Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 4

I don't have an accent! Do I?

At my work we had an argument. I believe I don't have an accent, I think I talk "right". Southerners have their "drawl". My co-workers are convinced everyone has an accent. When I talk about a "roof" I say "ruf". This is not an accent. When I say "proof' I say Proof not "pruf". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jue2 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See my answer to the question above for 3 May 2008, please. --Kjoonlee 08:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You have an accent. Everybody does. See Accent (linguistics). Note the bit saying: "The concept of a person having "no accent" is meaningless..." Pfly (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"In linguistics, an accent is a manner of pronunciation of a language." But I pronunciate thing the way they are suppose to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jue2 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But if you think about it, "the way they are supposed to be pronounced" is just a human convention. There's nothing wrong or right about pronouncing trap, bath, cot, caught, merry, Mary, marry, roof or nuclear the way you do. --Kjoonlee 08:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So your saying what people say is the right way isn't necessary the right way. Anybody would agree that calling a roof a ruf is incorrect. There's got to be a point where everyone agrees that's the correct way to pronounce a word, therefore they don't have an accent. Does that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jue2 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues you're confusing here: having an accent, and having a standard accent. As given above, the definition of "accent" is "a manner of pronunciation of a language". You cannot speak without an accent, because you can't speak without pronouncing the language you're speaking. Now, of all the possible accents in any given language, only some of them are considered "standard". If you pronounce words the way most educated people in your society pronounce them, the way schoolteachers tell you you ought to pronounce them, you can be said to have a prescriptively "standard" accent, but that's an accent too. In England, the standard educated accent (called "RP" for Received Pronunciation) is fairly well defined (although there's some variation within it), but in American English there's actually a lot of variation within what's called General American (so called, ironically enough more by British linguists than by American ones). In America, some people pronounce "cot" and "caught" the same, and some people pronounce them differently, but both variants still fall within the scope of a "standard" educated American accent. The same goes for "whine" and "wine": most people pronounce them the same, but some people pronounce them differently, and both versions can be found within "standard" educated American English. As for "roof", it's probably still true that pronouncing it with the vowel of "goose" is considered "better" or "more educated" (by criteria that have nothing to do with linguistics!), but the pronunciation using the vowel of "foot" is gaining ground, also among educated people, and will probably be "standard" alongside the other pronunciation within 50 years or so. So if your co-workers give you grief for pronouncing "roof" with the "foot" vowel, tell them you're just on the cutting edge of a linguistic innovation that is on its way toward becoming standard. (But they are right that everyone has an accent!) —Angr 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you are an American, of course you have an accent. An American accent. Pretty obvious, I'd have thought. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"A dialect (from the Greek word διάλεκτος, dialektos) is a variety of a language that is characteristic of a particular group of the language's speakers" Does that mean a southern drawl is a dialect and not an accent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.247.114 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it means Southern American English is a dialect, not an accent, because it involves not just matters of pronunciation but also matters of syntax (like the "fixin' to" and "might could" constructions) and vocabulary (like calling any soft drink a "Coke" or calling tennis shoes "tennies"). —Angr 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning "whine" and "wine", I've heard that most people in England today pronounce "whine" and "wine" identically, and people in Wales pronounce them differently and think the English are saying in wrong even though the language is called "English". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your last clause is a non sequitur. As for the rest, I don't know about Wales, but certainly in Scotland and Ireland, they're pronounced differently. —Angr 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It boggles the mind to see that some people have never worked out the idea that, "Gee, since I think English-speakers in other places have accents, they must think I have an accent too." Strad (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tip; record your own voice and compare your voice to some accents your are aware of. Either that or speak with a forigner and ask them if they can understand them clearly. I've done both and came to realise that I didn't just have a southern England accent, but actually quite a strong accent; so strong that I'm told when I speak French, it comes out with such a strong English accent it is nearly incomprehensible (no, the words are generally correct and in the right order too!) Astronaut (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between an accent and dialect?70.215.139.16 (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The article on dialect puts it this way: "A dialect is distinguished by its vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (phonology, including prosody). Where a distinction can be made only in terms of pronunciation, the term 'accent' is appropriate, not dialect." - Eron^Talk 00:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments make me think of the major marker for Northern versus Southern English - the long versus short "a". As a northerner I pronounce words like "bath" and "castle" with a short "a"; ie as they are written. My southern friends say something more like "barth" and "carstle", and as an American you may well say something more akin to "bairth" and "cairstle". You'll find lots of people who will swear that theirs is the "right" pronunciation, but the only difference is the current status accorded to each variant. The fashion for received pronunciation may have once have dictated that you had to install a barth in your carstle if you wanted a job reading the BBC news, but it doesn't mean that BBC newsreaders had no accent and the rest of us did. The problem lies in the odd (and ultimately offensive) notion that there's something low-status about having "an accent". The way we each speak our language is influenced by all sorts of historical, geographical and social factors, and no variant is intrinsically more definitive than any other. What is "standard" today may well be "non-standard" next week. Go mend your caisrtle ruf, take a long hot bairth, and raise a glarse of 80 pruf. Vive la différence! --Karenjc 08:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Phonologically speaking, most North American dialects have in bath and castle the vowel universally known as the "short A"--just like Northern English English. However, the phonetic value of this vowel may vary considerably--diphthongal realizations like [ɛə] or [eə] (yep, similar to British air) being commonly associated with American English by British speakers. Not everybody in the U.S. speaks this way, however. Speakers in and around New York City and Philadelphia may have [ɛə] or [eə] in bath but plain ol' [æ] in trap. All that aside, I guess it's safe to assume that this vowel is considerably longer, more "drawn-out" in North America than it is in the British Isles. In some areas of the U.S. you may hear girls saying my dad as [maɪ dɪeɛæad]. Jack^(Lumber) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A quiphthong! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

E.g. [1] at 02:45. Jack^(Lumber) 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's not exaggerate (and the term would be "pentaphthong"). She says [dɪæd] as a diphthong. In Texas, I heard a woman chide her husband Bill when he was teasing her by saying "[biɪɫ, jɚ soʊ ˈbæɪəd]!" —Angr 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A quiff-thong? Ouch! SaundersW (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Southern drawl with IPA transcription. Jack^(Lumber) 22:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that a local accent can be carried over to a foreign language, even though people can't properly place it. When I speak French, my Liverpool (UK) accent comes over, but French people say I sound either Belgian or Dutch. When I speak German, German people also say I sound Dutch. Dutch people say I sound either German or French when I speak Dutch. When I speak Japanese, however, Japanese people say my accent is totally Japanese (and on the telephone many people have a hard time believing I am British), but fellow English speakers listening to my Japanese laugh, saying it's funny hearing Japanese in a Liverpool accent, even though after ten years in Japan I speak RP and fellow Brits usually have no idea where I am from when I speak English.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

May 5

Wiping floors

What's the usual term for an item used for wiping floors? Is it a

• floor rag (floor-rag)
• floor towel (floor-towel)
• floor wipe (floor-wipe)

or something else? I don't mean a mop, for example, but a towel-like piece of fabric. Thanks. -91.155.58.242 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As a Brit (origin south-east England), I call it a floor-cloth. SaundersW (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too, North west UKhotclaws 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(USA, Middle Atlantic) I wouldn't say that there is anything like a "term" for that. I'd call it a floor rag, I guess. "Floor cloth" sounds British, believe it or not. If it was for drying the floor, it might be called a floor towel. "Floor wipe" sounds like an advertising term to me, and leaves me wondering what exactly it is—cloth, paper, rubber. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Just like when you wash the dishes with a dishrag and you dry them with a dishtowel. According to Merriam-Webster, a floorcloth is used as a floor covering [2]--although it's safe to assume this is very rare nowadays. Jack^(Lumber) 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In Korean you would say 걸레 (geolle) which is also a very derogatory slang term for "slut." In English, I would just say "cloth." --Kjoonlee 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Heavens, men! floorcloth! It is currently a cloth for cleaning floors, and the floor covering is considered antiquated. The entry has it about right. (And one washes dishes with a dishcloth, and dries them with a tea towel!) SaundersW (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My idiolect doesn't have a term for such a thing. I'd just say "I'm wiping the floor with a rag.", I guess. Corvus cornix_talk 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The original - and marginally non-egalitarian / discriminatory / sexist - term was housewife (from OE, "huse wipe"). Pee off, sinebot, this was not me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hush, viper! Horsewhipper, hoseweeper.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you chaps! For that you get to swab the decks till teatime!SaundersW (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I use a mop.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "floor rag," "floor wipe," or "floor towel," I'd say either "rag," "wipe," or "towel." Wipe would refer to a disposable item, as long as the item wasn't a paper towel. A towel would be in nicer condition than a rag, I'd think.Tuesday42 (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess specific compound words aren't used that much in English language. In some languages, it's possible to form any (trivial) specific words for items like this, for example. If you say "telly-rag" in Finnish, people know that it clearly means a wipe for wiping televisions. A "kitchen-rag" would be used in kitchen. A "cotton-rag" would mean a wipe made out of cotton, on the other hand.

Maybe floor-cloth is the best choice in this case. It's funny how this question aroused such a debate :). Thank you all. -91.155.58.242 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we all talk funny to each other. I don't know Finnish, but in American you can call a rag "the TV rag" and mean that that rag is for wiping the television set and nothing else. Why you'd want such a rag, I don't know. You can't really have "a TV rag", though, because that would imply that there was some property of rags of that kind that makes them intrinsically suitable for the wiping of televisions. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you, Milkbreath, but TV cleaning cloths exist. Such is the world we live in. [3] SaundersW (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting gnarly. I was trying to say that English doesn't use compound words to make new words in quite the same way and with quite the facility as Finnish seems to by what 91.155 said. Where he says "cotton-rag" and makes a new word meaning "rag made of cotton", we can't and say "cotton rag", leaving the adjective and noun untouched and discrete. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. I have been googling terms which seem natural compounds to me (milk-jug and bottle-brush) and they throw up uncompounded combinations. On the other hand, teaspoon and flowerpot exist a-plenty. Maybe it's because of my gnarled years, and compounding is a-goin' out of fashion! SaundersW (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that milk jug means different things... depending on which side (of the Pond) you are on... Jack^(Lumber) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry what the thing is called, just get the maid to clean the floor.--Artjo (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

questionaire for testing the habbit of english reading habits

<removing query already posted above under "May 3"> Deor (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow patter vs 'normal' English

How many Glaswegians speak Glasgow patter and how many speak English that any native speaker can understand? 217.168.1.251 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In each case, more than half. Many speak both. Xn4 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I will second that. I was in a meeting at Clydesdale Bank once, and everyone was easily understandable. Half way through someone came in and said that he had booked the projector. The manager in charges accent changed so that I could only pick out a few words such as "idyut" as he responded to the guy interrupting, but whatever he said worked because the guy left pretty quickly without the projector. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

May 6

Are these Japanese sentences grammatically correct?

