Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

August 16

"two cents plain"

Hello ! Please excuse my bad English. How can I translate in French the expression "two cents plain" for waters sold during the Great Depression ? Please, see Carbonated water. Thank you in advance. --Égoïté (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Two cents plain" refers to the price of a glass of plain carbonated water at that time. So whatever would be the French equivalent of that drink and its cost, is probably your answer, unless they had a specific term for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous] The phrase refers to the price of unflavored seltzer water (2 cents) in New York during the Depression; adding chocolate or vanilla syrup would cost more.

Googling "For two cents plain" will give you good answers, e.g. Urban Dictionary definition and Big Apple blog entry. In 1959, Harry Golden wrote a memoir of the time and place called For Two Cents Plain that is readily available in libraries and from on-line booksellers [ISBN 978-0-84881-015-3]; an explanatory excerpt from that book is in the Big Apple blog entry above. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[additional comment] However, translating the idiom would probably depend on the context. I think, for example, that someone offering you an answer "for two cents plain" might be giving you the most basic information without extra details or history; but it might also imply directness, plain-spokenness or bluntness (the unvarnished truth) as well, as in "for two cents plain, the answer is that you're a failure." If you're just translating the original literal meaning of the phrase (say, in writing the Carbonated water article for French Wikipedia), then you can just follow the historical sources above. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I understand. --Égoïté (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as another thought, For Two Cents Plain was a successful enough book in the United States that there might already be a French or French-Canadian translation from which you could work. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Farrell’s Ice Cream Parlour, back in the 1960s and 1970s. Soda water was $0.02 a glass, as seen in this menu: http://www.happyitis.biz/images/Farrells_1963menufountain.jpg. The place had a 1905 theme, but it might well have been a Depression Era price. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vowel length and gemination in Hebrew dialects

Which dialects of Hebrew (e.g. Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Teimani, etc.), both liturgical and possibly modern, distinguish gemination and/or vowel length? What are good sources which discuss this? Mo-Al (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "dialect" is slightly questionable here. The Tiberian massoretic orthography distinguished consonant gemination contrasts in its written symbols (and partially distinguished vowel length contrasts), but many different Jewish communities using very different liturgical pronunciations all used this same witing system. The most prominent pronunciation in modern times with gemination contrasts is/was the Yemenite. There's a convenient little article "Pronunciations of Hebrew" in the first edition of Encyclopaedia Judaica...

AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gemination in Hebrew is discussed here.

Distinction between long and short vowels is discussed (briefly and roughly, including some mistakes) at the end of the chapter here (below the table and above the new chapter shva).

Genination is a well-known phenonemon in Ancient Hebrew, and is called: Dagesh Hazak. In modern Hebrew, Gemination is preserved in formal speach (mainly publicly) only, e.g. in radio news, or when reciting poetry/bible, or in synagogues, etc. In an informal speach, gemination can appear only in cases parallel to similar cases in English, e.g. in "bad dog", etc.

Distinction between long and short vowels, has existed mainly in the ancient Sephardi dialect (neither in the Yemenite one nor in the Ashkenazi one), but nowadays it's preserved in (some) Sephardi Synagogues only. In an informal speach, such a distinction can appear only in cases parallel to similar cases in English, e.g. in "sofa and" (in US-English accent), etc.

HOOTmag (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

advance organisers

effects of advance organisers on student perception, performance and attitude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.120.206 (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? And btw, if this is a homework question, as it appears to be - sorry, you're out of luck here. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Why can't *abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz be a word in any language? --88.76.229.55 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have heard that song from Sesame Street where they turn the alphabet into a "word". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we even have an article on that song ABC-DEF-GHI, which has the pronunciation /ˈæbkəˈdɛfɡiˈdʒɛkəlməˈnɒpkwərˈstuːvwɨksɪz/. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, it would probably be pronounced [aθeðefˈgixekelˈnopeˈkɾestuβwekˈsiθ]. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a word in any language then why is there a ligature for it? -- BenRG (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is Dr. Seuss, after all; perhaps he wanted the Cat in the Hat to come back a second time to teach handwriting? Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the preferred term, if there's one, for a person who asks a question here?

I've seen the terms "OP", "questioner", "asker" used by various contributors. It may be purely a matter of style or personal preference, but if there's a persuasive reason why one of the above, or some other alternative, is a better choice, I'd like to know. --173.49.16.37 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a fixed rule. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about that too. I like the term "original questioner." Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Querent". BrainyBabe (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"OP" seems to be the most common, it is borrowed from online forum jargon. --Tango (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer OP because it's short and also implies that it refers to the original question - depending on context, "questioner" and "asker" could refer to a different inquisitor. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks so much for asking this question! I've wanted to ask this for a long time and never gotten around to it. What exactly does "OP" mean? I once thought that it was a typo for "IP", but that idea went out the window when someone used it to refer to me when I asked a question while signed in. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original poster, or original post (depending on context). Sadly, WP doesn't have an article on everything, but I do believe it lurks somewhere at the bottom of OP. Gwinva (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the OP is a newcomer, unfamiliar with internet jargon, and speaking English as a second or third language, "original questioner" is the most likely to be understood. --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-ant or -ent?

Is there any spelling rule that helps you decide between -ant and -ent word endings correctly please? 78.144.207.41 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 87.68.83.205 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Often, it's related to whether the related verb was in the first conjugation (-ant) or the second, third, or fourth conjugation (-ent) in Latin. Unfortunately, however, some of the latter words end in -ant if they happen to have passed through French on their way to English. There's no easy way to know the spellings without memorizing them. Deor (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site http://wordnavigator.com/ends-with/ant/ gives lists of -ant (794) and -ent (1841) words. The lists are not complete. Inter alia, "cromulent" is missing. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, be generally guided by what you see in novels, biographies and quality newspapers, not what you see in doctoral theses, text messages, blogs or wikis (except for advice given on this page, naturally ... well, usually). There are some words that appear in both forms, such as dependant and dependent, and they're often confused. The -ant version is usually used as a noun (I have three dependants), the -ent version as an adjective (They are all dependent on me), but some use them interchangeably, and have lexicographical support for this. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doctoral theses? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The standard of writing in theses etc is generally not up to scratch, in my experience. It may be different in papers written by people who are or intending to be language teachers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm pretty sure mine would be rejected if it were terribly written. Adam Bishop (talk)

Well, I did say "be generally guided", and "the standard of writing in theses etc is generally not up to scratch". There are exceptions to almost any general statement, and I would of course assume your writing would be such an exception, Adam. :) But I have seen theses and major papers written by graduates that contain grammatical and spelling errors that would be shameful coming from even a primary school student. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be referring to engineers and scientists. When they can back up their arguments with lab results and hard data, they don't need to write well. Useless humanities degrees like mine require grammar, spelling, and subtle rhetoric :) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They don't need to write well" - they may well believe this, but it's like thinking one does not need to breathe well because it's enough not to be dead. Humans have been know to live for many days without food, so why bother eating every day - it's obviously a waste of time, isn't it? If that's their standard, heaven help us. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can also be one of those countless variants between U.S., British and other Anglophone spellings. "Dependant" is common in British sources, but is so rare in American usage that it looks wrong. For a related topic see WP:ENGVAR. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation to Russian

How would I write "Malkin rules, Ovechkin drools" in Russian (using cyrillic letters)? I know how to write their names but that's about it.209.26.166.162 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try to use an internet translator like Babelfish or Intertran; however the phrase is likely meaningless in Russian, as the rhyming scheme will not hold after translation. If you want to insult Ovechkin, it may pay off more to research traditional Russian jeers rather than to attempt to simply translate an English one, since it will likely make no real sense in Russian. --Jayron32 01:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker, and I can't think of a rhyming Russian phrase of this meaning. I do recall some independent slang exclamations such as Малкин жжет! и Овечкин - отстой! (approximately corresponding to "Malkin rules!", "Ovechkin sucks!"), so in principle one can combine the two, if nothing better is available. Another possibility might be Малкин рулит, Овечкин сосет - the two expressions do occur in Russian internet slang, but are obviously calqued from English (quite literally meaning "Malkin rules, Ovechkin sucks") and I don't know when they are appropriate. Овечкин сосет in particular would suggest oral sex to many people, so it's pretty extreme. If one must use it, I think it is considered particularly cool to spell it incorrectly - сасет; likewise отстой could be misspelled as ацтой for an additional coolness effect. But I am, as I said, not a native speaker and not a person who naturally uses such expressions, so I might be parodying the whole thing a little here. Use any of these at your own risk. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP here on another computer. Thank you both for your help. I was worried it wouln't translate well, I guess some things don't translate. I don't think I'll suggest anything about Ovechkin, the people who would get it might not find it funny. I guess I'll either look for those Russian jeers, or just go with Malkin rules. 67.142.130.22 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

What does this mean?

"Newton entertained "a passion" for Storer while he lodged at the Clarke house."
What is the meaning of the bold text? What did Newton do to Storer? --174.120.81.194 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the context. Who or what was Storer? The phrase "entertain a passion for" simply means "to have great enthusiasm for" something or someone. It could conceivably be a romantic or erotic enthusiasm, but it could also be an intellectual enthusiasm. Marco polo (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Katherine Storer, William Clarke´s stepdaughter. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks right. The sentence does not have a clear meaning except to imply that Newton had a (probably erotic) fascination with Storer. He may have done nothing but gaze into her eyes, write love poems to her, or hold her hand. On the other hand, the two of them might have had sex. This sentence alone does not tell us the nature of his passion or what actions the passion did or did not lead to. Marco polo (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The implication, though, is that it was one-sided, and thus likely unconsummated. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Isaac was probably too shy to ask. Ironically, inertia was his downfall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "blind" pronounced with the vowel of "bite", rather than the vowel of "bit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.97.76 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be, but the Great Vowel Shift took care of that... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that article doesn't deal with this because the difference precedes the GVS. Phonological history of the English language puts this change at around 1000 AD. While it's true that the difference was then between /iː/ and /ɪ/ and the Great Vowel Shift changed the former vowel to /aɪ/, the actual split (and thereby the source of the difference) was several hundred years before the GVS. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course phonetically the vowels aren't the same. Compare the first vowels in the phrases "high school" and "high stool". Mo-Al (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In many American dialects, particularly Northern ones, "bite" has a different vowel than "blind". "Blind" has the same vowel (/aɪ/) as "fine", while "bite" has the same vowel (/ʌɪ/ if I'm not mistaken) as "fight". And I guess this is more evidence that English words have diverged in the way "i" is pronounced. rspεεr (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know which northern dialects don't pronounce the "i" the same way in all of these words: "blind", "find", "fine", "nine", "night", "fight", "bite". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This phenomenon is known as Canadian raising, and it is common not only across Canada, but also in the northern parts of the United States, including New England and the upper Midwest (areas bordering the Great Lakes). This raising occurs before unvoiced consonants, so in your list above, it would affect "night", "fight", and "bite". Marco polo (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurs for /aw/, resulting in /ʌw/ in "out", "about", "house", etc. That seems to be the more stereotypical diphthong...Americans seem to hear it as "oot and aboot". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's much more familiar. But that long "i" is something I'll have to listen for now, as it must be rather subtle. Learn something' new ever-day. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually hard to notice, but if you get someone with a really thick Canadian accent, the "raised" words are distinctly shorter. (If you ever get to watch Hockey Night in Canada on CBC, I find that Ron MacLean speaks that way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is very simple: every "ind" ending a word, is pronounced as if it were "ined" (e.g. in "defined"). examples: bind, blind, find, grind, kind, mind, and even: wind (mainly in a poetic style, which reflects the original pronunciation). HOOTmag (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I come from, all those are pronounced the same way. I wonder if there is a youtube clip or anything else on the internet that would have someone talking that way, i.e. with two different ways of saying the long "i"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true for rescind and wind (where it is a noun) -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unrelated to being a noun. Wind "an air movement, to expose to air movement" can be a noun or verb, and it is pronounced /wɪnd/. Wind "to wrap around, a turn" can also be a noun or verb, and it is pronounced /waɪnd/. — Emil J. 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In poetic usage, air movement can be pronounced to rhyme with "blind" or "mind" or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed my explanation was a little sloppy; I was referring to wind as in 'an air movement (noun)' being pronounced differently to wind as in 'to wrap around (verb)'. Thank you for the IPA definitions. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the third line of this song [1] from 1905, "winds" as "air movements", is pronounced the poetic way, rhyming with "blinds". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roofs and rooves, and whom

