Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

October 4

I double dog dare ya

What it means to double dog dare someone to do something? Are the consequences of declining a double dog dare somehow different than those for a single dog dare? What about for the issuer of the dare, if the dare is accepted? Is it possible for the recipient to escalate a double dog dare to triple dog before accepting it, and does this happen often, or is the original dare typically withdrawn at that point? Thank you for any enlightenment. 207.241.238.217 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we can't answer legal questions at the reference desk. —An gr 07:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can we help someone to abuse an animal's rights. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's been watching A Christmas Story. Deor (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these answers do justice to the question.

As I understand it, relying on old memories, "I double dog dare you to do X" means "I threaten unspecified but DIRE consequences if you do X.

If there is such a thing as a single dog dare, I don't recall it. Higher multiples of dog dares are certainly possible and were used. "I triple dog dare you." "I quadruple dog dare you."

Once a discussion went into dog dares, a common outcome would be an exchange of blows and a bleeding nose.

With all deference to BrainyBabe, I do not think the SPCA was concerned with double dog dares. But her name illustrates the value of alliteration, a very important feature of the name "double dog dare".

In regard to A Christmas Story, the term "double dog dare" goes back much further than 1983, when that entertainment was released.

Wanderer57 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, that movie takes place in the 1950s. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't; according to A Christmas Story#Dating the story it probably takes place in 1939. Anyway, I disagree that "I double dog dare you to do X" means "I threaten unspecified but DIRE consequences if you do X". I think it means "If you do X, I will keep or gain respect for you, and if you don't, I will regard you as a coward." —An gr 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Flanders might be able to answer this question. He's well known for his tmetic utterings. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to A Christmas Story was not intended to imply that "double dog dare" was coined for the film, merely to point out that the OP's questions seem to have been inspired by the flagpole scene in that film, in which Jean Shepherd's narration involves some of the finer points of the etiquette of dares (such as whether it's permissible to escalate directly from a double dog dare to a triple dog dare without uttering a plain triple dare). Last night, I looked through my copies of Shepherd's In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash and Wanda Hickey's Night of Golden Memories to see which story contained the scene, and it was nowhere to be found; so I guess Shepherd or one of the other writers came up with it for the film script. It certainly sounds like echt Shepherd, though. Deor (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the responses. I hadn't heard of that movie but have enjoyed some other work of Jean Shepherd so I may try to check the movie out. I heard the term "double dog dare" in some recent news commentary about a US presidential campaign speech (I forget which one) and I had to wonder how that was different from a single dog dare, so decided to ask here, etc. To BrainyBabe: I share your concern about animal cruelty issues but I'm fairly sure that no animals are harmed in an $n$ -dog dare for nonnegative integer $n$ . Dares involving fractional or negative dogs can of course be gruesome, and can result in dire retribution (see Hounds of Tindalos). We won't even talk about dares involving Schrödinger's dog (zero and one dogs simultaneously). 207.241.238.217 (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How young are young people?

Following on from the discussion on teenagers....

The phrase "young people" is used in British English almost to the exclusion of "teen", "teenager", "adolescent", etc. It is inherently ambiguous, in that it can refer to young adults, economically active people in their 20s (Young people have a hard time getting on the housing ladder); to minors (Young people must stay in education until they are 16); or to no clear age at all (Young people are responsible for most crime).

When did the phrase first ocme to be used in this all-covering and thus dubious way? Is it a euphemism? Is it used in this way in other dialects of English? What other phrases are used instead elsewhere? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing ordinary, demotic or formal English with journalese. "Young people" in this ambiguous sense sounds just like the kind of lazy phraseology journalists employ. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is, but it is also the UK government phrase of choice (along with "black and minority ethnic"). And from national and local government use, it appears everywhere in "services for young people". Does this include those of age? I do not know. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not journalese, and I think the inherent ambiguity is what makes it so useful. A 19 year old is a teenager, but not all his/her friends will be. And neither can you call the group "students", since some won't be. So "young people" covers it. 12 year olds aren't teenagers, either, but might need to be discussed in any education context. And so on...

I say "not journalese", because I've regularly heard it used in conversation, often to refer to a specific group context. (Club, church group, family grouping, crowd of friends etc) "What are the young people up to this weekend?" "The young people are organising a ski trip" etc. Gwinva (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a 30 year old and her 12 year old daughter are both "young people"? It's a muddle! BrainyBabe (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, but in different contexts. The daughter would not refer to her mother as a young person, but her grandmother might. Journos would not use young person as the primary description of anyone. You wouldn't read "The shop was held up by a young person", because even journos understand that such blatant ambiguity is unuseful. But they might get that label later on in the text, only after they'd already made it clear at least roughly how old the alleged offender was. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian-American"?

Is there a short and unmistakable way to name an immigrant to the USA from India (like Apu)? --KnightMove (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Indian-American". The Jade Knight (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and this would not be confused with American Indian? --KnightMove (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not generally, though, if you want to be really explicit, you would say "Indian American from India", or, if you're young: "Indian American, like from India". The Jade Knight (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We even have an article on Indian Americans. It says the U.S. Census Bureau prefers "Asian Indian" to avoid ambiguity. —An gr 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could escape by making it more specific: Bengali-American, Tamil-American. —Tamfang (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briefest/most efficient written language

Which language expresses information with the fewest characters, with (or transliterated into) the Roman alphabet? I know it depends on the topic because some languages have more words for certain things, depends on the speaker, etc., but in general.
(For example, "volo" is more efficient than "I want" or "quiero.")
Thanks. 72.88.210.96 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his book Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin the Danish linguist Otto Jespersen made the case that Chinese is the most efficient language, though his standard for efficiency may have been a little different from yours. For example, Jespersen didn't just look at the number of words used, but also thought that languages in which speakers must remember a lot of grammatical cases (rosa, rosae, rosae, rosam, rosa in Latin) are less efficient than those in which the word always stays the same (rose in English), because the word order makes clear if it's the subject of a sentence or the object, or something else. It's been a while since I read that book, but if I remember it correctly Jespersen also had a look at different translations of the bible and found that the Chinese version needed far less words. DAVID ŠENEK 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawaiian language only uses 12 letters from the Latin alphabet, plus the ʻOkina, a glottal stop transliterated by an apostrophe. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but with only 12 letters, you have to assemble some really long strings of them to make up the rest of the language. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supposed one way of finding out would be to obtain all the different-language translations of a long novel, say the ubiquitous War and Peace, and see which translation produced the fewest pages, after correcting for font size, page size etc. Not saying this is super-practical, but .... -- JackofOz (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you hit the nail on the head when you say it depends on the topic. Languages all contain their own unique shorthands, and when a speaker can utilise these shorthands, it saves a lot more time than if he had to explain every concept he was using. Ninebucks (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homework help

Doing homework for my English class I came upon a sentence for which I cannot give a correct answer within the parameters given.

In this way, you can begin to unlearn a negative piece of body language - and if you suffer from headaches, you should find yourself suffering from them much ______.

At the end I need to write in the last word. The solution that comes immediately to my mind is "less often". Problem is it has to be only one word. And I really cant think of any one-word solution. Of course I will ask my teacher next time I have classes, but considering the rest of the exercise was IMO pretty easy this one problem is driving me nuts. — Shinhan < talk > 17:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "less" on its own would be fine. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infrequenterly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.111.254 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"less" does look like a good solution. Is that a short form of "less often", "less frequently" and similar?

But "Infrequenterly"? Is that a misspelling of infrequently? — Shinhan < talk > 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect "infrequenterly" was intended as a joke. Myself, I'd have said "infrequentlier", or simply "rarelier". (Again, as a joke.) More seriously, "seldomer" would work. I don't think I've ever used that word myself, but it does appear in print. —An gr 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, "less" is not short for "less frequently". It just means you are suffering less. It could mean that the headaches are less frequent or less serious or both. --Anonymous, 04:39 UTC, October 5, 2008.