1.　わたしの高校は悪名高いです。
2.　Smith先生は徳の高いです。 高圧的くありません。 63.231.224.176 (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like "My high-school is infamous" and "Mr/s. Smith, tall of benevolence." So the first one is okay, but the second is a little off. What's it supposed to say? --Masamage ♫ 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mr. Smith is virtuous. He is not oppressive." And Smith is supposed to be a teacher, so make note of that if it affects anything. Since I'm doing something with the kanji 高, I used words that contained it, so 徳の高い　might literally translate as "tall of benevolence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.224.176 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see! "徳の高い" does translate to "virtuous". How funny. So, okay, that one says "Mr. Smith is virtuous" and is grammatically correct. I didn't even notice the second sentence, so let's see. "Kouatsuteki" comes out as "oppressive", but I'm not sure what the ku is. It seems to be a 'na' adjective, so I think the negative would be "Kouatsuteki janai desu". --Masamage ♫ 02:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Toku no takai desu" sounds wrong to me. There should be a noun modified by the adjective "toku-no-takai"; "Smith Sensei wa toku no takai hito desu". Alternaively, "Smith sensei wa toku ga takai desu" is also grammatically correct. As for the second second sentence, "janai desu" sounds colloquial. I would write "Kōatsuteki dewa arimasen". --Kusunose 14:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Both grammatically wrong. Number one should be わたしの高校は悪名高い or わたしの高校は悪名高うございます. But I prefer わたしの通っている高校は悪名が高い or わたしは悪名の高い高校に通っている. Number two should be, as User:Kusunose pointed out, Smith先生は徳の高い人で、高圧的ではありません. Strictly speaking, 徳が高いです is not good. Just Smith先生は徳が高い is better. Oda Mari (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, 悪名高いです is wrong but 悪名高うございます is okay? I don't understand. -- BenRG (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Veränderungsmeldungen

In a 1952 archival photograph of the International Tracing Service facility in Arolsen, shelves with ring binders of document are topped by several signs with headings: "Transport Lists," "Effects of Prisoners," and another with two words together on one sign as follows:

• Fluchtmeldungen
• Veränderungsmeldungen

I understand the first to mean "notices of escape[s]" (?); what is the second? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Notices of escapes" sound correct for the first one, the second one would be "notices of change" (change in a very general sense, a change of state of something or the other) -- Ferkelparade π 11:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Those "notices of change" can include births, deaths, new arrivals and people that were sent somewhere else. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, as in population movement. Excellent take; I'll incorporate that too. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Plurals and group names

moved from humanities desk Gwinva (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Geese is the plural of goose; ducks is plural of duck, moose is plural of moose; mice is plural of mouse, deer is the plural of deer.

2) Male deer are called bucks and females are does; male moose are bulls and females are cows (moose and deer are related), male whales are called bulls and females called cows (not related to the moose/deer family), male bears are called boars (as are male pigs) and females are called sows (as are female pigs - not related families).

3) a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, a heard of elephants, a pride of lions and a pod of whales.

How are these terms determined in the english language, particularly when the families are not related (such as bears and pigs or moose and whales)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.19.19 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the terms used in your item number 3 are called Collective nouns; however I don't see what that has to do with the rest of your question. --LarryMac | Talk 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The usage comes about by usage, or by analogy, or sometimes by somebody deciding that there should be a word for a particular thing. (It's a herd of elephants, by the way) SaundersW (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

About your examples in 1) irregular plurals are just a coincidence caused by sound erosion over time. I recommend reading "The unfolding of language" by Guy Deutscher, if you want to find how irregularities are formed, and why they tend to affect specific words.

About 2) and 3) It is the same mess in French and I am pretty sure in other languages. Unless the term is very frequently used in the language, the word chosen was simply decided by analogy, sometime in the last 500 years, by a handfull of farmers or hunters that were not educated to the genetic family tree (which by the way probably didn't exist at the time, or was incorrect if it did). Not surprising that it doesn't make sense to modern biologists. Not everything is wrong, though: whales are relatively close to bovines actually (at least whales are closer to bovines than bovines are to horses), so "bull" and "cow" do make sense, in a way. --Lgriot (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The study of this subject is called venery.

(Interrupting) No it isn't; the words, or some of them, are "terms of venery" because venery is an old word for hunting and it was hunters that used them, or are supposed to have. --Anon, 23:50 UTC, May 6, 2008, edited 01:04, May 7.

There's a lovely little book called "An Exaltation of Larks or, The Venereal Game" by James Lipton, that lists hundreds of such terms, many of them very surprising indeed. And not all of them are about groups of animals, unless one considers humans to be animals. Four of my favourites are "a persistence of parents", "a descent of relatives", "an ennui of haute bourgeoisie", and "an indifference of waiters". Lipton describes 6 ways in which venereal terms come into being:

• onomatopoeia, e.g. a murmuration of starlings
• characteristic, e.g. a skulk of foxes
• appearance, e.g. a knot of toads
• habitat, e.g. a nest of rabbits
• comment, e.g. a cowardice of curs, and
• error, e.g. a school of fish (originally an incorrrect transcription of "shoal"). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

School wasn't "originally an incorrect transcription of 'shoal.'" It came into Middle English as an adaptation of Middle Dutch schole, which is indeed akin to the Old English scolu from which shoal descends, but the etymologies of school (the fish one, that is) and shoal are quite separate. Deor (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well!! Double well!! I'll just shut up now. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no! Don't shut up. I get a little pedantic at times, but I've nothing against Australians ("Don't want to hurt no kangaroo'). The initial [sk] sound in this school is a sure sign of its continental (Scandinavian or Dutch) ancestry; what's odd is how the other school (the academic one, from Latin scola) came to be spelled the way it is today. Deor (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A rabble of ref-deskers? Gwinva (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply add to Lipton's categories a metaerror category:

• metaerror, e.g. a school of fish (originally incorrectly thought to be an incorrect transcription [sic] of "shoal").

But this prompts a question: are there any genuine occupants of the [first-order] error category?

We must not waste this opportunity to venerate the words venery and venereal (sullied though this latter be by fixed nosological associations), for the benefit of neophytes. Both can have to do with hunting – and so with chaste Diana, nicely enough; but in their other, separate derivation they are etymologically connected with Venus (as is venerate itself, by the way). There has been much play on these separate meanings by littérateurs of the frisky persuasion.

A caveat: venereal is recent and perhaps only jocular as an adjective for venery in the sense of hunting. It is not accorded that meaning in OED. The canonic adjective in the hunting sense is venatic, or venatical; or, attested only for the year 1612, venerial (separately listed also as a long-obsolete variant of venereal in the sense of sexual goings-on and proclivities).

Curious that Gwinva resorted to alliteration in finding a suitable collective for ref-deskers. That is a handy and effective move in this game, casting a glamour of aptness on the coinage. Compare some of the more fanciful nonce-formations – like cowardice of curs, above.

A kerfuffle of philosophers, a piffle of pedants, a waffle of Wikipedians.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A lounge of linguists, a worry of wordsmiths, an allowance of alliterations. Gwinva (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

However, for an old list of these terms, see ["Sports and Pastimes of the People of England", by Joseph Strutt, published in 1801] page 19: Hunting terms. Here are some samples: a fesynes of ferrets; a huske or a down of hares; a nest of rabbits; a clowder of cats, and a kyndyll of young cats; a shrewdness of apes; and a labour of moles... a blush of boys; a bevy of ladies; a nonpatience of wives; a gagle of women; a gagle of geese; a superfluity of nuns; and a herd of harlots. Similar terms were applied to inanimate things, as a caste of bread, a cluster of grapes, a cluster of nuts, etc. SaundersW (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want a current example of how confusing plurals are and how new versions enter into common use, just look at words ending in -us some of which are not changed to -i or -a because they are not Greek/Latin in origin or English endings have already become common. Cactus - cacti, generus - genera, autobus -autobuses /-autobusses. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you were being a little generous with the spelling of the singular of genera, 71.236. Methinks it's "genus". Noetica's reference to metaerror reminds me of the old story about the guy who admitted he'd been wrong, but only once in his life. Then he explained that it turned out he hadn't been wrong after all, except that he'd been wrong to think he was wrong. I know exactly how he feels, poor chap. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Case in point. It is difficult. Look at the archive of the science reference desk for April 21 under "Octopi die after reproducing - why?" for another example. Often one form, singular or plural, is commonly used and one hits a roadblock when one has to use it in the other. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

translation of english to transylvania old script.

