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

February 25

Definition

What does "leg lamps" mean use ctrl+f: [1]96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It refers to a worthless award. The term comes from the movie A Christmas Story, where the father receives an award from his boss, and the award turns out to be this. The movie, and that specific scene, have become iconic pieces of Americana and show up in cultural references all the time. You can buy your own replica of the lamp at many places, and it shows up, as you found here, in all sorts of references. For example, on the sports debate show Pardon The Interruption, a replica leg lamp is in the background behind Tony and Michael. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bit of irrelevant clarification: The Old Man actually won the lamp as a prize in a newspaper puzzle contest; and the leg prominent in its design was a symbol of the Nehi company, as mentioned in our article at the preceding link. Deor (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What colour is jajeok (Korean 紫赤)?

I was reading some random articles, and came across the article Wonsam. It mentions the colour jajeok, and gives the Korean for it (紫赤), but what is it in English? --Snorgle (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's jajeok rather than janjeok in the article, but I haven't a clue about the colour. Karenjc 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I edited the word, and hopefully someone else will have an idea.Snorgle (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia has a page for the color purple, I guess. Your two symbols appear in reverse order at [2], seemingly denoting a strong pinkish violet. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

紫 is purple and 赤 is red in Japanese. Oda Mari (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In case it helps, I chased the links and came up with the hex code for that color with the signs reversed: #C54EA0. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Purple red" would be the meaning in Chinese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at our article "Korean language", and it didn't say why a Korean word would be in Japanese. I'm guessing that both languages use the Chinese for certain things, such as colors. Is that right? --Milkbreath (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Japanese and Korean use Chinese compounds, but both alnguages have contributed their own combinations that aren't used in Chinese. I suspect this is one of them, but the assumption that it is a purple-red combination seems appropriate. My speaciality is Chinese, not Korean, though. Steewi (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everyone who answered! Snorgle (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

XX: 你好

What does XX: 你好 mean? I saw it at the top of a letter, and I think that it's the equivalent of "dear: " in chinese. Is this true? If not, what is the way that you write dear: at the top of a letter? thanks! Yakeyglee (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken (my Chinese is practically non-existant), those two characters are simply ni hao, that is Hello in Chinese. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I know, but do the two Xs do anything to it to make it something along the lines of "dear"?Yakeyglee (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

XX is the name. It's roughly in usage equivalent to "Dear XX," in the sense that it's a common way to begin a letter. However, the connotation carried by the words is probably more like "Dear XX, I hope you are well." or "Dear XX, how are you?" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

你家有没有吗？

Could someone tell me what "你家有没有吗？" means? Thanks! Yakeyglee (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It means "Does your family have any?" What they are asking about isn't specified, and I'd assume it was understood through context. If there is no context, you should be able to assume that it refers to what family members you have (i.e. father, mother, brothers and sisters). Steewi (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's ungrammatical. It's something like "Does your home have or not, is it?" If you are asking "Do you have [it] in your home/Does your home have it?" it should be either 你家有没有? or 你家有吗? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

February 26

Surnames that indicate ancestor was an abandoned child

We have this article about André Vingt-Trois here, whose surname means "23" and indicates that the ancestor from whom he inherited his name was the 23rd abandoned child to be marked on a list (23rd whether of the day, month or year I don't know). What are those kind of surnames called ? Do we have an article about them and are there surnames in English that show your ancestor was an abandoned child ? Rosenknospe (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit of research tells me that foundlings have been given the surnames:

• Winters (from the season in which they were found – see Victoria Winters) – and I imagine Summers and Spring might have the same origin in some cases; I’ve never heard of anyone with the surnames Autumn or Fall
• Cree (after the church where they were found)
• Temple – regularly so named if found abandoned at a temple [3] – and I imagine some people named Church and Chapel (variant spellings) were also named for similar reasons
• Esposito (Italy)
• Expósito (Spain).

I haven't found any instance of a person with the surname Foundling, but I imagine there are some out there. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of (in fiction) a medieval foundling being given a surname "Orbus", Latin for foundling. Steewi (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a word for it in English (or most languages). Because I haven't heard of it being the case that foundlings were ever routinely given a (particular) name because of their status, in any culture. --Pykk (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A previous partner of mine was a mental nurse and told me of a case where an adult "foundling" – in other words a person who was picked up with amnesia, and didn't know his real name – was given the name "Leslie Cherry", becuase he was found on the corner of Leslie Grove and Cherry Orchard Road, in Croydon, South London. --rossb (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much everyone, and sorry I forgot to sign (Note to self: Don't edit when you should be sleeping). Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You could email the curators of the Foundling Museum; I bet they's be interested. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that could put a new twist on things. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The father of Major Barbara was one of a dynasty of foundlings (each had adopted and renamed his successor) named Andrew Undershaft. Apparently a church in London was called St Andrew Undershaft because a maypole was kept there. —Tamfang (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently no Dutch people on this forum, otherwise someone would certainly have reported that 30 years ago we had a well known politician called Anne Vondeling (which means foundling), his grandfather was reportedly an abandoned child. Dutch page at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Vondeling . Another interesting aspect of these kind of names is that they potentially start a new line of surnames, whereas most surname system are destined to have less and less surnames, pls see http://www.bokke.com/vestzak/surnames.htm Bokkeveltkamp (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

comma after or before "and"

which would be correct: "The ILS is a manually activated lock that is located in the back of the pistol's grip. It is cylindrical in design and, according to Glock, each key is unique. " or The ILS is a manually activated lock that is located in the back of the pistol's grip. It is cylindrical in design, and according to Glock, each key is unique. " thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion all five of these should be considered correct and the choice is a matter of style:

• 1. It is cylindrical and according to Glock each key is unique.
• 2. It is cylindrical and, according to Glock, each key is unique.
• 3. It is cylindrical, and according to Glock each key is unique.
• 4. It is cylindrical, and, according to Glock, each key is unique.
• 5. It is cylindrical, and according to Glock, each key is unique.

A comma is optional before a coordinating conjunction introducing a second main clause, as in versions 3 and 4. A prepositional phrase serving as an adverb, like "according to Glock", can also be optionally set off by commas, as in versions 2 and 4. And version 5, an illogical combination of 3 and 4, is too widely used and accepted to be considered wrong; in fact, it's the one I'd most likely write myself.

Of course, we aren't supposed to be answering with opinions here. But the trouble is that the other way to find an answer to this sort of thing is to look in a style guide, and those tend to recommend a style (that's their job) without declaring whether some alternative style is also correct. --Anonymous, 10:12 UTC, February 26, 2009.

Why would they recommend alternatives? By minimizing the number of acceptable choices, they maximize the nervousness of the insecure kind of person who consumes books such as these, and thereby maximize their own sales. Perhaps the best known among them is The Elements of Style, a spectacularly silly book that is treated with entirely undue reverence. Hoary (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would write, "It is cylindrical and according to Glock, each key is unique." NeonMerlin 10:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that one I'd call erroneous. --Anon, 23:21 UTC, February 26, 2009.

You will find a supporter for every combination of commas there is. The only chance you have of resolving the issue is to study and understand a style guide and apply its dictates judiciously, or find somebody you can trust to do that and stick with him. I'm surprised to hear that "a comma is optional before a coordinating conjunction introducing a second main clause". I've always considered that comma to be one of the very few things in English that is invariable. Look at any reputably edited publication and you will find that comma throughout. (OK, that's a counter-example, but it's a special case of "and" where it makes the first phrase act as though it started with "if" and therefore properly belongs to it.) But in your sentence, the comma is called for and indispensable. As for the other commas, it depends on what you want. If "according to Glock" is bracketed with commas (option 4), the phrase becomes parenthetical—read aloud it would be sotto voce—it becomes divorced from the writer's opinion and stands outside the sentence. In option 3 or option 5, "according to Glock" is not parenthetical and serves simply to inform the reader where the information came from. The second comma in option 5 is a judgment call, because a short introductory phrase can do without its comma. This one is pretty short, and it stands among other short stuff—the sentence would look all chopped up. The trend seems to be toward fewer commas, and I personally try to lose as many as I can (that "personally" was properly parenthetical, but I trust the reader to twig to that without help). So, the choice is between option 3 and option 4 and depends on how strong you want "according to Glock" to be. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Elements of Style? Hey, I've got that book! I don't have a clue where it is. I didn't read my copy of The Elements of Organization. Can't find that one either. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I read 'according to Glock' as parenthetical, so I'd go with alternative #2. --Pykk (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. #5 grates. —Tamfang (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I highly recommend Wilson Follett's Modern American Usage for discussion of punctuation. He treats this very subject, contrasting between rhetorical/elocutionary punctuation, which would have

Q's attempt to do justice to the old, and to his generation lost, liberator is thrilling.

and the strict constructionist approach to punctuation, which would have

Q's attempt to do justice to the old and, to his generation, lost liberator is thrilling.

Nukes4Tots's preferred punctuation is of the strict constructionist style. Theserialcomma's preferred punctuation is of the rhetorical style, with the sentence punctuated "according to voice" — i.e. as it would be read aloud. It is a style that Follet observes to have fallen out of fashion in "the past three or four hundred years", in favour of the strict constructionist approach which "has long been gaining authority and seems likely to retain it". I've seen no evidence that, in the 4 decades since Follett wrote that, he was wrong about the continuation of the trend. (My immediately preceding sentence is strict constructionist punctuated, note. I suspect that many if not most people nowadays would correct it for being wrong if it were punctuated in the rhetorical style.) Uncle G (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Longest string of letters shared by non-cognates

What's the longest string of letters shared by two English words that aren't etymologically related? (The longest example I can think of is ravenous and intravenous.) NeonMerlin 10:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what you define as etymologically related, I think the trick is to find something with multiple suffixes. That way, two words with entirely different roots may have a whole string of identical letters at the end. consciousness and rapaciousness share 9, for example. One more than yours! =P --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "ontological" and "gerontological" - 11! But that would also depend on how you define it, since the -logical parts are obviously the same. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're going down that route, then the OP's original example is disbarred. Algebraist 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the -ous endings make them etymologically related? How so? -- JackofOz (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are both the English-from-Latin suffix -ous, aren't they? Algebraist 19:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know enough about the origin of -ous to comment. But isn't that a bit like saying sitting is etymologically related to googling and hypothesising, merely because of their common -ing ending? Maybe the -ous endings of ravenous and intravenous have a common origin, but the primary parts of the words, and the words as as whole, don't. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. My point was that the OP's pair is in the same boat as Adam's pair in this sense. I suppose -logical is more substantive than -ous, so that pair could be said to be more related. Algebraist 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

