Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I once answered this question. Go to [1]. --Omidinist (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/. —An gr 07:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on the oat. That's like furniture. You have to add a "count word" (forgot the proper term for those, memory's developing gaps allover the place :-). A "grain of oat" would be my guess. I think the grasses go with "a grain of". Corn doesn't that's "a kernel of". Lisa4edit (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's officially "Rice Krispies Treats" (see [2], [3]), presumably to prevent it becoming a genericized trademark. --Sean 13:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The thread Cookatoo is looking for is here[4]. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi guys, I realise this is a bit late, but I'd compltely forgotten about this question until I wrote the phrase in an essay a few minutes ago. Turns out that the semantic turn that lead to the development of epistemic contextualism is both a strength and a weakness. I think I'll use double-edged sword (although I thought all swords had two edges...) Thanks for all your answers, I like zwiespältigkeit best but as no-one has elucidatedon whether it actually applies I'm little afraid to use it. But I knew it would be German. Thanks again.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You probably are better off on the science ref desk based on some the questions you asked. But since there is overlap, see what you get here, then after that try asking on the science desk as long as you don't double post at the same time. For your question about onset well that would certainly depend on the condition that led to the deafblindness. I don't know much about what conditions would lead to it other than from reading about Helen Keller, but that's just one example. From looking at our deafblind article, it looks like true congenital (at birth) deafblindess is very rare. Other than that the age of onset would completely depend on what condition leads to the deafblindness. Most people that are deafblind are not 100% and 100% deaf, so they would often have at least just barely enough sight or hearing to learn to communicate with hearing or other aids for example. A textbook I grabbed says that one estimate (from DB link was 7000 deafblind students ages 6-21 in the US in 2006. That is including students with various ranges of vision and deafness and for reference there are 50 some million children that age in the US. For more info a google search for "deafblind" got a number of sites that may be useful to you including a resource run by a deafblind person. Also the external links in the deafblindness article should be able to help you. - Taxman ^Talk 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

* 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)[reply]

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

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." — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What language is this in?

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? —An gr 07:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've seen people do that, and sometimes write the kanji on their hands, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

死相 could be translated as the seal of death or the shadow of death. Like 'he has the seal of death on his face.' Take the 相 in the word as face or looks . There are too many 死 words as BenRG pointed out. I add some more. 自然死、事故死、死人、死体、病死、死因、獄死、中毒死、溺死、水死、安楽死、餓死、不死、瀕死、急死、客死、焼死、即死、起死、検死、殉死、変死、仮死、必死、決死、一死、縊死、脳死、老死、凍死、爆死、半死、墜死、悶死、轢死　etc. Oda Mari (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the instances. I guess I'm off to translating them now... Kreachure (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can hear Bill Gates pronounce it at 08:21 in the audio file linked to from this page. Timeineurope (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your care. --Omidinist (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin language

Which one of the following is closest to Latin,

English
German
Spanish
French
Portuguese
Dutch?

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Spanish or French
Latin,

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

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)[reply]

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. —An gr 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Latin was my third language, after Esperanto. Of the choices offered, yeah, go with Spanish: the kinship with Latin is easier to see than in French, which has had more drastic sound-changes. —Tamfang (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would toss out the "exist" and go with "there are some" or "there are still some". Lisa4edit (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In certain contexts (especially in conversation), "exist" might be appropriate (funny, we don't have an article on dialogic syntax). Sometimes people go overboard in attempting to eliminate passive voice, which is frowned upon by a number of writers and editors. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I often find plural pronouns used as gender neutral choice for singular individuals of undetermined sex. (A student ... they). However "official" teaching and testing doesn't seem to find this acceptable. Preparation materials for TOEFL for example keep insisting on "he or she" which gets us to sentence monsters like: If a student is unable to locate the group he or she was assigned to, his or her adviser will be able to help him or her. (Ugh!) Contacting ETS as to what they would think of using "they, their, them" resulted in a robot non-answer. Some proposed "...-person" nouns have migrated to more natural alternatives, police-person > police officer, fire-person > fire-fighter, man-hole > access-hole others are still on the way. I've seen one of my clients try "employee-hours" but others still go with "man-hours". --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can usually revise to use the (gender-neutral) plural throughout: "Advisers will be able to help any students who are unable to locate the groups they were assigned to." Deor (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they could do that in a hurry - apart from writing X-hundred words on an completely alien "familiar subject", in a foreign language, in no time at all - they wouldn't have to take the TOEFL. I usually spend about as much time explaining culture as I do on language. The thing is that the plural pronouns are used in that way (even on university websites). The ETS people just won't say if they'd go by the old school rules and count it as an error. Lisa4edit (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lio

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

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)[reply]

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

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

It's Chinese and Japanese for Bonsai. In Chinese, it's pronounced "pénzāi." Not sure about Korean, but it's probably Hanja if it were Korean. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a pun it's a kind of a strange one, since banzai and bonsai don't sound similar in Japanese, only when (mis)pronounced according to English phonetic rules, so anyone who can read the characters would presumably not see the pun. Also, I can't make sense of the strip even with banzai in place of bonsai. It's like the shredder says "charge!" and then you open it to find a little toy soldier. Okay, so there's a free-association connection there, but what's the joke? Maybe it's absurdist humor and the Japanese characters aren't meant to be understood at all? Or is it a Shredder reference? But that's clearly samurai armor, not Shredder's vaguely samurai-ish costume. This is very confusing. -- BenRG (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's typical Western ignorance on Eastern culture. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BenRG. 盆栽 doesn't mean anything other than "bonsai". It may just be that Tatulli can't hear the difference between the words and thought that was the correct word. To me, that seems like the most likely thing. 万歳 is what should have been used, and would have made it really funny (since a tiny samurai as your shredder is funny all by itself). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it now, it was the samurai that cut the paper. Duh. Then I agree, "banzai" would be funny and "bonsai" is clearly a (even funnier) mistake. -- BenRG (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=fEP728fDyg8 (00:11)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=D5jxsbQyuT8 (00:39)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=MrVHKRC9J6s (00:16)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=2QnJjuW_k28 (05:16)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPW-w4TJ7o (00:08)

万歳! 万歳! 万歳! -- Toytoy (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Something to do with electronics? See [5]. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I haven't seen the expression, but I expect they're testing whether the applicant is a ringer in the sense of faker or imposter. You're applying for a job requiring computer skills, so they want to make sure that you really have them and aren't just pretending you do. --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, May 12, 2008.

