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.

May 1

Hospitalised

People taken to hospital and admitted for treatment are "hospitalised".

But people admitted to an asylum are not "asylumised".
And people admitted to a clinic are not "clinicised".
And people sent to prison are not "prisonised" (although they are "imprisoned")
And children who go to school are not "schoolised".
And people who attend university are not "universitised".
And children who live in an orphanage are not "orphanagised".
And those who spend time in a monastery or a convent are not "monasterised" or "conventised".
And workers who spend a third of their lives in an office are not "officised".

What's special about hospitals? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is "institutionalise". I'm actually surprised here, the etymology, according to my source is hospital + ise. That doesn't give much scope for being special. [OOI, first use recorded is 1901.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only a matter of time before those words are in common use, unfortunately. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy game can be played with many parallel words but language has no requirement that a single word expansion must be immediately applied to any others that seem similar. Hospitalization is a word that was invented in the 20th century because it was needed for medical context communication: noting previous hospitalizations is a standard part of a medical history. While hospitalize is only a minimal improvement over admit to hospital, there is no single word equivalent for the noun hospitalization. alteripse (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian also has spitalizare, with the same meaning as hospitalization, and none of the others (except for instituţionalizare). Rimush (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian, which to my regret abounds with foreignisms, has the noun хоспитализация (hospitalizatsiya) and the verb хоспитализирам (hospitaliziram). Luckily, the others don't exist in English, otherwise we would have borrowed them as well! --Магьосник (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK this term is regarded as a frightful americanism. We usually say 'admitted' to hospital. Younger doctors with a viewing history that includes House and ER may use the term. Incidentally, are young Jewish boys taken to a 'circum'? Caesar's Daddy (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jewish males are traditionally taken to a Mohel (circumciser) where they are circumcised in the ritual called brit/bris milah (covenant [of] circumcision). As with KS's description below, an infant would be very unlikely and unwilling to do this to himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a (poor) joke for Chrissake!!! (learned explanations not required!!) Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hospitalized" has 4 syllables and "admitted to a/the hospital" has 8 syllables. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And? "I'm sorry, I really like you, but I've been thinking a lot and think it might be better if we spend some time apart" has 29 (?) syllables and "Go away" has 3. Doublegood! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is used because the second one could end up with someone being hospitalized. :) I'm talking about the British tendency to shorten things rather than lengthening them. Like pronouncing "forecastle" as "folks'll" instead of "forecastle". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these verbs are actions the person takes him or herself, so a transitive verb wouldn't really fit. (He was officised? By whom?) However, typically a physician admits a patient to hospital (the patient cannot hospitalize him or herself), so the physician is the one hospitalizing the patient. I'm not sure what admitting to a clinic would mean. Being sent to prison is the other notable action that is taken by a third party, and so it has its own verb as well (imprison). An asylum would also fit the pattern, though the term asylum isn't often used by doctors, at least not where I'm from. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry1250 makes a good point. We add -ise to 'hospital', but -alise to 'institution'. Odd. Probably part of the medical fraternity's tendency to always use a long word, and if one's not available, to make one up. Like the sesquipedelian monstrosity "symptomatology", which is used instead of what they actually mean, "symptoms".
Caesar's Daddy: I can see your objection to 'hospitalise', but the word isn't just about the fact of being admitted; it extends to the treatment provided there and the length of stay. One can be said to have been hospitalised for 3 months, whereas the admission part takes 15 minutes.
Knowledge Seeker's point is key: it's about actions taken by a 3rd party, so anything one chooses to do is not a case of being -ised. Kids who hate school, won't go without being forced, and have to be driven there to make sure they actually attend - this might be a case of being "schoolised". Otherwise, there's no real scope to make these words up.
Thanks, everyone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "at" in "symptomatology" is in the combining form from Greek. See http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/symptomatology.

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we add '-alise' to 'institution' or '-ise' to 'institutional'? I suspect it is the latter. Incidentally, in what way does 'symptomatology' have one and a half feet? --Tango (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be consistent, you're saying we add -ise to the adjective "hospital", not to the noun "hospital"? Interesting idea. Alternatively, if do we "-ise" the noun 'hospital', why not do the same with the noun 'institution' (> instutionise)?

'Symptoms' is readily available and has only 2 syllables; 'symptomatology' has 6 syllables and any use of it to mean 'symptoms', unless absolutely necessary, is inherently sesquipedelian, not to mention monstrous. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agreed with my point, though I think your characterization of the medical profession is somewhat unfair. (Bias: I am a physician, but perhaps this gives me a perspective into reasons beyond just wanting to create long words.) In the case of institutionalize, I don't even think the primary definition is the medical one. In any case, it wouldn't make any sense to add -alise to hospital, since it already ends in -al. I don't consider symptomatology and symptoms to be synonymous. If I were to use symptomatology, the sense I'm intending is perhaps "the symptoms or symptom complex typically associated with a disease". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Seeker (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that "hospitalalise" would be a dumb word. But adding '-alise' to institution looks like the person is being made "institutional", rather than simply being admitted to an institution. What's the -al- doing there? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci

The article refers to him as "Leonardo", but shouldn't his surname, "da Vinci", be used instead? In formal writing, a person's surname is supposed to be used to refer to him after his initial introduction. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Da Vinci" is not Leonardo's surname. It's not a name at all; it simply means "of Vinci", Leonardo's birthplace. The Leonardo da Vinci article details this here. --Магьосник (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like me. Were I a real person, my surname would not be "of Oz". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew we had bots working on Wikipedia but not an AI!! Are you the only non-real person on Wikipedia, Jack? Dismas|^(talk) 23:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heavens no! We've been here for millennia, watching, waiting .... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

In fact, this shows how extremely little Dan Brown knows about the topics he writes shoddy novels about. Paul Davidson (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juliusz Machulski went even farther in his comedy movie Vinci (about a painting by Leonardo). One of the characters in this film asks his friend, "Why do you always say Vinci and not da Vinci?" The answer: "What, you want me to say da like Russians?" — Kpalion^(talk) 02:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we have every reason to refer to him as "Leonardo of Vinci", just as we refer to Leonardo of Pisa, Augustine of Canterbury etc. On the other hand, we do talk about "Joan of Arc", when we should really be calling her by her actual name, Jeanne d'Arc, because "d'Arc" was her surname, rather than an indication of where she was from. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most "comlpex" ("complicated") Chinese character. Any suggestions?

By "complex" I mean "having too many strokes". I'll be more satisfied by an answer considering all four categories: 1. useful characters. 2. rare/ancient charactes. 3. simplified characters. 4. traditional characters. However, partial answers will be appreciated as well. 80.230.208.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

See Chinese character#Rare and complex characters. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most commonly cited example in the mainland is this one

; see the article biáng. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And have a look at the discussion page of biáng for some other suggestions. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you use

? It looks more impressive:) 80.230.208.205 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. 80.230.208.205 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nihongo translation please...

Hi. Um... what is the bunny girl on the right saying on this page? (Maybe you need to wait for the animation to load.) Thanks in advance... ^_^; Kreachure (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She says "The 84th Kasou Taishou will be aired on May 4. The special pre-program will be aired on May 2 in Kantō region. Don't miss them!" Oda Mari (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doumo arigatou gozaimasu. m(_ _)m Kreachure (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this before recently, and I answered it....... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about hospitals...

An American friend once asked me why English people go to hospital, whilst Americans go to the hospital. We also go to church and go to school but go to the theatre, the cinema and the pub. Can anyone explain this please? Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the same reason we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are similar discussions from the Archives (search each page for "hospital").

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of those are directly relevant (the only one that seems close is the "in bed" discussion). I don't have an answer to the original question, but I can offer some observations:

The two that can appear article-less in both varieties ("go to church" and "go to school") both refer to habitual activities with regular start and end times. (School is every weekday from something like 7:30-2:30; church is every Sunday morning. Of course, this varies depending on the person, but you know what I mean.) "go to hospital" seems to be an exception. Theater, cinema, and pub are things that are not habitual and regular (of course, they might be for some person, but culturally they are not) and perhaps don't have specific and regular start and end times.
The article-less ones have article-d equivalents ("go to the church" and "go to the school"), which emphasize the building rather than the activity. The article-d ones have no article-less equivalents (*"go to cinema", *"go to pub"). So it seems that "go to the..." is the 'default' for English, and the article is dropped in some culturally common activities that are discussed a lot.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is not always about habitual activities. If I worked in a jail, every single working day I would "go to the jail", but I would never "go to jail". But a person who is frequently imprisoned often "goes to jail". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could say the same about "go to court". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go home vs. go to the home (the old-folk's home). — kwami (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no intermediate option: go to home. Aside: It must be terribly confusing for elderly folk when told they're being taken from the home they've lived in for 65 years, and are being put into a home. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I will tell you what I was taught in my English classes. A noun of that kind without the definite article refers to the institution and a noun with the definite article refers to the particular building. Thus, go to hospital means "get/be hospitalised" (no matter in which hospital); go to prison means "get imprisoned" (no matter where); go to school means "be a student". On the other hand, go to the hospital means "physically go to the [particular] hospital [that is known from the context]" (no matter for what reason), analogously go to the prison/school. What would you, as native English speakers, say about this? --Магьосник (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be the general idea (cf. watch TV (a show) vs. watch the TV (make sure no-one takes it), go to bed (to sleep) vs. go to the bed (to say goodnight), etc.). But it's not 100%: it doesn't explain e.g. why we say 'to hospital' in the UK but 'to the hospital' in the US. I think a lot of it is just lexicalized, even if what you were taught was the original motivation. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are clubs: "I'll see you at the club" would be used in reference to a gambling/eating/drinking establishment, but "I'll see you at club" would be about a political/professional group. Nothing to do with how often one attends either of them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., I don't think "I'll see you at club" would ever be correct. I'm not even sure what exactly that signifies — perhaps the equivalent would be "I'll see you at the meeting" or just "I'll see you at the club". In response to the original question, you're asking why there's a difference between the way Americans and the English use the phrase differently? I doubt there's any identifiable reason — the dialects just evolved differently. (I am not a linguist!) — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UK) I'd say "I'll see you at music club", and at a stretch I'd say "I'll see you at club" if club had become the word we used to refer to a particular political/professional group. To say "I'll see you at the music club" would suggest either a particular location (as opposed to the activity), or that going to the music club wasn't something we usually did. Are these not options in the US? 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rjanag is onto it: "Go to [church, school, court, home, etc.]" indicates an activity more than a place, as such; "Go to the [hospital, pub, theater, office, etc.]" indicates a place. Regarding clubs, the phrase seems to be to "go clubbing" (not to be confused with activities concerning baby seals). "Go to hospital" or "In hospital" seems to be a British oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Go clubbing" is talking about a completely different sort of club than Jack and I were discussing with "I'll see you at club". That sort of club would be strongly indicated by "I'll see you at the club". As mentioned everywhere upthread, "In hospital" refers to the activity more than "In the hospital", and thus fits the pattern. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(US) "I'll see you at music club" sounds correct to me. "I'll see you at club" sounds a bit off, especially without the context to know that you're not talking about a club as in a disco. Rckrone (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies - seems to be the institution / location split plus a bit of "British oddity". Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

atweene

There's a word, an old English word, "atweene", that i can't find the meaning of. First I thought it may be an old version of 'between', but having now seen it in a number of other contexts I'm almost certain it's not that. Any help you could provide would be most helpful. Thank you. 86.177.7.170 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example of the context that you've seen it in? It might help us help you. Dismas|^(talk) 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "atween" or "atweene" means "between" as a preposition, an as an adverb it is "in between" or "between whiles". For the latter it quotes a couple of Edmund Spenser's works. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaching

