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 31

Translation

Can you help by translating QUO VATA VA COUT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.111.125 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure this is correct? It looks like a cross between Latin and French to me.--KageTora (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Quo fata vocant" (Whither the Fates call) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.101.135 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"neumal schlau" German translation

What does it mean? I think the whole sentence is: "meine Arbeitskollege sind alle neumal schlau". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.97.125 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's neunmal schlau, literally "nine times clever". It means being a wiseass. (And it should be Arbeitskollegen to be plural.) —Angr 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More common is neunmalklug. Irrelevant trivia: klug found its way into the English language as kludge.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this address read?

港区赤坂5-3-2 赤坂サカス内

It's letter G on this map.

Thank you Louis Waweru  Talk  21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Minato-ku Akasaka 5-3-2 (go no san no ni), akasaka Sacas nai. --Sushiya (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Louis Waweru  Talk  22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Officially, it would be Akasaka-Sacas-Nai, 5-3-2, Akasaka, Minato-Ku. Japanese addresses are written with the larger place coming first and gradually getting more specific, down to the building. This is the opposite of English.--KageTora (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, thank you. It's for my attempt at translating ja:赤坂BLITZ. I'm pretty much stuck now, in case anyone has any interest in adding to it. Louis Waweru  Talk  14:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

February 1

Translation help.

What does it mean in Spanish?

"Su semblante cambió radicalmente al ver el cadáver de su amigo, pálido y con sus ojos abiertos de par en par. La maldad del hecho lo enloqueció"

Translation by translator is senseless. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed987147 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone who actually knows Spanish can do a better job, but this is what Babel fish gave me: "Its semblante radically changed when seeing the corpse of its friend, pale and with its open eyes wide. The badness of drove crazy it to the fact". So, it couldn't handle the word "semblante", is that spelled right ? Perhaps it means "semblance". The translation also doesn't seem to have any gender. The rest is pretty clear though: "Seeing the corpse of (his/her) friend, pale and with eyes wide open, was so horrid, it drove (him/her) crazy, in fact." So, true to form, this machine translation isn't perfect, but does give you the gist of what was said. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Word Reference translates "semblante" as "expression" or "face." So we can say, "His (or her) expression changed radically on seeing the body of his friend, pale and with his (or her) eyes open wide. The wickedness of the deed drove him crazy." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Drove him mad" would be more apt. Mosquitos and younger siblings drive you crazy. And although "radically" is a literal translation of "radicalmente", colloquial English would be far more likely to use "completely". So, "His expression changed completely at the sight of his friend's corpse, pallid and wide-eyed. The evil of the deed drove him mad." Lantzy ^talk 01:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Names

What is the study (or science) of personal names, like John Smith? I know there are separate tangible names for studies (or sciences) such as place names, like streets and how the street got the name. (I forgot the name of that too.)96.53.149.117 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is onomastics what you're looking for? —Angr 14:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, Anthroponomastics. Deor (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't work for street names, though, which he also asked about. —Angr 14:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the question as asking for the specific study of personal names, with the place/street branches of onomastics being mentioned as examples of what the OP isn't interested in. I may be wrong, though. Deor (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it ast "What's the word for study of personal names, as opposed to toponymy? jnestorius^(talk) 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

German idiom?

After the horrid weather of last month in Europe, I received a letter containing this phrase:

 Wir hatten 20cm Schnee und 15° Frost ...

I and my pocket dictionary are stumped with the "15° Frost" concept. It's possible that he has already converted degrees from C to F for me, so that he's just talking about temperature in a way I'm not familiar with, but I don't think too likely.

Anybody have a better explanation? Thanks, 70.59.116.195 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be related to degree of frost. Algebraist 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It'll mean -15° C. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In 12 years in Germany I have never heard that expression. —Angr 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of w:de:Frost seems to confirm what DuncanHill said.

Der Ausdruck Frost (german. Ableitung von frieren) bezeichnet das Auftreten von Temperaturen unterhalb 0 °C Grad Celsius (Gefrierpunkt von Wasser) insbesondere in der Umwelt, wovon vor allem Lebewesen, das Wasser und der Boden betroffen sind. Der Dauerfrost des Winters führt zur Winterruhe der Natur.

Can someone with more competence in German than mine please translate that paragraph?

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist is right, it's the same as degree of frost, except for of course that is uses °C (or more exactly, Kelvin) instead of °F. I've heard it a couple time in colloquial speech. Translation of the above: "The expression "Frost" (germanic derivation of "freeze") refers to the appearance of temperatures < 0 °C (freezing point of water) especially in the environment, which affects primarily living beings, water, and the ground. The continuous frost in winter leads to hibernation in nature." (It's not well written, though, if I may say so.) — Sebastian 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I suspect our article degree of frost may be, incredibly unusually for a Wikipedia article, somewhat U.S.-centric. I have certainly heard "degrees of frost" used in the UK to refer to temperatures in Celsius. DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I assumed so, but the first link I found about it, http://www.answers.com/topic/frost, disagrees. — Sebastian 01:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That entry is from a McGraw-Hill publication, which is American, and may, just may, not represent a world-wide view. DuncanHill (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The big OED has "degrees of frost: degrees below freezing point" - no mention of any specific scale being required. DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally in the UK, this was always degrees Fahrenheit below freezing (thus zero degrees Fahrenheit was 32 degrees of frost), and I still use the expression in this way. The rest of Britain might have changed since they "went metric"! Dbfirs 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack London used the phrase "X degrees of frost" in To Build a Fire, and wasn't talking about Celsius. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ich bin ein Berliner

Just wondering why JFK said "Ich bin ein Berliner. - I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!" (text, sound) Did the interpreter translate his words back into English? — Sebastian 22:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean why did he say "Ich bin ein Berliner", he was expressing solidarity with the people of Berlin. If you mean the part about the interpreter, it was a little joke. See Ich bin ein Berliner. --Anonymous, 00:33 UTC, February 2, 2009.

The second was what I meant. I took "translating my German" to mean "translating my German into English". But, after reading Ich bin ein Berliner, it seems indeed likely that what he wanted to say was the opposite. — Sebastian 00:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What he meant was that although he had already said "Ich bin ein Berliner" in German, the interpreter repeated it in German. It was a self-deprecating way of saying "My German pronunciation is so bad that my interpreter has to 'translate' it into proper German for you." —Angr 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, of course! Thank you for translating JFK's polite English into a language I can understand! :-) — Sebastian 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2

Huddling together of words with very different meanings

Since I'm not a native speaker, I sometimes experience misunderstandings in English which may not be as common to native speakers.

Once I was in London and asked a cab driver how much it was to Heathrow. "£15", I heard — only to realize that it was "£50" when we arrived.

Yesterday, my girlfriend called me from the store to find out which cough drops I wanted. She mentioned A, B, C, and D. I said "Get A". She got B, C, and D — she had heard me say "Forget A".

Another example would be the words "can" and "can't".

Getting to my question: We know that languages evolve. If two words or language constructs that are commonly used in sentences where one could replace the other have very different or even opposite meaning, then I would expect them to move apart from each other. Instead, they remain close or (in the case of "can't") have even moved closer. Why?

Is that phenomenon stronger in English than in other languages? It seems to me English has more instances of this than other languages. (I'm aware of "zwei" ~ "drei" and "Juni" ~ "Juli" in German, and "买" ~ "卖" and "一" ~ "亿" in Chinese, but there exist official alternative disambiguating pronunciations for at least three of the four pairs; while English doesn't seem to mind.) — Sebastian 02:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just one comment. In British/Commonwealth English, can is pronounced "kan", and can't is pronounced "kahnt", so there's no problem. But I see your general problem. This issue is the root cause of mondegreens. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, mondegreens are funny. The most famous one on this side of the pond is probably "I let the pigeons to the flag". But those are just random coincidences, which is inevitable in any natural language. What I'm wondering about are words that are frequently used, and often occur in interchangeable positions. — Sebastian 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

English has million and billion; also, hither and thither (where th is voiced in each occurrence like the th in there).