Huh, I had never heard that meaning of "ringer". To me, "ringer" means "a professional or semi-professional brought in on an ad-hoc basis to help out a group of amateurs". I've mostly heard it used applied amateur choirs who "bring in a ringer" to support an otherwise weak section. But that meaning isn't given in the dictionaries. I guess it's derived from the "impostor" meaning – a professional posing as an amateur. —An gr 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the top definition of "ringer" at Urban Dictionary comes close to my definition. —An gr 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I think it was in one of Martin Gardner's columns where the following passage appeared: "'Strengths' can't be beat. I realized this while being broughammed to the airport." However, as I recall, he went on to note that no dictionaries could be found in which "brougham" (which can be pronounced like "brohm" or "broom") is shown as a verb. But you can verb anything, right? --Anonymous, 22:12 UTC, May 12, 2008.

In order to make a point, and given sufficient provocation, one can contrive things that one would normally only imagine in a nightmare. But in less taxing circumstances, perhaps a little restraint ought to be exercised. Descriptivist analysis should not be interpreted as licence to emulate bad language. Otherwise we'd have people going around uttering such monstrosities as I'm going to "dictionary" that word in order to "meaning" it". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I like that! Let's get that usage dictionaried at once! --Anon, 00:48 UTC, May 15, 2008.

The longest two-syllabler I can find is halfpenniesworth or halfpennyworths,traditionally pronounced as hapeth and often spelt as ha'p'orths. I make that 16 letters-2 syllables. Any other contenders? Lemon martini (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tangential trivia: Because of its many senses—154 numbered main senses, with many more lettered subsenses—the verb set¹ has the longest entry in the OED. And the two nouns set (one of which is involved in this query) are no slouches either. Never assume that the sense(s) of a word that you're most familiar with constitute the whole story. Deor (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that you could also buy TV kits as well. I think my father built a TV from one once (back in the day). – ishwar (speak) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That seems like a rather capricious assumption. Under whose aegis was it made? —An gr 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a tragedy if we couldn't answer this. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's kidding. Gwinva (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please stop butchering this poor guy's question. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary page on goat, there are several English derivations from 'goat'; perhaps a bit more than I imagined, but not a 'surpising amount' IMO. Kreachure (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The puns in here are udderly awful! Matt Deres (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as bad as a certain shock site sounding like the word "goats". bibliomaniac 1 5 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Goats (webcomic) jumped the shark? —Tamfang (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

grammar of affliction

Are either of the following sentences faulted?

"These differences can be exploited to identify the type of cancer from which the patient is afflicted"

"These differences can be exploited to identify the type of cancer from which the patient is at risk or afflicted" --Seans Potato Business 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"from which" is not technically correct in either sentence. I'd use "with which" in the first and possibly "of which" in the second, although the addition of the "or afflicted" makes that a tough call. Better to rewrite both completely - 'These differences can be exploited to identify which type of cancer is affecting the patient' or something like 'These differences can be exploited to identify which type of cancer might affect the patient.' (this second one could probably still use work). --LarryMac | Talk 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say afflicted by, as the cancer (subject) afflicts (transitive verb) the patient (object); but 'afflicted with', although not quite right, is so common now that only a pedant would object to it. I agree that "at risk from" is awkward - the idiom is "at risk of", but it's best followed by a verb, so I agree with LarryMac (except that I don't see why 'afflicting' needs to be changed to 'affecting', a much weaker word). Clearly, in the second sentence, you can't run the 'at risk' and the 'afflicted' together. Xn4 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed 'afflicting' to 'affecting' because I just could not think of the right preposition to go with 'afflict'. It was late in the day.... --LarryMac | Talk 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"At risk" usually takes "for" rather than "of" (when speaking about diseases), in my experience. In plain English, what you want is "...the type of cancer that the patient is at risk for or afflicted by". Sadly, some people reject this construction. --Anonymous, 23:12 UTC, May 12, 2008.

I really wish I could say that "at risk for" is contraindicated, but sadly it gets millions of google hits. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at risk from suggests a cause, at risk of an effect. "Dentists are at risk of cancer from cumulative x-ray exposure." —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of writing

Our article on writing gives me the impression that there are only three independently developed systems. "Almost all writing systems in use in the world today are ultimately descended from writing developed either in Sumer - see Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic - or in China."

So Sumer, China, and Maya. Is this strictly speaking true? If so what are the major qualifications?

