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

January 19

A word to describe day-to-day documents

I am looking for a word, besides Accoutrements, Memorabilia or Paraphernalia, that describes ones day-to-day documents; the types of items one would put in a scrapbook i.e. ticket stubs, car bill-of-sale, grocery lists etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LottieBar (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're after a word. You've just given the definition of the word you're seeking. Accoutrements would nornally refer to clothing. I would have chosen either Memorabilia or Paraphernalia, but don't know any others off hand, except maybe Miscellany. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ephemera. DuncanHill (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Files? Defn: "a folder or box for holding loose papers that are typically arranged in a particular order for easy reference...

the contents of such a folder or box" and people sometimes just say, "my 'papers'". There's always the scrapbook. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The OP did say he/she was putting them into a scrapbook. How about the most obvious word - scraps? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, they didn't say that they were putting them in a scrap book. They said that one would, not that they are presently doing so. Dismas|^(talk) 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Memento? Keepsake? Souvenir? -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

'haymishe'

I'm looking for a definition of 'haymishe'- here's one use of it, various others on google books. Nadando (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

From context (and it sounding like dodgy German) "homely" seems likely. DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yiddish, meaning a warm, homey, friendly type of place. You'll find considerable spelling variation. - Nunh-huh 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconding Nunh-huh. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it's the Yiddish cognate of standard German heimisch. —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick: Improving Sentence

Various users have told me that this is a grammatically incorrect sentence:

• However, the game in which the bicycle kick was allegedly invented is older than 1894 as Jorge Basadre, a famous Peruvian historian, found what is thus far the oldest record of a football match in the Lima-Callao area of Peru to have been organized by Englishmen of the Lima Cricket and Football Club for a game between Chalacos and Limeans played in August 7, 1892; meaning that by that time football had gained popular practice in Callao and Lima, which is a situation that is ahead of the introduction of football in Callao and the invention of the bicycle kick associated with it.

Could any of you please help me improve it? I do not see it as using bad grammar, but I would like "expert" opinion on the matter. Please, do not remove anything from the sentence, but feel free to move it around if you wish. Thank you.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! That is one long, run-on sentence, and I have no clue what you mean by the last part of it (so I'm leaving that out), but here goes:

However, the bicycle kick is older than the alleged birthyear of 1894. Historian Jorge Basadre has found a record of an August 7, 1892 football match between Lima and Callao in Peru, organized by Englishmen of the Lima Cricket and Football Club. This shows that the sport had already become popular in the area by then. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the last sentence, I'd say "This evidence" rather than just "This". I always like to follow up a "this" with a concrete statement of exactly what it is that the "this" refers to. Otherwise the reader may get confused. Just my 2p, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is what I will use as the final sentence: However, the bicycle kick is older than the alleged birthyear of 1894. Historian Jorge Basadre has found a record of an August 7, 1892 football match between Lima and Callao in Peru, organized by Englishmen of the Lima Cricket and Football Club. This evidence shows that the sport had already become popular in the area by then, which symbolizes a situation that is ahead of the introduction of football in Callao by English sailors.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

which symbolizes a situation that is ahead... is strange in English. What about: had already become popular in Callao before English sailors played it there? If it was already known, the sailors didn't introduce it. —Tamfang (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One last question, do you think that the last sentence would require a reference? In the article, the statement that English sailors introduced football in Callao is already cited, but I will probably use it again. Would that be enough of a reference? I don't want it to be counted as "original research." Thanks again to the both of you.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anything can be said to be "older than a year". Try "The bicycle kick predates the alleged birthyear..." DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that does sound better. Thank you for your help.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor point: I've never seen "birth year" spelled as one word, but they may do things differently over there. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It'sallBush'sfault. That black hole in his specially-reinforced, ultra-dense head just sucked out my linguistic skills. Help me, Saint Obama! Honestly, you'd think birthdate -> birthyear, but noooo.... Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. Well, at least I sense this is a friendly atmosphere. I've never used the word "birthyear" before, so I really wouldn't know whether it was right or wrong.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation from French to English

I would be grateful if a user could please translate the following French sentence into English. Ils ont des fragments de la Mischne, qu’ils n’entendent pas, et ils ne firent que me dire le titre de quelques chapitres. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"They have fragments of the Mishnah, which they do not hear, and all they did was tell me the title of some chapters." It could also mean "which they do not understand" (which makes more sense), but the meaning "understand" of entendre is marked as "dated" at Wiktionary. Is this an older text? —Angr 14:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the word "firent", in that past tense (passé simple) marks the text as older, or in the older style.

"They have Fragments of the Mishna, which they understand not, and they but but told me the Titles of certain Chapters" - if you want to replicate the antique style! Duomillia (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Duomillia (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly "understand", rather than "hear", from the context and style. - Jmabel | Talk 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The simple past (such as firent) is still current in written French. In contemporary French, it is used to relate events that occurred long enough ago that they no longer bear any relation to the present. Entendre can still mean "understand" in some circumstances, though perhaps not in the straightforward way it's used here, which is more characteristic of texts up to about the early 20th century. Joeldl (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the quote is from 1725 [1], according to a Google search, and is in reference to the Jewish community in Kaifeng —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duomillia (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gratuity" pronunciation?

Well I pronounce it "Gr-tue-tee" but my law professor pronounces it "grae-chew-tee"! Is he correct? Is that the British way of saying it? --Sanguine learner ^talk 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is pronounced with four syllables: gra-TOO-ih-tee or gra-TYOO-ih-tee, and comes from the French gratuité. --Thomprod (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to conceive of an acceptable (or recognizable) pronunciation of gratuity of only three syllables, but if your law professor's pronunciation is more like "gruh-chew-ih-tee" (/gɹə.tʃu.ɪ.ti/), then that's Thomprod's second pronunciation (with palatalization). It could also be that he's acting pretentious with such an odd pronunciation (e.g. if you mean the first syllable is pronunced like gray /gɹe/ or graa /gɹæ/, if it is in fact three syylables, etc.).--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I pronounce it "tip". :-) StuRat (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The normal British pronunciation is /gɹə.ˈtju.ɪ.tɪ/. If the pronunciation is with /gɹæ/ (as in grab), then it is not necessarily erroneous just because the dictionary gives a reduced vowel sound. Sometimes people will "unreduce" a vowel - think of the speaking style of some black preachers in the United States. I don't remember if Webster's Third New International Dictionary records pronunciations like these, but it may well. Joeldl (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry everyone; correction: I meant I pronounce it "Gr-tue-ih-tee" and my law professor pronounces it "grae-chew-ih-tee". --Sanguine learner ^talk 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have little idea what your pronunciation respelling means (especially tue and grae). Can you tell us what system you're using, or use a common system like IPA? (And do you really stres the third syllable? That sounds really weird) Algebraist 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the OP meant they stress the third syllable verbally, but rather added the emphasis to distinguish it from what was originally written. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many words in which Americans say too or loo while our cousins are more likely to say tyoo or lyoo. —Tamfang (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Only some Americans, as regards tu. I agree that it's nearly universal fur lu.Joeldl (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Reading

石路 is a Japonese surname and is pronunciated as Tsuwabuki, but 石 can be red as shaku, seki, koku or ishi, and 路 as ro, ji or michi. So, where do tsuwa and buki came from? Do 石 and 路 have a different reading if used in proper names? If so, where can I find a list of these pronunciations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.40.76 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese_name#Difficulty_of_reading_names... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but this doesn't explain my question. I already known that every ideogram have different readings, but 石 is never listed as tsuwa, or 路 as buki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.40.76 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that non-standard readings such as those are yamato-kotoba, native Japanese words from before Chinese influence. They might have been dialect words that have long gone out of fashion, but were kept in surnames from the region. I can see a linguistic link between michi and buki. It's not obvious, but there's a chance that they're related. Steewi (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

石路 is a common typo for 石蕗. 蕗, as opposed to 路, is read as fuki becoming -buki via compounding with the earlier initial tsuwa. tsuwa is perhaps from tsuya (艶) > tsuwa. 石 by itself is not read as tsuwa, but as a compound this is most likely the Japanese reading given to kanji from a Chinese source. Bendono (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

jp:ツワブキ says the plant is also found in China, but it seems to be known as shan ju or "mountain chrysanthemum" in Chinese according to a Google search, and has nothing to do with stone or rock. The article also mentions it is used in Japanese gardening (『日本庭園の石組みや木の根元などに好まれる』), perhaps that's why?--K.C. Tang (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Greek harvest

My understanding is that, in Greek, "harvester" as a noun is θεριστής theristis and "to harvest" as the infinitive form of a verb is θερίζειν therizein. How does one write "harvest" in Greek (I'd like both the original Greek and the transliteration) as an adjective? I do know that adjectives inflect in Greek; if you could give me the "basic" adjective form as well as inflected variants, that would be helpful. Thanks in advance. —Lowellian (reply) 23:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In both Ancient Greek and Modern Greek there is θέρος (théros; also meaning "summer", and related to θερμός, the root of our "thermo-" words). Careful: it's a neuter noun, so the harvest is τό θέρος (ancient) or το θέρος (modern). Ancient Greek also has καρπός (karpós; masculine) meaning "crop", and therefore "harvest" in the sense of the product of harvesting, as in "a harvest of one hundred bushels".

Can't help with the adjectives. Perhaps the genitive of the noun is used. It would help if you tell us the context of your question: Ancient or Modern Greek? The whole sentence you want to make? Perhaps then we could locate a specialist for you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Modern Greek, though I'd be happy to hear about Ancient Greek as well. The adjective form seems to me to be a pretty simple question that I'd imagine any native Greek speaker should be able to answer. —Lowellian (reply) 02:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't often catch Noetica making a mistake, and it's not a big one, but still: in Ancient Greek, words that have an acute accent on the final syllable change it to grave before another stressed word, so "the harvest" is not τό θέρος but τὸ θέρος. —Angr 07:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Arggghhh... got me! I read the head of the entry in my Liddell & Scott – θέρος, τό – and I didn't make the adjustment when I turned the words around.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The noun "harvest" in Modern Greek is θερισμός (therism'os). The adjective is θεριστικός (theristik'os), which is its singular masculin and nominative form. Feminin form θεριστική, neutral form θεριστικό. Pel thal (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! —Lowellian (reply) 01:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I see that "θερ-ισμός, ὁ, mowing, reaping" occurs in L&S as well, but not θεριστικός. That would be a natural extension from θερισμός, of course. θέρος is also right, it seems: but perhaps with more of the καρπός meaning than θερισμός has (L&S: "θέρος, εος, τό, (θέρω) summer, ... II. summerfruits, harvest, crop, ...").