My daughter wants to get a tattoo of the words "My blood is your blood." What would that be in old transylvania script? Is hun rovas alphabet the closest or is there something else that would be better?65.124.250.132 (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Kari --65.124.250.132 (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on Rovas in the WP. Apart from that, there may be a linguist specialising in this alphabet. If all fails, you could try the Hungarian WP for help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fairly permanent nature of tattoos, I would strongly recommend that you get such a translation from a source you can trust. I'm not saying that it can't be someone from Wikipedia -- sure it can, if they have reasonable credentials to present, such as being natives and established and reputable Wikipedia editors, for example! But it definitely shouldn't be just some guy on the internet, unless you want to risk your daughter going around with a tattoo that actually reads something like "I'm with stupid" or "my blood equals your blood" or "I love bingo nights and bad spleling, lol" or something. Or worse. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you have to translate that into Old Hungarian first? Or perhaps you want an old form of Romanian, which would also have been used in Transylvania. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why worry about accuracy when no-one will be able to read it anyway? Koolbreez (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you don't care, that's fine by me. But the people who end up in a situation where someone points out that they have "I am stupid" or some variation thereof tattooed on their body -- and some people do end up exactly there -- usually end up caring. It's not that much fun to go around with pretty definitive proof of your ignorance and stupidity fairly permanently stamped on your body. I mean, why not make sure you're not making a fool of yourself? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read a story in the news a short while ago about an English girl who got a supposedly Chinese version of her boyfriend's name tattooed on her stomach. A Chinese speaking friend later pointed out that it actually just meant 'supermarket'. The couple laughed about it for a while but they have since broken up (for totally unrelated reasons) and she was dying to get rid of the tattoo for two reasons: 1. It reminded her of him; 2. It was an idiotic thing to have 'supermarket' tattooed on your stomach. Moral of this story is, if you are going to do it, make sure you really want it, and make sure you get it right!--ChokinBako (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune translated a few, and the weblog Hanzi Smatter deals with this on a regular basis. --LarryMac | Talk 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, it is always a good idea to remember that certain jobs actually require that you DON'T have tattoos, at least in areas visible whilst working (e.g. armed forces, hotels, practically any job in Japan, etc.) so, as I said before, you really must know you want one before you get it, and be prepared to sacrifice certain possibilities in future occupations, as well as other things. The only people I know who have tattoos here in the UK are either tattoo artists, labourers, or people on benefits. I mean, seriously, it does limit your work options. Better just using a permanent marker or transfer or something, because they can be removed easily without costly laser treatment. Having a tattoo is not like wearing a certain style of clothing or having a certain hairstyle or body piercing, as they can easily be changed. Tattoos are very hard to remove.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

May 7

Miscounting the letter "F"

I believe there is a technical term for the miscounting of the letter "F" specifically with regard to the it's use in the word "of", where those of us who learned to read with phonics see "ov" instead of "of". It is fascinating to see how many people when asked to read a sentence containg several occurances of the word "of" cannot accurately count the usage of the letter "f" due to this phenomenom. Does this error, indeed, have a name? --Nidansan (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidansan (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I know the specific sentence you are talking about, where the word 'of' was placed twice in succession, at the end of one sentence and at the beginning of the next. The object was to count the number of "F"s. Most people say that the failure to notice this is due to the problem with phonics, as you say, but I rather believe it was more to do with the fact that one of the English language's shortest words was placed not only at the end and beginning of two lines, but also repeated in such a way that a person would not expect it to be there. Most people read sentences by whole, not letter by letter, and in the same way people read words by shape. If it was a problem with phonics, then how many other letters with multiple pronunciations would have the same effect? "S" would be one of them. --ChokinBako (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT - Here is the sentence, formatted slightly different from when I first saw it 14 years ago at university:

Finished files are the re- sult of years of scientific study combined with the experience of many years.

But I believe most of what I said above still applies, in that we gloss over smaller words when we read quickly :) --ChokinBako (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Many may know this as an old hat and there are no "f"s but:

Aoccdring to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

-) 71.236.23.111 (talk) 09

28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clunetoss ahrouts, heevwor, siltl hilpapy issint on flinowlog dullaferdy osetlobe snilpleg. 83.78.175.138 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aywnay, taht Elingsh uinervtisy was the Uernistviy of Cmrbdigae. Jack^(Lumber) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not]. --LarryMac | Talk 14:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I used to use similar sentences when teaching speed reading to adult learners of advanced English when I was in Japan. I also basically explained to them that in a way, even English is read in the same way as Japanese kanji are read, in that at an advanced level of reading ability people pay more attention to the shape. I also used to use spelling mistakes by substituting certain letters with other letters of similar size or shape and these were never noticed until I pointed them out. All of this was fascinating to me, as well as them. Whether they ever used what they learned in real life, I'll never know, though...--ChokinBako (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese translation

Hello, I am attempting to translate these two lines into English, and I think I've gotten pretty close, but since I want to possibly use these in this article, I want it to be as accurate as possible. FYI 鳥の詩 at the beginning is the name of a song, so when translated should be kept as "Tori no Uta"; and the AIR right after is for Air.

鳥の詩は、AIRのテーマ性を念頭に、自分の中でイメージを固めていくのに非常に苦労しました。

The image of "Tori no Uta" in my mind as Air's characteristic theme is set although it was a very difficult process.

プレッシャーもすごかったし（笑）歌曲は、まだまだ苦手分野なので、最も自分の中で強化したい部分ですね。

Despite there being a lot of pressure for the song, since I'm still inexperienced in this field, I want to strengthen myself more.

--十八 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, but your English translations don't make sense to me. A good deal of re-wording will be required to get the Japanese ideas across. Here's my own attempt at it:

1. Even though I have made up my mind that the the song "Tori no uta" best captures the themes of Air, arriving at this was extremely difficult.

2. Besides being under a lot of pressure, I'm still quite inexperienced in the field of music. This is the area I want to become stronger in most of all.

Paul Davidson (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; your English does make much more sense, though at least I understood what was being said (despite being unable to explain it well).--十八 09:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I'm just starting out as a Japanese-English translator, and I've found that even when you understand the source completely, organizing it into something that an English speaker will understand is a real challenge. Paul Davidson (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, のに means 'in order to', not 'even though'. I would translate it as "It was extremely difficult for me to imagine Tori No Uta as the main theme of Air." --ChokinBako (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another is/are

A coupled with B is/are ... ? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some more context here? Without being sure what 'coupled' means here, I'm not sure which is correct. Algebraist 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. The context I used it in is:

Rising prices coupled with a stronger currency is/are given as a reason/reasons for ...

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely 'are' in my (UK) idiolect, since even if we consider 'coupled with a stronger currency' as a phrase modifying the subject (rather than allowing the prices and the currency to be joint subjects in some sense), the prices are still plural. Perversely enough, I think I would go with 'a reason' as well, but I'm not sure I can explain why. Algebraist 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is "rising prices" not singular though? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You've provided a good example of the problem. If "rising prices" is singular (and it is), then "rising prices coupled with a stronger currency" (the actual subject) is singular, too. "Coupled with" is different from "and" and makes the two factors a unit. The trouble is, in my estimation, that the reader boggles at making that big pile of words singular no matter what logic says. It comes down to a matter of ear. Logically, it "is", but we have to allow "are" to those who like it. For my money, if it matters, it's "is", though I'd probably have to think about recasting; I try to recognize conundrums I've written as a bad sign. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, "rising prices" is a plural construct, even if all the prices that are rising together only form one reason for something. "Rising prices are a reason" is correct. If the sentence was reversed, it would be "The reason is rising prices" -- the verb agrees with the subject, but the subject doesn't have to agree with the complement.

The question is trickier if the sentence is changed to begin "The rise in prices(,) coupled with a strong currency(,) ...". Now it's possible to view "coupled with a strong currency" as a parenthetical phrase and "the rise in prices" as the grammatical subject (hence singular), especially if the "coupled with" part is set off by commas. But it also makes sense to view the whole thing as the subject (hence plural). People will disagree as to what's best, I think. --Anonymous, 15:38 UTC, May 7, 2008.

Thanks, everyone. I decided to rephrase. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

vegetables

I was unable to find the list of plural forms for vegetables. cALVIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.38.216 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi cALVIN 69.225, good question to hit on a rarity. There are some: hand of bananas, cluster of grapes, pod of peas, hill of beans, sack of potatoes, punnet of strawberries – so there must be more vege ones in the trade at least. General but in use are bunch of..., case of..., crate of..., crop of..., stand of (usually with trees)... Not many specifically for veges, though maybe Gwinva would know? (See List of collective nouns by subject A-H and I-Z and List of collective nouns by collective term A-K and L-Z.) Maybe you could make up some, a spike of pineapples, a flag of spinach, a club of zucchini. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Peas and beans are fruit? Definitely potatoes aren't. Anyway, I thought the OP was asking for plural forms, not collective nouns.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As a nutritionist recently told me: the seedbearing part of a plant is its fruit botanically but nutritionally it may be considered a vegetable, e.g. tomatoes, squash, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons: I was thinking vegetable as in not animal or mineral (thank you, since removed fruit); plural forms, wouldn't that just add an "s"? so I took it to mean collective nouns. Are there other "plural forms" that would require a ref desk question? Or is it about the latin plurals of genera? In that case, need more information. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian question

I have two Russian work colleagues, and they keep talking in Russian all the time. I can make out some of the words, such as "nyet ponimai" (I don't understand), but not nearly all. They keep repeating a couple of words, most prominently "bilyat" and something that sounds like "dokha" or "dukha" or possibly "yokha" or "yukha". I asked my big half-brother, who speaks Russian almost fluently, about these, and he told me that the first one is the equivalent of "fuck", but he couldn't identify the second one. What does it mean? JIP | Talk 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a russian friend in Japan who only spoke Japanese to me, and he used your first word all the time, even in Japanese. I thought the spelling was 'bilyat', but other russian sources since then have told me it's spelled 'blyat'. Your assumption of the meaning is correct, though. The other word, I have no idea.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The word you're going for is блядь (blyad'), which means "whore". It's a swear word often used as an interjection. Not sure about the other. Joeldl (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Khaned/Khanned OR Khaganed/Khaganned?

If I wanted to use the name(s) Khan/Khagan as some kind of a past-tense-verb...what would it be, exactly?

Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_%28title%29 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.93.179 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you will be coining the word you get to decide. It's the joy of the word coinage system. Either work but I think that Khaned and Khaganed looks better and comes out less trippingly over the tongue and raises less doubt as to pronunciation. Leftus (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT - ::Verbing a noun which is a title? I can only suspect that you mean this in the sense of, for example, Sir Paul McCartney being 'knighted' (from knight), so Genghis was 'khaned'. I don't think that is possible in English for foreign words, but it is surely possible in Mongolian, from what I know of the language. Sure, you could make it up, but that would be your word. Just remember, though, Bush wasn't "presidented", Elizabeth wasn't "queened" and when somebody gets "prime ministered" it sounds like something completely different. --ChokinBako (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from verbifying whatever you like, someone like the upcoming Khan would likely be "made Khan" though there are heaps of specific words for various top appointments: crowned, ordained, came to the throne, etc which is more work to find out – and obviously I don't want to do the work : ) As for wikipedia's policy see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's the verb "to duchess", but it doesn't mean turning a woman into a duchess, so I guess it doesn't count.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

However, if Henry was playing draughts, he might have been kinged. --LarryMac | Talk 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

May 8

Plural for staff

I'm aware of "staves" for more than one staff in music and barrel making, but it seems strange for a collection of more than one staff unit of employees. What is the plural for more than one "staff" group – in the sense that there is staff from this department and that department etc, gathered together? I'd go for staffs, but is there a correct term? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

'Staffs' sounds fine to me, but it doesn't strike me as particularly 'correct'. To be absolutely correct, I'd expand it to staff groups, or even staffing groups. Or remove the need by talking about 'the staff from all departments' rather than 'all the department's staffs.' It may, of course, be unavoidable. Steewi (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd stick with 'staff'. 'Staff from X department and Y department' sounds perfectly fine for me.--ChokinBako (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It does sound collective in that way too. I found an example in the article Imperial Presidency, "The office is no longer used except for ceremonial occasions, but in nineteenth and early twentieth century presidents were based there with their small staves on a day-to-day basis." Staff then, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This might help clear it up. [4] Different uses, different plurals. For translations "employee" is easier to handle. Groups of employees would be more than one group. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lisa4edit, well the reason I gravitated to "staff" was that both instances required a sympathetic solution because it was terminology already in place. Employees is good but doesn't quite have the collective or ranking sense of "staff" – as per Steewi's "unavoidable" for continuity's sake. Eg, with the Whitehouse example, the president's employees might include groundsmen, caretakers, caterers and staffers, but "staff" seems to be a select group. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

English-bilingual people online

How many, of the estimated number of people with online access, are (at least) bilingual with English as their second language? All I can find are Internet access and List of countries by number of Internet users. (and Internet access worldwide?)

I am asking because I have noticed numerous forums in foreign scripted languages (Korean, Japanese, etc), seem to use English in their message headers, and almost interchangeably with their local language. And that trend seems to span subject categories, from art to electronics. But I'm interested in any other related insights.

thankyou (-: 24.68.135.43 (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of Japanese speak little or no English in spite of their ability to look up words in the dictionary and use them for Internet forum titles. Paul Davidson (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Egotism

All variants of this word please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.203.60 (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by variants. Do you mean varying definitions, or synonyms and related terms or derivations of egot? There's also an article on egotism. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Human-read articles

Where can I find human-read articles? (besides Project Gutenberg). I need both, text and audio. GoingOnTracks (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of 'spoken articles', which are audio files of Wikipedia articles read out loud. The only catch is that articles may have changed after the recordings were done. Kreachure (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Russian question

What does this mean?

Shto eto. Po-russki davaj! Ty izuchaesh russkij.

The only thing I understood is "po-russki", meaning "in Russian". JIP | Talk 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It means: What is this? Speak in Russian! You're learning Russian. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (or spasiba). So does "davaj" mean "to speak"? I keep hearing that word spoken by Russians, but it's another of those Russian words whose meaning I have no idea of. JIP | Talk 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nye za shto (or don't mention it). Davaj (давай) is one of those words whose meaning very much depends on the context. It's the imperative form of davat' (давать), to give, but it can also mean "let's" (let's go, etc), "come on", "just" et al. In the context of your question, "Po-russki davaj" can be thought of as "come on, how about Russian", but we'd be more likely to say "talk in Russian", or "speak Russian". It could also mean "give me the Russian word" (as opposed to the English or whatever word). The "Shto eto" could also mean "what's going on", or "what the ....". -- JackofOz (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... my husband learned to swear in Russian from some co-workers, who taught him that "Davaj, suka!" means "Hurry up, bitch!", so is "hurry up" another possible meaning of "davaj"? —Angr 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can certainly mean that. Its nuances are endless, and how it's translated into other languages depends completely on the context, and the pitch of the target language. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So it is similar to "please" pronounced "puh-lease!" ? SaundersW (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Toon-to-Japanese

Hi wikipeoples. If you were to accurately translate, say, "Sonic the Hedgehog" into Japanese, how would it be? They've always translated it phonetically (I guess it's what it's called), so I wouldn't be asking for that. Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As ソニック・ザ・ヘッジホッグ (Sonikku za Hejjihoggu), you mean? I don't really understand the question. -- The Great Gavini 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hedgehog is ハリネズミ, which would give ハリネズミのソニック (harinezumi no sonikku). I think that's about as far as you can go with the translation. I imagine the name "Sonic" derives from "sonic boom", which is "sonikku buumu" in Japanese. -- BenRG (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's the second one I was looking for. I always get confused by the use of "no". The first one ("Sonikku za Hejjihoggu") is what I meant by phonetic translation, i.e. translating how it sounds in English directly to Japanese. Kreachure (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One note, though: the Japanese never call him ハリネズミのソニック. Ever. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

May 9

Wikipoetry

Why doesn't someone create Wikipoetry? I think it would be a good resource, a compilation of poetry. I don't know how or I would. Thanks, Zrs 12 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is of course, all the copyright issues. If you want to include only public domain poetry, then there are larger projects, that attempt to put on the internet all public domain published books. Wiki-projects are for people to write in them and add value, not just retype from an old book. --Lgriot (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Already-published (and out-of-copyright) poems belong on wikisource, which has a fair few already. Algebraist 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Classifications of persons

I’ve checked out grammatical person but it doesn’t tell me what I want to know. I understand that not all languages restrict themselves to the 3 persons we use in English (I, you, he/she/it). And some don’t distinguish between persons at all. But for those that do, does “First person” always refer to oneself? I ask this because in English we capitalise the first person singular pronoun "I" but not any of the others, which is consistent with "I" being accorded primary status among the persons (not that the two things are necessarily related). But most other languages do not capitalise their equivalent of “I”, so maybe in some language’s grammar "you" is 1st person and "I" is 2nd, 3rd or nth person. Or is this a standard convention? Any ideas? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe by definition first person is always I. That would make sense to me. However, I do not know for sure. Someone else will have to give you a definite answer. Cheers, Zrs 12 (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic convention dictates that the first person is always 'I'. That is linguistics. It is a science. The capitalization has nothing to do with status, but rather a convention from Early New English, otherwise the first person plural 'we' would also be capitalized. Originally, 'I' ('ich' in Middle English and 'ic' in Old English) were not capitalized, and the convention arose from the word 'I' being basically a single letter with the same pronunciation as the name of the actual letter. European languages often used abbreviations in texts, and this seems to be a relic of this habit. As for the other question, all languages have three persons (this is a linguistic fact), but some do not distinguish gender in the 3rd person (e.g. Finnish), while others distinguish gender in the 2nd person (e.g. Arabic), and some have a dual (i.e. meaning a plural but with only two people involved), and even a triple (with only three people involved), as well as a plural. Some of these 'plurals' also have distinctive terms as to whether the first person, second person, and third persons are involved, with various combinations of this, bordering on the absurd, from an English speaker's point of view. Then there is Japanese, where your usage of the personal pronoun depends as much on who you are talking to as what gender, age, and social status you are. Some Native American languages also have different ways of saying the third person, depending on whether the person in question is present or not.--ChokinBako (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am very impressed with ChokinBako's extent of knowledge. I have just a couple more links to mention about pronouns: As ChokinBako said, some pronouns vary depending on who, among the present, are involved in the action. One of the most frequent case is the first person plural (we) which has in some languages like Kapampangan, 2 forms: one form that includes the person you are talking to, one form that excludes him. For e.g.: if 3 people are present and one says "We are going home" to one of the other two in English, it is ambiguous, because the person you tell that to does not know whether he should come along home with you or not. But in those language that have an "exclusive we" and an "inclusive we", the pronoun "we" is different, and therefore the listener will know if he is included or not in the "going home" action. --Lgriot (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a "linguistic fact" that all languages have at least three persons in their pronouns. The Raritätenkabinett lists the Balante language, for example, as having a two-way contrast between "speaker" (ie, first person) and "non-speaker" (ie, merging second and third persons). Similarly, the gender distinction need not be limited to the second and third persons - plenty have it in the first person as well. Macnas (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but I've never seen anything to suggest that Japanese has any personal pronouns or any concept of person in the grammar. Words like "watashi" and "kimi" are nothing like pronouns; they're full-fledged nouns in every respect that I can see. You can classify them according to a first/second/third person scheme, but there's nothing in the structure of the language to justify that. You might as well say that "this writer" and "the esteemed senator from Wisconsin" are personal pronouns. Like the Japanese words, they depend on context, social status, etc.; like the Japanese words, they have none of the properties that you'd normally associate with pronouns. -- BenRG (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You might as well say that "this writer" and "the esteemed senator from Wisconsin" are personal pronouns. — that is quite brilliant, and I think I shall save it somewhere. :) I think an entire Wikipedia article could be written on how languages like Japanese do without pronouns. I hear Korean is another pronoun-less language, although I personally cannot attest to that. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying. These words were originally nouns, but then, I believe that all pronouns in English were originally nouns in proto indo-european. Anyway, what is a pronoun if it is not a type of noun? And what properties would you 'normally' associate with pronouns that you wouldn't with nouns? Don't say nominative, accusative, genitive and dative, because we are talking about languages in general, many of which do not have these forms. This is not about English or any other Indo-European language, or Ural-Altaic, etc.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous syntactic differences between nouns and pronouns. Pronouns are pro-forms that substitute for noun structures and require antecedents. They have restrictions that do not apply to nouns, like the inability to affix adjectives. In many languages (not just English), they inflect quite differently from nouns for gender, case, number, etc. There are probably other significant differences I can't think of just now. If there were no grammatical differences, pronouns would not be considered an individual part-of-speech. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