When I was at school long ago we were taught that rooves was the plural of roof. Recently I saw someone's house named "The Roofs", and I recall other instances of roofs being used. Is roofs now considered correct? Would rooves be thought incorrect, or a forgotten usage? And is it fully acceptable to use who instead of whom? 78.144.246.133 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your dialect, roofs and rooves could each be correct. See also Toronto Maple Leafs (not Leaves). They are likely fully interchangable forms, as I am not aware of either form having distinctly greater usage among native English speakers. Whom is an object pronoun, and so in proper usage should be used when the object of a sentance; who is the subject form and should be used for the subject of the sentance. "Who went with him?" but "He went with whom?". Use "who" in places you would use "he" or "she" and "whom" in places you would use "him" or "her". However, whom is sort of fading out of common usage, and many native english speakers use "who" for the object form as well. --Jayron32 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Who" is always acceptable in lieu of "whom", except in quotes, where the original usage should be kept. Most instances of "whom" on Wikipedia are misused anyway (I counted over a half-dozen incorrect uses on a single article once); English language speakers, as a rule, aren't familiar enough with the bounds of the oblique case to consistently apply "whom" in contradistinction from "who".

"Rooves" is an archaic form, rarely used. "Roofs" (or "rooftops") is preferable, to avoid ambiguity. (Yes, "rooves" is the original plural, but etymology, on its own, doesn't justify usage. Otherwise we'd still pluralize cow as kine.) -Silence (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd agree that "who" is always an acceptable replacement for "whom". I think a letter, for example, addressed "To Who It May Concern" would sound very odd. Maybe it's just my ears, but a receptionist asking "For who were you waiting?" sounds much worse than "For whom were you waiting?" I know that a restructuring of such sentences generally eliminates the problem ("Who were you waiting for?" sounds just fine, even if it ends the sentence on a preposition.), but I don't think we can reasonably tell someone that it makes no real difference. Here in the dying days of "whom" as a useful word, it still makes a small difference, in my opinion. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it's always acceptable on Wikipedia. Off of Wikipedia, it may be useful for the same reason "ain't" is sometimes useful: to agree with local dialects (e.g., certain forms of academic writing) or to fit pre-set phrases (like "to whom it may concern" or "say it ain't so!"). But these aren't generally an issue on Wikipedia. "Whom" and avoiding ending sentences with prepositions do make a difference, but the difference is usually a negative one: Most such sentences sound less natural, seem less clear, and are less correct than their less 'formal' counterparts. My point wasn't that "who" and "whom" are interchangeable; it was that "who" is preferable when writing a new article. -Silence (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House names are sometimes simply telling the world the name of the family inside - like "the Smiths". I've never heard of anyone with the surname Roof, but if that were the case, their family would be "the Roofs", even if they themselves would refer to the plural of "roof" (the top of a house) as "rooves". Same with the surname Man (it does exist) - they would be "the Mans", not "the Men". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here: 1) "roof" can be pluralized as "roofs" or "rooves", and 2) some words (such as a family name of "Roof") don't follow normal pluralization rules. See Steven Pinker's take on why over at English_plural#Plurals (and singulars) of headless nouns. --Sean 13:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be careful to distinguish spelling and pronunciation here. English words ending in -f are often , when pluralised, still pronounced as "-ves." Centuries ago they were usually also spelled -ves, but this has tended to change to the spelling fs and sometimes the pronunciation "-fs" except in the case of the most commonly used of them: c.f. "wife - wives", "life - lives", "loaf - loaves" etc, but now e.g. "roof - roofs" (pron. "rooves"), "cuff - cuffs" (pron. "cuffs"). J.R.R. Tolkien, being a Philologist, consciously contradicted this trend by reviving the old spelling and pronunciation of "dwarves" as against the more modern sp./pron. "dwarfs", on the grounds that if Dwarves (as a race/species) had remained common, their name too would have retained the older pronunciation and spelling: he seems to have been at least partially successful in his reversion. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a schoolchild in England and New England in the 1950's, my impression (either explicitly from my teachers, or implicitly from my reading, or both) was that hooves was the correct plural of hoof, but that roofs was the more-correct plural of roof. I've never understood why Walt Disney gave his colour cartoon of 1937 the title Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, when I always think of more than one dwarf as dwarves. Note also shelf > shelves. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarves was Tolkien's spelling, and has become fairly standard (for the mythological creatures, not for the small humans) since. Pre-Tolkien, dwarfs was usual, though dwarves was not unknown. Algebraist 12:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian assistance

For the sake of fixing the article Labour Party of Indonesia, I would need some help to dechiffer the entry of Barisan Buruh Indonesia, page 133 in this book. Would "Atas keputusan kongres, BBI dijadikan partai politik dengan nama Partai Buruh Indonesia" mean that BBI transformed itself into Partai Buruh Indonesia, or did BBI decide to set up a political party called PBI? And was the relation to LBI, Gasbi and GBSV? Any input would be appreciated. --Soman (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My translation would be: "on the decision of congress, BBI was made into a political party called PBI (Workers Party of Indonesia)". The phrase dijadikan implies that BBI had something done to it that changed it, rather than it doing itself (i know there are technical words for this grammar). --Merbabu (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Labour/Workers party are two feasible translations of "partai buruh" - I don't know if there was an official or accepted English translation - the article seems to take "labour" --Merbabu (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But when did BBI cease to exist then? It seems later in the text that BBI was still an entity. And what about LBI, Gasbi and GBSV? --Soman (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Labour Party is the most widely used translation. You can check with books/articles written by George McTurnan Kahin or M. C. Ricklefs as they're some of the most prominent Indonesian scholars. I'll see if I can find some sources in Cornell University's SE Asia collection and get back to you on the rest of your question. Arsonal (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dijadikan" is the passive voice form of the transitive verb "menjadikan", meaning to make something into something. Perhaps the BBI continued to exist as a component of the Labor Party, in the same way as the constituent parts of the Golkar government party of the New Order era continued in theory to exist. If you could quote the sentences relating to the BBI or direct us to the pages of the book - if they exist online - we might be able to help. Davidelit (talk)

The page is 133, in http://books.google.com/books?id=BJrFsQ0SwzgC . --Soman (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your source indicates that BBI was established on 15 Sep 1945, became a political party (PBI) on 7 Nov 1945, and was re-established on 31 Dec 1945 as a separate organization from PBI. On 11 May 1946, it became Gasbi. GSBV separated from Gasbi in July 1946. Gasbi and GSBV then were reformed into one organization (SOBSI) on 29 Nov 1946. Sorry, histories of Indonesian organizations are complicated like this. Arsonal (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I'll update the article accordingly. Sorry for bothering with many questions, but does the source give any indication as to was was the difference (political?) between Gasbi and GSBV? --Soman (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to correct myself a bit for clarity since I seem to have read the entry too fast last time. BBI had become the union organization for both horizontal and vertical labor forces. After two conferences (19 March 1946 at Kediri and 11 May 1946 at Madiun), BBI was dissolved and reformed into Gasbi. Gasbi was then accused of participating in the 3 July 1946 coup d'etat attempt when Prime Minister Sutan Sjahrir was kidnapped. As a result, the vertical labor unions (oil, pawnshops, post, telegraph, telephone) separated and formed GSBV. However, the Yogyakarta Conference on 12 October 1946 determined that there was no conflict in opinion or on a fundamental level between the two unions. The only difference between them was the division of labor membership. Despite the tense relations between the both unions' leadership, they agreed to join together once again for the sake of creating a united force in the midst of the Indonesian National Revolution. (Indonesia was still fighting the Dutch to gain sovereignty recognition, which was eventually granted in December 1949.) SOBSI was then founded on 29 November 1946 from these two organizations. Arsonal (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --Soman (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the Labour Party of Indonesia article now accordingly. --Soman (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under or underneath, or beneath, or below?

I really should know this. What is the most suitable, accurate, and correct preposition for the following sentence?

"The Tasmanian Inchman ant can often be found under fallen trees."