Lotsofissues 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jared Diamond identifies those three and adds two other possible ones: Egypt and Easter Island. See Guns, Germs and Steel. Rmhermen (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article History of writing is misleading in suggesting that Proto-Sinaitic and its derived alphabets originated from Sumerian cuneiform. I will correct it. Most scholars think that Proto-Sinaitic is more likely to have derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics, as our article Middle Bronze Age alphabets relates. There is no demonstrable connection between the Sumerian and the Egyptian writing systems. Though the idea of writing might have diffused from one to the other (most likely from Sumer to Egypt), there is no evidence that the written forms themselves diffused. Now, it may be true that most writing systems in use today are derived either from Proto-Sinaitic (and probably ultimately Egyptian hieroglyphics) or from Chinese, but there were several independently invented writing systems in premodern times, including such systems as Linear A, Hieroglyphic Luwian, Indus script (if it is really a writing system), and the various Mesoamerican scripts. One of the Mesoamerican scripts was the Maya script, but there were others, and several of them may have had independent origins. None of them is in use today. Marco polo (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Hieroglyphics is an adjective.--ChokinBako (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you are everywhere Marco polo. Thanks. You even kick Clio's ass. Lotsofissues 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Chokin Bako is correct that it should be Egyptian hieroglyphs. Thanks for the correction. Marco polo (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the compliment, Lotsofissues, but I have no intention of kicking any part of Clio nor of letting anyone else do so! Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it generally agreed that Brahmi (with descendants from Tibet to the Philippines) is descended from Sinaitic? — Other independent creations include hangul, Pahawh Hmong script, Cherokee syllabary, Canadian Aboriginal syllabics; though each of these was created by someone who got the idea of writing from outside. —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to render a name in IPA

How would you render in the International Phonetic Alphabet and properly write the name of the article Kitch-iti-kipi? --Doug ^talk 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I correctly understand the current pronunciation information, it's /ˌkɪtʃɪtiˈkɪpi/, or possibly /ˈkɪtʃɪtiˌkɪpi/, or maybe I should be using /iː/. Perhaps a local can clear this up (or just someone who knows IPA). Algebraist 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doug, I hope you mean in addition to the explained pronunciation already there because I don't read IPA esp well for acquired language names. : / Julia Rossi (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first encountered IPA when a student asked me to read what a word he had found printed in IPA would sound like. I couldn't have told them from the IPA, but I could tell them how the word was pronounced. As our article says it's not commonly known in the US. (I think ours is muuuuch easier, but I'm biased.) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Kate Nash's accent

I just heard a rave review of Kate Nash's new album by Robert Christgau. He made the comment that British critics had said that her accent sounds like she's a posh girl trying to sound lower class. Can someone from the Right Side of the Pond comment? Corvus cornix_talk 01:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone else heard the same review on NPR? Dismas|^(talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. :) Corvus cornix_talk 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that too (although not on NPR), as well as in reference to Lily Allen, and presumably others. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you listen to an interview with her, she speaks fairly mild Estuary English. Although her normal voice hardly sounds "posh", it's got a more middle-class vibe than her singing voice (for example on "Foundations"), which is more pronounced and has a twinge of Cockney. The main difference when singing is that she glottalizes her Ts (she pronounces "fight" as "figh'") and drops the "g" from "-ing" ("holdin'"), both of which deviate from the classic "upper class" Received Pronunciation, and I guess agree with the idea that she's trying to sound more working class. Laïka 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Droppin' "g"s from -ing is actually a characteristic of highest upper-class RP. Lord Peter Wimsey, for example, did it constantly. —An gr 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1920s and 1930s it may well have been. It is not so now. Valiantis (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't know. I've never spoken with a duke's younger brother. Still, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if William and Harry dropped their g's from time to time. —An gr 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you presumably have heard the Queen speaking and I can't say I have ever noticed her using this very old-fashioned pronunciation. If the younger royals do "drop the g" (and I can't specifically recall hearing this) then it's more likely down to the ever increasing influence of the above-mentioned Estuary English [6]. David Crystal comments in his Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (1987, p. 39) on "dropping the g" as an example of the arbitrariness of social class markers. He quotes from John Galsworthy writing as far back as 1931, one of whose characters drops her g's in a way that is clearly intended to be comically (and outmodedly) upper-class and comments "The [n] variant is typical of much working-class speech today, but a century ago this pronunciation was a desirable feature of speech in the upper middle class and above". He acknowledges it "may still occasionally be found today" but also identifies the change to [ŋ] being the prestige form and [n] the socially stigmatised form as beginning in the late 19th Century.

I'd suggest that the cultural memory of the upper-class usage might be used by a writer such as Sayers to distinguish on the page a true "nob" from a mere member of the haute bourgeoisie - the usage tends to be found in the phrase "huntin' shootin' fishin'" which emphasises the landed country-based nature of the British upper class as opposed to the mercantile or professional upper-middle class. I'm not sure you can take it as read that it actually was typical of the speech of most aristocrats even before WWII. If it remained typical of upper-class speech into the current period, one would expect to find it occurring in depictions of Sloane Rangers (upper-class Londoners) who have a distinct and readily parodied way of speaking. It does not. Valiantis (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the Queen read from prepared statements and give speeches, a register in which even Lord Peter probably wouldn't have dropped his g's. I've never heard her chat with her friends. —An gr 05:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is disparagingly called a "mockney" accent i.e. mock+cockney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.119.82 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in some ways have innately better

speech abilities, I've heard. Could this lend probability to the thesis that speech originated among women in prehistoric times?Rich (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard different explanations for why it's possible that women could have started language (though none of them have been all that convincing IMHO), but I've never heard that it's because of their innate superiority with language. I question that assumption. What's the evidence that women have innately better speech abilities? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said "verbal abilities" not "speech abilities," but I'm still working on my answer to your question. Where and what have you heard about women starting language?--I thought it was MY idea!):~)Rich (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the idea was that prehistoric men would go off and hunt (an activity that doesn't require language) while women would either a) sit around and gossip or b) form social connections with each other for social cohesiveness.