They only inflect differently in inflectional languages, and only now because of sound change. If you'd studied Indo-European you'd see that they were basically the same as nouns, in every way, shape, and form. Also, adjectives can be fixed to pronouns, as argumentative me is proving with this sentence here :). As you say, Korean can do without its pronouns, just as in Japanese, but the same can be said for modern spoken English, such as 'like it?' (for 'did you like it?) where the context is obvious. Same goes for Chinese, and many other languages without verb endings to show person.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "argumentative me is proving" is bad grammar. You might as well use an example of verbing to prove all nouns are verbs. Additionally, "like it" is not a pronoun-less construction (obviously), because English grammar requires pronouns to indicate whether verbs are transitive or not (unlike Japanese). Paul Davidson (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Argumentative me" is not bad grammar in my version of English. I have heard it, read it, said it and no one corrected me. You have the bad habit of prescriptivism, let us speak as we like, as long as we make ourselves understood, what is it to you? And pronouns do not require antecedents: I can start a book with the sentence "I was born on ...". Where is the antecedent? This is the first word of the book! I mean of course: is the antecedent different from the one of the starting sentnce "Mr Jonson was born on ..."? --Lgriot (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that Japanese doesn't have person, just that there's nothing special about person. Japanese speakers understand the speaker/listener/other distinction and can talk about it in Japanese, but in that respect it's no different from the black/white distinction or the boson/fermion distinction. I've had people wonder aloud to me how Japanese can function without a grammatical plural. How do they distinguish one and not-one? Well, they do it with words. Putting the distinction in the grammar doesn't mean you can express it, it means you have to express it even when you'd rather not. A linguist studying the Japanese language in isolation would never come up with the concepts of personal pronouns or grammatical person. I don't see how they could. The whole thing bothers me because it seems like linguists are doing to Japanese now what they did to English in the past—trying to apply concepts from Latin that clearly don't fit. They ought to look at what grammatical structures are present in language X and then try to relate them to analogous structures in previously-studied languages, not start with a grammar tuned to previously-studied languages and fit language X to that. -- BenRG (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the gender distinction I mentioned was only an example. I could have continued, but my post was getting long. As for the Balante language information, I will look into that. Thank you. --ChokinBako (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason "I" is capitalized in English is simply to make it clearer that it's a separate, one-letter word. Note that the word "O" is also capitalized, although "a" isn't. See under I (pronoun) for a bit more of the history. --Anonymous, 07:56 UTC, May 9, 2008.

'O' is a word? You mean when used in the vocative sense of 'O, Caesar'? In this case it is always at the beginning of a sentence and will thus always be capitalized.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it not possible, O wise contributor, to insert the interjection within the sentence? Wiktionary does suggest "always capitalized". I also found "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not." (Jeremiah 5:21) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

O Jeremiah, you do befuzzle me. Yes, it's true, it is capitalized, but that just makes my argument that 'prime status' is not relevant stronger. --ChokinBako (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those replies so far, everyone. I guess what occurred to me is that, although linguistics is now a unified discipline in which all the jargon words have meanings that are accepted world-wide, that may not always have been the case. For example, if Portuguese linguists set out to codify their grammar back in the middle ages, what would have prevented them from choosing a pronoun other than "I/we" to call "first person"? Surely there would have been some differences in the ways that linguists from different countries independently sought to describe the workings and structures of their languages. And if so, how were such differences addressed and how was uniformity achieved? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I'm not certain of this, but I think that many of these linguistic terms and conventions have been inherited from classical grammar. Many of these terms (including probably 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person) have been part of Latin and Ancient Greek pedagogy for centuries, possibly since ancient times. European grammarians (including those in medieval Portugal) typically analyzed vernacular languages using the categories and terminology that all educated Europeans had picked up from their study of Latin. So it is unlikely that grammarians in Portugal or any other part of Europe ever used a different set of terms and conventions. (On the other hand, I think that languages such as Arabic and Sanskrit have indigenous grammatical traditions whose terms and categories do not always conform to the Latin or Greek model. Linguists have had to invent new terms, often ironically from Greek or Latin roots, to describe these and other languages.) Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye! It must have been great fun inventing names for all the cases in Finnish grammar, for example! 62.30.217.57 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually going to say that but you beat me to it. Actually, Sanskrit does have a totally different way of dealing with it, and from my memory of studying it many many years ago, it did have a system where 3rd person came first, then 2nd person, then 1st. Maybe I am mixing this up, but I seem to remember it as so.--ChokinBako (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like your memory serves you well! I found a reference to Pāṇini accounting for "the distribution of triplets of verb endings called prathama (first), madhyama (second), and uttama, corresponding to what western grammars call third, second, and first person endings." (History of the Language Sciences, Walter de Gruyter 2000, ISBN 3110111039). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. So now, I think we are getting close to the answer for Jack's question.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, you've arrived. The Arabic/Sanskrit vs. Greek/Latin origins explains it perfectly. Thank you. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Names for the Grand Canyon.

I'm looking for the name of the Grand Canyon in the various languages of the Native American tribes that live in the area (both ancient and modern). Specifically, I'm looking for the Havasupai name (I think it's called the Pai language), but if that can't be found, others will do.

If anybody knows or can help me find this information, I'd greatly appreciate it. --69.207.118.198 (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything specific, but some of the books mentioned in this article may have what you want. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous languages of the Americas#United States, Canada and Greenland may give you a starting point for further searches. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has a talk page where you might find people who could help. What I know fits in a very small thimble, but in many cases there may not be a "name" because things often are described, rather than named. (sort of like "very deep valley" or "going down with running water". There is a dictionary for Zuni, but I don't think that includes place names. Hope this helps. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not unique to indigenous languages -- consider the French TGV, their high-speed train. I assumed for many years that the French Academy, their national language purists, would have pondered the matter at length, and come up with some "uniquely French" name for their train. Imagine my serious disappointment to learn that TGV means nothing more than "train of great speed". (Surely, they could have done better that?)

And, I apologize for taking this thread off its original track. -- Danh, 63.231.163.147 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If it comes to that, the English name "Grand Canyon" is just a description too. Anyway, my Navajo textbook gives two names: Tsékooh Hatsoh and Bidáá’ Ha’azt’i’. I don't know what either of those names literally means, but tsékooh does mean "canyon". And our own article says it's called Ongtupqa in Hopi. Don't know about Havasupai, though. —Angr 09:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

differences

Please describe the differences in the words founder and flounder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.83.90 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for something specific? Letter-wise, the only difference is the "L". The words have different meanings, and likely different root words. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For differences in meaning and etymology, please have a look at wikitionary: wikt:founder and wikt:flounder (I guess you are interested in the verbs, not the nouns, so scroll down to see that). Especially the usage note section on flounder might help you. --Lgriot (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Poem: To bed, to bed said Leatherhead .. (I don't know any more)

Folks,

When my brother and I were growing up my Dad would often repeat several different poems, but only partially. Now that we're older and Dad is no longer with us we are wondering just how the rest of the poem went and what it's title actually is. I've found one or two other ones but this one eludes me. I did an internet search and it sent me to Wikipedia and the English town of Leatherhead.

Thanks for any help and/or direction you can give. Jack R. Jones Pennsylvania, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.237 (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To bed, to bed,

Says Sleepy-head.

Tarry a while, says Slow.

Put on the pan,

Says greedy Nan,

We'll sup before we go.

I think your dad may have gotten a couple of words wrong. "To bed, to bed" is a nursery rhyme. I found the lyrics here. Neıl ☎ 12:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember the same one. The web shows many variations, e.g "let's wait a while", and "put on the pot says greedy spot" (or even "greedy gut"). I think it is anonymous/traditional. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil's version is the one that I remember though. (Southern UK). SaundersW (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Finding a girl

I am 19 and still now I haven't being with a girl in an intimate relationship. The girls I know seems to be fascinated about funny guys, guys with cars, or good in sport. How can I make a girl like me? GoingOnTracks (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not here in the Language RF. I'm moving your question to the Miscelaneous.11:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.1.109 (talk)

Interpreting the ambiguous question "How can I make a girl like me?" would seem to belong to the language desk or even to the science desk. Maybe cloning is one option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that joke took me way too long to figure out, but then I LOL'd. 69.243.226.157 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant one Cookatoo! It is for such pearls that I check this page every day. --Lgriot (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a classic piece of graffiti: "My mother made ma a homosexual" Underneath it in another hand "If I sent her the wool, would she make me one too?". SaundersW (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Freudian slip alert, SaundersW. ("My mother made ma a homosexual")  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

hihihi My ma is somewhere to the right of Atilla, though she tries hard... the slip's more an anticipation of the "a", I fear. SaundersW (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

May 10

Math vs. Maths

In the US we say "Math" but in Britain it's "Maths". Why?

I read that if you ask an American whether mathematics is a single thing or plural they'll say it's single ("Mathematics is fun" not "Mathematics are fun"). But in England they think of mathematics as plural (well, it does end with an "s"...)

