, it seems, not solved: "Übrigens: Die Frage nach der politisch korrekten Bezeichnung in Jiddisch für den Mann einer Rabbinerin konnte im Laufe der Konferenz nicht geklärt werden. Rebbetz, Rebbetzer...?"

In translation: By the way, the correct term for the husband of a female rabbi could not be determined. Is it Rebbetz, Rebbetzer..?

This would imply that rebbetz per se means "spouse of the (male or female) rabbi. Rebbetzin would be that plus the Germanic female suffix -in, rebbetzer ditto with the male ending -er.

As to the infix -etz- I could not find anything, but Angr makes sense.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be a back-formation, with only the -in recognized as a meaningful suffix. There's long been a question of where the Esperanto word edzino 'wife' comes from, and this seems to be it. Edzo 'husband' would then be a back-formation. I'm just curious as to what that edz was originally. If Angr's right, then the Russian feminine suffix became a root meaning 'husband', rather a convoluted etymology. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Etz", particularly in Etz Chaim / Etz Hayyim / Ets Haim synagogue, turns up quite frequently in Google searches. Maybe somebody with a Jewish background can give us some idea as to the meaning / root? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the Hebrew word for tree (עץ), which certainly does not have any connection with a Slavic agentive suffix... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian family names often end with -ec, pronounced like -etz. I know there is a cognate -ić in Serbian/Croatian, but I don't know whether there is anything similar in East or West Slavonic. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Got a response back from a Yiddish website that these are two feminine suffixes, though it was only implied that they were Russian and German. — kwami (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually (continuing my comment above) I've realised that the Russian diminutive suffix '-ич' (-ič), as in 'Царевич' ('Tzarevich') must be the same. --ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. — kwami (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, they're Slavic and German, though not necessarily Russian. Suggestions were Ukrainian and Belorussian. Angr, would you happen to know the feminine suffixes in Ukrainian or Polish?

Also, do you know if this -itsa is cognate with English -ess? — kwami (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) No, I don't know them. (2) I don't know but I rather doubt it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In Polish, the suffix meaning "wife of" is -owa, so a wife of a rabbi (rabin) would be rabinowa. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

March 30

Spanish translation

how do you say happy birthday in Spanish please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.24.68 (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Feliz cumpleaños. F (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

¡felíz cumpleaños!NewAtThis (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need the accent over the i, since the z as the last letter indicates that the last sentence is stressed. Corvus cornix_talk 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant to write "last syllable" (of the word feliz).  --Lambiam 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, my duh. Corvus cornix_talk 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the accent unnecessary; it's wrong. In other words, you don't use the digraph diacritic in such cases, though it marks the correct stress. Pallida  Mors 20:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

==Spanish translation==Italic textCan someone translate Image:Fjce05.jpg please? F (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mister Suárez, we shall be going to the Olympic Games! - FJCE". (Strictly speaking "las Olimpíadas" would mean the Olympiads (periods of four years between the games) and Juegos Olímpicos is the official term for Olympic Games. But las Olimpíadas almost always means the Games. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"MR. SUAREZ WE WILL GO TO THE OLYMPICS." it's not shall, it's in the familiar form not formal form nor classical form; olimpiadas does not almost always mean the games, it almost always if not in every circumstance means the Olympics. Sr. is Mr. not Mister, which would be Señor. Also no need for exclamation points ¡they aren't used in the spanish version! I would also lose the accent on the a for 2 reasons, they aren't used in English and its not used in the original spanish version, the surname suarez does carry an accent on the a but it is common practice to omit accents when writing in all caps. Another translation could be "MR. SUAREZ WE WILL MAKE IT TO THE OLYMPICS"NewAtThis (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In my idiolect, 'we shall' is not more formal than 'we will'. Both are more formal than 'we'll', but if I expanded the form, I would use 'shall' unless I was emphasising our intention. --ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

When shall and will are distinguished (which is increasingly infrequent), the distinction is one of mood, not formality. In the traditional distinction, "I shall, you will, she will" is simple prediction, while "I will, you shall, he shall" implies determination. E.g. "You will go to town" means you're likely to go to town. "You shall go to town" means you darn well better! I believe this distinction was always artificial, and it's not widely observed today, in my experience. Elphion (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Farsi translation of English 'witch'

In the article White Witch (about C. S. Lewis's character Jadis of Charn), a recent contribution [2] claims that 'Jadis' is Persian for 'witch'. I don't know Persian; I tried a free translation service and got back جادوگر (for any of several case and article variations), which as near as I can make out would transliterate to something like jādvgr. (Unfortunately short vowels are typically not included in Farsi spelling, so I imagine there are some more vowels toward the end.) Have you got someone knowledgeable in Farsi who could supply a definitive transliteration, and verify whether any form is closer to 'Jadis'? Elphion (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Farsi wiktionary entry http://fa.wiktionary.org/wiki/witch (I don't know how to interwiki-link to a foreign language version of another wikiproject!) exists and has a redlink to 'پیره زن', which I make out as 'pire zan' or 'pirah zan'. 'جادیس' (which would be the most obvious way of spelling 'jadis' in Farsi, though not the only one) finds nothing in either the Farsi Wikipedia or the Farsi Wiktionary.--ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

'Jadu' (جادو) -- not 'jadis' -- means witchcraft in the New Persian. In the Old Persian, it is both witch (جادوگر - jadugar) and witchcraft. It has a short article in the Persian Wikipedia: [3]. --Omidinist (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Omidinist, you can create a wikilink to a different-language wikipedia thus: [[:fa:جادو]]. (You need the ':' on the front, otherwise it will put it in the interwiki box at the side rather than in the text - and that's the answer to my own question above about linking to a foreign-language wiktionary: if I'd put [[:fa:wikt:witch]] it would have worked). --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that the wikt:witch of the west?  --Lambiam 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin, you can also put it the opposite order without the leading colon: [[wikt:fa:witch]]. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I've used the info here. Elphion (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

gayelle

could someone help me find sources for the use of the term "Gayelle" What's the history or herstory behind it? I have seen a report about it on CBS news on Logo but can't find the source in print or online to cite it in the article...help?NewAtThis (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Without doubt, despite being NewAtThis you must be the most knowledgeable expert on the neologism, "gayelle" (a synonym for lesbian, for the non cognoscenti). My additional - and rather spotty - research indicates that lesbians tend to regard it as insulting, as it is the feminised version of the male label "gay".