What does the word "breaching" mean in the following sentence? "Only after raising the floor of one of the pools, breaching the whale, were trainers able to extract Brancheau from his mouth." The context may be found in paragraph 12 of the following article: Report Reveals New Details of Fatal SeaWorld Attack. I read the Wikipedia article on Whale surfacing behaviour, but I am still confused as to what the sentence in question actually means. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

When a sea creature breaks the surface, it is called "breaching". Usually that's a voluntary behavior. In this case, they raised the pool's floor to force the orca to the surface. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that they pushed the floor of the pool upwards ... and this caused the whale to leap out of the water into the air ... as in the first picture on the page entitled Whale surfacing behaviour? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think they're saying that they raised the floor far enough to force the orca to break the surface whether he wanted to or not. FYI, EO indicates "breach"[1] is derived from the same root as "break", and is a special case meaning "to make a hole in something", hence terms like breaching the surface, or the Enterprise suffering a "hull breach". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so here is my confusion. In this context, does "breach" mean: (a) that the whale is jumping up into the air (like the photo mentioned in my previous comment); or merely (b) that the head of the whale is simply above the line of water? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The reason they raised the floor was to retrieve the woman's body and render the orca mostly immobile, as I interpret it. I'm not really certain they used the term in the normal way, as it usually has to do with leaping out of the water. In this case, they pushed the orca out of the water by raising the floor under it (presumably the floor is flow-through). The question would be answered if you could see the video, but it's a "snuff film" in a sense, so it probably won't see the light of day for awhile, maybe not ever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess...I'd bet that they drained the pool to a very low level. Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article says they raised the floor. But it could be a combination of both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely people can't 'breach' a whale, the whale can breach the surface or it can 'breach' - period. But I have never seen the verb used like this. Coincidentally it is very close to 'beaching' which means originally to push a floating object onto a beach to gain stability, later it took on the meaning of being stranded for lack of water to float on. If the floor of the pool was raised(!?) it would beach the whale. So maybe it's just a typo. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the input. It was very helpful. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

May 2

Telephone (song) video

In the video for Telephone (song), in the scene in the diner, Tyrese Gibson gets up and slaps a woman on the butt. Her reaction is presented in Japanese script subtitles. Can somebody tell me what the subtitle says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.215.71 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be "One Piece! ( ワンピース! )" I don't know what it means in this context.--Cam (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that's what it says, however as to what it's supposed to mean here, I have no idea. The word in Japanese can either mean 'dress' (garment) or it can be the title of a Japanese manga/anime. This is all I can think of off the top of my head. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Classical Arabic and Egyptian Arabic

What is the difference between them and show me examples. Goat999 (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Egyptian Arabic article you linked to has a lot detail about that. What else would you like to know? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junk food

Are Americans as conscious or as alert to the ~~idea of~~ phrase "junk food", and their unhealthyness, as much as people are in the UK for example? I have to admit that even in the UK, a lot of people scoff down junk food without any qualms. Thanks 89.242.97.110 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are aware, it's just that some don't care, many of them similarly smoke despite knowing it's risks. Also, a lot of those who play the lottery seem to fall into the same group, who either don't believe in statistics or think that those probabilities don't apply to them. StuRat (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's "stealth" junk food, which is disguised as something healthy, like granola bars with extreme amounts of sugar, and, my favorite scam, "vitamin water". StuRat (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the right Reference Desk for this kind of question. Your question specifically asks about the "idea" of junk food rather than terminology. -- the Great Gavini 19:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is about how much the phrase "junk food" is used, and the meaning and affect it connotes, so I'd call it Language. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in America "junk food" is a commonly used and understood phrase. Rckrone (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum Sound Range for Human Language

Is there a minimum sound range for human language? By which I mean, certainly it's possible to construct a language without, say, using a "th" sound, or the vowel sound from "boot". But is there a point at which a language simply lacks enough phonemes to be intelligible? I can imagine a hypothetical language with just one sound that uses rhythm to communicate (like Morse Code) -- but would humans be able to use that as a replacement for daily language? I know this is kind of a weird question, but I'd appreciate any insights. 69.120.0.81 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus sub-question: Is there a human language that uses an especially small amount of phonemes? 69.120.0.81 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some notable examples of languages with small amounts of phonemes are Hawai'ian and Rotokas. Note, however, that there's quite a bit of allophony for these languages' phonemes. It may be the case that a language with less phonemes is possible but, by the accident of history, doesn't exist. There may be something standing in the way of a two-phoneme language developing naturally so the only way I can think of to test if it's usable is to develop it as an artificial language and then teach it to children in isolation to the exclusion of other languages. Good luck getting a grant for that! — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source says Rotokas is the language with the fewest phonemes, 11. However, the Rotokas language article says Pirahã has been claimed to have even fewer sounds. According to Pirahã language#Phonology, Pirahã can be understood to have as few as 10 phonemes, or as many as 13, depending on how one counts them. --Магьосник (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solresol words are made up of only seven different syllables. In some sense, they (the syllables) might be considered to be phonemes.

In the usual sense, the phonemes are five consonant sounds and four vowel sounds. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am inserting a parenthetical clarification. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

The main disadvantage of a low number of phonemes will be that words and sentences must then be longer, to convey the same amount of info. I can picture that, during a war with a people who use a more advanced language, this inability to communicate quickly on the battlefield could lead to defeat, and thus the adaptation of the more sophisticated language of the conquerers. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised at how little you need language to organize groups of people for tasks. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bring the tanks over here. Yes, the ones with the postmodern daisies painted in an off-yellow. Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

translation

en 1663, il épouse Thamar, sœur de Titia, autre fille de Constantin Ier de Moukhran, qu'il enlève à Léon III de Mingrélie (Lévant III Dadiani) et dont il doit divorcer en 1678, pour la rendre à son mari, dont : en 1679, il épouse à nouveau Thamar. Une fois veuve, Thamar se remarie dès 1683 avec Georges III Gouriéli, qui divorce de Daredjan, fille de Bagrat V. Thamar meurt en couche la même année. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Into English? If nobody more linguistically gifted does so in the next half hour, I'll do it with my school-girl French. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always give it a start at URLs like babelfish.altavista.com or translate.google.com ... If that isn't good enough, we're happy to help further. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QEII's Little Spy, can you at least sign your questions, just as a basic courtesy? Anyway, it's "In 1663 he married Tamar, sister of Titia, another daughter of Constantine I of Mukhran, whom he took from Leo III of Mingrelia (Levant III Dadiani) and whom he had to divorce in 1678, in order to return her to her husband" (then it lists their children in the French article where this is from). Then, "in 1679, he married Tamar again. When she was widowed, Tamar remarried, after 1683, George III Gourieli, who had divorced Daredjan, daughter of Bagrat V. Tamar died giving birth the same year." Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

APA Style

I'm looking for (if possible: sourced! thanks!!!) answers to any or all of the following questions:

1. In which order do you cite the following within the text, i.e. if they should all be in the same parentheses? Al-Masri, 2000; Al-Masri & Al-Masri (2000); Al-Masri et al. (2000); Al-Masri & Zinnowitz (2000) ... i.e. where does "et al." go alphabetically?

2. Usually, if you've already cited Al-Masri, Zinnowitz, & Johnson (2000a), the next time you'd cite them as "Al-Masri et al., 2000a" ... but what if now you need to cite both this article and Al-Masri, Zinnowitz, & Johnson (2000b)? "Al-Masri, Zinnowitz, & Johnson, 2000a, 2000b" - i.e. ignoring that you've already given the full citation of 2000a?

3. If you have already used Al-Masri, Goldstein, & Johnson (2000) in a) a footnote or b) an endnote... how do you cite him for the first time in the main text? As "Al-Masri et al., 2000" or writing all three names in full ("Al-Masri, Zinnowitz, & Johnson, 2000")?

4. Reference section: Which part of an online reference (i.e. a reference including a URL) needs to be incursive if the reference is not about a book?

5. Reference section: If you use an unpublished dissertation (i.e. you've read and cited from the full text), which has also been published in Dissertation Abstract International (DAI) - do you mention the DAI reference or not? If so, how?

6. Similarly to the above: How about newspaper articles (New York Times) which are also accessible online? Mention the online reference as if you had never used the original?

Thanks so much!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC) [expanded by Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

1. Frequently Asked Questions About APA Style: How do you cite two or more references within the same parentheses? says order the "et al" where the reference would fall alphabetically if written out in full.

6. Frequently Asked Questions About APA Style: How do you cite a newspaper article? implies that you should cite the version, archive or electronic, that you yourself used, but it doesn't say that outright so you might want to dig some more.

2.3.4.5. APA Style Help gives an email address to send questions you can't find in their tutorial, blog or FAQ. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

Purpose of colon in IPA?

