Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 3

"Case" in ancient languages

In Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Per_aspera_ad_confusion above, and in Greek_alphabet there is the mention of the notion of letter "case". Upper and lower case refers to the location of the pieces of type in a typesetter's type case, that is, his compartmented tray. The capitals were on top and the, uhh, squiglier ones were below. As type didn't move until much later the terms seem anachronistic. Majuscule and minuscule seem a trifle pedantic. Is there a common-usage compliment to "capital" (which, of course, only has meaning post-minuscule) other than "lower case"? Saintrain (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The common-usage alternative to "lower case" is "small". However, in relation to Greek in particular, I have seen the two styles of letters called "print" (upper case) and "script" (lower case). --Anonymous, 05:59 UTC, September 3, 2008.

Real typographers dislike "small" used as a synonym for lower-case, since they generally use "small" to refer to small caps (which are not lower-case). There are a whole series of technical terms to describe various medieval handwriting styles (i.e. "uncials", "half-uncials", "Carolingian", "Insular", "miniscules" etc.), some of which were on the line of development of the modern lower-case letters... AnonMoos (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly this will be a stupid question, but did classical languages have what we would recognise as a case distinction at all? Uppercase letters were the ones they used in stonemasonry, and lowercase were the cursive ones. Did anyone, before the Middle Ages anyway, ever use both kinds in the same document? Marnanel (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in Latin or Greek, at least. They didn't have minuscule forms until the 9th or 10th century. Do any other classical languages even have case distinctions today? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The modern lowercase letters grew out of medieval "hands" (as I said), so ancient Romans didn't have anything closely resembling lowercase letters in form or function. They did have cursive and shorthand. AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nynorsk grammar

anyone knows where to find a NORWEGIAN NYNORSK GRAMMARBOOK? i repeat, a NYNORSK(=NewNorwegian) grammarbook where i get lists that are bending the words..

like this:

A song - the song - songs - songs

i relaize I might be asking on the wrong place, but it seems impossible to find anywhere... I need a list of all words being bendt and shaped into different forms. in order to learn the lanuage i must have one... and a common wordbook is not what i am looking for..

Have a look here, especially here and on all the subpages that start with substantiv. In general, nynorsk is very regular - the main thing you have to know is whether a noun is male masculine, female feminine or neutrum (which will be mentioned in any good dictionary, along with a possible irregular plural form) -- Ferkelparade π 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nouns may be masculine or feminine (or neuter), but they are never male or female. —Angr 11:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I hang my head in shame at my involuntary sexualisation of language -- Ferkelparade π 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And people inside Berlin need to remember that not everything that's characteristic of German English is an ignorant solecism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 September 2008

A full dictionary of Nynorsk (and Bokmål) is here: http://www.dokpro.uio.no/ordboksoek.html . After each word there's a code (like n1 for noun, neuter, type 1) and you click on "oversyn over grammatiske koder" to get the pattern for that word. Jørgen (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashkenazic pronunciation in Israeli Hebrew?

When Sholem Aleichem is discussed in Israeli Hebrew, is the Ashkenazic pronunciation [ˈʃolem aˈleixem] used, or is it "Sephardified" to [ʃaˈlom aleiˈxem]? Are there any other Yiddish words of Hebrew origin that have been borrowed into Israeli Hebrew from Yiddish that retain their Ashkenazic pronunciation? —Angr 11:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In contemporary Hebrew spoken by the mainstream Israeli population, the author's first name is pronounced SHAlom rather than the Yiddish SHOlem, the accent on the first syllable being typical of Hebrew words (nouns, adjectives) used as personal names; the surname is virtually the same in both pronunciations. For your second question: it's actually Yiddish words used in Hebrew with their Yiddish pronunciation (of vowels, certain consonants, and syllabic stress), which is essentially equivalent to the "Ashkenazic" pronunciation of Hebrew (e.g. SHAbos rather than the "Sephardic"=mainstream shaBAT, TOYre vs. toRAH, BRIS vs. BREET, mishPUche vs. mishpaCHA, EMes vs. eMET, etc.). The insertion of Yiddish words and phrases in Hebrew (regardless of the Yiddish being of Hebrew origin or otherwise), as with their usage in English, is considered jocular. -- Deborahjay (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Colon_Township,_Michigan

Whoever thought that one up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontdoorFreddie (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's after Cristóbal Colón? -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this source, it was named because the adjacent river and lake form the shape of a colon (punctuation). Marco polo (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He said "exactly". Judge for yourselves. Looks more like a reflected map of New Zealand to me. Marnanel (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Was it like that because of irrigation?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ChokinBako - go to your room. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that one of the local lakes is Sturgeon. Or to give it its full title: Colonic Sturgeon lake —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrapdoorTrevor (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's otherwise known as the a***hole of the world.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Other word

Hi, what's other word for harmful? It starts with the letter N? I'm not from English-speaking country and don't have a dictionary now, so I really need your help. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Noxious? Fribbler (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Noisome? DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nixon? — OtherDave (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Noxious or maybe Narcotic —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontdoorFreddie (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.251 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

D sounding like j and t sounding like tch

What do you call the process in which the d in graduate, becomes j when spoken. For example, it would be pronounced like- gra-jew-ate. It may be the same process, but what do you call it when the first t in flatulate, becomes a tch, like this- fla-tchoo-late. This can also be seen in congratulate and constituate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.0.130 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Palatalization --ChokinBako (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Constituate? Does any such word exist? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Algebraist 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are a number of processes (both historical and phonological) referred to as "palatalization." In this instance, the alveolar stop (/t/ or /d/) assimilates properties from a following "y" (palatal approximant) sound; I've heard this attributed to the fact that a single articulation tool (the tongue) is compromising between the two target points of articulation. The "ch" and "j" sounds are postalveolar, which is indeed an area between alveolar and palatal. I suspect, however, that for many speakers that this is no longer a phonetic or phonological feature and instead the "y" sound has been altogether deleted in the process so that in speakers' underlying representations, flatulate is /ˈflæ.tʃu.leːt/ rather than /ˈflæ.tju.leːt/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the word we are looking for is affricate? Duomillia (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Affricate is the name of sounds like "ch" and "j", it's not the name for the process of changing "d" to "j". —Angr 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You could turn affricate into a verb, but that doesn't fully describe the process. turning /t/ to [ts] and /d/ to [dz] would be accurately described as affrication. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It always gets me how it's often assumed that everything that can be described must have a name. I looked up 'affrication' and most sites listed something identical or nearly identical to 'The conversion of a simple stop consonant into an affricate,' which doesn't mention anything about POA, so while Ƶ§œš¹'s thought on the subject is understandable, this phenomenon would also fit the definition. I suppose if you wanted to differentiate the two phenomena, you could maybe call this 'retractified affrication' or 'affricated centralization' or whatever. I hope you get my point. In my old phonology class we would simply make a rule that defines the behavior and the environment it occurs in. In this case, just going on our limited examples (excuse my text editor shorthand):

Alveolar Stop [α voiced] -> Postalveolar Affricate [α voiced] / æ(n)_u

Actually, that vowel environment doesn't work because '-ation' brings an /eɪ/ and '-entiate' brings an /ɛ/ and an /i/. Actually, this could turn into quite a project and we might find out that in some or all cases the affricate is actually the underlying phoneme and the orthography just doesn't represent it. I don't have a compelling reason to go through this exercise myself and find out which is the case, but unless you can persuade me somehow then I hope I gave you enough to go on. - Lambajan 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Americans

Why do they talk through their noses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.251 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous offensive reply deleted -- SGB

The question is probably an attempt to be offensive to Americans. However if the question is treated seriously then the answer is that they mostly don't, they use their lungs to push air through their vocal cords and the sound mostly passes through their mouth where it is shaped and processed to form words and other sounds. Some of the sound will pass through the nose. A blocked nose obviously causes a differnt type of sound to be made. As for "Why", generally folk learn to speak by mimicing those around them, so if those around speak with a particular dialect or patois then the individual will tend to do the same. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we haven't mastered the art of sounding like we have a hot potato in our mouth? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is from the book "Deutsch heute: Grundstufe" (1974), page xxxii.

"To make these long German vowels sound right, pronounce them with a lot more energy than the corresponding English vowel sounds. Our English vowels sound lackadaisical and funny to Germans. They say we talk as if we had a hot potato in our mouths--because we pronounce our vowels with so little energy."

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A Frenchman I know says Brits talk like they have a hot potato in the mouth and Americans sound like the adults in the Charlie Brown animated cartoons. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether the question was intended to be offensive or not, it is true that some American accents (e.g. Western New York State) nasalize some vowels (especially /æ/) spontaneously (i.e. even when they're not next to nasal consonants). I remember hearing a local TV news reporter from Binghamton, New York, pronounce his own surname, Catlin, in such a way that I thought he was saying "Cantlin". And I've heard someone else pronounce the name "Patsy" so it sounds like "Pantsy". But it would be a tremendous overgeneralization to say all Americans do that. —Angr 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See Nasalization, Nasal consonant, and Nasal vowel. This is common in many, even most languages. Some perhaps more than others, though I don't think English or even American English is all that extreme compared to all other languages. Probably somewhere in the middle. Pfly (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Detailed information about nasalization in different languages is available at WALS - Feature/Chapter 10: Vowel Nasalization.