As per Wiktionary, it is also a Caribbean term used in cockfighting, another concept with is not intuitively associated with lesbian women.

That the word sounds like girl (plus an Irish accent) can hardly endear it to women who have survived their puberty.

Personally, I think that the word gayelle is about as useful as a strap-on dildo in a urinal is for a pee.

As you are aware, the term gayelle and a related painful term for bisexuals, hipshe (proposed by the same mob) are registered / trademarked. I am not entirely sure if this aids your attempt to have the entry listed in the WP.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

economics term

demand has _____ from traditional tvs to flat-screen tvs.

meaning that demand for traditional tvs decreased because flat-screen tvs entered the market and demand for flat-screen tvs increased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.14 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved, shifted, transferred? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also changed. But please never use "transitioned". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

cross worn on the body

What is the English name of the cross that is worn by Christians on the neck string under clothes? It's strange, but I didn't find it in any article. Thank you.Seaweed71 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Often called a crucifix, although strictly speaking I think the cross has to have a representation of the figure of Christ on it to be a crucifix. A cross on its own is just called a cross. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a scapular?  hotclaws 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's the one on a priest's or cleric's chest, it's a pectoral cross and definitely not under clothes but I thought you might enjoy the whole range – and the style is being taken up by some laity according to the article. †®  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

'out of 10' vs. 'of out 10'

Does this sentence from the Guardian sound strange?

• Most women prisoners have mental health problems, and nine of out 10 were convicted of non-violent offences.

Who says 'out of' and who says 'of out'?217.168.3.246 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a mistake. It should indeed read 'out of'. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence the paper's nickname - The Grauniad. Nanonic (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how the rest of the sentence loses conviction too... Julia Rossi (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Possessives

In this sentence,[4] I don't see an object to which the possessive belongs (the blue square indicates the correct answer). Thanks. 66.65.143.85 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question either. Clearly, the full sentence ends with "East African cave paintings". Is this the object you're talking about? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "her" in the sentence obviously refers to that of Mary Leakey, but the only appearance of a name is in "Mary Leakey's contributions." I didn't think you could use a pronoun possessive until you've introduced the object as a noun. 66.65.143.85 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The question is asking which of the five answer choices is the best replacement for the underscored portion of the sentence at the top (a standard sort of question on U.S. standardized tests). What the test writers are getting at with this one is twofold: (1) the lack of syntactic parallelism of "with her discovery …" and "painstakingly documenting …" needs to be corrected and (2) the "In addition to her work …" phrase works better if the sentence's subject is contributions rather than "Mary Leakey" (since it's her contributions rather than she herself that is "in addition to her work"). The second point may be somewhat debatable, but it's the only way I see of choosing between options 3 and 4. Deor (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the point raised by 66.65.143.85 enters into this as well, but I thought that U.S. standardized-test writers had discarded that shibboleth after a controversy arose when a question involving it was included on a New York State Regents' Exam a number of years ago. (Some people think that you can't have a possessive pronoun referring to a following antecedent unless the antecedent is also in the possessive case. They're wrong, but the opinion seems to be fairly widely held among schoolmarm types.) Deor (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Usually the absence of an antecedent is a mistake. An example of Fowler's illustrates this: "An American Navy League Branch has even been established in London, and is influentially supported by their countrymen in this city." "They" are obviously supposed to be the Americans, but they don't appear in the sentence. There has to be a word for the pronoun to refer to, not just an idea. The case in question here is not so bad. Ms Leakey is there, really, she's just wearing a different case. Take "Harry's pants were down around his ankles." We have to think way too hard to see a problem with that sentence, and this one is like that one. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there's also nothing wrong with the sentence "Because his pants were down around his ankles, Harry began to blush," even though some folk think it is "wrong" but "Because his pants were down around his ankles, Harry's face began to take on a rosy hue" is "acceptable." Deor (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mary Leakey is always a noun phrase; the fact that it appears as Mary Leakey's doesn't change that. Strad (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

March 31

Fred makes a stirling effort

"Fred makes a stirling effort". How do you spell stirling/sterling/sturling in this context? What does it actually mean in this context? I cannot find such an entry in the Consise OED or in Wiktionary or in the penguin reference dictionary. Help appreciated. -- SGBailey (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"sterling" adj, definition 3 here, "high quality". Recury (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought it was "sirloin". — kwami (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I need the definition for a word... I can't find anything pertaining to what my teacher wants me to find. I am in Desktop Publishing and there is something called a "pull." I have no idea what that is and can't find the definition of the word that puts it in DTP style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.196.51 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Try this Pull quote - X201 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you guys are awesome. I couldn't find that for the life of me. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.196.51 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gerunds

"In 1997, the number of Americans declaring themselves bankrupt jumped by almost 20 percent."

Shouldn't it be "who declared themselves"? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm not sure anything can "jump by" an amount, though. I smell journalists (no offense). --Milkbreath (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Either one would be fine. But "declaring" isn't a gerund in this sentence, it's an active participle. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct punctuation

This sentence appears in the introduction of 2006 FIFA World Cup: The tournament was won by Italy, their fourth world championship title, who defeated France 5–3 in a penalty shootout, after the extra time finished in a 1–1 draw in the final. But I feel that the punctuation used there is somewhat awkward, because both "their fourth world championship title" and "who defeated France ..." refer to Italy, so I somewhat get the feeling that something else besides the commas should be used. Am I wrong? Or, if not, which of the followings would be a better way to punctuate that sentence?

• The tournament was won by Italy—their fourth world championship title—who defeated France 5–3 in a penalty shootout, after the extra time finished in a 1–1 draw in the final.
• The tournament was won by Italy—their fourth world championship title,—who defeated France 5–3 in a penalty shootout, after the extra time finished in a 1–1 draw in the final. (this seems reasonable to me, if my book hadn't said that dashes are never used next to commas)
• The tournament was won by Italy (their fourth world championship title), who defeated France 5–3 in a penalty shootout, after the extra time finished in a 1–1 draw in the final.