French has dessus ("above") and dessous ("below").

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

When giving out my phone number, or any reference number, I'm always careful to pronounce 0 as "zero" not "oh", because the latter can sound too close to "eight", particularly over the phone, particularly in Australian drawl. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Same applies to the letters M and N, and F and S. That's why the police and others use that code thing rather than saying the names of letters. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In the South (US) there's always an opportunity to mix up "Sweet" and "unsweet" tea. If you're thinking hot tea you'd better point that out specifically. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"I let the pigeons to the flag".? I never heard that before, and I'm on the same side of the pond as Sebastian is, so it can't be that famous. The most famous one I can think of is "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy." AnyPerson (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard that either. I'd say it's got a healthy bit of Spoonerism in it. --LarryMac | Talk 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

English has dog, frog, and hog; bat, cat, and rat; cow and sow; louse and mouse; lice and mice; goose and moose; fox and ox; porpoise and tortoise; guppy and puppy; goose and mongoose; lion and sea lion (and other examples with sea--check the dictionary for words starting with sea); beagle, eagle, and seagull; calf and giraffe; mole and vole (and foal); lamb and ram; clam and salmon; auk and hawk; pigeon and widgeon; bear, hare, and mare; buck and duck; beech and birch; pine and vine; berry and cherry; lilac and violet (colors and flowers); Sunday, Monday, and someday; September and December; eye and thigh; ear and beard; nose and toes; lip and hip; gum and thumb; tongue and lung; chin, shin, and skin; breast and chest; artery and heart rate

French has est ("east") and ouest ("west"); nez ("nose") and oreille ("ear"); joue ("cheek") and genou ("knee"); dent ("tooth") and langue ("tongue"); bras ("arm") and doigt ("finger"); les héros (no liaison) ("the heroes") and les zéros ("the zeroes", "the nothings").

Italian has sei ("six") and tre ("three").

Portuguese has leste ("east") and oeste ("west"); seis ("six") and três ("three").

Spanish has este ("east") and oeste ("west"); seis ("six") and tres ("three").

German has auf ("on", etc.) and aus ("out of", etc.) and their compounds.

Latin has ab ("from") and ad ("toward") and some of their compounds.

Russian has девять ("nine") and десять ("ten").

Japanese has ichi ("one"), shi ("four") and shichi ("seven").

-- Wavelength (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Beagle and Eagle DO NOT rhyme with Seagull, in British English.

Givnan, I did not intend to suggest exact rhyming in each example set of words, but only similarity that might cause misunderstanding as described by the original poster.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of a recent discussion about translating the text of a language map. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 January 11 (section "File Translation Needed"). It was pointed out that "American languages" did not constitute a language family. Most of the language groups shown on the map happened to be language families, but nothing ever said and nobody ever said that every language group on the map was a language family.

It also reminds me of another recent discussion, about the use of the definite article by men and women. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 December 15 (section 'Use of "the" at the delicatessen'). It was suggested that speaking in a certain way was to be avoided if most people of the same gender did not speak in that way, and especially if most people of the opposite gender did speak in that way. There seems to be a tendency to think: "Most do, therefore all do (or should do)".

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your examples! I think we all agree that the phenomenon does appear in many languages. Can we now proceed to the initial question, please:

Given that the purpose of any a language is to be understood, and given that languages evolve: Wouldn't we expect such mimicry to die out in the survival of the fittest? Out of a million times the word "can't" is used (in American English), I bet there's less than a handful cases in which the speaker actually has an interest to make it sound like "can". So why do the remaining 999,995 speakers do it? — Sebastian 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure I'm understanding your question, Sebastian. Except in some very specific contexts, we don't avoid the use of certain words just because they might, if not clearly enunciated, sound like other words. Does "can't" sound that close to "can" (both in American English) to your ears? Maybe where the next word starts with a t, there's a stronger possibility of confusion. But in general they're distinguishable enough if people speak clearly enough. If they're not speaking clearly, then almost anything they say could be misinterpreted. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, there is a scale of confusability. "'Tis not" is less likely to be confused with "it is" than "it isn't". What explains the "survival of the least fit?" Or, to use someone else's example: In Old English, the two words "bōc" and "birce" sounded quite distinct. Why would they evolve to two words that can be easier confused (beech and birch), rather than in the opposite direction? But my question is not just about individual words. There may be reasons for each mutation of a word, but that doesn't explain it; any more than you can explain why Geospiza magnirostris has a big bill, just by explaining the mutations individual ancestors of that bird experienced. You would miss the core of natural selection. — Sebastian 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any explanation is required. The evolution of language is not like the evolution of animals, so Darwinian theory is not relevant. Beech and birch are still quite distinct. I think you're giving insufficient credit to the human ear's ability to discern fine gradations of sound. There are only a certain number of combinations of possible sounds in a given language, but millions of distinct words, so we have to make do. That's why, for example, we have many homophones. They're not usually confused, because we almost always have context to guide us. If I asked two people, out loud and context-free, to spell a word that sounded like "meet", one would be justified in replying "M-E-E-T", and the other would be just as justified in saying "M-E-A-T". But within a context, we know which word is being used. Same with words that are not strict homophones but sound similar. If the speaker is using a reasonable degree of enunciation, and if the listener has reasonable hearing, then "sly", "fly", "fry" and "fie" would not be confused. I'm sure there are examples of word pairs that were once pronounced quite differently (to each other) but have evolved into homophones or near homophones. We can deal with that quite effectively, thanks to context. And many that have gone the other way. I'm no scientist, but I suspect the evolution of language in its fine detail is much more complex than animal and human evolution (not sure how you'd actually measure that), so I wouldn't expect any sort of linearity. It's all over the place, because of the multitude of factors that cause words and grammatical constructs to change. They change for different reasons, at different rates, at different times; some change many times in a relatively short period, some have stayed untouched for a millennium (or however long English has been in existence). -- JackofOz (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There might be some helpful information at Phonological change.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Remarrying

I often come across passages in biographical articles that tell us that the subject's spouse had died or they divorced, and now the subject is marrying again. The issue is the way the verb "remarry" is used.

This is normally an intransitive verb:

"In 1958, feeling sexually frustrated, she remarried",

except when they remarry the person they previously divorced:

"Elizabeth Taylor remarried Richard Burton".

When it's a different person, which is the bulk of the cases, there's a clash between "She married Larry Fortensky" and "She remarried". They can't really be put into the same construction without offending the rules of grammar; or without incorrectly suggesting she'd previously been married to Fortensky. Or can they? And if they're separated, it's clunky at best: "In 1843 she remarried, her new husband being Baron Schmidt", or some variant.

What I usually see is something like this:

"In 1941 he remarried, to Mary Smith".

My issue here is that "remarry" can't take "to", not even after a comma. It seems shorthand for:

"In 1941 he remarried; he was now married to Mary Smith",

which is grammatically sound but obviously tasteless. But drop the comma and the "to", and we have a statement that in 99% of cases is misleading.

Even plain old "marry to" can be ambiguous. Does "In 1941 he was married to Hortense Clayworth" mean 1941 was the year in which their wedding ceremony was held, or does it mean they happened to be husband and wife at that time, but might have married 20 years earlier? It's impossible to tell out of context. I'm not disposed to extending the ambiguity to "remarry".