-- 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(I made the last comment, but my username did not appear. [1] -- Wavelength (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take this question at face value, and comment on it in a serious vein. I am an American, and while in my youth I lived in Finland for a while. I hardly ever heard English spoken, and very rarely American English. However, I could be walking down a busy crowded street in, say, Helsinki, and if someone were speaking American English a block away, I would be able to easily hear it above the babel and noise of the crowd. The reason for this is precisely what the op was talking about - Americans tend to "talk through their nose", so that their speech is "twangy" sounding. This sort of sound, because it is unique and high-pitched, can easily carry through a crowd of people speaking in other languages. I'll leave it to others to go into the finer details about why Americans speak this way (I have a personal theory that we get it from the Scots Irish), but I do have to say that this is indeed a noticeable phenomenon. Saukkomies 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Results" speak

I have observed that if someone enters 5 events, wins 3 and loses 2 that an American (USA) will say "3 and 2" whilst an Englishman will say "3 out of 5". Is my observation accurate? How did it arise? What do other countries do (even non English speaking ones)? Is there a wikipedia article about any of this? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience of collectable card game tournaments in the UK is that one speaks of someone as being '3 and 2'. This may be a result of American dominance of the industry though. Algebraist 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

After Umteen decades, the first time I ever came across "3 and 2" and understood what it meant was this summer. I had heard it before but never realised that it was a report of some results. (I'm UKish.) -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"3 and 2" sounds like a matchplay score. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the term for the "3 and 2"-type scoring is Win-Loss Record, although that page currently points to an article on Baseball, which could explain why it is prevalent in the US vs. the UK. You'll also sometimes see the number of tie (draw) results given as a third number, which leads to the pun in the gameshow title Win, Lose or Draw. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasons why this form would be more common in the U.S. First, soccer ranks teams using "points" rather than strictly by a won-loss record. So while a baseball fan may say the team is 3-2, a soccer fan is more likely to say the team has 9 points through five games. Second, British sports standings use the form wins-draws-losses, so the team in question would actually be 3-0-2. Baseball and basketball have no ties (draws), while hockey and American football put draws at the end: 3-2-0. Ties are so rare in American football that they're usually left out. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mwalcoff. See also Group tournament ranking system. I think soccer usage has influenced British usage in sports like rugby and boxing where draws are rarer. jnestorius^(talk) 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Filipino

What are some Filipino words that were included in the International English Dictionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.224.52.44 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about that dictionary, but we have an article List of English words of Tagalog origin. Fribbler (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

September 4

French translation

In music, what would the word dehors mean, as in trés en dehors or fort et trés en dehors? 220.244.104.23 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A google search for "en dehors" suggests it means "emphasised". Fribbler (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article Musical terminology says en dehors means "prominently" (Musical terminology#E). DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it means "outside". In a musical context, a line or part marked "en dehors" should stand outside of the the other parts, which should be inside, or in the background. Thomprod (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

learning french

does anyone know a good teach yourself course/book or anything for learning french from scratch that is based on learning and understanding the grammatical structure of the language as opposed to the seemingly popular system of just rote learning? thank you. Philc 0780 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I know what you mean by "rote learning," but the best French program I've ever encountered is French in Action. It's all in French—no English comparisons, but it's clear and thorough and rarely gets frustrating. The workbook of the program discusses grammar in detail, and there is no rote memorization because each lessons expands off of the last and there is enough repetition that you memorize words naturally..--El aprendelenguas (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Rote learning is often used where I come from to describe learning from repetition as opposed to learning from understanding. Sorry, I didn't realise it may not be in common circulation. 92.21.120.224 (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

People learn in different ways, and often misjudge the difficulty of learning another language, especially after adolescence. One issue is what you mean by "learn a language." Learn to read it? Learn to write it? Understand it when spoken? Speak it? And for each of those: in what context?

So I'll respond to the question with a question: what do you want to learn French for? Do you want to read literature? Understand French films without subtitles? Feel comfortable on vacation? Get a job in a francophone environment?

You might take a look at online offerings like Frenchpod or Coffee Break French. If you already speak some French but don't have much chance to practice, my original research suggests you can get a lot more practice in an immersive online environment like Second Life; I've used more French there (both in text and in voice chat) during the past eight months than in the previous eight years. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been to France a few times and I love it, though I speak next to no French and have relied heavily on friends who are bilingual, I prefer it there to the UK and would probably want to be able to stay there for extended periods of time, so really the full whack, learn to read and speak the language in both formal and informal contexts. Philc 0780 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might seek out textbooks used in courses to teach French reading comprehension to graduate students. In such courses, the students are mainly interested in learning just enough of the language to be able to read French-language technical articles in their own academic area -- and the corresponding textbooks make little pretense to teaching conversational skills, and have a higher proportion of grammatical analysis, and a much lower proportion of drill than texts aimed at ordinary undergrauate-level language classes... AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Any college text should be helpful in this regard.` The Jade Knight (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has significant grammatical information available in its articles, there is also a Wikibook on French, and Wikiversity also has a French Department. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

September 5

Scunthorpe

What do residents of Scunthorpe call themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000kA (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The escape committee? Sorry, couldn't resist it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave, Steve, Andrea, Alison, Tom, Peter...But more seriously I (and I live around 40 miles from Scunthorpe) refer to the place as 'Scunny' and quite a lot of people seem to refer to it as that. To be fair that's more the place than the people though. I doubt they are called 'scunthorpians' (like mancunians or liverpudians) by anybody. There isn't distinctive enoguh of a Scunthorpe accent to warrant its own name/locational reference, plus it doesn't lend itself to a short-form description (for obvious reasons) as well as some would. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Google, the most common form is Scunthorpian, followed distantly by Scunthorper, Scunnyite, and Scunnier. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Scunthonian is more common and more correct than Scunthorpian

Translation requested

I'm translating Twinkle for the french wiki. However, due to my null understanding of French language, I'll like to request translation of the next words:

Deletion of articles

• Notify if possible (tooltip: Notifies the original author)

---

• General criteria
  • Not encyclopedic (tooltip: Pages that do not have encyclopedic importance)
  • Pure vandalism (tooltip: Vandalism)
  • Blatant advertisement (tooltip: Advertisement in articles)
  • User request
  • Redirects to nonexistent pages
  • Re-created material (tooltip:
  • Other reason (tooltip: Choose another reason)

(popup: Please write a reason)

Thanks, Macy 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to go over to the French Wikipedia and ask about this, or find English pages with these words and see if there are French equivalents. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go (might be *slightly* off due to lack of context):

Suppression d'articles

• Nofifie si possible (infobulle: notifie l'auteur originel)

---

• Critères généraux
  • Pas encyclopédique (infobulle: pages qui n'ont pas d'importance encyclopédique)
  • Vandalisme flagrant (infobulle: Vandalisme)
  • Publicité flagrante (infobulle: publicité au sein des articles)
  • Requête utilisateur
  • Redirection vers une page qui n'existe pas
  • Re-création d'une page supprimée (infobulle:
  • Autre raison (infobulle: Choisir une autre raison)

(fenêtre pop-up: Veuillez donner une raison)

Equendil Talk 23:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest a slight emendation in : Notifiez si possible (infobulle: notifie l'auteur originel) ? Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

French instruction videos

Hi, I'm just curious about some videos that I had seen. They were for people learning French, and had a 1980s look to them. All the dialogues were in French, and the lessons were episodes with stories. The main characters were a young man and a young lady, and the young man's name was Vincent. He had a cute face and brown hair. The young lady was also cute, and reminded me of the teacher from Carrusel.

There are two episodes that I remember. One was where Vincent was invited to a family with kids. There was a budgie in a cage but Vincent made a mistake and the bird got away. Another episode was where Vincent and the young lady were working at the front desk of a hotel, instead of someone else. Vincent was saying things like "C'est facile!" and he was all smiles. But then lots of people rushed in at once and he ended up saying "C'est tres difficile," or something like that.

I think the video was sponsored by the académie française but I'm not sure about that. Does anyone have any idea what the title could be? --Kjoonlee 03:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be "French in Action", would it? I remember watching that in my high school French classes. I don't really remember the plots of the various episodes, but I do my buddies and I drooling over the cute French girl in it. Dgcopter (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's French in Action. I must admit I've only seen the first 26 of the total 52 episode of French in Action, but the young man's name is Robert, and in the first 26 episodes there's no scenario of Robert and Mireille (the young lady) working at a hotel. Granted, one of the later episodes could feature that I suppose, but the characters wouldn't just be saying "C'est facile" and "C'est très dificile" that late in the program.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Corrupted Spanish word for misprinted/overstock clothing worn by impoverished citizens in Latin America?

I have /heard/ this word in casual conversation 2 or 3 times in the past year. It seems that there is a Spanish or "Spanglish" TERM used in the United States for misprinted/ overstock/ teams-that-didn't win clothing that is donated to charities an worn in Latin America.

No amount of Google-ing or other research is giving me any answers...perhaps because I have no Spanish language skills and additionally no memory of the way the word sounds!

Thanks in advance.

221.218.168.101 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)KB_in_Beijing

As a note, I DID find information about Africa: [2] In Togo, the castoffs are called "dead white men's clothing." Few people in that West African country believe that a living person would throw away anything this good. Consumers in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania call the used clothing mitumba, the Swahili word for bale. 221.218.168.101 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) KB_in_Beijing

I spent some time on Google España looking at pages in Spanish that talk about mitumba [3] [4], but even though they actually borrow the Swahili word mitumba in the articles, they make no single-word Spanish equivalent. The best they can say is ropa de segunda mano (="second hand clothing"). If there were a popular Spanish word for this, I'd expect one of the article to say "...mitumba, or _________ when it's donated to Latin American countries..." but I haven't found that. I'd guess the word you heard was a part of a jargon limited to the clothing industry. I also found this article, which refers to the clothing as ropa barata de hombre blanco (="cheap white man's clothing"), albeit a translation of what you said above with no evidence that Spanish people would actually use that term in conversation. I also found this page, which refers to "vintage" clothes as ropa de moda tata, but of course I'm aware that "vintage" and "second hand" are not the same thing. The word you heard might very well have been an English word in a Spanish accent (Spanglish, as you mentioned). If so, you might find an English term somewhere online that comes close to what you heard. (If you're interested in any of the Spanish articles here, you can run them through Google translator to read them.)--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In Zambia it's called salaula, Bemba for "rummage". That could pass for a Spanish word.... jnestorius^(talk) 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation assistance request

Would anyone be interested in helping me with an English to Latin or Latin to English translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.147.129 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if it's not homework, we'd all be happy to help. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's a whole book or something, in which case you're really going to have to pay someone to do it. Algebraist 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse? --- OtherDave (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