where "under" is the preposition I'm having difficulty with. Thanks, I know you guys will know, :-) Maedin\^talk 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of those work. I like "under", or "beneath". They're slightly more specific than "below", and shorter than "underneath". Depending on what you mean by "under," you might also consider a more specific wording, e.g., "on the underside of fallen trees". -Silence (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why a word being shorter would have anything to do with it being more correct! The underside of fallen trees wouldn't be very accurate, as they are not the type of insect to be on the logs themselves, but on the ground underneath the log. I'm leaning towards underneath, it seems more specific, to me. Maedin\^talk 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When two words are near-exact synonyms, and one is twice as long as the other, there's usually no need to use the longer one. RHD lists the first definition of "under" as "beneath and covered by", which sounds like exactly what you're looking for if you mean something like "when you look under a fallen tree, you're likely to find ants there". (For comparison, RHD's first definition of "underneath" is "below the surface or level of; directly or vertically beneath; at or on the bottom of".) -Silence (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would choose "under." I do think that shorter makes it better. I think a longer word gives the implication of it having been chosen more carefully. Expletives tend to be short. We don't say feces! when we drop a hammer on our toe. It takes too many syllables. Of course if the user of the language clearly feels that something needs to be conveyed and it is a longer word that will convey just that, then the longer word is the right choice. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise; I am against the way that English seems to be moving towards a facile, dumbed-down version of itself, and confused the "shorter is better" idea with that. Of course under is just as good as underneath. Your phraseology must have triggered my attack mode, ;-) Sorry! Maedin\^talk 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The impression that "[your favorite language] seems to be moving towards a facile, dumbed-down version of itself" is almost as old as language itself. See The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher for why that is so despite the tremendous overall evolution since then. — Sebastian 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Though part of the reason this impression might be especially prevalent nowadays is because the actual IQ, literacy, and level of education of the average person is rising dramatically—with the side-effect that the "middle class" of literates is hugely expanding, people who are neither aristocratic/academic elites nor illiterate peasants, and who therefore have the literacy to become popular authors (and a large body of literate, but not 'upper-literate', readers), without the training (or inclination, considering their reader base) to employ academic and literary terms of art, e.g., Latinisms. And Wikipedia, incidentally, is a part of this shift, since it's writing primarily for the 'middle class' (and hence does use 'dumbed-down' language at times, or more accurately, doesn't circumlocute to effect a facade of erudite articulacy ;)), but tries to rely on the 'upper class' of literacy for sourcing in most cases. -Silence (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that told me! I recently read a book brought out only this year, full of grammatical errors, the most obvious of which was the continued use of "different to" instead of "different from". I am not an elitist, but I still would have expected either the writer or the publishing house (a very big and well-known one) to have fixed these kinds of things. My (probably wrong) thought was that either they just didn't know any better, or decided it wasn't important, or that the reader wouldn't notice. Anyway, I take your point. I do love this: "circumlocute to effect a facade of erudite articulacy". If you'd whispered that in my ear I'd have jumped you, ;-) Maedin\^talk 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "different to" is the normal and correct usage in British English, while "different than" sticks out as an Americanism; is it possible that the other "grammatical errors" were also normal British English usages and that the book was published by a UK company or the UK arm of an international one and imported to the USA, or written by a British author who would not sanction "translation"? In the UK we don't expect US-written or -published books to be "Britishized" (which would only add to the cost), we take the dialectical differences in our stride - why is it that US readers seem unable or unwilling to do the same? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am British and purchased the book in the UK, so I'm not an American being surprised by British usage. I am aware that "different to" is common in British English usage, but it is not correct. See, for example, this on why. Maedin\^talk 13:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. "(A ≠ B) > (X ≠ Y)", and for extra surrealistic effect they call it an equation. Now, did you say the guys are experts or something? — Emil J. 13:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest anything of the sort, of course, and I wasn't commenting on whether or not "different than" is incorrect; only that "different to" is. Maedin\^talk 13:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a serious problem with the QES link. They set out the basic principle first - usage trumps everything else, including logic - and then immediately abandon it in favour of a logical (!) argument as to why "different from" is the only "correct" form. I personally prefer "different from", for the very reasons they give, but the QES cannot have it both ways. They come across as very high-handed ("We are correct because we say so, and the 90% of the world who say something different are out of step with us"). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was all a little high-handed myself, and it blithely ignores the fact that English is quite illogical at times, and these two emerging alternatives to "different from" are trumping it through usage. But it was the best link I could find that wasn't to a forum or something similar. To be fair, I didn't spend much time googling it. If I had Fowler's, I would have just quoted from it! Maedin\^talk 07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a British ex-professional editor, I of course do have Fowlers' — H.W. & F.G. Fowler, The King's English, OUP 1931. From Prepositions, p171:

". . . The adjectives different and averse . . . call for a few words of comment. There is no essential reason whatever why either . . . should not be as well followed by to as by from. But different to is regarded by many newspaper editors and others in authority as a solecism, and is therefore better avoided by those to whom the approval of such authorities is important. It is undoubtably gaining ground, and will probably displace different from in no long time; perhaps, however, the conservatism that still prefers from is not yet to be named pedantry, different to (though 'found in writers of all ages'—Oxford Dictionary) being on the whole the aggressor. With averse, on the other hand . . . ."

I give you also Sir Ernest Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, HMSO, 1954. Under A checklist, words and phrases to be used with care, p 220:

Different There is good authority for different to, but different from is today the established usage."

And also Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, Hamish Hamilton 1965. Under than, different, p 339:

". . . the impeccably correct construction is different . . . from, although different to (cf . French différent à) is permissible (see, for evidence, the O.E.D.) . . . ."

And finally Michael Swann, Practical English Usage, OUP 1980. Under Prepositions, p485:

"different from (sometimes to, American from or than)."

In summary, I conclude that although Maedin is correct to assert that different from has always been correct and historically was more common, different to has never been incorrect and was gaining ground as far back as 1931 (the 74-y-o Gowers, being a senior and aged civil servant, was anomalously conservative); and I submit that in 2009 different to is now the predominent British English form, and that different from is perceived as old fashioned and perhaps as an Americanism (though not to the extent of different than which is what was originally in the back of my mind) – many Americanisms being in fact preservations of older idioms from which British English has latterly deviated. Honours even? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for spending the time to give us the authority on the subject! As a side note, a friend of mine who is 63 years old and was brought up very "proper" is firmly pedantic and purist; you have sent him into an apoplectic rage, ;-) His former regard for Fowler has been decimated! Maedin\^talk 10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By which, I sincerely hope, he means "lessened by 10%" :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My wording and not his, and I am far less educated! ~~Though he has suggested that it would be lessened by 90%; reduced to a tenth. I'll stay out of it!~~ Nevermind, he's withdrawn! Maedin\^talk 10:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you see people abusing complementary adpositions, just start using 'similar from' and see how they like it.

Also, I must advert to the only lacuna I can descry in those tomes' aforementioned syntactic excerpts, that being the failure to mention that 'different to/than' sounds quite poopy. -Silence (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct form

The first step is to solve a problem is to identify that problem. This is what is reality and this is how I solved my recent problem."
The first step of solving a problem is to identify that problem. This is what is reality and this is how I solved my recent problem.

Which one is correct?--119.30.36.53 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second one. Don't overuse "is to". "This is what is reality" is very oddly phrased in both, though. -Silence (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "The first step to solving a problem is identifying it. That is how I solved a recent personal quandary." Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would write something like "The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem. That is reality, and that is how I solved my recent problem." 78.144.249.108 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about "That is reality" or its variants "This is what is reality" - aren't there better ways to get the point across? "That is how real problems are solved, including my recent problem" or something to that effect. Nimur (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing 119.30.36.53's intended use for this phrase, we can't really say what the best phrasing would be. Context is needed. If this is a zen manuscript or metaphysical treatise, "This is what reality is" (with just the second "is" swapped) might be entirely appropriate. But in most situations, an idiom or something like "That's how problems are solved in the real world, and it's how I solved my recent problem." would be expected. -Silence (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sdf "politics organs"

Is "politics organs" a word? What does it mean if so174.3.103.39 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Identity politics and wikt:organ#Noun definition 3 69.245.227.37 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political organ, perhaps. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is "identity politics organs". It isn't the clearest phrase, but it refers to publications catering to identity politics. This phrase is in fact a compound noun composed of the head noun "organs" modified by another compound noun, "identity politics", which functions as a noun adjunct. In the compound noun "identity politics", "politics" is the head noun and "identity" the adjunct. Really, this phrase should have a hyphen: "identity-politics organs". Marco polo (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop titling your queries by typing randomly on the home row of your keyboard with the fingers of your left hand... AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! thank you so much AnonMoos. I was wondering and somehow afraid to ask for an explanation! --pma (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a more intuitive title to the original. Non-random titles help people searching archives for the question they're considering asking. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now some users may wonder what French homeless people have to do with "politics organs". — Kpalion^(talk) 11:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

Yiddish word

I came across the word miyeser, spelled in Latin characters, and haven't been able to find out what it means. It was used in the derogatory phrase miyeser shlang. The only other online example I've found is here, but it wasn't very edifying for me. Any ideas? LANTZY ^TALK 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be related to the German word mies, which means "lousy, grungy, sleazy, nasty, etc."? Marco polo (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very plausible. LANTZY ^TALK 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing, too, but Ida may have called her wealthy uncle a "miserable prick". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's the distinct possibility that miyeser isn't a Yiddish word at all, but rather a heavily-accented miser. LANTZY ^TALK 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that miyeser is inflected as an adjective, and it would be strange to call someone "a miser prick". It sounds much more natural to say "sleazy/filthy prick". And there is that other example you've found, suggesting that it is at least a slang Yiddish word. Have you also searched texts using the Hebrew script? Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German adjective mies as well as the nouns Miesmacher ("killjoy"), Miesepeter ("sourpuss") and Miese (losing points in Skat) all seem to derive from Yiddish (and not the other way around). According to The Meaning of Yiddish: 'MIyes ("ugly") derives from muktse mehamat miyus ("not to be touched because of its loathsomeness") while in Hebrew, maUS is "loathsome" ' (Benjamin Harshav, The Meaning of Yiddish (Contraversions : Jews and Other Differences), Stanford University Press, 1998, p 60) [2]. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salcia Landmann, in Jiddisch, Das Abenteuer einer Sprache writes: "míess (miúss): 'ekelhaft', häßlich ..." - my translation: "disgusting, ugly (both for people as well as for things. The word miess (sic!) also entered the German language.". There is also Miesmuschel, which is etymologically unrelated. — Sebastian 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. LANTZY ^TALK 04:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting below the water line

What is the meaning and origin of the phrase "to hit below the water line"? My Google-fu failed me this time. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some Google trouble myself, but a hit (or hole) below the waterline on a boat would allow water to enter, with the expected disastrous results. --LarryMac | Talk 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or isn't that coming from a sport foul in water polo, as a metaphor of unfair behaviour (a kick below the water line would not be noticed by the referee)? --pma (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something hit, or holed, below the water line isn't complaining about unfair play, it's sinking (or likely to do so). Applying Occam's razor, the derivation from boats with holes in is the more likely. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also consider the naval interpretation as more natural, although honestly your argument is not logically floating. And Occam's razor should not be quoted praeter necessitatem ;) --pma (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

There's also the phrase "to hole ones own boat".

If you consider ships fighting with cannon in olden times it should be obvious where the phrase has come from.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I seem to recall Captain Blood yelling to his gunners, "Keep pounding the water line!" Deor (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Five more years till carousel"

What does it mean? Thanks. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a reference to Logan's Run (film) Martin451 (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome" in modern aramaic / syriac

I'd like to welcome a syrian-orthodox who speaks aramaic, but how? [3] -- 172.173.16.187 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in Talmudic Aramaic hello was something like [ʃəlamɔː] I think. Mo-Al (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Talmudic Aramaic is adulterated with Hebrew. The Gemarah frequently uses the term "shalom alecha rebbe u'mori," but I'd have to speculate than a non-Jewish Aramaic-speaker would not know what that means. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

quebec/canadian word for pacifier

when i was young my parents and myself would call my pacifier a 'suss'. i searched it online and found one person mention that their french canadian nanny would call it a suss as well. he suggested it comes from french and is spelled differently. anyone have info or the correct spelling or origin of this word? i live in montreal so it is likely a word borrowed from french. just curious. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.190.95 (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the french wikipedia article at fr:Tétine has "suce" as an alternative in its lead para. Nanonic (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conjugation [4] suggests that the word in question basically means "sucker" (presumably the French would be the root of the English word). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's it. My quebecois family uses that term. Suce it is... --Jayron32 03:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that I remember that word from my childhood, and I grew up in an exclusively Anglophone environment in the northeastern United States. Marco polo (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of Quebecois in New England; I grew up in New Hampshire, which has a sizable Quebecois population, so it is not inconceivable that if you grew up anywhere in New England you heard the term. --Jayron32 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's of any interest, it's usually called a "dummy" in the UK. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it renders them "mute", yes? The concept as "pacifier", except a lot less euphemistic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I always assumed it was a dummy (as in fake) nipple. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, among some Americans, it's a "binky", although that also refers to a favorite blanket. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in America it's usually binky or nookie or just plain pacifier. Interesting checking Wikt's list of synonyms for pacifier there & seeing what it labels as US, GB, & canada :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 04:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't know it could be called nookie in America too (like wiktionary, I thought that meant something else). That's what a pacifier is called in Swiss German (spelled Nuggi), but not in Standard German. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate business email sign-off in English, bonus points for Chinese version as well