I've yet to see a really elegant solution to this shocking problem. Is there one? (I promise not to propose to the provider of the best answer, if that's any incentive). :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There used to be the good old word "to wed", which would at least have remedied the problem of your second last paragraph. — Sebastian 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "remarried" is problematic, but it seems to me there are several acceptable alternatives. Instead of ""In 1941 he remarried; he was now married to Mary Smith", why not ""In 1941 he married Mary Smith"? Or even ""In 1941 he married for the third time, taking as his bride Mary Smith," Standard genealogical prose winds up with numbered marriages: ""On 12 June 1941 in Saskachewan, he married (2) Mary Smith." No one thinks he married Mary Smith for the second time unless there was a preceding "In Cleveland, he married (1) Mary Smith". - Nunh-huh 03:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's a longish article, it's often useful to make it clear that the current marriage was not the first. A person skimming the article could read "In 1941 he married Mary Smith" as the subject's first, or one and only, marriage, when it might have been his 2nd or 3rd. "Taking as his bride" - I'm uneasy about that. It has connotations of ownership, which is not what marriage is supposed to be about. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're oversensitive; would you ban "Jack was her husband" or "Mary was his wife" on the same grounds? "His" or "hers" merely indicates a relationship, and not always one of ownership. In any case: "In 1941 he married, as his second wife, Mary Smith."- Nunh-huh 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, that I like, Nunh-huh! Well done. (Re the other one, I was more worried about the "taking" than about "his bride". It's redolent of: "What are you up to these days, old boy? Oh, this and that. I've taken a wife, don't you know - where the wife is spoken of in the same terms as some object he picked up at a market.) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't claim credit for it, it's genealogical boilerplate. It's not perfect: it fails if you don't know exactly how many times someone's been married before. But it's a lot better than "He remarried to Mary Smith"! - Nunh-huh 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We in the USA can "get married to" someone, so your example becomes "In 1941 he got married to Hortense Clayworth" if you mean to inform us that the marriage took place in that year. As you put it, "In 1941 he was married to Hortense Clayworth", it unambiguously means that Hortense was his wife that year, with the implication that in other years he had a different one. As for "remarry", I see nothing wrong with "In 1941 he remarried, to Mary Smith". Yes, it totally fails to parse (there is no explicit verb for the "to" phrase to be the adverb for), but that's just tough luck for the parsers. There is a tacit verb; I see it as "In 1941 he remarried, [getting married] to Mary Smith." That could be rephrased with some gain in goodness, I think, as "In 1941 he remarried, marrying Mary Smith." --Milkbreath (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm terribly disappointed in you, Milkbreath. Go to your room. But before you go, tell me you're not serious about "In 1941 he remarried, marrying Mary Smith."? To my sensitive little ears, that's just getting worse. Sorry. As for 1941/Hortense, I can conceive of contexts where "In 1941 he was married to Hortense Clayworth" would not absolutely mean he had a different wife the previous year. It could, in the context, mean that he could not possibly have been married to Florence, Demelza, Starletta or any other suggested candidates at that time, because he had Hortense in tow, at that time. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was tired, and I hurt my finger. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would go with "In 1941 he married again, this time to Mary Smith" or "In 1941 he married his second wife, Mary Smith". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, those work too. Thanks, Richard. I can see I'm going to have to very much avoid "remarried". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would simply write "In 1941 he got married again, this time to Jane Smith". If getting married is too hoi palloi for you, you could try wed:

In 1941 he wed once more, this time a woman named Jane Smith.

Honestly, though, to my ears "In 1941 he remarried, to Jane Smith" sounds just fine. So sue me.

I wouldn't go that far (lawyers are so damned expensive these days). You, of course, can like whatever you like. I don't like "remarried to" (with or without a comma) because one does not "marry to" anyone, so one doesn't "remarry to" anyone. The "to" only has a use where the construction is passive - "He was married to X" - or in "He got married to X". But when it comes to remarrying, I don't think we say "He got remarried to X". Even putting a comma after "remarried" doesn't help, because it still sounds like he's remarrying a person he previously divorced. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Best titles

More of an opinion thing than anything, but what titles - of books, movies, whatever - do you think are particularly good, regardless of the actual content? In middle school we had read a book called Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, about which I can't remember much, but that title has stuck with me like nothing else. I also really like the (to-me-to-an-unknown-degree ironic) title of A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. Any ideas? zafiroblue05 | Talk 08:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite partial to Hotel for Dogs. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stay Out of the Basement from R.L. Stine's Goosebumps series. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. I like the triple irony in the title.--KageTora (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said. In general, you can trust Phillip Dick co come up with weird titles for books... TomorrowTime (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Rankin has some nice ones including (IMO), Sex and Drugs and Sausage Rolls and The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse. Lanfear's Bane | t 12:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[This question really belongs on Humanities, but so what!]. Cordwainer Smith had a number of really memorable titles, most of which were not actually his invention, but bestowed by Frederik Pohl: "The Dead Lady of Clown Town" is one of the best. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always liked the title "A Shade of August" although I never actually did anything with it and I don't even know what it meant. (A quick Google search reveals someone else thought of this title, too, but didn't publish until 2001 I guess I should sue them since I thought of it in the 1980s. ;) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling was a master of the title - whether for a short story, a poem, or a collection of stories and verse. Plain Tales from the Hills, his first collection, is a fine piece of word-play in itself, and within it we find the likes of On the Strength of a Likeness, Three and - an extra, and who could resist The Gate of the Hundred Sorrows? DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The titles of Harry Stephen Keeler are always sublime: The Skull of the Waltzing Clown. And my personal favorite: I Killed Lincoln at 10:13! Lantzy ^talk 15:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Luis Borges once said that "The Man Who Was Friday" (by G. K. Chesterton) was one of the greatest book titles ever. --Xuxl (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gladly the cross-eyed bear by Ed McBain (it's a mondegreen). 87.113.74.22 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hoboken Chicken Emergency? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I always liked the title Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance until I found out that's what the book is actually about. —Angr 17:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't judge a book by its title! For my favorite title, I'll have to say it was The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, normally referred to as "Candle in the Dark." Mac Davis (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I like titles with double meanings, like A Farewell to Arms, meaning "goodbye war" and "bidding loved ones adieu". Had I written the book, I'd have given it a nice triple meaning by having his arms amputated, too. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Two favorites:

• Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog)
• I, Claudius

--- OtherDave (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a short story, but my altime favorite title is "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. AnyPerson (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Selling England by the Pound. I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. --LarryMac | Talk 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Autobiography of My Mother. Since you don't restrict this to books, my favourite two olde-time song titles are God Needed an Angel a Songbird in Paradise So He Took Caruso Away, and A Woman is Only a Woman, But a Good Cigar is a Smoke. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A woman is only a woman, but a Good cigar is a Smoke is an RK line :) DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I thought it had a Kiplingesque flavour to it. But it was also a song (my source: The Book of Lists, p. 117, "Dr. Demento's 10 Worst Song Titles of All Time", which also has such beauties as "Plant a Watermelon on My Grave and Let the Juice Soak Through"; "Come After Breakfast, Bring Your Lunch, and Leave Before Suppertime"; "If the Man in the Moon Were a Coon"; and "Would You Rather be a Colonel with an Eagle on Your Shoulder or a Private with a Chicken on Your Knee?".) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"A good Cigar is a Smoke" is from a poem about a breach of promise case - the woman wanted her fiancé to give up smoking, so he ended the engagement. I didn't think that American privates were allowed to have chickens on their knees. DuncanHill (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Satire is good, too, as in The Pilgrim's Regress. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I second Colin Fine's assessment of Cordwainer Smith's titles (by Frederick Pohl, whose titles are oddly uninspiring. My favourite Smith titles include Oh No! Not Rogov!, The Day the People Fell, The Crime and Punishment of Commander Suzdal and Mother Hutton's Littul Kittuns. Steewi (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I'll add one: The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Pfly (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Who could forget Hampster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie? Ok, that's not a real title, but the Calvin and Hobbes books had some very memorable titles (my favourite being Scientific Progress goes Boink). The most meorable title I've ever come across was Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death - I don't remember anything about the movie except that it really sucked, but the title will probably still make me chuckle 50 years from now -- Ferkelparade π 11:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My favourite song title: Ozzie Nelson's "I'm looking for a guy who plays alto and baritone and doubles on a clarinet and wears a size 37 suit" AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am filled with joy each time nominations for the annual Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year are announced. Past winners include "People Who Don't Know They're Dead: How They Attach Themselves To Unsuspecting Bystanders And What To Do About It", "How To Avoid Huge Ships", and "If You Want Closure in Your Relationship, Start With Your Legs". Karenjc 16:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb by U2. Bono later mused that he regretted not saying 'the' instead of 'an'.--KageTora (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Word describing the accuracy of an instrument