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

January 20

Bad spelling

Why is it many people have difficulty spelling even quite simple words? Although I appreciate many wikipedia editors might not have English as their first language, or may suffer with dyslexia, or people might choose to spell some words a particular way for a variety of cultural reasons (eg. text messaging), I am somewhat alarmed at the poor standard of spelling exhibited on the ref desks, particularly by teenagers. For example, in this recent question, the questioner made at least 20 obvious spelling errors in his three original paragraphs and numerous punctuation and grammar errors (in particular there's not capital letter or apostrophe in the entire piece). Are the basic rules of spelling and grammar no longer taught at school? Is correct use of spelling and grammar no longer considered important? Are the youth of today not corrected when they make these errors? Am I just a pedant? Astronaut (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me give this a positive spin, and say that now, in the Age of the Internet, people who are only marginally literate are encouraged to participate in reading and writing, who, in former generations, wouldn't have bothered. A generation ago there were probably many factory workers who were only marginally literate, but most people never saw their writings, if any, so this was largely hidden. Now, however, we see their writings on the Internet, so it seems like the standard of literacy has decreased, while, in reality, it's just no longer hidden. I'm also hopeful that as such people engage in reading and writing, their literacy will slowly improve. StuRat (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is undermined by the general policy of not correcting others' spelling, grammar and punctuation. It's an understandable policy; but it also means writers get no feedback, and hence little opportunity to improve. The chances of them just noticing the correct forms in other places, and immediately adopting them, seem pretty remote to me. Because they've seen the correct forms zillions of times, and still make new and more "creative" errors. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to correct an error for the author of that error to learn. If you merely repeat the word, spelled correctly, in your reply, they should get the idea. Also, when it's a search term, I do indeed correct their spelling, as this is required to find the right answer (although Google has some ability to handle a "near miss"). StuRat (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

an sumtimz we no wat wer doin an jess lurvterplyaran wifda sterfferfuhn annottereyety. Rippiinder rulz, mite, =) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a wide spectrum between perfect spellers and illiterates. It's not just people who have never been given the opportunity to learn to read and write. Lots of people in industrialized nations learn to read and write at a level that is sufficient to make it through the system and then don't read anything but the morning headline and only write their signature. It's not just factory workers either. (OR I've met a concert pianist, an engineer a business owner and a banker who all got by.) Producing a post with good spelling also requires other skills, though. Typing demands manual dexterity and good coordination. Most of us are trying to type faster than we should be in the interest of error free results. People who type more regularly have "automated" certain sequences. After years of typing "refunded" we may end up typing that instead of "refueled". The purpose of posting is to get a message across, not to impress others with our spelling ability. So the focus is on the message. This also inhibits error detection, though. There have been many studies recently on the mind's ability to fool itself. If we are sure there should be only one "the" in this sentence we will just not see the second one that slipped in. Exposure to new words is also usually limited to certain channels. Very rarely does one hear and read an unfamiliar word at the same time. Looking up words you know how to say is not always a successful strategy. "An Sighklopeedeeuh" just doesn't get you anywhere fast. Just like you get people who mumble, stutter or have a strange accent we're going to have to live with imperfect posts. _Lisa4edit76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly can accept that people make typing errors, etc., when writing, but it is possible to go back and correct your mistakes here. We aren't writing longhand, in ink, after all. So, I must conclude that people who don't correct their work judge it not to be worth their time to do so. I suppose if I was sending a text message telling people to get out of a building that's going to explode, I might not bother with spelling and grammar, but I normally have the time to correct my errors, so do so. Those who have the time and yet choose not to do so are an interesting case, I'd like to study their motivations. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I used to reread my writing and fix errors before posting to wikipedia, but these days my life is so chaotic, busy, and unpredictable (mainly due to having two very young kids) I often begin to write something for wikipedia only to be interrupted in a major way. When that happens I sometimes cancel my post. If I am basically done writing but have not proofread yet, I might post anyway--at least if it is for talk pages or the reference desk. So I reckon that for some people, like me, it isn't that proofreading isn't "worth the time", rather than there just isn't enough time. Often the choice is between posting without proofreading or not posting at all. Pfly (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but after you return from cleaning the exploded frog from the microwave oven, do you then proofread and correct your last post, or do you call it "good enough" and go onto posting something new ? StuRat (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, yes. Maybe often, even. Also, around here it's exploding slugs. Pfly (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The original questioner may have thought that his improbable question about pigs -- since when do farmers need to ask about their livestock at Wikipedia? -- would be enhanced by some stereotypically uneducated prose style. The whole thing looks to me like a come-on.

If I was one of the young folks, I'd spell just like I wonted to "epattay lay boorjwa", I meen 4 the fun of shokking the old fokes. (Kids write the durndest things!)

Incidentally, you talk of grammar mistakes but you don't give a single example. Lack of an apostrophe is far less likely to be a grammatical than an orthographical mistake; genuine mistakes of grammar (other than slips of the tongue or fingers) by normal native speakers (as opposed to aphasics) are I think vanishingly rare. Morenoodles (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In Shakespeare's time, nobody paid any attention to spelling. You pretty much spelt words the way they sounded to you, and nobody cared. It was only in the 17th century that printers (thanks to technical advances) stopped fiddling with the spellings of words to get the spacing of their lines right. That, and the appearance of dictionaries in the 18th century, were the main developments behind the uniformization of spelling, which in turn set the stage for our modern obsession with it as a mark of education. It's hard for us now to imagine a society indifferent to people's ability to spell, and which preferred to just get on with things. I agree with Lisa that we should save time by limiting careful revision of our writing to articles and not talk page posts. Joeldl (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant "...in particular there's no capital letter..." and not "...in particular there's not capital letter..." in your question, right? ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In his excellent The English Language (1985), Robert Burchfield says "An almost unqualified belief in a one-to-one relationship between most words in the language and the way they are spelt has been maintained since at least 1755 when Dr Johnson's Dictionary was published. Before 1700 fixedness of spelling was not insisted on with anything like the same rigidity." (That's on p. 146 in my 1985 edition of Burchfield.) But rather than 18th century dictionaries being the trigger, I've always supposed it was the Authorized King James Version of the Bible which began to create the modern notion of correct and incorrect spelling, orchestrated by the clerical dons and schoolmasters for whom the scriptures set the standard. Nevertheless, even today there are still hundreds of 'acceptable' variant spellings, and they take up over four hundred pages in The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (1981). Strawless ^(talk) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been hinted at previously, we can't assume that bad spellers don't know how to spell properly, they may know how but not choose to do so (as in e.e. cummings' lack of capitalization). In this sense "correcting" spelling can move beyond just providing info, and into providing censure for "unacceptable spelling".

TEACHER: "What's the difference between ignorance and apathy ?"

JOHNNY: "I don't know and I don't care !"

TEACHER: "Very good, Johnny !" StuRat (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that my keyboard is much, much worse at spelling and punctuation than I am (I suspect that this is because it was designed by a sadistic lunatic). I also find it much harder to spot typos on a computer screen than I do in printed material. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's from the same naughty keyboard school as mien. There's also informal conversation (email, refdesk, chatrooms, etc). I like the idea of nnot being judged according to spelling, very much! Would the richness of language flow more lusciously without it? sometimes, I think it does. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My thought on this is that spelling is an important part of language, but more important than spelling is effectively creating an argument that can be easily understood. Too many people nowadays worry about spelling, and English teachers (in the United States) worry too much to teach their students to spell everything correctly and forget to teach them how to effectively express a point. Take this as an example: The world of peace and war is made up of arguments, which are always fought with words. Words are like the spear or the rifle in the battlefield. It doesn't matter how smooth, large, or rough the bullet or the spear's tip are, because the only important thing is for it to strike and kill. However, like spelling, the smoother or better made the bullet or spear's tip are, the easier and faster it will be able to strike its mark. I hope you find this opinion plausible.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glorious, [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] -- ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of new age writings that are almost totally devoid of content, just strings of meaningless words strung together. They can talk about matrices and crystal emanations and cosmic string vibrations for hours and never actually say anything. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the point of communication is ... well, to communicate. If the basic message gets through, you've done your basic job. But there's always a secondary (but not necessarily any less important) message with communication. In speaking, the bulk of the meaning is conveyed by non-verbals (voice tone etc). In writing, a badly spelled/punctuated/formatted/laid out text will convey a lot to the reader, apart from whatever the meaning of the text itself is. It will show whether the writer takes care to create a good impression, checks their work, has a professional approach, and would be a good ambassador for the company (if the reader is a prospective employer). Sentences such as "Your a company id like to work for" show that the writer does not grasp the difference between the basic concepts of verbs (you're) and pronouns (your), and verbs (I'd) and nouns (id), so it doesn't augur well for their ability to handle important things such as company mergers and investments. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that somebody who writes id has done it because they don't know the difference between nouns and verbs. That aside, you're probably right in that correct spelling and punctuation have become socially important, so people are likely to take it that way. But, if, for example, what they wrote was handwritten, would we be paying serious attention to the quality of their calligraphy? That would be more typical of past eras, or other cultures. I'm completely incapable of writing as nicely as they did in, say, the U.S. constitution. I think I'm quite typical of our time in that respect. It's very much a social convention. Joeldl (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm thiking of the Declaration of Independence. Joeldl (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but that makes it sound as if the social aspects of communication are somehow less important than some other aspects (linguistic, perhaps). If communication isn't primarily about interacting with society, what's it about? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agreed that you might be thought of as sloppy or even stupid if your spelling was wrong, so that was an acknowledgment that this particular social aspect of communication is important. My point is that the fact that good spelling is viewed as so important socially is strongly associated with our particular time and culture. Realizing that there is nothing inevitable about it is good, because it allows us to reflect critically on whether this is desirable in a society. Joeldl (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Had things like Wikipedia and computers never existed, one could reflect in such a way. But imagine if the software that enables us all to have these online discussions, or our cars to go, or aircraft to fly without falling out of the sky, or being able to cram even more things into our shopping trolleys and get them through the checkout quickly, or talk on our mobile/cell phones, etc, was written with little regard for accuracy in programming. If the need for accurate spelling wasn't inevitable before, it's definitely become so now. OK, in other contexts you can generally get through your day without having spelled a single word correctly, so in that sense it's not necessarily a matter of life and death. But neither is good manners; or dressing appropriately; or general professionalism. Ignore those at your peril. We all use language, all the time, so why shouldn't general expectations of at least a minimum standard, and preferably a desire for excellence, apply here as with all other aspects of life? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that correct spelling is important in computer programs, but I think that's a separate issue. My point is that whether or not spelling is an important component of what we consider the "quality" of our language is a matter of convention. Also, I don't think spelling is really comparable to moral issues like good manners any more than good handwriting is. Joeldl (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling is a moral issue. Bad spelling (or handwriting, for that matter) means other people have to spend more time and effort understanding your words. If you are spelling badly because you don't want to spend time and effort yourself proofreading, then you're just being selfish. Algebraist 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I would say that good spelling comes naturally to some people, but not to others. For bad spellers writing for a small audience, the effort required is likely to be disproportionately large compared to the practical benefit to their readers. When people make an effort in those circumstances, I think wanting to avoid seeming stupid is usually a much bigger factor than courtesy. (I'm not saying that bad spellers are stupid; I'm saying that the stereotype exists and has real consequences.) For example, if we're honest, I think we'll admit that writing it's for its is more likely to have adverse consequences for a job applicant than writing thr for the, even though the latter error is much more likely to impede understanding. Joeldl (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Joeldl, consider then, if you will, "you're" and "your"; "their", they're" and "there", and other pitfalls for the layman (dare I say, illiterate?) writer. Me, I find a person that confuses those is just plain old stupid. And I'm not even a native speaker. No matter how powerfull or important the message they want to get across may be, confusing "there" and "they're" just blanks it all out for me. Call me a purist, but I just don't belive in linguistic relativism, is all. TomorrowTime (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick: Correct and Proper Usage of Source Language?