Please share with us your teacher's answer and also the connection between body language and headaches. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text talks about smiling and frowning. — Shinhan < talk > 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatollah means...?

I know it means "Sign(s) of God" but what part(s) though? I was reading "Aya" means "Sign(s) of" is this true? So, does this mean "tollah" somehow means "God"? I just need a short, simple & correct breakdown of the word, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L3tt3rz (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really say anything about the grammar. "Ayat" is "signs" but the T is not pronounced unless it is part of a phrase, as it is here. Grammatically it is really "ayatu" with the nominative ending -u, which is sometimes also pronounced -o. I think in Persian -o is standard. So in the phrase "signs of Allah" the "al-" part, which is really the definite article, takes on the preceding vowel, in this case -u, and it is pronounced "ayatullah" (or "ayatollah"). This kind of phrase is called an idafa in Arabic grammar. I hope that makes sense; maybe AnonMoos or someone else with better Arabic can explain it more easily. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Āya or āyat are both singular in āyatollāh (sign of god). O or U in the middle just conjoins the two parts, āyat-o/u-(a)llāh. "Signs" (plural) is āyāt, a little different from āyat. --Omidinist (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a bit more clarity, the word is آية الله in Arabic (but written آیت‌الله in Persian). It is made up of two words. The first word is آية, āya, which is the singular word for 'sign' (the plural, 'signs', is آيات āyāt). The '-a' at the end of the singular word here becomes '-at' when followed by a vowel (the spelling doesn't change in Arabic, but does in Persian). Also, in Classical Arabic, case endings are added to words. In this example, آية is in the nominative case, which means it ends in an '-u', making its pronunciation āyatu. The second word is الله, allāh, which means 'God'. When this word follows one that ends in a vowel, the initial 'a-' disappears in pronunciation. Thus, āya+allāh becomes āyatu+llāh, or even āyatullāh, meaning 'the sign of God'. In some pronunciations, especially in standard Persian, the short '-u-' in the middle sounds like an '-o-'. Thus, the standard Persian transliteration, whence the English, is âyatollâh. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

Number of speakers of any second language

most spoken second languages in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.190 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find that by substracting the numbers given in List of languages by number of native speakers from the numbers given in List of languages by total number of speakers --Lgriot (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cashing some Travellers Cheques in Korea.

Hi. I'm in South Korea for the next few weeks and I've run out of cash, so now the time has come to cash some of my travellers cheques. Unfortunately, my Korean is terrible and I can't find any of the right vocabulary on the internet, (I don't know how to say travellers cheques, for instance). So if any Korean speakers could help me out by providing a few bits of sample dialogue about how such a transaction would occur so I can memorise before heading to the bank. I can just about read hangul, but I'd prefer if it was written out in latin characters. Gamsa hamnida! Ninebucks (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traveller's check is called 여행자수표 (yeohaengja supyo IPA: [jʌhɛŋtɕa supʰjo]), but for foreigners, there are clerks able to speak English to assist them in any big bank such as KEB. If you need more help from me, well, I think I need more time to search for necessary information on that. Look at this English webpage. [1] --Caspian blue (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clerks at currency exchange places are used to visitors who don't speak any languages they (the clerks) know. It's enough to just show them a travellers' check and indicate that you want to cash it. The clerks often do speak some english but even if they don't, they carry out this type of transaction a zillion times a day and you can really get by without speaking a single word of english or korean. 67.117.147.133 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of meeting - adjourned/dissolution

If I am writing the minutes for a meeting and the meeting ends, do I write the time that the meeting "adjourned", or is that only a break? Does it make a difference whether the meeting could not properly finish due to a lack of time and a new meeting must be scheduled to discuss matters still on the agenda? According to my dictionary "dissolution" is the "termination of a meeting". Would that be used when the meeting comes to proper conclusion (such that the next meeting is scheduled, say, a full month afterwards)? --Seans Potato Business 09:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mostly a function of whether you're talking about meeting of a long-running committee (which e.g. meets weekly). For such a long-running entity, it is empanelled (or convened) at the start of its run, meets several times (with adjournments between meetings), and is finally dissolved. It gets a tad more complex for things like a US Congress, where one dissolved congress is followed by an election and the seating of a new congress (with the same purpose and most of the same people); but it's still thought of as being an essentially new body. If your meeting is a one-off (these same people or their surrogates will never meet for this same reason again) then "concluded" seems reasonable; dissolved seems unnecessary, as it wasn't integrated long enough to require disintegration. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the American Heritage Dictionary (for example) says adjourned means "To suspend until a later stated time". So if you're never going to resume, it's not an adjournment. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some organizations have adopted "rules of order" that cover meeting procedures, including minutiae such as whether meetings adjourn, prorogue, fade away, etc. If your organization has such rules it is a good idea to try to follow them. However in my experience most people neither know nor care. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going along with Finlay McWalter, in the U.S. Congress, the final session of each term (Congresses have two terms since under the Constitution they must meet at least once each year) adjourns sine die -- without a (set) day to reconvene, though most often that's pronounced "sine-y dye." It's a misnomer, since each House has a pretty good idea of the date for the start of the next session. If your meeting isn't likely to have a successor, or to have one soon, you could simply say it ended. Or concluded, if you need more syllables. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed

In Australian English, when starting a sentence with 'indeed' is it the convention to use a comma after it? E.g. Indeed, had John told Mary about the spider in her hat, it is highly unlikely, given Mary's arachnophobia, that she would have put it on. --Fir0002 11:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, yes. It's parenthetical in nature, meaning it could be safely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. Therefore, it must be set off by commas. You could re-write it as: If, indeed, John had told Mary about ..., and it becomes even clearer why commas are required. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this to be sentence adverb and not an interjection. These (ie sentence adverbs) can be placed at the beginning of the sentence, at the end or medially and - in all cases - need to be separated from the subsequent / preceding sentence / fragment by a comma.

As JoO may point out to the chef in a famous misquote, "Frank, my dear, I don´t give a damn!" --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not when you say 'If John had indeed told Mary about...'. I think in this case it implies that John is insisting that he had told Mary, whereas, 'If John had, indeed, told Mary about...,' would mean the same as the sentences in the above examples. Or am I, indeed, making a false distinction here?--ChokinBako (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are not. That's a very useful distinction indeed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I'll be using "Indeed,...." as and "If..." doesn't fit in with the preceding paragraph (and no I'm not writing about John and Mary or spiders - that sentence mirrors the one I'm actually working with!) --Fir0002 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kind of abbreviation

Hi,

In the Netherlands we have a thing called APK (Algemene Periodieke Keuring), a periodic test for cars etc to check if they're safe and in such state that they're allowed on the road. Anyway, people call this the 'APK Keuring', not the 'AP Keuring' or 'the APK'.

I was wondering if there is a name for this kind of abbreviation, where the last word is repeated...Sealedinskin (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAS syndrome is the name used for it. It's a form of redundancy (language). Fribbler (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "the" name; it's one example of a joke name for it. As the article says, there are many joke names; I don't think there's any serious name. --Anonymous, 23:43 UTC, October 5, 2008.