Someone added colons to several IPA pronunciations (example) for articles on my watchlist a few days ago. Since I can't use IPA, I'm confused — what's the point of the colon? Does it separate syllables? I can't find a colon used in this way in any of the examples found at Wikipedia:IPA for English. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates a long segment. It's not technically a colon, but two small triangles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense; thanks. I can see the triangles when I change to 200% zoom. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Question hijack!)If it has to be so zoomed in to be able to discern, what's the point of it being triangles? Vimescarrot (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different people view screens at different sizes and with different fonts. Also, the text should be semantically correct even if the difference between two characters can't be discerned by the naked eye (for the sake of searching text, etc.). This is why we carefully use Cyrillic letters like а, е, ё, ѕ, і, ї, ј, о, р, с, and х when writing Russian, Macedonian, Ukrainian, and Serbian words at Wikipedia, even though the shapes of those letters are identical to the Latin letters a, e, ë, s, i, ï, j, o, p, c, and x. +An gr 09:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe VimesCarrot is referring to an oft-forgotten time back in our distant dark ages when screens and search engines didn't exist. The character in question was originally two triangles to differentiate it from a colon, presumably. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, although in practice, most phonologists can't be bothered to make the distinction, and regularly use the normal typewriter colon (:) to indicate length. In fact, I had to break myself of the habit of using : to indicate length when I started editing Wikipedia. +An gr 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a colon. However, it is not U+003A COLON (:), but rather U+02D0 MODIFIER LETTER TRIANGULAR COLON (ː). See here. 12.53.165.6 (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short for 'Jeremy'?

On Top Gear, James May will often call Jeremy Clarkson something that sounds like "Jesser" to my American ears. Am I hearing this correctly? Is it short for Jeremy? Dismas|^(talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not short Jeremy in the conventional way, that would be Jerry or Jem. Jezzer is a laddish (schoolboy) way of 'shortening' the name. In the UK people called Barry are occasionally referred to as 'Bazzer'. The most famous owner of this style of name was Paul Gascoigne who was widely known as 'Gazzer'. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I noted that Clarkson has 3 given names, whose initials are J. C. R. I wondered if he was called "Jay Cee Ar" when he was a kid, and that slurred into "Jesser". But if what you say is true, that's probably it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what he says is right (and it is), that's definitely it. These nicknames are also common in Australia, but we spell them differently: Bazza, Jezza, Gazza ... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we also do in the UK. Bazza (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, C. Daddy! I'll add this to the list of things, along with rhyming slang, that I don't understand about slang from that area of the world. Dismas|^(talk) 10:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing /r/ with /z/ seems to be common in the formation of British nicknames. Another example is the character of Gary in The Full Monty, who was called "Gaz". Other sounds can also be substituted for /r/; e.g. /l/ in the name Sally, which was originally a nickname for Sarah, though I wonder how many women called Sally nowadays are actually named Sarah. +An gr 10:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary -> Molly -> Polly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone named Jeremy will commonly be called Jez in England. The Oxford -er is kind of what's going on when Jez becomes Jezzer, note the mention of Gazza at the bottom of that article. Tinfoilcat (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Top Gear website spells it Jezza. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Incidentally, Jerzy is the Polish version of the masculine given name George. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I didn't know that. I always wondered what New Jerzy was named for. +An gr 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was named for Old Jerzy. Hope that helps. Oh, and do you know what rhymes with Orange? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bank on anyone pronouncing it "noo yezhy". :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Blorenge. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sporange is the usual answer. What rhymes with 'purple', though? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nurple, of course! Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you get from Charles to Chuck (US) and Chas (UK)? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Chuck, but I assume Chas is from the abbreviation "Chas." that used to be common, like "Wm." for "William". +An gr 10:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard Chazzer! Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Australian Sharons eventually get called Shazza. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd've thought they'd all eventually get called Sheila. +An gr 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's extraordinarily outdated, Angr. I have an aunt (dead; she'd be 90 now if she were still kicking) and a cousin (aged c. 65) named Sheila, but they're the only Sheilas I've ever known. Seriously. The only notable Australian Sheila on our list was born in 1916. It's as completely obsolete these days as Archibald, Ethel or Myrtle for actual people's names; and it's virtually never heard in reference to generic or random or anonymous women. It's part of the lore of how Australians express themselves and it may once have reflected reality, but certainly doesn't any more. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Regular parlance on Neighbours, though, 20 years or so ago..... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of rest my case. Those people and their counterparts on similar shows like Home and Away all seem terminally addicted to milkshakes, which in the real world have become more or less as obsolete in Australia as Sheilas and cobbers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

But you say that and you ruin the whole idea behind Sheilas' Wheels. "Australia is one of the only places in the world where one woman's name is an expression used to refer to all women." How could you bust the myth! :D Maedin\^talk 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My quest for Truth overrides all such petty considerations. If you caaan't haandle the Truth, you cannot come with me. In the interests of international fairness and acknowledging that not literally 100% of them are actually like this, I'm even prepared to ditch the image of the fat, camera-toting, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing, loud-mouthed, crass, vulgar, ignorant American tourist. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, that one's not true, either? :-/ Clearly time to rearrange my perceptions then! :) Maedin\^talk 22:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic name of the Mossad

I am looking at http://www.mossad.gov.il/Arabic/AboutTheMossad.aspx, which states the Arabic name of the Mossad. I cannot tell which string of characters is the official Arabic name of the Mossad. Which one is it? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

الموساد (which includes the definite article al-). +An gr 19:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) الموساد --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have clarified. What about the full name of the Mossad (in English it is "Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations")? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for that you'll need someone who actually knows Arabic, instead of someone (like me) who merely recognizes the letters of the alphabet! :-) +An gr 19:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Arabic: الموساد للاستخبارات والمهمامّ الخاصّة. It's interesting that it's still called "al-Mossad", since "mossad" is a Hebrew word, not Arabic. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm trying to transliterate it, but my Arabic is extremely rusty and I'm not sure how the word for "operations" is pronounced. The rest of it is "al-Mossad" or I guess more accurately "al-mūsād li'l-istikhbārāt wa'l-(mahmāmm?) al-khāṣṣa." Adam Bishop (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Adam :) - I added it to the Mossad article. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that one word looked so unusual is because it is apparently a misspelling on the official Mossad website. There are other Google results with a spelling that looks like a proper word, and is actually in the dictionary: الموساد للاستخبارات والمهام الخاصة, in which case the word is "مهام", "mahāmm". Adam Bishop (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Dutch?

I can almost understand this! http://www.mindz.com/plazas/Getting_Things_Done_%28GTD%29/blog Is it mainstream Dutch, or perhaps Fresian which I understand is closer to English? Thanks 92.28.253.63 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Dutch. Xenon54 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic names of some Israeli subjects

Here is another request for Arabic names of Israeli subjects

This time there is no official website for the official names. This question needs someone good at Arabic.

The following need their Arabic names:

Israeli cuisine
Eilat Airport
Ovda Airport
Sde Dov Airport (for this name and the Dov Hoz Airport name)
Arkia Israel Airlines
Israir Airlines

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

مطبخ إسرائيلي is Israeli cuisine. Arabic has no article about it, but it is listed at their Middle Eastern cuisine article. Based on other airport articles the airports should be easy; مطار إيلات is Eilat. We'll have to find Arabic spellings of the other places and names before we can figure out the rest (I'll keep looking when I have more time). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that اوفـدا‎ مطار is Ovda Airport. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

مطار سدي دوف is Sde Dov Airport - they didn't bother translating "field" into Arabic. There is even an Arabic article, it's just not interwikied anywhere. There is one Google result (from an Israeli government site) for Dov Hoz Airport, مطار دوف هوز. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent, the Arabic article about Ben Gurion airport lists some airlines: خطوط إسرإير is Israir Airlines and خطوط أركيا is Arkia Airlines. That didn't take as long as I thought it would. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for pointing them out to me - I added the Arabic, and I interwikied the Arabic article. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colon

What is the proper usage of this punctuation mark ':'? please give me examples of correct usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.230.67 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Colon (punctuation). Algebraist 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

Specially and especially

I don't understand the difference between the above two words?? --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'specially is a truncated form of especially. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be that, but typically, especially is the adverb from especial, while specially is the adverb from special. These words are related, but are not quite synonymous. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but no one says "especial". Likewise, no one says "specially" in its 'special' sense ("in a special way", as in "I sang the song really specially"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes special is used. Furthermore, what is the difference between special and especial. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 04:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "special" is used; the only words I said are not usually used are "especial" and "specially".

As for your question, see wikt:special and wikt:especial on our sister project, Wiktionary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Buy our product in these specially marked packages." Is that really a contraction of "especially"? I don't think so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I hadn't thought of that. Especially is typically used to modify adjectives ("he's especially tall"), not verbs. so I guess this is a legitimate, albeit rather fossilized, use of specially.

But I still maintain that people don't really say especial. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anyone say "especial", aside from a native speaker of Spanish trying to say "special" in English, but that's a separate issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "specially" is not all that "fossilized". Here's a cereal ad that uses it,[2] in fact cereal is what I had in mind when I brought it up. So I wonder if it's used for anything other than advertising? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(That's what I meant by "fossilized"—I can't think of any other contexts where it's used productively. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you google ["specially marked"] and then ["specially"] by itself, you'll get tons of references, many of them, though not all, connected with advertising; and some of them, though by no means all, being used where "especially" would make more sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To further muddy the waters, here are EO's lookups on "special" and "especial": [3] [4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler's says "(E)special(ly). The characteristic sense of the longer adjective and adverb is per-eminence or the particular as opposed to the ordinary, that of the others being limitation or the particular as opposed to the general". The first example given is "He is my especial friend" which would mean "bestestest friend ever and ever" whereas "special friend" merely means a good friend, perhaps one of a number of good friends. It depends a lot on context but "especially prepared" is most likely wrong as something might be specially prepared for a situation but the preparations probably are not totally unique and unprecedented while "a specially critical situation" sounds really not as critical as an especially critical one. Fowler's notes though that special is largely taking the place of especial. meltBanana 12:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Especially prepared" could easily be correct, depending on the context. Maybe someone packed way more stuff than necessary for an overnight trip or for camping in the backyard—he's not just prepared, but especially prepared. Specially prepared, on the other hand, has a sense more like "I prepared this meal just for you", although personally I don't hear it used like that and I certainly don't hear "specially critical situation". I think these are dictionary words that no one (at least no one in my dialect) uses. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the specially + verb construction is actually a misused word in place of specifically. As in, "The cereal boxes with the free toy inside have been specifically marked to note the giveaway." kind of thing. Matt Deres (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That conveys no more information than "The cereal boxes with the free toy inside have been marked to note the giveaway" - so 'specifically' is tautologous here. But 'specially' has a role to play, particularly in a marketing context. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take "specially marked" to be equivalent to "marked uniquely", i.e. marked differently from other boxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all OR, but if someone told me, "I made this meal especially for you.", I would understand it to mean that they made the meal with me, as opposed to anyone else, in mind. If they told me, "I made this meal specially for you", I would understand it to mean that they made the meal in a special manner, and the meal is for me. In the second case, you could just as easily put "specially" in front of "made"; if you put "especially" in front of "made", it would be odd, but I guess it would mean that someone made, rather than bought, the meal, and you would probably hear them emphasize "made".