So why? And is it a plural noun or singular noun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.8.220 (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics (the discipline) is shortened to "stats" everywhere. Despite the "s", it's a singular noun, like physics, demographics etc. On the other hand, a "stat" is a number - also a singular noun. Britain and some other countries apply the same logic to mathematics, which becomes "maths". Why the Americans call it "math", when they don't talk of studying "stat" - well, you'd have to ask them. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As a native speaker of American English, I have taken plenty of "stat". I also say "stats" sometimes. Although I can't account for the distinction, I can tell you that, "how is stat going?" means "how is (your) statistics course?" whereas "how are the stats going?" means "how are the statistics (describing your latest experiment or whatever)?" 134.96.105.72 (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And while 'mathematics' was originally plural, it has been a mass noun for well over a century, even in England. Algebraist 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- 'mathematics' is definitely a singular in British English -- I've never heard anyone use it as a plural in any dialect of English, in fact. Dricherby (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mathematics" first occurs in 1573. "Math" enters the language about 1847; "maths" followed in 1911. - Nunh-huh 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Urdu

what would be the translation or suitable word for urdu "Naa cheez; (means somehwat like unworthy) IN ENGLISH. this urdu word is used to express humbleness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I once answered this question. Go to [5]. --Omidinist (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Table(au)

What's the difference between the French words "table" and "tableau"? Both of those words are French for "table". —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntfictExpert (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary might be helpful: wikt:table and wikt:tableau. Algebraist 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue question

In the sentence "Have a good time, kiddo?" Should 'kiddo' be capitalized? It's a father talking to his son. And, yes, his nickname for his son is 'kid' or 'kiddo' (pronounced like kid-oh, in case this slang doesn't cross international language boundaries). Dismas|^(talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It's just an ordinary noun used in the place of a proper noun. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 13:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree unless it's the case where kiddo has essentially become a "used-name" in place of his given one. If he always refers to his son that way, it would literally become a nickname subject to capitalization, rather than a simple term of endearment, which would not. The name for something is what you call it, so if he calls his son kiddo, then that could be his name. Up next: I show that "I see what I eat" is the same as "I eat what I see." :-) Matt Deres (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In a different dialogue, however, namely Kill Bill, it would be capitalized, because the character's last name is actually Kiddo. (There, I suppose I've ruined the surprise.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Singular of Rice Krispies

I have a box of Rice Krispies breakfast cereal. If one of these puffed rice grains falls out of the box, would I call it a Rice Krispie? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There's a product called Rice Krispie treat, so the singular has become that even if it's not an official word. :) PeterSymonds | talk 14:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It might also be spelled Rice Krispy if it is one. (Looks odd, though.) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cereals names are interesting to play with: There is only one Weetabick left in the box! --Lgriot (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this area is ripe for research. The Australian equivalent of Weetabix is Weet-Bix. It's obviously meant to sound like a plural word (wheat-bicks), yet I never think of a single one as a "weet-bick". I heard an English woman on TV the other day talking about a single "weetabick", and I have to say it sounded extraordinarily naff and embarrassing. Extreme forms of torture could not force me to utter such a word from my lips. We also have Jatz and Clix crackers (what! no articles?), but nobody talks of a single "Jat" or a single "Click" - it's always "This Jatz (or Clix) has cheese (or whatever) on it". But then, I never have just one Clix. I usually stop at 159.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question: would a single Twix bar be a twig or a twick? But anyway, while this is all just the result of product-naming and marketing departments wanting to be clever, the fact that there are plural words without an accompanying singular form is in itself not that unusual: you probably would not say you have a single scissor after your cutting tool broke in half, and the same goes for glasses, pants and a score of other things that usually come in pairs. -- Ferkelparade π 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Even staying with breakfast cereals, we can have a bowl of oats. I'd be surprised if a single bit is an "oat". On the other hand, a person who engaged in licentious activity prior to marriage, but only with one other person, could be said to have "sowed his/her wild oat", I suppose.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, our article about Avena sativa is called Oat (Oats is just a redirect there), and I would definitely refer to a single one of the objects on the right as "an oat". More jocularly, I would also refer to a single grain of rice as a "rouse". Ferkelparade, your German influence is showing: a single Twix couldn't be a "twig" because we don't have final devoicing in English. /twIgz/ is quite distinct from /twIks/. —Angr 07:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Un stockage dans

Quel est le sens de "un stockage dans la saumure", de cette article dans le Wikipedia francais: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feta --Bowlhover (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems pretty obvious to me: Feta is stored in "saumure" which is water with high concentration of salt. But maybe I am missing something. --21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks. I was confused as to whether the meaning is "a stock [of feta] in brine or "a stock in [of] brine." --Bowlhover (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish verb "castrar" with "birthday" as the object

The article Deborah Secco contains a very strange mistranslation, but I can't tell what the actual word should be. The Spanish version of the article says: Ella castra de cumpleaños (27 años) de Playboy (la edición brasileña), en agosto de 2002. This got translated into the English version as "She castrates of birthday (27 years) of Playboy (Brazilian edition), in August of 2002."

My Spanish-English dictionary gives the following translations for "castrar": ZOOL. "to castrate, geld, fix"; FIG. "to emasculate"; HORT. "to prune"; MED. "to dry up (sores or wounds)". None of these sound like they could take "cumpleaños" ("birthday") as the object. Does anyone have a better translation? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The birthday goes with Playboy and would thus be the 27th anniversary (party/edition) of the Brazilian Playboy. As to what she did, sorry, no clue. It might be like "cleaned out" or something. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At first I thought it was vandalism, but it was there in the oldest version of the article. It even occurs twice, meaning it's unlikely to be a typo either. The de separating the verb from cumpleaños is weird to. I'm trying think of some verb X that fits semantically into "She X's of birthday/anniversary (27 years) of Playboy (Brazilian edition), in August 2002", but I'm not having much luck. —Angr 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Like the translation to English, the sentence is grammatically incorrect in Spanish (whatever verb you use). My guess is that it's a mistranslation from Portuguese, since the verb castrar isn't commonly used for much else than the act of emasculation. That sub-section isn't on the Portuguese Wiki article though. Bottom line, it makes no sense to a Spanish speaker (like me). Kreachure (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we all misunderstood the tragical sufferings of the barely dressed folks depicted in the pages of the above mentioned literary aid for manual dexterity?

Maybe the media mogul behind the periodical has, in diligent and surgical precision, accumulated rows and stacks of fomaldehyde filled jam jars on the many mantle pieces of his marbelled fire places as a diabolical memorial to the pre-operative magnificence of the centrefolded post-emasculated castrati?

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I better go ask on the Spanish Wikipedia reference desk before you come up with any more ideas along those lines. ;-) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence was written by 201.67.230.210, an unregistered user apparently based in Montevideo, Uruguay, who created the page on 23 February 2007. His or her only other edit of the Spanish Wikipedia took place about one minute later. On the same day, the same user made this quite clumsy edit to the English Wikipedia. However, if we look here we find that this IP address has so far made no edits of the Portuguese Wikipedia. I suspect castra is just a typo which has puzzled all readers ever since and defied correction. Xn4 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good news. I think I figured it out thanks to Xn4's comments. I looked at 201.67.230.210's version of the article and I noticed some other awkward phrasings -- such as saying that Secco played a "zapato del maria-fútbol" (shoe of maria-soccer) in a soap opera. The article also began "El Deborah Fialho Secco ..." (The Deborah Fialho Secco ...) which is incorrect (personal names aren't normally preceded by the word "the" in Spanish either). This suggested that 201.67.230.210 had used an automatic translator to translate the then-existing Portuguese version of the article. That version said, "Capa de aniversário (27 anos) da Playboy, Agosto de 2002." "Capa" is a Portuguese word meaning, among other things, "cover", but it also is a form of the Spanish verb (possibly a Portuguese verb as well), "capar". "Capar" also means "to castrate" (probably from the same source as the English word "capon"). So the phrase should probably be interpreted as "Cover of the 27th anniversary of Playboy, August 2002", but "capa" was mistranslated as a verb meaning "she castrates" rather than a noun meaning "cover". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And Secco's "zapato del maria-fútbol" character on a soap opera was in Portuguese a "pt:maria-chuteira" which seems to mean something like a "soccer groupie" but literally translates as "Maria-soccer shoe". In short, this article seems to have incorporated some mechanically translated language which will have to be cleaned up by reference to the original Portuguese version to see what it meant. I didn't realize this earlier because the language from which this material derived is no longer included in the current Portuguese version of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Metropolitan! By the way, there are other translation problems in the Spanish article, like proponer instead of posar. Looks like a bad translation of English pose. Pallida  Mors 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of this Poem

Please Someone tell me what this poem means.

The Prophet - Abraham Cowley

Teach me to Love? go teach thy self more wit; I am chief Professor of it. Teach craft to Scots, and thrift to Jews, Teach boldness to the Stews; In tyrants courts teach supple flattery, Teach Jesuits, that have traveled far, to Lye. Teach fire to burn and Winds to blow. Teach restless Fountains how to flow, Teach the dull earth, fixt, to abide, Teach Woman-kind inconstancy and Pride. See if your diligence here will useful prove; But, pr'ithee, teach not me to love.

The God of Love, if such a thing there be, May learn to love from me, He who does boast that he has bin, In every Heart since Adams sin, I'll lay my Life, nay Mistress on't, that's more; I'll teach him things he never knew before; I'll teach him a receipt to make Words that weep, and Tears that speak, I'll teach him Sighs, like those in death, At which the Souls go out too with the breath; Still the Soul stays, yet still does from me run; As Light and Heat does with the Sun.

'Tis I who Love's Columbus am; 'tis I, Who must new Worlds in it descry; Rich Worlds, that yield of Treasure more, than that has been known before, And yet like his (I fear) my fate must be, To find them out for others; not for Me. Me Times to come, I know it, shall Loves last and greatest prophet call. But, ah, what's that, if she refuse, To hear the whole doctrines of my Muse? If to my share the Prophets fate must come; Hereafter fame, here Martyrdome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.211.80 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would love to help, but that's a bit difficult not knowing what your level of English is and where your problems with comprehension are. I assume that you are not looking for an interpretation, since you didn't post this in Humanities, but rather in languages. Not knowing what level you are at, makes explaining it a bit cumbersome. The first bit, for example is a fragment of an ironic question "Do you want to teach me to Love?" which then translates to a statement as "I don't think you are qualified to teach me to love and I don't think I need to be taught. As you can see this could get rather lengthy. --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

wikiboxes: prescriptivism versus descriptivism

Has anyone got a fancy wikibox about prescriptivism and descriptivism? I mean in the linguistics meaning of this words of course. --Lgriot (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by wikibox? A userbox? I can't find one at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Grammar, but you could make one. —Angr 22:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I did mean a userbox. I'll look into making one. --Lgriot (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Where should I put the adverb?

What's better, and what's illegal (if any)?

• has clearly been stated.
• has been clearly stated.
• has been stated clearly.