Like PIN number, PIN stands for 'Personal Identification Number'. Slightly related, a park near my house in Japan is called '森林公園パーク' (shinrin kouen park), where 'kouen' means 'park'. Incidentally, 'shinrin' is composed of two characters, both of which mean 'forest' (albeit of different sizes, combined in this way to mean 'forest of any size'), so the name means 'Forest Forest Park Park'!--ChokinBako (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there are redundant semi-translations, such as Loch Lomond Lake, outside Saint John, New Brunswick. And the Avon River that runs through Shakepeare's birthplace. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate is supposedly Torpenhow Hill (but people have questioned the accuracy of the claim, see the article talk page). AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Rio Grande River! —An gr 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the same problem with Avon River or River Avon. Does anyone call it the "River Avon River"? "Avon" by itself could mean lots of things. We say "Stratford-on-Avon", which is understood to refer to the town of Stratford situated on the Avon River. But when referring to the river alone, the word "River" is not out of place. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that "Avon", or "Afon" to give its modern spelling, means "river" in Welsh, which would have been spoken (or its ancestor) in that area before the English arrived, so "River Avon" is "River River". -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thank you for that enlightenment. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining -- I was being allusive, which is not very encyclopedic of me. (I thought the oppression of the Celts by the English was well-known in Australia!) BrainyBabe (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, Brainy Babe. But that doesn't mean that I know every word of every Celtic language, or, indeed, any word of any Celtic language. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Och aye the noo. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The La Brea Tar Pits, in which, "la brea" in Spanish means "the tar", therefore we get "the the tar tar pits". Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguingly, the UK equivalent of that test seems to have undergone the opposite process: originally an "MOT test", where the MOT stood for the "Ministry of Transport", it is now commonly referred to simply as an "MOT" - possibly because people assume the "T" is for "test". (The ministry, meanwhile, has become the Department for Transport, so the acronym is "unclaimed", as it were.) - IMSoP (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

etymological fallacy might give some perspective; as might analyzability if it existed. jnestorius^(talk) 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a term for it. Tautology! And, there's also a list of tautological place names. Poechalkdust (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Never Ceases to Amaze Me, henceforthe WNCTAM. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese question

This was found on the Japanese Wikipedia at ja:SNC.

東京でダンスの楽しみを広げようとしている任意団体の１つ。→SNC (ダンス)

I don't understand any Japanese, and the wikilink on the Japanese Wikipedia is a redlink, so it can't provide any context for me to figure out what it is about. What does the above mean? 195.197.240.134 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the group in question is 'one of the volunteer groups who are trying to spread the fun of dance in Tokyo'.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be referring to this group.--ChokinBako (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of "man’s man"

My mother always told me I should be a man’s man, meaning one engaged in manly pursuits and having a manly demeanour. Little did she realise in which direction she was unwittingly pushing me. That aside, I was wondering if there’s any such thing as a plural of "man’s man". We can talk about a number of "ladies men" (or is it "ladies’ men"?), but what about 2 x "man’s man"? Scenario: Woman says "I’m sick of all these effete and sexually ambiguous metrosexuals. What I want in my life is a man’s man. Ah, here come two _____ now". Would it be "man’s men" or "men’s men"? Or "Men men"? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say men's men. Gwinva (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say man's men with the first man being more of an adjective. Grsz ^X 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"are men's men": about 530 googlehits; "are man's men": 17 googlehits. Vox populi, vox dei jnestorius^(talk) 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but "a men's man": about 199 hits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says men's men but it gives a conflicting plural of lady's man as lady's men. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling lady's man seems to defeat the purpose of the expression, which is about a man who has "associations" with many ladies. He's interested in playing the field, and not being committed to any one woman. Even a supposedly committed married man who remains a ladies man is unfaithful, or at least flirts, with not just one other woman. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but what would you call a lady associated with several men? A men lady or a men's lady? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. How come there's no equivalent expression? I'd spell it "men's lady" (cf. my query in my question re "ladies man" vs. "ladies' man"). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If forced to choose, I'd also go with that. It's also odd that I prefer the possesive in that case but not the other. Does it tell me something about my character? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of several words for ladies associated with several gentlemen, but alas they are not very pleasant. As a way to twist the sexism, it is salutary to remember that blondes may also prefer gentlemen. (Not sure if Anthony Burgess originated the phrase.) BrainyBabe (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Loos made it famous, but I can't say whether she actually coined it. Those other unpleasant expressions are normally used, but I can imagine a writer wanting to use "ladies man" and "men's lady" together: "Unfortunately for the marriage, Gerald was a ladies man. But the fault was not all his. Little did he realise, until it was far too late, that Felicity was a man's lady". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did she codify the stereotype of the Loos woman? —Tamfang (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the improbability of the woman being able to identify a man's man on sight, I'd fill in the blank with "of them" or "such men". When faced with a mongoose problem, I prefer to find a way to avoid it completely. --LarryMac | Talk 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such an avoidance of my question is ... well, avoiding my question. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman's gentleman

There's a similar issue with "gentleman's gentleman", a way of describing a butler or a valet. Would two such persons be "gentleman's gentlemen", or "gentlemen's gentlemen"? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that would depend on if the two men in question are employed by the same man, or whether they do not have the same employer? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, that's stupid. Sorry. That's just false logic; the words "gentleman's gentleman" don't refer to a specific gentleman, but it's rather a job title. I mean, you could be an unemployed butler, but that wouldn't make you a nobody's gentleman. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inimitable Jeeves belonged to the Ganymede, a club for (IIRC) "gentlemen's gentlemen". If P.G. Wodehouse is not a sufficient arbitor of this little niggle, I don't know who could be. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That settles is as far as I'm concerned. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wodehouse is not infallible in matters of language; though naturally I have no examples at my fingertips. —Tamfang (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any writer who can put such gems into the mouth of Jeeves as "Does his Lordship wish to partake of some acquatic disportment?" is infallible for my money. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

Is this source saying "Luçoes" in Portuguese translates into "Luzons" in English?

Anthony Reid, in a chapter in The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, seems to be saying that Luçoes, when said in English, is Luzons. Either that or my interpretation -- not being able to speak Portuguese and all -- is completely conked. I haven't integrated this into the Luçoes stub yet, but I sure would like input on how to proceed with this tidbit:

The first European reports on the Tagalogs classify them as “Luzons” (Port. Lucoes), a nominally Muslim commercial people trading out of Manila, and “almost one people” with the Malays of Brunei (Pires 1515:134).

-- Alternativity (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really a big deal. Proper nouns don't translate, therefore Luzons is simply an anglisized version of the Portuguese. Like México → Mexico. Grsz ^X 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alternativity (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

curriculum vitae

What is the plural of curriculum vitae, please? Is it curriculums vitae? curricula vitae? curriculums vitaes? ???? Thanks 86.148.49.117 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with "curricula vitae". But the abbreviation CV is more commonly used than the full phrase, so you could just put "CVs". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it's curricula vitae if it's all one person's CVs, curricula vitarum if it's the CVs of different people. (You see why you're safer just saying "CVs"!) —An gr 10:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that'll teach me for trying to appear clever than I am -- I guess I'll stick with cvs!! 86.148.49.117 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the plural of curriculum vitae was "resumes". Silly me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the present tense of the verb "to resume". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I shoulda said "Rez zoom mays". My bad. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Résumés" works best, and more like "ray zyou may"; no "zoom zoom" here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

What would something along the lines of "Hitokoto Nate Yatteyo!" mean? Is it "Tell me that thing/joke you heard!" ?80.123.210.172 (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the person is saying 「一言なんか言ってよ」　(hitokoto nanka itteyo), which means 'say SOMETHING AT LEAST!', in an angry/excited way. It would not make sense with 'nante'. If it was 'hitokoto nante ittenaiyo' ('I did not say ANYTHING') it would make sense.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to figure out the right answer. Hitokoto/ひとこと literally means 'one word'. Nate? There's no such word/phrase. Or is it 'datte'? Yatteyo/やってよ means 'do something for me'. 'Hitokoto nante ittenaiyo' means 'I didn't say the word hitokoto'. Not 'I didn't say anything'. It should be 'Hitokotomo ittenaiyo'. I'd like to see the context. Oda Mari (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