September 6

Czech name

How is the Czech name "Marie" pronounced? I believe it is different from the French and German one, but I am not sure about the syllables. Please do not use IPA, I can barely read it. It should either be pronounced "mah-ree-eh" or "mah-ree-ah". Which one of these is correct? Or maybe both are wrong? Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After skimming over Czech_phonology and Czech_phonetic_transcription, my educated guess is ['mariɛ], or per your request, MAH-ree-eh, where that last vowel "eh" is most like the e in bet. Perhaps someone more skilled than I am in Czech phonology can approve my pronunciation or correct it.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Czech, but being a native speaker of a closely related language, I suppose "Marie" is pronounced as two syllables, not three, that is ['ma·rʲɛ] in IPA, or MAH-ryeh. The R should be rolled and softened (palatalized) by the following I. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a native Czech speaker but I believe a Czech speaker may pronounce the name as three syllables when speaking carefully and two when speaking quickly. The "r" is rolled as in Spanish. The "e" is pronounced like the short e in English, but since it's in a non-stressed syllable, it may just sound like "uh." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Any native Czech speakers out there? Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 09:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In case no native speakers come along, I studied Czech in university for two years and spent some time in Prague, though I am far from proficient in the language. That said, I am confident that Czech writing has a fairly direct correspondence to (standard) pronunciation. In Czech, the only consonants that are palatalized when followed by the letter i are d, n, and t. Other consonants may be palatalized when a morphological ending starting with a vowel other than i is replaced by i as a result of a change in, for example, person or case, but that palatalization results in a corresponding orthographic change. For example, starý is an adjective (in the masculine nominative singular) meaning "old". The same adjective in the masculine animate nominative plural becomes staří. When r is palatalized (which does not tend to happen in words of foreign origin), its spelling changes to ř. So, if Marie were a two-syllable word pronounced with a palatalized r, it would be spelled Maře, which it is not. So the name is pronounced as El aprendelenguas and Mwalcoff have indicated. Marco polo (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is that a Czech woman named Marie may have had a French parent, and the name is intended to be pronounced in the French way, with 2 syllables. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Except in this case, I'm assuming that the woman's of Czech parentage, though I am not trying to find out how someone's name I know is pronounced. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 09:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tenses in french

What is the difference in meaning between the pluperfect tense and the past anterior tense. Thanks. Philc 0780 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my French reference book in which I could have found this answer right away is not with me now. I looked through some of Wikipedia's French-language articles and could not find a definitive answer. If it's anything like Spanish, though (as I suspect it is), the past anterior tense is very rarely used and only under a limited amount of circumstances. Plus, it is strictly a literary tense (much like the preterite in French), and outside of literature with fuzzy-old-style-Shakespearianesque writing, you won't encounter it.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The pluperfect (plus-que-parfait) is usually translated as "had done (something)."

• J'avais cherché / I had looked for (searched for).

The past anterior (passé antérieur) is a literary form of pluperfect.

• J'eus cherché / I had looked for (searched for).

"Used in literature and historical accounts to indicate an action in the past that occurred before another action in the past," it says here. Something like passe simple, also used in formal writing and very formal speech. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(I clarified the English translations a bit... shouldn't post when I'm tired. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

Thank you both. Philc 0780 08:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

September 7

Coger

The Spanish word coger has many uses, like "grab, get, take." In some places in Latin America, its usage even includes "fuck." Is anyone aware if there is some kind of etymological connection between coger and the meaning "fuck"? Did one of the already-established meanings of coger lead to the meaning "fuck" (much like, I would assume, "screw" came to include the meaning "fuck")? Or does this meaning come from slang of uncertain origin? The RAE doesn't say much about it, but it does recognize the definition "realizar el acto sexual." Thanks!--El aprendelenguas (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I don't know anything specifically about Spanish or Latin America) Surely the meanings are connected in the same way that the verb 'take' in English can mean 'fuck' (ie "she was taken from behind"). The connection would seem to be that sex is often viewed as a possesive action (in the sense that the male is in some way capturing or claiming ownership of the female). I'd expect that that is the most likely explanation. Daniel (‽) 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but what's strange about coger is that in the countries where it developed the meaning "fuck," it has lost all other definitions, becoming nothing more than an "f-word." I remember having a Spanish class with a student who recently (at the time) migrated from Mexico (coger = "fuck") to the US and a teacher from Spain (coger = "take, get, etc."). For the first few days of class, every time the teacher used coger in a conversation, the Mexican girl would blush and seem uncomfortable. When they talked about it, it was just as surprising to the Spaniard that coger could mean "fuck" as it was to the Mexican that coger could mean "take." The transformation of the word in some countries baffles me.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As coger took the f-meaning in some countries, speakers began using other similar verbs to represent the catch/take idea [tomar, agarrar...]. This is very understandable, since coger became in the process practically a taboo word.
By the way, Daniel's explanation is quite compelling to me (it's surprising anyway the absence of material about this topic on the internet). Pallida  Mors 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

September 8

stairs

If there exist words such as these--

acetabuliform shaped like a shallow cup or saucer
acinaciform scimitar-shaped
aciniform shaped like a berry
aculeiform shaped like a thorn
adeniform shaped like a gland

--what would be the word for "shaped like a stair case"/"shaped like stairs"/"shaped like a series of rising steps"? "Stairiform"? Was there a Latin word for stairs/steps? 128.239.177.28 (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin

Scaliform is possible (from Latin scala, 'staircase' or 'ladder', usually used in the plural), although the OED doesn't record it as an actually attested English word. The word scalar does have a sense "resembling a ladder"—though it has rarely been used with that meaning—and scalariform has a similar meaning; I can't find any evidence that they've been used to mean "resembling a staircase", however. Deor (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone use the word scaliform, I'd understand it just as easily (perhaps more easily) as the examples in the OP. Steewi (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a quick Google search reveals that scaliform is a word in Turkish, although I've no idea if it means anything to do with staircases. Anyway, I think scaliform is great, even if no one has ever used it up until now outside of Turkey. Are there any existing (as in, someone once used it) words for "staircase-like", even if they don't end in "-iform"? 128.239.177.28 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin

What's wrong with stairlike? One doesn't always need a Latinate word. Deor (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Scaliform" certainly is not a word in Turkish! The second hit I find in googling "scaliform" happens to be a Turkish dictionary, but it is giving the Turkish for the English word "scaliform". The word does not appear in the OED, but the various examples Google turns up mostly seem to mean "shaped like a scale" (in particular 'scaliform leaves'); there seems to be a particular use in hypersolid geometry of "scaliform polychora", referring to polychora which are somewhat less uniform than uniform polychora. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one Turkish dictionary that comes up, actually, and that's what threw me. Oh well, I guess I'll take Deor's advice and stop searching for a latinate word. If something's shaped like a staircase, it's just shaped like a staircase, not scaliform... (although if scala means ladder/stairs and not scale, isn't using "scaliform" to mean scale-like sort of off?) 128.239.177.28 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)CantSpeakLatin

Ancient Greek Question: Plural of Maimaktes

So according to Meilichios, Maimaktes means "the raging one" in ancient Greek. What would the plural of Maimaktes be? - in other words, "the raging ones"? Thanks! --Brasswatchman (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

According to my dictionary, it means "boisterous, stormy", and is used mainly as an epithet of Zeus (rather than an ordinary common noun). However, nominative plural would be Maimaktai... AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That should be Maimaktoi, no, since it's masculine? L&S say it has a genitive in -ου. Deor (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The ending -oi is the second declension nominative plural, and if a word has a nominative singular in -ês (eta-sigma), it's already not second declension. In fact, the inflection pattern with nominative singular -ês, genitive singular -ou is 1st declension masculine. Such nouns are inflected like 1st declension feminines, except that the nominative singular has a sigma at the end, and the genitive singular is borrowed from the second declension (replacing an earlier disyllabic long alpha + omicron ending seen in Homeric Greek)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just goes to show what one can forget when one hasn't studied Greek for nearly 40 years. Deor (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's something at Ancient_Greek_grammar#Alpha_Declension_.28first_declension.29 -- AnonMoos (talk)

Excellent. Thank you both very much. --Brasswatchman (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the adjectival form of the word 'library'?

Something other than 'library-like' please - thanks, all. Adambrowne666 (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some people use the word "librarial", but I'm not sure if that's actually listed in any dictionaries. Maybe you can just use "library", as in "library binding", "library edition", etc. (That would only work in certain contexts, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The OED doesn't list an adjectival form. It does say that bibliothec, bibliothecal, bibliothecary, and bibliothetic can all be used as adjectives for belonging/pertaining to a library. It rather depends on the context.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been going to those places that lend books for a long time, and I've never seen "bibliothecal" or any of its polysyllabic cousins used for a library having works mainly in English. "Library," as Zagalejo suggests, can be a noun adjunct, a noun that modifies another noun. Library edition, library science, library procedure. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Librarial: "glasses made Babel look like a librarian, but his silence is not librarial." Also "librarial and secretarial functions", "librarial support", "a librarial personality", "librarial assistance", "whose aims and objectives are religious, educational, or librarial in nature." —kwami (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, great stuff. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording Problems

This paragraph is from the article about the herbicide Roundup:

"Monsanto firmly denies any negative impact on anything, including wildlife, and has many studies it has funded to back up its position.[citation needed] They would also be quick to point out that any possible negative impact on earthworms and nitrogen fixing bacteria, etc., would be offset by greater yields[citation needed], which have not been proven, due to the elimination of weeds, and also would point to soil benefits from less mechanical cultivation of weeds by using Roundup and similar products."

Aside from the lack of sources, I think there are wording problems. Some that stand out IMO are:

• "would also be" instead of "are".

• "quick to point out" instead of just "point out".

• The location of "which have not been proven", interrupting the main thought.

• The length of the last sentence due to packing in too many points.

• "would point to". I'm not sure how to describe the problem with this but I think there is one.

• "cultivation of weeds" I think people cultivate crops and soil but not weeds.

I think there are also wording problems in the first sentence but that sources are needed before these problems can be tackled.

Comments and alternate wording ideas would be appreciated. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "Monsanto...has many studies it has funded" would be better as "Monsanto has funded many studies". Also, If Monsanto is treated as a singular noun (which I agree with), better not to switch to 'They...' - we could say "The company..." instead. Strawless (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the last point, switching to "they" is standard informal North American usage even though companies are treated as singular. In Wikipedia a more formal tone may be appropriate, though. --Anon, 17:36 UTC, September 8, 2008.