Specialness is something inherent to an entity or process. The fallacy of "special pleading" occurs when someone argues that x, which is a member of X, should not be subject to rules that apply to X because of a special property of x sets it apart from the other members of X. Especialness, on the other hand, requires a relation between the entity or process and something else that is unique or distinctive or noteworthy. Often, the something else is implicit, as in "I especially want to visit Paris" (as opposed to other places, or, if "visit" is emphasized, as opposed to living there or changing planes there). So, while "I made this meal specially" makes sense, "I made this meal especially" doesn't make sense, unless "this" in emphasized and what's meant is that the speaker made this particular meal rather than some other meal, and in this case, even, it is unidiomatic. If the speaker made several meals but devoted extra effort to this meal, then he or she could say, "I worked hard on this meal especially"; if he or she said, "I worked hard on this meal specially", it would sound odd, maybe even ungrammatical, and would, to me at least, be interpreted to mean that he or she worked hard on the meal and the work was special (in some other way than what "worked hard" indicates).--Atemperman (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my ears especially is a cutesy version of specially. Specially is for standard use. Especially is for use when one wants to add flair to the word. But please correct me if I am wrong. I did no research. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong. In my idiolect at least, I can say "X is especially good" but certainly not *"X is specially good". Like I said above, especially goes with adjectives (for me at least), and specially with verbs if anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. So, I guess there are areas of overlap and areas in which only one of those two words will do.

I made this cake especially for you.

I made this cake specially for you.

I think in the above two instances either word will do. So I would think the above usage illustrates an area of overlap. To add flair to the statement, one would choose especially. Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally hear a difference in those sentences.

"I made this cake especially for you." - I made this cake for you in particular, putting in an effort so that you might have cake.

"I made this cake specially for you." - I made this cake in a special way, for you. This would be an odd thing to say.

So I would end up agreeing with Rjanag, since the uses of "specially" mostly do not apply to my life. But I would probably parse "specially" in the second sentence as intending "especially", if that was what you seemed likely to mean. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a professional opinion, read page 863 of Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage. jnestorius^(talk) 17:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German question

I came across this kind of German sentence:

A muß als B kürzer sein.

The intended meaning is "A must be shorter than B". But does it mean that? To my ear, it sounds like it means instead "as B, A must be shorter" and the correct way would be A muß kürzer sein als B. Am I correct here? JIP | Talk 05:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it does mean "A must be shorter than B", but it's definitely an unusual word order. The expected word orders are A muss kürzer als B sein and A muss kürzer sein als B. But despite its unusual word order, it doesn't wind up meaning anything different. +An gr 05:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the sentence were Latin, this would be a most expected word order. I know it's pretty improbable, but could the author of the sentence have been somehow influenced by Latin? --Магьосник (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A big mistake of mine. A Latin sentence would probably look something like this: A quam B brevior esse debet, which when translated word by word into German, gives A als B kürzer sein muß. Anyone, please correct me if I'm talking nonsense! --Магьосник (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite agree with Angr. Consider the following variation: "Ihr müsst als Polizisten besser sein" versus "Ihr müsst besser sein als Polizisten."

To me, the second version means "You must be better than policemen", while the first one can mean something like "As policemen, you must be better" meaning "In your function/position as policemen, you must be better (than normal civilians)" or "Being policemen, you must be better." So, I guess "A muß als B kürzer sein" can also mean "When A is perceived/acting as B, it must be ~~better~~ shorter (than when it isn't)." No references for the moment, but this is what my gut tells me. I would certainly pick A muß kürzer sein als B or A muß kürzer als B sein to lose ambiguity. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're a native speaker and I'm not so I'll defer to your judgment. I do think it depends a lot on what A and B are, though. If B is something that A can't act as / be perceived as, then the sentence probably would be interpreted as a weird word order meaning "A must be shorter than B". But if A can act as / be perceived as B, then you're right. And I'd certainly interpret "Ihr müsst als Polizisten besser sein" as you did (either "As policemen, you must be better [than civilians]" or "As policemen, you must be better [than you have been up till now]"). +An gr 10:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if I wanted to express the "as policemen" phrase unambiguously, I'd write "Als Polizisten müsst Ihr besser sein." The word order suggested by JIP should perhaps be avoided altogether. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, native speaker here. A muß als B kürzer sein would mean something like A must be shorter when used as B or As B, A must be shorter. Might make sense on some kind of assembly manual, like, trim part A to not exceed size nnn when used in place of B. ;-)

A muß kürzer sein als B would be the most common way to phrase A must be shorter than B. -- 78.43.60.58 (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed with those saying it means "(perceived/used) as B, A must be shorter." BTW, in that meaning it's a very common word order (compare Sluzzelin's example), and I daresay it's even more common than introducing the sentence with "als B" (unless that aspect should be stressed of course, but that's another topic). It only sounds odd because it uses the placeholders A and B instead of "real words."

There is no way this sentence means "A is shorter than B" (= comparison) in German. Don't ask me for a grammatical reason, but German doesn't allow to express a comparison of A and B with that word order. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this some more and going through other examples, I think "als" has to follow the comparative adjective ("kürzer als") in order to to mean "than" in the comparative sense. It doesn't have to follow immediately ("kürzer [...] als" is possible too), but it cannot precede the adjective. (I'm sure there is a more linguistically or grammatically sound way of phrasing this). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Als Martin bin ich kleiner, als Johann nicht. Is that grammatical in the meaning "I'm shorter than Martin but not than Johann"? +An gr 08:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I'd understand it as "When I am (being) Martin, I am shorter/smaller. When I am Johann, I am not." It could be said by an actor referring to different roles, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dual meaning of "als" ("than"/"as") makes this a bit trickier. I'm trying to come up with an analogous example where the prepositioning would simply render the sentence ungrammatical, without any other meaning, but so far I couldn't think of anything. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was hoping it would be possible to topicalize "als Martin" by fronting it (the way you can topicalize a direct object by fronting it, e.g. Martin mag ich gerne, Johann nicht), but I guess it isn't. My nonnative intuition of German is good enough to know that *Martin bin ich kleiner als, Johann nicht is ungrammatical. +An gr 09:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now I must ask you. Is the following sentence grammatical in English:

"Than Martin(,) I am shorter."

? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but "Martin, I am shorter than" is. +An gr 10:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, wow! I wouldn't have guessed, though now I can sort of hear it with a strong emphasis on Martin (As in your example "Martin, I am shorter than, but not Johann.") Learned something new, thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 10:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To topicalize "als Martin", you'd have to say "Kleiner als Martin bin ich, kleiner als Johann nicht" (you'd differentiate between topicalizing "kleiner" and topicalizing Martin by stressing the one or the other). I'm not entirely sure about the rule for that, but Sluzzelin seems to be right about "als" having to follow "kleiner" -- Ferkelparade π 11:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if you use denn to mean "than" rather than als? How do things like "A muss denn B kürzer sein" or "Denn Martin bin ich kleiner, denn Johann nicht" sound? I know that using denn in the meaning of "than" sounds pretty odd anyway except in ...denn je and when what's being compared already starts with als (e.g. "Putin ist erfolgreicher als Premierminister denn als Präsident"), but putting that aside, are these sentences better than their equivalents with als, since denn can't mean "as"? +An gr 11:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for me to say what it sounds like, because of the unorthodox usage of "denn" (as already explained by yourself). Still, in this case at least there is no room for a different interpretation, and I would understand it the way you intend it to be understood. You might be onto something. I'd appreciate input by the other native speakers who commented in this thread. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my English is not very good, I hope you'll understand what I mean: "A muss denn B kürzer sein sounds very odd to me." It's possible to say "A muss kürzer denn B sein." In my opinion the function of "als" differs: A ist kürzer als B (that would be "A is shorter than B"): "als" is part of the comparison, you have two things and you compare them. In "A ist als B kürzer" it is not because you can also say "A ist kürzer", "als B" just defines A and we have no second thing to compare. If we have more information the sentence can be: "A als B ist kürzer als C." Maybe this example can show what I mean: "Martin ist als Feuerwehrmann sehr erfolgreich." > "Martin ist als Feuerwehrmann erfolgreicher" and we could add "als Thomas", "als in seinem vorherigen Beruf" etc.--84.140.29.100 (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Sluzzelin's "1.) adjective in the comparative 2.) (optional extra stuff) 3.) comparative particle (= als, denn)" rule. :o) It's true, the whole mess is due to "als" having two meanings. Usually "Hans is größer als Peter" [sorry, couldn't resist the English stereotype about German names] would always be understood to be mean "Hans is taller than Peter," but with specific context it could also be "Hans - being/as Peter - is taller." As "denn" doesn't have that possibility, the sentence "Hans denn Peter ist größer" would be understood as "Hans > Peter"... but it is not grammatically correct; even "denn" has to follow the adjective in the comparative. Those unflexible German speakers...

Angr, thanks for pointing out the flexibility in English. Yet my sense is that "Martin, I am shorter than" would not be considered official standard English. Sort of like an ellipsis that you can use in ordinary speech, even find in a novel, but that everyone agrees is not a complete sentence. (In fact, the "Martin I am shorter than" may actually be an ellipsis?) But I may be very wrong here. So what's your sense?