For example a ruler which goes up in mm would be described as... --RMFan1 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You can say that an instrument is more or less finely "graduated". I guess you mean that a ruler marked in millimeters would be rather finely graduated, and one marked in centimeters, coarsely. There are two other words used to refer to measuring devices, "accurate" and "precise", that are often confused. To say that a ruler is marked off in millimeters is to speak of its precision. To say that it gives a true measurement of length +/- 1 micron is to speak of its accuracy. If a clockface has only hour marks on it, it is not very precise, but that same clock might be accurate to within a microsecond if you measure the angles of the hands. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In analogy to musical instruments "finely tuned" is sometimes used. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV of forced drugging?

What is the NPOV term for medically and authority-forced drugging of a homosexual or autistic person (or somebody else stripped of civil right and is actually not guilty of anything) to somehow cure them, but instead causing horrible medical effects on them? mayeb "medical abuse"? --Sonjaaa (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a term for the whole chain of events, but we could call it involuntary treatment with medication, leading to iatrogenic disease. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am, etc.

While reaading about a medical condition sent in to a medical journal as a joke ("cello scrotum"), I noticed that all the senders ended their letters with the phrase "I am, etc.". Is this some form of standard greeting? What does it mean? thanks in advance!

I am, etc.

Marxmax (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This was addressed on the Science desk recently - link. --LarryMac | Talk 20:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Valediction has clarified that. It's an abbreviation for "I am, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant," --LunarShaddowღIvy (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

February 3

Games

Why, when talking about games, do people say, for example, "you will die" instead of "your character will die"? Saying it like that makes it sound like the person playing the game will die. JCI (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Anthropomorphism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

anthropomorphism isn't it. see first person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that first person is it either. It's related to the way people say actors did things in movies instead of saying the characters did things. For example, people might say, "Keanu Reeves killed Dennis Hopper in Speed", when actually Dennis Hopper is still alive and well, and Keanu Reeves has (to the best of my knowledge) never killed anyone, even in self-defense. I guess it's a kind of metonymy. —Angr 09:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying "I will kill your character", is needlessly destroying the suspension of disbelief and the role-playing. For some people the role-playing is am important part of the gaming experience.

Imagine you're describing a movie. "And then Harrison Ford's character pointed his gun at the stunt-man dressed as a swordsman, and fired a blank in the stunt-man's direction. Then the stuntman dropped his sword and fell backwards as if he had been shot. It's a very classic scene." APL (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean in Not Actually From Indiana Ford and the Backlot Replica of a Temple of Doom? - Jmabel | Talk 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was in Raiders, actually. Algebraist 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you. Is it in Temple that he tries to do the same thing but the gun jams or there are no bullets or something? I saw these so long ago (when they were new). - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, in Temple he goes for his gun but it's not there in the holster, so he beats the guy up, comes towards the camera, then realises he is now faced with hundreds of others, so he runs away.--KageTora (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Snow day"?

See Snow Day (film) for the movie released in 2000. Before that film came out, I never heard the expression snow day used to refer to a day when schools and other things were closed due to snow. The term itself seems to suggest a day when it snows. Obviously schools are not closed every time it snows. Except maybe in places like California, where they're not well equipped to deal with liberal amounts of snow (In January, 1996, I was in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (a charming town in many ways), when eight inches of snow fell there and remained frozen for a week or so. The number of snow plows there is very limited and most streets never got plowed at all—they just waited for the snow to melt a week later—and even thoroughfares had to wait a day or two or even three. I never appreciated how efficiently ice and snow are cleared from all paved surfaces in the North until I saw that not happening, and the consequent traffic paralysis.). So I'm thinking: maybe the term "snow day", when used to denote a day when things are canceled because of snow, is part of the vernacular language in places like California where they actually do shut down schools and other things every time it snows.

Does anyone know anything about the geographic extent of that usage? Where is the term used in that sense and where isn't it? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonably familiar to me (in southeast England). Algebraist 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the norm in western New York, Buffalo, etc. There, of course, a Snow Day is not every day that has snow--just those on which schools are closed. Pfly (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite familiar in the places I've lived in the midwestern United States (St. Louis, Chicago), though mostly used by schoolkids to describe their "holiday". Schools to which significant numbers of students are transported in schoolbuses are more likely to cancel classes when there's a snowfall. (The elementary school I attended, to which most kids walked, almost never had snow days—less than a handful of times while I was there—whereas Catholic schools and schools out in the far suburbs used to get them several times a year.) Deor (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've lived in Illinois, Tennessee, and now Vermont. I've heard the term used in all three. I used it when I was a kid in the 70s, so it goes back at least that far. And yes, it's not just a "day with snow" it means that something, most always school, has been canceled due to the snow. And warmer places aren't the only places that experience it. Vermont school kids have snow days too, it's just that it usually takes a bit more snow than more southern areas for the schools to actually cancel classes for that day. Dismas|^(talk) 04:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I used the term in Michigan. I recall watching the morning news intently and praying for snow days. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I live in North Carolina now, and have lived in New Hampshire, Delaware, and Illinois before. The term has been ubiquitous in all four locations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in Ontario, and agree with the above. Snow days were pretty rare though, we'd need a couple of feet of snow overnight first... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember such a thing ever happening when I was a schoolboy in southern Ontario in the 1960s and early 1970s (nor before that when I lived in Edmonton, Alberta). I certainly never knew the term "snow day" then. If it was a school day, you went to school, what else? --Anonymous, 08:45 UTC, February 3, 2009.

I never heard "snow day" while growing up in Detroit and in southern Maine, but it's very common in the Washington DC area as shorthand for "a day when the snow is enough to close schools and sometimes workplaces, and to cancel scheduled events." Of course, it sometimes seems that local weather reporters begin hyperventilating if it gets cloudy in West Virginia. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here in Massachusetts, days with school cancellations are almost exclusively called "Snow days". Even when the weather in question is actually ice or sleet or something. In fact, a day off due to extreme flooding or some other dangerous weather event might still be called a "Snow day", though I'm sure some people would try some awkward construction like "flooding day".

Day's off from work or other activities might also be called a "snow day", but other phrases might be used instead. APL (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See the following.

• Weather-related cancellation#Snow days
• Snow day (meteorology)
• wikt:en:snow day

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to all who replied. Hollywood will keep making the usage more geographically extensive, so hard problems on what usage prevails where will gradually disappear. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not consult that font of all information lexicological, the Oxford English Dictionary? The on line version (access code required) defines "snow day" as follows: "n. U.S. a day on which school is cancelled due to snowfall or other inclement weather; such a cancellation; also in extended use." The earliest printed source given is a New York Times article from 1951, which stated "Embedded deeply into the routine of the state educational system are a couple of major, red letter events, known as *Snow Days," and, lest the OED be accused of being fuddy-duddy, it goes on to cite the Simpsons episode where Homer averts a snow day by plowing the school road. Ecphora (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallmark-quality?