Or you may choose to submit another version :)  ARTYOM  18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the sentence as it currently stands is awful. Both your first and third options are fine - your book is right about the second being wrong. I don't much like the last clause though - I would say something like "...after the game ended in a 1-1 draw (after extra time)." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I like to use as little punctuation as possible. How about "The tournament was won by Italy, who in the final defeated France 5–3 in a penalty shootout after extra time ended in a 1–1 draw, for their fourth world championship title"? Depending on the context (which I haven't looked at), "Italy won the tournament (their fourth world championship title) by defeating France 5–3 in a penalty shootout in the final, extra time having ended in a 1–1 draw" might also work. There are many ways of recasting the sentence to improve it. Deor (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A note: If you choose any of the three above, be careful where you put the modifying phrase (their fourth world championship title). As is stands, it sounds like Italy herself is a championship title. --^LaPianísta! 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You might even want to consider using "which". I realise that "Italy" is a metonymous way of saying "the Italian team", which consists of humans. But even then, I'd use "which" in relation to a team, and "who" in relation to individual members of the team. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I agree, Jack. Football teams are always referred to as 'they' rather than 'it' (e.g. "they defeated France"), and "which defeated France" would also sound mighty odd. How are Collingwood doing these days, by the way? :) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hard-line on this, Richardrj, which is why I said "consider". I was going to say that your first point isn't really relevant here, on the basis that whether it's perceived as singular or plural has no bearing on whether it's perceived as animate or inanimate. But on reflection I think you've identified something quite interesting. There are four possibilities:

• 1. singular-inanimate: "Collingwood, which defeated all comers to claim the 2008 premiership, is considered the best team for 100 years"
• 2. singular-animate: "Collingwood, who defeated all comers to claim the 2008 premiership, is considered the best team for 100 years".
• 3. plural-inanimate: "Collingwood, which defeated all comers to claim the 2008 premiership, are considered the best team for 100 years"
• 4. plural-animate: "Collingwood, who defeated all comers to claim the 2008 premiership, are considered the best team for 100 years".

Version 1 sounds ok to me, and that's what I'd naturally say without thinking about it; and completely believable, to boot.  :) Version 4 is what I assume you'd say (in a hypothetical world where Collingwood actually wins games). They're the only 2 idiomatic ways of saying it. Versions 2 and 3 both sound weird (sports journalists might employ them, for example). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Long sentences are generally considered bad, and there seems to be no reason to keep this as one sentence. How about:"The tournament was won by Italy, who defeated France 5–3 in a penalty shootout, after the extra time finished in a 1–1 draw in the final. It was their fourth world championship.". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally considering the replies, I came up with this: "The tournament was won by Italy, who claimed their fourth world championship title, defeating France 5–3 in a penalty shootout in the final, after the extra time (had) finished in a 1–1 draw." Splitting the sentence into two sounds as a good idea, but it seems to me that the second ("It was their fourth world championship") would be kind of out-of-place if put into the article in place of the current sentence.  ARTYOM  11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is much better, but could be still be improved a little. The "fourth world championship" bit sticks out like a sore thumb, especially as the World Cup is never referred to as the world championship. I would go with "Italy won the tournament [active preferred to passive], their fourth World Cup title. They defeated France 5-3 in a penalty shootout in the final, after ['the' here is incorrect] extra time had finished in a 1–1 draw." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Was" or "were"?

I asked this question on IRC and didn't get a satisfactory answer, so here goes:

In the sentence "I threw the ball to you -- you, who were/was the catcher", which is correct, "were" or "was"? Sorry for the awkward example sentence, but it's all I could really think of.

If you give an answer, I would really like an understandable explanation of why. Thanks very much. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"You" always takes "were", never "was". It comes from the conjugation of the past tense of the verb "to be": I am was, you (s.) were, he/she was, we were, you (p.) were, they were. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet it's "you who were/was". What is the function of "who" in this sentence if it doesn't modify the verb? 99.245.92.47 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"...who were the catcher" is an (appositive) noun dependent clause. Who is the noun of such dependent clause. Its referent is you. Compare it with you were the catcher. I'd agree with Jack's statement. Maybe it's also correct to assign the 3rd person to the relative pronoun? I don't think so. But I may be wrong. Pallida  Mors 21:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are. Wrong, that is. About the last thing, not the first part, which is right. "Who" takes the number and person of its antecedent. So easy, we can hardly believe it's true. "Our Father, who art in heaven", never "who is in heaven". --Milkbreath (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the kind of explanation I was looking for. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And my answer would have been that because "threw" was in the past tense, and the speaker doesn't intend to change tense, we use were (past tense) instead of was (present tense). But JackOfOz's answer is that "You" takes "were" and never "was", which is actually correct - albeit never a rule I was taught in school, I was taught to keep tenses. Two different answers, both correct I believe. Rfwoolf (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I want to clarify the above. You should make a distinction between formal and informal usage. In formal usage, as mentioned above, who agrees in number with its antecedent. Examples: it is I who am crazy, it is he who is crazy, it is they who are crazy. In informal English, we get who analyzed as 3rd person: it's me who's crazy, it's him who's crazy, it's them who's crazy. (trying googling these for examples.)

Milkbreath's data: Our Father which art in Heaven. Here art (and wert in the past tense) is an archaic 2nd person inflection of be equal to modern are. The reason that Our Father is triggering 2nd person agreement is because it is a vocative: Our Father, thou which art in heaven. In modern English, this is analyzed differently becoming Our Father, who is heaven (= Our Father, he who is in heaven; pace Milkbreath, this is the translation in modern versions of the Bible).