It's the innate part that I have a problem with. While there's evidence that women tend to have a greater command (or larger vocabulary) than men, it's very likely that this is because women are often socially disadvantaged so that language becomes a means to gaining status rather than some innate physical property universal or even typical to women. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason why standing at the Post Office behind ten men takes less time than standing at the Post Office between ten women. Men don't stand there talking about irrelevant bollocks with total disregard for the surrounding population. --ChokinBako (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any relevant bollocks? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I actually spent several hours at a post office recently and I didn't notice any disparities between the sexes. Both seemed equally willing to chat it up. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those ideas of what "prehistoric people used to do" are highly bogus. For starters, it wasn't just the men that went off hunting. Some scientist seriously suggested that the fact that only hunters were depicted in cave paintings meant that the stick figures depicted were male and that female occupations like gathering vegetables weren't valued as much. IMHO there's a perfectly logical explanation why you wouldn't wait till the actual situation arose to tell a hunter how to stick a spear into a charging deer. And why you'd have a lot of incentive to devise a way to do that beforehand. On the other hand I've rarely been attacked by an onion (I'll exclude garlic, though). I'd say that hunters would also have very good reason to yell "bear" or "duck". Unfortunately they have not left us any verifiable sources. Lisa4edit (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that, for example, lions and wolves do a pretty good job of hunting without language, I'd say that hunting didn't instigate the need for language. In addition, animals do a pretty good job without language in warning others around them about danger. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one thing I picked up from this thread - it is that post office delays are the same everywhere in the world! Sandman30s (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have surmised recently that there are two uses of language (there are certainly more, but for the sake of my argument will stick with these two for now) - the imparting of information, and "social grooming" (while chimps cement their relationships and their place in the pecking order by picking fleas off each other, we do small talk). Generally, men seem more comfortable with the former, women with the latter. However there are times when men need to small talk among each other, which is why professional sports exist - something which can be treated as a set of facts and figures that are important to understand and get right, but which is fundamentally unimportant. I developed this theory when trying to train a female co-worker who took every instruction I gave her as a springboard for a conversation about her family, her holiday in Spain, the weather, or whatever, and immediately forgot what she'd been instructed to do, and comparing her with a male co-worker who is incapable of talking about anything but Manchester United. They're both extremes, but most of the people I know follow less extreme versions of the same pattern. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I always found men better to work with, as they just get on with the job, while women chat for hours about stuff unrelated to anything. Also, living in my brother's house (with six kids - all girls) was hell the moment the alarm went. Permanent noise right up to midnight. Absolute nightmare.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dajare in the comic strip

Answered above! 万歳! 万歳! 万歳! -- Toytoy (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right...I'm fed up.

This perverse textbook is at it again. Tell me if I'm wrong with this analogy.

atmosphere : stratosphere :: biosphere : _______

a. recycling b. hydrosphere c. energy d. earth

I think the answer is B, because the stratosphere is considered a part of the atmosphere, just as the hydrosphere is considered part of the biosphere (I think). A and C are complete non sequitur, but my textbook says that D is the answer. Am I right or wrong? --^La Pianista! 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a science question, but I'd say B is not correct because the hydrosphere is not part of the biosphere. What helps me with these analogies is making a sentence "the stratosphere is a component of the atmosphere: the earth is a component of the biosphere (although this might be backwards, it's the best fit). Our article on hydrosphere even says that it is "dependant on the biosphere (plants)." — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say all of the available options are wrong. Have you looked into getting a better textbook? Algebraist 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously hydrosphere, since they're looking for the second word to have two more letters than the first word. Or not, but that ambiguity is what I always hated about these kinds of questions. --Sean 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Toto on both points. Not only does the letter count give it away, all words are compounds of -sphere. Those things are always easy if you know the right answer. I once tried 32 entirely correct and suitable words to fit in an online Cambridge exam gap phrase test. None of them met what they were looking for. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

word information

would you please send me your answer about common wordsand similarities between antique persian and franceand also about the history of entering french words in persian. i will be patient for your answers. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.20.233 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

Matthew

How would "Matthew" be katakanaised? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, マシュー. But Matthew the Evangelist is マタイ. --Kusunose 07:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'ser' and 'set' in Venetian discourse

Hi - I'm reading the diaries of a Venetian nobleman - he refers to some gentlemen as 'ser', some as 'set', as in 'ser Bartolomeo Zoranzo', or 'set Zuan Comin' - the latter seeming to refer to men of lesser rank. Can anyone tell me more about the terms? Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German phrase on train window