In here it mentions: "hallmark-quality". What is that?96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallmark: A mark used to stamp precious metal articles that meet established standards of quality or excellence. StuRat (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Now linked. --Anon, 08:47 UTC, February 3, 2009.

Thanks. "Hallmark: When you care enough to mint the very best." :-) StuRat (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Across-the-board?

What does "across-the-board" mean: Silver#Folklore_and_popular_culture?96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase means "in all cases". Dismas|^(talk) 08:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Belgian surname: Nagant

Is the final letter of Nagant pronounced or not? (I need to transcribe this name into Hebrew according to the phonology, not a transliteration per its spelling.) -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would guess not, but names sometimes break the usual spelling-to-pronunciation rules of French. (For example, the final "s" of Saint-Saëns is pronounced.) —Angr 09:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, in the name of the Russian rifle, Mosin-Nagant, [[1]], the final letter is not pronounced. By the way, many Belgian names have both German and French pronunciations. --Omidinist (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia also has an article on the Russian rifle; there Nagant is transliterated נגאן. —Angr 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've only ever known it as Nagan, or was that the pistol?--KageTora (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a word

What word can I use to describe the individual trials made during and experiment? For example, if I was carrying out a specific experiment which involved the use of reacting solutions which I would place in a beaker, I would want to rinse the beaker after each ______ to ensure that it is clean at the start of each ______. --RMFan1 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Run? You might ask at the science desk. —Angr 10:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the word you used yourself – trial? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would second that. The individual iterations of an experiment are almost universally refered to as "trials". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't sure if maybe there was a better or more specific word for this than trial --RMFan1 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What about reaction? The beaker was rinsed after each reaction was completed, to ensure that it was clean at the start of the next reaction. For biological experiments: incubation. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You should ask the guys who invented WD-1 through WD-39...

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be Norm Larsen. He's dead, alas. Algebraist 11:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides "run" and "trial", a third possibility is "test". However, that might also apply to just one phase of each run, the phase where you determine the results. --Anonymous, 07:02 UTC, February 4, 2009.

Reaction? --Kjoonlee 15:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Parte presa"? (Venetian decree)

The term "parte presa" is a name for a type of decree or proclamation issued in Venice in the 16th to 18th centuries. What does "parte presa" literally mean in this context? Also what does "l'anderà parte" mean in such a decree? Ecphora (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if "l'anderà parte" could mean "the other part" or "the other party" (with a German derivation). An example for context might be useful. - Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Parte presa" literally means 'part taken' both in the modern, but also the older meaning of the word 'part' - which is 'side in a dispute'. (and the original sense of 'take part in a discussion' - 'taking part' meant 'taking sides'). So I'd assume "parte presa" would be a decree that ruled on some dispute to the advantage of one party over another (which would be 'l'anderà parte'). --130.237.179.182 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is on the right track. The decrees, all in Italian (or Venetian) are not easy for me to read, but they seem to involve a description of some public problem (e.g., certain people are not paying their taxes) followed by a formulaic "L'andera parte" in which the govt. agency issuing the decree announces the remedy. It seems, therefore, in this context, the title "part taken" (as well as the "andera parte") refers to the action (or position) taken by the issuing agency. It may well be that these decrees reflect terminology used earlier where there were two parties in dispute. Thanks for the help. (If anyone has any further thoughts, I would appreciate it.) Ecphora (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This [2] (under August 14th) has "l'andera parte" as possibly meaning secondly. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that the expression "parte presa" was especially used in the title of the final documents of a decision-maker council. Thus it means: "Choosen side (by the council etc, in occasion of etc)", and what is the decision taken, it is explained in the following text. (The Italian word "parte", and the English "part", "party", and many other as well, come from the Latin "pars"... why German derivation?). "Anderà" (still used in venetian dialect; "andrà", in modern Italian) is the future tense of the verb "andare" (to go), thus literaly means "(it) will go", "it will happen". The expression "l'anderà parte (che)" is used in these documents, to fix the future applications of the decision in the described circumstances: the idea is: "it will be done in such a way (that)" or "it will be done according to the party (that)".--pma (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Feminine equivalent of "emasculate"

To emasculate means something like to take the masculinity out of something, right? Is there a feminine equivalent of it, i.e. to take the femininity out of something? At first, I looked at "effeminate", but that has the opposite meaning (it means like a man having untypical feminine qualities); so I am lost. In terms of those high school analogy questions, male : emasculate :: female : ____ ? =) --71.106.173.110 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See "Castration". To emasculate means literally to castrate; the figurative uses came later. The Latin word meant "castrate". The practice has a long history; and the word and its connotations are rooted in it, and its effects are plain to see. Not so for the female. There is no convenient way to remove the gonads of a female (whereas in the male it is a simple matter and an operation with a fair chance of success even without antisepsis or anesthesia). There is no equivalent term for the female because the two processes are far from equivalent, and the literal form was unheard of until quite recently, so there is no term ready. I would say "defeminize", I guess, if I had to go there, and the Oxford English Dictionary supports me. (the OED, incidentally, now lists only the form in "-ize" and not "-ise" by convention).

By the way, "emasculate" is also an adjective meaning "displaying unwanted feminine characteristics". --Milkbreath (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly "de-feminize"? (Ah, I see the same was buried in Milkbreath's response, without a hyphen. That makes two independent votes for that.) - Jmabel | Talk 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The only word I've actually seen used for this is 'unsex', by Lady Macbeth. Algebraist 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a verb "to effeminate" (pronounced analagously with "to emasculate") which I was hoping might be a contender. I thought it might mean to remove the femininity from a woman (as emasculate means to remove the masculinity from a man). But, alas, it doesn't. It means to add femininity to a man. So it seems a man can be either emasculated or effeminated, but a woman ... (thinks) ... is complete and needs nothing done to her. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "masculinize" ? For example, "after menopause, the lack of estrogen can masculinize a woman's appearance (such as with facial hair)". If there's a continuum between feminine and masculine, then more of one means less of the other. StuRat (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Handwell

What is 'handwell' referring to in this article? Nadando (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Toronto Star says handwells are "utility-access cavities in the sidewalk, usually covered by metal plates." --- OtherDave (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

a.k.a manhole: although the photo implies they are smaller. Do we need a handwell redirect or mention at manhole? Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A manhole is so named (or was so named before it became politically incorrect) because it's big enough for, and intended for, a man to go in. And a handwell... you figure it out. One common size is about 6 inches (15 cm) across. --Anonymous, 07:05 UTC, February 4, 2009.

Manholes are also usually on the street, and these are on the sidewalk. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had figured out the difference in size, but the principle is the same: they are both "utility-access cavities in the [sidewalk], usually covered by metal plates." Can we really generalise that manholes are on the street? I've seen them in footpaths (sidewalks), alleyways, driveways, parking lots, courtyards etc etc... Gwinva (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And conversely, near where I live in Toronto there are what appear to be handwells in the streets. --Anon, 22:42 UTC, February 4, 2009.

Yeah and now that I think of it there are sometimes manholes on the sidewalks in Toronto too. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

February 4

Teaching English abroad as a non-graduate

I'm a British undergrad student, halfway thru my first year, and I'd like to take the next academic year off and teach English abroad. My first question is about training before I leave. I've found CELTA and Trinity TESOL evening courses costing £1300 and up, along with non-accredited courses at £200-250. As a non-graduate native speaker, would I get away with doing a non accredited course, or do I really need a top quality certificate to get a job?