Hello once again. I was wondering if you could please evaluate the following sentences in regards to the following criteria:

• The sentence is placed in the article bicycle kick, under the section entitled "Peruvian Claim."
• The sentence is meant to express a common neutral viewpoint of two people of important positions.

Quick Background: The "Peruvian Claim" section only deals with the claim of invention of the "bicycle kick" in the nation of Peru. Just like the other section, this section is supposed to provide its own neutral views on the story.

This is the sentence I am proposing (Short and to the point):

As noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC), the claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is nothing new.

However, this is the sentence proposed by another Wikipedist (a little longer):

As noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC), the claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is nothing new even and that it is recognized as chilena by the rest of the world.

Nonetheless, the second sentence is, in my opinion, attempting to create a dispute. By stating that "it is recognized as chilena by the rest of the world," it is making an "exceptional claim" that is not necessary in the section. In addition, the sentence proposed by the other Wikipedist has bad grammar and I really cannot quite understand what it attempts to state.

Could anybody please provide their opinion on the matter? Which is the more grammatically correct sentence that fits in better with the section "Peruvian Claim"? Once again, thank you in advance. Remember to take note that this time I am not asking for you to fix the sentences, but rather to tell me which one you think is most appropiate and neutral.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an opinion in response, suggesting getting to the point sooner rather than later because it is easier to read this way. I'd say The claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is not new, as noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC). It is even recognised worldwide as "chilena". (this last needs a reference)

"Even" is used for contrast and emphasis, going from the local to the global, but using "nothing" labours the point unlike "not". I like to get my information without wading through a whole lot of authoritah before finding the point. Others will likely express their opinions more technically but that's it from me. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, I saw it last season. It's a very flashy move. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew with certainty that I could count on the editors here. Thanks. One more thing, though. Let's say I use this sentence:

The claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is not new, as noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC).

However, in this sentence I have left out: "It is even recognised worldwide as 'chilena'"

Would this be taking the previous statement "Out of Context." A simple yes or no answer, although you can elaborate on it (if you wish), would do just fine.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean denying a context to the single statement, no, not to me. It seems optional. If you want to add the second for balance, I suggest "... even though it is recognised worldwide as 'chilena' ". Julia Rossi (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what he means to say. It doesn't seem to be necessary to include that last part. That part you excluded would also, probably, cause controversy.-Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks to the two of you.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] -- Julia Rossi (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the individual being quoted, Harold Mayne-Nichols, never agrees to the bicycle kick being invented in Peru. His statements from http://www.elperiodicodemexico.com/nota.php?sec=Deportes&id=55799%7Ctitle%C2%BFChilena follows:

""El primero en realizar esta acción fue (NDLR: en 1914) un jugador de Talcahuano (500 km al sur de Santiago), pero que los peruanos se atribuyan el origen no es nuevo. En todo caso, ellos la llaman chalaca y en el resto del mundo se conoce como chilena. Por algo será", reseñó."

The literal translation is:

"The first person to realize this action was (Ramon Unzaga in 1914) a player from Talcahuano (500 km from the south of Santiago). but that Peruvians attribute the origin as their own is nothing new. In any case, they call it the chalaca and the rest of the world knows it as the chilena."

Simply including "The claim of the bicycle kick being invented in Peru is not new, as noted by Manuel Burga (President of the FPF) and Harold Mayne-Nicholls (President of the FFC)." is taking his statement out of context and suggests that Mayne-Nichols agrees to the Peruvian claim which he does not because he declares that it was first performed in Chile.

Harold-Mayne Nichols should not even be included in the Peruvian claim section as a neutral viewpoint because he has stated that he is not impartial with his stance. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement does not seem to be taken out of context. I once had a similar problem to this when I was writing one of my papers, but I was told that the statement would only be taken out of context if it was excluding a crucial part of the overall statement. Mr. Mayne-Nicholls clearly states that he knows that the Peruvians have been claiming the move as theirs. There is no context problem here. I noticed this statement in the Chile section, "In late 2006, Federación de Fútbol de Chile president and FIFA delegate Harold Mayne-Nicholls completely denied the existence of the chalaca and added that the chilena was invented in the Chilean city of Talcahuano in 1914." The only conflict I see here is that while one side states that he "completely denies" the move, in the other section he states that the claim of Peru "is not new." Yet, individually, both of these statements are correct and without need for change.--Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all points expressed by user "Friedrich," but I do not agree on the idea that it conflicts with the other statement in the article. The statement in the "Chilean Claim" helps to state the point of Nicholls, while the "Peruvian Claim" merely mentions a statement that he factually stated. Some people contradict themselves, and Nicholls is obviously no exception. First, he denies the "complete existance" of the chalaca, but later he states that the claim of Peru is very old.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that Mayne-Nichols is contradicting himself because he does not believe in the Peruvian claim story. Nichols realizing that Peruvians have their claim, yet not accepting it isn't a contradiction. Yes, he factually recognizes that there is a claim made by Peru. On the other hand, he also states that he does not believe in it by acknowledging the Chilean origin claim that he accepts.

For the sake of discussion and as an example, I could invent an item and offer it to the world and later on someone else can claim to have invented the same thing. I can acknowledge that the person has had a very long claim to having invented it and dismiss it at the same time, because I believe that I invented it. What makes the bicycle kick claim controversial is that no patent exists and never will. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You can use as many examples as you want, but it has been clarified that me using that sentence in the "Peruvian Claim" section is by no means taking the thing "out of context."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

languages [How to say "hello" in Saudi Arabia?]

how do you say hello in saudi arabian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolchurchman (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Arabic, but wikt:Hello translates "Hello" as marħában. Joeldl (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ahlan wa sahlan" is used as a greeting as well.--droptone (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You say Ahlan wa sahlan only when someone comes to your room or your country (literally something like "make it like your home and feel easy"). The standard greeting used throughout the Arabic world is "As-salaam ^Calaykum".--K.C. Tang (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article: As-Salamu Alaykum.

Also Lolchurhman, note that the language of Saudi Arabia is Arabic, (not saudi arabian). Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

True. There isn't even a Saudi Arabian dialect of Arabic; or rather, there isn't one Saudi Arabian dialect of Arabic. The three main dialects spoken there are Gulf Arabic, Hejazi Arabic, and Najdi Arabic. Whether they have different words for "hello" (and if so, what they are), I don't know. —Angr 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Arabic consists of many quite different dialects, and "Saudi Arabic" would be a plausible denotation of the dialect of Arabic spoken in Saudi Arabia. The trouble with this theory is that according to Arabic language#Dialects and descendants there is no such thing as a Saudi dialect, whereas the dialects spoken in Saudi Arabia include Gulf Arabic, Hejazi Arabic, Najdi Arabic, and Yemeni Arabic. — Emil J. 15:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation needed

Hello!

I need translation from Japanese to English:

Amette tanoshiine
Doko kara tomonaku futtekite itzumo
tanoshiku utatteru
Dakedo hitorigia utaenai
Nakayoshi koyoshide atzumatte
Yaneto isshyoni ton ton ton
Tzuchitto isshyoni pin pin pin
Hanato isshyoni shan shan shan
Minnato tanoshiku utatteru.