Finally, wondering if German has any alternative to the Martin structure, I came up with an odd thing: "(...) Da ist Egon größer." [likewise: "Egon ist da größer"] Obviously "da" is not a comparative particle and can be used in tons of non-comparative sentences, simply as a reference to what's been talked about. Yet it seems to fulfill a very similar function here: It indicates who he is taller than (i.e. he's taller than the others mentioned "there"/"da"). I can't yet quite figure out what I'm trying to say, but is there something like, um, words having the "function" of referring to "objects of comparison"? No, cross that out... Just asking: What's "da" in this context? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

people speaking hindi alone

May i please know how many people speak Hindi ALONE (exception: hindi + english) and what percentage of the people speak Tamil alone (exception: tamil + english) or Tamil including other languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.50.214 (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear what you are looking for. Do you want numbers of people who speak only Hindi or only Tamil as monolinguals? Or do you want numbers of people who speak Hindi as monolinguals as well as those who speak Hindi and English, but no other language; and those who speak Tamil as monolinguals as well as those who speak Tamil and English but no other language? A further area of uncertainty is how broadly you want to define Hindi. Do you want to include only those who speak Standard Hindi, or do you want to define Hindi more broadly to include speakers of all variants based on Khari boli or Hindustani (which would include Urdu)? Or, do you want to include people who speak any of the dialects often considered dialects of Hindi, even though many of these are much further from Standard Hindi than is Urdu? It is difficult to get reliable numbers just for speakers of Hindi as a native language because of differences in the definition of Hindi. I am not aware of any statistics on those who speak Hindi (however it is defined) alone, or just Hindi and English. Nor am I aware of such statistics for Tamil, or just Tamil and English. The statistics that exist give 1) numbers of people who speak either of these languages as a first or native language and 2) total numbers that speak either of these languages, including those whose first or native language is not either of these languages. Both sets of numbers would include people who speak other languages in addition Hindi or Tamil without identifying what those other languages are, so that we can't isolate those who speak only English in addition to Hindi or Tamil. Marco polo (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is asking about:

How many people can speak only, Hindi or Hindi+English, no other formulas.
How many percentage of people (out of total world's population) can speak only, Tamil or Tamil+English, no other formulas.

--Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 09:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know the Total number of people speaking hindi (either alone or combined with english but should not include other languages). Total number of people speaking tamil (either alone or combined with ANY language). I think it is clear now. Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.50.214 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 125.21.50.214. The question is actually complicated to answer, because it turns out statistics on second languages are hard to find. I can get you started, though.

* Our article on Hindi says Hindi is the first language for 490 million people and the second language for between 120 and 225 million people. There are slightly different figures given in the Census of India article. It's going to be difficult to find any statistics that get to the level of detail needed to figure out how many of these speak no other language or only English.

* Our article Tamil language says 66 million people speak Tamil as a first language (again the Census of India article has a slightly smaller number). You will need to keep looking, however, for statistics on how many people also speak Tamil as a second language.

So, very very roughly, your answer is going to be probably less than 500 million for Hindi and more than 65 million for Tamil. You might want to check back for a couple of more days in case anyone else has better luck searching. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetics

What's the difference between a word that's written in phonetics /like.this/ or [like.this]? Chris DHDR 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it's a distinction between a broad transcription (virgules) and a narrow transcription (brackets). See Phonetic transcription#Narrow versus broad transcription and International Phonetic Alphabet#Brackets and phonemes. Deor (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is between phonological underlying representations and surface pronunciations. For example, the underlying representation of bank is /bænk/, but it's pronounced as [bæŋk]. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, slashes are also used to indicate broad phonetic transcription and brackets narrow phonetic transcription, so that bank is broadly /bæŋk/ and narrowly [b̥æ̃ŋkˀ] or the like. +An gr 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make it more confusing, broad phonetic transcription can also be given between brackets. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. The difference is not set in stone—people adopt ad-hoc transcription conventions for the task at hand. When in doubt, it's always best to check what the standard in a particular article is (in the cases where it's important, the author will usually mention it early in the article with something along the lines of "in this article I use square brackets for X and slashes for Y). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One significant difference: phonemic transcription (between '/') is meaningless outside the context of a specific language (or a specific dialect of a language), because phonemes are defined only in that domain. Phonetic transcription (between '[' and ']') is in principle independent of language, though in practice one might ignore phonetic details which are not relevant to the matter under discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

active voice passive voice?

In a MA thesis, a student who is writing in english as a second language, writes the following:

"It is investigated which measures both parties agreed upon to resolve their conflict. Furthermore it is analyzed to what extent these measures have in fact been implemented. Finally it is explored in what ways unresolved conflict issues continue to impact the lives of Nicaraguans today."

This seems awkward to me in regular english, but I'm not sure how to explain what is wrong grammatically, or how to correct the text. Any suggestions? Thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.238.113 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of an "impersonal passive", which is fine in Latin, but a little bit dubious in English (especially when it calls attention to itself as a kind of constantly-repeated stylistic tic). AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is awkward but I think not quite "wrong". I agree with AnonMoos that this kind of structure should be avoided and certainly not repeated. I would recast this as "This thesis investigates ... It analyzes ... Finally, it explores ...". The student has probably been told to avoid first-person and second-person pronouns in academic writing, but hasn't been shown the kinds of structures that work. Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Marco polo. Rather than "it is..." and a past tense - which is a construction I found occurred a lot in the North of England - use the present tense, active voice. (No doubt someone with more current grammatical expertise will be along to tell you the exact terminology, but hey I finished teaching English 15 years ago!) --TammyMoet (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Marco polo says, this construction is not actively incorrect, but does seem more awkward than it need be. Some academic establishments are, or used to be, quite rigid about required styles in theses and similar papers. If the one concerned here still insists on the passive voice, one (of several) minimal but more natural way in which the passage could be recast more naturally is as follows:

"The measures that both parties agreed upon to resolve their conflict are investigated. Furthermore, the extent to which these measures have in fact been implemented is analyzed. Finally, the ways that unresolved conflict issues continue to impact the lives of Nicaraguans today are explored."

It might be useful to consult some recent past theses on similar topics in the establishment's library to see what has lately been deemed acceptable. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is a style issue which will depend on what subject or publication you're writing for. In technical writing, the impersonal passive is sometimes required as standard. A thesis is clearly not supposed to be written in "regular English", but rather in the accepted style of the people who will be marking it. It is entirely possible that this is the recommended style: if this is an excerpt from the summary, I'd think this style was quite appropriate. I'd check what guidance they had been given before recommending changes: they surely have a style guide, if only a couple of pages in a larger booklet. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of style, this sentence is questionable at best; I'm not even sure if it's grammatical to use an expletive with this verb. We can say "it is known that...", "it is said that...", "it is shown that...", etc., but not *"it is eaten that...", *"it is played that...". In generative terms, this is explained by positing that only verbs that take a CP (or proposition) as their argument can be in this construction. Investigate is only marginal in that sense (the only way I can use it grammatically like that is "this experiment investigates whether X can Y". rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is presumably a thesis submitted to satisfy the requirements for a degree. I suppose that someone at the institution where the thesis will be filed could have created a requirement that theses must use this kind of awkward and opaque structure (though I doubt it). If so, the requirement is deplorable, but it will have to be met. However, at the institution where I completed my postgraduate degrees, my committee would not have accepted such contorted prose. Marco polo (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What seems most likely to me is that it's a thesis from a foreign institution in the department where they write their theses in English. I see this sort of thing a lot in, for example, psychology or neuroscience (or English departments) in Taiwan where part of the exercise is to write your thesis in English; in many of those the committee also is composed of non-native speakers, so some errors slip by. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course, when I say "foreign" I mean "not in the US, UK, Australia, or another English-speaking country". Bad, I know, but you know what I mean... rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Normally, I'd have said the tortured structure was a clear error, and unlikely to be mandatory. However, notice that each sentence has clearly been arranged to bring a highly specific verb ("investigated", "analysed", "explored") to the front in the same form. Given the particular verbs used, it seems plausible that this is a required style: this should be checked before suggesting they change it. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Ask what's common in the field. Fields differ in whether they allow first person usage, and yes, some may consider "weird" structures normal (jargon). 2.) Context and tense: There's a difference (I believe) between "It is analyzed" (= this study does it; there's actually an identifiable actor) and "it has been analyzed" (= some other people out there have done so; you describe the general situation, not stressing the actor(s)). At least in my own field, the latter seems to be quite common. Maybe if you point out that difference, the author of the thesis will understand when to avoid such structures and when it's okay? Just my 2 Nicaraguan centavos... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this is not a second-language issue but simply the author trying to avoid using the word "I," which he/she may have been told does not belong in academic writing. The use of the passive voice would sound just as awkward in Spanish, I think, assuming that's the student's native language. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

Countries ending with -stan

What's with all the countries ending with -stan? (Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) --75.33.219.230 (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the answer you need by taking a look at the -stan article. --Магьосник (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an excellent article on which to land. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flowery toast

"At large banquets characteristic of the time, flowery toasts were proposed to the president, to the Republic, and to its democratic ideals. ..."

Somebody please tell me the meaning of "flowery toast". Thank you in advance for your kindness.210.66.171.178 (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Ann[reply]

In this context, flowery means elaborate or grandiloquent, using very pompous language. A flowery toast thus means an elaborate, verbose, or grandiloquent toast. Intelligentsium 02:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need an even simpler answer than that: the toast use a great many more words than were necessary. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And remember that a toast here means a speech, not food. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that a flowery toast uses more words than necessary, but I think not just any words. The toast would use lots of flattering, positive, and praising words. The toast would also aim to be pretty, like flowers. (However, to our ears it might sound more bombastic than pretty.) Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all of your clear answers.210.66.171.178 (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Ann[reply]

On Wikipedia, we try not to use "puffery" or "peacock terms", which are along the same lines. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://eupa.ca/

The comment on May 04, 2010 mentions "boat race". Is this some kind of clique? In any case, what is its etymology and meaning?174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Boat race (game). caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Latin verses New Latin

Is "Old Latin" and "New Latin" that much different? Is there other versions of Latin? What was the Latin last used? Approximately when were these various versions of Latin in use?--LordGorval (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on the links in the table below to read about the various periods into which Latin usage has been divided. You may want to start with History of Latin. Deor (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dost thou know a website whence Shakespearian prose cometh forth from the tongue of our times?"