「一言なんて、言ってないよ！」 is correct, Oda Mari, meaning 'I did not say a thing,' or 'you are mot saying anything' , but it is still strange. Without proper context we can't do much. .--ChokinBako (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I am Japanese, ChokinBako.... Oda Mari (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's something a foreigner says, so he probably says it wrong. It's from a video on YouTube and the subtitles say what I said, "Tell me that thing you heard". It's from a Gaki no Tsukai show. I don't speak Japanese, but that's how it sounds. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link, please. Oda Mari (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oda Mari, I know fully well you are Japanese. But sometimes things have to be debated.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mari, look on my page, and and you will find a link so we can talk privately about what is and what is not Japanese. We can advise each other, seeing as we are the only two Japanese translators here.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third translator here. Although it turned out, as we see below, that the gaijin here was trying to say 一言ネタやってよ ("Do a gag"), Mari is correct that 一言なんて、言ってないよ is meaningless. It doesn't matter that it might be grammatically correct: it simply is not said, and it certainly doesn't mean 'I did not say a thing,' which, as Mari pointed out, would be 一言も言ってないよ. Sometimes there's room for debate, but in this case there isn't. I've been speaking Japanese for more nearly a quarter century, and professionally translating for about 20 years. I lecture several days a week in Japanese, I write columns and essays in Japanese, and I've graded thousands of reports written in Japanese by Japanese students. There are often cases when I find myself correcting native-speaker students' kanji, grammar, or use of polite language, but when it comes to ordinary colloquial language like this, I learned long ago to trust the gut judgment of native speakers, even if they are half my age. Almost by definition, the native speaker "knows" what "sounds right" and what doesn't. I could greet someone in English saying "What is above?" and although it "works" grammatically, it is meaningless. Any 12 year old knows it should be "What's up?", even if s/he cannot explain why. 本当にいい翻訳者になるには、過信は禁物。でないと戸田奈津子みたいになるよ（笑）。 BTW, the English subtitles of the clip (which was pretty funny) are riddled with errors. 失礼しやした〜〜。 Matt Thorn (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpmfyi8q-n4&feature=related - right after 4:20 (approximately) - he says it a few times - there are also some kana on the screen when he says it, maybe that helps. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The foreigner is acting the stock character of "white, shit-poor speaker of Japanese". He's saying "ヒトゴトナテヤッテヨ" (hitogoto nate yatte yo - which is pretty much rubbish) and the subtitle says "一言ネタやってよ" (hitokoto neta yatte yo) - which means "tell me a(nother) joke".

(Also, ChokinBako, I'm appalled at you. Didn't I just help you out the other day? :P) TomorrowTime (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the video. The English subtitle is mistranslation. The foreigner correctly pronounced the line only at the first time. See the Japanese subtitles. It's ネタ/neta at the first time. But next two subtitles are ナタ/nata. Grammatically speaking, the word hitokoto in the line is totally understandable, but at the same time totally wrong. It should be 'hitotsu/ひとつ' or more slangy 'ippatsu/いっぱつ/一発'. Oda Mari (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they would be, and thank god we have a third translator here. I and Mari can not be here all the time, hey :) And by the way, I have been translating for ten years, so we are both on a par, lar.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is all down to a bad subtitler. Let him live, we can have more laughs over this.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inelegant or appropriate?

Quoting from the article Shannen Doherty:

"She has appeared several times, nude, in Playboy magazine. Her first appearance was in December 1993, followed by a spread in March 1994."

Comments please. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Padum-pah. —An gr 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that would depend on whether it was truly a spread or just carefuly posed. It's not necessarily inappropriate, but it is snigger-worthy. Steewi (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's definitely got a bit of a double entendre (spelling?) thing with a spread being another way of saying 'article' or 'feature piece' and then obviously given the context, a spread can mean, well, a parting of legs... 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Japanese dictionary

Hello everyone. I am currently learning Japanese, mostly from books. However my biggest difficulty is to catch the right pronunciation of words. Does someone happen to know an audio Japanese dictionary where I can hear the pronunciation of each word? Thank you. 85.112.95.14 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of one, but it would be useful. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The XD-GP6900 has that feature. Quote: "明鏡国語辞典（ネイティブ音声収録）, 日本語の微妙なニュアンスに踏み込み、言葉の使い方・書き方を詳しく解説。約10,000語の見出し語をネイティブ発音。" Regards. Bendono (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been tired, because I thought only of online dictionaries. There are several electronic dictionaries with pronunciation included. I think there's even one for the Nintendo DS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin duck translation

Could some helpful person translate the following into Latin? Many thanks.

"What is the difference between a duck? One leg is the same." Obfuscator (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the original as "One of its legs is both the same". jnestorius^(talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to translate nonsensical jokes into other languages...do you want a word-for-word translation or do you want something that would be equally funny in Latin? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, a word-for-word translation so long as it retains the humor of the original joke; and if too much gets lost in translation, simply translating the question without the answer would actually be quite sufficient for my purposes.

By the way, if you do have a joke that would be equally funny in Latin, I would be more than delighted to be humored by it!

Thanks. Obfuscator (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once wrote some "yo mama" jokes in Latin, and presented them as if they were found in a medieval manuscript...that was the funniest thing ever, speaking as a medievalist of course! But that webpage no longer exists. Anyway, literally how about "quid est discrimen inter anas? Una crus totidem est." It's ungrammatical but it wouldn't really work with perfect grammar... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inter anatem", isn't it? —An gr 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I left it nominative just to be nonsensical. Also, "crus" is one leg, but "una" is plural to refer to two legs, even though of course "unum" can't be made plural. Pretty lame, I know... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, "inter anas" means "between the old ladies", which I guess could be funny somehow. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Between the old ladies' would be inter anus, not anas. Maid Marion (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the very fact that it means something else—and something else more sensible than "between a duck"—means Latin speakers would be likely to interpret it that way. They wouldn't think "What an amusing way of saying 'between a duck'", they'd think "What is 'Between old ladies, ones leg is the same' supposed to mean?" The English original sentence is grammatically impeccable, it's just devoid of meaning, like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". The Latin translation should be too. —An gr 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, that's true. I'm not sure what to do with it then. There must be surviving examples of Latin nonsense to use as a guide? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt a nonsensical translation in Japanese, if you may. 「家鴨の間の違いは何？片方の足は両方一緒だから」means absolute nonsense, as does the English and Latin equivalents above, but in this case it does not even raise a smile! It is just nonsense language!--ChokinBako (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any Latin, so I can't help directly, but in general anti-jokes like this one are based on breaking a conventional pattern. In this case, the standard pattern for the first half of a "what's the difference" joke in English is "What is the difference between an X and a Y?". The duck joke breaks it by ending the sentence before the "and a Y" part, prompting the listener to ask "Between a duck and a what?" (to which the person telling the joke of course simply repeats "Between a duck." until the listener gives up and asks "Well, what is it, then?", at which point they provide the even more nonsensical answer). So, I suppose that, in order to translate the duck joke into Latin, you should first translate an ordinary "what's the difference" joke and then truncate it. The answer part of the joke is harder, and indeed tends to vary more in the telling, but it generally plays on both the numerical confusion of the question as well as on mixing the "what's the difference" pattern with the related "What do X and Y have in common?" pattern of jokes. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, let's hear it in Finnish, then! I've done the Japanese. Any other languages, anyone?--ChokinBako (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Finnish the question goes "Mitä eroa on ankalla? ". According to Google, the most common answer appears to be "Se ui paremmin kuin kävelee." ("It swims better than it walks."), though I've heard others as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

Hitler's accent

For me, Hitler's accent doesn't sound Austrian, although he grew up there and his 'r' sound sounded different from modern Germans too. Am I right? Are there more differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not up on german linguistic variation, but there may be several issues at hand. First of all, it is possible, either through training, or just naturally over time, for a person's accent to change. For example, when I was growing up I had a rather strong New England accent, however after living in 3 other areas of the U.S., my accent has become "neutralized" to where it matches the classic "U.S. Television News Reporter accent"... Also, accents are not simply uniform, even in the same geographic area. There are likely to be local variation, as well as socioeconomic variation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that accents can change through time - 60, 70 years ago, Hitler's accent could have been the most standard form of Austrian accent. Not saying that's the case, just throwing the historio-linguistic component into the debate. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to keep in mind if you're basing your impression of his accent on his prepared speeches is that he could have been consciously suppressing his Austrian accent for the benefit of his German listeners. Rural Austrian accents sound very "hillbillyish" to Germans (which is why Arnold Schwarzenegger never dubs his own voice in his movies for the German market), and it wouldn't have been seemly to have people snicker at his accent. (Jimmy Carter had a hard enough time getting people to take him seriously in the mid-70s because of his accent, imagine if he had sounded like Lucas Black and had been running 40 years earlier!) —An gr 12:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me as a German from the northern part of Germany there is a slight southern accent but it is (nearly) standard speech. Except for the R: He rolled it more than it is usual. It is sometimes even possible to hear it in words which are usually not pronounced with R. I would say it is a kind of hypercorrection. However, I am not a linguist. ;-) -- heuler06 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that Austrians of right wing leanings tend to use a rather characteristic mode of enunciation, somewhat reminiscent of Hitler´s diction. The basic elements of this are a rather clipped speaking mode, a clear distinction between individual words and the absence of soft consonants, which are pronounced as hard.