I'm looking for an appropriate sign-off for business email. Got the signature all sorted out, but the sign-off is bothering me. The joint venture I work for generally uses "Best Regards" but I find it grating. Does anyone have any better suggestions? Also, bonus points for a Chinese equivalent... 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "Best regards" either (and you should note that there is no capital R in 'regards') and I go out of my way to avoid using it. I normally go with "Best wishes" or, if the person is known to me, "Many thanks". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know the other person well, "sincerely" is never out of line. If you do know the other person, "best" (without "regards" or "wishes") is perfectly acceptable. Or, for close friends, "cheers," "ciao" or "ta" would be OK. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Chinese, the standard format is to write 此致 after the main body of the letter (this is indicates that you are done communicating through the text), then either leave two spaces or on another line write 敬禮 (denoting respect on behalf of the letter writer to the recipient).69.203.207.54 (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Thanks' works for me. The joy of email is that the medium is (I find) less formal than snail-mail. That said whilst i'm a fan of not dumbing down, I don't like stuffiness for the sake of stuffiness so 'yours sincerely' and the like all end up coming across to me as if i'm being written to by a faceless corporation and not a person. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I write literally hundreds of business e-mails per week in my job with a multinational corporation. The only signature I normally use is my name. Most often (when addressing people who know me) I just write my first name and my last initial. When addressing people who don't know me, I have a ready-made signature that puts my full name in a special font, followed by my title, division of the company where I work, phone number, etc., like an old-fashioned letterhead. If I have made a request or want to acknowledge something someone else has done, I preface my name with the word "Thanks" or, if writing to clients or people I need to please, "Thank you". Otherwise, for example if I am responding to someone else's request for a file and there is no reason for me to thank them, I leave out the "Thanks". I do not normally use closing phrases like “Best wishes” or “Best regards” in e-mail. The one exception might be if I were checking in with someone outside the company with whom I had not communicated in some time or maybe if I were communicating with a client. Then my preference is “Best wishes”. But certainly I do not use those phrases for internal communications, nor does anyone else in my company. Marco polo (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latinise the term 'creative juice' please?

Hi - the context is this: 'The gondola advanced down a canal welling with a velvety black liquor (called by some creative juice) possessed of properties that, although perfectly astounding, will not be listed here' - can someone latinise 'creative juice' please? Ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they're speaking euphemstically, it's hard to say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of latinization is called for? I looked up the word Latinise, because I'm not familiar with this. But there still seem to be several possibilities. Can you give an example of the sort of thing you're looking for, even if it is less than perfect? Maybe my ignorance is showing, but I'm just curious to know what latinise means in this context. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Adam's writing some sort of historical fiction or fantasy story, and wants some authentic-looking obligatory-badass-Latin-interjections? Depending on what you mean by 'creative', you might try sucus inventionis or liquor ingeniosus. Though honestly, it sounds like what you're describing is really melancholia. -Silence (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By latinise I meant precisely 'gimme some authentic-looking obligatory-badass-Latin-interjections', but maybe it's the wrong term - anyway, 'melancholia' is a great idea, Silence - I'm gonna go with that. Thanks heaps. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'runs in the family' jokes?

any 'runs in the family' jokes? diarrhea, baseball etc . already tried googling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.23.8 (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, it's true. Diarrhoea is hereditary. It runs in your jeans. Steewi (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big noses run in our family, 86.4.181.14 (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For five generations we've repaired nylon stockings. --- OtherDave (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French "unnecessary" sh-like sound after some words

I've noticed that the French pronounce sometimes an "unnecessary" sh-like (as in shoot) sound after some words. For example, here: [5], click in Les insectes->vocabulaire-> ant drawing. That person says something like "une furmish" (which actually sounds more like a German ch as in ich bin. I'd like to know more about that. Does it have a name? Do some dialects use more than others? Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA symbol for the sound you're talking about is [ç], and it is the same as the German ich-Laut. I heard it when I was in Toulouse, especially in oui, which was pronounced [wiç]. I don't know if it's restricted to Meridional French though; neither that article nor French phonology says anything about the phenomenon. +An gr 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon (which is really just devoicing the palatal approximant so it becomes a little bit fricative is not restricted to French. I used to notice it in my Russian teacher's careful pronunciation of words like 'синиӣ' with an 'ӣ' on the end. And something similar must be behind the realisation of 'll' as 'ʒ' in parts of the New World, and also Portuguese 'ch' as in 'chamar' ( = Spanish 'llamar'). --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this phenomenon is standard French, but that's as much as I can say. Bʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{Speak up!} 20:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a definition on French Wiktionary at http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ouiche ... AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a phonetician say that this is some discourse effect indicating finality or decisiveness or something. Mo-Al (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that many French speakers, especially women (no idea why), don't articulate oui at all, but instead quickly inhale, as if they had a hiccup. It's probably just another quirk of French phonology that they don't teach at French language courses. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's quite common. It's the French equivalent of "uh huh" (or however you spell it). -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of South Africa being referred to as S. Africa or similar

This might be a simple case of puratism, but it seems to annoy me whenever I see South Africa (the country) referred to as 'S. Africa' or similar. I've seen this happen in news articles from CNN, BBC and elsewhere and I've even once sent in a comment to CNN telling them that South Africa (as in the country) cannot be referred to as S. Africa s this refers to 'Southern Africa'. Here's an example: [6]
Now tell me, are they correct to do this, or is it wrong? Rfwoolf (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The example you link only shows your issue in the headline, as far as I can tell. When space is a concern, as it always is with headlines, anything goes. Were they to do it in the body of an article, I would think it unnecessary... improper? Not sure. But in a headline, again, anything can and often is acceptable. 61.189.63.183 (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I guess maybe with Headlinese you can abbrev everything Rfwoolf (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's a question of space in headlines and editorial policy, where it is extremely rare to use the formal full form of a country. The BBC for example refers to 'France', not 'the French republic' or 'the Republic of France' ('la république française'). I have never seen it refer to the UK as 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' in a headline (which would get rather tedious), a term which one finds on official documents such as passports. As for the S, well in geo-coordinates the N stands for North and the S stands for S etc. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to get over your annoyance, Rf. "S" or "S." may sometimes be used to abbreviate "Southern", but it is also very common for it to abbreviate "South" -- for example, in street addresses ("1 S. Elm St.") and driving directions ("take I-75 30 miles S to exit 15") as well as place names (SC or S.C. = South Carolina). The online Encarta dictionary under encarta.msn.com gives 8 possible expansions for "S.": Sabbath, Saint, Saturday, Saxon, Sea, September, South, and Sunday. Note that "Southern" is not even on the list. --Anonymous, 03:33 UTC, August 20/09.

"S." is more likely to mean "South". SC for South Carolina; or SD for South Dakota, also abbreviated S. Dak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked data entry for the local tax-collector, we had to shorten "street" to "st" "drive" to "dr" and "lane" to "ln", "south" to "s" etc unless they were part of the street name so "South Long street" would be "s long st" but there were tougher names like "West South Beach Avenue" (w south beach ave) or "Lois Lane street" (lois lane st). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm but folks you don't seem to see the point... 'S' may very well be an abbreviation for 'South' and 'Southern', but you cannot abbreviate half the name of a country. You never hear of 'U States of America' or 'U Kingdom', so too the name 'South Africa' should either be abbreviated in full ('SA' or 'RSA') or written in full (South Africa). In fact if you asked me, 'RSA' doesn't make for such a bad brand. "So where are you going for a holiday this winter? ... Oh, RSA?". I guess the puratism part might come in that you should not partially abbreviate country names. Rfwoolf (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is hard to guess what the A could be in S.A, but it is really easy to guess what the S could be in S. Africa. I have seen recently in the papers "SKorea" even without the dot or space. Lgriot (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, after reading 'SKorea' I did not confuse it with the Southern region of Korea. But in the case of South Africa, Africa is a continent, not a country. So S Africa would very well mean the Southern region of Africa. What's more there's a country called North Korea, but there isn't a country called North Africa. What would happen if we wanted to actually refer to the South region of Africa, in those cases they usually say 'Southern Africa' or 'Sub-Saharan Africa'. Rfwoolf (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, RSA? — Emil J. 12:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, R of SA? Rfwoolf (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, it used to be "Union of South Africa", or "USA" for short (?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see someone post some examples of where the prefix "S." is definitely an abbreviation for "Southern" rather than "South". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows some results for S. Methodist University and S. Baptist Convention. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Those are proper names, just like all the "Souths" are. So one would have to know which one it is, in any given case. Oddly enough, I don't recall seeing those two items that way, as Southern Baptist is usually spelled out, and Southern Methodist is typically abbreviated SMU. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question, he asks if it's "wrong", which I assume means grammatically wrong as opposed to "morally wrong" or whatever. My old Webster's lists capital "S." as a valid abbreviation for both "South" and "Southern". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But here 'South' does not mean 'South'. Here 'South' is part of the name. The 'South' in 'South Africa' does not mean 'South', it means 'Hey, you left out half my name!'. :) Rfwoolf (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original respondent pointed out that it might be used in a headline where space is at a premium, and presumably the meaning would either be understood or would be clarified in the body of the accompanying article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough I guess - in fact I'm normally a fan of headlinese. So then, what if it appears in body text? As in, "Pakistan plays S. Africa this Wednesday at The Wanderers cricket ground". I would suppose that in such a case it's incorrect.Rfwoolf (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky part is trying to define who has any say in what's "correct". Perhaps in legal documents it would need to spell out "Republic of South Africa". But unless there's a Grammar Governance Board, newswriters could write it however they feel like. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trouble is that there are 'Grammar Governance Boards' - such as English Purists associations and language societies - yes there are people still out there who can tell us what is 'correct' and what not. Trouble is you can get around all of them by just calling them purists. Rfwoolf (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we can have full initialisms like USA (or, U.S. of A) that abbreviating only half of the country's name doesn't seem problematic or wrong. After all, it may be the country's name but it's still a direction. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the 'Grammar Governance Boards' are self appointed "defenders of the language" - anyone can claim to be an "expert". There is no de jure or even de facto reason to adhere to their recommendations. English doesn't have the equivalent of French's Académie française. There's no body with a legal mandate, or even with widespread community consensus, to officiate what is or is not "correct" English. It's wrapped up in the whole descriptivist/prescriptivist dichotomy. -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Books about learning how to speak without hesitations

I've perused a few books on the art of speaking in public. They seem mostly concerned with the following problems:

"stage fright" — people who get paralyzed when in front of an audience, or on TV or radio
how to grab the audience's attention
how to keep your message short enough so as to keep the audience's attention.

Yet there is little on how to, say, always keep a pleasant tone and naturally produce well-constructed sentences. Most people, when speaking a non rehearsed speech, produce ungrammatical sentences, hesitate, cut sentences short, interject other ideas, etc. This is why, for instance, some parliamentary assemblies employ people who rewrite the spoken word into readable proceedings; contrast this with the unpleasant reading of the transcripts of the Watergate tapes.