Second, which countries would be my best bets? I was thinking of either China (I don't speak Chinese though - yet), or somewhere within the European Union (where I can work without a visa) but all suggestions welcome. I have no rich relatives so would have to cover all my costs, but I don't need to turn a profit either. Big thank you in advance! 86.147.153.205 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

All language schools in the EU require a TESOL certificate, unless you manage to get into a position at a dodgy shool in Eastern Europe - not recommended. In China, you are not required to have TESOL (or anything), but you will need a degree for your work visa. A lot of Chinese schools (and also in Taiwan) tend to be late in their payments of wages, and sometimes you don't get paid for months. Not all, but some, and this especially happens when you are not qualified or go on the wrong type of visa, because then you can't do a thing about it. Japan is a better bet. You can get yourself a working holiday visa (if you are under 30) and work as anything you want for up to a year (renewable once), even without a degree. You do not need a TESOL or TEFL cert for most positions, so long as you are a native speaker of English. You do not need to be able to speak Japanese (most schools you work at will discourage the use of Japanese, anyway, as they prefer the total immersion method). Japan is also better because the money is much better than anywhere else in the world, as you would be looking at up to £2,000/month. For Jobs in Japan, visit GaijinPot or OhayoSensei. Good luck!--KageTora (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in Japan you should also look at the Jet Programme. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, rents in Tokyo are also up to £2,000/month, so you might be just as poor at the end of your stay as you were at the beginning. —Angr 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read English as a Foreign or Second Language and Teaching English as a foreign language? They both have lots of links. Bottom line: an English-speaker can earn their bowlof rice anywhere, just by standing up and speaking. If, however, you would prefer something on your rice, best to acquire decent qualifications. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Angr, that is for a luxury flat in a fashionable area of town. Generally, your rent will be no more than £300, and this will be taken out of your wages, so you will never have a problem paying for it. Fully furnished partments come with most jobs, so you also don't have to worry about paying deposits and key money, either.--KageTora (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A word of warning: where ever you go, never under any circumstances, give your passport to your employer. Anything that needs to be done to "register" it (or you), you should do yourself. If it can't be done with a photocopy, someone is pulling a fast one. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For lots more tips like these, see Teaching English Abroad from the publishers Vacation Work in Oxford. The book has gone through multiple editions in 20 years and is a standard work. Also see your university's careers serice for impartial advice. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction on wages in Japan. For a standard teaching job, you would be getting 250,000+JPY/month, and at the current exchange rate (which has gone bananas in recent months), you can therefore expect AT LEAST £2,000 and anything upto £4,000/month. My last assessment was based on exchange rates of August last year.--KageTora (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Inside handle of a car door

What's it called? The inside handle of a car door (used to close the door from the inside, and also to put things in, like tissues, chocolate, and so on). Also, does anyone know what it is in Japanese? Because I don't know what it is in English I can't look it up.--KageTora (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always known it as a "door handle". I don't think it has a more specific name. Dismas|^(talk) 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance manuals like the Chilton series in the U.S. use phrases like "replacement door handle" followed by details like "front, inside, driver's side." The manufacturer probably has a more specific, engineering-style term. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea looking at a Chilton's. Mine calls the thing you pull to unlatch the door a "handle", but I think KageTora wants the thing you grab to pull the door shut, which my Chilton's calls the "armrest assembly". The whole business with the litterbox/map holder is called the "door trim panel assembly". --Milkbreath (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That would make sense. Now, in Japanese, would that be 「ドアー・トリム・パネル組立」？Can anyone verify this?--KageTora (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Flamingo(e)s?

Hi all,

What is the plural of flamingo - flamingoes or flamingos. Flamingo says "Both forms of the plural are attested, according to the Oxford English Dictionary". One must be more right than the other though, yea? Can you work out the correct plural from the root of the word? Is one English and one American? Please, my brain can't accept two equally correct ways of spelling the same word.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean "flamingos" or "flamingoes"_{Thanks, fixed. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)}. Fowler, in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, under "-O(E)S" has a lot to say about this, including 8 rules of thumb for choosing between "os" and "oes". Those rules conflict as applied to "flamingo" (eg., animals use "oes" but "long words" use "os.") If the OED says both are used, I'd take an aspirin and go on to another of life's problems. Google reports 3,410,000 hits on "flamingos" and 3,320,000 on "flamingoes." Ecphora (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• The real question is how would Dan Quayle spell the singular form? Ecphora (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

S-Q-U-I-D. —Angr 18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And I was taught that exotic words in "-o" get "-s", and plain words get "-es". By that rule, we just have to decide how exotic a flamingo is. Tell you what, they're pretty exotic in New Jersey. I suggest you sit your brain down and give it a good talking to. Not everything is tidy in this world, and English plurals is one of them (that was my brain messing with your brain). Look at "octopi", which should be "octopodes", which really should be "octopuses", actually "octopusses", because "bus" would make "busses" if there wasn't already a "buss", but there's no "octopuss". Now my brain hurts. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow I had no idea octopi was wrong! I feel so cheated. My world is crumbling around me... 77.12.44.85 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, "octopi" wasn't wrong. See here. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Buses/busses is an interesting case. Homographs don't normally cause any trouble, and nobody would think "I wonder which of these busses I should take to get to the CBD" refers to kisses, interfaces or herring boats travelling down the road. So I wonder why the decision was made not to have plural "busses" (omnibuses). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of words that have multiple spellings. (And I'm not talking about national variations; I mean spellings that compete in the same country.) It's not true that one "must be more right than the other". Some languages have bodies that set official standards for what is correct, but English does not (which is just as well, or every major English-speaking country would want one of their own). The most you can say is that one spelling is more common than another, or that more people consider it correct, in each case perhaps with a geographical qualification. And by the way, I have seen the spelling "busses" used on traffic signs. --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, February 4, 2009.

American languages

Are there any universities in the United States (or beyond) that teach Indigenous languages of the Americas such as Quechua? Grsz¹¹_Review 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many universities in the U.S. that teach indigenous languages of the U.S.; probably fewer also teach indigenous languages of South America like Quechua, but I have no doubt that some do. If you go here and type in the name of the language you're interested in and the radio button for the type of course you're interested in, you'll get a list. "Quechua" and "College/university" gets a list of 12 colleges and universities in the U.S. where it's taught. —Angr 23:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I googled "US university quechua"and found this, this, this and this on page 1, along with this which lists 7 US universities and 3 European ones that teach it, plus a correspondence course. So I guess the answer is yes. Karenjc 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lux Aeterna

How is this pronounced? It is latin and means 'Eternal light'. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want Classical Latin or Ecclesiastical Latin? Do you want IPA or pro-nun-see-AY-shun? —Angr 23:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Luke's ay(as in "hay")-TARE-nah. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Which form of latin is that for, and can you give that in IPA? I have no idea what the last two vowels are supposed to be. Algebraist 01:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OtherDave is giving you the Ecclesiastical Latin pro nun see AY shun. The IPA version would be luːks ɛː'tɛrna, though in practice pronunciation of Ecclesiastical Latin has always varied from country to country, and the English version might be more like luːks ei'tɛɚna (rhotic) or luːks ei'tɛəna (nonrhotic). The Classical Latin pronunciation would probably have been luːks ai'terna. The Classical Latin pro nun see AY shun would be something like luhks eye TAYR nah, in which the first word sounds like "Luke's" and the second, stressed syllable of the second word ends in a rolled 'r' or perhaps a flap. Marco polo (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of other details, note that lux is only pronounced as Luke's by certain Americans. The rest of the world pronounces it as looks. This reflects systematic differences between American and non-American realisations of "foreign" u-sounds and o-sounds, as demonstrated in American and British dictionaries. (I am currently researching this informally; I don't think many other people are.)