You can hear the song also at:

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=XmgKiioec1o

Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.88.82.94 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rain is amusing
Falling from out of nowhere up above
Always singing merrily
But (rain) cannot sing by itself
Get together with company (to sing)
Along with roof, “Ton, ton, ton”
Along with earth, “Pin, pin, pin”
Along with flowers, “Shan, shan, shan”
Rain is singing merrily with friends
Oda Mari (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

And now You can write in Japanese characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.88.82.94 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One comment: If "ton", "pin", and "shan" aren't words in Japanese, but just represent the sounds made by rain, perhaps this should somehow be noted in the translation, especially since "ton" and "pin" are common English words. Would putting them in quotation marks accomplish this ? StuRat (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

雨って、おもしろいね。Amette omoshiroine
どこからともなく、降ってくる。dokokaratomonaku futtekuru
いつも楽しく歌ってる。Itsumo tanosiku utatteru
だけど、ひとりじゃ歌えない。Dakedo hitorijya utaenai
仲良しこよしで集まって。Nakayoshi koyoshi de atsumatte
屋根といっしょにトン、トン、トン。Yaneto isshoni “Ton, ton, ton”
土といっしょにピン、ピン、ピン。Tsuchito isshoni “Pin, pin, pin”
花といっしょにシャン、シャン、シャン。Hanato isshoni “Shan, shan, shan”
みんなと楽しく歌ってる。Minnato tanoshiku utatteru
Oda Mari (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, StuRat, but when the words repeat like that they're already behaving like onomatopoeia and in context probably don't need special punctuation "clues" around them as well. (But now I see quotes as for speech, why not.) Julia Rossi (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Distinction between agree with/agree to?

I often get confused which one is a correct? Eg.

1. I agree with what he said.
2. I agree with to what he said.

--Sanguine learner ^talk 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They're the same - at least what you wrote is the same. Was that intentional? Astronaut (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not intentional! Goofed up! Sorry! ---Sanguine learner ^talk 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying,

1. I agree with what he said – the sense is that you both agree about something, ie, you have the same opinion or viewpoint.
2. I agree to what he said – is that you consent to do something that has been suggested by another person. Julia Rossi (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanguine learner ^talk 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's just it. Agree to is used with agreeing some proposal – we could even say some proposed action or inaction. Strawless ^(talk) 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The wording also sometimes implies something about the power relationship between the two people. If you "agree with" someone, that sounds like you are equals, while "agreeing to" something can imply that they are in control, and you must do as they say. For example, a judge may ask if you will perform community service if given that instead of jail time, and you would "agree to" it, as opposed to "agreeing with" the judge. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Julia, Strawless and StuRat (nice point about the power relationship). Also Astronaut! --Sanguine learner ^talk 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One extra point: What Strawless wrote above, "Agree to is used with agreeing some proposal", is perfectly normal British English but is unidiomatic in American English. Americans cannot "agree a proposal", we "agree to a proposal". --Milkbreath (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. "Agree" cannot be used like "approve" in that context. Although, one could say simply "I agree" or "I approve", interchangeably. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. I might vote for (and thus agree to allow) prostitution, but that doesn't mean I approve of it. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

When I said "one could say", I meant there exist contexts in which this would be possible. It wouldn't apply in all contexts, though, and you've identified one where it wouldn't apply. The main point of my post was that you can say "I approve this recommendation", but not "I agree this recommendation" (or "I concur this recommendation") - whereas the person could have said just "I approve", "I agree" or "I concur". Adding an object to that, however, restricts the choice of verbs to "approve" - unless you opt for "agree with" (some say "agree to") or "concur with". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Being Anglo-Irish, I don't at all mind what Milkbreath says about 'British English'. But, Milkbreath, am I right in thinking that out there beyond the great Sargasso Sea you could say of a proposal "That's agreed", and not "That's agreed to"? Strawless ^(talk) 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you aright, yes. "So, that's agreed, then?" and "So, we're agreed?" or "So, we're all agreed?" are heard, none ever with "to". (Are you saying that you Anglo-Irish have retained a characteristic dialect? Must have made for some rough schooldays growing up in the haunts of the pookah.) --Milkbreath (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghost

The German word for ghost is Gespenst. Is this term used also in Danish (I mean, in official standard danish language)? If so, is it used in other languages such as Swedish, Norwegian...? --151.51.40.76 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are likely many German words for ghosts of various types, such as a poltergeist, or simply geist. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wiktionary entry for ghost [2] has Gespenst in German, Danish and Luxembourgish / Letzebergish. It is not listed under the translated terms used in Norwegian and Swedish. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't recommend using Geist for 'ghost', except in Holy Ghost. Strawless ^(talk) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The usual term for 'ghost' in Danish/Norwegian/Swedish is Spøgelse/Spøkelse/Spöke. All related to English 'spook' and German 'spuk'. I can't think of any cognates to 'gespenst'. 'spirit' (geist) is Ånde/Ånd/Ande/Ande Danish/Bokmål/Nynorsk/Swedish --130.237.179.182 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, having looked it in a dictionary, yes, it is in fact an 'official' but uncommon Danish word (borrowed from German). Can't quite say it's the same thing as in German (even though it's the same word), since as I said, it's not the common word for 'ghost'. You've got to be careful with False friends like these. E.g. 'geschäft' is a valid 'Swedish' word, but only in the context of saying 'make a big deal out of something'. Or how German 'ruhig' (calm) becomes Danish 'rolig' (calm) and then Swedish 'rolig' - which means 'funny'! --130.237.179.182 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While I can confirm that "spøkelse" is the usual word in Norwegian, Gespenst is used (rarely) and understood in Norwegian and Danish. See this google search (most of the hits are Danish). The word is rather antiquated in Norwegian. The words "gjenferd" and "gjenganger" are also used in Norwegian about as frequently as "spøkelse". Slightly different connotations; "spøkelse" focuses on the apparition, while "gjenganger" and "gjenferd" focuses on the person who has returned. The literal translation of "gjenferd" is "other journey" or "journey back"; "gjenganger" is "person who walks again". The Norwegian Wikipedia lists the synonyms "gjenganger", "gjenferd", "dauding", "skrømt" and "gespenster". The play Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen is "Gengangere" (Danish spelling) in the original. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say 'gjenganger' (Sw: 'gengångare') is almost what you'd call a 'zombie' now. Although perhaps a little less physical, and without the connotation of B-horror movies. I'm realizing here that it's a bit hard to translate these things given that every horror fiction author tends to invent their own definitions and distinctions.. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The zombie connotation of "gjenganger" may be a Swedish thing, it's not used that way in Norwegian. A "gjenganger" is soneone's ghost, and is also used metaforically - something evil which repeats itself in the next generation - like in Ibsen's play. I'd say the only synonym with any zombie connotations in Norwegian would be "dauding". --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of those terms where the translation you choose depends a lot on context, because both English and German have synonyms for ghost, specter, phantom, spirit, spook, wraith - Geist, Gespenst, Irrlicht, Phantom. You can either say "Gespenstergeschichte", "Geistergeschichte" or "Spukgeschichte" for ghost story. But the hour between midnight and 1 a.m. is only "Geisterstunde" not "Gespensterstunde" or "Spukstunde". While both Geist and Gespenst can be used to describe a (sort of) person a "Spuk" is used to describe the event rather than the person. You can call a sprite a "Geist" but not a "Gespenst". A castle can be haunted by a "Schlossgespenst" or a "Schlossgeist" both of whom can be friendly or hostile. But the phrase "das Gespenst der Geschichte" (the specter of history) is negative whereas "der Geist der Geschichte" (the spirit of history) is positive. To boot Geist also means "mind" in German. "Spök" is used in Low German and Swedish. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence Improvement

The railway network in Italy totals 16,627 kilometres (10,331 mi), ranking the country 17th in the world,[39] and is operated by Ferrovie dello Stato.

I don't like how it sounds, but I cannot figure out how to improve it. What do you guys think?--Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Italian railway network, operated by Ferrovie dello Stato, is the 17th longest in the world at 16,627 km" DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For an even smoother sentence, you could use FS, the short way to say Ferrovie dello Stato. Strawless ^(talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make the sentence smoother, it just uses an abbreviation most English speakers will be unfamiliar with. —Angr 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll withdraw smoother, Angr, but most English speakers would be just as puzzled by Ferrovie dello Stato, even without the challenge of pronouncing it. Strawless ^(talk) 23:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it reads pretty well as it stands. There are three minor issues. First, it's not clear whether the sentence means that 16,627 km of routes or of tracks. (That is, do double-track lines count once or twice?) Both methods are fairly commonly used. But this may be clarified elsewhere in the article.

Second, in the first part of the sentence "railway network" refers only to the tracks (or routes) themselves, since that is what is being measured, but in the second part it is better interpreted as including the whole system (trains, stations, etc.), since that is what the FS operates. But this is a common way of speaking; note that Duncan's version does the same thing.

Third, the second main verb ("is operated") is a fairly long way from the subject. Duncan's version resolves that by rearranging the parts, but there are subtle changes of emphasis and it may not read as well in context. --Anonymous, 23:04 UTC, January 20/09.