-ous comes from French, through Latin -osus, but of course the OP's point is that "raven" is not related to "intra" and "ven-" (and neither are onto- and geronto-). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

guarantee

why is guarantee spelled with u? it's garantie in french, and there shouldn't be a u before a, or am i getting something wrong? --84.191.224.82 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because it came from a Germanic word beginning with a "w". During a certain period, such Germanic words were borrowed into Old French with a "gu" spelling (not sure about the pronunciation at that time). Cf. the doublets "guarantee" and "warranty", "guard" and "ward", etc. 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The etymology for "guarantee" in the Oxford English Dictionary shows it entering English around 1600 as "garanté". They are a little coy about its ultimate source, suggesting it came in by analogy with the Spanish word garante, which had an equivalent forms in French, spelled garant, and Old French, spelled guarant or warant depending on the dialect. They don't explain the "u" in English, but I guess we can assume it came from the Old French word. French underwent an overhaul around the time "guarantee" entered English, and the Académie française (French Academy) was established in 1634. I imagine it was they who turned all the "w"s and "gu"s into "g"s. Noetica, where are you? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Noetica#Away for a couple of days, because of sickness.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be that the 'u' was inserted by mistaken analogy with the examples mentioned in the first response. —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

German/English Beamte/Functionary

How to you say someone is a "corporate functionary" in German? I have the impression that they only use the word Beamte for Government functionaries. --Mr.K. (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Functionary not only translates to "Beamter" (Which (in the true sense of the word is in fact any state Employee that has gone through the Process of "Verbeamtung" being called on the state for a life time, other employees of State Agencies are called "Beschäftigte") translates as "Funktionär", so a corporate functionary would be a "Firmenfunktionär"--217.84.56.241 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I had never seen "corporate functionary" before, but you learn something new every day. Apparently there are two types of CFs, depending on the writer's intent.

1. A catchall term for, as one legal document that I found on the Web put it, "a director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation". (This could be translated as "Vertreter [this covers both "directors" and "officers"], Mitarbeiter oder Erfüllungsgehilfen des Unternehmens.") If you choose a literal translation, e.g., "Funktionsträger", Google finds many hits, but most of the top hits come from political parties, educational institutions, or association such as sports clubs, but not the corporate world. Probably best to resolve it to a multi-part enumeration such as the one I gave above, at least on first occurrence.
2. The other, very different usage is "corporate functionary" as in "cubicle dweller", "drudge" or "low-level manager". Here you need to have a good ear to pick an apt equivalent. If the entire paragraph surrounding "corporate functionary" exudes an air of irony then make sure that it does in German, too. "Funktionsträger" could work, but so could at least a dozen other terms, some of them fairly colloquial, others more formal-sounding (possibly as a rhetorical device to communicate irony).

In no case should you use "Beamter". A Beamter is a civil servant.

Cheers,--Goodmorningworld (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How to disambiguate following sentence

Alliterations are series of words that begin with the same letter or sound alike.--Mr.K. (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the second assonances etc.? AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that aside, just switch the complement phrases: Alliterations are series of words that sound alike or begin with the same letter. Indeterminate (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alliterations are series of words that either begin with the same letter or sound alike. Livewireo (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rewrite it to either of the following, depending on what you meant: "... that either sound alike, or begin with the same letter" or "...that either sound alike, or begin with the same sound or letter". Bunthorne (talk) just answering the question as asked, not commenting on the correctness of either assertion 05:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Semester

Does semester mean "half year" or "six months"? The dictionary [4] seems to say both. Black Carrot (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the distinction in your mind between "half year" and "six months"? If we are speaking of a calendar year which comprises twelve months, then half of that is six months. If you want to think of a year as 365 days, then half of that is 182.5, which isn't any convenient number of months. As can be seen from your link, "semester" can have various meanings, including half an academic year. Many words have multiple definitions; usually context is sufficient to distinguish between them. --LarryMac | Talk 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Black Carrot is asking about the etymology. From www.etymonline.com: 1827, from Ger. Semester, from L. semestris, in cursus semestris "course of six months," from semestris "of six months," from sex "six" + mensis "month." --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

One may be forgiven for supposing that it's related to semi. —Tamfang (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Disappearance Of J.Thomson

Imagine you are head,express your feelings and also the help given to you by Mr.Merevale to get some clues regarding the disappearance of J.Thomson. VALUE POINTS: 1.Message received by the Head. 2.Information given by Mr.Merevale. 3.The guilty feeling of the Head. 4.Mr.Merevales opinion about Thomson. 5.The meeting with Welch. 6.Welchs description of his last meeting with Thomson. 7.Perfects were sent in search for Thomson. 8.Express your feelings.18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Shehkhan (talk).

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to ask a homework question, at least disguise it. This looks like you just copy and pasted directly from the assignment. Livewireo (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you just read it you can cover all your own points there. Our article The Pothunters by P.G. Wodehouse doesn't have much, least of all on Chapter 16. It does have links. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is not meant for airing opinions, so it is inappropriate to ask for our "feelings" here. —Tamfang (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the OP kknow you're being ironic? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What irony, earthling? —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fear of Computers in Latin

Irritated with an editor who created Logicophobia as supposedly a phobia/fear of computers I did a quick google and left a slightly snarky comment that he'd used the wrong word root and that it should have been Ordinatraphobia (see User_talk:Ilovemassachusetts84#Logicophobia). Not being any kind of latin expert was I actually correct? If not what would the correct term be? What would Logicophobia and Ordinatraphobia actually translate to? Exxolon (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the school that thinks Latin roots have no place in -phobia (from Greek phobos) words. But if you have no such squeamishness, the Neo-Latin for a computer, used by the Vatican (source: [5]), is instrumentum computatorium, so I guess you could go with computatoriphobia. Deor (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern Greek for computer is el:Ηλεκτρονικός υπολογιστής, so if you insist on a Greek root, you could call it "hypologistophobia". —Angr 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To judge by the Google hits, most folk just call it "computer phobia." Deor (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Given enough angst I could develop a fear of multiple or any computers in Latin.;-) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A strict classicist wouldn't like "ordinatraphobia" because it combines a Greek stem and a Latin stem into a single compound word, and appears to use a connecting vowel between the two stems which is not appropriate to either Greek or Latin patterns of morphology. Anyway, Latin Ordinator literally means "arranger", while Computator would be understood in Classical Latin as meaning "person who calculates". Latin Wikipedia uses the word la:Computatrum, which is a conscious neologism (some strict classicists don't like it for that reason). AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Conscious neologism? I'd say that any so-called Latin word created in the last few hundred years is a conscious neologism. They may conform to what scholars believe the Romans would have said, but they never got an opportunity to, so we'll never know for sure. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but some fairly obvious minor analogous extensions are not very controversial among modern Latinists. However, computatrum uses a suffix which has been claimed not to have been morphologically productive within Latin after the period of the Punic wars, roughly, as was covered in a radio piece on Latin Wikipedia which I heard maybe a year ago... AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Earliest attestation for singular "United States"

What's the earliest known instance of the use of "United States" as a singular? I don't care when it became predominant, just when was the first time anyone used it. Would it have been familiar to the Founders at all? I've seen an alleged George Washington quote, "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine," but I don't know if that's apocryphal or not. --140.232.11.217 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, some web sites give that one as "The government of the United States is...", so you're right to be suspicious. Unfortunately, I have no idea where it comes from.

• Interrupting myself: I've found it. It's not Washington at all, but it is from his era: It's Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, written by consul-general John Barlow and endorsed by President John Adams. The actual wording does not quite match either of the above versions, but it does use "of the United States", so "United States" cannot be distinguished as singular or plural from this (or anything else in the treaty). The passage actually goes "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Follow the first link for a scan of a printed copy of the treaty and this link for the original, almost identical handwritten text of tihs article. --Anonymous, 10:06 UTC, February 27, 2009.

All the presidents' inaugural addresses except Obama's are available under www.bartleby.com, and I figured that these would be good-quality transcripts. I decided to look through them to see which presidents used "United States" as a plural and which as a singular. It turns out that a lot of the addresses either did not use term at all, or used it only in ways such that you couldn't distinguish singular from plural, e.g. in phrases like "people of the United States". Two 20th-century presidents used the phrase "these United States", which is certainly plural but might be considered a set expression. Other than that, the only president whose address(es) used as a plural was Monroe.

Plural:

• Monroe:
  • (1817) "...the United States have flourished beyond example. Their individually have been happy and the nation prosperous."
  • (1821) "The great interests which the United States have in the Pacific...."
• Harding (1921): "The unselfishness of these United States..."
• Reagan (1981): "These United States are confronted..."

Singular:

• McKinley:
  • (1897) "The United States has progressed with marvelous rapidity..."
  • (1901) "...the United States in its relation to Cuba."
• Taft (1909): "...upon the mainland of the United States and in its dependencies."
• Hoover (1929): "The United States fully accepts ..."
• Franklin Roosevelt (1937): "I see a United States which ..."
• Truman (1949): "...the United States has invested its substance and its energy..."

This is not intended to answer the question; I just thought it was interesting. --Anonymous, 00:42 UTC, February 27, 2009.

I did a Google Book search for the exact phrase"the United States is" and looked for cases where they are not saying something like "the President of the United States is..." In the results from 1775-1800, the only singular uses of "United States" were cases where the year of publication was grossly in error, like the South Dakota legislature report from 1890 being reported as being from 1800 , or the Rand Corporation publishing something in 1789. Google Book Search is full of gross errors of publication date. In the results from 1801-1825, I found [6] "The American law journal and miscellaneous repertory" (January 1809)page 194, which says "To this contract the United States is one party, and an individual the other." But it goes on to say "...if the United States cannot appear in a State Court to prosecute a suit in their own behalf..." so it was not cut and dried singular. Then in [7] Niles' National Register (1815), page 60 "The United States is bound to provide for its common defence." From 1824 I found" "A New System of Geography, Ancient and Modern" whicih says "The United States is the great middle division of North America." (page 48). From 1825 I found [http://books.google.com/books?id=ONsUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180&dq=%22the+united+states+is%22+date:1801-1825&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES "Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania" page 180: "The state is represented in congress, and has authorized the tax: and the United States is a government for the respective states, sovereign in imposing constitutional taxes." So until a proven usage before 1809 is found, that is it. Edison (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

need a word that starts with the letter D and means pattern

I need a word that starts with the letter D and means pattern. Such as a pattern that may be used on a table or woven or used in heraldry. TIA for any help to remind me what this word is. This is not homework I just can't remember the new English word I learned today. NoClutter (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Design? Device? Decoration? --LarryMac | Talk 22:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Skimmed through the Heraldry article, the only possible candidate I found was Division of the field. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, its a single word like Desma or Damesk ... aggggh I was hoping this would be easy! NoClutter (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it be "dobbles" - "Probably molds or patterns on which armor was made (Old English)" Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, "damask" is sometimes used in heraldry in connection with roses, but it's not a pattern. Could it be "dancetté" or "dancetty" or "dantelly", which is a zigzag pattern, or "dovetailed"? - Nunh-huh 03:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dovetail? Dancetty? Dentilly? Diagonal, diamantine, diamond, diaper, dog-tooth. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be damascening - inlaying different metals to produce intricate patterns. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dither? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pattern. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Were it not for the heraldy reference, I'd suggest "doily". It's not a pattern as such, but they always incorporate a woven pattern, and they're used on tables. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably "diapering", believe it or not... AnonMoos (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So a knight might pay a professional to do this, if he felt in need of a bit of pampering ? StuRat (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I said it first! --Milkbreath (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think LarryMac hit it with "device". F'rinstance, this poem from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow "...A banner with the strange device, Excelsior!" Bunthorne (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

February 27

What's the word for a medication that doesn't cure, only mitigates symptoms?