Does anyone know where there is a good translating program that translates modern english into old english, like Shakespearian? Google Translate does not have that and I couldn't find any websites that actually have such programs. Also, which do you think would be the easiest to learn: Kanji, Katakana, or Hiragana? 64.75.158.193 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearean English is not Old English. It's Early Modern English. As for katakana, hiragana, and kanji, which one being the easiest to learn would largely depend on you, your learning methods, and your reasons for learning. If you are learning because you want to learn Japanese, I'd do them all, because you'd have to in the end anyway. Generally, though, the path taken would be to learn by concentrating on hiragana, katakana, and kanji in that order (but of course, doing them all to varying degrees at the same time). Some people, though, learn katakana first, because this is used for foreign loanwords in Japanese (as well as writing your own name) and would therefore make it easier for you to read stuff on a menu (in a restaurant serving non-Japanese food). As I say, though, it depends on your reasons for learning. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what an abysmal job machine translation services translating into Modern English do, I wouldn't trust the results of one designed to translate into either Early Modern English or Old English, even if one exists. +An gr 13:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Angr, I think we should be thankful that machine translation services are so bad. In fact, they do a great job - keeping some of us IN a job! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I wasn't thankful they do such a bad job translating. After all, translating English for a living is the only thing keeping me from having to (shudder) teach English for a living! +An gr 13:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KageTora -- Katakana and Hiragana both have only about 50 basic characters each, and in modern usage, each kana or kana+modifier combination has one constant phonemic sound value (with very limited exceptions); while with kanji, basic Japanese literacy requires knowing almost 2,000 of them, and many kanji can have multiple radically divergent sound values. I really don't know of any reason why learning kana wouldn't be vastly easier than learning kanji for English speakers (unless they have already learned to read Chinese)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, AnonMoos, but which part of "concentrating on hiragana, katakana, and kanji in that order" and, in fact, the rest of my post do you find confusing? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The part where you said "As for katakana, hiragana, and kanji, which one being the easiest to learn would largely depend on you, your learning methods, and your reasons for learning". I really don't think that's true -- kana is much easier to learn than kanji for ordinary typical English speakers. AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that single sentence in isolation does not represent the posting as a whole. I then went on to recommend an order that most people generally follow when learning. I decided that it was unnecessary to say that it was easier that way, as it's common sense - why would most people follow a more difficult pattern? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I ask a question, then wait for a day for an answer, and I almost get an argument! You guys are ~~awesome!~~ quite entertaining. Anyway, I guess I will take katakana and hiragana lessons first, then learn kanji later, based on your advice, because I do believe that kanji was used in early Japan while the other two are mainly used to add new characters to translate foreign words, and is therefore slightly easier to a degree for english speaking people, correct? 64.75.158.193 (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all pretty complicated. (And take whatever I say with a grain of salt, as I'm not a Japanese speaker, just an enthralled onlooker.) Katakana are mainly used for adopting foreign words, but hiragana are used for native stuff; particularly, hiragana are used for function words and little grammatical bound morphemes—the kanji writing system was adopted from Chinese, but Chinese doesn't have many of these things, so there was no way to write them with kanji—and hiragana are also sometimes used as "pronunciation guides" written above difficult kanji. But in real life it's not so clear-cut, things get mixed around. In particular, with the increase of computers, PDAs, cell phones, etc., kanji are becoming more widely used, since you don't have to remember how to write everything by hand (the computer does most of the work for you); I have heard that older Japanese people sometimes complain that young peoples' writing looks "dark" because it has so many kanji (which generally have more strokes than kana). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Steadily munches on salt as I read your post) Katakana is for foreign words, hiragana is for simplifying native stuff, and kanji is for just about everything, as it was developed from the Chinese. Okay, so since everything is pretty much mixed up nowadays, it would be best to learn them all anyway. I guess I'll just take the lessons carefully step by step. As for the Shakesparian translator, I might as well do some rough yet reasonable changes by my own without putting random -ths, -ests, thys, thous, etc. all over the place. Any tips on doing that? Thanks guys, or "arigato gozai masu", or maybe even "I bow down to thy noble and trustworthy words, fellow kinsmen". Heh heh =] 64.75.158.195 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I recommend just reading a bit of Shakespeare and other fairly contempory texts - the Book of Common Prayer is rather a good one. You'll soon get the hang of it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not true that "kanji was used in early Japan"; at least, not for Japanese. Kanji were used for writing Chinese, and later for something that the Japanese thought was Chinese, but wasn't really; but pure Japanese was written in various kinds of kana - purely phonetic symbols (though they had their origin in kanji). Only later did the bizarrely complicated Japanese system of kanji and okurigana arise. See Japanese writing system#History of the Japanese script. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge: I have read many Shakespeare novels and I still can't get the hang of it! Heh... 64.75.158.197 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare didn't write novels.--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or plays or sonnets either, but we'd better not have a debate about that here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Table about Concerns

In this table there are items where I am not sure what they include: Only concerns about things which have already begun, or also concerns about things which are likely to happen later, and which the person in question is afraid of.

On the second page, under the title "End-of-life Concerns", I find the item "Inadequate pain control or concern about it". I assume that here they found it necessary to mention both: inadequate pane control which a person has already experienced, and inadequate pain control which a person may experience later but which the person has not yet experienced. Did I get it right?

Another item is "losing autonomy". There they did not make such a difference. Do you think that here "losing autonomy" refers only to persons who already have begun to loose their autonomy, or do you think that this includes persons who have not yet begun to loose their autonomy but who have reasons to believe that they will begin to loose their autonomy soon?

Then there is the item "Losing control of bodily functions". Do you think this includes any bodily functions which a person wishes to control? For example the bodily functions which enable him to move a cup of tea to his mouth without spilling any tea? Or do you think it is a euphemism for "beginning to become incontinent"?

Thanks in advance. -- Irene1949 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is generally a euphemism for incontinence. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, any reference to "bodily functions", in any context, is most likely to be about the elimination of waste products, rather than, say, the use of the hands to shuffle cards, or even the use of the genitals to have sex. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers to my last question.
There are still my other questions:
Do you think that the item "losing autonomy" includes concerns which are only concerns about the future,
or do you think it is only about losing autonomy which has already begun? -- Irene1949 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that table, "losing autonomy" is the same as the other concerns in that section: it refers to losing autonomy more and more as time passes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR here: I know a gentleman who has Lewy body dementia, and has lost control of almost all of his bodily functions. He is still concerned about what will happen when he loses autonomy, when to most of us his autonomy is already lost. So the answer to your question will probably depend on who you're asking. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it’s a bit difficult for me to explain what I want to know. I asked my questions because I want to translate some items of that table into German, and I want my translation to be as exact as possible. My difficulty is about the exact meaning of the combination of “concerns” and “losing”. As, if the losing is in the future, I’d use the German word “Angst” (“fear”), while I’d use other German words if the losing has already begun. Can you help me to see whether it is a losing in the future or a losing which has already begun, or both? -- Irene1949 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A E I O U

There are, in English, some words that contains all five vowels: a, e, i, o, u (I know that sometimes Y and W are considered vowels too). For example: abstemious, arterious, facetious, anemophilous, sacrilegious (and, if you consider Y, facetiously)... Now, I know that the shortest possible English all-vowels word is eunoia. In French is oiseau (bird), In Italian aiuole (flowerbeds). Do you know their equivalents in other languages (Dutch, Swedish, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Polish, Hungarian...)? --151.51.60.165 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

facetious, abstemious, arsenious, abstentious, bacterious, education, sequoia, duoliteral, arterious, subcontinental, annelidous, armigerous, epuration, inquorate, uvarovite, jalousie, arteriosus, caesious, uncopyrightable, eunoia, eunomia. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about compound words? A sort of famous Finnish one is "Hääyöaie", loosely translated as "wedding night intention". Hää = wedding, yö = night, aie = intent/intention. Worth noting that "y" is always a vowel in Finnish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.87.134 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. There's no "u" in that. I just always found it amusing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.87.134 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... In the case of Finnish, the umlauted vowels are counted as indipendent letters? However, I forgot to say that words must have each vowel exactly one time (no repetitions). This [5] page seems to state that in Spanish the words are euforia, aguiero, aquenio, euboica, eubolia and eufonía, a letter more than English/French/Italian. --151.51.60.165 (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Finnish the umlauted vowels definitely are independent; they have different names, and in the alphabet they come after Z, as in "...XYZÅÄÖ". In speech they are also always pronounced differently from the "un-umlauted" ones. "Å" which is Swedish (our other national language) has a diacritic ring, not an umlaut, so I'm not counting it here. Anyway, I'm not helping... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.87.134 (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Dutch we have "sequoia" and "douarie". No six-letter solutions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euforia and eufonia are also likely candidates in Polish; I doubt there's anything shorter with all of these five letters. I'm convinced, though, that there is no word in Polish that contains all of Polish vowels letters (a, ą, e, ę, i, o, ó, u, y). — Kpalion^(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the French alphabet, Y is considered unambiguously a vowel, so oiseau shouldn't do; but the oiseau example is famous in French nonetheless; I suppose Y is rare enough to ignore. Words with all 6 vowels include fr:tutoyaient, fr:rudoyaient, fr:guerroyai, fr:cryptographique, fr:polyinsature. In the Welsh alphabet, W and Y are both always a vowel. Words with all 7 vowels don't include powysmauddelli, which I've just made up. jnestorius^(talk) 17:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet this game is pretty boring in Ubykh. +An gr 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian has cuoaie, about which a Romanian friend of mine told me it was an alternative stylisation of literary coaie, "balls" (a slang word for "testicles"). A literary Romanian word with five different vowels is lupoaie. It is given as a synonym of lupoaică, "she-wolf". But please note that Romanian uses two more vowel sounds that are spelt by means of three more letters. /ə/ is spelt as ‹ă› and /ɨ/ is spelt as ‹î› word-initially and word-finally and as ‹â› elsewhere. So, I may not be helping too much. --Магьосник (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eilunaddolwyr is "idolators" in Welsh. Not popular people. jnestorius^(talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word superlativo is an 11-letter word in Italian and Portuguese and Spanish (and Esperanto), but I do not know at this time whether it is superlative in fewness of letters. The letter y is a vowel in only one Spanish word (y), so there can not be a Spanish word with all six Spanish vowels. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For languages like Finnish, Hungarian, or Turkish, we can only rely on compound words because those languages exhibit vowel harmony. And compound words are usually long. --Магьосник (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to bet that there's no "real" German word that contains all vowels (aeiouäöü), especially if you count "y" (which is exclusively used, but not commonly counted as vowel and generally occurs only in words of foreign origin). That being said, German is of course known for its possibility to build compound words of almost any source material, so I'm sure you can construct your own personal aeiouäöü(y) word.--Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From leafing through a small one-directional Maori-English dictionary and a small one-directional English-Hawaiian dictionary, I found the Maori word "inaoakenui" ("three days ago") and the Hawaiian word "hookaulike" ("proportion"). However, I suspect that other dictionaries might not be consistent in rendering compounds as single words. - Wavelength (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the enclitic "que" is permitted, Latin has "symphōniaque" ("and harmony"). -- Wavelength (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