Yes. I would change "They" to "The firm", and I would go ahead and make the other changes that you mention. However, the repeated use of the conditional "would" and the lack of sources together are disturbing. I have to wonder how much of this is the writer's mere guesswork or putting of words into the mouths of others. The best course might be simply to delete the passages in question if they cannot be sourced and try to find documents that allow you to state the company's actual position. Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

an exemplary "role model"

If someone is described as a "role model", is it redundant to add the adjective "exemplary"? Wanderer57 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. A rôle model may be good, bad or indifferent. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but "exemplary" wouldn't be my first choice of modifier. Its first def at Merriam-Webster is "serving as a pattern", which is neutral, and means almost the same thing as "role model". If I wanted to stress that somebody is a positive role model, I'd pick an adjective that's more... positive. (I think most people will take "exemplary" as a positive modifier, and there are defs which support this; I just don't think it's the best choice.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The first meaning of "exemplary" given in Chambers Dictionary is "worthy of imitation". DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Which isn't the same meaning as role model? Chambers says "a good example to follow" for role model. I say "exemplary" is redundant. --23:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talk • contribs)

My Chambers doesn't have an entry for rôle model, but I do not think that it is used exclusively for a good example to follow. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

was there a memo diffused?

when people write about "diffusing the situation" i always assume they mean "defuse", but lately i've seen that appear in places and/or by people i'd consider not that illiterate. (frinstance http://www.yourdictionary.com/diffuse) am i missing something? Gzuckier (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It's just careless. The slide is from de-fuse (with a hyphen) to defuse and then to the similar-sounding diffuse, which as a word is more widely used. It's almost a back-formation, like the use of "I'll be out of pocket" to mean "I won't be in touch" rather than the former "I'll have to spend my own money." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how "I'll be out of pocket" might have come to mean "I won't be in touch". Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So am I. I don't think I've ever heard it used that way. Gwinva (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you. It's all the rage among U.S. corporate drones, the kind of people who can't say three sentences without including "going forward" and "at the end of the day." Maybe they're shifting paradigms and leveraging their synergies. Or maybe they need more fiber. I honestly can't remember when in the past 10 years I have heard anyone say "out of pocket" to mean "I'm missing money."

My theory, which like many has no supporting evidence, is that they seize on "out," twist it into "away," (as in "I'm going to be out of the office") and drag "of pocket" along as a sort of verbal hostage. Your mileage may vary; past performance is no guarantee of future return; quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --- OtherDave (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm always amazed at how quickly these forms of expression catch on. Like "heads up". The first time anyone hears this, they would surely have not the faintest idea what the speaker's talking about. But before you know it, they've abandoned the habits of a lifetime, ditched "I'll let you know" and "I'll be in touch", and started gibbering "I'll give you a heads up". What's my other favourite? Oh, I know. "I have a 4 o'clock, and then a 5 o'clock, but I'll be free after that". I always assume I'm conversing with an horologist. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll touch base and give you a heads up before that eventuates." Honestly, most middle managers should be shot for the benefit of the language. Anyone touching my base had better be pretty damn cute, is all I will say. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

my personal relatively recent irritants: "bum rush" as in, "We're all gonna bum rush the gate, they can't keep all of us out" and of course the perennial "on line" as in "i've been on line at the cafeteria for hours just to buy a cup of coffee" Gzuckier (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"On line" is a New Yorkism. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On line at the cafeteria? That's the kind of blue sky thinking which really winds me up. Gwinva (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Eventuate

"A film version of the Broadway musical, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, and an unnamed World War 1 themed musical co-starring Gene Kelly were also discussed, but the projects did not eventuate."

I think that using the word "eventuate" here is pretentious, but is it actually wrong? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. I would consider 'actualize'. - Lambajan 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe "eventuate" is fairly common in Australia. I used to hear newsreaders saying it. jnestorius^(talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Long before 'actualize,' I would consider (and use) "happen." Film versions were also discussed, but the projects never happened. I can't think of any sensible use for "eventuate." In a spelling bee, maybe, but that's quite a reach for "sensible." "Eventuate" may not be "wrong," but it's pompous, self-important, overly latinate, and implies that the writer doesn't know alternatives like "never got off the ground," "never even started," or "went nowhere." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Happen" is a little too semantically empty for me. I'd say "come into being" or "come to fruition" or "materialize" or "get off the ground". —Angr 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see much wrong with "eventuate". I might not choose it straight up, but I wouldn't see any need to change it if I were editing someone else's text. I'd certainly prefer it to "actualize", which, if I ever used it at all, which is doubtful, I'd only ever use transitively or passively. OtherDave's and Angr's alternatives are good, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "eventuate" is actually a very appropriate word semantically, but it's so formal as to be precious in almost any context. In this case, I might go with "result". jnestorius^(talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is a local thing. Jnestorius and I are both OK with it, and it wouldn't generally be considered precious in Australia. It's concise, it's clearly understood, and it's quite commonly used here. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jack: I've regularly heard it used in quite informal contexts, and wouldn't think to change it in the quoted context, where it works well. Antipodean practice, perhaps. Gwinva (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the inputs. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even I'll freely concede it's likely a matter of style. Stylistically, though, "eventuate" is an antimacassar. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, antimacassar happens to be one of my favourite words in the entire lexicon, so I'll thank you not to denigrate it by associating it with something you consider stylistically infelicitous.  :) ( I just wish I could get my hands on some macassar oil, the smell of which is incomparable ... ah, the good old days). But to be serious, if it is simply a question of style, then whether it fits or not would depend on which style one adopts, wouldn't it? You can't say that a word is stylistically inappropriate in absolute terms. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The leading results of my Google News Search for "eventuate" are links to websites in Fiji, Australia, and New Zealand.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go, then. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I like eventuate! Anywaym realise is surely the mot juste, no?217.169.40.194 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As in "... the projects were not realised"? Maybe. I have some misgivings about it, but I can't quite put my finger on why. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

opposite of honorific

What's the opposite of "honorific"? I'm thinking of pronouns such as Korean jane "you" which are used towards people of lower social status, as opposed to honorifics used for people of higher social status. kwami (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-honorific forms are usually described as "familiar" or "humble" or "intimate", but I don't know of a specific term for a form that is explicitly below neutral. "Diminutive" maybe, at a stretch? Koolbreez (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Humble" forms are in effect honorifics, since they elevate to topic by downplaying the speaker. That's very different than a form that is insulting or shows contempt. "Familiar" or "intimate" could work, but only if other "familiar" forms are relabeled "plain". kwami (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jane is not necessarily familiar or humble or intimate, though. Depending on context, it could be a bit like "sonny boy" (slightly insulting.) --Kjoonlee 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, misread your message. --Kjoonlee 23:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kjoon, is jane really a pronoun, or is it a noun like dongsin? kwami (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jane really is a pronoun. I'd classify dangshin as three pronouns: an extremely honorific 3rd person pronoun, a polite 2nd person pronoun with polite speech levels, and a rude 2nd person pronoun with casual speech levels. --Kjoonlee 00:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe that makes two pronouns, not three. But then there's also dangshin used among married couples, as a casual 2nd person pronoun. Which brings us to two pronouns, used in four circumstances. --Kjoonlee 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, what about Japanese kisama or omae? --Kjoonlee 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they're either very brusk or rude. But kisama, omae, and dangsin are all nouns used pronominally. kwami (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand; I've never heard anyone use dangshin in a way other than that which I described, and I'd classify those as proper pronouns. --Kjoonlee 01:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Many east and southeast Asian languages accept multiple nouns for pronominal use in a way that European languages cannot. I'd go so far as to say that Japanese does not have personal pronouns in the Indo-European sense. It looks like historically Korean na- and neo- are true pronouns, but dangsin for example is a Sino-Korean loan word. It may only have pronominal uses today, but it's possible that it isn't as basic as na- and neo-. Or maybe the original pronouns are no more basic than the new ones in modern Korean, as in modern Japanese—I don't know. kwami (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

'Kisama' and 'omae' were originally made from nouns, meaning 'important person' and 'honourable person in front', respectively. All pronouns in modern Japanese can be said to have originally come from nouns, with the exception of 'kare' (he) which is cognate with 'kore/sore/are' (this/that) and 'kanojo' (she), which is derived from 'kono (or 'ano')' and 'jo = onna, woman'. Interesting to note, while we are on the topic of honorifics, that the words 'kisama' and 'omae' were perfectly acceptable forms of address at various times in history, but have come to be quite the opposite in modern usage. 'Omae' now is only used between close friends/relatives, or when speaking down to someone, whereas 'kisama' is never used unless one is seriously threatening someone. --ChokinBako (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Korean, and nothing relevant to this discussion about Japanese, but when Kwami states above that jane is "used towards people of lower social status", that doesn't necessarily mean it's rude, does it? If I'm a person of standing addressing a servant, I can still be polite while using pronouns that reinforce our relative hierarchical positions. German speakers used to use the third person singular pronouns "Er" and "Sie" (i.e. "he" and "she") capitalized when addressing someone of lower social standing (roughly, you'd ask the stable boy "Where did He put the currycomb?" or the chambermaid "Would She please bring me the mirror?"), but doing so was certainly polite provided the person you were talking really was of lower social status. Obviously it would be rude to address an equal that way, but using the pronouns the way they're intended isn't rude. Is it the same with jane and its Japanese equivalent(s)? —Angr 10:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, 'omae' can be used between close friends or relatives, and in actual fact it is very common for a man to use the word to his wife and children - with no connotations of impoliteness (or even inferiority) at all. As for 'kare' (he), I have heard on a few occasions people (notably women) talking to me, about me, using this 'pronoun' with the intended effect of it being extremely polite, but not in the sense of me being of a lower social status (higher, in fact, as I was the customer and they were the bar-owners, shop-owners, etc.). I have also heard 'kanojo' (she) used this way, but much less. I get the feeling that you have to be careful when addressing a lady this way, as it may come across as a terrible insult. On a side note, Japanese is notorious for not being explicit on who the speaker is talking about when pronouns can mean practically anything (and are usually left out anyway), and even native speakers get frustrated with each other, so when someone says 'he' meaning 'you', it can be really confusing (Japanese verbs do not differentiate person). When talking to a very young child, Japanese very often use 'boku' or 'ore' (both meaning 'I'), (and sometimes 'watashi', 'I', to a girl) to mean 'you'. The basic idea here is, use the word the person uses to refer to him/herself, which is also why the Japanese very often use a person's name instead of the pronoun for 'you'.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