Resolved

What do you call a medication that doesn't cure the disease but only minimizes its symptoms? For example, virtually all medicine for the common cold falls under this category. There's a term for this, but I can't for the life of my remember what it is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Symptomatic treatment. — Emil J. 13:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Palliative? DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Palliative! Yes, that's it. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that just about every med ? Those which actually cure a disease are few and far between, as there's not much profit in curing people. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that they're used as palliatives, and they may form only one element of a treatment regime. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference in usage between the terms "palliative" and "symptomatic". "Palliative" is used when referring to treating the symptoms of severe diseases, often in terminal stages of the disease. Treating the pain of metastatic cancer with morphine would be palliative treatment, while taking paracetamol (acetaminophen) for treating the symptoms of a common cold would be symptomatic treatment. And Sturat, there's a lot of money in making drugs that cure common diseases, like antibiotics. The problem is getting the big pharma to look for drugs that might help people with rare (and often chronic) diseases. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 14:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

February 28

A few of chinese phrases

Could someone please tell me the meaning of the following phrases: “老师好”， “早”， “同学们好”， “老师再见”. Thanks!Yakeyglee (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can look up the characters but I can't say as to the grammar:

老师好 - teacher good (perhaps good teacher?)

早 - early

同学们好 - classmates good (perhaps good classmates?)

老师再见 - goodbye teacher

(Don't thank me, thank On-Line Chinese Tools.)- Eron^Talk 01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"老师好" and "同学们好" are greetings to the teacher and classmates respectively. It's like saying, "Hello teacher" and "hello classmates." "早" is "good morning." "老师再见" means "goodbye teacher." bibliomaniac15 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "早" as a character by itself does, in fact, mean 'early', but it would be a rare occasion (in modern Chinese) to hear it said in isolation, and, as we are dealing with greetings here, it is an abbreviated form for 「早上好」, which means 'Good morning.' (around about the only occasion when the character "早" would be heard alone). as Biblio says.--KageTora (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Root words in a polysynthetic language

I just noticed that in the Inuinnaqtun dictionary, published by Nunavut Arctic College, the root word for northern lights is aqhaliaq or aqhalingiaq. While the Kangiryuarmiutun (a dialect of Inuinnaqtun) gives kiguryak (from Ronald Lowe's Basic Kangiryuarmiut Eskimo Dictionary, which is similar to the Siglitun word kiurjait (from Inuktitut Living Dictionary, search for northern lights). The Inuinnaqtun dictionary then gives aqhalialaqijuq to mean the northern lights are out while Lowe gives aqhalingiiqtuq to mean there are northen lights. It's obvious that both of the last two words are derived from aqhaliaq but if the root word is kiguryak how can that be? Both works are accepted as being authoritive so that shouldn't be an issue. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language has a link to Category:User ik and a link to Category:User iu.

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why should you expect there to be only one root, and every word with related meaning to be derived from it? In English, the only adjective related to 'law' is 'legal', which in the context of English is from a different root (though they are ultimately related). I realise that this is not quite parallel, because English has a large learned vocabulary, but it is suggestive that things need not be as clear-cut as you are assuming. Another related-but-not-completely-to-the-point example is 'beam', which is derived from the same root as German 'baum', and once meant 'tree', but now has other (derived) meanings. It does however still survive meaning 'tree' in whitebeam and hornbeam, though these names are probably not analysed by most English speakers. --ColinFine (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re legal being the only adjective related to law: There's law-abiding, lawful and (arguably) legitimate. Edit: Some more: lawless, unlawful, illegal and illegitimate. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. The question came about in part because of the Eskimo words for snow fallacy, but also it's not so much that there should be only one root word, but that there is very little difference between Kangiryuarmiutun/Inuinnaqtun, not enough to account for the different word. There are minor differences in speech, but very little, between Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories and Kugluktuk, Nunavut, as opposed to say Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, an Inuktitut community. I did do some extra checking last night. After talking to my ex (from Ulukhaktok) she said that she would use aqhaliaq but wasn't sure why. There are a couple of reasons. First her parents moved in 1959/1960 from the south end of Victoria Island to Ulukhaktok, so they may have used the word. Then she lived for several years in Cambridge Bay and may have picked it up there. The other thing she pointed out, and I should have remembered, is that there is a significant proportion of people in Ulukhaktok from Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories and at least one or two of the elders consulted by Lowe were from the west and he may have just got the wrong word. Of course the logical thing would be to call people in Ulukhaktok and ask them but the people I would need to talk to don't speak English. On thing of note is that the words from the east are all similar and it's only the Siglit and Kangiryuarmiut words that are different. I'll check with the people listed on the babel, especially the two Inupiat ones. I'd be interested to know if kiguryak is derived from Inupiat, and came to Canada with the migration of Alaskan people. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar sounding terms?

There's a discussion at the science desk where the OP expresses frustration over the terms hypotension and hypertension. See here. The OP states they sound similar. I disagree. Any linguists around who can explain it? Please add your comments to the Science desk Q. Cheers, Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist but it is plausible that the speaker's accent can affect the pronunciation and make the words sound similar. It doesn't help that when written they differ by only two letters. It's even worse because the difference is in the middle of the word and none of those differing letters "stick out." (like the letters bdfghijklpqty) Also speakers of other languages may find it hard to hear certain distinguishing sounds. See Non-native pronunciations of English. A classic example is Japanese language speakers having a hard time hearing the acoustic difference between English "r" and "l". I fixed the wikilink to the post.Sifaka ^talk 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In a nonrhotic accent, the R in "hypertension" is silent, so the only difference between them is a single vowel and an unstressed one at that. In rapid or careless pronunciation unstresssed vowels are often reduced to a schwa, leaving the words completely indistinguishable. It's a bit better in a rhotic accent, but they're still pretty close. I think most people would be aware of this and would try to always enunciate the first O in "hypotension" to avoid confusion, but I can imagine "hypertension" being mistaken for "hypotension" if the speaker was nonrhotic and the listener rhotic. --Anonymous, 06:18 UTC, February 28, 2009.

The difference in pronunciation of the two prepositions from which the prefixes hypo- and hyper- were derived was more distinct in Ancient Greek phonology and is still more distinct in the phonologies of many languages in comparison with many if not most varieties of modern English phonology, with one notable exception being Scottish English#Phonology.

The Russian alphabet has even fewer letters with ascenders and descenders than the English alphabet, and refers to the two medical conditions as ru:артериальная гипотензия and ru:артериальная гипертензия respectively.

If unclear pronunciation by doctors is a medical risk factor, then unclear handwriting by them is one also. Apparently, Wikipedia does not have an article on this topic. (Doctor's Handwriting - MedicineNet - Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors) (Cause of Death: Sloppy Doctors - TIME)

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[I revised my first paragraph to reflect the fact the prepositions did not disappear with the appearance of the prefixes. I revised my second paragraph to clarify that ascenders and descenders are features of letters and not letters themselves. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)]

I'd say that even for rhotic speakers, the two terms sound similar. Remember that for two things to be similar, they have to be different. (Otherwise they wouldn't be similar, they'd be identical – which is not the same thing.) —Angr 09:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Grrr, that should of course be "Doctors' Handwriting" - it wouldn't be too serious if only one doctor had bad handwriting. (I mean it's wrong in the cited article, not that Wavelength copied it incorrectly. Sloppy doctors indeed.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The French words dessous "underneath" and dessus "on top" only differ by a single vowel (or if you pursue linguistic analysis, only by a single phonological feature), yet have opposite meanings (and there's no borrowing from a foreign language involved). AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Even more bothersome for English speakers, the two vowel sounds are almost identical to English-speaking ears, much like the Japanese feel about "l" and "r" in English. Of course, the French readily recognize the difference. In "dessous", the second vowel is pronounced like the English "u" or "schwa" sound; and in "dessus" the second vowel is pronounced like the English long-e sound, but with puckered lips. The sounds are made very differently at the vocal cord (which is why the French don't screw this up), but in English we are not trained to hear a difference, ... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The second vowel of "dessous" isn't the schwa, the first vowel is. The second vowel is similar to the "oo" sound of "goose". Its difference from the vowel of "dessus" is not at the vocal folds but in the tongue position. In [u] (the second vowel of "dessous") the back of the tongue is raised toward the soft palate, while in [y] (the second vowel of "dessus") it's raised toward the hard palate. —Angr 22:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

---

See minimal pair, two words that differ by a single sound: live/leave, light/night. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Domo