Bear in mind that Hitler was using language in a rather agressive way. Most likely he would have chosen consciously to avoid many aspects of Austrian German which, by simple phonetics, indicate some sloppy laid back laissez-faire attitude of generic laziness. It´s a bit like comparing a melodious Irish lilt to the language of Margaret Thatcher. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Career

'CAREER' which is the most important aspect for each and every person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.67.97 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you formulate your question more clearly, please? —An gr 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking what is the most important aspect of a person's career, that varies widely from person to person. Some people do jobs for the money, others do it for job satisfaction, others do it to gain advancement in their chosen trade or profession. Some do it because they can't think of anything else to do. Really it is not possible to give a straight answer to this question. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France and Spain

What do you call a Spaniard living in or born in France? Thanks, Grsz ^X 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, a Spaniard born in France is called "French". Consider Carlos Da Cruz, Francis Cabrel (who has 100% Italian ancestry, but is French), and others. A Spaniard living in France could either be called "Spanish" or "French" (depending on how much he had adopted French lifestyle), or "Ibero-French", if you really wanted to get creative. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about as far as ancestry goes? Like African-Americans. Grsz ^X 19:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well ask, "What do you call a person of European ancestry living in the USA ?" I don´t think there is a demonym for those 300 odd million. Of course, odd refers to the 305 million and not to any other national quality. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has to be that hard. If it was important to say that a Spanish person wasn't actually born in Spain, but in France, you could call him a "French-born Spaniard". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, Hyphenated American terms like African American, Irish American, Indian American are common, but often contentious. Is there any other pair of countries/regions X and Y where immigrants from country Y to country X, and perhaps their descendants, are called "Y-ish X-ians" (in whatever language)? jnestorius^(talk) 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the text I had in mind, and just let me know if this most recent version sounds okay: "Gipsy Kings are a music group from Arles and Montpellier, France. Though from France, they are Spanish Romani musicians as their parents fled Spain during the Spanish Civil War. They are known for bringing Rumba Catalana, a pop-oriented version of traditional flamenco music, to worldwide audiences. Their music has a particular Rumba Flamenca style, with pop influences; many songs of the Gipsy Kings fit social dances, such as Salsa and Rumba. Their music has been described as a place where "Spanish flamenco and Romani rhapsody meet salsa funk"." Grsz ^X 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would replace the second sentence with "Their parents were gitanos (Roma) who fled Spain during the Spanish Civil War." jnestorius^(talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, if I had came across that page before this would have been a lot easier. Thanks, Grsz ^X 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France operates citizenship in a Jus soli way as I understand it, so a permanent citizen in France is French. Unlike, say, Germany which has a blood-line (jus sanguine? spelling) basis - though I think even they have moved away from that citizenship model. Basically everybody who lives in France permanently is (officially) French I think. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living is France is not sufficient to be French, you need to request the nationality to get it, and it could be refused (but rarely is). Being born in France is sufficient to be French. --Lgriot (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix

What's the difference in the meaning of the prefixes "hemi" and "semi", and how do you know when to use which? Thanks.92.2.212.124 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both mean 'half'. 'Hemi' comes from Greek; 'semi' comes from Latin. Ultimately, they come from the same root in Proto-Indo-European. It makes sense to make compounds from the same root, e.g. 'hemicycle' and 'semicircle' (although the latter does have a Greek version as well). If the second part of the compound is an English root, use 'semi', e.g. 'semiquaver'. What about 'demi'? That's another question. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I don't know what "It makes sense to make compounds from the same root" means. I thought of it because you get a hemisphere but a semicircle. Anyway, thanks.92.2.212.124 (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In hemisphere the noun sphere is a derivative of a Greek root, thus the Greek prefix hemi is used. In semicircle the word comes from the Latin circulus and is prefixed with the Latin semi. It is comparable to WP articles using UK English for British entries and US English for American topics. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they're combined, as in hemidemisemiquaver, and the principle of keeping like with like in terms of linguistic origin goes out the door. (I particularly like the Polish translation: sześćdziesięcioczwórkowa !! Imagine that on a spelling bee. ) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that semi- is preferred for modifying adjectives, even of Greek origin: semi-autonomous. —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So without reaserching the origins of a word before I add a prefix to it, how do I decide between them? Or should I just use "semi" as a safe bet? Thanks92.2.212.124 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It´s got to be hemi-, semi- or demi-. If you can´t find it in any of these three places, it may be a neologism or a dictionary with a few pages missing. Mind you, there is the term halfwit, so it may not be that easy. Wit may be Proto-Germanic, but it also may be related to the Latin verb video :)

PS: Finally, I discovered a red link I am perfectly equipped to turn into a featured article. Eureka, my credentials in halfwittery are impeccable!--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Latin video, but I've certainly read that wit is related to classical Greek oida ('I know'). It's not obvious from the first person singular, but first plural is idmen, and this would earlier have been pronounced widmen, so you can see the connection. A bit off-topic, but I thought you'd be interested! Maid Marion (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "It´s got to be hemi-, semi- or demi-." It could well be half-, especially if you are coining a once-off word. I don't think demi is productive in English any more; it only comes in French loanwords. And hemi- is confined to learned, mainly scientific/medical, words, where Greek still thrives. jnestorius^(talk) 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jnestorius: use either 'semi-' or 'half-' unless there is an established word (like 'hemisphere'). --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be like Ashton Kutcher and use 'demi-' more. --LarryMac | Talk 12:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

Shark

Both the shark and the Yucatec Maya language articles contain the claim that the word "shark" may come from the Maya language. The claim seems to be based on an unsourced and rather casual remark made in Michael D. Coe's book Breaking the Maya Code (I have the book). I wonder if anyone here is aware of any scholarly sources relating to the supposed etymology. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin "sharkus" meaning rough skin is the most likely origin according to the discovery website. http://www.discovery.com/stories/nature/sharkweek2000/sharkweek2000.html