Austrian trains (the old variety, with windows that can be opened and closed) have this notice on the window: Bei Zugluft dieses Fenster zu schließen. I think this can be translated as "in case of a draught, close this window", but I'd be grateful if someone could confirm that for me. And even if that's right, I'm still having trouble unpicking the sentence. Does it mean "close the window if you experience a draught", or possibly "in order to avoid draughts, keep the window closed"? The first seems more likely, but then I'm left wondering why any railway company would bother to state the bleedin' obvious. Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means, "This window is to be closed if there is a draught." I suppose that the notice is there 1) to let riders know that they have the option of closing the window and 2) if people in a compartment differ over whether a draught justifies closing the window, the old lady who doesn't like it can point to the notice and say, "That means any draught." Marco polo (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Does it really mean "to be closed", which sounds like an order? Would "may be closed" be better? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is not standard German. It is telegraphic. My translation assumes that it is shorthand for "Bei Zugluft ist dieses Fenster zu schließen." I suppose that a different reading is possible, but my German is not strong enough to be sure. Marco polo (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are quite right. On the way home this evening I noticed that I had got the wording wrong and ist should indeed be there where you put it. I still can't believe that the intention is to say "to be closed" rather than "may be closed", though. Why would they be prescriptive like that? As you say, it gives riders the option of closing the window in the event of a draught, it doesn't say that it must be closed in the event of a draught. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is that there's an incorrect space in the middle of a word, and it should actually read Bei Zugluft dieses Fenster zuschließen – "In case of draft, close this window completely". —An gr 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Oops, I see you already corrected yourself. Why are they being so prescriptive and saying riders must close the window in case of draft? Well, because they're Austrians, and Austrians (at the risk of calling on a stereotype) are like the Germans, only more so. —An gr 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I give the example of the old lady. The railway company doesn't want their staff to have to mediate disputes over closing the window, so they offer prescriptive wording to settle the matter. Also the company may be concerned about liability if the draught should carry a hard or sharp object into the compartment, injuring a passenger. In such a case, the company could offer the defense that they clearly indicated that the window should be closed in the event of a draught. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, at the risk of falling back on stereotypes, that's much more an American way of thinking than a German/Austrian one, in my opinion. —An gr 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what sort of air, if not "Zugluft", do you expect in a "Zug"? Clearly, this is a clever pun by the authorities to ascertain that only the "Zugluft" contained within the train upon departure is inhaled by the travellers. The breathing in of publicly owned air outside the train (termed as "Landluft", as it is owned by the state), is "gebührenpflichtig". You should also be aware that the possession of a stately approved proboscis (see "Luftwaffe") requires it to be licensed for private breathing purposes, not exceeding volumes and frequencies as laid out in the relevant legislation. Any such apparatus exceeding the allowed maximum of 6 inches (though I may be confusing this) is subject to a specific tax, the "Luftsteuer".

I take it for granted that you are aware that any exhalation performed utilising non-suitable orifices (of which some 8,205,533 have been enumerated within the boundaries) may cause a wrinkling of noses. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On peril of taking this train related topic entirely off track. Cookatoo: In that case you could throw the "Umweltgesetzbuch" at them. (And close that window! "Es zieht!") :-)71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to translate the construction etwas ist zu machen as "something can be done", not "something must be done", although both are possible translations. However, if obligation rather than possibility/permission were the intention in this sentence then the form Bei Zugluft dieses Fenster schließen would be an alternative (with the infinitive serving as an imperative as is common in German) and as the rail company chose the more ambiguous, less clearly prescriptive form, I would assume that the notice is informative rather than prescriptive. I would be inclined to ascribe this need to state the bleedin' obvious to the Austrian character too, except that I have seen similar statements (albeit in different situations) all over Europe - not least in Britain. Valiantis (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by the use of the word "sick" when used in sporting events?

I am not sure if this is the correct spelling. I have often heard this word used in motor sports events. ie. "He really got some sick air". It appears to be describing a jump, like in a motorcross event, where the rider went higher or further than usual. I have heard it used in other contexts as well and always to describe something that is more than usual.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooley the clown (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a slang word for something really good or spectacular, much like "wicked". --WikiSlasher (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this entry at Urban Dictionary. Dismas|^(talk) 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in wikkid and si-ick? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drains Up Review

Our CEO has asked us to prepare for a "drains up" review of a project. None of us want to sound stupid and ask him what he means. Does anyone know? anon

Sounds like the kind of management jargon that even Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss would dismiss as too pretentious. I imagine it just means a thorough review. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think if we prepare for a thorough review we should be OK whatever he has in mind. anon

I guess it just means "totally thorough", as in "even more thorough than from the basement up". What a vile piece of management-babble. Has it incentivised you to focus all your core competencies on the challenge at hand? Are you now ready to leverage your resources to pursue a project paradigm shift? -- Ka renjc 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this [7] which may shed further light. -- Ka renjc 15:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my French English

I sometimes test machine translation web sites by feeding them random sentenses taken from junk mail.

Je possede la connaissance de la langue francaise. (from junk mail)
- I have knowledge of the English language. (Google Translate)
- I have the knowledge of the French language. (Yahoo! BabelFish, based on SYSTRAN)
- I possede the knowledge of the francaise language. (Traducteur)
- Has codeaths of the langue francaise possede her. (1st try, Orange Traduction)
- I possede the knowledge of the francaise language. (2nd try, Orange Traduction)

If I were the author, I would rather say: "Je parle française" instead of using all these clumsy words. Anyway, after a little correction, Google seems to understand French.

Je possédée la connaissance de la langue française. (proper spelling)
- I possessed knowledge of French. (Google Translate)
- I had the knowledge of the French language. (Yahoo! BabelFish)
- I had the knowledge of the French language. (Traducteur)
- I had the knowledge of the French language. (Orange Traduction)

How could Google be so miserable! I mean, how could Google translate the word "francaise" into "English"? By the way, do you guys need a mail-ordered wife who speaks French? Ha! I love junk mail! -- Toytoy (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate doesn't act like a standard dictionary-and-grammar based translation engine - it uses a statistical technique based on documents in their database that have versions in multiple languages. Errors like the one you found are one of the disadvantages of this approach (it's not hard to imagine the system thinking that "English version" is supposed to be a translation of "version francais", for example). Ironfrost (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird stuff, the Google Translate bit. But to their defense, they may have tried to imply that if you needed to use Google Translate to translate a phrase as 'basic' as that from French to English, then indeed you don't have knowledge of French, but only of English! :P I think those guys at Google are trying to be too smart, I guess... Kreachure (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they're just being to literal. You asked them to translate French into English. So, they did. Literally. Matt Deres (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most "dangerous" feature of those translating agents is that they leave words that they can't find in the original without indicating such. The user thinks "Gee that's odd it's the same in that language," and goes ahead and uses it. There's a reason why people return to using human translators after trying the machine version. You should have seen how much fun one of my clients had describing they loaded their trucks with a paper transport unit for laser printers (forklift :-). 71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Je possédée is impossible. Je possède (present); je possédais (imperfect); j'ai possédé (passé composé). —Tamfang (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Hungarian

How would one translate: "Önarckép mint a szemlélődés allegóriája"? It's the title of a painting, the original of which was probably in French. - Mu (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means something like Self-portrait in allegorical contemplation (or introspection).