What is this word in the following sentence that I cannot find in any English or Spanish dictionary: "he (Marquez) struck up a conversation with the major domo of the presidential palace"? Thanks. --Omidinist (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's major domo. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, Major domo is a compound word and so you will not likely find a defintion for domo by itself...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, for some reason Major domo redirects to Mayors of the Palace, which is a related, but more specific, term for the Frankish office, while Majordomo is a seperate article. Him. Oh, and "domo" in this case comes from the latin for "of the house". In modern terms, "majordomo" or "major domo" generally refers to the head servant in a household, the one who was in charge of running the entire house. So all of the butlers, valets, maids, cooks, etc. would be under him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Never mind. I just fixed that. Strikethru. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised the article makes no mention of the alternative spelling, major duomo (e.g. as used here). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm - I'm not (surprised). I've never come across that spelling, and the OED doesn't mention it, either as a historical spelling, or in the etymology (from Spanish 'mayordomo' c. 1120 or Italian 'maggiordomo' C13). Since 'duomo' in Italian means 'large church' not 'house', it looks to me very much as if 'major duomo' is a recent hypercorrection. Googling for "major duomo" the example you quoted is the only one in that sense on the first page, and the next example is near the bottom of the second page (Most examples seem to be names of dogs and horses, but some are Italian churches). --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, that is interesting, Colin. I was also surprised to find very few ghits for it when I looked for an example. Up till now, my encounter with this term was through characters in opera (Richard Strauss has two such roles in Der Rosenkavalier, for example), and I am convinced I've mostly seen it spelled "duomo" in that context. However, I can now find only one example of such a spelling on google, and I've now discovered I've misplaced both the programme from the last time I saw it live, and my libretto from the recording of it in my collection. Odd, very odd. My memory must be faulty. Hard to believe, but I suppose it is technically possible.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. But the original title would be 'Haushofmeister' then. (The borrowed version, 'majordomus' is less common, and would refer to the aforementioned 'Mayor of the Palace' type role). --Pykk (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Haushofmeister indeed. But such titles are routinely translated into their equivalents in other languages, even if they still routinely sing the opera in German or whatever the original language was. For example, anglophones refer to the "Queen of the Night" as such, and not as "Königin der Nacht"(this is a role in Mozart's The Magic Flute, which is normally sung in German, even if it's billed under its English title and not Der Zauberflöte). Those particular Strauss roles are known in English-speaking countries as "Major Domo", or, in the version my memory would have it, "Major Duomo". But, as I say, the weight of evidence seems to be against me. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

and we feel that this initiative would further the goals of that policy

Is this construction grammatically acceptable? - "and we feel that this initiative would further the goals of that policy" ----Seans Potato Business 12:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's grammatically unremarkable, that is to say, right, but it has other problems. You can't further goals—goals just sit there and wait for you to attain them. "Initiative" is a two-dollar word for the ten-cent word "thing". Replace it with a noun that means what you want to say. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible to further one's goals. Initially, we have goal A. Then we do something that broadens our horizons and enables us to have goal B. That would be a furtherance of goal A. But I guess Seans was talking only about the attainment of goal A, not its furtherance to goal B. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

one word or multiple words that mean New Beginning, Hope, Rebuilding, Courage

Is there one word or multiple words thats meaning would encompass all of the above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertNOP1 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I know of one such word, but I find "thats" as a genitive or possessive form of "that" to be interesting... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See English relative clauses#Grammatical case. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I already knew the basic terminology, and the existence of "whose". AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reformation" could cover all of those depending on the context, or "restoration". Wrad (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reformation" (capital R) has a specific, historical meaning. "Reform" is the noun with the more general meaning in ordinary usage. (And then there's re-formation, which is something else entirely). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it was capitalized was because it was at the beginning of the sentence. "reformation" doesn't have a specific historical meaning. Wrad (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance also has a meaning like that, but is already taken. Steewi (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the English "rebirth" then? Or "renewal"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Words that have travelled a long way

I'm looking for some examples of English words that were borrowed/derived from another language, but came to that language from a third language, and came to that language from a fourth language, and so on, as far back as we can go. It doesn't matter if there have been various spelling/pronunciation/meaning changes along the way, as long as a continuous history can be proven. What is the longest "linguistic journey" of any such word? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In terms of actual mileage traveled, a word like Chocolate, which enters English via Nahuatl via Spanish is probably a pretty good one... but in terms of steps that only 3. However, depending on how you define "language" then nearly every word is going to have countless steps. For example, most core words in English can be traced back English <- Middle English <- Anglosaxon <- proto-Germanic <- proto-Indoeuropean or something like that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he's more interested in borrowings between separate languages, rather than in-place gradual linguistic evolution. One that occurs to me offhand is that the Sumerian word transcribed as E-GAL "palace, temple" went through several different varieties of Akkadian and several different varieties of Aramaic to end up as Arabic haykal هيكل -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My favorite example of a well-traveled word is apricot. We got it from French abricot, which is from Spanish albaricoque, which is from Arabic al-barqūq, which is from Greek praikokion, which is from Latin praecoquum, making it a doublet of precocious. —Angr 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz, the web page @tmbchr » Word Origin: Parasite contains the following statement.

Interesting aside, the word “church” has the longest etymology in the entire work, running about 4 pages in the original. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Our article, Orange (word), describes its history as "Orange derives from Indian, tamil naranthai to Sanskrit nāraṅgaḥ "orange tree", with borrowings through Persian nārang, Arabic nāranj, Spanish naranja, Late Latin arangia, Italian arancia or arancio, and Old French orenge, in chronological order." Rmhermen (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Late Latin borrowed from Spanish? Weird. 202.40.14.58 (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The word sugar comes from French sucre, which comes from Latin succarum, which comes from Arabic sukkar, from Persian shakar, from a word originally meaning "grit" or "pebble". LANTZY^TALK 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chess, checkmate, artichoke? Apricot was interesting. Thanks, Angr. Steewi (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I like word pairs that kind of come full circle. Like 'beef'->'boeuf'(fr)->'bovis'(lat)->'bous'(gr)->'*bu' (PIE), originally onomatopoeic for the sound a cow makes. Then there's *bu->'*ku' (proto-germanic)->'cow' and *bu->'moo'. So: 'moo', 'cow' and 'beef' all have the same origin! --Pykk (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

*bu → *ku ?! My teacher didn't cover that clause of Grimm's Law. — Ah, okay: according to the nearest dictionary, the /b/ in bos comes from PIE /gʷ/, which would give Germanic /k(ʷ)/. — But I doubt that Latin took bos from Greek. —Tamfang (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All nice examples. Thank you. "Church" looks particularly daunting, Wavelength. I think I'll leave it for a rainy (Sunday) afternoon, if you don't mind. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

你家有没有宠物吗？

Is 是，我家有两只猫。an appropriate and grammatically correct answer to the question 你家有没有宠物吗？Or do you say 是的，我家有两只猫。 or 有的，我家有两只猫。?Yakeyglee (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

你家有没有宠物吗 is ungrammatical. It should be either 你家有没有宠物? or 你家有宠物吗?

A grammatical answer to the first question (你家有没有宠物? ) should be 有的，我家有两只猫, or 有，我家有两只猫.

A grammatical answer to the second question (你家有宠物吗?) should be 是的，我家有两只猫, or 是，我家有两只猫; 有的，我家有两只猫, or 有，我家有两只猫 are also acceptable.

That is to say, as a matter of grammar, "有没有" cannot go with "吗" in the same sentence, and 有没有 is answered with 有 or 没有, whereas 有...吗 can be answered with either 是 or 有 (or their negative counterparts).

Generally, you can choose to end a "有没有" sentence with an additional "啊?" but not "吗". Both "有没有" and "吗" are question indicators and having both is tautological.

The exception is where "有没有" is used along with another questioning component, e.g. in "有没有发现什么吗？". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

March 1

Blood

Why isn't blood pronounced like brood (for example)? I don't think it's a dialect thing, it's always pronounced the same way. 212.201.71.43 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Phonological history of English high back vowels#Foot-strut split has all the answers. --Kjoonlee 05:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In short, it used to be. Still is in the other Germanic languages. (c.f. German blut). --Pykk (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Breendonk vs. Breendonck

I'd queried this back in Aug. '06, and now discover I haven't received any response. None of the interwiki pages I've checked (= de/fr/nl) for Breendonk or Fort Breendonk in Belgium use the ck spelling, but it crops up all over the web, e.g. in testimony texts. How to sort out the variant spelling, if such it is? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 'donck' is a variant spelling. It means a small hill. I'm not Dutch but I think it's typical for Brabant place names. (Although that might just be because the south is somewhat less flat.) Since the article is titled "Breendonk" I'd assume that's the more common form now at least. --Pykk (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two questions about German pronouns

1. In this discussion, it was said that Guten Tag is in the accusative, there being an implied "Ich wünsche Ihnen einen ..." But according to the table at German pronouns#Personal pronouns, Ihnen is the formal form of 'you' in the dative, not the accusative.

2. If a friend asks me Was machst du heute?, and I want to return the question back to them, is it correct to say und du?, und dir? or und dich?, and why?

Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Others will come up with better answers than me, but until they do:

1. It is Ihnen because it should be in the dative. Guten Tag is the object: literally I wish a good day (accusative) to you (dative). It's just one of a group of verbs that take the dative: helfen (ich helfe dir), gratulieren, schenken, geben, sagen are others.
2. I would think und du because they are going to be the subject of the reply. In English, it is "And you?", not "And to you?", if you see what I mean. On the other hand, if your freinds ask Was gibt deine Eltern dir?, then one might suppose that you could say und dir? in those circumstances.

Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But if wünschen takes the dative, doesn't that govern the case of the entire sentence? Why does it suddenly change to the accusative? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wünschen is what's known as a ditransitive verb: it takes two objects, one in the dative (Ihnen) and one in the accusative (einen schönen Tag). —Angr 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Both of Jarry1250's answers are correct. However, "What are your parents giving you?" is Was geben dir deine Eltern?, and if you were to return the question with Und dir? you'd be implying that your own parents were giving your interlocutor something. In other words, in the following conversation:

SCHMITT: Was geben dir deine Eltern?

MEIER: Einen Pullover. Und dir?