I think that DuncanHill has developed the best answer to this.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Me, too. And I also think that the average English-speaker will have no trouble with Ferrovie dello Stato given the clue "Italian railway network". Ferro like "ferrous", vie like "via", dello like all the Romance "of the"s, and Stato is obvious. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm enough of a snob to think that (a) the average anglo ought to be able to work out what it means but (b) in fact the average anglo won't make head or tail of it. —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the average English speaker will understand the words. Or, for the least, they will understand that it is a language other than English. For some reason, I cannot edit the article from which I took the sentence. I am not sure why.--Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Which article is it? DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, found it, the article is Italy and it is indefinitely semi-protected, so only autoconfirmed editors can edit it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

learning German

What is the easiest way to learn to speak (not read/write) German? Moving to Germany is not an option, and I'm not going to take formal classes unless it's 100% necessary. flaminglawyer^c 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, teaching to read/write is preferred, but not needed for my purposes. flaminglawyer^c 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See (and hear) Language Guide: German Pictorial Vocabulary Guide | Deutsch: Vokabelführer.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(after EC) For what purpose would you like to speak German? Would you like to communicate with German business associates, listen to German language lectures at a university? Talk to German relatives? How much time would you like to invest and what level of proficiency would you expect to achieve after that period? Do you live near a town with a university where you might find a language swap program? Do you have to do this on a limited budget or could you afford spending some money on material/lessons? There are many methods available, but one size does not fit all, individual learning preferences and abilities vary widely. German is not an easy language to learn. Sentence structures can be mind boggling. --76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(also after EC) It depends a lot on the individual, but at least for someone who speaks English, German is a fairly easy foreign language to begin, perhaps even the easiest. You could start by asking your local library if it has any materials it can lend you, such as a German course on cassettes, CDs, or DVDs. Things like that are out there. You could also begin by buying one of the German teaching books aimed at schools, I have seen some good ones, or by asking about local evening classes. Some people find that being taught formally works best for them, not least from the point of view of sticking with it. German pronunciation (I mean of Hochdeutsch) is fairly straightforward, but at some stage you really need a live teacher who will set you on the right path, or at the very least some kind of audio material. Strawless ^(talk) 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get some CD's from my library and see if they work. I won't mark this Q as resolved in case anyone has any better ways to mention. flaminglawyer^c 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You might check out these two web sites: http://german.about.com, http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=aboutgerman Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend this tutorial for the basics of grammar. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

German is certainly a straightforward language to learn for someone who speaks English. Since Fraktur fell into disuse, you don't have to learn a new alphabet - just the scharfes-S and the Umlaut letters. Rules of pronunciation are simple and consistent. Once these are mastered, it's a piece of cake to pronounce. It has none of the pronunciation anomalies of English. The sentence structure is a bit unusual, but a knowledge of Latin may be a good preparation. Once a basic level of proficiency is reached, and you need some practice, you could do worse than watch some German TV channels on the internet, with their news programmes, advertisements and documentaries. Their vocabulary is relatively simple and non-colloquial, and diction is of a higher standard than in everyday conversation, usually without any extreme regional accents. There's a site called Beeline TV from where you can select a number of German stations if you have broadband. NDR Fernsehen from the north of Germany is one of the better ones. Pavel (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of TV, "Sesamstrasse" the German version of Sesame Street isn't the worst place to start if you need basic vocabulary and everyday conversations. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

January 21

Looking for a word [where a winch cable is secured]

I recently got a tree saver. It's a strap that goes around a tree so that you can attach a winch cable to the strap and winch your vehicle out of a stuck situation. It keeps the cable from having to be wrapped around the tree and cutting through the bark as well as not damaging the cable. What would the tree be called in this case? I thought there was a word for it but I can't think of it right now. "Tie down point" doesn't sound right and I thought there was a single word for such a "device". Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think winch point is what you're after. See pages like this; and especially this:

The pulley block is attached to a winch point (e.g., a tree) which is in front of both the stuck vehicle as well as the recovery vehicle.

(A pity about that construction with "both ... as well as", though.)

See also here, which has talk of both the tree strap in addition to a winch anchor point. Other sites uses simply anchor point or anchor.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Anchor is the word that just wouldn't come to mind. I kept thinking ballast but knew that was wrong. One of those brain fart sort of situations. Dismas|^(talk) 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Mink", "minky" and "minker" meaning disgusting or dirty in various forms of British English

thumb|right|"Do you have a licence for that minky?" This is quite interesting from an etymological perspective. I have noticed, that where I live, people have used 'minky' or 'minker' to describe something or someone as dirty, disgusting, unclean, unpleasant, etcetera. I notice that both minky and minker have been deleted from Wikipedia, although the deleted version of the latter contains some explanation. It's not patent nonsense, whatever it was - it's definitely a real term.

It seems to be unrelated to the word mink, and Wiktionary has nothing for this meaning of the word, same with answers.com. Urban Dictionary however has got minker. I agree that tinker and manky (Urban Dictionary) must certainly be etymologically related.

I primarily have found the use of the word 'minky' or 'mink' to mean unclean or disgusting when the word is actually used, though. Could anyone confirm this and perhaps these could be added to Wiktionary?--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For 'mink', Urban Dictionary also has "cross between minging and rank". I never thought of that one... none of these terms would occur in Estuary English, but nonetheless these terms do seem to be in use.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So maybe, when the Pokemon called Mankey was given its name, the creators didn't take into account the slang 'manky' or 'minky' as they probably weren't aware of it.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on the French word Manqué discusses the etymology of the slang term manky=dirty, inferior; possibly from manqué and/or through Scottish slang or Polari, probably going back to the Latin mancus=crippled, maimed; a BBC page[3] says manky is from Scotland and north of England, etymology uncertain but possibly from French; another source of uncertain validity says the Polari word manky comes from Italian mancare[4] (while Michael Quinion says it may come via Cockney[5]). However, I can't find hard evidence linking minky and manky. As mentioned, minky might also be derived from, or influenced by, minging, which Wictionary says was originally Scots without any further information; minging is in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English without an etymology. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also Latin "mingere", to urinate. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was a localised corruption of the word 'minger' (see above) which is a common word in the UK for a person with some undefined inferior, social, quality. "He never buys his round (of beer), what a minger" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.182.202 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Merkel

I need a translation in English for the Dutch word "Merkel". Part of a barge. A subschribtion can be found on the Dutch Wikipedia under Merkel (schip). --Stunteltje (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Might that be Coaming? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple root languages

I noticed that the word Australopithecus (Latin australis "of the south", Greek πίθηκος pithekos "ape") has multiple root languages. Does this happen in other instances? Is there a name for this kind of thing? I take it this is frowned upon by linguists? Thanks. Anythingapplied (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

wikt:television is a standard example. I don't know of a general term. Algebraist 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Television is another that springs to mind - and C. P. Scott's comment on it "Television? The word is half Latin and half Greek. No good can come of it." DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My first guess at a general term struck gold: we have a list at hybrid word. No source is given for the term, and I don't know how common it is. Algebraist 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great responses, exactly what I was looking for. Thanks all. Anythingapplied (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You also have the example of bialgebra. Actually, this is funny because the word was coined in French as bigèbre instead of bialgèbre, on the basis that the al- in algebra was an article in Arabic, and so needed to be removed before the prefix bi- was added! I think the pedantry was only facetious, but the word did end up sticking in French. Bigebra is unusual in English, though. In any case, we're lucky they didn't decide to use whatever the Arabic element for "two" is. Joeldl (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Two is ithnan in Arabic. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can it be used as a prefix? Joeldl (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't a clue! DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well, if an Arabic-speaking mathematician happens to come along, maybe they can tell us what the Arabic word for "bialgebra" is. And "coalgebra," for that matter. Joeldl (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In Arabic, two of something is shown as a suffix, so "algebrān" (although I somehow doubt that is a real word...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, the early Semitic languages were extremely sparing of combining two stems into a single word (except in proper names, oddly enough). This means that there were few or none of the prepositional prefixes, numerical prefixes, negative prefixes, etc. which are so common in early Indo-European languages, and few or no real lexical compounds (though there was the "construct state" or idafa construction, which had similar semantic effect to a true noun-noun compound). Modern Israeli Hebrew has changed this by borrowing some prefixes of "international" vocabulary (such as anti-), and having a series of numerical prefixes -- but the numerical prefixes are based on Aramaic number words, which are quite different from native Hebrew number words (so the prefix meaning "tri-" in modern Hebrew is usually tlat-, while the corresponding Hebrew word for "three" is shlosh). Modern Hebrew also has a few lexical compounds (such as kaduregel, "soccer") which unequivocally do not involve the construct state.

Arabic is a little more conservative than modern Hebrew. In any case, the Arabic -an/-ain suffix is a dual form, and not a numeral affix (i.e. if you added the -an/-ain suffix to the Arabic word for "languages", you would get a word meaning "two languages" -- and not meaning "bilingual!). AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My Concise Oxford English-Arabic dictionary gives "dhu-l-lughatain" as a possible translation of bilingual. I guess that construction can be used for other bi- words too? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a true compound in the linguistic sense, and dhu is not a prefix. It's an idafa construction, and dhu is a semantically rather vague form which means something like "the one who possesses" or "the person characterized by" (e.g. the famous name Dhu'l-Qarnain, "the one with two horns"). So this provides little guidance on how to translate "bialgebra" into Arabic, as far as I can see. AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As to your last question, Anythingapplied, it's not frowned upon by linguists, because linguists know better than to try to prescribe how native speakers are "supposed" to user their language. But it is often frowned upon by pedants who have nothing better to do than gripe about how people use and adapt language. (I've just added my favorite example to hybrid word: Minneapolis, which is half Dakota Sioux, half Greek.) —Angr 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Say, if that one counts, how about Indianapolis? The first part is named after the state, which is named after the "Indians" of North America, which are after the real Indians of India, whose English name comes ultimately from the Sanskrit name of the Indus River. So the city's name is part Sanskrit and part Greek.

I notice that the list of hybrid words contains not one example of a word with ultimate roots in three languages. Do we really not have any of those in English? --Anonymous, 01:43 UTC, January 22, 2009.

If one counts prefixes, hemidemisemiquaver has immediate roots in four (though hemi- and semi- are cognate, of course, and demi-, though French, is derived from Vulgar Latin dimedius). "Ultimate roots" is a tricky concept when dealing with words that, like television, are made up of parts from Indo-European languages. If proper names such as "Minneapolis" qualify for the list, one wonders why "Wikipedia" isn't included as well. Deor (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonder no more, Deor. Nobody's been bold enough yet, or even smart enough to think of it. Till now. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There are place names with roots from three languages. My favorite is the little village of Applebachsville, Pensylvania. Unfortunately it is too small to have a wikipedia page. As for a single word for words with mixed roots, a quick google search makes it seem unlikely such a word exists. Pfly (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite on topic, but it has been pointed out (I don't remember where) that 'remacadamized' contains elements (affixes and roots) from five languages. --ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

French version of findtheword.info

Is there a French-language version of this tool?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for showing us that. After a Google search, how about this: [6] ? Joeldl (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Joeldl. To be honest I had discounted Googling as I had no idea what the search terms should be. Anyway, very useful - cheers.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new dictionary search engine, where you can search in a lots of different languages. WordMine.info EmilS (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Eckscape" versus "Escape"

Why do people insist on mispronouncing the word escape as eckscape? Also especially as eckspecially. Just curious how that might happen.  Buffered Input Output 17:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you axed... StuRat (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

By analogy to words with the prefix ex-. —Angr 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the only sensible explanation, but are exp- words really that much more common than esp- words? I've never heard the mispronunciations Buffered refers to, and I'm surprised to hear they're common. Joeldl (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard "excape" a lot, and I think its semantics make it particularly prone to association with "ex-" (and indeed its ultimate etymology does involve that prefix). As for "expecially", I haven't heard it as often as "excape", but glancing through the dictionary suggests there are a lot more words that start "exp-" than start "esp-", though an absolute number of words doesn't say as much as comparative frequency and familiarity of the two groups would. —Angr 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It can happen at the end of the word too: some people pronounce Asterisk as Asterix. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article Et cetera says the following.