You can see the painting here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the artist is apparently Geneviève Brossard de Beaulieu. Corvus cornix_talk 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this pass as a title as well: Allegory of Contemplation (self portrait)? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mint meaning as or like, the Hungarian translates literally to Self-portrait as allegorical contemplation; but one has to use a little licence, as usual, to wrest it into something idiomatic. I don't know enough to do any better, or to judge concerning Allegory of Contemplation (self portrait). Allegóriája is adjectival; allegory would be allegória.

I see that this Italian is given here: Autoritratto in figura allegorica di contemplazione. Why, I'm not sure. Isn't the Italian a little problematic also, mia cara Giulia? Literally Self-portrait in allegorical figure [or perhaps attitude] of contemplation. We get the general idea, but I can't say what would capture it most aptly in English. Certainly there is the same sort of slippage between the Italian and the Hungarian, anyway.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was more putting it into museum English with the subject + genre – rather than the grammatical translation, a trans-titling attempt for (and apols to) Genevieve B d B, (and who said English takes more words to say something than other languages?) har, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your suggestions. With all these versions in Hungarian, Italian, and English, I should now be able to cobble something together in French :-) - Mu (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lady could also use airy titles, such as "La muse de la Poésie livrée aux regrets que lui laisse la mort de Voltaire" SaundersW (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By then she might have realised that long titles stood out in catalogues and impressed the patron. Airy is nice, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

Articles

Why doesn't anyone ever call the articles ("a", "an", and "the") conjunctions? That's basically what they are, considering they never end a sentence. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A conjunction is not defined as a word that does not end a sentence. Several kinds of words have that property. Such words include articles. Read Article (grammar) and Grammatical conjunction, and see how articles and conjunctions are quite different sorts of beasts.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles

Why are articles usually left out before titles, for example in this sentence: "John Doe, producer of that movie"? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because they are often felt as redundant, and there is no ambiguity from the loss of the article. Sometimes it may be a hedging move, because one is not sure which article would be appropriate. Consider:

Colin Dunkworth, professor of forensic psychiatry at Harvard,...
Colin Dunkworth, a professor of forensic psychiatry at Harvard,...
Colin Dunkworth, the professor of forensic psychiatry at Harvard,...

With 2 or 3, you had better know whether there are one or several professors of forensic psychiatry at Harvard; with 1, you're safe.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-established aspect of how articles are used in English. For example, "Mary, mother of God", rather than "Mary, the mother of God". Or, "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring". Don't know why only Christian examples are coming to my mind right now! Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more worried about how Jesus would be 'the joy of a man's desire'.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small words

Why are small words (such as "and", "the", and "for") usually not capitalised in titles of media such as movies and games? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such words are typically not capitalised in all sorts of titles, not just the cases you mention. It's just how English and other European languages have evolved. In older English, important nouns (not just proper nouns, or names) and other important words were often capitalised in ordinary text. But current English has dropped those capitals in ordinary text, except for proper nouns (France, Freud), adjectives derived from them (French, Freudian), and the first word of a sentence. And it has gone the other way for headings and titles, capitalising all the salient words; such a different convention is useful, to mark the difference in context and function. German retains capitals for all nouns in ordinary text. French and some other European languages capitalise in ordinary text much as English does, except that they do not capitalise adjectives from proper nouns (France, français; Freud, freudien). Every language settles on a regular set of conventions that works well for it, though usually there remain some uncertainties (see WP:CAPS), especially in English.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translate

Could someone translate this, I don't know what language it is in. ne ne atarashii ko ga hitsuyou Thank you Pikecatcher (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Japanese and from an Avril Lavigne song, which makes me suspect you're trolling. It means something like "hey, hey, [you] need a new girlfriend". -- BenRG (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bite the newcomers. --Kjoonlee 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been watching things lately, have you? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text of historical plaque, :de:en:

On the Wannsee Conference talk page, I've posted the German text of a memorial plaque mounted on the wall of the building where the conference was held. Would appreciate its translation into English. -- Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this building the infamous Wannsee Conference took place in January 1942.

Dedicated to the memory of our Jewish fellow men and women who perished at the hands of the National Socialist dictatorship. (Or ... at the hands of National Socialist tyranny.)

"Of our Jewish fellow men and women" is a rather clunky attempt at the sense of "der [...] jüdischen Mitmenschen" - "Mitmensch" might reasonably be translated as "fellow man" but there are obvious gender issues with the English term that do not exist in the German and the English term is less flexible and wide-ranging than the German. I imagine someone else will come up with a neater fix. Valiantis (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would fellow human beings work for Mitmenschen? Also, note that the word dedicated (gewidmet in German) seems to be implied, but does not occur directly in the text you posted on the talk page. In order to reflect this you could perhaps also omit it in the translation ("To the memory of our Jewish fellow human beings ...") ---Sluzzelin talk 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, my dictionary also gives tyranny, dictatorship (and despotism too) for Gewaltherrschaft, but the literal translation is rule of violence. To me, the word has a stronger (well, more violent) meaning than the Latin and Greek word borrowings referring to absolute power and illegitimacy, but not to violence. Just out of curiosity, is there an word ending in -cracy or -archy that means "rule of violence"? ---Sluzzelin talk

Areocracy, assuming Ares as a word means what he personified? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen 'brutocracy' (and it gets a few ghits) but it can't be called standard. Algebraist 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that rule of violence would be a more literal translation of Gewaltherrschaft but it's not an especially idiomatic translation. Also of course, Gewalt has connotations of force or authority or (entirely legitimate) power (e.g. in Staatsgewalt - authority of the state - or Gewaltenteilung - separation of powers) that violence does not have. I'd suggest the Gewaltherrschaft is one in which the Gewalt of the state is not kept in check by the legal framework you get in a Rechtsstaat but becomes dominant. I think tyranny matches this idea fairly closely.