Meier is asking what his own parents (Herr and Frau Meier senior) are giving Schmitt, not what Schmitt's parents are giving him. To change the subject from Meier's parents to Schmitt's parents, he'd have to say Und deine dir?. —Angr 12:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. You learn something new every day (especially where GCSE German is concerned I suppose). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Outsiders

Is The Outsiders based on a TRUE STORY or not?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.148.57 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so, no. The Outsiders (novel) would likely have mentioned that, if it were true. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And straight from the authors mouth, "Sometimes things from real life inspire me -- the social situation in my high school inspired a great deal of The Outsiders, but the book itself is fictional." (From her FAQ at www.sehinton.com.) - Eron^Talk 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese translation

How do you say "Gay Pride" or "Proudly Gay" in Japanese?, I am writing it in a lot of a languages .. --190.49.116.122 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you with Japanese, but it might help to add that a good literal translation in Chinese is 同性爱的自尊(tongxing'ai de zizun). It literally means "Homosexual pride". There isn't a good not derogatory, not official word for gayness in standard Chinese. Zizun means self-respect or pride (rather than arrogance). Steewi (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard Chinese for homosexual(s)/(ity) is 同性恋. 同性恋的骄傲 is the usual translation for "gay pride", but it does not carry the same sloganeering connotations. 自尊 means dignity, self respect, or self esteem.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They just transliterate it, thus ゲイ・プライド --K.C. Tang (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ゲイとしての自尊心 or 同性愛者としての自尊心. Literally, pride as a gay. Oda Mari (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But is it better to keep the slogan? Perhaps something along the lines of

ゲイ	プライド
同性愛者としての	自尊心

--K.C. Tang (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed your code a bit, looks like you triggered a bug that indented the rest of this page. --Tokikake (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tokikake. :)--K.C. Tang (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no sloganized word in Japanese. If you don't like the translation, use ゲイ・プライド. Oda Mari (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Random German question

So I've been set this question to answer: Was würdest du am liebsten am Wochenende machen?. Obviously, that translates as What would you most like to do at the weekend?. It's probably just my teacher forcing me to use the conditional, but I really wanted to know whether I should be writing about this weekend, or weekends in general. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In principle, it could mean either one, just as "on the weekend" could in English. For purposes of your assignment, and to maximize your practice in using the conditional, I'd interpret it as "on weekends in general". —Angr 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside: in British English the standard idiom is still "at the weekend". "On" has been gaining ground in recent years but still feels like an import to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the question were: Was würdest du am Liebsten zum Wochenende machen? Who said that German does not lend itself to jokes of subtle obscurity? But then again, I seem to be casting pearls... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

With "würdest" it would not be idiomatic to consider it to concern all weekends. Then it would either be "Was machst Du am leibsten am Wochenende/an Wochenenden". or "Was würdest Du am liebsten an den Wochenenden machen." "Würdest" indicates desire for the future. "Am Wochenende" = an dem Wochenende is only one and would usually be understood to be the one that is coming up/being discussed as part of planning an excursion. Since it's an exercise just put together a list of activities starting with "Ich würde gerne..." - "Ich möchte ..." - "Ich wäre für <noun phrase>." It doesn't really matter whether you'd generally like to do that or only next weekend. - Unless it's a one time event. (LOL Cookatoo :-)76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Languages with only one preposition

The book The Power of Babel discusses a Papuan creole language which only uses the preposition "long"(derived from "along" in English), and notes that there are other languages, some of them "full" languages rather than pidgin or creole, with this feature. Is this correct and, if so, what are these languages? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the languages that use only one preposition are creoles and pidgins. I think The Power of Babel talks about PNG Tok Pisin, which is similar to most of the Pacific pidgins (Bislama, Aboriginal Creole English, etc.), and he might talk about Russenorsk, which uses pa as its preposition. I can't think off the top of my head of any not-creole languages that have only one preposition, but I imagine that there are one or two. Most, however, have a number. Steewi (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tok Pisin#Grammar contains the following paragraph.

• There are only two proper prepositions: bilong (from "belong"), which means "of" or "for", and long, which means everything else. (Note that longlong (i.e. long reduplicated) means 'crazy'). Some phrases are used as prepositions, such as long namel (bilong), "in the middle of".

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Russenorsk a true language or proper creole though. Using (or over-using) the preposition 'paa' is logical since it works as both Norwegian på and Russian по. But given that the speakers of 'Russenorsk' tended to follow the sentence structure and such of their native language, I suspect it did have other prepositions - just no others that a native Russian or Norwegian speaker would agree on. --Pykk (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In the early 20th century, some linguists thought that Proto-Indo European didn't really have prepositions as such. That is, there were a number of words in the proto-language which generally developed into prepositions in the different daughter languages, but in the proto-language itself such particles functioned much more as adverbs than as true prepositions (e.g. using a particle to modify a basic verb could mean that the modified verb would take an additional noun object in a specified noun case -- as happens sometimes in Latin -- but the particle would be modifying the verb, and not the noun directly). AnonMoos (talk)

German railway term

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#redirects_History_of_rail_transport_in_germany

Re: the article History of rail transport in Germany - are the terms Epoch III etc actually ever used outside the world of 'modeleisenbahn'?

From a german point of view, are the sub heading titles eg "Epoch IV (1970-1993)" incorrect usage for this type of article?FengRail (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The German article uses proper descriptive headings for the sections. The term "Epoche" (=epoch) is used but once in the text in the normal meaning of "era". I would suggest to take the German headings as a guide for English translations, but I know next to nothing about the subject matter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoche_(Modelleisenbahn) seems to suggest that the titles in History of rail transport in Germany are based on a misunderstanding - and are probably not suitable for a 'real world' article.

Unless I'm wrong of course.. Can anyone confirm my suspicions?

FengRail (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that that German article is about toy railways. And that the article says those "eras" were created so that customers have it easier to figure out which toy railway components fit to each other. Yaan (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Ithought so too.

A question is : have those model railway terms since entered common usage? if not then the article History of rail transport in Germany needs some work.FengRail (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2

A few things I want to know how to say in chinese.

How do you say "that's all right", "sports", "busy", "do not like", "sorry", and "not going". Also, how do you respond when someone says 对不起。? Also, how would you say things for the following situations: "you would like to invite a friend to go swimming", "you accept your friend's invitation to play tennis", "as you don't like playing cricket you decline your friend's invitation", "how do you say that you are in year seven at school?", "how do you say that you and Robert are in the same class?", "how do you say 'let's go!'". THANK YOU SO MUCH if you can answer these for me. This isn't homework...but I really just need to know how to say these things and phrases. Yakeyglee (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they are homework, it would be a lot faster and more accurate to look them up in your dictionary or textbook. But I'll do the easy ones for you. "busy" is máng, "do not like" is bù xĭhuān, "sorry" is duìbuqĭ (which is what you've written in Hànzì up there), and "not going" is bù qù. "Sports" is apparently yùndònghuì, and "that's all right" (which is probably how you'd respond to duìbuqĭ) is méi(yŏu) guānxi. Ah... I'm still not very comfortable with Chinese, so that's all the translating I'm doing today. Indeterminate (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bathroom / Restroom

What, if anything, is the distinction between the terms bathroom, restroom, men's room, etc.? Are there any times when it would be incorrect (as opposed to just odd) to use one rather than another? 98.228.74.177 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to refer to a toilet in a private home as a restroom, men's room, or women's room. As far as I am aware, those terms refer only to public toilets. Even if a private toilet is used only by people of one sex, it would not be called a men's room or women's room. However, you might speak jocosely of using the little boys' room, even in reference to a private commode. The term washroom also strikes my ear as inappropriate for a private toilet, as does lavatory, to a slightly lesser extent. On the other hand, a public toilet can be called almost anything - bathroom, washroom, lavatory, men's room, water closet, john, can, head, etc. And there's nothing wrong with calling a toilet a bathroom even if it doesn't contain a bath, though some people might take issue with that. In the United States, it's considered crude to use the term toilet for the room, as opposed to the receptacle, but it's not wrong per se. Also, you would never use the term 'throne' for a public john. LANTZY^TALK 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In North America, calling any sort of room a "toilet" is incorrect, not crude; here the word only refers to the device. "Bathroom" is commonly used to refer to the room whether it contains a bath or not. In real estate jargon it may be more specifically called a "half bath(room)" if it contains only a toilet and washbasin, a "3/4 bath(room)" if it contains a shower in addition, and a full bathroom if it contains a bathtub. I believe "restroom" is mostly a US term while "washroom" is more common here in Canada. I have a "1¾ bath" house, but how I refer to it myself is that it has two washrooms: the bathroom and the other one. "Lavatory" is not an everyday word here, although airlines sometimes use it; "water closet" is not used at all. "John", "can", and "throne", are vulgar terms and I take them as referring to the device, not the room. --Anonymous, 05:36 UTC, March 2, 2009.

No indeed. While "throne" refers unambiguously to the receptacle, "john" and "can" may be used for the room. Consider the expressions "in the john" and "in the can", which certainly don't refer to splashing about in a toilet bowl. I agree that "lavatory" is less commonly used, but I heard it all the time in grade school. LANTZY^TALK 06:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer depends crucially on where you are talking about. None of the terms the OP used, and few of those in subsequent replies, are generally used in the UK (though all are recognised, like much American vocabulary). I guess that the OP is asking about NAm, but I'll answer for the UK for completeness. The normal term both for the device and the room is 'loo'. This is often felt to be informal, and 'toilet' used in more formal situations - but when I was growing up, 'toilet' was non-U, and our family said 'lavatory' - still in use, but rather old-fashioned. When I first came across a reference in American writing to a 'bathroom' that didn't contain a bath, I thought this must be a mistake.

For public facilities, in normal use 'loo' or 'public loos', usually 'toilets' on signage, and 'public conveniences' from officialdom. We also say 'the gents' and 'the ladies' rather than 'mens room' etc. The UK equivalent of 'john' I think is 'bog' (though that might be a little bit more vulgar - I'm not clear how vulgar 'john' is). --ColinFine (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think 'bog' is approximately as vulgar as 'can' or 'john'. I wish the word 'bog' were used in the United States, along with the terms 'bog roll' and 'bog breath' - they're so expressive and succinct. LANTZY^TALK 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a couple more US options you can go to/ ask for/ use "the facilities" (private or public). Ladies may ask for "the powder room" (privat or hotel/restaurant/bar). This could also describe a half-bath or guest-bathroom (only sink and commode). Guys may say that they would like to "take a leak" when they need to "step out". In the South you may still encounter people who say they are "going to use the out-house". A "commode" describes the device just like "toilet" does. (This can result in misunderstandings if someone was referring to the furniture piece.) "John" is acceptable for a men's room, "can" is more for conversations among friends. For a public facility look for a "restroom" sign. Cat owners may jokingly refer to using "the litterbox". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most English people would expect one of these if offered a commode. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Usual offices" is sometimes used for the toilets in Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And guess what, we have a lengthy discussion of various terms in the relevant article, see Toilet#Etymology. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes euphemise "I'm just going outside, and may be some time" (but unlike the originator of that quote, I always come back).  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alemannic Kraut

What is the Alemannic equivalent of the standard German Kraut? LANTZY^TALK 04:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Kohl, Salat/Kopfsalat, Sirup/Kuchensirup=Zuckerrübenkraut, Grünzeug (among others). 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Swiss / Schwytzerdütsch term seems to be "Chruut", if measly 3 Ghits can be trusted. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW. "Kraut" without any compound noun is only "standard" in the South. Northern Germany uses terms like Sauerkraut, Unkraut, Küchenkraut. Without compound it is only used in the idiom "Kraut und Rüben" (=chaos).76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On an amusing kraut-idiom related note, the German expression "Unkraut vergeht nicht" (idiomatically: "Bad weeds grow tall") was mistranslated into the Swedish expression "Ont krut förgås inte lätt" (literally: "Bad gunpowder doesn't pass away lightly") --Pykk (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Which translates as "Chruut & Rübli" in the Alemannic version of chaos theory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all! LANTZY^TALK 12:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Egg-ague merger

I can't find any mention of this in our category of Splits and mergers in English phonology. I've long noticed the tendency of some people to pronounce egg, leg, keg, beg, dreg, Greg, Meg, peg, etc. with the vowel /eɪ/ rather than /ɛ/. I've noticed it in speakers of various American dialects. Stephen Colbert does it. I'm interested in how widespread this phenomenon is. Has anyone outside the United States noticed it? LANTZY^TALK 05:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't one I've heard people using here, but it is an easily expected change, given the following velar consonant. A degree of palatalisation can be expected on front vowels, especially in casual speech. I have a friend who consistently produces /æg/ sequences as [æ:jg]. Steewi (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra - I'm Australian. Steewi (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

brain tweezer

Which among the following sentences is true? Why?