Relevantly, there are differences between various Englishes in how distinct the vowels of Luke's and looks are; they are especially distinct in Australian speech.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Luke's looks rhymes with flukes books, not with cooks hooks. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

However, such rhyming illustrations are entirely useless if you're a Geordie or Mackem, who scatter ə's quite indiscriminately. Gwinva (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A səxpence for your thoughts about fəsh and chəps, Gwənva. Do you prefer cash or chick? (sorry, but that was utterly ərresəstəble)  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You might eat fiːsh and chiːps, Jɛck, but I doubt you can plot my accent. It is quite homeless, and everyone denies ownership (or fraternity). As for our friends from the Tyne and Wear, while they might theoretically luːk at a buɘk, they're more likely to wait for the fɪləm. Gwinva (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Enough of these transgressive trans-ditch digressions, you two. What will our colonial ex-masters think, to say nothing of our Vespuccian cousins?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Novomundane, please. Algebraist 12:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What people think of me is none of my business.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As Henry Beard noted, "If you took Latin in a[n American] parochial school, you were probably taught to pronounce the letter V like the English V, the diphthong 'ae' like 'sundae,' and Caesar like 'CHAY-sahr.' If you do this, you are going to take some flak from Latin purists, language snobs, and other assorted lingo bores, but on the other hand, you're going to get a much better table in the Vatican restaurant." --- OtherDave (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

February 5

Judeo-Yemenite

This is a bit of an odd question... but then again, that's what the RD is for! So, I'm working on a school project and I have a song that I've come across in Judeo-Yemenite - that is, the dialect of Yemeni Arabic spoken by the Temani Jews. However, it's written in Hebrew letters (not Arabic) without vowels, but translated into Hebrew. This means that a) I can't look it up in a dictionary and b) I can't transliterate it. I can guess at the transliteration, but here's my question. Does anyone know Arabic well enough that if I give you my attempt at transliterating the song and my translation of the Hebrew translation you could figure out how the original should be vocalized? Or, does anyone see another way around this? I figured I'd ask here before asking random Arabic speakers. Thanks so much! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you with the translation, but I can say your idea is the best course of action. If you translate the song (or have a translation), and supply the transliteration of the Arabic from the Hebrew letters, it should be fairly easy for an Arabic speaker to vocalize it for you, after all they are used to seeing everything written without vowels. However, I must point out, that if this is in Judaeo-Yemenite, it is likely that the vowels will be different from standard arabic. Practically every major dialect of arabic deviates from the standard regarding the vowels, vis-a-vis quality, length, ommission/addition thereof. But best of luck, anyway.--KageTora (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a well-developed medieval tradition of Jews writing the more or less standard Classical version of the Arabic language with the Hebrew alphabet according to fairly strict alphabet correspondences (i.e. Arabic ع always as Hebrew ע , Arabic ح always as Hebrew ח etc.), and furthermore, transcribing Arabic letters differentiated by diacritic dots with corresponding dots over the Hebrew letters (so Arabic ظ would be written by ט with a dot over it). Specialists in medieval Arabic have no difficulty in reading Hebrew-alphabet texts written in this way. However, when it comes to a modern colloquial dialect of Arabic written in an ad-hoc manner in the Hebrew alphabet, without special diacritics, and given that there's no real established way of writing Arabic dialects even in Arabic script, you would probably really have to know the language to make much headway... AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

English language [lessons for Arabic speaker]

hi evry one ... iam from asia ... and i'am willing to learn english ,,, I dont know how to start ,,, and i need a web site that can help me with it. and some sort of practice ,,, thank you ,,? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.218.112 (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The best way is probably to find a site in your language, and we don't know what that is unless you tell us! :) Also, this should probably be moved to the language desk, but I'm not quite sure how to move properly, so I leave that up to someone else. -- Aeluwas (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

my native language is arabic ... thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.41.11 (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science" --Milkbreath (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to spam...and this site is oriented towards French students of English...but you can try www.anglaisfacile.com.. It's a free site.

Tons and tons of exercises here:http://a4esl.org/

Rhinoracer (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The OP would appear to be from Jordan, so I don't know what value a site in French might be. A quick search of 'online English course for Arabic speakers' doesn't turn anything up. However, for (apparently) free language exchange with native English speakers learning Arabic, the OP may want to go to this website. Good luck in your studies!--KageTora (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a web site that will help you learn English. Marco polo (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If your English is good enough to post here, and to understand our answers, then your level is high enough to benefit from the BBC's site for learners here. Have a good dictionary to hand and learn how to use it. For reading practice, use the Simple English Wikipedia. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arabic for "the sublime"

I wonder if there's anyone who might know, or be able to find out, what the best or most common Arabic translation for "the sublime" might be, as it is used in, for example, Edmund Burke's A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful and Immanuel Kant's Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Critique of Judgement. My best guesses would be something like عَلَّى and/or جَلَال, but I'd like to make sure.

Thanks for any help you might be able to give. Cheers. —Saposcat (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I got out my trusty الدّاليل قاموس انجليزي عربي

Hopefully this will give you some colorful expressions that you won't find on the Internet...

For "sublime", (adjectival form)

سَامٍ جَلِيل رَفِيع

and for "sublimity" (nounal form),

سُمُوٌُ جَلاَلَةٌ رِفْعَةٌ

Caution should be used that as such words can be, according to context, reserved for the divine.

Hope this helps, Nimur (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This biographical sketch translates Burke's book as تحقيق فلسفي في منشأ أفكارنا عن السمو والجمال. Hope it helps a little.--K.C. Tang (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As Nimur says, جلیل and جلال , adjective and noun respectively, are the best equivalents to the sublime . --Omidinist (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

relationship between sanskrit and hindi

Hi, I've checked the ref desk archives, and there are a lot of similar questions to this one, but I'm looking for a bit more clarification. How close are Sanskrit and Hindi in terms of grammar, vocabulary, historical relationship and mutual intelligibility? Is the Latin/ Italian analogy reasonable, or would we have to go, say, to Latin/ French, or even further like Latin/ English? I'm considering learning Sanskrit one day, so I guess I'm effectively asking how "dead" the language is. It's been emotional (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See Sanskrit, especially Sanskrit#Sanskrit's usage in modern times.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Sanskrit or Hindi, but as far as I know the relationship is best compared to that between Classical Latin and Italian. Unlike French, Italian is in a direct line with the Vulgar Latin without interference from any non-Latin substrate language or other seriously distorting influence. Vulgar Latin ("Latin of the people") was actually spoken in the streets while Classical Latin was the artificial standard cultivated in literature, political discourse, and by the elite generally. That's how it was with Sanskrit also. Though the details and motivation are disputed, the very word Sanskrit appears to mean "cultivated", "perfected", "confected", or "artificial". A Prakrit language, analogous to Vulgar Latin, is best taken as the true source of Hindi.

All that said, Italian (along with other European languages) has always turned to Classical Latin as a treasury from which to make new words. Hindi, along with other Indian and other South and South-East Asian languages (including even Indonesian), has had that same relationship with Sanskrit. Both Italian and Hindi have, however, borrowed from many sources.

Sanskrit is probably at least as "alive" as Classical Latin is: both are hugely important culturally in their respective spheres. There is a Latin Wikipedia, and there is active cultivation of Sanskrit in India. A few people actually speak it in everyday life. Both are, of course, core languages for major world religions.