Hope this helps. Wikisaver62 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even without looking in my dictionary I can promise you there is no such word as "sharkus" in Latin. —An gr 09:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re sharkus. What is it about this combination of letters that makes it obviously not a Latin word? Just wondering. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Latin had no "sh" sound. 2) Latin orthography had no "sh" spelling. 2) In Latin orthography, the letter "k" tended to be used only in a very few words (almost always before the vowel "a"), as in "Kalendae" (the 1st day of a month), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone could conact the discovery channel and tell them how wrong they are (I was wondering about whether 'sharkus' was real or not too). Wikisaver62 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't even find the word "sharkus" on the page you linked to. Of course, on my computer (with three different browsers) the entire right-hand side of that page is just black. —An gr 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a quiz with four possible etymologies of "shark". "Sharkus" was the first option; another was that it comes from "sharp", and two others I had never heard of before. I couldn't get the page to load the answer but I think Wikisaver may have misread or misinterpreted what he was looking at. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was "sharcus", not "sharkus". But I still doubt it's a Latin word. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is an etymological alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's a convincing etymology for the word (actually I don't believe there're convincing etymologies for most words); I'm just curious about how people came up with the (dubious) Maya etymology, and I'm rather inclined to remove the claim in the relevant artitcles, but it's safer to ask the experts here first.--K.C. Tang (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarx (σαρξ), root "sark-" (not "shark"), is the Greek (not Latin) word for flesh (not "rough skin") , but I don't know of any plausible path by which this ancient Greek word could have acquired the current pronunciation and meaning of the word "shark" in English... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "Of obscure origin. The word seems to have been introduced by the sailors of Captain (afterwards Sir John) Hawkins's expedition, who brought home a specimen which was exhibited in London in 1569. The source from which they obtained the word has not been ascertained. Cf. Ger. dial. (Austrian) schirk sturgeon: see SHIRK n.2. The conjecture of Skeat that the name of the fish is derived from SHARK v.1 is untenable; the earliest example of the vb. is c 1596, and the passage alludes to the fish." BrainyBabe (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I've consulted the OED, as well as using JSTOR to search relevant articles, but to no avail. The more I search, the more the supposed Maya etymology looks fishy.--K.C. Tang (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider the Homeric fragmental epos, The Hunting of the σnαρξ. The mysterious disapperance of Homer and all trace of him when composing this, his last, poem, has given rise to the theory that the very σnαρξ of the title was a Boojum...... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar question

For the sake of this experiment my company is called Blue Sky. Which of the following is correct and why:

Blue Sky supply the food or
Blue Sky supplies the food.

Thanks for any help! --217.227.113.167 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either. If you want to use British English (or a related dialect), the first could work. If you want to use American English, the second would be preferable. See American and British English differences. --LarryMac | Talk 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to remain consistent, meaning, if you treat it as a singular, then you have to use singular pronouns elsewhere in the same text, e.g.

Blue Sky supplies the food ...... it also does X
not Blue Sky supplies the food ... they also do X
or Blue Sky supply the food ... it also does X. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One right out of three! The first one is correct in formal North American English, as you might see in a business report or legal document. But the second one is not wrong; it's standard informal North American English, as would be used in a conversation or casual writing. In the third one, on the other hand, you mean "they also do X". --Anonymous, 21:47 UTC, October 8, 2008.

No, I meant what I wrote. No. 3 was another example of what not to write, the reverse of No. 2. But you're right that the rule applies to formal writing, and you can get away with less rigour in other contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to #2, it's not "getting away with" something, it's idiomatic usage. Outside of formal contexts I'd say #1 is wrong. As to #3, sorry I misunderstood your intention with the not/or thing. --Anonymous, 03:45 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Your views are becoming more firm. First you said #1 is correct in formal contexts; now you're saying it's wrong in any other context. I don't subscribe to the view that one must always adopt the idiom of whoever one happens to be with. What if they had the same philosophy? Nobody would know how to talk at all, for fear of getting it wrong. #1 may not be the dominant version in informal contexts, but that doesn't make it "wrong" to use it in such contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that there exists a field of usage (milieu, dialect, community, register, call it what you will) in which #1 is wrong, in just the same way as there exist fields of usage where only one of "center" and "centre" is a correct spelling. Obviously other people have conflicting usages. Your comment about "getting away with" appeared to be denying that such usage existed. --Anon, 18:12 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Not at all. That phrase actually acknowledges that deviances from some "norm" (for lack of a better word) do actually occur, because otherwise there'd be nothing to get away with (or with which to get away, if one prefers). To get away with something in a linguistic context is my way of saying it would be generally acceptable, although if you look hard enough you'd find a copy editor who'd change it (and you mightn't have to look all that hard). I agree that you could find a particular milieu, dialect, community or register where #1 would definitely be out of place. But to say it's wrong for all such contexts is itself a wrong statement. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listas repr.

If I switch my iPod to the Spanish language setting, "Playlists" are called "Listas repr." What is "repr." short for? I can't seem to find any words that would make sense in context. jeffjon (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Google search [2], it's short for lista de reproducción. It seems to be somewhat idiomatic in Spanish, so that's why it doesn't make much literal sense, other than the meaning connection between reproducción and recording, replay, etc.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you'd think it would have occurred to me to do my googling on the spanish-language site. Thanks, jeffjon (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reproducir is the most suitable translation of play in this usage. The re- prefix is associated with the idea of producing back the sound. Fair enough, this meaning is not recorded in the current edition of the DRAE, though it will appear in the 23rd edition of the dictionary: "Hacer que se vea u oiga el contenido de un producto visual o sonoro." Pallida Mors 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

ENGLISH

would i say Corey has been with the company six months longer than I or me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.212.121 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, it is "than I": he has longer than I have: since "I" is the subject of the verb "have" (even if you don't actually say the have), it should be "I", not "me". However, colloquially it's than me: pronouns take the object form after any connecting word, even "and", in colloquial English ("John and me went to the store", etc.). However, you can only say "than me" if you do not say the assumed verb "have". kwami (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)A pedant would say "longer than I" because it's short for "longer than I have been". Some idiolects may still prefer it. But in almost all other circumstances, "longer than me" is acceptable. It's completely idiomatic; so much so, that to say "longer than I" would make most people wonder which planet you were from. And that's not the point of communication. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone better at pedantry (me, say) would recognize the "formal" analysis as wrong, because it is based on reasoning in the wrong direction. It assumes that because "than" is a conjunction in "longer than I have been", it must also be a conjunction in the shorter expression. But usage determines what is proper. "Longer than me" is, as Jack says, perfectly acceptable to most people, from which we conclude (1) that it is correct, and (2) that "than" can also be a preposition. And if you look in dictionaries that's generally what you'll find -- try www.onelook.com to check several of them. --Anonymous, 18:15 UTC, October 9, 2008.

Again I must take issue with you on the question of right vs. wrong. You speak as if this is (were) an absolute. It's not. The prescriptivist school of grammar, while acknowledging that it's rarely encountered in everyday speech, would not outlaw "longer than I". I was certainly taught that version in school (and then promptly ignored it except for homework and test questions). It is very redolent of Jeeves and his ilk, so although his ilk is a dying breed, it's not as if it's utterly unheard of in practice, and there would still be some people who prefer it. Pernickety ageing school teachers, for example. It's certainly encountered in novels by Jane Austen and her ilk. It's become old-hat; that doesn't make it "wrong". The descriptivist school would definitely support "longer than me", because that's what almost everyone actually says these days. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Taking issue"? Jack, I have no disagreement with anything you just said. --Anon, 00:56 UTC, October 10, 2008.

Sorry, I read the sentence "Someone better at pedantry .....", and the one after it, as referring to my previous statement. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Segev

He is an Israeli reporter and writer. Please let me know how his name is pronounced in Israel. Many thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, User:Deborahjay, who's normally responsible for questions about Israeli Hebrew on the ref desk, hasn't edited Wikipedia in over two weeks. My guess is [ʃɛmuˈɛl ˈsɛgɛv] (roughly shem-oo-EL SEG-ev), but that's really nothing more than an educated guess. —An gr 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Here I am, checking in from a furlough in the States during this holiday period, with only intermittent Internet access and lacking a Hebrew-enabled keyboard; thanks, Omidinist for the e-mail head's up and to Angr for the acknowledgement...) I'm not familiar with the named individual, rather than the better-known Tom Segev, a historian (not reporter, though his remarks and articles are often published in the Israeli press, notably Haaretz).