To possibly answer the original poster's question, the "Bengali" chapter of The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5) uses "despective". Part of the reason why the "thou"/"thee" vs. "ye"/"you" contrast disappeared in English was that the "thou" forms acquired strongly despective connotations in many contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, kisama would be despective, then. But still no term for the German use of Er & Sie for polite address of a social inferior. kwami (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find a certain punctuation mark

In the dictionary section of my German textbook it uses a character that I am assuming is a hyphen with an umlaut over it. I am trying to figure out how to get that character into Word 2000. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.  Laptopdude  Talk  22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My first impulse would be to find out if it's a single symbol. If that fails, my next impulse would be to use '-' together with the Unicode codepoint U+0308, like this: -̈ --Kjoonlee 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that's for denoting umlaut plurals (der Apfel, die Äpfel)? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it uses it. After a little searching, I found that it could be made with 3 spaces then U+0335 and U+0308 in word. Thanks, Kjoonlee; I was asssuming it was one symbol. The only problem with your suggestion was that the umlaut was off center. With a little searching I found the hyphen I mentioned before (U+0335) in Word's symbol dialog. Thanks guys =)  Laptopdude  Talk  01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual symbol is U+2E1A (Unicode PDF chart), but you'd need a comprehensive Unicode font installed to access it - none of the standard Windows ones seem to include it. Bazza (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Code2000 has it. I see that the character after ⸚ is ⸛, the swung dash with a circle over it, also frequently found in dictionaries to indicate the headword with the capitalization switched. —Angr 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You could use a bare umlaut with 'strikeout' style: ¨. —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

September 9

Own the fact

What does "own the fact" mean?

Source: Blue Stockings Society (England) It was considered “unbecoming” for them to know Greek or Latin, almost immodest for them to be authors, and certainly indiscreet to own the fact.

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Own can mean admit, so in the example above, it would be indiscreet for them to admit to knowing Greek or Latin. DuncanHill (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen "own up to" in that sense of admit; in the U.S. it has the connotation of being somewhat against your will. "At first Mayor Kirkpatrick strongly denied any wrongdoing, but once the text messages were made public, he owned up to an affair with his chief of staff." That seems like the Blue Stocking usage. Lately, I've seen "you own your words," especially on blogs, which has a different sense: you are responsible for what you say. --- 12:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Own up to" is current in British English, "own" (as in the original question) is somewhat old-fashioned. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

American English too. —Angr 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychotherapists and that ilk talk about "owning one's experience", which sounds a bit dumb at surface level, but it refers to talking about the emotional aspects of your own experience in the first person and past tense, and using factual, descriptive language ("When this occurred, I felt betrayed") rather than the 2nd person and present tense, and using general language ("When this sort of thing happens to you, you feel betrayed"). -- JackofOz (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that "owning" my experience or yours? The Queen seems to stick to using "one" unassailably. 09:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Verb

Trying to find the verb that relates to 'excursion' meaning to go out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.154.239 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a commonly used one - in primary school we would "go on an excursion". I can imagine a theoretical "excourse", but it's not a word I've ever heard used. Steewi (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's excurse, actually. The OED has a few quotes from 1748 to 1891. Algebraist 11:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I hope it doesn't eventuate that people find reasons to excurse with this one. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn used to be a curse, but it's eventuated that it no longer carries the meaning it once had, so it's now an ex-curse.  :) (Sorry, I tried to bite my tongue, but that course of action didn't eventuate) (Sorry again).  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions of this type can be answered by the use of a thesaurus, by which I mean a thesaurus in the original linguistic sense, with nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and sometimes other words carefully organized in relation to each other. (I do not mean a dictionary of synonyms and antonyms which has been called a "thesaurus" for marketing purposes.) The index to the fourth edition of Roget's Thesaurus lists "excursion" with seven sublisted senses: circuitousness, detour, deviation, digression, journey, obliquity, and sight-seeing. Those senses have some overlap.

Depending on the sense desired, some possible corresponding verbs are as follows.

circuitousness: circulate, go around in circles

detour: detour, make a detour

deviation: deviate, digress, turn aside

digression: digress, wander, excurse (!), maunder

journey: travel, wayfare, journey, jaunt, peregrinate

obliquity: deviate, diverge, divagate

sight-seeing: sight-see, see the sights

The original request did not stipulate that the verb must be a cognate of the word "excursion". However, one verb related in meaning is "excurse", which is also related in etymology. You can see links to definitions of "excurse" at excurse - OneLook Dictionary Search.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 10

Business letter with multiple signatures

If you're writing a letter with multiple signees, is the correct way to format the signatures in a row horizontally, or one after another vertically? Assuming it's horizontally, should the signature of the highest-ranking person be farthest to the left or to the right?--Anakata (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that horizontal would be the standard arrangement, but I can imagine contexts where vertical might apply. Either way, the most important person's name would come first. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"ate" to rhyme with "wet" or "wait"?

Is it correct to say I ate it or I "et" it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.172.44 (talk • contribs)

It depends on who you ask. "Et" is the usual form in British English, AFAIK. (You need to be careful about what you mean by correct, though. Grammaticality and acceptability are two different things.) --Kjoonlee 03:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have lived 7 years in England and I assure you that I have never seen "et" written anywhere there. I also have never heard it pronounced differently from "ate" so I assume people did not mean to say "et" but always means to mean "ate". I think it is a colloquial Southern Americanism. --Lgriot (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not spelled "et", but I have definitely heard "ate" pronounced [ɛt] by Englishmen and -women. —Angr 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that "et" was once the standard pronunciation, but it went out of general use. My grandparents used to say it this way. The usual objection to saying "et" nowadays is that the spelling would then become counter-intuitive - the unstated corollary being that as there's never been a single known instance of a counter-intuitive pronunciation of an English word, to make an exception in this solitary case would be wrong, terribly wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I learnt my English in Greater London, where everyone I know said [ɛt], not [eɪt]. --Kjoonlee 09:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As a good old englishman (well not old) I can confirm that I switch between the two. Sometimes I 'eight' (ate)it and sometimes I 'ett' (ate) it. I would say the latter seems to be more of a local/regional thing, while the 'eight' pronunciation is what I would expect say a news reader or radio presenter to use. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone pronounced it [eɪt] (like "eight") 200 years ago. It may well be a modern spelling pronunciation. —Angr 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"et" is nonstandard or regional in American English. In British English, both are standard and dictionaries still list "et" first, but I reckon "ate" is gaining and "et" will go the way of "weskit" and "Bartlemy" in a generation or two. jnestorius^(talk) 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some related information in the following.

• The article on vowel shift and some of the articles linked contextually from it
• The article on dialect and the websites listed under "External links"

Those pages discuss differences over time and space.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Professor Alan S C Ross in How to pronounce it is unequivocal. It rhymes with wet, not wait. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what you meant to say was that, in 1970, "et" was U and "eight" was non-U. jnestorius^(talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Professor Ross described it as "paramount and not associated with any particular region. This has been called 'Received Standard English'" (page 9). Kittybrewster ☎ 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Professor Ross has been dead for 28 years. jnestorius^(talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Has there been a preferred authority since his death? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Was there ever a preferred authority? "Authority" smacks too much of prescription rather than description. I don't doubt that in 1970 in much of England educated people would have thought less of you for saying "eight" rather "et". I'm sure that is much less true now and that in another 40 years many people will think less of you for saying "et" rather than "eight". FWIW my favourite pronouncing dictionary is Wells' Longman, which is regularly revised. jnestorius^(talk) 19:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and according to the second (2000) edition of Wells's Longman, a 1988 opinion poll of British speakers showed that of those born before 1923, less than 30% pronounced ate "eight"; of those born between 1923 and 1962, a little more than 40% said "eight", and of those born since 1962, around 65% said "eight". But he still lists "et" as the preferred British pronunciation; it's the one written in blue rather than black, meaning it's the pronunciation foreigners learning English should (in his opinion) be taught to emulate. For American English, on the other hand, "et" is marked "considered incorrect/non-standard". —Angr 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that this has its roots in regional dialectal differences rather than a spelling pronunciation. Most spelling pronunciations involve words, often from French or Norman French, that were given an etymologizing spelling, sometimes based on a false etymology. This is a one-syllable strong verb derived from Anglo-Saxon. Probably the spelling "ate" reflects a Middle English pronunciation of [aːtɘ] in some region of England, which the Great Vowel Shift would have changed to [eɪt] in modern dialects. These dialects could have become the basis for General American (which includes many features from the old speech of the "West Country" of England). The Middle English pronunciation might have been [ɛt] in some other region (East Anglia, East Midlands?) whose dialect became the basis for the pronunciation favored in 18th- or 19-century England. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this headed "Grammar"? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Not as bad as "Question", a frequent guest on these pages. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiro in 1671

Maybe this belongs under Entertainment – I tossed a mental coin ...