HOOTmag (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what concept you're trying to express. In the first one, "clearly" means "obviously, patently". "X has clearly been stated" could be re-written as "Clearly, X has been stated", meaning "It is obvious that, or nobody doubts that, X has been stated" (as opposed to some Y that hasn't been stated, or not everyone agrees has been stated). Whether X has been stated clearly (as opposed to incomprehensibly) is another matter. So you could say "X has clearly been clearly stated" and "X has clearly been incomprehensibly stated". The latter 2 refer to the clarity with which X has been stated; the last one emphasises the clarity a little more than the middle one, but they're close to synonymous in meaning if not quite in nuance. Is that clear? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clear enough, because of the ambiguity of "clearly", but what about: "has slowly been pouring the wine"? HOOTmag (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, it depends on context. If you've been asked to fill 100 wine glasses with wine, you could do it quickly, without interruptions, or you could take a break after every 5th glass and take all day to do it. Even if each glass is filled as quickly as can be managed without spilling any of the wine, the whole process might be slow. In that scenario, "has slowly been pouring the wine" would fit. But if you're taking a minute to fill each glass, then "has been pouring the wine slowly" would fit better. That would apply even if there were only one glass. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What if we replace "slowly" by "happily"? Are you really sure that "has happily been doing it..." is always possible? Shouldn't one prefer: "has been doing it happily"? HOOTmag (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Has, happily, been doing..." doesn't necessarily mean that the person performing the action is happy about it, but that the person saying the sentence is happy that the person is doing it. If that makes sense.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so let's sum up: "He has X-ly been Y-ing", means: "X-ly, he has been Y-ing", while: "He has been X-ly Y-ing" means: "He has been Y-ing X-ly". right? if that's right, then what do you think about JackofOz's previous analysis concerning "He has slowly been pouring the wine"? HOOTmag (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Corvus's example introduced a new factor, the parenthetical adverb. There's a big difference between "Marvin has happily been pouring the wine" and "Marvin has, happily, been pouring the wine". Case A means Marvin is happy about what he's doing, while Case B means the speaker is happy about what Marvin is doing. If your summation works (and I'm not sure it always works), it could only apply to non-parenthetical adverbs. In many (perhaps most) cases, you can't isolate the adverb to the front followed by the comma without losing the sense. It then becomes a comment on the speaker's attitude to the behaviour rather than a description of the behaviour itself. Your original question just happened to be an example where the sense doesn't change by repositioning the adverb. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So let's ignore "Marvin has, happily, been pouring the wine", and let's refer to "Marvin has happily been pouring the wine", i.e. without commas, versus: "Marvin has been happily pouring the wine". So what's better (if any)? HOOTmag (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there's no difference in the essential meanings. The first version gives a slightly stronger emphasis to the "happily" part, but it's line-ball. There's nothing wrong with the 2nd version, but I'd generally prefer the 1st version - purely for stylistic reasons, though, not grammatical. Others may see something more significantly different between them. Come on comrades, there's a party going on here and you're all cordially invited. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

thankxs. HOOTmag (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Both a strength and a weakness

It occurs to me that despite the prevalance of scenarios where something is both a strength and a weakness (in art and life), there doesn't seem to be an English word for the idea. Is there one and I just don't know it? If not, is there an acceptable foreign term that is substituted/fills the role (I'm looking at you, German!)? Thanks for any answers. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "both a strength and a weakness"? Would you like to give some scenarios (in art or life etc.)? I'm sure it may help us. Eliko (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I dimly remember that this was a thread about a month ago, but I can´t find it right now. I try to find the link tomorrow. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a real life one: Blair's "conviction politics" described as strength and weakness, and as for art at the moment I can't think of a good example, but I mean situations where the reason for a protagonist's rise later becomes the reason for his fall. Macbeth's ambition comes to mind but I'm not sure it entirely fits. Something like trust could be both strength and weakness. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

While not a word, the first thing that comes to mind is "double-edged sword", as in something that can be both beneficial and harmful to the one involved with it. The second thing that comes to mind is "bittersweet", as in nice and uncomfortable at the same time. But perhaps a better word describing the situation you describe is out there (and I just can't quite put my finger on it...) Kreachure (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The thread Cookatoo is looking for is here[6]. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the thread briefly, either I overlooked it or "mixed blessing" is missing. I would consider that to describe something that is something positive that has its drawbacks.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, not a word, but a verse in the bible: Psalms, 7, 15-16. Eliko (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous threads on this, both here and at the miscellaneous desk, were started by me. No real answers then, either, alas. :/ Couldn't even find anything in a non-English language. --Masamage ♫ 05:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As a native German speaker I have been racking my brain for a local equivalent (because I thought / think there is one). The closest I can find is Achilles' heel / Achillesferse which, however, pinpoints the weakness in an otherwise strong system. It is not, per se, ambivalent.

Update: The best German term is may be Zwiespältigkeit which defines this contradicting schizoid ambivalence. I can't think of a precise translation, but maybe other volunteers (Sluzzelin, Dr Ferkel, Angr, Dorftrottel et al) find a proper term. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really what you are looking for, but closely related is "ambivalence", defined as the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward something, simultaneously drawing that person in opposite directions.--Eriastrum (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I would consider a mixed blessing to be. So what am I missing here? --71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

May 11

Deafblindness

This might be better asked in the Science section, I'll move it if that's the case. I may inadvertently be offensive in my remarks. Please forgive my ignorance. I've recently been thinking about deafblindness from birth, and how the children learn to communicate. Would I be correct in assuming that they would always learn some sort of tactical sign language first, before other forms of communcation (like Braille)? Or are there other ways to achieve communication with a deafblind baby? If the baby isn't experiencing other unrelated developmental delays, about how old may the age of onset be? Is there a large difference when compared to deaf or blind babies? The deafblind article gives a link to Tacpac, but it's still not clear to me if that is used to help speed up the onset of communication in normally developing children, or just in cases where there are developmental delays. Thanks in advance. 222.158.118.97 (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Close - But no Cigar.

Where does this saying come from and what does it mean?

x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.210.227 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One would assume that it comes from the patter of carnival game operators—in particular, those of the "Ring the Bell" game, winners of which used to receive a cigar as their prize. If a prospective he-man sent the indicator nearly to the top, but didn't get it to go all the way up to ring the bell, his effort would be "Close … but no cigar." As for what it means, it means that someone's nearly achieved an objective, without actually succeeding. A similar expression I've heard is "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." Deor (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And, by George, I see that the latter expression I quoted gets a mention in our article Horseshoes. Deor (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not wishing to contradict Deor, but merely to add another interpretation I heard. I was told it originated from the traditions of a father waiting outside the room during labor and sharing cigars with others present after the child was born. When someone came out of the room they'd use that saying either when the child hadn't come out yet or as a gentle way of indicating a stillbirth. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! That's an odd definition of "gentle"; they should follow with "... but the good news is you can save on the coffin by using the cigar box!" Matt Deres (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this page and this one, among others, support the origin I gave. The first one cites what it says is the first appearance of the expression in print. Deor (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Question on Japanese counters

Suppose you want to say "There is only one God" in Japanese. What counter would you use with the "one"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.228.115 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd use "hitori" (一人). So something like 神が一人しかいません。Kami ga hitori shikaimasen. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hashira" (柱) is also the general counter for gods and spirits. Perhaps a native speaker knows if it can be used in a monotheistic (Christian or Muslim) context. Paul Davidson (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

神様は一人しかいない. We forgetting the 'sama', boys?--ChokinBako (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A good comeback

What's a good comeback when someone says to you "Why are you so fat"? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Because every time I %$^& your wife she gives me a biscuit!"

"I may be fat, but you're ugly and I can diet"

"I am a American, I was born and raised here."

"My weight can be fixed. Unfortunately, your face can't."

"The doctors office has a chart for height and weight, and I discovered...

I'm not fat, I'm just short for my weight!"

"Because larger clothes are cheaper."

"I'm actually Siamese triplets - one set of limbs but three stomachs."

"I want to get the world record for weight loss."

"Because your Mom likes 'em fat." Makey melly (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"'Cause I eat a lot". ----Seans Potato Business 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Why are you so rude?" Corvus cornix_talk 21:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

* I keep wondering that myself. Tell me when you've found out, because I really want to know.

* I could try to explain all the causes. But that wouldn't work since the one trying to teach you manners has obviously failed. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 Why not?  hotclaws 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzette Haden Elgin in The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defensepoints out that verbal attacks similar to this are tricky as answering the question directly carries with it an implicit agreement to the underlying presuppositions. Rather than take the bait, or even dispute the presupposition (which will just turn into an argument), you could turn it into an intellectual debate.

• It's interesting how people are judgmental of the overweight. Would you say it's a rising form of prejudism?
• Yes, why is one overweight? I would say it has something to do with an increased sedentary lifestyle in western culture. Perhaps it is the switch of using cane sugar in our products to high fructose corn syrup.
• etc.

Although if you're looking for zingers then Makey melly's got some good ones. You can also add "I quit smoking." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You could also coolly respond with a simple statement of scientific fact: "Because I ingest more calories than I burn." —Angr 07:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Why are you asking?" Because... "Why because...?" So ... "So, what?" Bore them to death. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice to the OP, you should wait until the next time someone asks you why you're fat. If you knock on their door several days later with your response, you'll look like an obsessive fool rather than a fellow with sharp wit. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What language is this in?

Moved from other desk. Makey melly (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone tell me what language this page is in. I've tried to translate it with google but it wont work. Makey melly (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to be Turkish, though I might be wrong. Fribbler (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, just my luck. Google translate doesn't have a Turkish option. Thanks anyway. Makey melly (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Turkish (not that I know a word of the language). Apart from the general look and feel, the clinchers are the "i"s, some of which are dotted (including capitals - İ), and some of which are not (ı). -- JackofOz (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus the many links to Galatasaray :-) Fribbler (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus the absence of ə, which would be abundant if it were in Azeri (which also has both dotted and dotless "i"s). —Angr 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

lipid

I've always understood the word "lipid" to mean fat in a scientific sense. But could I say "My girlfriend is a bit lipid"? Does it work like that? I remember seeing an episode of the Simpsons where Nelson said "Your epidermis is on show". Mr Beans Backside (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen "lipid" used that way. Lipids include fats, but the word is generally not used as an adjective. You might be able to say she has an excessive lipid count (or something similar). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Her body is composed of a higher than normal percentage of adipose tissue." Saying one looks more "lipid" would be like saying someone who works out is looking protein, or a tanned person is very melanin. Fribbler (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, "lipid" is a noun but "fat" in the indicated sense is an adjective. --Anon, 04:44 UTC, May 12, 2008.