SEgev (both vowels a "short e" - I can't do IPA today) is a contemporary Israeli surname, i.e. not one with Diaspora roots.
SAmuel [sic] would be pronounced as in English, if Mr. Segev indeed spells it this way at home as abroad - ? Alternatively: SHMUel, a common Israeli first name of biblical origin. (see below) -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think [ʃmuˈɛl] (shmoo-EL) is more likely. Actually, our Hebrew phonology article transcribes Hebrew mid vowels as close-mid rather than open-mid, so that makes it [ʃmuˈel ˈsegev]. — Emil J. 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emil, I'd say this is true in the pronunciation of Israeli Hebrew words—however, names are generally an exception, primarily (I suspect) to distinguish them from the word per se. (e.g. the word "yaFA" vs. the name "YAfa".) The case of SHMUel shows the characteristic shift of accent to the penultimate syllable and shortening (to schwa) the vowel of the antepenultimate (the initial letter "shin"). -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah, I'm glad you decided to pop in, even though it's Yom Kippur! Emil is actually talking about the quality of the vowel (open-mid [ɛ] as in "dress" vs. close-mid [e] as in French "été"), not about the location of stress. Both he and I assumed the stress would be on the last syllable, so it's interesting to here it isn't. I knew the Yiddish pronunciation would be SHMU-el with no vowel between the sh and the m and with stress on the first syllable, but I didn't know the Israeli Hebrew pronunciation would be the same. —An gr 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from Deborahjay. And thanks for all suggestions. Well, I thought Mr. Segev might be a Russian emigré in Israel. In that case, his surname would be pronounced like sigof. He is a Middle East correspondent and the author of some books, including Mivtsa Yakhin: aliyatam Ha-hashait Shel Yehude Maroko Le-Yisrael. --Omidinist (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

中國人如何學好英語？

流利得像你們一樣--Wmrwiki (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

多看、多聽、多說、多練，就是如此簡單而已。 Aas217 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

学好英文的人应该常常根说英文的人说话。如果你主宰的城市有外国人，跟他们做朋友。别只为了练习英文跟他们做朋友，可是除了跟他们说话，联系英文，没有很多好方法学好英文。也能用skype还是msn做朋友。有一点更难，可是如果没有外国人跟他们说话，就网上找到人联系英文也可以。 Aas217写的也很重要的。看英文电影，听英文音乐，看英文书，都也可能把你的英文听读写说的琉璃提高。 Steewi (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What they said. All I can understand in the header of the question is "Chinese people" (中國人) and "English language" (英語). —An gr 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is asking how Chinese people should study English. And the answer is to make friends who will speak English, and get on Skype and MSN, watch English films, listen to music, read books, you know, the usual.--ChokinBako (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Language Diagram or Graph

Hi all. I am looking for a diagram or a graph on the history of the English language; from it's origination to modern English. Do you know where I can locate this in Wiki? --Emyn ned (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we had one, I suppose it would be at History of the English language, but there's no diagram or graph there. —An gr 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you go to Google Images and search for "indo-european languages", you should be able to find a suitable diagram. --Anonymous, 18:22 UTC, October 9, 2008.

What do you want this chart to show? If all you need is the sequence Old English → Middle English → Early Modern English → Modern English that shouldn't be hard to whip up, though I wonder why you'd want a picture. Do you want to show the kinship of English to other languages? By "its origination" do you mean the point at which Old English ceased to be part of the Low West Germanic dialect continuum, or something else? Are you looking for something to show the inflow of borrowed vocabulary from Norman etc. as tributaries to a river? —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anonymous had answered my question and directed me where I needed to go. Thank you everyone for your help..--Emyn ned (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is correct American English?

A. We haven't bought anything yet.

B. We haven't boughten anything yet. Thanks. ike9898 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Boughten is not a standard English word. --LarryMac | Talk 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ike9898 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just mention: agree that boughten wouldn't be correct as a verb in standard U.S. English—but I can recall encountering this word as an adjective meaning "store-bought" (vs. homemade). Such usage is likely regional, though offhand I couldn't say where. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, surprise, surprise (as I never heard it), an entry in the Merriam-Webster on line plus a few more. The use mentioned by Deborah also turns up frequently. For all I know, this is perfectly valid US English. Maybe some native speakers of USian could clarify if it is "merely" colloquial or regional.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the M-W entry says it is "chiefly dialect." Also note that M-W are usage sluts. --LarryMac | Talk 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a good thing, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right grammar?

Hello,

Could you please tell me if this kind of sentence is good english? (I don't mean if it's ok, I mean, is it really correct and nice-sounding?)

"Some healthy cells may be observed whose somata are on the surface on the slice" [somata = the bodies of the cells]

Thanks!

The nested clauses make the sentance hard to parse. Try a simpler structure "In some healthy cells, the somata may be seen on the surface of the slice" or something like that. Always aim for simpler sentance structure and less words. Compact, easy to follow language is always better than rambling, hard to follow language. Also, use more precise and simpler words where possible (seen vs. observed). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to parse; there's only one subordinate clause – though it is somewhat uncommon style to separate "cells" from "whose". —Tamfang (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong, except it should say "surface of the slice"; but it can be improved. Does mentioning the somata make a meaningful distinction, i.e. is there a reason you couldn't say "Some healthy cells can be observed on the surface of the slice"? Or do you mean to say that some of the cells (whose somata are) on the surface are healthy, while those not on the surface are all unhealthy? Or am I misunderstanding the sense of "slice"? —Tamfang (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use the possessive: "the slice's surface". 207.241.238.217 (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I made a mistake, it's on the surface of the cell. In fact, the sentence is taken from a scientific book. The part about the somata has to be kept, because it's only the somata (bodies) of the cells that are on the surface of the slice, not the whole cell (we're talking about neurons, so the parts of the cell which are not in the soma are the axon and dendrites). And the word "slice" refers here to a piece of rat's brain that has been cut.

Can the axons and dendrites, which are not on the surface, be seen? If not, I'd say "The somata of some healthy cells can be seen on the surface of the slice." —Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollepel Island

Anyone know how to pronounce this island in the Hudson River? kwami (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutral toward religion

What would be a good word to describe a person who is neutral toward religion, neither a believer nor an atheist, not even an agnostic, because s/he has not really pondered the theological problem, but who is aware of and interested in the role of religion in society? (I'm not looking for the name of an academic discipline.) --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A (non-observant) observer, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That captures the idea... could there be something more specific? --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An apatheist? Deor (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a word that implies interest but not commitment. --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like a non-academic anthropologist? kwami (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sort of like that -- but maybe not self-conscious about it. --Halcatalyst (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Anglicisms in other languages

Why do other languages take the an English word in the gerund and use it as a noun? For example, in France: one parks his car at the parking or gets a shampooing. Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example from the French wiki Parking: Les parkings sont souvent choisis comme lieu d’action dans les œuvres culturelles telles que les films et les jeux vidéo. (Parking lots are often used for actions scenes in cultural works such as fims and video games") Lazulilasher (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian has смокинг (smoking), meaning a dinner jacket or tux. It's derived from "smoking jacket". I guess every language does things its own way, and some just happen to do it this way, sometimes. There's probably a better explanation. --JackofOz (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking is used exactly like that in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and possibly Finnish as well (although the kilts in the image in the Finnish article seem somewhat strange to me...) --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

As an aside, I once read in a book of patterns for men's clothes from circa 1900 that sometime in the 19th century the "smoking jacket" used to perform the same function as the dinner jacket does now, ie. it was worn to informal dinner parties, and the theatre if it's not a premiere, etc. Hence the name "smoking" for the d. j. in several foreign languages. Unfortunately I haven't the book on hand so I daren't put this in the article "Smoking jacket". But I do dare put it here. It does square with the history of the dinner jacket as described in our article.--Rallette (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view (sorry I don't have a reference book to prove it) is that, most of the time, it is simply an abbreviation of a longer phrase, and the phrase is too long to remember for someone who does not understand it, but the first part sticks and enters the language. A parking lot -> un parking, some shampooing cream -> du shampooing, a smoking jacket -> un smoking. There may be exceptions to that rule, but quite recently (I mean recently from a language life point of view, at the end of the 1990s), you could hear, on the French radio channels for youngsters, some pop music commentators that were talking about "les smashing"... they were talking about the smashing pumpkins, but were lazy enough not to make the effort to pronounce the whole band name. I think it simply starts that way. --Lgriot (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Franglais has an inordinate fondness for the -ing ending. I think it's at least partially attributable to the fact that French doesn't have the /ŋ/ sound in native words, so using it emphasizes a word's Englishness. —An gr 06:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. The French speak French, not "Franglais", and couldn't care less about the Englishness of "parking" or "shampooing", which they pronounce /ʃɑ̃.pwɛ̃/ anyway. Equendil Talk 09:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French speak Franglais as well as French. --Kjoonlee 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm French but thanks for telling me what I speak. The French borrow words from other languages, it's hardly unheard of and doesn't constitute a whole new brand of language. Back to words ending in "ing", Lgriot above is likely on to something, though I would also point out that nouns ending in "ing" is a relatively common construction in English in the first place: marketing, merchandising, trading, awakening, dealing, fencing, accounting, reporting, acting ... just a few instances, the first two are used in French. Equendil Talk 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not really. Franglais in that sense is a way of referring to the use of certain anglicisms in French. But they're still speaking what they consider to be modern-day French, and would probably vehemently deny they're speaking Franglais. Wars have been fought over less. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I wouldn't call Franglais to be a distinct language or anything like that. Konglish isn't Korean, after all. --Kjoonlee 02:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saline solution or water?