I inserted the implied gewidmet/"dedicated" as a bare "to the memory of" didn't strike me as very idiomatic, but it now strikes me that "In memory of" would be a normal English idiom. However, I'm not sure that has exactly the same meaning. I'm not convinced it's possible to translate plural Mitmenschen in a non-clumsy way except by a long paraphrase. Mensch by itself can be problematic. Though I toyed with "fellow human beings", to me it didn't sound like something a human being would say in this context :) I also considered "our Jewish neighbours" but although "neighbour" might be understood as meaning "fellow man" in certain contexts (Love thy neighbour) used here it sounded too much like "the people next door". The sense of the phrase is "those people who were people just like we are and who were also Jews". I suspect if someone were writing the plaque in English from scratch they would just write "dedicated to the memory of the Jewish men, women and children who..." or otherwise phrase the entire dedication differently. Valiantis (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "literal translation" was maybe not even the best way of putting it. What I meant is that, despite the more abstract and administratives meaning of "Gewalt" you provided, the word is colored red when I hear it, and when I hear Gewaltherrschaft I always also hear violence. That may be a personal interpretation, but German does also have the words "Tyrannei", "Diktatur", and "Despotie" as well as "Despotismus". To me, with "tyranny", "dictatorship", and "despotism" something got lost in translation. The disappearance of connotations is often inevitable, yet fun to point out. Emotionally, maybe Lisa4edit's inclusion of the word terror comes a bit closer. I think it is appropriate to consider the emotional impact too, when translating the text on a memorial plaque. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over in consideration of comments above, I'd suggest following options:

This house was the site of the infamous Wansee conference in January 1942.

Dedicated to the memory of our fellow Jewish citizens ...

/ ... who fell victim to the National-Socialist rule of terror.

/ ... who fell victim to the terror of the Nazi regime.

/ ... Jewish victims of the holocaust.

The last phrase is what is often found in English texts for that long German expression. The German is more comprehensive, but I think the differences are mostly philosophical. Lisa4edit (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP elucidates: I appreciate the thoughtful considerations raised above. This text is taken from an archival documentation series of Holocaust/WWII-era memorial monuments photographed by the late Miriam Novitch in her treks through the lands of German-occupied Europe during the postwar decades. The original texts are visible in the photos. The translations are intended to adhere to what Lisa4edit, above, has called the "philosophical" aspect, and to give a fairly faithful rendition of the spirit of the source text, reflecting the mindset of its writers. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German?

Is the word "Glau" is Summer Glau's name from German decent? Emac1 (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a German spelling to me, and according to our article, Summer Glau, she's of German descent. SSAE (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the name remained unchanged since Summer's ancestors immigrated to the United States, the name could possibly originate from the quarter Glau in Trebbin, Germany, or it could be derived from the Gothic word glaggwo. In Old High German glau meant keen-sighted or perspicacious. (Albert Heintze, Die Deutschen Familiennamen — geschichtlich, geographisch, sprachlich, Adamant Media Corporation, ISBN 1421224070). German Wikipedia even mentions the word glauäugig in its article on Paralogie. I had never encountered this word before, but it seems to be playing with the common adjective blauäugig, which literally means blue-eyed, but figuratively means naïve and thus somewhat the opposite of keen-sighted. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the town of Glauchau in Saxony. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe the word also translates to "troll". -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unduly harsh, Captain. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the current influx of Summer Glau questions (like this one, this one, and this one) that are following the recent torrent of frivolous April Lavigne questions, I actually don't think it is. Especially as the account has been created today and the original poster's other posts discuss Avril Lavigne and the image on his user page is probably Lavigne. (Or perhaps it's Glau. Who knows?) So, no, I don't think it's unduly harsh. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to pick out the questioner as a troll rather than a newbie who thinks this is a good place to ask questions about their favorite celebrities. To stay sort of on-topic here: perhaps this means you have a different interpretation of "troll" than I do. If you think the questions are too frivolous or too numerous to deserve an answer, then I suggest you don't answer. Of course, if someone kept asking questions about a subject when it was clear that most people felt that way or if they weren't really interested in it, that would probably qualify as Wikipedia:vandalism. --Anonymous, 16:30 UTC, May 15, 2008.

The point isn't really that the questions are frivolous (they are, but that's almost besides the point) but that I don't believe the people (or the person) asking them are genuinely interested in the answer. You may wish to check out Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#April Trolls in May, to which -- completely coincidentally, I'm sure! -- the original poster of this question has also contributed. I've got no problem with assuming good faith, but when a pattern becomes this obvious, I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes aren't blue, yet I appear to have been the blauäugig one in this thread. I don't always scan all desks or even one entire page, but sometimes focus on the most recent couple of questions, as I did now. It is okay to point out a recurring pattern, as the Captain did, but I don't care whether I've been had. I saw no disruption and learned something new. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:JackofOz#Harsh? for a related discussion. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

Correct Translation?

Sorry for the lengthy post. I tried to translate these two English paragraphs into Spanish, and I'm wondering how well I did. If I mistranslated, would you be so kind as to correct me? I really appreciate the help. Thanks.