Some specialist may well correct a detail or two here, and supplement with more specifics; but I think you'll find that's how things are in general terms. Nicholas Ostler's Empires of the Word deals well with questions like this one. I recommend it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Classical Sanskrit is basically the state of the language as standardized by Panini almost 2500 years ago (which was not really a fully colloquial vernacular even then), so it's linguistically somewhat remote from modern Indic languages, which are separated from it by about 3 or 4 cycles of language standardization, due to previous written languages becoming too remote from ordinary everyday speech (Pali, prakrits, apabhramsas, and then modern languages). As one simple comparison, most Hindi nouns have 2 or 3 distinct number/case forms, while a Sanskrit noun would typically have over 15. That said, there is much borrowing of Sanskrit vocabulary into Hindi, and many of the same sounds which are difficult for English speakers are found in both languages (aspirates, retroflexes, etc.). The overall mutual intelligibility is probably less than Latin and Italian (though definitely greater than Latin and English). AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindi, in relation to Sanskrit, is really not analogous to Italian, which developed in a relatively (but not completely) direct line from Vulgar Latin. Hindi has a strong component of Persian vocabulary, because under the Mughal Empire, Persian represented a superstrate. French might be the better analogy among the Romance languages after all, due to the substantial Germanic influence on that language. However, as AnonMoos has pointed out, all of the Romance languages have a closer organic relationship to Classical Latin than Hindi has to Classical Sanskrit. Classical Latin was formalized about 2,050 years ago on the basis of the actual spoken language of maybe only 50 years earlier. So the Romance languages and Classical Latin diverged from common ancestor only about 2,100 years ago. By contrast, Sanskrit was formalized about 2,500 years ago on the basis of a language actually spoken nearly 1,000 years earlier. So Hindi and Sanskrit diverged from a common ancestor 3,500 years ago, almost twice as long ago as the Romance languages. As a consequence, Hindi and other Indic languages are more remote from Sanskrit (apart from direct borrowings) than the Romance languages are from Latin. Since we have no record of European languages as ancient as Sanskrit with surviving descendants, there is no close analogy to be made to European languages. Marco polo (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice! I think that is pretty well argued, MP. We agree on the general model, but achieve a different result when we apply the principles it incorporates. I had neglected the significant effects of Persian, which do tend to make French a better analogue. I am not convinced concerning the time differences, since the rates and kinds of change are likely to have differed also. Compare the relative similarity of Modern Icelandic and Old Norse, next to the stark divergence between, say, Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.

I am also not entirely convinced concerning the formalisation of Classical Latin being restricted to taking earlier spoken language as a model. Weren't there always purely literary conventions that it incorporated, and wasn't there a good deal of pure artifice involved? Same for the Paninian standardisation of a kind of Vedic, I had thought.

It's all an approximate matter anyway. Why should we expect to find a close isomorphism between the histories of Indic and Romance? Fun though; and useful enough.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The conservativism of Icelandic is partly an illusion, since the basic stability of the orthography masks a number of significant sound changes which have occurred over the centuries. Anyway, classical Paninian Sanskrit is not really the language of 1500 B.C.; if anything is the language of 1500 B.C., it's Rig Veda Sanksrit. AnonMoos (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the first paragraph from Devanagari.

Devanāgarī (देवनागरी, Template:PronEng in English), or Nāgarī, is an abugida alphabet of India and Nepal. It is written from left to right, lacks distinct letter cases, and is recognizable by a distinctive horizontal line running along the tops of the letters that links them together. Devanāgarī is the main script used to write Hindi, Marathi, and Nepali. Since the 19th century, it has been the most commonly used script for Sanskrit and Pali. Devanāgarī is also employed for Gujari, Bhili, Bhojpuri, Konkani, Magahi, Maithili, Marwari, Newari, Pahari (Garhwali and Kumaoni), Santhali, Tharu, and sometimes Sindhi, Panjabi, and Kashmiri. It was formerly used to write Gujarati.

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See Devanagari alphabet. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian accent on the word sorry

What is the merger going on when Canadians say sorry like sore-ry, while Americans say it like saw-ry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.123.216.47 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Detroit and don't say it either way. Mine rhymes with starry. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm initially from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. and pronounce it like StuRat does. Same goes for other words with the [or] cluster (AHrange, fAHreign, AHregon, FlAHrida...). I didn't make the switch to the "ore" pronunciation when I relocated to Southern California at age seven, though my four-year-brother (now a longtime resident of "OREegun") did. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry apparently is influenced by sorrow (cf. borrow, tomorrow). Something at North American English regional phonology#General_American. AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

February 6

Proper spanish translation

Hi, I wanted to get a critique of my translation of a sentence for an essay I'm writing for my Spanish class. I want to say, "For as long as women have existed, feminism has existed." I wasn't quite sure how to translate the exact sense of what I wanted to say. Here is what I have: "Siempre que hubieran existido las mujeres, hubiera existido el feminismo." I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct. For one, I'm not sure whether or not I need the subjunctive on that second use of "haber" and I'm also not sure if I'm using "siempre que" in the correct sense. Any suggestions or help is appreciated! 198.82.110.57 (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The siempre que clause sounds a little strange to my (non-native) ears, and Google translates siempre que as "whenever," so I don't think it works. I can't think of a good way for saying that first clause, though. Perhaps A través de la historia feminina, siempre ha existido el feminismo "Throughout women's hostory, there has always been feminism," but I don't really like that very much, either. Anyway, the second clause has to be indicative (i.e. ha existido el feminismo), and hubiera is pluperfect ("had done something"), not present perfect ("has/have done something"), which is what you want (he, has, ha, hemos, habéis, han).--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gender and color vocabulary

My English professor claims that women have a larger vocabulary of color terms than men, and that this may be related to both cultural factors(women being more encouraged to care about colors) and the higher incidence of colorblindness in men. Is there any truth to his claim, or is this just one of those spurious "factoids" like the one about Eskimo words for snow? And if this claim about color vocabulary is true, do we know if it's because of cultural factors, differences in color vision, or both? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The daddy of aniline dyes, William Henry Perkin was no girl. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the genes coding for the cone cell opsins in humans are on the X chromosome, so women (normally having two distinct X chromosomes) are often better off than men (who normally have only one X chromosome). Also, having two X chromosomes, some (probably very few) women are thought to possess 4 distinct types of cone cells, all functional; see tetrachromacy. Normal humans - both male and female - have only 3, and people with genetic color blindness have even less. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To rephrase what I just wrote in simple terms, vast majority of both men and women perceive colors in the same way, and none of the two genders is better than the other. However, among the minority of people whose color vision is not normal, there are significant gender disparities. I do not know if that could have possibly affected the language; that seems unlikely to me. I personally think that historical gender inequality, and traditional gender roles in particular, are a much more likely cause of such a phenomenon. Please see the article on Gender differences in spoken Japanese for a somewhat extreme example of that. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably true. I'd put that one down to cultural factors. I read an article recently in a Swedish popular-linguistics magazine ("Språk-tidningen") on how they designed the Swedish SAT tests, where a vocabulary test is a significant portion. They test the tests to smooth out gender differences and other biases. Unsurprisingly, men did better at sports terms, for instance. But what was interesting was that they also tend to encounter a good number of words with marked gender differences with no obvious explanation at all! It's a mystery. --130.237.179.182 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The stereotype is that women (and gay men!) are more likely to know a larger number of names for non-basic shades, like "mauve", "periwinkle", "taupe", "chartreuse", "fuschia", "ecru", "russet", "heliotrope", "puce", etc. I really doubt it has much to do with color vision. According to our article on Mauve, "Television host David Letterman once stated jokingly that `you know somebody is gay if they know the difference between mauve and taupe'"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See List of colors. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Way to abbreviate "greats" in describing ancestors...

Is there a way to abbreviate the repetitive "greats" when you're describing your relationship to an ancestor? For example, let's say someone wanted to claim that Ethelred the Unready was their great-great-great-great-great...-grandfather. Would that person really have to fill in the appropriate number of "greats", or could he just say something like, "Ethelred the Unready is my 100 times great grandfater" (number and phrasing as an example only)? I suppose he could say, "I am descended from..." but that doesn't really specify the exact relationship between the person and the ancestor. Any ideas? 12.43.92.140 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)