In an episode of Heroes, the time-traveler says in Japanese that he was in Japan 1671. I listened several times to that line in the hopes of extracting something. I don't think he said literally "1671", nor did he say Kanbun (era). Anyone know what he did say? —Tamfang (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I found it online, and he does (at about 15:00) say "sen roppyaku nanajuu ichinen". For what it's worth, in the approximately 1.5 episodes of Heroes that I've seen now, the Japanese has always accurately matched the subtitles. -- BenRG (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Thus we learn that I don't know the numbers well enough to know what to listen for. When is nana preferred to shichi? — It has struck me that the Japanese dialogue often uses pronouns where I'd expect them to be omitted, suggesting an overly literal translation from English, but what do I know! —Tamfang (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The only time I've heard shichi was on radio taiso. --Kjoonlee 04:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Shichi" tends to be used before counters that start with "n" (e.g. "shichinin", "shichinen"), probably because three ens in a row would sound odd. I can't think of any other general rules, except that "nana" is more common overall. I think even native speakers get confused, so don't worry too much about it. -- BenRG (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Harriot

How do you pronounce Harriot's last name? Is it hair-ree-utt, or har-ree-oh? Black Carrot (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard the name pronounced, but since he was English, not French, and since his name was sometimes spelled with two T's, my money is on the first option. —Angr 13:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As an Englishman, my guess would be [ˈhæriːət]. I wasn't born in the sixteenth century though. Algebraist 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be [ˈhæriət] to rhyme with chariot. --Kjoonlee 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative limerick time! I'll start us off: There once was an old man name Harriot / Who used to drive round in a chariot. —Angr 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He loved it all right / Was love at first sight! / He even decided to marry it. --Kjoonlee 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Final rhyme doesn't work in my accent. Can we get Judas Iscariot in somehow? Algebraist 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it didn't rhyme in mine either. I aimed for an assy-thingumy assonance instead. --Kjoonlee 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[5] always says his name to rhyme with chariot. Richard Avery (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the pronunciation of "chariot" varies regionally. In much of the USA, it is pronounced [ˈtʃɛriət], though in my own dialect it is [ˈtʃæriət], as in the British RP. The spelling would suggest that the latter pronunciation is the older form, and I don't think that the later stages of the Great Vowel Shift would have affected this much, so this was very likely the 16th-century pronunciation. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I think whatever one's pronunciation of "chariot" is, one's pronunciation of "Harriot" is going to rhyme with it. —Angr 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Chariot, Harriot and marry it rhyme well enough for me. But for the rest of you: There once was an old man named Harriot / Who used to drive round in a chariot / When he betrayed with a kiss / They gave him a hiss / For they thought he was Judas Iscariot. Gwinva (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Neat! --Kjoonlee 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, lariat and Garriott rhyme with chariot as well. --Kjoonlee 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There once was young man named Harriot / Who used to drive round in a chariot / His manner was coarse / He resembled his horse / So they tied him up with a lariat. Gwinva (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A(n) historian crank, name of Harriot,

Fixed scimitar blades to his chariot --

Yet no ticket, no fine

Then, one day, cut in line

And was roundly condemned, like Iscariot.

--- OtherDave (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, much better than mine. But, if we're allowed to abandon Angr's original two lines, then:

There once was a young man named Harriot / Who worked for a large secretariat / His filing was poor, / He was kicked out the door / So he went to work for the Marriott. Gwinva (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't work for me. I say "Marriott" with a full vowel in the last syllable, not a shwa. —Angr 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. en.wikipedia: a people divided by a common language. (But I must confess, that doesn't rhyme as well for me as Kjoonlee's "marry it".) Feeling driven to produce something which meets approval, I offer my latest effort (which has nothing to do with Harriot, I'm afraid):

There once was a young Wikipedian

Whose efforts were never acedian

As his edits did mount

He began to lose count

But still he fell short of the median

—Gwinva (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Issue (periodical and newspaper terminology)

The newspaper article refers to, for example, the "weekend edition" vs. "weekday edition" of a daily. I understand that a single, physical paper one gets delivered by subscription, or purchases at a newsstand, is a "copy." So what's an "issue" and what's being numbered? The case I need to describe is a weekly periodical for which my source (excerpts) provides only the number, month and year. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See the definition #5. Oda Mari (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks; however I'm not convinced that "issue" is entirely synonymous with "a copy [sic] of a magazine or newspaper published on a particular date"—though I've heard the term "Back issues" or even "Back numbers" to refer to older, ummm, editions in stock. Perhaps there's a BE/AE usage issue here? (What I need is US usage.) In my experience, Encarta usually notes variant usage, but here there's no indication. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at a copy of the tabloid periodical for teachers Reading Today; under the title at the top of the first page appears "Vol. 25, No. 4, February/March 2008". In this case, "4" is the issue number—it's the fourth number published in the yearly volume. (One could say that only "No. 4" or "February/March 2008" would be sufficient to identify this issue, but it's customary to give both in bibliographical references.) Not all periodicals, however, use the volume/issue scheme of numbering (if they do, the information is usually found on the contents page or in the masthead somewhere in the first few pages of a copy). If you don't have actual copies of the periodical to consult, I guess you'll have to include only what's available, as long as it's sufficient to identify particular issues. Deor (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Then compare the definitions. Oda Mari (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Number may be an absolute sequence across the entire history of the publication, or it may be the sequence within a Volume; volumes are usually one per year. Looking at this source for Der Stürmer it looks like the "Volume" is implicitly the calendar year, with the "Number" being sequenced by week within that year (e.g. Issue 12 in March, Issue 48 in November).

A difference between issue and edition for daily newspapers is that there may be multiple editions of a given issue; the issue for March 3 2007 may have an Early edition, Provincial edition, City edition and Final edition, with minor updates for late-breaking news, sports results, errata, etc. jnestorius^(talk) 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of variations. A local newspaper here (Canada) is published three times per week. Each issue has four editions, one for the south part of the city, one for central, one for north, and one for east. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the difference between "issue" and "copy", you might say that 100,000 copies were printed of the paper's September 10 issue. --Anonymous, 20:01 UTC, September 10, 2008.

The recent wide adoption of incorrect pronunciation

In the last couple of years it has become commonplace to pronounce certain words differently from what we have used all my lifetime.(I am 78 years old) I refer to privacy, pry-vacy now said privvessy; finance (and derivatives), fy-nance now said finnance etc.; kilometre,killo-meeter now said killommeter, all often said by people one would think ought to know better. Wikepedia treats questions on mispronunciation as referring to regional accents rather than the dubious habit of distorting words which appears to be becoming fashionable. Is it already too late to reverse the trend? ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.85.234 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But language always changes; you wouldn't want to reverse that trend. --Kjoonlee 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Do You Speak American . What Lies Ahead? . Change . Changin | PBS. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But the pronunciations you've used all your life are different from those used by others. For instance, "privvassy" has always been standard in some places. Ditto "finnance," "killommeter," and many countless others. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some dialectal differences are discussed in the article on American and British English pronunciation differences. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Languages always change; perhaps some of the pronunciations you used in your youth were looked on by the older generation as ugly, modern and faddish. We are also be subject to the "recency illusion": the belief that something you've only recently noticed must be a recent phenomenon; often (in language and elsewhere) it can have existed for ages before you noticed it. Others have mentioned dialect differences; modern global communications expose people to a greater variety of accents and dialects than in earlier days. jnestorius^(talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see recency illusion and jamais vu. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The question "Is it already too late to reverse the trend?" involves two components: ability and willingness.

To decide whether the trend can be reversed, it is useful to examine what is causing the trend. I can suggest four influences, as follows.

• More influence from the entertainment media than from language instruction
• Inadequate help for immigrants learning English
• Expedient linguistic changes for marketing purposes
• Excessively busy lifestyles, with too little time for analyzing language

Can those influences be reversed?

Whether there is a willingness to reverse the trend involves individual and collective attitudes. Possibly each individual person welcomes some changes and does not welcome other changes.

Someone (with limited influence) who wants to make a (limited) difference can promote his/her preferences by both use and mention in daily conversations, calls to radio stations, podcasts, and self-organized enunciation classes; and by enlisting the help of like-minded individuals to do likewise. It can be like holding back the tide. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Western US, privacy is still 100% pry, and finance is 100% fy; the alternatives would simply be viewed as nonstandard (ie, wrong) here. However, I hear both kill-o-meter, and kill-AH-muhter; I expect this last word is changing because we don't use kilometers much out here. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments on privacy and finance. When I was younger (I'm in my 50s now), privacy in Australia was always, always pronounced privvessy. One undressed in the privvessy of one's bedroom, for example. That changed somewhere down the track; and with the advent in the 1980s of the Privacy legislation (which has had far more unintended social consequences than any problems it addressed - but that's another story), it's become cemented in as pry-vasy. Re finance, there was always a distinction between the verb "to finance" (which was pronounced fə-NANCE), and the noun "finance" (which was pronounced FIE-nance) - or maybe it was the other way around. The point of my uncertainty being that this distinction was known to few people, not including myself; and it's become so arcane now that it's virtually extinct. Margaret Thatcher, for example, always honoured the distinction, but her way of speaking was typical only of herself. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One way to have influence on English pronunciation is to volunteer for Category:Spoken articles. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Change and decay in all around I see", and pronunciation is constantly changing. No doubt King Charles II would have sneered at the way Queen Victoria pronounced certain words, and she in her turn would be horrified by what passes for upper class English in the 21st century. It's part of the human condition to regret such change and to believe worse is coming to worst. But even the Queen's own English goes on evolving. She sounds quite different now from the way she sounded in her early public speeches. Strawless (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Linguists always cringe when people describe the results of natural language change as degradation or some other description that assumes that the way people spoke before was better. Really both are equal in quality. Sure, the attempts of institutions to formalize speech and the perceptions of many people that certain forms of speech are better could motivate portions of the population to keep their pronunciation and grammar more in line with earlier forms, and it might be frustrating to such people when changes to the language occur in spite of these factors. But this is all under the false assumption that language change is language degradation.

I would also like to say that I find Wavelength's list pretty unconvincing. There's no evidence that mass media affects the way people speak, the way immigrants speak results in varieties of English not in the pronunciation of a handful of words, and other than made-up words (Paxil, Viagra, Sony, kleenex), I know of nothing any marketing team or teams have done to influence the way people speak. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of language regulators. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't these all be questions of dialect, rather than being right or wrong? The same goes for spelling, defence (UK) and defense (USA) is a popular example. You can celebrate the diversity of language, or tell people they have used the wrong pronunciation in the wrong place - which is hardly productive. These alternative pronunciations are all correct in the right dialect. It is simply that you see more of the world now than you did in your day. People always used these pronunciations, just in different parts of the world.78.149.102.146 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ь/Ъ?