A common misspelling of the abbreviation is "ect."; a common mispronunciation is "ex cetera," and another common misspelling is "et cetra."

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Metathesis of consonants is more easily understood. The difference is that exp is probably harder to pronounce than esp. Joeldl (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[edit conflict: I was reacting to asterix.]

All right, on second thought I'm willing to accept that esp- words are infrequent enough for this to happen. Especially seems to be the only really common one. I wonder if you get expionage, expouse and Experanto.Joeldl (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Expresso, anyone? :) --Kjoonlee 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's cheating! Express is a native cognate word. Joeldl (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I was answering your second question, about Esperanto turning into Experanto. Espresso crops up as expresso from time to time. --Kjoonlee 09:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, my dictionary shows a lot more exp words than esp words: expand, expatiate, expatriate, expect, expectorate, expedient, expedite, expel, expend, experience, expert, expiate, expire, explain, expletive, explicate, explicit, explode, exploit, explore, export, expostulate, expound, express, expropriate, expunge, expurgate versus espadrille, espalier, esparto, especial, esperance, Esperanto, espial, espionage, esplanade, espouse, espresso, esprit, espy. Exc words are not much more numerous than esc words, but they are more familiar: Excalibur, excaudate, excavate, exclaim, exclave, exclude, excogitate, excommunicate, excoriate, excrescent, excrete, excruciate, exculpate, excursus, excuse versus escalate, escallop, escape, escargot, escarole, escarp, eschar, eschatology, escolar, escort, escritoire, escrow, escudo, esculent, escutcheon. (I've omitted some related words, as well as words in which c is not /k/.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be hypercorrection by Italians accustomed to speaking Italian words.

esatto = "exact"; esistere = "to exist"; espandere = "to expand"; estendere = "to extend"

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody in my experience ever says "riks", "tahks" or "mahks" (for risk, task and mask), but I often hear "ask" pronounced "ahks". I wonder what makes that particular word so troublesome for some people. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That word became fixed as aks in many dialects of English centuries ago. The first person to say it that way had no more reason to do it than they would have had to say riks. Joeldl (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even in Old English the word for "ask" is attested as both āscian and ācsian. —Angr 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See Pronunciation . -- Wavelength (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See also these: [7] [8]. Apparently, though the Germanic root word would have had -sk, the verbs acsian and ascian coexisted 1000 years ago, and the first was standard until about 1600. It's survived in some dialects. Joeldl (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also Black English. The intricacies of the use of metathesised forms like aks for "ask" or graps for "grasp" almost put me to sleep in a lecture, but lo, they are in the article along with a reference: "See Baugh (2000:92-94) on 'aks' and metathesis, on the frequency with which 'aks' is brought up by those who ridicule AAVE (e.g.Cosby (1997)), and on the linguistic or cognitive abilities of a speaker of standard English who would take 'aks' to mean 'axe' in a context that in standard English calls for 'ask'." Julia Rossi (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

'Wasp' is another word that has metathesised cheerfully over the centuries. "OE. wæfs, wæps, wæsp" (OED s.v. 'wasp'). --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That happens in German, too: In Bavaria, (or at least Franconia), I heard "Wepse" instead of "Wespe". — Sebastian 07:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia? ~AH1^(TCU) 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary commas?

Am I correct in thinking that in the following sentence, the commas in the part where it says "...Lennon's remarks, in his 1980 Playboy interview, where..." are unnessary and should be removed?

However, the notion that Lennon is responsible for the song's melody, as opposed to McCartney alone, or Lennon in collaboration with McCartney, is highly questionable in light of Lennon's remarks, in his 1980 Playboy interview, where he refers to 'With a Little Help from My Friends'" by stating: "This is Paul, with a little help from me. 'What do you see when you turn out the light/ I can't tell you, but I know it's mine...' is mine."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine either way. Joeldl (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If the 1980 Playboy interview has been mentioned previously, I would take the first comma out, though. Joeldl (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Myself, I'd delete the comma after remarks but retain the one after interview, since the "where …" clause is nonrestrictive. Deor (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it hadn't been mentioned before, the comma could go, with no loss of meaning. Hence it's unnecessary, hence it should go. The sentence is over-long as it is, and every little bit of mini-pruning would help. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that things that are unnecessary are always bad. It's good to have choices. Joeldl (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That depends on interpretation. It could be that in his 1980 Playboy interview is nonrestrictive and where he... is restrictive. That's how I read it as it is.Joeldl (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The "where …" clause would be restrictive only if Lennon had more than one interview in Playboy in 1980, in which case the clause would be specifying the one containing the reference to "With a Little Help from My Friends." Deor (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If it helps to see the context, the sentence is here. It's in the second paragraph.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and rewritten it (the where clause is unnecessary in context) but, for the record, I agree with Deor. —Tamfang (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

January 22

Crying Frenchman after Nazi victory

There's an iconic film of a Frenchman crying during the Battle of France (perhaps when Paris was occupied). He's standing up straight in a crowd trying to keep his composure although he's obviously very broken up inside. We've seen it dozens of times in various WWII documentaries. I was just wondering who this guy was and what his backstory was.

So, I asked this question on the Humanities Reference Desk but no one really knew for sure.[9]

It turns out that someone else had asked a similar question on the Military_history_of_France_during_World_War_II talk page: [10]

But again, nobody seemed to know the answer.

I was wondering if any of the French/English speaking editors would be willing to ask this question on the French version of Wikipeda? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's some information about it on the image description page of commons:File:Frenchman weeps as the French troops leave Toulon, June 1940.JPEG, such as the speculation that it might have been a staged re-enactment. —Angr 08:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think editors on the French Wikipedia would know more about that picture, or even be familiar with it as it comes from an American propaganda movie and seems to be mostly (somewhat) iconic in the United States (As a side note, check this picture from a simpson episode) . The internal link to the picture on commons posted above by User:Angr provides verifiable information. A caption from the National Archive [11] erroneously claims the picture to be of a frenchman weeping as german troops marched on Paris in blatant contradiction with the movie from which it was extracted. Equendil Talk 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Passion for words

Hello wiki frnds. i have a question. you see i like to read dictionaries because it enhances my word power and it also serves as my pasttime. one time i encounter this word and 4got it, till now i still cant remmber wat it is. my question is, if rhetoric is the art of public speaking, wat is the art/ passion of using the correct words called? my question is somewhat related to literature topic. its definition is more or less like wat ive read in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. please help find that word for me please. thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.31.50 (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no answer. I removed your e-mail to protect your privacy. We do not e-mail answers, you'll have to check back here. Please also use the "ask a question" button at the top of the page. A new section with a headline will then automatically be added and people will be able to find your question. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Elocution, perhaps? (Uh, I hope you don't take offense, but you may also be interested in spelling, because, well, damn.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Philology is quite literally a passion for words, although it does not cover the "using the correct words" part. -- Ferkelparade π 09:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Switching around Fp's suggestion: logophilia? It can also apply to people who love their words in isolation, so maybe it's not le mot juste. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfectionism? The pop-up likes Sluzzelin's "mot juste" with adaptations. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I also like the term word child. Hilary Burde was less of a mot-justist and more of a foreign language word-buff though. His (and her) mot-justism comes naturally, I guess. Hilary's skills of tongue would be an asset to the language desk, the tongue's side-remarks would likely cause some problems though :) ---Sluzzelin talk 10:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the word you are looking for is "pedantic", but perhaps you should use your passion for words and love of dictionaries to improve your spelling of simple words. For example: "friends", "pastime", "forgot", "remember", "what". Astronaut (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I normally hate to do this, but it's appropriate here. Your comment was indented under Sluzzelin's post, as if you were addressing him. Since you seem to be addressing the OP, it would have been better to have used only one colon. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wordsmith (as in skilled user of words)? Is there a pedant uprising happening here? :) Julia Rossi (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

there it is!!! Ü its Pedantics ! thanks bro. ur a genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.31.50 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.245.5 (talk)

If you mean "You are a genius", then why not write "You are a genius". It is not that hard to get the spelling correct :-)) Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor, for that matter, is it difficult to use the shift key to get capital letters. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know it's resolved and ur happy! :) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Swedish FOI

Apparently the Swedish Defence Research Agency, or Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut, uses the abbreviation FOI. How does one get FOI from Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut? -- SGBailey (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"FOrskningsInstitut" - FOI, changed about ten years ago from FOA ("Försvarets Forskningsanstalt"). For whatever reason, the name 'Försvaret' (Defence) was never included in the abbreviation. Could be to avoid double F:s; It's a half-pronounced acronym, roughly "Foo-eee" (and "Foo-aah") A number of Swedish military abbreviations don't include it. You could also compare to the nondescript "RAND Corporation" (Research ANd Development), which was initially was a US Military operation. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

English Grammar

I would like to know whether the following usage is correct-

 'that has been to date been unexploited.'

You should delete the first 'been'. And whether the rest of it is correct or not depends on what the subject of the sentence is. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the context, "not been exploited" might be better than "been unexploited".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "to date" smacks of commercialese, and "has been unexploited" seems too positive a phrase to describe inactivity. I'd prefer "...that is so far unexploited" or "...that has not yet been exploited." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If the same meaning can be gotten with less words and with fewer clauses, then it is always prefered to write as such. "That has not yet been exploited" parses much easier than what you wrote, and it means exactly the same thing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

January 23

Renegade

Conservapedia makes the following claim about President Obama's Secret Service codename with regard to their claim that he may be a Muslim:

Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."