Who's on first? ("Extraterrestrial life(forms)")

"Science" sent me over here... The article Extraterrestrial life mentions people and schools who thought first about life beyond earth but there is no informationen who coined (used for the first time) the English expression "Extraterrestrial life(forms)" (<= combination of those words). So - please no Greek, no other language - who (which book, which article) used this term first? I do not know the answer myself, but I have a bet going on, that it was rather a literary person than a person of science. Am I right? I appreciate any clues (going back in time) GoogleBooks has not been much help. Grey Geezer 12:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Not sure about that exact phrase, but Dictionary.com and Etymonline.com both put the first use of the adjective 'extraterrestrial' in the late 1860s. Unfortunately, no source is cited, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary gives a first citation dating from 1868, in an apparently astronomical publication titled Heavens by an author named Lockyer, probably Norman Lockyer. This is consistent with KägeTorä's information. Marco polo (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting - one part nailed down. So the combination with "life(forms)" must have come later than +/- 1868. Any clues? Grey Geezer 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Still not exactly what you're looking for, but related: The entry at the Science Fiction Citation site suggests that the OED has found no earlier attested use of extraterrestrial as a noun meaning "a creature not from Earth" than the 1942 short story "The Embassy" by "Martin Pearson" (pseud. of Donald Wollheim). Deor (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add this, although I'm unsure of its relevance: Near the beginning of The War of the Worlds (1898) are the sentences "It required a certain amount of scientific education to perceive that the grey scale of the Thing was no common oxide, that the yellowish-white metal that gleamed in the crack between the lid and the cylinder had an unfamiliar hue. 'Extraterrestrial' had no meaning for most of the onlookers." This may suggest that even the adjective did not come into widespread use until the 20th century. Deor (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster found extraterrestrial as early as 1848 (again no source). I'd try searching in The Kraken's Library for old quotes. That should narrow it down a lot. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder if that's a typo on M-W's online page. As far as I know, M-W gets their datings from the OED, and my hard copy of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate (admittedly, a ninth ed. from 1984) has 1868. Deor (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. It was either the noun or as adjective + life(form). Both years (1942 and 1898) suit me (bith literature ;-) 1860 was "only" adjective referring to "dead" matter. 1848: I have serious doubts, as I found a German text around this date which used the translated term (ausserirdisch) in a religious context. OK! And thanks for letting me pick your brains ...! Grey Geezer 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Triste en corps bière

Tristan Corbière was born Édouard-Joachim Corbière. Apparently, he choose his pseudonym because it was somewhat similar to: Triste en corps bière. What does it mean exactly? Is it really homophone to his name? --151.51.60.165 (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two are almost exact homophones; the expression means something like "sad in the body casket." The word order is not idiomatic to French, so it's hard to give a translation, but the poetic impression is that of a sad body lying in a casket. In this case, bière does not immediately evoke the meaning "beer", but rather that of "casket", given the closeness to "corps" (body). --Xuxl (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bier is the German for "beer", but bier is a lesser-used English word for "casket".[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tangential note that the introduction to Selections from Les Amours Jaunes (U of California Press, 1954) gives a different account of his adoption of the name Tristan: "Tristan had taken his alias from a hero of legend, Tristan of Lyonesse, whom he thought of in an almost fraternal way." Deor (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Why shouldn't it refer to "bière"? At least Mr. Gougelle does not know a whole lot of "corps bière(s)," so why should it evoke the casket more so than beer? In general, also see the discussion here, same topic, virtually same answer. And, BTW, would've been easy enough to find if someone had tried to search the net before asking here... um-hum... --Thanks for answering (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my original answer was not quite clear: "bière" in French means both "beer" and "casket". The two are homonyms. The pun "triste en corps bière" makes no real grammatical sense, but the association with triste (sad) and corps (copse, body) point more to the second meaning of bière. But one could also read it as "beer". The phrase is poetic wordplay with no fixed meaning, so it can evoke different responses in different readers. --Xuxl (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German language in user interfaces

I have recently come to think of this. I speak Finnish natively, English almost fluently, and Swedish and German fairly well. As such, I am able to translate the user interfaces of computer programs into any of the four languages.

Now, my question is, when it comes to texts denoting actions to be performed, why is German different from all of the three others? Examples:

English:
- Open! Close! Show! Save! Delete! Cancel! Quit!
Swedish:
- Öppna! Stäng! Visa! Spara! Radera! Avbryt! Slut!
Finnish:
- Avaa! Sulje! Näytä! Talleta! Poista! Peru! Lopeta!
German:
- Öffnen. Schließen. Zeigen. Speichern. Löschen. Abbrechen. Beenden.

Do you see the difference? Every other language uses direct imperatives, but German uses infinitives. Why is it not "Öffne! Schließ! Zeig! Speichere! Lösch! Abbrich! Beende!"? JIP | Talk 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English, you can't tell whether these verb forms are imperatives or bare infinitives, because English has so little overt morphology. But even if they are imperatives, it's normal in German to use the infinitive in an imperative way, especially in the written language. I translate technical documentation from German into English for a living, and every day I see German texts where users are instructed how to operate or test the machinery or software or whatever by means of a long string of infinitives functioning as imperatives: Die Sicherheitstür öffnen. Die Funktion des Geräts überprüfen. Den Messwert auf dem Manometer protokollieren. And so on. It's more impersonal than a real imperative, which is appropriate in certain contexts. Another examples is doors on public buildings: they say DRÜCKEN and ZIEHEN for PULL and PUSH, not DRÜCKE and ZIEH or DRÜCKEN SIE and ZIEHEN SIE. I think French uses the infinitive in this imperative-like way too; at least doors in France say POUSSER and TIRER, not POUSSEZ-VOUS and TIREZ-VOUS. +An gr 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be "Abbrich!", it would be "Brich ab!". Rimush (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will venture that historically these sorts of commands were first composed in English, and then given conventional translations in the other languages you mention. As Angr says, its unclear whether the English forms are infinitive or imperative. They generally do not come with exclamation points. I hadn't thought about it much, but these labels don't feel imperative to me. For example, at the top of my Safari screen, I see "File" "Edit" "View" "History" "Bookmarks" "Window" and "Help". Only one of these is even fairly unambiguously a verb, and surrounded by nouns and ambiguous forms, it feels more like an infinitive than an imperative. As a native speaker of English and a person with a good grasp of German, I'd say that the right translation for these labels in German is the infinitive. It may be that the Swedish and Finnish technical writers who developed these conventional terms for those languages interpreted the English terms as infinitives and made infinitives the conventional forms in Swedish and Finnish. However, they don't really feel like infinitives in English to me. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean "imperatives" instead of your last three instances of "infinitives". Rimush (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish programs use infinitives, not imperatives. See [7], for example. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Go" and "Search" buttons of Wikipedias in various European languages:

English: "Go", "Search" - could be equally interpreted as infinitives and as imperatives;
German: "Artikel" and "Volltext" - nouns, but at wikipedia.org there's "suchen" - infinitive;
French: "Lire", "Rechercher" - infinitives;
Polish: "Przejdź", "Szukaj" - imperatives;
Italian: "Vai", "Ricerca" - imperatives;
Dutch: "Artikel", "Zoeken" - the former is a noun, the latter is an infinitive;
Spanish: "Ir", "Buscar" - infinitives;
Portuguese: "Ir", "Pesquisar" - infinitives;
Russian: "Перейти", "Найти" - infinitives;
Swedish: "Gå till", "Sök" - imperatives;
Bokmål Norwegian: "Gå", "Søk" - imperatives;
Catalan: "Vés-hi", "Cerca" - imperatives;
Finnish: "Siirry", "Etsi" - imperatives (?);
Ukrainian: "Перейти", "Пошук" - the former is an infinitive, the latter is a noun;
Czech: "Jít na", "Hledat" - infinitives;
Hungarian: "Menj", "Keresés" - the former is an imperative (?), the latter is a noun;
Turkish: "Git", "Ara" - imperatives;
Romanian: "Salt", "Căutare" - nouns;
Esperanto: "Ek!", "Serĉi" - the former is an interjection, the latter is an infinitive;
Danish: "Gå til", "Søg" - imperatives;
Serbian: "Иди", "Претрага" - the former is an imperative, the latter is a noun;
Slovak: "Ísť na", "Hľadať" - infinitives;
Bulgarian: "Отваряне", "Търсене" - nouns;
Slovene: "Pojdi na", "Iskanje" - the former is an imperative, the latter is a noun;
Croatian: "Kreni", "Traži" - imperatives;
Greek: "Μετάβαση", "Αναζήτηση" - nouns;
Latin: "Ire", "Quaerere" - infinitives;
Icelandic: "Áfram", "Leita" - the former is an adverb, the latter is an imperative.

Many languages, hence a great variety. --Магьосник (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English, negative notices use the gerund rather than the imperative/infinitive: "No Smoking", "No Parking", etc, rather than "Do not smoke", "Don't park", etc. jnestorius^(talk) 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or nouns: "No photography in the gallery!" --Магьосник (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French also uses infinitives. Not just for computer messages, but also for instructions, directions, recipes, and various signs/notices. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, and I used to ask it myself quite a few times. It's true that German often tries to avoid direct imperatives; I'd say that in many contexts they're considered rude or colloquial, whereas their absence sounds more, well, bureaucratic (you notice my mixed feelings where neither solution is perfect); and yes, for a long time, I've interpreted the avoidance of direct imperatives more as a result of Germany's (and maybe also German's) rich history of bureaucracy. BTW, the German Wikipedia (de:Imperativ_(Modus)) also points out the use of the infinitive instead of imperative (nicht rauchen; Herschauen!), but also the past particple (Aufgepaßt! Hergeschaut!), passive voice (Jetzt wird geschlafen!) and formerly more popular the use of the conditional in cookbooks (Man nehme).