Original English Text

In this photo is Myron and Natalia. Myron is a successful and handsome real estate agent and is 32 years old. Natalia is a 28 year old cocktail waitress and likes to garden. They are very happy because they just got married, and they are jumping because they are excited. It has been one day since they met. Myron just gave Natalia the beautiful flowers and they are having a magnificent day. Yesterday Myron didn't know Natalia, and had never met her. He had been on vacation for two weeks in Mexico. He was sick of work and decided to take a trip. On the last day, he met Natalia at the beach. Natalia was tanning when Myron tripped on her and broke his nose when he fell. She asked him if they could go on a date to make him feel better and because she thought he was sexy. Myron said yes, and they went to the casino for their date. Upon arriving at the casino, they both started to drink. Next, they played poker and won some money. They weren't thinking well, and decided they needed to get married to each other. Then they went to the beach to get married and celebrate. Afterwards, they lived together happily forever (todos los dias is fine for that part of the sentence).

Spanish Translation

En esta foto es Myron y Natalia. Myron es un agente de bienes raíces exitoso y guapo. Él tiene treinta y dos años. Natalia tiene veinte y ocho años, y ella es una camarera de cóctel y le gusta ajardinar. Ellos están muy alegres porque acaban de casarse, y están saltando porque están entusiasmados. Hace un día que ellos conocen. Myron acaba de darle a Natalia unas flores bonitas y ellos están teniendo un día magnífico.
Ayer Myron no sabía a Natalia, y nunca conoció a ella. Él hizo un viaje para dos semanas en México. Él estaba enfermo de trabajo y decidió tomar una vacación. En el último día, se reunió con Natalia en la playa. Natalia tomaba el sol cuando Myron tropezó con ella y se rompió la nariz cuando se cayó. Natalia le preguntó si ellos podían ir en una cita que le pone a sentirse mejor y porque ella pensó que Myron era caliente. Myron dijo que sí, y ellos fueron al casino para su cita. Al llegar al casino, empezaron a beber. Próximo, se jugaron al póquer y ganaron algo dinero. No pensaban así, y decidieron que necesitan casarse. Ellos fueron a la playa para se casaron y celebraron. Después de ellos vivieron felizmente todos los días.

Muchas gracias. --71.117.36.101 (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A try

I give you my version. Please understand that some changes are merely matters of style, and don't necessarily mean a translation mistep. I have emphasized some mistakes in your Spanish text. Mind you: most people will understand what you are trying to say in spite of them.

En esta foto están Myron y Natalia. Myron es un agente de bienes raíces exitoso y guapo. Tiene treinta y dos años. Natalia tiene veintiocho años, es barman y le gusta ajardinar/la jardinería. Ellos están muy contentos porque acaban de casarse, y están saltando de alegría. Hace un día que ellos se conocen. Myron acaba de darle a Natalia unas flores bonitas y están pasando un día magnífico.

Hasta ayer Myron no conocía a Natalia, y nunca la había visto con anterioridad. Natalia tomaba sol cuando Myron tropezó con ella y se rompió/lastimó la nariz al caerse de bruces. Natalia le preguntó si podían tener una cita, en parte para que él se sintiera mejor y en parte porque le atrajo Myron. Él le dijo que sí, y eligieron el casino para su cita. Al llegar al lugar, comenzaron a beber. Luego jugaron al póquer y ganaron algo de dinero. No estaban completamente en sus cabales, y decidieron que tenían que casarse. Fueron a la playa, se casaron allí y celebraron. Después vivieron felizmente todos los días/por siempre.

Pallida Mors 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia is initially described in English as a "cocktail waitress" (= serves beverages to patrons other than those seated at the bar). Does the Spanish word barman mean this as well as "bartender" (= pours and mixes drinks, stands behind the bar, serves to patrons seated at the bar), and is it used equally for male and female bartenders (and servers, if appropriate)? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the USA is this accent from

I believe this is a regional accent, but it may just be a technique of speaking or the result of some type of coaching; I have heard it in a few American TV actors such as Steven Culp and Boyd Matson. An example is the narration of the Wild Chronicles digital short Vultures of the Serengeti. Is it a Virginia accent? --Mathew5000 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely not a Virginia accent. It sounds more Midwest to me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think that is Boyd Matson narrating the clip you indicated. He grew up in Texas (or at least was born there), but I suspect his travels working with National Geographic and other jobs has mellowed out the accent in such a way as to make it difficult to pin down. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a specific regional accent that I'm aware of. The "Vultures" clip guy sounds like he grew up backwoods Southern, but he smoothed his accent out for his job. Listen to the way he says "egg" two different ways, for instance. The first one is said with some stress and is close to "aig", and he tries a little harder the second time and almost produces the short "e", but not quite. He says "on" dead center General American. Usually. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what's the meaning of the words as follows

Hi,guys.

Glad to know you here. I have a question to ask you ,anyone who kind enough to tell me ? thanks in advance!

one is "Demonym ", it is a word existed in the introuduction of our motherland--China. another one is "tildes", It is a word appeared in the "how to use wikipedia asking questions" I can't find the word in the dictionary and internet . please explain it to me ,thanks for your time .

B/R

Lucida —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachloven (talk • contribs) 08:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For the first, see Demonym: "is a word that denotes the members of a people or the inhabitants of a place. In English, a demonym is often the same as the name of the people's native language: e.g., the "French" (people from France)". It is confusing; it is used by geographers but is not in any regular dictionaries. Perhaps that will change? Secondly, a "tilde" is this symbol: ~

It is a regular keyboard key, but differs in location. My laptop has it at the extreme right, above the #, and next to the return. My desktop keyboard has it extreme top left, next to the 1. Wikipedia notation uses the "~" as a keystroke shortcut. Five tildes ~~~~~ puts just the date like this 08:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) . Four tildes ~~~~ signs your name, as I will do, now Gwinva (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpist

Is a rumpist someone who judges someone on the appearence of their behind? Terror toad (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]