was and were are both past tense. – ishwar  (speak) 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Prescriptivism and more prescriptivism. Have a look sometime please. — Zerida ☥ 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether the variation in these forms originated because of prescriptivism is besides the point. It is descriptively accurate to say that there are choices available to many speakers that reflect a formal vs informal (or a written vs spoken) distinction. This distinction is made even when prescriptive rules are broken as in between you and I (formal) vs between you and me (informal). Linguistic registers and styles (whatever their origin) are also a part of language. – ishwar  (speak) 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that the above presumes that 3rd person agreement in these constructions is exclusive to informal writing or speech, neither of which is true. — Zerida ☥ 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see. So, I'm just stating in very general terms what the big picture is (actually I'm just repeating what other descriptive grammars say, like, e.g. Huddleston 1984). But, you are right to suggest that the real picture is considerably more complicated, and I didnt mean to suggest that it was not. It is probably better to think of an formal-informal cline than a binary opposition of formal/informal, and thousands of pages of sociolinguistic research show that given a certain variation there are numerous parameters that influence a person's choice when speaking. For example, in AAVE, the deletion of be as in you are playing vs 'you're playing vs you playing can vary in a single person's speech even with the same interlocutors within the same conversation. – ishwar  (speak) 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you (ishwar) are trying to make about 'between you and I/me'. In this case what you call the 'formal' version is (prescriptively) incorrect hypercorrection, and the 'informal' version is correct (and what I would use even in formal writing). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was that there are constructions that are considered formal that happen to be prescriptively "correct" and there are other constructions that are considered formal that happen to be prescriptively "incorrect". (and vice versa.) So, the formal-informal parameter is not necessarily in a one-to-one correspondence with the "correct"-"incorrect" parameter of prescriptive grammar. Although prescriptive grammar ideas may influence formal/informal distinctions, there is much more to it than that (e.g. see politeness theory, Paul Grice's work in pragmatics, etc.).

Many people use the so-called subjective and objective pronouns forms in coordinate phrases to indicate either formal or informal. And they do so in subject position, in object position, and in prepositional complement position. In other words, the inflected pronoun forms are signaling more that just grammatical case in a nicely symmetrical pattern:

Subject:

• he and I are going to the store (formal)
• me and him are going to the store (informal)

Object:

• Stop kicking he and I (formal)
• Stop kicking me and him (informal)

Prepositional Complement:

• You put the ball between he and I (formal)
• You put the ball between me and him (informal)

As for the ordering of the above, you typically get the first person last in formal English due a politeness tendency and the first person first in informal English (because you dont need to be polite). So, although these sentences break the prescriptive rules (either by normal rule breaking or hypercorrect rule breaking), that is how many speakers are actually using the pronoun forms. And you can confirm this by consulting a descriptive grammar of English or just by googling. – ishwar  (speak) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at The Lord's Prayer before posting, but I didn't see the rendition you mention, ishwar, much to my surprise, I might add. I fully expected them to blow it. Where did you see "who is [in] heaven"? (I guess there was supposed to be a "in" in there.) --Milkbreath (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Try New American Standard Bible for this phrasing. (you can also google this). I corrected the missing in above. – ishwar  (speak) 23:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

@Rwoolf: The distinction ishwar and I think you were trying to make was between "you were" (past tense) and "you are" (present tense). You could change the sentence to "I threw the ball to you -- you, who are the catcher", but not to "I threw the ball to you -- you, who was the catcher". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I feel sheepish - must be the sleep deprivation. What made me think was was present tense??? Please excuse me ! It was er, an April Fool's joke! Rfwoolf (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheep deprivation makes the Woolf feel sleepish? A Grimm tail, indeed, for those whose grammar has sharp teeth :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April 1

Second language acquisition for reading

What is the best way to learn a language when one intends primarily to read it? I know there are plenty of "packages" with audio, workbooks, etc. aimed at the general public who will need to find a bathroom in Tuscany. For the more dedicated/analytical learner, can one skip the packages and find a well-written explanation of the structure of the language (that is still basic enough to be outside the realm of "linguistics")? This may be an ill-formed idea; I had a tough time finding anything like this at the local college library. FWIW, I'm interested in German, Spanish, or Italian. Thanks. –Outriggr § 01:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Many U.S. universities offer "Foreign languages for graduate students" classes, which are for students who want to acquire some degree of reading proficiency in order to fulfill requirements of their Master's or Ph.D. program, but who have little interest in conversational fluency (they're much more interested in reading scholarly papers or professional literature in their own field of study). You could try to find out what books are used in such classes... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about your goals? Why do you want to read those languages? What do you want to read in those languages? --Diacritic (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Get any textbook series that goes through all the grammar and has plenty of exercise drills. Then get a good dictionary and start reading. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't Remember the Word

I once found this word in the dictionary that meant something along the lines of "to do a legal thing illegally", but I can't for the life of me remember what it was? Any ideas? I also can't think of a decent example of this, if anyone has any idea on that front it'd be appreciated as well. Thanks. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.190.19 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any other clues? How many sylables was it? Can you recall any of the letters? And when you say "do a legal thing illegally" do you mean for example a lawyer does a legal task illegally? Or do you mean something like a person does something which is supposed to be legal (allowed) but violates some law in the process? Rfwoolf (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OP here. I meant it in the second sense above. I could guess at the syllables or letters, but it would be guessing and not much help. Sorry for the vague clues, this happened a few years ago and my memory of it's gotten a bit fuzzy. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.190.19 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even understand how doing a legal thing illegally would be distinct from just doing something illegal. Recury (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Misfeasance", defined with examples here. It's mentioned in our article on malfeasance. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.190.19 (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I was certain that this question was a clever April Fools' prank. 130.188.8.10 (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How many words do we know?

• until we can call fluid in a language
• to be regarded cultivated

Mr.K. (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "fluent"? AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

exatly.Mr.K. (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, it depends on how you comprehend the language rather than how many words of it you know. It would be safe to call yourself fluent if you can read local literature and/or newspaper columns in that language. --^LaPianísta! 04:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find numbers in this field, especially, since you never know what counts as "a word" (is teaspoon a different word from tea and spoon?). Then there is the issue of active and passive knowledge: you may very well know the meaning of a word, but not necessarily use that word yourself. I think you are more interested in "active" vocabulary.