Yet, some minority of individuals seem to be able to speak in a perfectly mannered tone, with well-constructed and meaningful sentences, even though they have not rehearsed. (An example comes to mind: listen to interviews of Robert Fripp and compare with interviews with most rock musicians.)

Are there books where one can get directions about this craft? David.Monniaux (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "the gift of gab" or "blarney". Most any radio personality has it. Perhaps one of them has written about it? Also, I have a vague recollection of a book with a title something like "How to talk to almost anyone about almost anything". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Can Talk to (Almost) Anyone about (Almost) Anything didn't get a very good review. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the guy failed to talk to the reviewers. As regards self-help books in general, Dogbert said, "Beware the advice of successful people - they do not seek company." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer you probably don't want -- it comes with practice/experience. I started my public speaking with Toastmasters at the age of ~8. From then until around ~22 I spoke occasionally in public - and was always comfortable - but not as smooth as the written word, which I think is what you're after. However, from 24~26 I was a university lecturer, responsible for 90 minute lectures with little or no notes. In short order, I was able to develop a much more fluid style free of uhs, ahs, umms, and digressions. Like most things in life, you have to actually do it to get better, and you need to consciously analyze your performances. The best advice I can give you is to videotape yourself monologing to random topics drawn from a hat. Reviewing those critically will get you on the right track quite quickly. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hem. What I'm looking for is not necessarily about lectures. I think I'm a decent lecturer and a decent speaker at scientific conferences, but these are events in which I have an idea of what I'm going to say in advance, even though I do not have a pre-scripted speech. What I'm looking for is more about conversation, in which somebody tosses you a question and you have a very short time to answer. David.Monniaux (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At home now, to quote my last line from above, as it still applies: The best advice I can give you is to videotape yourself monologing to random topics drawn from a hat. Reviewing those critically will get you on the right track quite quickly. 61.189.63.183 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that, in contrast to the Toastmasters angle, this is more like how to become a good debater. Debaters have to be able to respond quickly to comments and questions by others. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Even at that, there is no substitute for practice. The difficulty is finding someone to practice with. But I've a hunch that's key to success. The reality is that when we already know what we're going to say, it's easier to say it. And writing is easiest, because you can take your time (as I'm doing now). But there's no "rewind" on talking. I think of Ronald Reagan, who was merely OK with extemporaneous speaking while he was excellent with a script - as well he should have been, given his background. Bush, by contrast, was OK with a script and very poor at the off-the-cuff stuff. You aspire to be more like JFK, who seemed to have a quip at the ready at all times, yet even he did say um and er fairly often, just in such a way that it did not seem to interfere. Here's something to consider, and I bet this is how it works for successful radio talk show hosts, for example: Their focus is on their audience, on conveying information. It's when we focus inwardly that we become hesitant and stumble over our words. That's my theory, anyway. I'm thinking of an unfortunately out-of-print book by Charles Osgood on public speaking. He said the secret to overcoming nervousness was to think of the audience as being nervous, and that your job is to "comfort" them. That's his technique. But do you see what I'm getting at? I was thinking that Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influnce People is not the worst place to start. It's not so much about public speaking, as about communicating - about focusing on the other person. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate speaking in public (I mumble and stutter when I'm nervous), but since I have to teach and present papers I don't really have a choice. It helps if I am confident that I know the material I am presenting, and if I assume that the audience is relatively ignorant of the topic and want to learn from me. Unfortunately my standard of public speaking is an old professor, who often walked in to class, started speaking with no notes, kept going for an hour and simply walked out when he was done. I always assume I should be as comfortable speaking as he was, although it probably took him many decades to reach that point. I've found that it helps me to prepare notes to read directly - I usually hate when people do that, and I hate doing it too, but if I write the way I would speak, as opposed to the more usual formal writing style, then it is easier to read from the page and make it seem natural. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Science is a verb now"

What is that supposed to mean? It's a meme of some sort, but where does it come from and what does it mean?! --Dr Dima (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be a phrase connected with the GLOBE program, meaning that science is a participatory activity for the schools / teachers / students involved in the program. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you are asking because of today's QC? It reminded me of this Dinosaur Comics strip from earlier this month (especially note the alt text). I'm pretty sure Jacques and North know each other and read each others' comics, etc. These instances are probably also both influenced by xkcd, a very pro-science and popular webcomic, that I'm sure that Jacques and North also read. I don't think that the phrase is specifically a meme of its own - it is kind of a theme that is mildly popular among webcomicists, from what I've seen. —Akrabbim^talk 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science may be an activity, but that doesn't make it a verb. "OK, class, let's science today." Nope. Doesn't work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it time: I was reading an old copy of Strunk and White which berated writers for using "contact" as a verb. The young folks are already starting to disagree with you on sciencing. :) --Sean 14:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're using "scienced" as a synonym for "out-smarted". I doubt that's what the marketers of "science is a verb now" had in mind. I'm thinking "slime" probably wasn't originally a verb either, but to get "slimed" is. Words obviously evolve. At least "contact" went from a noun to a verb in the same form. Too often when that's done we get abominations like "prioritize". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ahem] Forgotten my Latin from 46 years ago, but shouldn't the verb form of "contact" be different (which was probably the original objection); something like "contang" or "continge", from Tango/Tangere/[??]/Tactus? Noli me tactere? Cf. infringe/infraction and the abominable "self-destruct" ("Mark my words: I will destruct you !!!"). —— Shakescene (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot my English, too, i.e. the word "contingent", so (being too lazy at the moment to hunt for a Latin book or link) the etymological root must be contingo/contingere/.../contactus. Another of my old fuddy-duddy bugaboos is "access" as a verb: one gains or grants access to something, or one accedes to another's wishes or status, or one accedes to power or the Throne; but I avoid saying "I accessed that book". So my Wikipedia footnotes for hyperlinks always say "retrieved on" [date] rather than "accessed". —— Shakescene (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not abnormal for English (through French) to make a verb out of the Latin past participle, like "access" or "contact". Sometimes this had already happened in Latin as well (dicere -> dictus, then dictare -> dictatus, whence "dictate"). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone put it a long time ago, "Nowadays every noun can be verbed". DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or slimed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're apparently "transitioning" to new ways of speaking. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Verbing weirds language"—Calvin. Deor (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So glad to find this

I've been at the science reference desk for a few weeks now and am glad to have found this desk, as I have some burning questions:

I. What's up with the word fast -- is it both an adverb and an adjective?
II. What's up with "I couldn't care less/I could care less" -- the latter one seems to me to be a malapropism.
DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think fast is both, given that one can say the fast boy or the boy runs fast (at least colloquially). Mo-Al (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a noun and a verb, too! "Tomorrow, I start my fast." "I had to fast before my surgery." As for point 2, I think I'd call the second version an idiom, because its use isn't limited to a single speaker. --LarryMac | Talk 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However "The boy runs fast" is technically wrong: it should be "The boy runs quickly". However widespread usage has meant that it's very hard to object to nowadays.

"I could care less" is on the face of it a malapropism (if you could care less then you probably care very much) but it's again got such widespread usage, especially in North America, that it's hard to object to. I guess you could also think of it as sarcasm rather than a malapropism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that "should of" and "spirit of the moment" are idioms as well and not malapropisms? I would disagree. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was very careful to say that I would call it an idiom. You may call it whatever you wish. --LarryMac | Talk 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Should of" is bad spelling for "should have", or actually "should've" which sounds almost exactly like "should of" which is actually a meaningless phrase. As for fast, it also means "adhered to", as in "the snake held fast to its prey". I've heard the "I could care less" for as long as I can remember, and it really doesn't make sense, since it implies that you care at least a little bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using "have" as an auxiliary verb is pretty meaningless too. There's no reason we couldn't use "of" instead. Why not? It's wrong according to the way we currently understand English, but maybe it will be normal in a thousand years. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meaningless at all. "I should have used the language correctly" is the perfectly normal and standard past tense of "I should use the language correctly". There's an analogy with the future past tense - Oh, you can come by next week if you like, but I will have left for Europe by then. Would you ever write "I will of left for Europe by then"? What possible sense would that make? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adam's point is that there is nothing about the meaning of 'have' that suggests that it should be used to form a past tense: once upon a time it might have been well motivated, but in English today it is essentially arbitrary and might equally well be expressed by 'of'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think y'all need to go back and study your English. "Have" makes sense. "Of" does not. "Of" essentially means "from", which makes no sense in a sentence like "I should of left". "I should from left"? Ugh. Part of the problem is that "have" has two different usages in English. The auxiliary verb discussed here comes from the Latin "habere". Its English usage in the sense of holding onto something comes from the Latin "tenere", which has very few English derivations. As far as using "of" instead of "have", consider the present tense: You would say "I have gone shopping". You wouldn't say "I of gone shopping". Ugh. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]: "Have you seen her?" makes sense; "Of you seen her?" makes none. The English auxiliary verbs used to form compound tenses, are pretty well-established and very close to those in most Indo-European languages (Latin, German, etc.): be, have, do, will/would, shall/should, can/could and may/might. And whether they should have been, could have been or might have been different, I do not see "of" as a possible alternative that is grammatically logical. (Although grammatical logic has very little use as a guide to how language is actually used. And the formal compound tenses in English are, in my view, rather artificial constructions used for comparison to and translation from one-word Romance equivalents.)