I know Ъ in Russian is used to pronounce hard /j/ sound in a consonant-iotation cluster (as in съесть). The thing I don't understand is that Ь often replaces it (as in статья). Up until now I thought this was a common spelling mistake like е/ё, but as I saw it in the dictionary and I see it on ru.wiki, I have come to a conclusion that this is some spelling quirk I haven't heard of. Could someone explain what is this used for and how is it pronounced? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC) In статья, it signifies that the я is separately pronounced from the т. --ChokinBako (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If I've understood things correctly (full disclosure: I don't actually know Russian, but I know a handful of random facts about Russian), ъ before an iotating vowel letter like e or я means the consonant before the /j/ sound is hard (velarized), while ь before an iotating vowel letter means the consonant before the /j/ sound is soft (palatalized). Thus съесть is [sˠjestʲ] with a hard s, while статья is [statʲja] with a soft t. —Angr 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You've understood correctly, the salient point being that without the soft sign the я in статья would soften the т while losing its iotation, whereas with the soft sign present the т is softened and the я keeps its iotation. Koolbreez (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So that means статъя would be pronounced /statˈja/, right? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You've used the symbol for stress in between the /t/ and /j/, indicating the stress is on the final syllable. Maybe it is, but if so, the ъ doesn't tell us that. If статъя were a word it would have a hard (velarized) /t/ sound followed by a /j/. And if статя were a word it would be [statʲa] with a soft (palatalized) /t/ and no /j/ sound. But I must admit it's difficult for me to pronounce the set [atˠja] – [atʲja] – [atʲa] and reliably keep an acoustically salient difference between all members. If I think about it, I can do it, but if I were actually jabbering away at a normal conversational rate I think all three would collapse together as [atʲja]. —Angr 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the normal conversational rate of most Russians is such that the difference is barely audibly discernible, if at all. It then comes down to a spelling rule that learners and slavoscribes just have to remember. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that hard consonants are not always velarized. Sources I've found say such consonants are only velarized before back vowels (/u/ and /o/). So it may be a little easier to pronounce [sjestʲ]. Though, as said above, palatalizing that s is probably pretty common outside of formal circles. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the substitution of е for ё is no spelling error. Many (most?) printed works don't use ё because you can usually tell what the word is anyway. Strad (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of grey with this question. I was taught that ё is not a formal letter, although it does appear in many lists of Cyrillic letters. It's just that e is sometimes pronounced -ye- and sometimes -yo-. To make it easier for learners, the ё is used where the -yo- pronunciation is required. But I've seen completely contradictory theories about this, so I wonder if anyone really knows the truth, or if, indeed, there is a "truth". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese

How would you say "Tell me that thing you heard" in Japanese? Thanks in advance. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kiita kotowo hanashite kudasai. 聞いたことを話してください。 --Kjoonlee 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to say it, kotowo is pronounced "kotō" (the final o being long with no w sound).--El aprendelenguas (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly pronounced as in "kotō", because the 'wo' is pronounced distinctly and separately from the preceeding '-o', with a sort of labial glide, almost approximating to a 'w'. This happens only after '-o' (and -u, where it is obviously unavoidable), and normally the 'w' is not pronounced at all.--ChokinBako (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

September 11

Quenya

Aiya.

This wonderful site says that "Respective: Sg. -s, pl. -is, part.pl. -lis, dual -tes." This makes sense. But does this transfer over to Black Speech? This guys article on Orkish doesn't really help me there, and I was wondering anyone here knew how much of Quenya is used in Black Speech. Eruhantalë-tesil. ^_^ Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, almost nothing is known about Tolkien's "Black Speech" of Sauron, except the Ring Inscription, the words for "old man" and "fire", and one sentence in the LOTR novel which is in a debased and corrupt form of Black Speech... AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien's other books give more detail on all the languages. Black Speech though, as you said, has little known about it. It is copied from Quenya, with some more... hedonistic changes made, but it follows the same grammar system (as far as I know, hence the question) almost exactly. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what "hedonistic" is supposed to mean in this context... Within the Tolkienverse, Sauron presumably based the Black Speech partially on Quenya and/or Valarin -- but in a deliberately twisted and distorted way, so that it would not be correct to assume that Tolkien intended any particular feature of Quenya to carry over to the Black Speech. AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Speech. There you go. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin: Hierosylma est perditus. Or perdita?

In Hip Hip Hooray, we cite RS that it's perditus. The article Hep-Hep riots has it as "perdita". It's an awfully long time since I studied Latin, and I wasn't much good at it anyway, so I haven't a clue; perhaps both are correct, for different usage? Please can a Latin scholar help out. As both articles seem to be using RS, we might need a "sic" for one. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perdita. Hierosolyma is feminine, so the adjective needs to be feminine too. —Angr 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that the RS called it medieval Latin - I know enough about the subject to know that in the medieval period, usage of the language was somewhat, shall we say barbarised. Could this account for incorrect usage, or is the barbarism entirely that of a modern author/subeditor? --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more likely to be modern. Medieval Latin was stylistically simpler than Classical Latin, but since the people who used it were for the most part themselves speakers of languages with fully fledged grammatical gender systems, that aspect of Latin grammar is something they were likely to get right. The error may be in the book cited as the source, or it may be with the Wikipedian who copied the information from the book. Either way, the etymology is extremely likely to be false, as with almost all cases of words alleged to derive from pre-20th century acronyms (e.g. For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, Port Out Starboard Home, etc.). —Angr 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That'd be me, not him. Blast :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some first-declension (i.e ending in -a) nouns that are masculine, classical words like poeta and nauta, and medieval ones like papa and patriarcha, which are all borrowed from Greek I guess. Hierosolyma comes from Greek too, but since it's not an occupation usually held by men, it is just a regular feminine noun like Roma. A quick glance through William of Tyre, who lived in Jerusalem during the crusades, suggests it was always feminine for him. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about the poeta/nauta things too, but not only is Hierosolyma not an occupation, it is a city, and cities tend to be feminine even when they end in -us and belong to the second declension (I can't think of an example of the top of my head but I know they exist), so the ones ending in -a and belonging to the first declension are virtually guaranteed to be feminine. —Angr 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Having now seen the source, I don't think it looks reliable. This sort of etymology is very popular and is almost certain to be bullshit. —Angr 13:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I've got William open, his own see, Tyrus, is always feminine. I don't like that source either, I really don't see the crusaders running around shouting "hep!" They had plenty of slogans but I don't remember ever seeing that one. It's not very encouraging, so it doesn't even make sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are loads of others (better). Equally there are ones that disagree (while at the same time confirming the notability, if not the accuracy of the assertion!). It'd be good to get some dissent into the article, per its talk page. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The medieval part is probably the word order -- in Classical Latin, the word order "Hierosolyma perdita est" would have been more usual (cf. "Carthago delenda est"). AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "delenda est" a gerundive of obligation, ie it must be destroyed, rather than a statement of fact, it is destroyed? --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't matter because you could also say "Cartago deleta est" and it's the same word order. Est can go at the end of the clause like any other verb, despite being a copula. I've seen est (or other forms of sum, esse) often used both inbetween subject and complement (SVC), and after both subject and complement (SCV), as an auxiliary or copula..--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have always been skeptical of this etymology. Do you think that semiliterate drunken mobs of 19th-century antisemites were fluent in Latin? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar, isn't it? Mind you, even inebriated, ill-educated mobs can probably handle Latin abbreviated to just three letters in a handy, pre-packaged and pronuncible acronym. After all, they presumably would have easily handled the three letter Hebrew acronym Amen, without knowing its origins. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Translations

Hello. Although I speak about 20-25 languages, I need the surname 'Smith' translated into Ukrainian, which I don't speak. Feel free to leave comments on my talk page- not here as I won't be checking here, I'll only ask again. And again. Chris Wattson (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Smith would be коваль, but surnames aren't usually translated. Сміт is the transliteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you ask here, you get an answer here. Them's the rules. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice way to approach someone who knows something you don't, with a request to find that thing out. And following it up with a threat to be a juvenile nuisance? Well, usually, to paraphrase Hobson, one must go to a bowling alley to meet a [person] of your stature. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I know it's rude to make fun, but after Chris's language-dropping intro here, making him one of the greatest polyglots of all time, I can't resist pointing out that he's volunteered to supply the first 25 digits of pi, which he "happens to know", at pi, "if it helps the article". (The article lists the first 50 and links to 10,000.)

Delete that if I've gone overboard. kwami (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. In any case, he won't see any of the above because he's made it quite clear he won't be checking. Not even once, let alone again. And again. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We should be honoured, you and I, Jack, that we have been graced by one of our Prime Ministers, and one of the first Labor heads of state in the world. Steewi (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Head of government, shurely? Algebraist 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Who by rights should never have been eligible because he wasn't a British subject, having been born of German parentage in Valparaiso, Chile, of all places. Yes, Algebraist, he was a head of government. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

avoiding a split infinitive

"I set up a bell to automatically ring whenever someone came in the door" is not grammatically correct because of the split infinitive ("to ... ring"). One way to fix it would be to say: "I set up a bell to ring automatically whenever someone came in the door", but this still does not seem correct. Should there be a comma after "automatically" or should it be written entirely differently altogether? 137.148.204.138 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article you linked? It's hardly a given that a split infinitive is automatically incorrect. Such prescriptivism is something up with which I shall not put. --LarryMac | Talk 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the sentence is very much grammatically correct. It's just bad style if you happen to be talking, for instance, to HM Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Most non-native English speakers would not find anything wrong with it, I dare to presume. JIP | Talk 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not hesitate to boldly say that the Queen probably splits them herself. --Kjoonlee 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are trying to avoid the split infinitive for whatever reason though, I'd say your second proposed sentence is fine, although I'd probably use "anyone" instead of "someone" in both cases. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd make it "whenever anyone comes through the door". But then, I wouldn't have been troubled in the first place by this Greatest furphy of all time (what? still no article??). More words have been written about the non-existent issue of the split infinitive than about things that really matter. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My exemplar of English-language style, The Economist, splits not never no infinitive, no-how, no-way. I propose we rise up and cast off the shackles of our oppressors - infinitives must always be split! Death to those who would force William Shatner to unctuate "boldly to go"! Franamax (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That is of course their choice, and I would defend to the death their right to make such a choice. But if such a choice were made on the basis that to do otherwise would be wrong, that would have been a very bad choice, imho. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"To go" is not the infinitive form of the verb. "Go" is the infinitive, "to" is a preposition used in front of it. One may as well talk about "The green cat" as being a split substantive. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Infinitive says. "To" is a particle (not a preposition, btw), and "go" is the bare form of the infinitive, but the 2-word expression is correctly called the infinitive. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Will you tell Otto Jespersen that or shall I? DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought that no one analytical linguist gets to decide these matters unilaterally. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