A standard "good" dictionary designed for university students usually contains around 60,000 or 100,000 words (which is not the whole language, btw). But a very small number of people would know and use that many words, I suspect that a basic vocabulary (the one used by an uneducated population) should include at least 5,000 words. For a scholar's type of vocabulary, it is likely to be above 20,000. Some people may be able to actively use as many as 50,000, I couldn't say what is the upper limit. --Lgriot (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary to distinguish (at least) between active vocabulary (words you would use) and passive vocabulary (words you would understand). Our article gives an estimate that the average English-speaking college graduate has an active vocabulary of 60,000 words plus 75,000 passive but not active. Algebraist 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

General reading fluency -> being able to read a local newspaper, general speaking fluency -> being able to hold a conversation with a random stranger.--droptone (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How to say everything and nothing at the same time

I've had an idea from a book I've been reading, 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said (by Ross and Kathryn Petras), and I decided to let it loose on the night before April Fool's. My question is...what is the longest sentence that a Reference Desk volunteer can contrive, while simultaneously incorporating ridicule and absolute nonsense? In other words, to quote the book, speak long-windedly and carry a big schtick? I would love to add some material myself, but sadly, my language skills are restrained to what is boringly useful. ;-) --^LaPianísta! 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read longest English sentence yet? Turning one of those into nonsense would be easy with a couple of search-and-replaces. 64.231.10.94 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure I did, but I want to see something fresh from the minds of our fellow editors. =) --^LaPianísta! 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. April Fool! Julia Rossi (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gayelle and LexusNexus

Can someone do a lexus nexus search for "gayelle" for me. It's for a news report on Logo the gay channel, it was a CBS on Logo news report. Can someone help me find the transcript of the broadcast? It was fairly recently but I don't remember the exact date.

P.s. how do you say transcript in spanish?NewAtThis (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LexisNexis has 3 returns. One is for the name of a person involved in a graphic for an Australian newspaper, another is a short article (98 words) on the use of "gayelle" to mean lesbian with no new information provided, the last one is for a broadband TV station from Trinidad & Tobago.--droptone (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Advancement of Learning

Francis Bacon has an English book by the name of The Advancement of Learning. Do you understand the 'advancement' in transitive or intransitive sense? --Omidinist (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Two books by Bacon are printed together, The Proficience and Advauncement of Learning. The second book begins with a proem called The Advauncement of Learning commended to the care of Kings. So (although I haven't read it) I'd say that the answer seems to be transitively, if it has to be one or the other. Xn4 08:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

P. S. I've found the text online here. Xn4 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Xn4. --Omidinist (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Collective nouns in British English

greetings, Gentlepeople - i'm in search of some insight regarding a difference of opinion regarding the sentence "the band was/were formed in 1962" in an article that's trying to adhere to standard British English. to me it seems that "was" is needed in this sentence, since the meaning is clearly "a unit was formed" rather than "several individuals were formed"; but some editors seem to feel (strongly, even!) that British English prefers plural verbs after collective nouns in every case, regardless of meaning. everyone participating in the discussion has read WP:ENGVAR, but it hasn't helped much, so ... here i am.

i understand the British English tendency to treat collective nouns as plural more frequently than in American English, but until further notice i don't agree that a given article in British English must *always* use a plural verb after a collective noun regardless of the meaning. i mean: to me it's normal if an article has "the band was formed in 1962" as well as "the band were in their 20s". (i also understand that most of these controversies can be sidestepped with a bit of inventiveness, but it's the principle that intrigues me.) thanks for any insights Sssoul (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an oft-debated topic. Have a look at American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. As I understand it, WP style is generally to use British English for British groups and American English for American groups. Having said that, it depends on the sentence, and I would tend to agree with you that "was formed" is preferable to "were formed" in British English. It gets more interesting when you are trying to decide whether to put "X is a group" or "X are a group". In this case, I would always go for "are" if the group is British. This seems to be more widely accepted, though, if the group name is a collective plural, such as The Beatles, than if it's an abstract noun like Blur. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks Richardrj - that link is part of what the editors involved have all read and all come to different conclusions about. the article is about a British band, so everyone agrees that British English is what we want; the disagreement is over what constitutes correct British English usage. some editors (who have also read that link) seem to think using "the band were" is required throughout for the sake of consistency within the article; it's my understanding that consistent British English can mean using both plural and singular verbs in the same article, depending on the meaning in each sentence: "the band have all been arrested on various occasions" is not inconsistent with "the band has five members".

fortunately for everyone the band in question does have a plural name, which makes it a bit easier to sidestep the whole controversy, but as i noted i got intrigued. thanks for taking an interest Sssoul (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They may be British, but that doesn't force them into illogicality. The individuals that make up the band were not formed, the band was. Googling on "band was formed" site:uk and "band were formed" site:uk returns 20,800 to 736 ghits. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you Milkbreath.

just for completeness: is there a clearcut British-English preference for "the band have released 10 albums" rather than "the band has released 10 albums", when that total doesn't include the various members' solo releases? i'll google that as well, but my interlocutors have been rejecting evidence from the media as "creeping Americanism", so what i'm looking for is a prescriptive-grammar-type viewpoint. thanks very much for taking an interest Sssoul (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I normally don't Google to support a usage stance. The sample is skewed in a million ways, most damningly toward unedited illiteracies. But when you get 28–1, where there's smoke there's fire. You are not going to find a "a prescriptive-grammar-type viewpoint" because this is not about grammar, it's idiom. The only way to determine correct idiom is to ask the speakers of the variety of English you want to know about. The answer will vary with the degree of focus employed, too. It might be that Londoners are more apt to say a thing one way, while Cornishmen will say it another. You can analyze writings statistically for the relative frequency of alternate locutions, but the data might not be current, and writing might not reflect spoken usage as it exists in the wild. Me, I just sort of keep my ears and mind open, and I'd expect your average Brit to say "the band have released 10 albums" and an American the other thing. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks again Milkbreath - yeah, i'm hoping some British English speakers will say something about it here, to add to what my local British speakers say. i reckon British grammar books do state something about what verb forms to use after a collective noun under what circumstances - i even believe i know what they say - but the other editors (who are all over the globe) seem to believe they know what they know too. funny how that works, isn't it 8) thanks again for your insights. Sssoul (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It would definitely be "the band was formed" in standard British English. Once formed you could say "the band were on form last night", etc. In some areas of Yorkshire they would say "the band were formed", but that is only because "were" is the general past tense of "be" - they would also say "I were late for work", or "she were right pretty" (See Yorkshire dialect and accent#Vocabulary and grammar). This would be considered incorrect in most of the UK. Of course the subjunctive mood would use were, as in "if the band were formed in 2001 then the this 1999 poster would be a forgery" -- Q Chris (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you Q Chris. the sentences being discussed aren't in the subjunctive, nor is the band in question from Yorkshire, so ... so the band was formed. i'm glad. thanks. (wouldn't that past subjunctive be "if the band had been formed"? 8) outside of Yorkshire anyway) Sssoul (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say it would be a lot easier to say "the band formed", as opposed to "the band was formed" or "the band were formed". Unless they're a manufactured boy band, there's no need to use the passive, and you thereby bypass this petty debate.