I realize that article is probably committing the etymological fallacy by suggesting that the word's original meaning is somehow relevant to Obama's religion, but is their historical etymology of "renegade"(the part I've placed in bold) correct? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The OED, for example, gives a 1599 citation from Richard Hakluyt (in his The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques & Discoveries of the English Nation): "He was a Renegado, which is one that first was a Christian, and afterwards becommeth a Turke." Michael Slone (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the etymological fallacy applies here. Those numbnuts seem to be implying that Obama chose that name in full knowledge of its etymology, as a sort of arcane joke. Thanks for turning that rock for me; I would never have looked at that insane nonsense otherwise. It's hard to believe they're serious, but they are. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's better for your brain if you assume Conservapedia is not serious. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the scary thing is that Conservapedia is serious. Its not right, but that doesn't mean that the people who write that shit don't do so in all earnestness. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it can't be, because I don't think I could deal with a world where it was. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, it's probably irrelevant because(at least according to our article on the subject) people don't get to choose their own codenames, but the White House Communications Agency does. Anyway, thanks, Michael Slone, for answering my particular query. 69.224.37.48 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While the case of Christians-turned-Muslim was a significant historic usage in Spain, I think it's worth noting that the word simply means "one who reneges". That is, a denier or someone who rejects a cause or religion or belief or such. Current English usage is also consistent with that. I don't think the word has ever been exclusively used for people who reneged on their faith. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean, btw, that Conservapedia thinks John McCain actually is an unbranded calf (Maverick)? --130.237.179.182 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's best not to assume the editors of Conservapedia think at all. (Those who do are usually quickly blocked indefinitely.) —Angr 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they also think he's the son of Cain. Algebraist 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the US, isn't (wasn't) it most often applied to an Indian who rejects a treaty? —Tamfang (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the number two (2) written two different ways ?

My six-year-old grandaughter asked me this question, probably because I do a lot of calligraphy,and she also sees twos written by me and in school using a loop. I've tried many searches and many different wordings and have gotten everything from an explanation of how Pythagorian geometry originated with dots in the sand that corresponded to the shape of the number of dots, to the importance of the number two in Caballah. I know there's probably a simple answer out there; something to do with ease of typesetting as compared to ease of hand writing, and that's what I told her, but I've got a reputation for taking all questions seriously to uphold, and of course,that's the great thing about kids' questions: they get you curious about things you thought you already knew. I'd appreciate any help, even if you can tell me where to look. Thank you. Sincerely, BR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.189.248 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See Arabic numerals#History. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See Regional handwriting variation#Arabic numerals. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And 2 (number)#Evolution of the glyph. Nanonic (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. What's the other way of writing 2, appart from the usual (in my part of Europe, anyway) "2"? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In handwriting, it can have a loop in the lower left-hand corner. —Angr 09:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Shows it pretty well, I remember learning to write it as the second to right. I's just easier in some way, more fluent — CHANDLER^#10 — 10:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought writing a reversed "S" or "Ƨ" would be the easiest and quickest approximation of "2". Yet I've hardly ever seen this in handwriting, although we've learned to accept it in seven-segment display. Maybe the base needs to be a straight line for easy recognition. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you check out these images [12], [13] you'll see the (former) German and Austrian ways of writing a "2" including the curly part. The Germans have gone through several reforms and revisions with warring factions claiming that their variety was easier. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See Graphology. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Arnoldian" Public Schools

I was reading a book the other day about the history english public (i.e. private) schools in which the author used the phrase, "like many Arnoldian Public Schools...." I wasn't quite sure what the term Arnoldian was in reference to, so tapped it into google, but alas to no success. Anyone know what the author means by this? Thanks 79.75.192.38 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly referring to Thomas Arnold? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Dr Arnold was a great reformer, and completely transformed Rugby School, with other schools adopting similar measures. Before that, the boys at public schools had spent much of their time hare-coursing, horse-racing, watching bare-knuckle fights, gambling and that type of thing. Younger boys were bullied mercilessly. Arnold was a devoutly religious man, and his reforms gave the public schools the ethos they largely retain to this day - what we might call "muscular Christianity." Have a look at the Wikipedia entry for Tom Brown's Schooldays. That was a novel set at Rugby School in the 19th century, and based on the experiences of its author Thomas Hughes. The book itself may be downloaded from Gutenberg, and will give a good idea of public school life in those days, and the issues surrounding Arnold's reforms. Pavel (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Error Check

I'm writing the following in a card that I'm going to give to my favourite teacher before leaving school, and I'm really anxious to ensure that there aren't any grammatical mistakes in the message, because she's our English teacher. Please check the following text and point out the errors if you see any. Any other suggestions you might provide are also welcome.

There are few people who, in a short span of time, touch us in a way no one else has, transmuting our otherwise leaden lives into gold, like you have. Thank you for being one of those rare few who make life special, and for bringing back my faith in teachers once more.

My questions:

• Does the "like you have" part sound a bit forced and out of place?

• Should "once more" be placed in the middle, as in, "for bringing back, once more, my faith in teachers"?

Please answer within the next two days, because I'm going to give the card to her on the 26th of January. Thanks in advance. La Alquimista 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that you can drop "once more" completely. If something has been "brought back once more" then that means it was brought back at least once previously. Perhaps you might try "for restoring my faith in teachers." As I read your note again, I think you might also consider dropping "like you have," as the next sentence picks up that implication. --LarryMac | Talk 17:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some English teachers think that "like" should not be used as a conjunction, as you do at the end of your first sentence. While I don't personally consider this an error, it does have a tone of informality, which I believe is not what you are going for, so I would change that to "as you have." Similarly but less noticeably, you may want to omit the comma after "special." John M Baker (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is something a little off about "few people" touching us "in a way no one else has". If someone touches us in a way no one else has, that person is not one of a few people, but the only such person. How about "touch us profoundly"? I agree that "like you have" is unnecessary, since the second sentence makes that connection. If you want to emphasize it, I agree that "as you have" would be more correct than "like you have". John is also right about omitting the comma. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That message is charming, but if she is really is your favourite teacher, I think it's best to say what you liked about her. I don't know about the personality of your English teacher, but praise of my accomplishments makes me much happier than any generic compliments. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama meaning

A wiki answer says the name Obama means crooked or slightly bent in the language of the Luos. Where can one find more about the name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsjayaschandran (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dholuo language and the links from there might help. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Elvis in Chinese.

I need some help. Suppose I want to describe some one (in Mandarin) who is wearing clothes covered in rhinestones, such as Elvis was known to wear. Would I use the verb 散布 san4 bu4 as Babelfish suggests? Something along the lines of 散布与假钻石的衣服。The 与 of course is surely out of place (the sort of confusion seen in "I saw the thief 'with' the binoculars"). Any help??? Thanks Duomillia (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cancel request. I've decided to write my compostion for class on a non-Elvis topic. Duomillia (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

there are no "non-Elvis" topics, you tool. Elvis is the King! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He is no king until such time as I can describe his rhinestone-encrusted wardrobe in excellent Chinese before my fellow classmates on Monday. Duomillia (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

散布 literally means dispersed, not covered with. To indicate that something is comprehensively covered with or saturated with something, it's better to use 遍布. wearing clothes covered in rhinestones = 所穿的衣著遍布假鑽石。 ～～～～ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aas217 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama Inauguration Transcripts

Why does every transcript I've seen have "MR." in one sentence?

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

MR. The question we ask today is..."

What could that possibly mean? 169.229.75.128 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As answered at the miscellaneous desk, not every transcript has this -- the White House version doesn't, and neither does the one on the ABC News site. My guess is that the MR is a typo or transcription error that got repeated and repeated. Though I suppose it could stand for "Masonic Revenge." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe the transcriptions were done by more than one person and whoever stitched them together didn't erase the initials one of them signed off with. This seems like the most likely explanation to me.

Why is "Corfe Close" funny?

A New York Times article [14] describes several places in the UK with funny or seemingly rude names like "Butt Hole Road," but it includes "Corfe Close" and says a hypothetical address "4 Corfe Close." Is it supposed to sound like "fuck off" in the local pronunciation, where the "r's" might be silent? Or is it somehow about removing clothes? How is it in the same league as "North Piddle" or "Wetwang?" Edison (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The "r" in Corfe is silent (it simply modifies the preceding vowel). So the "fuck off" interpretation is correct. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read the article, I'm amazed they didn't mention Gropecunt Lane. DuncanHill (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's because it's a historic name, not a current one. There's nowhere in Britain called that any more. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the "r" is silent ? I don't think the "r" in Corfe Castle is silent. And I don't think the "r" needs to be silent to make the joke (using the word in its widest possible sense) work. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you could pronounce the "r" in Corfe. It's pronounced "cawf". DuncanHill (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Like "Core" but with an f at the end. Livewireo (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The "r" in "core" is silent too, sounds the same as "caw" (what crows say). DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect anyone with a rhotic accent would pronounce it. Algebraist 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I do have a slight rhotacismus, so "r" tends to sound like "w" anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a different understanding of what constitutes a silent letter. I thought a silent letter was one that does not affect the pronounciation of the word at all - like the "k" in "knife" - what our silent letter article calls a "dummy letter". You count a letter as silent if it is part of a dipthong - so the "r" in "fork" would be silent. Now I understand. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense! The "e" in knife is silent too - but it does alter the "i". DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing something in the above conversation, because how does cawf clause sound anything like "fuck off"? How do you get from close to off?? Z doesn't sound anything like F

Four Corfe... Fourc Orfe... --TammyMoet (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Four = Faw, Corfe = Cawf. Faw Cawf. Say that out loud. Livewireo (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Its like the one about my lost friend "Michael Hawk..." as in "Has anyone seen Mike Hawk"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a hill in Dorset which the Ordnance Survey call "Site Hill", but used to be spelt with an "h". It's near the River Piddle. DuncanHill (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So "Corfe" is pronounced in most regions of Britain as "cawf" rather than "korff" as it would be in the U.S.? Is the prnunciation the same as "cough" or "koff?" And "farm" rhymes with "Mom?" Edison (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's "korff" - like Corfu without the final "oo". Gandalf61 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Farm" rhymes with "ma'am" (or with "alarm" without the "a" at the beginning). DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any part of England where 'Corfe' /kɔ:f/ rhymes with 'cough' /kɒf/. And while in much of England 'farm' /fɑ:m/ resembles some American pronunciations of 'mom', I don't think there's anywhere in England where it does (not that we use 'mom' very much except in American contexts, normally preferring 'mum' (/mʌm/ or /mʊm/ depending on which part of England). --ColinFine (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

what is the origin of "man, that __ is one bad mother -- (SHUT YOUR MOUTH!)...But I'm just talkin about __"

what is the true origin of the reference man, that __ is one bad mother -- (SHUT YOUR MOUTH!)... But I'm just talkin about __?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to be Theme from Shaft by Isaac Hayes. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight... (had to be said). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And we can dig it! (again, a must) Fribbler (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

January 24

Yet or still?