• only 1 sentence is false
• only 2 sentences are false
• " 3 " " "

     4
     :
     :

• all the 10 sentences are false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriraga (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If n is the number of false sentences, then sentence n is true, and all the others are false. Thus there are 9 false sentences, hence sentence number 9 is true, and all others are false. — Emil J. 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a math question, not a language question. When you have a set of statements that refer to their own truth-values, it is not correct that they must be either true or false. (What if one of them read "This sentence is false"?) Emil's solution is valid but not necessarily the only solution.) --Anonymous, 05:32 UTC, March 3, 2009.

BTW, did you mean to say brain teaser ? Or is something jammed into your gray matter, which you are trying to extract ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that was a language question! :-) --Anon, 05:32 UTC, March 3.

Origins of the last name Boxerbaum

I have been trying to find out more about the origins of our family name. Boxerbaum is jewish in origin. My great grand parents came over from somewhere in eastern Europe or what was then the USSR, possibly Chech. They spoke Hebrew and Yiddish. I know 'baum' means tree in german, and is incorporated into many jewish last names. Boxer may just mean boxwood, meaning my last name means boxwood tree. However, I ran into someone randomly who told me that my name meant 'cherub' tree in yiddish. I learned that the cherub tree has a lot of symbolism in the jewish faith, literally meaning a tree full of angels. It might represent the tree of life in the garden of eden. However, the yiddish translators online do not reference any similarity between the word 'boxer' and 'cherub. Any ideas?173.88.157.242 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Weinreich dictionary, bokser is listed as meaning "Carob pod, St. John's bread" (whatever that means). AnonMoos (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if 'bokser' means a pod from a Carob tree then, it would seem to stand to reason that 'bokserbaum/boxerbaum' would mean the tree. The article states it's named "חרוב" -charuv in Hebrew. Which I gather is cognate with "כרוב" - kerubh (cherub). As for the etymology of 'bokser' Google books gave a hit from Goodman's "Teaching Jewish Holidays", that states its "a corruption of boihshorn meaning "ram's horn" — the long, curved shape of the carob being reminiscent of the shofar" --Pykk (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if "חרוב" and "כרוב" were cognate. In modern, Europeanised, Hebrew the initial consonants may be pronounced alike, but historically they are utterly different. See heth and kaph. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See carob tree. —Angr 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Boxerbaum means carob tree in Yiddish. There is quite a lot of symbolism to the carob tree: they symbolize longevity (since they take 70 years to bear fruit) and endurance - their dried pods last for years. There's a famous story about Honi HaM'agel and a carob tree that you can look up. Googling 'Jewish symbolism carob tree' will get you lots, I'm sure.

About the etymology, I can understand why someone would draw a comparison to cherubs - as Pykk pointed out, the words look very similar. However, ColinFine is correct - cherub (kərubh) and carob (h̬arubh) are technically spelt and pronounced differently, and have different etymologies. The etymology of cherub is uncertain; BDB and Klein suggest a relationship to the Assyrian kirabu (the winged bull-guardians), from the verb karabu (to bless). The etymology of carob appears to be a loanword from the Aramaic, related to the Arabic harruba. So, no relationship, as far as I know. But there is a lot of symbolism to the carob tree, so you've got a lead there. Etymology is fun! СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 03:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Joe the Plumber"-type names

Is there a special term for a kind of nickname consisting of a single name plus a job title, like "Joe the Plumber" or Bob the Builder? 69.224.37.48 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, they're a kind of appositive; I don't know if there's a more specific term for nicknames including a job title, though. —Angr 18:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypically Welsh: "Jones the Post" "Evans the Pub" Rhinoracer (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Placeholder name is the Wiki article on it. - X201 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be different. Joe the Plumber is a plumber whose name is Joe; Bob the Builder is a builder whose name is Bob. These aren't like "Joe Blow"/"Jane Doe". —Angr 11:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about, Generic Name? Emblematic Name? - X201 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They're a specific example of an epithet or byname[8][9], but these aren't restricted to "the X". --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics Careers

Hi there. I live in the UK, and am currently learning French, Spanish, Psychology, and Biology to A Level standard, and Italian to GCSE standard. I have a keen interest in Linguistics - particularly Psycho-, Euro-, and Socio- linguistics (and if it helps, I'm also interested in EU affairs). However, I am really not sure of the jobs available in "linguistics" at all, let alone these specific areas. Yes, there is Speech therapy, Translation, Interpreting, and teaching a language - but is that all?

Translation/Interpreting is firstly only a good thing to do if you can speak three, four, or more languages fluently - as competition from more competant areas of the world is fierce otherwise.

Speech therapy is more medicinally than linguistically centred, and I don't much fancy that.

I've tried looking on the internet, but still there isn't that much out there. I just don't know what to do, and I'm feeling time ticking on. Please help me. Thank you! 78.146.219.221 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You can become a professor, to do research and teach linguistics. And if you become a phoneticist/phonetican, you can go into speech synthesis or speech recognition. Speech therapy might be related to medicine, yes, but it requires knowledge of articulatory phonetics as well.

I'm not sure about other paths, but here are a few guesses: I think natural language processing and artificial intelligence needs semanticists, syntacticians, and morphologists too. If you go into historical linguistics I think you can have ties with archaeology. If you're a general linguist you can have ties with cultural anthropology. If you're interested in the brain or if you're interested in language acquisition, you can have ties with psychology.

BTW, if you're interested in sociolinguistics, have you looked at Sociolinguistic Patterns by William Labov? I think that book has a chapter titled "The Social Stratification of English in New York City", which is definitely worth checking out. (I know it's a bit old, and I know I'm not very knowledgeable about sociolinguistics. But that doesn't stop the paper from being remarkable, IMHO.) --Kjoonlee 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unusual library

There is a library, in Europe, I think, that is housed in the home of its former owner, who is now dead. It is run as a public service IIRC. The books are arranged into four sections, not by the dewey system, but by an obscure schema that the owner came up with ...

This is not a language question. I've moved the thread over to the Humanities Desk, where perhaps someone will be familiar with the place. --Anonymous, 06:27 UTC, March 3, 2009.

Spanish: Difference between hambre & hambruna.

--190.49.100.214 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To judge from hambre and hambruna, hambre is hunger (i.e. at the level of an individual person), while hambruna is famine (i.e. widespread across a community). —Angr 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations and punctuation

Are there any "hard and fast" rules about whether and when to include (or exclude) the final punctuation mark in a sentence that ends with a direct quotation? It is understood that a sentence can always be reworded to avoid punctuation problems or issues. Nonetheless, I am not concerned with rewriting the sentences as much as I am concerned with what the correct punctuation would be in these circumstances. In examples such as these below, what is the correct way to end the sentence ... that is, what is the correct punctuation? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

• John said, "I am going to Hawaii.".
• John said, "I am going to Hawaii!".
• John asked, "Did you go to the supermarket?".
• Did John say "Today is Friday."?
• Did John ask "What time is it?"?
• Did John yell "Fire!"?

American newspaper style is not to use any punctuation after the second quotation mark. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So, doesn't that leave the "original sentence" (not the imbedded quotation sentence) without an end punctuation? If so, how does the reader know if the "original sentence" is a statement versus a question versus an exclamation? Merely a reliance on context? Also ... by the way ... what does "newspaper style" mean?

Example 1: I want to assert that John yelled out the word "fire" ... John yelled "Fire!".

Example 2: I want to ask incredulously whether John yelled the word "fire" ... John yelled "Fire!"?

According to your stated rule, they would both be reduced to ... John yelled "Fire!"

Is that correct? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't think any of the first three examples is correct. As per Mwalcoff's statement, it should be John said, "I am going to Hawaii." Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Some styles make a logical distinction between "I said, 'I'm getting stuff.'" and "I said 'stuff'."

I don't think the !"? formation is widely considered acceptable. In the case of "John yelled 'Fire!'", that is clear. If you want to ask whether John yelled 'fire', simply ask: "Did John just yell 'fire'?"

Ah, and there I hesitated about whether I should put a full stop at the end of that sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, but ... as my original post stated ... It is understood that a sentence can always be reworded to avoid punctuation problems or issues. Nonetheless, I am not concerned with rewriting the sentences as much as I am concerned with what the correct punctuation would be in these circumstances. Thus: What is the difference in punctuation between the question (John yelled "Fire!"?) ... and the declaration (John yelled "Fire!".) ...? Or is there none at all? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

This always bothered me, but I was taught in school to always place the final punctuation mark inside the quotes, and that (Did John yell "Fire!") was the correct punctuation style. Indeterminate (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd put it this way. First, you never use two closing marks if one of them would be a period. If both are periods, put one inside the quotes and omit the other. If one is a period and the other is ! or ?, then use only the other mark. Second, ! and ? marks go inside the quotes if they belong to the quoted text and outside if they belong to the outer sentence. This much, pretty much all publishers agree on, even if some schools teach a simplified rule. In cases where there both the quoted sentence and the outside sentence would require ! or ?, there is disagreement. I believe the only sensible thing is to use both marks, but other styles exist.

If the quoted text does not end with any punctuation but comes at the end of a sentence whose normal end punctuation would be a period, there is disagreement. The traditional usage still usual in North America is to move the period inside the quotes, as in: he said it was "good." "Logical" usage, which is now common in Britain, preferred by some people, and correct Wikipedia style, leaves the period outside since it belongs to the outer sentence.

The other punctuation mark where similar disagreement exists is a comma, which won't occur at the end of a sentence, but does commonly occur where words like "he said" follow a quotation. Again, the traditional usage still usual in North America moves the comma inside the quotes: "Good," he said. In "logical" usage, it goes outside. Note that if the quoted passage would have ended with a period, it is omitted and only the comma is used. If the quoted passage ends with a ! or ? mark, then that mark stays in place and there is no comma.

--Anonymous, 05:57 UTC, March 3, 2009.

Thanks, Anonymous. So, you are saying ...