T. R. Lounsbury & Ernest Gowers call it a preposition too, and even if you want to call it a particle, it started out as a preposition, and was often seperated from the verb from the start. Anyway, it's a silly rule. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That, at least, is one thing we can agree 100% on. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You, me, and Bernard Shaw! DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You could also consider amending the sentence to read "through the door", or, better, "through the doorway", since generally only people with large mallets come through doors. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Russian question

My two Russian co-workers keep using a word that sounds like "karuchi". What the heck does it mean? JIP | Talk 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

короче. It means "basically/ in short/ briefly", and just like those English words it can be and is used just to fill in space in a sentence. You know, like, basically. Koolbreez (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. This raises an interesting additional question - "basically / in short / briefly" is one of the very few words/idioms that I fully understand the concept of, but have not found a way to express it in my native Finnish. It is embarassing to find out you know some concept better in a foreign language than in your native language. JIP | Talk 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

JIP, I'm sure there are Finnish expressions for which other languages lack clear equivalents. That's part of what makes other languages interesting: they can be like another form of thinking. (My favorite example is the lack of an exact word for "yes," "no," and "to know" in Scottish Gaelic. Good for overturning preconceptions.) Your comment made me look for Finnish idioms, and I have to say I really like en minä voi siksi muuttua. The site gave an English translation as "I can't change into that," but explained the meaning as "a desired object simply isn't available, no matter how much someone keeps asking for it." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Areas of study and capitalization

Should areas of study be capitalized? Such as "John Doe went to Whatsamatta U. where he majored in Underwater Basket Weaving". Dismas|^(talk) 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally not, though I can imagine some style guides might disagree. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In English, I've only seen that for languages ("He majored in Pottsylvanian literature") and words derived from proper names ("...and minored in Thomistic theology"). Otherwise, maybe in constructions like "dean of the School of Engineering at Whatsammatta U." -- OtherDave (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentence structure; particples, gerunds... all that sort of stuff

When I read the following sentence: "since the inhibitors under investigation form covalent bonds...", I have to slow down when I reach the word 'form' in order to understand its function in the sentence. Alternatively, if I read the sentence: "since the inhibitors under investigation are known to form covalent bonds...", I don't have to slow down or stop at all; the sentence flows much more nicely in my opinion. I lack the required understanding of grammar to diagnose the problem myself, but "instinctively", I suggest that the first sentence has a failing. Is it grammatically incorrect? --Seans Potato Business 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see nothing wrong with it from a grammatical perspective. Your preferred version is fine too, although it introduces the concept of persuasion - the facts are not simply asserted, they're supported by reference to some unnamed authority "knowing" them to be true - which makes the overall meaning subtly different. From a Plain English point of view, I'd prefer the former one. The latter one introduces words that aren't essential to the meaning; "are known to form" is in passive voice, which Plain Anglicists like to use as the exception rather than the rule. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine Sean is stumbling over 'form' because it could be a noun in the first sentence, whereas in the second it is made very clear it is a verb. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't that transform 'investigation' into an adjective. Is there such an adjective-noun pair as "investigation form"? I suppose it's possible in that context. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Garden path sentence. --ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

latinise this please?

I'm looking for an authentic-sounding taxonomic name for a fantasy plant popularly called the architectural poppy - can anyone help?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Papaver ædificium. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wonderful, so quick! - thanks heapsAdambrowne666 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"nannettikafruit" / "nannetticafruit" (nanettikafruit)

I'm looking for confirmation that this is a real word meaning 'pitaya'- the only mention on here is a redirect created exactly one year ago, and I can't find much else anywhere else on the web (it's listed as an alternative spelling on wiktionary because it's listed on here). Also if it is- any ideas on the etymology? 70.162.28.222 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See here and here. Nothing with a C, though. kwami (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking about the C spelling, or both? If the C spelling, it may have been intended as a redirect from a common misspelling, though I could come up with lots of ways to misspell this word, if given half a chance! kwami (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't find an etymology. kwami (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

September 12

Can somebody translate this into Latin?

How do you say "That which cannot be questioned cannot be challenged." in Latin?

I've kinda decided recently that this is my personal motto, since I believe that one must question everything, if someone can convince you that something shouldn't be questioned (a lot of religions do this) then that something controls you, so you must question everything. It has a lot of meaning to me. Anyway, I always liked Latin and since a lot of mottos are in Latin, I'd like to know how to say this one in Latin.

Thanks a lot! :D 63.245.144.77 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, very literally how about "quod non potest dubitari non potest provocari". There is probably a shorter, pithier way to say it though. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, as long as the meaning is still there, I don't care what wording is used. It would be better to choose something smaller and "pithier", though I can't think of any better way to say the same thing. Help would be greatly appreciated! :) 63.245.144.77 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "indubitabile non provocandum est". Perhaps I am trying to make it too pithy...(and now it says "must not be challenged" instead of "cannot"). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, changing the wording in that way would take the meaning out of it. I mean to say that if someone convinces you that an idea, organization, or some other entity cannot be challenged (as in dissent against it cannot be tolerated) then that thing controls you.

For example. The terrorists who carried out 9/11. You've probably seen the surveillance camera footage where they walked into the airport to hijack the planes. What if they had stopped and questioned what they were about to do right there? Then 9/11 would never have happened. But they didn't. They just went ahead and ended their lives for a false idea. Why? Because they had been convinced that they COULDN'T question it. They were controlled by a lie.

My point is "must not be challenged" would be wrong here. I mean "cannot be challenged". I suppose if someone can find a better way to word this that'd be great. 63.245.144.77 (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it work as something like "what is not questioned prevails" (prevail from Latin: praevalere have greater power) but in Latin of course. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That might work better. How do you say it that way? 63.245.144.77 (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Non dubitatum praevalet". Or you could just make Question Authority your personal motto. —Angr 10:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's not just authority I question, it's everything. The burden of proof is on the individual making any claim to prove that their claim is correct, so any claim must be questioned whether it's a claim that their authority is legitimate or any other claim. Anyway, this is off topic. I think I'm most fond of the first one that was suggested even though it's long ("quod non potest dubitari non potest provocari"). I hope that that's all correct Latin and everything (I know Latin grammar is a pain) because I don't wanna end up looking silly. :)

Thanks! 63.245.144.77 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration brick wall

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I am trying to find where I can transliterate words from one alphabet (i.e. this one) into a few other languages' writing systems. It's for a fiction, so none of the words can be found in a dictionary; which is where I get stuck as most of the places I've found only translate. Are there places where I can just play with the established writing systems to transliterate words from one alphabet to another? I found places to do so with Hangul, Cyrillic and Hindi but I'm having no luck with Armenian, Persian, Georgian and Thai. Thankies!! Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By Persian, do you mean modern Persian (i.e. Farsi, written with a slightly modified Arabic alphabet), or ancient Persian, written in a cuneiform syllabary. For Farsi, you might have better luck using an Arabic transliterator. The drawback will be that p, g and ch will be transliterated differently. If you can't find that, an Urdu transliterator will have a similar result. For Armenian and Georgian, the correspondences aren't particularly difficult, so using an alphabet chart, and then entering the letters manually might work - you'll have to temporarily set up your computer for Armenian and Georgian keyboards, but it's not difficult. Still, if there's an online way to do it, that would be easier. Here's one for Georgian. Put it in the top box and click the button with the Georgian text - the output is unicode. Steewi (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

here's one for Armenian Steewi (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thai is more difficult - there's not a one to wone correspondence, and some letters change pronunciation depending on where they are in a syllable. You probably need a Thai speaker to help you with that one. Oh, and a note on the other ones, you might want to convert them back into latin text afterwards to make sure it's still good, and perhaps post the transliterations for speakers to check them. Remember that you can't convert, say, Louise, by putting Louise in the box and transliterating it, because the output will be pronounced something like low-iss-ee. You would get better results with putting in "luiz" or "luwiz". That's why you want to get them checked afterwards. Interesting work you're doing though. Good luck! Steewi (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would check on omniglot.com, they've got a lot of writing systems explained clearly enough to transliterate (although I would definitely still get it checked). СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 04:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some language pairs are rendered into the target language (in your case, the foreign language) by transcription—according to the phonology, how the source language word is pronounced—and not transliteration (letter-by-letter correspondence). A standard uses in texts for publication probably already exists, and is not necessarily the same as a chart of letter correspondences made for language students. Familiar example: the Polish letter "ę" is transcribed/transliterated as "en" in English (e.g. Walensa for Wałęsa), but rendered in Hebrew there's no letter "נ" to represent the [n] sound. Further with the same example: for the Polish "ł" both English and Hebrew use their letter for the [l] sound even though the sound approaches [w], and the Polish "w" remains so in English (and is probably mispronounced as the English [w] though Polish pronounces it as [v] ). In the past, I've consulted (via e-mail) the regional languages staff at the U.S. Library of Congress for into-English transliteration, so they may be able to provide some guidance regarding the standards existing in the other direction. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

catarct suregry (phaco)

I was operated for cataract surgery (3rd August 2008) and the Doctor says that he has incurred some complications and that some parts of the lense which he has removed are spread in the eye and I see them in the eye (floating). Please inform me in detail about this compliucation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.72.19.6 (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We're a reference desk for questions about languages and language usage. You need to ask your doctor about the medical issues you're having. —Angr 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical case – sample sentences?

I was just visiting the Grammatical case article. It contains examples of eight grammatical cases said to be common in Indo-European languages: nominative, accusative, dative, ablative, genitive, vocative, locative and instrumental. The example sentences are, however, in English, followed by all sorts of caveats including this one: "it is debatable whether the above examples of English sentences can be said to be examples of 'case' in English."

So, does anyone know which language would actually have all eight of these cases, and would it be possible to construct sample sentences in that language that illustrate the cases much better than the English sentences do? Thanks, WikiJedits (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit has all eight. —Angr 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the use of the phrase "head to head" to indicate a contest

How did "head to head" come to mean a contest or battle between two parties? I searched Google and Wikipedia and repeatedly came up with tête à tête, which has a much friendlier connotation. 67.209.3.112 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Rebecca

Total guess on my part but probably something to do with animals like stags and rams doing battle. - X201 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)