Which is more conductive of electricity, water or salt water?--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the language reference desk. The science desk is down the hall and to the right. —An gr 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But saline solutions conduct electricity better, thanks to the sodium and chlorine ions. --Kjoonlee 07:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, is this a trick question about language? Salt water is also water. ;) --Kjoonlee 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request: English → Esperanto

Could someone please translate one of the following, for an image caption?

English:
a) Stephon Marbury prepares to shoot a free throw.
b) Stephon Marbury at the free throw line.

Thank you~ Louis Waweru Talk 14:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto:

a) Stephon Marbury preparas pafi ~~ŝoton liberan~~ liberan ĵeton.

b) Stephon Marbury ĉe la ~~linio de ŝoto libera~~ liberĵeta linio.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Scratch that. I had a look at Esperanto's article on basketball and found better terms for free throw and the line.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, interesting language. Thank you~ Louis Waweru Talk 10:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Italian requested

The following appears without translation on the Antonio Beccadellipage. Can anyone give a good translation?

IN QUESTO

CHE FU ANTICO PALAZZO

DE' BECCADELLI BOLOGNA

NACQUE DI QUELLA STIRPE

ANTONIO DETTO IL PANORMITA

ONORE DI SUA CITTÀ E D'ITALIA

NEL XV SECOLO

--rossb (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this (building), which was the ancient Palazzo De'Beccadelli Bologna (ie, the palace of the De'Beccadelli family), was born of that family Antonio, called "the Palermitan" (the one from Palermo), pride of his city and of Italy, in the 15th century. -- Ferkelparade π 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Question: 抑揚がない?

In the margin of the results from an oral exam my Japanese professor wrote, concerning my Japanese:

イントネーションに気をつけて
よくようがない時が多い

I understand the first part means I should be careful about my intonations, but I'm unsure about the second sentence.

Is this a compliment meaning, "There are many times when you seem to have no accent (while speaking Japanese)",

or does it mean, more likely given the context,

"There are many times when (your Japanese) lacks (the correct) intonation/accent"?

If a native speaker would answer, I would greatly appreciate it. (I'm leaving for Fall Break, otherwise I would just ask my Japanese professor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.177.28 (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct interpretation is the second one. Oda Mari (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condolezza Rice

What languages does she speak? Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 06:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to be fluent in Bushese. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) kwami (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the past she has claimed to be fluent in Russian, but when she was interviewed by a Russian talk radio show she had to speak English, and when a caller asked her in Russian if she wanted to become president one day, she misunderstood the question and said "Da, da" until the host repeated the question and she said "President? Nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet". So all she actually said in Russian herself was da and nyet. —An gr 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Президент (prezident) is a Russian word, so let's give her marks for that one, too. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ř

How in the world is this Czech letter pronounced? I can't quite get it... Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 06:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make a trill, then hold it while you raise the body of your tongue until you get something like a [ʒ] (French J) sound. Or perhaps you could make a [rʒ] sequence, then move the two sounds closer and closer until they overlap. If you pronounce Dvořák as "Dvoržák", then shift the syllable break from [dvor.ʒaːk] to [dvo.rʒaːk] so that you can say "ržák" on its own, then you're pretty darn close. kwami (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a trill? 203.188.92.70 (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The regular Czech R. Or a Spanish rr. kwami (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Trill consonant. --ColinFine (talk)

The Guinness Book of Records says: "The rarest sound is probably ř, termed a rolled post-alveolar fricative, which occurs in very few languages and is the last sound mastered by Czech children". If that's true, you'd need special training from a native speaker, and lots of practice, and with the best will in the world, you won't master it from any answers we could give here. I worked with a Czech lady once, and I asked her to help me get it. I'm very good with making unfamiliar sounds and mimicking foreign accents, but no matter how hard I tried, over a period of years, I could never make the exact sound she was making. You can get close, which is probably close enough for general use. But if you're wanting to pronounce it as a native does, you may have your work cut out for you. (It may be best to go back to your childhood and start there.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even all Czechs can pronounce the letter correctly. The best way to think of

Ř is a zh made at the same time as a Spanish r. -- 76.190.138.251 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I had a question which answer is likely to vary from person to person"

Which of the following is correct "I had a question which answer is likely to vary from person to person", "I had a question whose answer is likely to vary from person to person" or something else?

"I had a question, the answer of which is likely to vary from person to person" or "I had a question; its answer will likely vary from person to person" both seem (IMO) better. "I had a question; likely its answer will vary from person to person" seems better yet. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I at least am more likely to say "the answer to a question" than "the answer of a question", so I'd say "I had a question, the answer to which is likely to vary from person to person" or "...a question to which the answer is...". —An gr 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely: 'I had a question, the answer to which is likely to vary from person to person'. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Relative pronouns. Who / whose is used when the antecedent is human, which is used in the context of animals and things. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A strong vote here for "... whose answer....". "Whose" can be used in this context for an inanimate antecedent, and gives a smoother sentence. (P.S. see lots of discussions of the subject.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "whose" can be the genitive of "which" as well as the genitive of "who", but in this case, I think "to which" is more natural. —An gr 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I say it's less natural. But that's a matter of personal style. (Or to put it another way, it's a point of variation whose preferred choice is likely to vary from person to person.) In any case I hope everyone agrees that the original version with "which" is wrong. --Anonymous, 21:41 UTC, October 11, 2008.

I agree with Anonymous: I like AndrewWTaylor's best, and Angr's second; and "...a question which answer..." is ungrammatical. The others are grammatical but I dislike them all. Some people (possibly a British-American thing?) dislike the use of "likely" as a standalone adverb, as in Finlay's second and third suggestions. jnestorius^(talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the whole sentence meant to be reporting something that's in the past now? I know the focus has been on the which/whose issue, but there may be more to it than that. Juxtaposing "I had a question" with ".. answer is likely ..", sounds a little odd to my ears. I'd use either "I have a question ... answer is likely" or "I had a question ... answer was likely". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. that W.'s?

In reading a story by P. G. Wodehouse, I came across this strange phrase I've never heard before, and couldn't figure out. Now, his writing has a lot of old British slang... but I'm completely baffled by "P. that W.'s". Here it is in context:

"Well, one day he happened by good luck to blow in the necessary for the good old P. that W.'s, and now, whenever they want someone to go and talk Rockefeller or someone into lending them a million or so, they send for Samuel." -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences before that one, you read, "And, mark you, before he got hold of this book—The Personality That Wins was the name of it, if I remember rightly—he was known to all the lads in the office as Silent Samuel or something." Does that give you a clue? Deor (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I feel dumb now. I was caught up in assuming it was some saying I didn't even think of that. -~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.63.158 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just teasing you. Actually, characters' using initials to refer to something whose identity has been established earlier in a conversation is quite frequent in Wodehouse. It must have been a recognizable feature of discourse among the members of the relevant social stratum at the time. Deor (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]