The declaration is: John yelled "Fire!" --- with only one end punctuation (namely, the exclamation point)

The question is: John yelled "Fire!"? --- with two end punctuations (namely, the exclamation point and the question mark)

Is that what you are saying? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

That's what I'd write, but people do disagree on the second one. --Anon, 06:28, March 3.

I have major issues with the "last punctuation inside quote" "rule". (For example, are you supposed to write "rule." in this instance?) Only a sentence should have a sentence-ending punctuation, and unless what is inside the quote is intended to be a sentence ("Fire!", "I'm getting stuff." "What are you doing?" as opposed to "rule", "are", or "example"), the punctuation does not belong with the quote and should stay outside. Perhaps I'm being too logical for my own grammatical good. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you and Anonymous are correct, of course. I wrote that in haste; it isn't right. If the part in quotes doesn't have punctuation, the sentence punctuation goes outside the quotes. Indeterminate (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what "newspaper style" (from the very first reply above) means? ... Or is it just the obvious (i.e., the manner in which a newspaper editor would write for his paper) ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Most newspapers make their writers and editors use a consistent, documented writing and punctuation style. See AP Stylebook. Indeterminate (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

March 3

What is a "killing oak"?

In studying Icelandic magical traditions, I have frequently come across instructions to carve the magical sigil or runes on a piece of "killing oak", which I assume is a type of oak. 4.158.3.154 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. But I do know they don't have oak trees on Iceland. Not many trees in general. --Pykk (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From a brief internet search, apparently oak trees were introduced to Iceland by the Vikings, but there were so few other trees there that "oak" became the generic word for tree. Not sure if that's relevant. Indeterminate (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In the absense of an immediate answer, it might be helpful to include the original Icelandic words, and maybe a link to the text it appears in (the sagas are available on line I think)

Assuming the intention is to harm, then perhaps looking at poppet or sympaphetic magic might help understanding the prectice. The term 'killing' might be an adjective to describe a particularily suitable piece of wood for the act (rather than a species of tree) - eg having associations with the recipient, or having some infered powers through its own history (ie the handle of an axe that was used to kill someone)FengRail (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(It's possible that it's a kenning)FengRail (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes the original language or context would be very helpful here but the oak tree has long been associated with lightning, detailed in great length in The Golden Bough. It may be an overly poetic way of suggesting lightning or fire scorched wood from a dead tree. meltBanana 19:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's sympathetic magic.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Acorns have varying degrees of toxic tannins in them. If they were more common in Iceland than indicated above then one species or individual tree might have been called that because their fruit are more harmful when consumed than the others. But I don't even know if the Vikings did leech acorns (would be surprised if they didn't, though.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a long shot (pun - see later). Don't a lot of plants have tannins in - most plant things except apples and carrots are harmful.

My guess is Yew - if it is a kenning related to 'bow' (as in longbow) - ie "killing oak" = "bow (weapon)" = "yew" - oak being taken as generic for wood.

(still could be the wood giant 'cluesticks' are made out either...)FengRail (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shoot 'em Up

• Shoot 'Em Up

Image:Shoot em up ver2.jpg

I think the capitalization of the title words are right. 'Em shall be set in lowercase. However, do you guys find the use of contraction incorrect? I think they should use an apostrophe rather than using the left quotation mark. Am I right? -- Toytoy (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

'Em is short for Them, which normally in a title, would be capitalized, therefore making 'Em capitalized. Also, the punctuation is not a left quotation mark, it, in fact, is an apostrophe. A quotation mark looks like two apostrophes. Yakeyglee (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that the capital T is part of what's omitted. – Some British publishers use a single mark for quotation, and double for nested quotation. – For elision, use ’ (&rsquo;) not a left single quote mark. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I inlined the image since it's non-free and so can't be shown on this page directly. I agree it should be an apostrophe, not a lefthand single quote. As for capitalization, I've always found the rules for "title case" in English to be completely impenetrable. I don't see why we can't be like virtually every other language and use the same capitalization for titles as we do in sentences. Why not just call the film Shoot ’em up? —Angr 07:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Because me British and read it as command to commit drive-by. ;-) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'd never given it much thought. I'd always assumed it was just an extension of the capitalization of proper names. Indeterminate (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, some people view "em" as a direct descendant of Middle English "hem" (Middle English#Pronouns), not necessarily a contraction of "them". --Kjoonlee 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Latin paradigm populations

Any idea how many roots belong to each of the major Latin conjugations and declensions? Is there perhaps an exhaustive list of fifth-declension nouns? —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be easy to create a list of fifth-declension nouns, there are only a handful of them. This may be exhaustive, although you should note that not all possible forms actually appear in Latin literature (except for dies and res). As for roots, well, what do you mean by roots? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I read this question to mean:

How many nouns belong to the 1st/.../5th declension?

How many verbs belong to the 1st/.../4th conjugation? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct use of comma

The article on Dan Orlovsky begins with the following sentence --> Daniel John Orlovsky (born August 18, 1983 in Shelton, Connecticut) is a quarterback for the Houston Texans of the National Football League. I added in a comma after the year "1983". It was reverted not once, but twice, by two different editors. I referred to the article comma. This article states: Additionally, most style manuals, including the Chicago Manual of Style [7] and the AP Stylebook,[8] recommend that the year be treated as a parenthetical, requiring a second comma after it: "Feb. 14, 1987, was the target date." However, an editor who reverted me stated that comma is not the controlling force here but, rather, that WP:MOS is. I looked at WP:MOS ... which simply states that commas must be used correctly ... and it directs the reader back to the comma link. The (reverting) editor's edit summary states: Comma is completely separate from WP:MOS; commas should be used in prose after dates, yes, but the standard for introductory sentences like this is to not use a comma between the date & place. So, my question ... is there a comma after the year "1983" or not in the introductory statement of the article? Why or why not? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Joseph, I think you got everything right. --Anon, 06:31 UTC, March 3, 2009.

I agree. In the "month-day-year" format, the year is preceded and followed by a comma (unless it's followed by a period, of course), so "born August 18, 1983, in Shelton, Connecticut" is correct. In the "day-month-year" format, however, there are no commas, so the alternative is "born 18 August 1983 in Shelton, Connecticut". But "born August 18, 1983 in Shelton, Connecticut" does not follow the usual rules for commas. —Angr 07:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is correct usage. Maybe the editor should have said that such minor changes shouldn't be executed? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, introductory sentances don't get a special sort of grammar. Commas there follow the same rules as everywhere else, there should be commas before AND after the year. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But the comma before the year only in the "month-day-year" format. I'm forever correcting dates in the "day-month-year" format that appear as, e.g. "18 February, 1985". There's no comma needed there. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Name for a person who makes excessive spoken use of a particular word?

What would you call such a (medical?) condition, and is there a name for a person who exhibits such behaviour, please? The word that a person I know uses a lot is 'so'. The word is used to start a lot of this person's speech. (It's not me, in case you were wondering!). Thanks in advance. Trafford09 (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Tic it's involuntary. But look at the way some people over-use "um" – "Um is an English exclamation or interjection expressing confusion or hesitancy in spoken conversation. It is often used compulsively and unintentionally as a space filler in an impromptu or unrehearsed discussion." Like Ah, Oh, Oh yes, it's also used to break into speech: So! there's a cab rank on the corner... So, they tell me you're looking for a taxi... So Trafford, howzit goin?... Or to keep a thought going so other people can't interrupt. People who have training for public speaking soon learn to overcome this kind of overuse problem. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There are the German modal particles, which can be used repeatedly as fillers in sentences. There is a lengthy article on these "Modalpartikel" here [10].

Whilst I am aware that some people use these with a nauseating frequency I don´t know a term for such users. Poking around in WP I found the term discourse particle under the entry for "like". There is also speech disfluency, discourse marker and expletive, but, again, no term for the excessive use of these fillers is mentioned in any of these articles. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Uncritical" might cover it. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Then there's Tourette's Syndrome, where people make weird noises and say random words, often swear words. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

-tal vs. -thal (ending for surnames and place names)

The online German/English dictionary LEO gives "valley" for tal and no results for thal as an isolate. The meaning of the latter, when found in surnames and place names, is sometimes glossed as meaning "valley." What's the difference between the two spellings? (Regional? Historical? other?) Are they pronounced differently? (This affects their transliteration into Hebrew, at least according to a current discussion at my workplace). -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking in sheer speculation here, but I'd guess it's a historical spelling issue, especially since there is the valey Neandertal in Germany, and the hominid first found there some 150 years ago was named Neanderthal, suggesting that that was the accepted spelling at the time. Also, the pronounciation is the same in German, as far as I know. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

According to talk origins, the "-tal"/"-thal" distinction is a matter of spelling reform. Neanderthal man was discovered and named in 1856; German spelling was reformed in 1904, and "-thal" became "-tal" to more accurately reflect pronunciation. - Nunh-huh 13:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't know about the origin of the variant spelling, but they are pronounced the same. I'd transliterate both as טל-. Isolated "thal" also appears in some placenames, cf. Thal. — Emil J. 13:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

tet (ט) and not tav (ת)? There's some rule of Hebrew orthography (of whose exact nature I'm guiltily ignorant)—though perhaps only relevant to words that entered Hebrew from Greek—that th (from theta) in the source name is represented by tav, rather than the t (from tau) with tet. The actual problem surfaced when we encountered an absolutely literal טהאל in transliterations of names ending in "-thal". -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thal is an archaic spelling of Tal in German. There's no difference in pronunciation, so there shouldn't be a difference in Hebrew transliteration. —Angr 13:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know enough of Hebrew orthography (less than you, I assume) to tell for sure whether to use ט or ת, but I would go with ט: the "h" in "thal" is just a spelling oddity, it does not really mean anything, whereas in Greek, "t" and "th" (i.e., τ and θ) represent different phonemes. The "th" in "thal" has exactly the same value as "t" in other German names like Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Trier, Göttingen, and as far as I can see these are all transliterated with ט in Hebrew. The transliteration טהאל looks very weird, as the "h" is silent in the original German. — Emil J. 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Greek has nothing to do with anything. If -tal is normally transliterated טל-, -thal should be too, just as "Green" and "Greene" would presumably be transliterated the same way into Hebrew. —Angr 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a German spelling reform in 1901 (as Nunh-huh states above), when words like "Thür", "Thor" and "Thal" were modified to Tür, Tor (both mean door) and Tal (valley). Proper nouns were excepted, as they were excepted in the last reform. The etymological Duden notes the spelling "tal" in the Old and Middle High German, as well as "dal" in the Gothic. As you mention Greek possibly being relevant in the transliteration to Hebrew, the further etymology is "tholos" (Greek, but there is no Greek alphabet used, so I don´t know if that is theta or tau) and "dhel-" (IE).. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