You could say that she's wikt:zaftig. Corvus cornix_talk 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you man the word "Limpid" instead? Astronaut (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you mean "mean" rather than "man"? Eliko (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "either"

Moved from WP:RD/H. PeterSymonds | talk 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Does the phrase "two on either side", meaning "two on each side", violate the definition of 'either'? ----Seans Potato Business 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, since it implies that whichever side you pick, there will be two on that side. Fribbler (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't "either" mean one or the other though, and not both? ----Seans Potato Business 21:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

'Either' can mean "one or the other", OR "both". Although the first meaning is the most common, its sense depends on the context. Thus "two on either side" can have both meanings, as in:

"You can put those two on either side" ("one or the other") or

"We have two on either side" (both).

Thus, this word can be considered one of several self-contradicting words in English. Kreachure (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The explanation behind this phenonemon is as follows:

Originally, the word "either" has meant "one of two options", e.g. in: "either A or B".

However, when I say: "Choose either one" I'm supposed to mean: "Choose A or B", i.e. both A and B can be chosen! Not at once, but A can be chosen, and B can be chosen!

Furthermore, when I say: "You shouldn't do A, and you shouldn't do B", I'm supposed to mean: "You should do neither A nor B", i.e. I'm supposed to mean: "You should avoid doing either A or B". So instead of saying: "You shouldn't do A, and you shouldn't do B", people began to say: "You shouldn't do A, and you shouldn't do B, either".

Hence, the speakers began to use "either" with the meaning of "both/and".

Eliko (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Variations of "4"-- er, I mean "death" in Japanese

Hi, I wanted to know all the combinations and variations in Japanese using shi (meaning death) as an element, such as senshi, roshi, etc. I hope they're not too many? Friendly romaji appreciated. Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither of the examples you gave use shi (meaning death). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe they're hyphenated, but according to this page, senshi refers to a warrior, accentuating that such warrior may die on the battlefield; and ro-shi is also an expression that means death from old age. The only other "combinations" I know are shi-zen (stillbirth), shi-ni-rei (dead spirit), and ni-shi (double death). Now could you please help me out with others you do consider use shi, please? Kreachure (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

戦死 does actually mean 'death in war', and has nothing to do with 戦士, meaning warrior (same pronunciation, different meaning).--ChokinBako (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

wikt:死 （shi) has several compounds. Some of them are: 死骸 shigai (dead body, corpse), wikt:死罪 shizai (crime which deserves death penalty; capital punishment), 死神 shinigami (death god), wikt:死刑 shikei (death penalty, capital punishment). As for the word you mentioned, Stillbirth is 死産 shizan, not shizen. 420 may be read as shi-ni-rei and matches yutō (or kun-on) reading of 死霊 (dead spirit) but it is usually read as shiryō (in on reading). 二死 nishi (two deaths) usually refers to "two outs" in baseball. The page you linked mentions shinjū but it is 心中 shin-jū and not related to 死 shi, though the term itself is related to suicide. --Kusunose 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are probably hundreds of kanji compounds containing the character shi meaning "death". I think what you're looking for is words that contain that character but aren't overtly about death. The closest I could find in my dictionary were a few involving metaphorical death, like shikyuu, literally "dead ball" and meaning "dead ball" (in baseball). Shi is also used as a counter for outs in baseball. I don't think there's much of a case to be made for some special perspective on death in Japanese vocabulary. As ChokinBako said, senshi meaning "soldier" and senshi meaning "death in war" are just (spoken) homonyms, and people are very good at disambiguating homonyms on the fly without even noticing they're doing it. You can have a conversation about dying without thinking about dyeing. -- BenRG (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of Japanese homophones, I've heard that Japanese speakers will sometimes draw characters in the air while speaking to disambiguate their homophones. Can anyone confirm or deny? —Angr 07:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Angr, I deny. We don't draw characters. Just explain them in the conversation. Or the listener asks which one. Oda Mari (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Angr, it's only us foreigners that do that. It's a pointless activity, because the person you are talking to gets a mirror image, even if they ARE looking at what you are doing. It's easier to just say it.--ChokinBako (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Monte Davidoff

How do you pronounce his full name? He's been one of Bill Gates's partners. Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would pronounce it as Mon-tee Davi-doff. Although some people prefer their Monte to be pronounced as Mon-tay. - X201 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Latin language

Which one of the following is closest to Latin,

1. English
2. German
3. Spanish
4. French
5. Portuguese
6. Dutch?

--71.118.41.218 (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

German and Dutch are relatively far (from Latin), Spanish French and Portuguese are the closest, while English is in the midst. Eliko (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying English is in the midst because of all the loanwords? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

About 50% of the english vocabulary overlaps Latin. Eliko (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to learn the basics of 2 languages in the following order

1. Spanish or French
2. Latin,

then would it be wiser to learn Spanish or French?--71.118.41.218 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish, because it's easier (5 vowels only). French is much more difficult to learn, mainly because of the complex phonetic system (about 20 vowels, and complicated rules of pronuciation), but also the french verb-system is more complicated. Additionaly, Spanish is nowadays much more widely-spoken than French. Eliko (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Latin is equally easy to get to from either starting point. You should use other criteria for deciding whether to learn Spanish or French, such as who you want to talk to, whose literature you want to read, etc. If what you're ultimately interested in is learning Latin, just learn Latin. There's no need to approach it through a modern Romance language. —Angr 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's probably a student and has probably been obligated to study both Latin and one of the six languages he has indicated, so the best is probably to choose Spanish. Eliko (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers.--71.118.41.218 (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"There do exist some"

Is "there do exist some", meaning "some still do exist" a violation of English grammar or acceptable, even if using uncommon syntax? ----Seans Potato Business 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why violation? absolutely acceptable. Eliko (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You could probably streamline it slightly by saying "there exists some". If however that "still" in the equivalent statement is to be conveyed, you'd probably have to say "there do still exist some" or "there still exists some". Laïka 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is equivalent to "some [of the things referred to] do exist", and thus I think the confusing word is 'there', which in this case is indeed used as in "there exists". I hope this was helpful...? >.< Kreachure (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong or unusual about "There do exist some (people)," so long as the thing that exists is in the plural. Saying "there exists some people" or "there does exist some people" would be unacceptable to the same people who find "there is some people" unacceptable. Joeldl (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I like to interpret English syntax as having an implied "do" hidden inside every verb. During certain syntactical movements like the asking of yes/no questions (did you burp out a chicken egg?) and in negation (she doesn't know what she put in the bread), the do comes out and takes the conjugation. In the case of the OP's example, I think that this is an example of pulling out the do for emphatic purposes. (I did wash the car). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Feminist language

From a sociolinguisitc perspective, does feminist vocabulary/terminology affect most American women ? Have some men been reluctant to accept feminist changes to language ? Is this trend now a fait accompli or will the influence of feminism continue to affect the grammar and word varieties of the English language ? 69.157.246.246 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

By "feminist language" do you mean for example, "person hole" instead of "man hole" etc? ----Seans Potato Business 12:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically about American women, but English language in general, but [this study] found that in 1967, around 25% of job advertisements used gender neutral terms (chairperson, bartender etc.) - by 1983 this had risen to 45% and by 2000 almost 95% of job advertisements written in English used language that did not specify gender. On the flip side of the spectrum, virtually no-one uses gender neutral pronouns, and no major advisory body (eg the Oxford English Dictionary or the Chicago Manual of Style) has ever recommended their use, due in part to the popular of the singular they. Likewise, words and terms which are associated with more radical feminism, such as Womyn, have never seen use outside of a few circles, especially given that the foundation for such words is often shaky. Laïka 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The best overview is at Gender-neutral language. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lio

What does the text in the center frame here say? Dismas|^(talk) 12:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be in Chinese or in Japanese (or Korean possibly, I don't know) and means "potted plant". See Bonsai. Joeldl (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. From the context, I expected banzai. I guess it's a pun because the samurai inside the shredder is so small. —Angr 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That would make sense. Joeldl (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ringer test

Context: "Applicants will be required to complete and return a ringer test to determine basic computer skills."

What does "ringer test" means? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Something to do with electronics? See [7]. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your question would fare better over at the Computing Desk? Kreachure (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

More Japanese death

I found a bunch of expressions related to shi (死) over at Wiktionary, and after translating them, I'm curious about a couple:

1. 死活. What exactly does this mean? Is it popular, or obscure?

2. 死相. I don't know what this refers to. A spirit? A curse? Is it used fairly regularly in situations of dying, or is it obscure too?

Thanks again in advance, Kreachure (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

死活 shikatsu (life and death) is a go term; see life and death. Shikatsu itself is rarely used outside of go but 死活問題 shikatsu mondai (a matter of life and death; a question of vital importance) is commonly used. --Kusunose 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Longest One-Sylable Words

What are the longest one-sylable words (amount of letters) in the English language (any tense). Off the top of my head I have come up with -- scrunched, scratched, stretched, screeched, squelched, strengths, straights -- all NINE letters in length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromeda m31 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See Longest word in English#Words with certain characteristics of notable length. Joeldl (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

TV "set"

What is a TV "set" a set of? Are there any other analogous uses of the word "set"? --Random832 (contribs) 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is the term "radio set", though it is seldom used any more except by ham (amateur) radio enthusiasts. But when radio broadcasting first began in the 1920s, before it became a mass phenomenon, people bought sets of equipment called radio sets or kits and assembled their own radio receivers. By analogy, the first television receivers were called "television sets". The word "television" originally referred to the technology—the process of transmitting moving images via radio waves—rather than to the device for receiving and viewing the images. In effect, the first "television sets" were sets containing a broadcast receiver, a cathode ray tube, and other components, typically housed in a wooden frame. The term "TV set" has lived on even though the association with pioneering radio sets has been lost. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Goats

Is it true that a surprising number of English words and phrases are derived from words having to do with goats? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)