Furthermore, as a general rule you can sidestep it by referring to the group by their name rather than "the band". "The Beatles were formed", for example. (In normal British English, this applies whatever the name of the band is.) If this gets repetitious, there's a nice little third-person pronoun called "they" which you can also employ. This way, you won't have to debate about semantics, and will instead be able to improve the article. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks Malcolm XIV - in the article i've already employed those deft sidesteps you suggest, but as i've noted the principle is of interest to me as well. so far i gather my grasp of it is right: British English swings both ways after a collective noun, depending on the meaning, and in this particular case "was" is normal in UK *and* US English. thanks for taking an interest Sssoul (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing a book and I have to be careful about this. In my book is an organization called the Triad that I refer to in the singular eg. "The Triad mobilized its forces". However, when I refer to its members, I simply say "The members of the Triad are..." to avoid a petty debate. The debate can get a bit more complicated if you refer to a sports team - do you say "England has beaten Australia" or "England have beaten Australia"? I've seen both versions from reliable sources. Another hot debate is "None of them are..." or "None of them is..."? My opinion is that you get the the old school with hypercorrective "Queen's English" fuddy-duddy grammar, and the new school that condones and accepts common grammatical errors into mainstream English, because it "sounds right". Sandman30s (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is a coroner a police officer ?

Hello ! Can you answer my question please ? When I translated in French your fine little article "William Palmer" ( about a XIX° century english MD & serial killer) , I thought better to let the word "coroner" stay in the french text : " les soupçons naquirent quand Palmer essaya de corrompre des personnes de l'entourage du coroner " looked to me quite clear...But a contributor wrote " officier de police" in the place of "coroner". Does the fact that the coroner ( by formation a lawyer or a MD ) is appointed by the crown makes him properly a member of the police ? Thanks a lot for your answer . By the way , I am afraid I won't be able to retrieve the exact place where you will put your answer ...Would you be kind enough to write it down on the discussion page of "William Palmer" ?. Thanks a lot ! signé Arapaima , a french WP user --91.168.136.18 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:William Palmer (murderer)#Coroner = police officer ?. Bovlb (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

also can't remember a word

The above question reminded me of a word that I can't remember. I saw it in an unabridged dictionary and it means something like "schadenfreude", but is more specific, having the definition of causing someone a lot of unnecessary work for personal satisfaction. What could it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilhelp42 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably "trolling". Julia Rossi (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! It was just an april fools question after all.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.82.24 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sadism, perhaps.--71.119.163.203 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Or simply management. Deor (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

American Accent: Pronunciation of have

Consider the following questions

Have you finished your homework?

or

Have you done it again?

What I wish to know is whether in everyday American speech the majority of people say \hæv\ or \həv\ in these particular questions? [See here if you have questions about my phonetic symbols.] --71.108.24.177 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to get a couple of hundred million answers, but here's one: it depends. Usually, I, a Middle Atlantic type, Philadelphia area, pronounce that "have" completely, with the "h" and the perfect short "a", \hæv\. When we're being sloppy, it's more like \ɪv\, with the "ɪ" of very short duration. I believe broadcst English, a la Johnny Carson, throws a bit of a twang on the "a", just a bit. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Southern American English here. Same pronunciation, \hæv\. However, when "have" comes right after a stress (as in, "what have you done?"), it turns into \həv\, or even \əv\. HYENASTE 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can versus have at the beginning of questions

At the bottom of the screen at http://www.americanaccent.com/ you see and hear that

Can we get it?

has \kən\ pronuciation for can. Why not \həv\ in

Have you done it again?

You see that both have and can are helping verbs in my examples.--71.108.24.177 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can give you an absolutely terrible answer just to hold you until a linguist shows up. The fact that they are helping verbs has no effect on the pronunciation. American tends to lazy articulation, ligation, and elision. "Can we" becomes a unit, and the "n" is barely audible as a nasalization of the schwa, something like the overstated example at that amusing site you sent me to. ("Kwee" is a little too much, but the rest are right and sound like John Malkovich.) It's the sequence of sounds that dictates the careless pronunciation. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What variety of English do you speak? Seems to me like the have in "have you done it" is reduced; the dissimilarity between the reduction of the two words probably has to do with the ease of articulating a distinct /k/ and /n/ versus /h/ and /v/. According to Lisa Lavoie in "Some influences on the realization of for and four in American English" (Journal of the IPA 2002), function words differ from their citation forms in fluent speech more than other words. Word pairs like for/four, him/hymn, and you/yew have identical citation forms but reduce differently.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]}

Native Philadelphia area, South Jersey, modified by some years in Tampa, affectedness, and stage experience. I try to render my roots speech here. The "you" becomes "yuh", of course, and the "t" in "it" is a very quiet, nasal glottal stop. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a stab at it, but it's just a guess: The weak form of have reduces its h as well as its vowel. That's not likely to happen when it's intonation unit-initial. Can (and do), on the other hand, face no such restriction. That's not much of an answer, though. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this some more. Since /h/ is a voiceless form of the following vowel anyway, there's probably a preservation of the vowel from basically pronouncing it twice as long. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

japanese and chinese characters

what is the symbol for the term "live for today"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.1.146 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In Japanese 今日を楽しめ! means, "Live for today!" in the sense of "Thoroughly enjoy this day!" 96.233.6.203 (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)AyeAye

Does this say "peace"? Or does it say "average" or "cheap"? You don't know, but Chinese speakers sure do.

Don't do it. Given that you're asking for a translation of a motivational phrase and you don't even care what language it's in, it sounds like you're about to get a tattoo in a language you can't read. Those tend to be embarrassing, especially when you encounter someone who actually knows the language. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL @ that picture! First thought in my mind was "flat". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was that freckled people shouldn't get tattoos. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2

Etymology of Pachelbel

What is the (or a possible) etymology and meaning of the German surname "Pachelbel"? 96.233.6.203 (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Ayeaye

A combination of "Bach", meaning rivulet / brook and the firstname "Elbel", a variation on Albrecht (as in A. Dürer).