I wrote the following in a letter: "At the moment we are not looking for new participants. However, this may change in the future, so we may yet contact you later." Should that be "we may still contact you later"? DirkvdM (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong, but I do think it would be better with "still" or even with nothing at all there.

The meaning of yet that you're going for here is "nevertheless" or "however." However, its placement seems to me more typical of the meaning "at a future time." The "yet" might therefore be perceived as duplicating the role of "later." "Still" is okay, but could probably be left out altogether since the "however" at the beginning of the sentence can be understood as performing the same function (applying to the sentence as a whole rather than just to "this may change in the future"). Another option would be to use "nevertheless." Joeldl (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an addendum. The reason yet and still may have seemed attractive here is that they can have the meaning "nevertheless" or "however" I mentioned above, but also the meaning "continuously up to the present time." In that case, you'd want still to modify may, and "we may still" is an idiomatic way of saying "we still may." The problem is that having two time words, still and later, in the same sentence is confusing, even though there's nothing logically wrong with having still modify may and later modify contact. Joeldl (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but there is something wrong. This is the kind of thing people write when they're not trying to be Mr. Perfect, they're just trying to communicate. On that level, it's fine; it's unambiguous, and it conveys a clear meaning. But you sensed a problem, and there is one. "Yet" in this context implies that you have had the opportunity to contact him for an indeterminate span of time but haven't and that that failure to contact him in the past is no indication that you will not in the future. If I understand the situation, this letter was a first reply to his submission, so that you've had no chance not to contact him up till now. That's the main problem; "yet" is a wrong word and should be deleted. If my analysis so far does not apply because I've gotten the facts wrong, "later" is redundant with "yet" or vice versa. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, leave out the "yet," which doesn't help and may hinder. "At the moment we are not looking for new participants. If this changes, we may contact you again." No need for "however," nor "in the future," nor "yet," nor "later." (I realize your question was about yet versus still, but it seems your goal is to let people know that your current situation may change.) --- OtherDave (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But what you suggest doesn't actually say that the situation may change. Joeldl (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "if this changes" covers that. Pretty much any situation may change. Gibraltar may tumble, the Rockies may crumble. The original has two degrees of uncertainty anyway ("this may change" and "if it does change, maybe we'll get back to you"). --- OtherDave (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the inclusion of "if this changes" in a sentence is anywhere near as strong a statement that change is possible as "this may change." Joeldl (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll have to acclimate yourself to disagreement. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the combination "may yet" has a specific use where it acknowledges that something is possible but also says you think it's unlikely, or at least unlikely in the near future. I take "yet" here to be being used in its contrastive sense, contrasting with whatever the more probable situation is.

For example, someone might say, "We may yet come get this plane down safely, if we can just get one of the engines restarted. Or else find a big wide river within range and then make a perfect landing on it." Or there is an old practical joke where you send someone a telegram reading:

IGNORE PREVIOUS TELEGRAM. ALL MAY YET BE WELL.

Of course there really never was a previous telegram, but the use of "may yet" implies that (for the reasons you supposedly explained in it), you think things are not going to be well.

Of course, this is not what "may yet" was meant to imply in Dirk's. As others have stated, it would be better to use "may still" or just plain "may".

--Anonymous, 04:45 UTC, January 26, 2009.

Beriberi

Anyone speak Sinhalese? Our beriberi article derives the disease name from the Sinhalese for "I cannot, I cannot", but most dictionaries I've looked at say it means "weakness". Which is right, or does it mean both? Lesgles (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User si.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The OED says "A Sinhalese word, f. beri weakness; the reduplication being intensive." Xn4 (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I don't know Sinhalese, but the phrase "I cannot" may be idiomatic for "weakness" in that language. We have similar phrases in english, for example "Making love" for sexual intercourse, or the like, where the direct translation of the phrase word-for-word does not capture a deeper understood meaning. Therefore, it does not mean that our article is strictly incorrect based on the OED cite... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Sinhalese, so I guess I can help you there. "Beri" (pronunciation is somewhat like barry) means "can't". It would mean weakness when it is used as berikama, meaning inability. The exact meaning is not weakness, though. Beriberi is a kind of slang word, which means something like lazy or backward. Hope that helps. Chamal ^talk 11:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

January 25

Translation from French to English

I recently asked for the translation of the following old quotation from French to English: ”Ils ont des fragments de la Mischne, qu’ils n’entendent pas, et ils ne firent que me dire le titre de quelques chapitres.” I appreciate the users who did this translation for me. I have now found a very slightly different version of this quotation. Instead of “firent” there is “surent” and instead of “quelques chapitres” there is “quelque chapitre”. The latter version will obviously change “some chapters” to the singular “some chapter” but will “surent” instead of “firent” make any difference to the translation? Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Quelque chapitre does indeed mean "some chapter" but, unlike quelques chapitres "some chapters," is now restricted to literary language. As for surent, it's the simple past of savoir "to know." In this case, it can be translated as "all they could do was..." or "all they were able to do was..." Joeldl (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Hi, how would you say "For uor fathers" in Italian and in German? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

German: "Für unsere Väter", Italian: "Per nostri padri" Lantzy ^talk 13:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For Italian: "per i nostri padri". The definite article is only left out in connection with possessive pronouns when the noun is a specific family member and singular. If the noun is plural it always requires an article. The bible quote from Baruch 1:16 ("And to our kings, and to our princes, and to our priests, and to our prophets, and to our fathers") has "per i nostri padri", for example.

To illustrate:

• "per il nostro professore" (for our teacher): singular, not a family member >> use the article
• "per i nostri professori" (for our teachers): plural, not a family member >> use the article
• "per nostro padre" (for our father): singular, family member >> omit the article (unless your talking about father outside the family context, e.g. "per il nostro padre spirituale")
• "per i nostri padri" (for our fathers): plural, family member >> use the article

---Sluzzelin talk 14:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the English meaning. If the fathers are used in the meaning of a parent, the translation will be different from fathers and forefathers or priests. Depending on context the German might also be "unseren Vätern gewidmet".--76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In Spanish: "Para nuestros padres". --PST 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians from Washington D.C.

Dear Wikipedians from Washington D.C.

Recently, I have been looking for materials about Neo (a constructed language) on the Internet, but have been able to find very little material. However, I found out that the Library of Congress has the original of Arturo Alfandari's The Rapid Method of Neo (the Library of Congress - Neo). Since I am not in Washington (in fact, I am from Europe), I would ask you one favor - if somebody could have the book photocopied and/or scanned and put online. However, I am aware of the ownership problems - the book was published in 1961 and is still under copyright. But this is only de iure, since Arturo Alfandari is deceased and nobody is actually making any profit out of it. De facto, this language and its creator are more or less forgotten (and I think he would be happy that at least somebody is showing any interest in his creation), is not commercialized so there would be no intelectual property theft and profit loss for anybody, and therefore no infringement of either Wikipedia's copyright policy or of the overall stance towards this issue. So, if somebody could help me, I would be very grateful.

Once again, thank you

Note: I know this request is a bit unusual but no spam or rudeness of any kind are intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkinAardvark (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some external links which may be of use to you at our article Neo (constructed language). DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Reproducing material that is still de jure under copyright certainly is against Wikipedia's policies, regardless of whether it "ought to be" or not. If someone does do this for you it will have to be outside Wikipedia. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there are other libraries that have a copy of the book, such as university libraries (WorldCat may be helpful here), and which would be willing to send it to your local library on an interlibrary loan? Then you could whatever copying your conscience and the local laws and library policies allow. --Anonymous, 04:26 UTC, January 26, 2009.

January 26

Its vs It's

Which is correct in the following snippet...?

the Display Collection, in it[s] most basic form

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Display Collection in its most basic form" would be correct. Its here is the possessive form of it, and not a contraction of it is or it has. DuncanHill (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Is this the only case where an apostrophe is not used when indicating possession? Dismas|^(talk) 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Of course, with pronouns we have "his" and "whose". DuncanHill (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And "hers" and "theirs" (but not "ones").--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

please help [Why "congratulations" with an "s"?]

Why do we have to put "s" at the end of the word "congratulations"?Noualsee1 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a plural noun along with good wishes, best wishes, compliments, felicitations, cheers, compliments, bouquets; and others: praise, commendation, applause, honor, acclaim, approval, admiration, are not? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

German - English translation help

Can anyone help with an idiomatic translation of the following from Michael Haneke's screenplay of Die Siebente Kontinent: 'Ich glaube, ein Leben, wie wir es gelebt haben, vor Augen, sagt man leicht zu jeder Vorstellung von Ende ja.' Many thanks. Vleb (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Euclidian"

As the title suggests, I would like to know how "Euclidian" is pronounced --212.120.247.244 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Just" in Spanish

I am sure that in Spanish, you say "I have just finished..." as "acabo de..." so the infinitive is "To have just finished"/"Acabar de". Suppose you want to say that "I have just eaten". Would you say "como de" or "I have just finished eating" (how would you say this?: I don't know what happens to the gerund). The other question is why I have just finished does not become a past tense. I am a beginner in Spanish so I might ask some more questions here. Is that alright?