German Tal isn't derived from Greek tholos, but they could be etymologically related. However, the AHD entry for "dale" (the English word cognate with Tal) says nothing about its coming from an Indo-European root (and AHD is very good about Indo-European roots!), so I'm skeptical. —Angr 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Duden states: Tal: Das gemeingerm. Wort mhd. tal, ahd. tal, got. dal, engl. dale, schwed. dal is z.B. verwandt mit der slaw. Sippe von russ. dol "Tal" und griech. tholos "Kuppel" und geht zurück auf die idg. Wurzel *dhel- "Biegung, Höhlung; Wölbung". Sorry for my misleading translation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, "-thal" is actually also the root of the word Dollar, which derives its name originally from a coin called "Joachimsthalers", literally "Coins from Joachim's Valley". The area today is in the Czech Republic area of Jáchymov. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

'Th' is just a fancy variant of 't'. It's not pronounced differently. AFAIK, using 'th' for the 'þ' sound is unique to English. Using 'th' as a fancy version of 't' in names is not unique to German though. It exists in Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Hungarian, to name those I can think of. Due to spelling reforms (also not unique to German), using 'th' spelling in words is usually no longer acceptable in these languages. --Pykk (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

'th' is used for /θ/ in English, Welsh, and Albanian at least. If Greek roots with 'θ' are indeed transliterated into Hebrew by 'ת' as opposed to 'ט', this is entertainingly ironic, because it is 'θ' which derives from (a Phoenician precursor of) 'ט'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gay son

George said of John's father, Victor, that Victor never understood his son, John, being gay. Then he (G) said he (V) would of course have come across "homosexual" and "queer". What would George have meant by this? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You might have to clarify your question. What do you mean by he would have come across "homosexual and "queer"? Do you mean that Victor would come across the words "homosexual" and "queer" or that he would come across the concepts? By the way, who is George? LANTZY^TALK 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Real Pink Panther: Lord Victor Hervey - a TV documentary aired on Channel 4 on March 2, 2009. I am confused by what George was saying. George was a friend of John and knew Victor. My own thought is that queer is derogatory, while homosexual is factual and gay is friendly. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, many find 'homosexual' to be clinical, cold, dehumanizing, and offensive, especially when used as a noun ('Ellen is a homosexual') and in formulations such as 'homosexual marriage' and 'homosexual agenda'. Almost no gay people describe themselves as homosexual, while homophobic organizations strongly favor the term. Many gay activists have raised this point. There's even a right-wing news website that automatically converts the word 'gay' to 'homosexual', resulting in an article about Tyson Homosexual. On the other hand, 'queer' has been largely reclaimed, and is generally understood by the LGBT community to be a positive term, especially when used as an adjective. In the context you mention it's being used as a derogatory epithet, but that function has largely been superceded by 'fag', at least where I come from. LANTZY^TALK 18:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that letter is extremely interesting. If gay people regard "homosexual" negatively then I must take that on board and avoid it. Having said which I would naturally use the word gay in preference, so I suppose at some level I had absorbed the point. Learning all the time. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It does vary between individuals, Kitty. I don't have the slightest problem with being referred to as a homosexual, whether adjective or noun. Gay is good, too. Queer - mostly OK, although it has been used derogatively. Fag - I use it jocularly, in private, among close gay friends, but never in other settings. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, still confused. I've just looked up John and Victor. John was the homosexual one, and Victor his overbearing father. You report that George said something to this effect, "Victor would of course have come across homosexual and queer", The plain meaning of which is that Victor would have left the impression by his demeanor that he himself was homosexual. I can't make sense of that. "Come across" can also mean "encounter", but I can't make sense of that, either. I'm sure I'm just being thick and/or overliteral. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it just means that George thinks Victor was unable to relate to John because he disapproved of John's sexuality. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This (above) is a confusing discussion. Since this was a TV show, can you give us the exact words (transcript) of this relevant portion? That will give us context, to make sense of the comment ... and will also remove any possible errors in your reporting of the exact comment. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

For context, see Reappropriation and Reclaiming. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but think about this old Fry and Laurie sketch now..--Pykk (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't seem to be making myself clear: The question as stated by the OP is nonsense. I can't tell from the words it uses and the order it uses them in what is being asked. Please either explain or rephrase. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably I didn't record it. So it is not an exact quotation. Maybe I can contact George himself and ask him. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, what? I'm saying I don't understand what you wrote, not that I don't understand what George said. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Word choice

I am trying to find an appropriate word ... I don't care if it is a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc. The only word that comes to mind right now is "hypocritical" ... but I think that there must be a better word out there. This is what I am trying to describe. Say that a person (John) is a very strong advocate for some issue (let's just say, the death penalty). And if you ask John, who so strongly supports the death penalty, "Well, would you yourself go and perform the lethal injection?" ... and John would be horrified to actually do the lethal injection himself. So, John is "OK" with the death penalty, as long as someone else has to carry it out ... but he is not "OK" with the death penalty if he himself had to carry it out. Or, maybe another example: A person (John) supports abortion. Then when John's own daughter considers having an abortion, John is outraged and opposes it. As I said, I can only think of "hypocritical" ... or, on some level, "nimby" (not in my backyard). Is there a better word to capture this description? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Not a single word, but "He can dish it out but he can't take it"? —Angr 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But, that does not apply to either the death penalty or the abortion ... does it? Your suggested phrase implies "I will do something to others and that's OK ... but I am not OK with others doing that same thing back to me." That's not quite the same as what I was getting at in my original question. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Actually, I think "hypocritical" probably is the best word for it. The only other phrase coming to mind is "He doesn't practice what he preaches". —Angr 17:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Only applies in a limited sphere, but Chickenhawk is similar... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There ought to be a term, but I haven't been able to come up with it yet. In the meantime, here are a couple of related terms: Thomas Paine's "sunshine patriot", a variety of "fair-weather friend" who is all for a cause as long as he doesn't have to suffer any personal inconvenience for it, and Pontius Pilate, whose personification will "wash his hands of [a thing or person]" thinking to absolve himself of tacit complicity in evildoing. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Those all seem on the negative side, but it doesn't have to be. Most people accept that a country must have a government and laws, and these are seen as good things, but only a tiny % of people ever consider a career as a politician or a legislator. We all want our countries to be well defended and we all expect our soldiers to go off and if necessary die on our behalf. Hence, being a soldier is an extremely honourable profession. So, why do so many countries have to resort to national service? It's because the bulk of people (myself included) expect nameless others to die for them, but are not prepared to do the same for them. I wouldn't call that hypocritical, except in a narrow, technical sense. It's in the nature of a life calling. Some are called to be soldiers, some are called to be entertainers, some are called to be tax accountants - and some are called to be executioners. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There's the "lip service" we pay laudable ideals until we're asked to actually do something. We used to "let George do it". We can be two-faced or Janus-faced. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

what is this rhetorical tactic called?

When I want to make a particular controversial point, but I do not wish to make it appear I am sullying myself by making the point, I can say "I am not going to lower myself to discuss <a paraphrasing of the point>".

A typical example would be when a politician has been accused of some malfeasance, and their political adversary, when asked if they'd care to comment on the allegations, says "I don't think it proper for me to comment on <politician>'s indiscretions." They are having their cake and eating it too, rhetorically speaking, as they have implicitly supported the allegations while appearing to stay uninvolved.

Some time ago I saw an article about this type of tactic, but I cannot remember it. Any insight as to what this is called? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Though not an actual query, it is similar to a Loaded question, such as "When did you stop beating your wife?"; i.e. you can make an accusation without making it directly. Happens all the time in Yellow journalism, where a newspaper will run a headline "Governor Smith denies taking sexual indescretions with a minor!" The statement may be true, but it may also be quite true even if no one has seriously accused the Governor of such indiscretions. It allows the newspaper to be literally truthful "We asked the Governor if he ever had sex with a minor and he said "no"" even if there was no reason to suspect the Governor of those indiscretions, the "fact" that the Governor had sex with a minor now gets stuck in people's minds. Its a nasty rhetorical device, and has been shown to be quite effective from a pyschological point of view. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan used it very effectively when he said he was not going to use his opponent's youth and inexperience to his political advantage (or words to that effect) - thus denying the opponent an opportunity to make any mention of Reagan's advanced age. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning the well is close, but also not quite what I think the OP is looking for. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Defamation tells me that "On Friday, February 13, 2009, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Noonan v. Staples, that even a true statement, if made with malicious intent, could stand as the basis of a defamation suit". Politicians are good at bringing up material about their opponents that may well be 100% factual, but is not relevant to the issue at hand, and is introduced solely to blacken their name and undermine their standing about whatever the issue is. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Wow, I appreciate all the quick feedback. However, none of these is exactly what I was looking for. My concept hinges on the use/mention distinction: saying one will not mention X is still mentioning X.

I think my original example was unideal: I should have said "I don't think it proper for me to comment on <politician>'s tribulations." Thus the complex question issue is quite tempered, as I note many posters picked up on that issue or some variant of it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Another example might be "I rise to honour my esteemed colleague <name>. As this is a time for putting our political differences to one side, I'll make no mention of his encounters with <name of issue/prostitute/ whatever> but speak only of happier things ...". You can't say you're not going to mention or refer to X, without actually mentioning or referring to X. Now, what's this called? Linguistically, it might be something like self-negation. Like saying "I know nothing whatsoever about how to write a sentence" (I just did, so I know at least how to write that sentence, thus negating "nothing whatsover"). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The technical name for this rhetorical device, at least in Classical rhetoric, is paralipsis, that is, mention by omission. Saying "I won't mention the numerous reports of my opponent's drunkenness" serves your purpose of mentioning it. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's it! Paralipsis. Thank you, Sputnik. (I do recall the word "apophasis", now that I looked at that page.) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Literary Awards

I am a big science fiction and mystery fan. And of course the Hugo award winners and Nebula award winners are some of the best science fiction books and stories written. My questions is that is there something analogous for mystery books every year? Is there such an award for mystery books/stories which is given every year to the best mystery fiction of the year? Maybe, if readers and fans have gotten together and voted for the best mystery novels or something, that would work too. Is there a list on Wikipedia perhaps just like how there is one for Nebula and Hugo winners? Thanks!-Looking for Wisdom and Insight! (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Edgar Awards (named for Poe) are given yearly by the Mystery Writers of America. - Nunh-huh 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Gold Dagger Award was an award given annually by the Crime Writers' Association for best crime novel of the year. BrainyBabe (talk)

It's still given: just renamed as the "Duncan Lawrie Dagger". Gwinva (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also the Shamus Award for those who would be famus. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the smaller ones is the Scarlet Stiletto Award for Australian female crime authors. I like the title. Steewi (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)