And there is a primitive, intuitive logic to "have" in the sense of possessing something now that you didn't before: I have caught the deer and now I have food. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "have" to "of" also takes us to the next abomination, substituting "a" or "o" (both pronounced "uh") for both "of" and "'ve". "Could-a, should-a, would-a... cup o' tea", etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED cites fast as an adverb (meaning "quickly") so far back as the 13th Century A.D (the 1200's). So this rank neologism disfigured Middle English as well as Modern. And it's hard to think what the "more-correct" form would be: "fastly" ? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Quick" actually means "living", hence the use of "quick" or "quickly" as "lively" and in some other seemingly obscure ways, e.g. the "quick" of the fingernail, the "living" part. "Fast" has a variety of uses, but they all pretty much come back to the original "faest" which means "strong" or "firm". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out that the English verb have, whether used as an auxiliary or main verb, is not derived from or cognate with the Latin habere. It is a Germanic verb stemming from a distinct Indo-European root. Also, it is by no means accepted by historical linguists that the English periphrastic perfect tense (use of have as an auxiliary verb) is derived from the Romance languages. This form may have developed independently among some of the Germanic languages. Indeed, it seems possible that the innovation first occurred in the Germanic languages, since, according to this source, its first clear instance in Romance is in the Latin of Gregory of Tours, writing after the Frankish conquest of Gaul. Marco polo (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that words of similar form and meaning would have totally independent origins. I wonder what the Sanskrit equivalent is? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If (as I remember learning) "have" is from the same root as Latin "capere" (to take), then according to Lewis and Short the Sanskrit cognate is "hri-". Anyway, the point I was making before, which was apparently not clear, is not that "have" is the correct construction in English; of course it is, and that's why it makes sense. But there is no logic to it. What do you have? You don't have anything. If you say "I have eaten", "eaten" is not an object to possess. It doesn't make any more logical sense than if you said "I of eaten". You could stick anything there and if that is how English worked it would make perfect grammatical sense, no matter how illogical. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have eaten" implies something done recently. "Of" means "from". You wouldn't say "I from eaten". Basically, "have" has a specific meaning and use, and is appropriate in this usage. "Of" has a different meaning and usage, and is not. If you stop and think about it, all words are arbitrary. You could also say "I antidisestablishmentarianism eaten", which makes every bit as much sense as "I from eaten". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been trying to say! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Have" doesn't necessarily imply something done recently - for example I have been to Iceland (but it was 36 years ago). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Which raises the question, what's the subtle difference between "I have been to Iceland" vs. "I went to Iceland"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it maketh not much difference, let me clarify what I was trying to say as asides. I was thinking (perhaps quite fallaciously) of the auxiliary verbs being rather similar in the Indo-European languages in general, whether Latinate, Germanic or other. The second point I was throwing out as another aside (which may also be wrong), but which was naturally confusing when considered with the first, is this: I suspect that the archaic or classical classification of tenses in English used to rely too much on equivalences with Latin, French and other Romance languages (e.g. French has different verb-forms for the conditional and subjunctive, where English, I think, does not.) You need to make those equivalencies when teaching or translating between English and Latin or French, but their verb structures are different from ours, and shouldn't be used to parse English or teach it to Anglophones. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW both French and German use 'have' both to indicate possession and as an auxiliary to indicate the past perfect: 'J'ai une mère' / 'Ich habe eine Mutter' / 'I have a mother' and 'J'ai mangé'/ 'Ich habe gegessen' / 'I have eated'. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to question II, I believe it is one the quirks of the differences between British and American English. In British English we say "I couldn't care less", whereas it has evolved in American English to "I could care less" (unfortunately I can't find the article we have on this subject). -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solecism? decltype (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This linguistics professor at the University of Michigan talks a little about it, and calls it a "negative polarity item," for what that's worth. This site also talks about it. I've seen it mentioned a few times that "could care less" arose in the US in the 1960s, but haven't found any hard references on that. The American Heritage book of English usage gives no etymology or history, but attributes "could care less" to sarcasm, and compares it to "cannot but"/"can but," where postive and negative mean the same thing. I think the idea that makes it work is supposed to be you're basically saying "I already care about whatever it is you're talking about only a reeeaaall little bit, as in you're really scraping the bottom of my ability to care barrel, but keep on about it, and I'm sure I can find a way to care even less," but I doubt many people who actually use the phrase are conscious of that as they say it. I know I'm not when I do, but I am conscious of adding the negative. "I could care less" is a gentle dismissive, but "I could not care less" means, to me, "I do not care and I will not entertain any more discussion of the subject. "Couldn't care less" falls somewhere in between the two. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same Etymology, Different Pronunciation

So "Corp" as in "Marine Corps"---and "Corp" as in "Corporation" both stem from the same root meaning "body". The former has not been anglicized in its travel to my dialect (US English) but the latter has.

Are there other examples of words that share a common root, but differ in their pronunciation?76.119.33.164 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One that comes to mind are the English words "hotel" and "hostel", which both derive from the Old French word "hostel" which in modern French is spelled "hôtel". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Certainly. A modern example which comes to mind is 'resume' vs 'résumé', but if you go back a bit there are plenty. 'regal', 'royal' 'real' (in the special sense of real tennis, not the ordinary word 'real') have been appropriated from the same origin at different times, as have 'cattle' and 'chattel', 'capital' and 'chapter', and many others. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doublets, though these are different from the OP's query, since they're spelled differently. --Sean 23:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Real estate" is another example of that special use of real. It's not saying the estate is the opposite of unreal. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In "Marine Corps", the s is not a plural inflectional s, and is usually not pronounced, so "Corps" is not derived from "Corp" within English... AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not from English in any case. Most any English word you can think of that starts with "corp" (and my old Webster's has half a page worth of them) comes from corpus. "Corps" is the French version, and was originally pronounced more like "corpse", and in fact "corpse" is a doublet of "corps" So "corps" vs. "corpse" actually comes closer to the answer to the original question. This reminds me of something Richard Armour said in his satirical history of the U.S. He referred to this one international organization as the "Peace Corpse", on the grounds that "peace was a dead issue". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back far enough, there are a lot more of these. Blaze and black have cognate roots. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: The Peace Corps is NOT an international organisation. As it says in the very first sentence of the article, it is organised by the United States Government./Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not change the concept of the joke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@JackOfOz, "real" in "real estate" is indeed a special use of "real", but it is nevertheless cognate with the ordinary "real". "Real" in "real tennis" is not, and is derived from the same root as "regal" and "royal". --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's curious. I was under the impression that "real estate" referred to the fact that all land once belonged to the Crown, ie. royalty. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I see from real estate that this is a misapprehension. Thanks for the correction. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

Variant spellings in early nineteenth-century Pennsylvania

I'm transcribing the minutes of the session (elder board) of a small church in Franklin County, Pennsylvania in the first half of the nineteenth century — it's full of what today, at least, are considered misspellings. I'm curious how many of these are truly misspellings and how many might be considered standard/normal/acceptable for the day. For example: a member being "admited" to the church; an elder being "apointed to manaje an apeal" [appointed to manage an appeal]; problems with the "arrearges" of the pastor's unpaid salary; "it was mooved and seconded"; and the meeting being "adjurned". Moreover, there's quite an inconsistent usage of ſ — it's generally used in words such as "seſsion" but almost never a situation such as "reſtraint" or "ſeſſion". Should I consider this to be simply the style of a few poorly-educated Scotch-Irish farmers, or should I see this as a change in the style of writing? I'd welcome a link to a website that would contain a detailed discussion of this subject. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other curiousity that I forgot to mention before — days of the week are almost never capitalised. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling was far less standard in those days. That was one of the reasons Noah Webster wrote his dictionary - to establish some norms. Even looking at the U.S. Constitution, you see spellings like "chuse" instead of "choose". Looking at a few things you cite, "manage" comes from French and Latin roots where it's "g", not "j", so they've simply got it wrong. Likewise with "appeal", whose French and Latin roots are a double-p. It's a little slipperier with "adjurn", as the word comes from the Latin "adiurnare", with the "i" converted to "j" over time and a "u" added, both of those changes occurring in Old French. The swirly "s" that you're asking about (ſ) if you look closely it's mainly used when there are two consecutive "s". I don't know for sure, but I suspect that's related to the German double-S character. By the way, some folks used to spell the state "Pensylvania". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC With bugs) Standardized orthography did not really hit American English until Noah Webster's dictionary became widespread, and the educational reforms of Horace Mann brought a standardized education to all citizens. Before the middle of the 19th century, everything was mostly spelled foe-net-tick-all-lee, and since everyone understood what was being written, it wasn't a big deal. Its about 150 years from before when you were researching, but I ran across the same spelling variants when researching the Plymouth Colony article; people just didn't maintain a standard spelling convention until the middle 1800's, so I am not surprised that documents before that show such inconsistancies. --Jayron32 02:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input; I was under the impression that spelling was essentially standardised in the USA by the late eighteenth century. My curiosity over the long s is again over the inconsistency, because I'm familiar with the way it was printed, with the nineteenth letter always being written ſ except when capitalised or at the end of the word, and I've been told that "ſs" is not uncommon in American manuscript of the period; it's simply confusing that it's only sometimes used in "ſs" and very rarely — but neither never nor frequently — in words such as "cloſely". I'm still curious, however — any ideas on the capitalisation? Or is this just the same as the rest: nonstandard and didn't really matter to the readers? BTW, if you look at Talk:Long s, you can see that I asked a somewhat similar question there last year, although for a situation sixty years later. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with other "rules", it may have been used inconsistently, i.e. at the whim of the writer. I see I was right that it's connected with the German double-S. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say caps were used inconsistently also. In legalese especially (note the style of the Constitution) the tendency was to capitalize all nouns, as with German. In German, the days of the week are capitalized. Such is also the case in places in the Constitution where names of days are given. Again I think you're seeing the whimsy of writers. Eventually in English it was decided to only capitalize proper nouns, and the days of the week are obviously that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some wonderfully weird spelling, see the journal of William Clark (explorer) of Lewis and Clark. Lewis was better educated and generally spelled words more like we expect today, while Clark was not as educated and his spelling looks much more phonetic (unfortunately our article on Clark has two links to gutenberg texts of the journals, but at a (very) quick glance they appear to have been "corrected". Another famous, perhaps apocryphal quote of the time is from Andrew Jackson, who supposedly said “It’s a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!” I don't know about the long S.. but I would think its usage also had something to do with education or the lack thereof. Pfly (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the specific case of a church record not capitalizing days of the week or months of the year might possibly reflect another concern (apart from the fact that they're almost never capitalized today in Romance languages: mardi, miercoles, giovedí): the desire to avoid idolatry. Traditional Quaker practice, in fact, is to avoid all those pagan gods and emperors (Saturn, Julius Caesar, Thor, et al.) by referring to the Third Month or the second day, a practice that's still often followed in the formal documents of liberal Friends meetings. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never before knew why the Quakers simply numbered months and days. However, that's not a problem here; other period documents from this same small denomination (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) capitalise days and months, which have the same names as we name them today. Traditionally, RPCNA members have referred to Sunday as "Sabbath", but all seven appearances of this word are in the form "sabath" (never "sabbath"), not "Sabath" or "Sabbath". Capital letters often appear in this document with what we consider common nouns, but I wasn't surprised by that for the reasons that Bugs gives. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations needed

I need some translation.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech
Wettinové Vilém II. Saský, 1457-1482, vévoda lucemburský a saský

Wettins

William II of Saxony, 1457–1482, Duke of Luxembourg and Saxony

I don't really know what is the accepted name of this person in English literature, though, so you might need to check some sources. — Emil J. 10:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German
Nach dem Tod Johanns am 26. August 1346 konnte Wenzel sein Erbe nicht antreten. Aufgrund der finanziellen Unterstützung, die Balduin von Trier seinem Großneffen Karl bei dessen Königswahl leistete, verwaltete der Trierer Erzbischof die Grafschaft Luxemburg als Pfandbesitz bis zu seinem Tod am 21. Januar 1354.

Am 13. März 1354 wurde Wenzel der erste Herzog von Luxemburg. Das neue Herzogtum Luxemburg wurde aus der Grafschaft Luxemburg, der Grafschaft Durbuy, der Grafschaft Laroche, der Markgrafschaft Arlon und einigen kleineren Herrschaften gebildet. Das Herzogtum Luxemburg blieb außerhalb der böhmische Krone, es war ein Lehen des deutschen Königreiches. Wenzel wurde Reichsfürst und erhielt das Ehrenamt des Reichstruchsesses.

After the death of John on August 26, 1346, Wenceslas (Václav) could not claim his inheritance. Because of the financial support that Balduin of Trier provided to his great nephew Charles at his election as king, the archbishop of Trier administered the County of Luxembourg as collateral [i.e. under a kind of lien] until his death on January 21, 1354.