As per http://www.duden.de/duden-suche/werke/famnamen/000/034/Pachelbel.34838.html

"'Pachelbel: oberdeutscher, aus →Pach (1.) und dem Rufnamen →Elbel gebildeter Familienname: >der Elbel am Bach<.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That suggests the main stress would be on "el": pach-EL-bel. Yet it's almost always pronounced with the stress on "pach": PACH-el-bel. I once asked a German friend about this name, and she expressed great surprise - she had never heard of it, and said it was definitely not a German name. But then, she was neither a musician nor an etymologist. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The German article does give the pronunciation as [paˈxɛlbəl]. Initial stress occurs in English. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that this has been answered, I can't resist describing (from memory, so some misquoting may be involved) one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons. It depicts a fellow, with a glazed expression, strapped to a chair in a bare cell. From a speaker in a corner of the cell come the words "And once again, for your listening pleasure, we present Pachelbel's Canon in D." The caption is "Prisoner of Pachelbel." Deor (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comprise

I've noticed that an editor appears to be searching the site and correcting usage of the verb "comprise". Essentially, they're knocking out any use of the phrase "comprised of" as in, "The group was comprised of..." and the authority quoted is List of commonly misused English language phrases. The objection seems to be mainly founded on the views of the venerable H.W. Fowler. While I've found his works informative and entertaining I also know he was idiosyncratic in some regards and I wouldn't look to him as the final authority on all things in English language matters.

I see, from a search of the Archive for this desk that this was touched upon before at this thread but I'd like to put the question afresh.

I challenge this ruling by the aforementioned editor and I invite your comments. Retarius | Talk 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple. He is right; you are wrong. It's a solecism. You say "the group comprised" or "the group consisted of". You do not say "the group was comprised of". Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the pedants, language doesn't work by fiat. I don't know about you, but plenty of people are comfortable with the phrase "the group was comprised of".

Unfortunately for everybody else, there is a place for pedantry in editing an encyclopedia; in this genre there are compelling stylistic reasons to avoid "comprised of". --Diacritic (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Fowler on this one. But more to the point is whether said editor is improving the articles and making them clearer with whatever they put in place of "comprise".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Comprise" isn't quite dead yet. Its proper use is the shibboleth of literacy these days, but once I and my kind die off, the kids will be free to use whatever word comes into their heads regardless of what it really means. I would add that "comprise" is actually pretty rarely called for; there are a lot of write-arounds that are plainer and therefore clearer and better. Bottom line: Who is he? I want to give him a barnstar. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's User:Giraffedata and as to whether he's doing better than the efforts he's replacing - I'll leave that for you to judge by looking at his contribs. Best do that before giving a barnstar! Thanks for your replies. Retarius | Talk 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gateau

I always pronounced this word as Ga-Toe, but the other day I heard someone calling it Gae-Cho. Can someone who is fluent in French confirm its pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasanclk (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your pronunciation is correct. It's ga-toe (although the 'toe' part is vocalised shorter than the equivalent sound in English). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some variants of English (I'm thinking along the lines of the American East Coast accent) have a little -y- palatization between "t" when it's the first sound of a syllable, and following -o or -u sounds. It could be that accent pronouncing it with that little -y- sound, so it's really Ga-t-y-o. Corvus cornix_talk 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. That only happens with certain speakers in certain words, never in this position. Nobody makes "told" "tyold" or "plateau" "platyeau". You must be thinking of "tyune" for "tune" and the like. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine people who don't know French thinking it should be pronounced like gat-ee-oh or gate-ee-oh but shortening the "ee" to "y" (gat-yo or gate-yo), which could then sound like they're saying "ga-cho" or "gay-cho". In other words, it's a combination of a mispronunciation and a mishearing of that mispronunciation. Also, could this be related to the way some (usually youngish and more often female than male) Americans palatalise the consonant preceding the "oo" sound in words like "do" and "too" (they sound almost like "dew" and "tyew", or even "dee-oo" and "tee-oo"). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

whats the difference

whats the difference between am and i'm ?example am gone and I'm gone. 2.Am currently doing 35wpm.on a scale of 1 to 10 how am i in speeds.Am planning to start transcibing.

"Am" is a verb (first person singular of to be). "I'm" is a contraction of the first person singular pronoun, "I", and that verb: I am --> I'm. Aleta ^Sing 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In normal, standard speech and writing, every English verb needs an explicit subject (except in the imperative). So, in ordinary speech or writing, am cannot stand alone. It normally appears with the subject I, often in the contraction I'm. You will find instances where am stands alone, usually in writing. This is an example of "telegraphic" or abbreviated style, often used in note taking, which omits words for the sake of brevity. However, English speakers do not leave out the I in ordinary speech or writing. Marco polo (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement about obligatory subjects is too strong. You can have a lack of subject in coordinated structures like Tom kicked Dick and slapped Harry, in certain wh-questions like what to do now?, which way to go?, why no smiles?, why talk to her?, and in cases where the listener can retrieve the subject via linguistic context like told you so, going to the store (said to someone right before leaving), looks like rain, see you later, gotta go, had a fun time, did you?, hot?, any tea left?, looks good, want some?, etc. The last two types are common in spoken language, it's not restricted to note taking. – ishwar  (speak) 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The instances that you cite are idiomatic expressions. Even if my statement was too strong, sentences using the verb am without the subject I are certainly not common in spoken or written American English. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire Demonym

What do you call someone from New Hampshire? (As in, "Virginian" for a Virginia resident; "Bay Stater" for a Massachusetts resident)96.233.6.203 (talk)RedPanda —Preceding comment was added at 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the "correct" term is New Hampshirite, but I'm partial to Granitehead. --LarryMac | Talk 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New Hampster? Paul Davidson (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the Nat King Cole song LOVE say "can"?

I love singing the song L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole. However, I don't understand why the word "can" is at the end of the E line.

L is for the way you look at me
O is for the only one I see
V is very, very extraordinary
E is even more than anyone that you adore can
Love is all that I can give to you
Love is more than just a game for two
Two in love can make it
Take my heart and please don't break it
Love was made for me and you

Any ideas as to why this is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderley (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess: You're supposed to mentally complete the line by appending "be", as suggested by the rhyme scheme. Leaving it incomplete produces an artistic effect that the writer liked. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, April 2, 2008.