On March 13, 1354, Wenceslas became the first duke of Luxembourg. The new Duchy of Luxembourg was formed from the County of Luxembourg, the County of Durbuy, the County of Laroche, the Margravate of Arlon, and several smaller territories. [lordships, i.e. Herrschaft (territory) ] The Duchy of Luxembourg remained separate from the Bohemian crown. It was a fief of the German kingdom. Wenceslas became an imperial prince and received the honorary office [or "honor"] of imperial steward. Marco polo (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French

duc en titre		duc engagés
1388-1419 : Wenceslas II 1419-1437 : Sigismond, frère du précédent (épouse 1° de Marie de Hongrie, 2° Barbe de Cilly), empereur germanique, roi de Hongrie ou de Luxembourg 1437-1442 : Élisabeth, fille du précédent, marié à Albert II de Habsbourg, archiduc d'Autriche, empereur, roi de Bohême et de Hongrie 1442-1457 : Ladislas de Habsbourg, fils du précédent, roi de Bohême et de Hongrie 1457-1459 : Anne de Habsbourg, sœur du précédent, mariée à Guillaume II de Saxe, landgrave de Thuringe. Ne pouvant faire valoir leurs droits sur le Luxembourg, il les cède au roi de France , descendant de Bonne de Luxembourg. 1459-1461 : Charles VII, roi de France 1461-1461 : Louis XI, roi de France, fils du précédent. Il cède ses droits sur le Luxembourg à Philippe le Bon en remerciement de l'aide que ce dernier lui avait apporté quand il était dauphin.		1388-1402 : Jobst de Moravie, neveu de Charles IV, margrave de Moravie et de Brandebourg, qui cède ses droits à Louis d'Orléans, moyennant une rente viagère 1402-1407 : Louis de France, duc d'Orléans 1407-1411 : Jobst de Moravie, de nouveau ; à la mort de Louis d'Orléans, il récupère ses droits 1411-1433 : Elisabeth de Goerlitz, nièce de Wenceslas II et de Sigismond. Criblée de dettes, elle vend le Luxembourg à Philippe III le Bon 1444-1467 : Philippe le Bon, duc de Bourgogne

¶ Responses to request for translation

I'm not sure if this is the right place for such a huge gob of translation. And much of this, being in standard form, could be made clearer by using any of the automatic translation services such as Babelfish, before anyone attempts this vast project. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oui -- Fullstop (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Babelfish did for the Comte de Luxembourg section:

The title of count de Luxembourg n' appears that in the acts of Guillaume Ier of Luxembourg. For these predecessors, one knows qu' they are counts and qu' they had the city and the castle of Luxembourg since the foundation made by Sigefroy of Luxembourg towards 963.

Assuming from other questions you've had that your interest is mainly genealogical, even without knowing French, you could get close to what I see as the meaning:

The title of "Count of Luxembourg" did not appear until the acts of Guillaume [William] I of Luxembourg. Regarding his predecessors, it's known that they were counts and that they held the town and the castle of Luxembourg from its founding by Sigefroy of Luxembourg around 963." (I take this to mean that there's no evidence of a specific "Count of Luxembourg" title prior to Guillaume, but this is far outside my field.)

Good luck. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I know quite a bit of French, I thought I'd help out. The translation for the Count of Luxembourg given above is preety much right, except for:

that they held the town ---> that they owned or possessed the town
Luxembourg from its founding by Sigefroy ---> Luxembourg since its founding by Sigefroy. Hope this helped. Warrior 4321 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ The work's already been done (no need to repeat it). All that was necessary in the original French article was to look at and click that little box to the left that said "English". See List of monarchs of Luxembourg, County, Duchy and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, History of Luxembourg, and the various links they give, especially under "See also". If there are specific details you need that aren't covered by the English translations, then by all means, come back here with the specific questions, but I think most of what you want is here (unlike the French version, the English list even has pictures!) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a list somewhere else but I need this section translated at least for the french list of dukes includes Charles VII of France Sigismund I, Holy Roman Emperor and I don't know why?

See one of those internal Wikilinks, House of Luxembourg, which has a handy family tree. For Louis XI of France, the French text above says "son of [ Charles VII of France ]. He ceded his rights to Philip the Good in thanks for the help which the latter had brought him when he was Dauphin [heir to the French throne]. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French ... into English

Duke by title(?)		Duke as recognised(?)
1388-1419 : Wenceslaus II 1419-1437 : Sigismund, brother of the above (married: 1st Mary of Hungary, 2nd Barbara of Cilli), German emperor, King of Hungary and Bohemia 1437-1442 : Elisabeth, daughter of the above, married Albert II of Germany, archduke of Austria, emperor, King of Bohemia and Hungary 1442-1457 : Ladislaus of Habsburg, son of the above, King of Bohemia and Hungary 1457-1459 : Anne de Habsburg, sister of the above, married to William III, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia. Unable to enforce his rights in Luxembourg, he ceded them the King of France, descendant of Bonne of Bohemia. 1459-1461 : Charles VII, King of France 1461-1461 : Louis XI, King of France, son of the above. He ceded his rights over Luxembourg to Philip the Good in thanks for the help he had given him when he was crown prince		1388-1402 : Jobst of Moravia, nephew of Charles IV, March of Moravia and of Brandenburg, who ceded his rights to Louis I, Duke of Orléans, with an annuity(?) 1402-1407 : Louis I, Duke of Orléans 1407-1411 : Jobst of Moravia, once again; on the death of Louis I, Duke of Orléans, he regained his rights 1411-1433 : Elisabeth of Görlitz, niece of Wenceslaus II and of Sigismund. Riddled with debt, she sold Luxembourg to Philip the Good 1444-1467 : Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy

Lego

Why can't *lego be a Finnish, Hawaiian, Japanese or Maori word? --88.77.254.193 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no "L" in their language. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case nobody in Fin?and understands [7]. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well voiced stops don't occur much in native words, so the /g/ might be a problem in Finnish. But as a borrowed word it's probably okay, I would guess. Mo-Al (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a shot at what is obviously another trivia question that the OP already knows the answer to. I'm not sure why the leading asterisk. Aha, maybe that's the answer. There's no asterisk in those languages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leading "*" is a linguists' notation for an ungrammatical construction or a hypothetical, unattested word. See Asterisk#Linguistics. --Anonymous, 20:37 UTC, August 21, 2009.

No L in Finnish? Olen pahoillani (I'm sorry) but I don't think that's correct. You can't count to five in Finnish without Ls (kolme is 3, neljä is 4). But loppu hyvin, kaikki hyvin (all's well that ends well); there's no F. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No l in Hawaiian? lei, luau, Honolulu? There is, however, no g in Hawaiian. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another of these things where the OP already knows the answer and is conducting a quiz here. Any objections to summarily zapping these kinds of things? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not from me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object. And Maori has Gs. Whanganui, Rangitoto, for example. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick google search of 'lego suomi' gave me the Finnish website for lego, and apparently, it's called 'lego' in Finland. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas

...Is there an equivalent saying that people normally use, in Arabic, for Eid ul-Fitr? Note that I know nothing about the culture at all, in case any answer made such an assumption. Thanks in advance. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy" goes with "Birthday", "Merry" goes with "Xmas"! That's my opinion anyway... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Brits say "Happy Christmas" where Americans say "Merry Christmas". At least this is what I took away from "Happy Christmas (War Is Over)". Dismas|^(talk) 20:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you're British. Now can we get back to the question? --Anon, 20:38 UTC, August 21, 2009.

Christmas is Eid al-Milad, so you can say "Eid al-Milad mubarak" or "Eid al-Milad majid". Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner is asking if there is a greeting for Eid ul-Fitr, not for Christmas. Marco polo (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He rather confused the issue by titling the question "Happy Christmas", no mention of which occurs in Eid ul-Fitr. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, since that is the default Eid, you would just say "Eid mubarak". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, am I missing something? According to the article you (the OP) linked to—Eid ul-Fitr#General rituals—the greeting that means "Happy Eid" is ‘Īd sa‘īd. Deor (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. I also just noticed we have an Eid Mubarak article. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...That's embarrassing. I hadn't checked the article because I was in a rush and I didn't think it would be in there. Ah well, thanks! (And sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to imply any sort of Christmassyness with the title, it was just the only comparison I could think of.) Vimescarrot (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically correct but impossible sentence

I've been wondering whether there are sentences that are fine grammatically, but for grammatical reasons are still "wrong" or at least never used. For example, a particularly crude swear word with the formal Sie in German? Any problems with this example and other egs? Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Allen made a career out of it: "That man is the woman who is this club's best friend's husband." - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My hovercraft is full of eels. [8] [9] —— Shakescene (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, actually the opposite. It is gramatically perfect, but still almost impervious to understand without explanation. --Jayron32 22:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting links. The buffalo one, although exactly the opposite of what I asked, reminds me of the story about the sign writer making a "Fish and Chips" sign, when asked for feedback, was told that there needs to be more room "between Fish and and and and and Chips". Any German speakers have any thoughts on whether something like "Ficken Sie mich/mir" fits in this category? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesnt. Firstly, you can't translate "f--- you" literally into German. It would just be taken literally as a blunt invitation to have sex. Secondly, it's not at all wrong or never used. The "Sie" in the sentence makes the combination a bit less likely, because it suggests less intimacy, but with a little bit of fantasy, you can easily imagine situations when people could use it, and be it just as part of what Alex Comfort calls "playtime". But maybe that was TMI; maybe all you wanted to know was whether you can use some vulgar insult together with "Sie"? The answer to that would be affirmative; the "Sie" doesn't mean that you have high regards for a person at the moment; it only expresses the social relationship to a person, which doesn't change so fast. — Sebastian 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't I? is grammatically incoherent yet ubiquitous ("Are not I"??); Ain't I? is grammatically impeccable yet near-universally maligned and avoided. -Silence (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of the high-hat

In Miller's Crossing , gangster Johnny Caspar frequently says things like "I'm sick a marchin' down to this goddamn office to kiss your Irish ass and I'M SICK OF THE HIGH HAT!" and "What is this, the high hat?" From context, "the high hat" would seem simply to mean "a gesture of contempt", but to what (if anything) does it literally refer? I'd always taken it to be a sting (percussion) (something you'd do to an unfunny guy, or maybe to get a bad act off the stage) but that's just a guess on my part. Is this an expression with any independent meaning, or just something invented for this movie? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The high hat" refers to a condescending attitude; see Wiktionary. I assume that the origin of the expression is in the top hats worn by the rich. Note the sentence "The top hat became associated with the upper class, becoming a target for satirists and social critics" in the article. Deor (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you'd wear a high hat while riding your high horse. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inglourious Basterds

This may be too esoteric for here, and is probably going to need a German language linguist, but here goes: In Inglourious Basterds, one of the scenes revolves around how an SS officer can determine what part of Germany a German speaker comes from. He claims to be able to tell that one speaker is from Frankfurt and another is from Munich. Do the actors really speak with German accents which are detectable as coming from those parts of Germany, or is it just so much nonsense? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the movie, but I have no doubt that a native German speaker could deduce which part of Germany someone comes from by the way they speak. Can a native English speaker not identify whether someone is from Massachusetts or Scotland or New Zealand? --Jayron32 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm trying to ask is, are the actors' accents really from those regions? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the movie and won't (not my taste), but apparently the cast includes German actors. Just as good English-speaking actors can learn to speak with a different English accent from their own, surely a decent German actor can adopt a Rhine Franconian (Frankfurt) or Bavarian (Munich) accent. Marco polo (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the actors that are meant to be from Frankfurt and Munich? It would be possible to check where they come from. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fassbender is German-Irish (but moved to Eire at the age of two), Eli Roth´s grandparents came from Austria, Poland and Russia. August Diehl is German and so is Martin Wuttke, Til Schweiger, Diane Kruger, Gedeon Burkhard, Sylvester Groth, Volker Michalowski and Hilmar Echhorn. Christoph Waltz is Austrian. Some of those are noted actors on German / Austrian stages. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, OK, I really meant, in that particular scene the OP is referring to, who are the 2 actors and where do their characters come from. With that info, the Q is a lot easier! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Ancient Chinese

What language was spoken by pre-Mandarin people of China? What was the spoken language in Shang and Zhou dynasty's times? And also seeing how most of northern china is mandarin speaking, were there older distinct northern dialects of Chinese spoken in the north? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your second question is Old Chinese, though there was an intermediate Middle Chinese stage before Mandarin. As to your third question, in fact, there are a variety of Mandarin dialects. Each of these seems to be a direct descendant of Middle Chinese. That is, there was no intervening non-Mandarin dialect in most of northern China that was supplanted by Mandarin. That said, the various dialects of Mandarin may be giving way to standard Mandarin, especially in cities. Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 54 languages in China, one of which is Mandarin, and the precursor of that was, as stated above, Old Chinese. Are you asking what language was spoken before Chinese was? I guess it would be all of them (except Russian and Korean, which were introduced later). You need to specify a place if you want a specific answer. China is actually quite big. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wikipedia pronounced?