My interpretation: For some unspecified action that the people you adore can do, Nat can do it even more. But really, I don't think these lyrics are there to have coherent semantics. You might as well ask what Ella Fitzgerald means by "doodly-a-dop-ba-da-dop" or where exactly is the "Gadda-Da-Vida" that Doug Ingle is in. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Third possible interpretation: The lack of a pause between can and the following love (along with the pronounced pause after the latter) makes that love function ambiguously both as the completion of the verb phrase "can love" and as the subject of is. (Of course the main reason it's there is so that "you adore can" will rhyme with "even more than.") Deor (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Deor's explanation. It's an amusing bit of enjambment in which the "love" that joins the verse and chorus is made to do double duty. - Nunh-huh 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I always heard it. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great ideas here. Much better than what I initially thought. I initially assumed when I sang it in karaoke and saw "can" that they meant "and". And I sang it that way. But then I heard it at the end of "The Parent Trap" remake and what I heard (and the subtitles on the DVD) said, "can".
So, to be true to Nat, I've sung "can" ever sense but had no idea why. I do understand what all of you have posted and it goes to show you understand English verse much better than I. But, I must confess, I like "and" better. "Can" requires too much thinking.
For years the word "can" has stuck out to me. So, now every time you hear this song "can" will stick out to your head - Sorry about that ;-)
If anyone else has any ideas, I'd love to hear. Thanks again.--Wonderley (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

April 3

Japanese Sound Symbolism

What would be the kana for the following?:

• biɕi biɕi 1) the sound of sniffling a running nose
• kaka 1) the sound a bird makes, 2) the sound of gulping word down
• kooro kooro, 1) the sound or manor of stirring a liquid
• sai sai or sae sae 1) the sound or manor in which an object shakes
• saja saja 1) the sound of two objects clanging together
• tawa tawa 1) the sound or manor in which an object bends or sags
• bisi bisi
• kaka
• ko₂woro₂ ko₂woro₂
• moya moya
• sawi sawi (also sawe sawe)
• saya saya
• tawa tawa
• ura ura

Thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The initial response you got was for 8th century examples of onomatopoeia. Next you asked how to pronounce them in 21st century Japanese. There are countless issues just with this premise. So after skipping 13 centuries of phonetic changes, you get the above. Semantically there are numerous problems as well. So now you want to know how to write them in kana. Why not.

びしびし

かか

こおろこおろ

さいさい

さやさや

たわたわ

At this point, the next set are mostly repeats of the above, but in 8th century phonemic. How should I write them? In historical kana or modern kana? Why not both!?

Old: びしびし, Modern: びしびし

Old: かか, Modern: かか

Old: こをろこをろ, Modern: こおろこおろ

Old: もやもや, Modern: もやもや

Old: さゐさゐ (also さゑさゑ), Modern: さいさい (also さえさえ)

Old: さやさや, Modern: さやさや

Old: たわたわ, Modern: たわたわ

Old: うらうら, Modern: うらうら

Bendono (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

O wow, that really did help me, that's amazing! Thank you!68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Full Sized Yoon

In historical orthography,

きや [kja]: や follows き (ki)
くわ [kwa]: わ follows く (ku)

(While the English language article Yōon only lists the the palatal -j, historically and also dialectically there was also a labial -w. For example, kwazi "fire" which once contrasted with kazi "house chores". The palatal -j only followed the orthographic -i. However, the labial -w followed the orthographic -u.)

Additionally,

きゆ <-- acceptable
きよ <-- acceptable
くを <-- unacceptable
くゐ <-- acceptable
くゑ <-- acceptable
すを <-- unacceptable
すゐ <-- unacceptable
すゑ <-- unacceptable

The Yoon indicated as unacceptable are so because they do not occur.

So here is my question. Are き and く the only kana that can use full sized yoon? If not, a list of all full sized Yoon would be most help full, including dialectical and historical orthography, Ryukyuan languages, Japonic languages, and any other langauge that uses kana. Many many thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All yōon were full size until recently, 20th century if I remember right. For dialects, there's no reason you can't use くゑ or く_ゑ (except maybe for typesetting problems); it's simply a choice of orthography. — kwami (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But what about the yoon-kana combinations, for example; above?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl vs. Kyle

Please compare the pronunciation of the name Carl with that of Kyle in British English. They sound exactly the same to my American ears.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In Received Pronunciation they would be [kʰɑːɫ] and [kʰaɪɫ] respectively. In Scottish English they would be [kʰaɾɫ] and [kʰɐɪɫ], in Cockney they would be [kʰɑːo] and [kʰæɪo] respectively... not sure about other accents. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gray tomatoes

How do the Irish spell gray/grey? I just noticed that Wilde's book is titled The Picture of Dorian Gray. Are they thumbing their noses at the English? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gray" is also an English name, as in Louis Harold Gray. Historically, a lot of English lexicographers, such as Samuel Johnson, preferred that spelling even for the color. In the 19th century, a lot of English writers used both spellings, with grey being a lighter tint, and gray being a 'warmer' colour, maybe with a hint of brown. The current US/UK divide started in the 19th c, but only become standard in the 20th. — kwami (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, would you care to be true to your name and tell us what this question has to do with tomatoes? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You say tomaytoes, I say tomahtoes? kwami (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kwami's guess is kwarrect. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from the surname issue in the book's title, Oscar Wilde was Anglo-Irish and London-based, and was thus fairly unlikely to be "thumbing [his] nose at the English" in the way you suggest. Certainly, he thumbed his nose at English upper-class society, but there is very little in his work to suggest that he did so from the perspective of a staunch supporter of Irish independence.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that your question reveals more about your personal views of Anglo-Irish relations than it asks about language. The idea that the Irish would adopt the American spelling purely to annoy the English is cartoonish, patronising and - it seems to me - could only have come from the country which believes green Budweiser and Lucky Charms are emblematic of an island with 2,000+ years of culture and history. Apologies if I have misjudged you. Rant over. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Everyone knows the Irish drink green Guinness, not Budweiser! kwami (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still struggling with the fact that people drink Budweiser at all. - X201 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ku (kana)

Why is q appearing before qw in the "Other additional forms" table? Is it because it appeared first in Japanese literature or is it because it is more common?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does appear at all? kwami (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)