I'm trying to find out if I pronounce it correctly. Please no IPA wingdings in the answer—I have no idea how to read it. I pronounce wiki, standing alone, wick-ee (wickie) but when I pronounce wikipedia I pronounce the second "i" the same way as I do when I say the word "it". Is this correct or do you say wikeeepedia? (which sounds wrong to me).--162.84.164.115 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually pronounce "Wiki" by itself "Wih-KEE" but turn the second syllable to a schwa-sound in Wikipedia, "Wih-kuh-PEE-dee-uh" since the "ki" syllable changes from a stressed syllable in "Wiki" to an unstressed one in "Wikipedia". --Jayron32 03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone I know pronounces it "wicky-pedia", to rhyme with "tricky-pedia". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love "tricky-pedia" - how true! — Sebastian 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky-pedia? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually pronounce it "wee-kee", which is how the word wiki is pronounced in Hawaiian. But when I get lazy I sometimes use the pronunciation Jayron described. —Kal ^(talk) 04:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A middle-age couple gets off the plane in Honolulu and are greeted by lovely maidens with leis for each of them. The man turns to them and says, "Now that we're in the Aloha State at long last, can you settle a debate we've been having for years? Is it 'Hawaii', or 'Havaii'?"

"It's Havaii, sir."

"Thank you!"

"You're velcome!". - Nunh-huh 08:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henny Youngman just called. He wants his joke back. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounce it as 'mickey-pedia' like the mouse, but with a 'w' instead of an 'm'. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In German they say Vicky-pedia. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch naming convention question

What does the particle "Ten" mean in names of Dutch orign, such as Abraham Ten Broeck? I have seen it occasionally in different surnames of Dutch origin. I know that "Van" is usually used where the German "Von" is, but I don't know what the "Ten" comes from. Anyone know? --Jayron32 03:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means at. See the Tussenvoegsels section of Dutch names. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "damascan"

I came across the following sentence recently:

One can but hope that this self-evident fact will hit them with damascan force before it's too late.

I've looked up "damascan" in Wiktionary (zip) and wherever else I can think of, but I get no results that elucidate the meaning of the word. I presume it's some reference to Damascus, but what does it mean in relation to a force? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably from Damascus steel "Damascus swords were of legendary sharpness and strength, and were apocryphally claimed to be able to cut through lesser quality European swords and even rock"

Bit of a mixed metaphor in my opinion.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reference to the Conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, wherein Paul literally "sees the light", leaving him blinded for several days. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting a bit, I think it means "overwhelming" - Saul's conversion was supposed to be from one end of the spectrum to the other in a second. "Damascan force" meaning one immediately turning someone, I'd guess. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 13:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the writer of the sentence hopes that the clueless "them" will be struck with sufficient force that they fall off their horses. Deor (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation - Switzerland

Can I get a translation of this video, please? [10] 121.72.171.75 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... as it has been read out aloud and declared here, that in peril we may always remain cheerful and undangerous [more likely "unharmed", but ''ungefährlich'' does mean "undangerous"] . So I plead that God and the Saints [(holy ones)] help me. Amen." (Not quite sure whether I understood everything correctly, using a semi-broken set of phones here. By the way, this is not Swiss German, but (somewhat archaic) Standard German spoken with a Swiss accent). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earthy man

What mean: "Naturaly lovely woman seeks a ruggedly earthy man." Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a down-to-earth man? Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's probably looking for somebody who's homeless but has a large savings account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically possible

A certain weird expression has crept into Australian sports-speak. It crops up, for example, when a team is trailing badly towards the end of a game. By saying "It's mathematically possible the <name of team> can still win" (or something similar), the commentator is acknowledging that there's still enough time for them to put in a mighty effort and get to the front before the final siren. Depending on their voice tone, there may be an unspoken message that they doubt the team will actually achieve this; or they may in some cases be hoping they'll overcome the odds. But exactly the same message - whether hopeful or dubious - is imparted by saying simply "It's possible they can still win". The use of the qualifer "mathematical" is a fine case of unnecessary, superfluous, redundant tautology. :) Is this terrible term just a down-under thing, or is it mathematically possible that other countries' sportspersonages are also afflicted by it? We know that sports commentators are renowned for their liberal employment of tautologies, but I'm particularly interested in "mathematically possible". -- JackofOz (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it that way, but this happens in North American sports when trying to determine if a team can still make the playoffs. The first place team will have a certain number of wins, and the other teams will be a certain number of "games back"; say the first place team has 70 wins, and the second place team has 65 wins, the second place team is "5 games back". In baseball, for example, where only the first place teams get to go to the playoffs, this is often structured as "5 games out of first place". In (ice) hockey, where all but the very worst teams get to go to the very lengthy playoffs, it is "5 games out of the playoffs". I think (American/Canadian) football and basketball have similar systems but I don't really follow those. By the end of the season, if there is a close race for first place, or the last playoff spot, people will pay close attention to the combination of wins and losses a certain pair of teams will need in order to reach the playoffs; for example, there are five games left, and team A will need to lose 3 games, and team B will need to win all 5, in order for team B to surpass team A for the playoff spot. That's the "mathematical" part. This often shows up as a joke; David Letterman used to have a Top Ten List of ways you can tell it's spring, and one of them was always "the (new York) Mets are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs", which is funny because the Mets used to suck, and spring is very early into the baseball season when it would be impossible to tell who would be eliminated in the autumn. (Around here, this joke is also made about the Toronto Blue Jays baseball and Toronto Maple Leafs hockey teams at the beginning of their seasons, since they are perennially terrible.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, in a relatively complicated system, one might need to employ a little bit of mathematics to work out whether or not a certain team can make it to the next stage or the final round or whatever. Some can; others can't, no matter how hard they may try, because they haven't amassed enough points in the earlier rounds. For the ones that can, that means it's possible they will win. Just because mathematics are used to determine this, doesn't mean it's "mathematically possible" they will win. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess it's just a way for sports broadcasters to sound fancy. It's not like it's "mathematically impossible" but possible in some other way. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar happens here in Spain, and I also hate it. However, here they normally say that it is "mathematically impossible" for a team to win when in a league competition every team can get e.g. at most 9 points (that is, there are 3 matches left for each team) and the first team is 11 points ahead of the second. My guess is that for sport commentators realizing that is somewhat "mathematically" challenging or they are just "decorating" their language with cacophonous expressions. Another notorious tendency is that, in a futile attempt to avoid the unpleasant sound of constant repetition, they tend to use synonyms... so instead of saying "the ball" they say ridiculous things such as "el cuero" (the leather, well, the ball is made of leather, you know...) or "el esférico" (the spherical one, I love this one). --Belchman (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I know that one. When there's a list of, say, 8 results being read out, they'll find 8 different ways of saying "defeated" - "Team A beat Team B; Team C defeated Team D; Team F went down to Team E; Team G demolished Team H; Team J was ouwitted by Team I; Team K smashed Team L; Team M just pipped Team N; and Team O had the goods over Team P". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view this as at all fancy or decorative — to me, it's a way to say "it's theoretically possible but quite unlikely". To go with the baseball example — let's say that there are two teams competing for a specific title. If one team wins every game in the first half of the season and the other loses every game, it's quite possible for them to end up with an equal record, since the losing team could win all remaining games and the winning team could lose all remaining games. I would use "mathematically" here because it's quite unlikely for this result to occur. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of that remains true whether the word "mathematically" is used or not. This is not quite the black-and-white thing that "unique" is. Either something is unique, or it's not, and you can't qualify it. However, something can be "just barely possible", or "very possible", or something in between. But all of those gradations of possibility are in a sense "mathematical". To use this word only in the case where it seems unlikely is a misuse. To another person, it may seem a lot more likely, so does it cease to be "mathematical" to that person? -- JackofOz (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See idiom. Sometimes the use of a term or word does not carry the same meaning as its dictionary definition. In this case, "mathematically possible" is an idiom for "no real chance based on past performance, even if techincally still possible to happen". --Jayron32 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindenting)

What Jack is missing is that when people say "possible", they usually mean that there is a significant probability. "Mathematically possible" is a way of saying that that's not the sense, that the word "possible" is being used in its strict sense as in mathematics. (And there's also an implication, because the speaker troubled to use the word, that there is only a small probability.) In short, it's a useful expression. "Mathematical(ly)" is used with a similar meaning with words like "exact" ("Okay, it's not mathematically exact, but pi = 3.1416 is good enough for our purposes here") and "logic(al)" (Dialogue from The Caine Mutiny (film), quoted from memory: "I proved it with mathematical logic".) --Anonymous, 17:00 UTC, August 22, 2009.

What commentators have done is to take "mathematically eliminated" or "mathematically impossible", which is a certainty, and flip it around to "mathematically possible". Baseball is a good example. If you're 9 games behind with 10 left to play, you've still got a theoretical/mathematical chance of winning, but you would have to win 10 in a row and the first place team would have to lose 10 in a row. Possible, but unlikely. The larger the margin gets, the smaller the probability is. The Mets lost a 7 game lead with 2 weeks to play a couple of years ago, and that was considered amazing - as with the Yankees catching the Red Sox in 1978 after being 14 games out with a month to play. However, if you're 1 game back with 2 to play, then you've got a very realistic chance, especially if you're playing against the first place team - which, by the way, describes exactly the final two games of the 1949 season, when the Yankees won 2 against the Red Sox and won the pennant. Looking at the MLB standings right now, the Nats are 27 1/2 games behind the Phils in the NL East, 29 out on the loss side, and have the worst record in MLB. Yet they still have a mathematical chance to win the division. But you could safely bet your life savings that it won't happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Everloving" as an oath

"Are you out of your everloving mind?" How did "everloving" come to be part of an oath? Always struck me as a strange expression. Maybe it's the same thing as when you substitute frick for fuck or shoot for shit (there's a word for that), but I can't think of what everloving is substituting for. Oh, wait a second: «everloving motherfucking»...? Maybe?--162.84.164.115 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]