... well, I used to ask it and think about bureaucracy until I found out (compare especially Магьосник's comments) that there's generally quite a variety. Also see Imperative mood for a few further examples. I also find jnestorius' comment interesting, about English sometimes using gerounds. (Though I'd add: only for short/easy commands... I don't think "no expounding on the content of the poem" would be used anywhere. :o)) German indeed doesn't have a geround. Other languages that have an equivalent. Other languages seem to have tendencies to avoid imperatives in formal settings too, e.g., using nouns and/or verbal nouns (e.g., Arabic). German's not quite as alone it seems. ;o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, it may be interesting to know that on user interfaces Japanese uses the 'simple form' of the verb (that is to say the form found in dictionaries, but which is also the form used in the simple present tense. Thus, 'Open' would be 開く (hiraku) and 'Close' would be 閉じる (tojiru) and so on. I think the idea is that it is you, the user, who is making a decision to do something (like 'open' a document, etc.), and not that you are telling the computer to do it. Also, using an imperative here would either be very direct and impolite (to an inanimate object!) or just too many characters. Compare 開け！ (hirake) and 開いて下さい (hiraite kudasai). Another thing about Japanese imperatives, is that there is another form which is quite common - that of putting 'koto' after the simple form of the verb, hence turning it into a verbal noun, and then this 'koto' itself is sometimes dropped, leaving us with just the verb in its simple dictionary form. [/side note] --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French

Bonjour, camarades :) What is the best way in French to correct someone if they call you tu but you do not feel you know them that well? Thank yu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.4.20 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in German at least, I would respond by pointedly using the formal pronoun until they get the hint. I suspect that would work in French, too. +An gr 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. But have you read our article T-V distinction? The use of tu does not necessarily indicate intimacy. It may also be used to suggest commonality of status or interest. You want to consider very carefully before asking someone to use vous instead of tu. Doing so creates a kind of distancing or rejection. You may alienate the other person, or you may give the impression of being stuffy or old-fashioned. You might find this dialogue interesting. Marco polo (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends quite a bit on the context. Sometimes people will tutoyer you on purpose as an insult (for example, I once saw someone tutoie a waiter who had given her bad service...the waiter looked like he had been slapped in the face), and in such a case you can't really "correct" them. If it really is an honest mistake, though, maybe it's someone who's not very proficient in French and thus doesn't know which pronoun is appropriate; maybe you are in a setting where it's standard to use tu anyway (for example, students usually use tu amongst themselves, even if they aren't close); or maybe the other person thinks you two are close enough now but you don't. In the latter case, that's really more of a social issue than a linguistic one; it has no easy answer (just as there is no easy answer to "how should I reject someone if they ask me out on a date but I don't like them that way?"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. I should give more context: This is in a professional context. I am being addressed by a subordinate as "tu", and I feel it is not appropriate (the other employees address their superiors as "vous"). I don't think he means to be insulting, but I feel uncomfortable. 68.249.4.20 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, because in Finnish, the T-V distinction does not go nearly as far as in German or French. I'd have no problems "tuing" my CEO, even though I very seldom interact with him. I'd only have to "vous" people well over two decades older than me, or government officials, or possibly members of the authority. But I've come to understand that in German or French you only ever "tu" members of your immediate family or close friends, you "vous" everyone else, ever, everywhere. JIP | Talk 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consistently call him vous? If not, you should. If so, and he hasn't gotten the hint yet (cf. my first comment above), my advice would be to just flat-out tell him (sometime when no one else is within earshot, so as not to embarrass him in front of others) that you would prefer to stay on vous terms with him. +An gr 21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreed with Angr. BTW, it would probably be easier to get good answers to this question at the French Wikipedia because there are naturally more native speakers who've dealt with this question and even know when it's appropriate to correct and when it isn't :o) ... Anyways, I think for me it's not like refusing a date, but like telling someone in English you don't want to be called by your first name. Awkward, yes, but possible. Take him aside, be very friendly, and say you'd prefer "vous". Maybe you can give that person a (more or less honest) "reason" why you prefer "tu": For example, if you're older, maybe you can smile and say "sorry, but I grew up that way and still prefer to use the formal/old-fashioned form" (esp. if you think he's one of the young'uns who'd say "tu" to everyone short of the CEO). Or (more risky though) simply say semi-openly that it's just easier to work that way given the hierarchy that there is in your job... maybe you can even remark in passing that neither of the two of you made that hierarchy, thereby presenting yourself as someone who's also "just here and dealing with it." Generally, I'd try to be extra nice to him afterwards. If you dare, even do something afterwards to break the hierarchy a little, e.g., ask him for his opinion/advice on something you're dealing with or whatever. No brownnosing, just (honestly) signaling that yes, you prefer "vous," but that's not meant as an insult & that you still value him etc.

@ JIP: As Angr has already pointed out, there are many opportunities outside of immediate family or close friends to use the familiar forms in German and French. Not to mention that "tu" is (slowly) getting more common in areas where it didn't use to be. Besides, French and German at least don't use "vous" even for parents, as some Latin American speakers do. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not anymore, but there are still elderly German speakers who called their parents Sie when they were children, so it wasn't all that long ago that it happened. +An gr 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In France, a subordinate using "tu" would be inappropriate in most cases, but in French Canada, it would be very common except in a highly-formal employment sector (a bank or a law office perhaps). In the Maghreb, "tu" would be unthinkable in this contrxt, but in many French-speaking parts iof sub-Saharan Africa, it would not raise anyone's eyebrows. Cultural practices differ widely on this point. --Xuxl (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, given the context, I agree that it is entirely appropriate that you say "vous" to your subordinate, and, if he persists in saying "tu", you privately ask that he say "vous". You ask how to correct someone in French. If you work in a French-speaking environment, I'm guessing that your French is better than mine, but couldn't you say something like this? "S'il vous plait, je préférais, qu'on se dise 'vous'. Je crois que c'est l'habitude ici." Marco polo (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Bakr

An Iranian professor of mine pronounces the name Abu Bakr something like "Abu Bakk" or "Abu Bhatt" (it's hard to understand because she's a low talker) - the point is that I can't hear any trace of the "r". Is this how it is pronounced in Arabic? Could someone provide the correct pronunciation? (IPA works too, but I would prefer non-IPA.) Thanks in advance! Rimush (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, but it's not as strong as we might expect in English; I usually hear English speakers say it more like "backer", but it should be more like "backrub" without the "-ub" (to use a very crude example). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility could be that that's how it's pronounced in Persian (you say she's Iranian, not Arab) although I highly doubt it. Anyways, given that both Iranians and Arabs (and essentially anyone worldwide :o)) pronounce the "r" unlike the English "r", another (likely) possibility is that it's just harder for you to recognize the "r" that she's pronouncing. And yes, agreed with Adam too about "backrup" :o)!

BTW in Arabic, it is not "Bakkr" (i.e. no "lingering" on the "k"); such "lingering" (shadda) exists in other words, but never before or after another consonant. The shadda Artikel seems to suggest that such lingering doesn't exist in Persian (haven't checked the Farsi article though), so maybe she's not as sensitive to the difference as an Arabic speaker would be and lingers without thinking anything about it? :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

`

Is there a word for...

The phenomenon where you think a woman is incredibly attractive upon first seeing them based on pure looks, until you start to dislike them intensely, upon which your perception of their physical traits changes because of that personality assessment. I guess this also happens in reverse; you find someone unattractive or not very attractive, and that changes as you begin to really like the person, but personally, that doesn't happen to me as strongly. Of course, I posed the question specifically about a "woman" because I am discussing this as a heterosexual male, but I imagine the same would be true of women and gay men regarding men's attractiveness. I have found this true my entire life. I will come to think a woman is ugly because of their personality, even when I know the first time I saw them I thought they were beautiful. It even happens with fictional characters. For example, I've been watching the series The Tudors, and at first I though Natalie Dormer (who plays Anne Boleyn) was gorgeous (quirky looking but nevertheless) but as her evilness was revealed, I now find her ugly. I am perfectly well aware she is an actress and not the character, but this still happens to me on an emotional level, even when I know its origin on an intellectual level.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but these researchers claim male perception of female attractiveness even changes with the seasons ("hotter" in winter). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In wintertime, bodies tend to be covered by clothes more thoroughly to prevent heat loss. Thus in winter a glimpse of the body might have heightened meaning. I think the lyrics in Anything Goes (song) allude to a phenomenon of similar mechanism. For instance, "In olden days, a glimpse of stocking; Was looked on as something shocking" conveys a different but similar concept. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Confirmation bias? AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halo effect --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the emotional level, shifting affections was (sometimes is) called fickleness. It's the subject of that song that gondoliers in Venice are always portrayed singing.Synchronism (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ibn Battuta is right that it's the halo effect, in particular the reverse halo effect mentioned in the article. Sometimes it can be less pronounced than the OP says: rather than finding the unpleasant person physically less attractive, you might simply feel uncomfortable about finding them attractive. A gay male friend of mine once confessed to me in hushed tones that he considered Jeffrey Dahmer good-looking and wondered if that made him "sick". I said no, Jeffrey Dahmer was good-looking, and indeed probably wouldn't have been as successful a serial killer (at least, not using that M.O.) if he hadn't been. +An gr 08:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the cognitive level yes, halo effect seems to be on the right track. Confirmation bias would be more like ignoring the information that shatters the halo.Synchronism (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beer goggles? Astronaut (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you all very much. Halo effect is in the right ball park and is probably the closest I can get. This was not just idle curiosity. I will be using that in something I am writing and just could not find a conceptual hook.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halo effect might operate on the integration of additional and later acquired information: "Halo effects happen especially if the perceiver does not have enough information about all traits, so that he makes assumptions based on one or two prominent traits." (found in that article) This would seem to be a function of the information gathering process. Prejudice, I should think, would also play a role, as we make assumptions based on relatively sparse information. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

Is "refingerprint" a word?

My current job requires that a retake fingerprints of people whose initially taken fingerprints were determined unreadable. So, I am updating my resume. I say the word "refingerprint" at work quite often, but I am not seeing it in writing anywhere online. I am thinking it might be a bogus word like "irregardless". Thanks --Wonderley (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 569 hits, many from apparently quite official sources. I think you're on safe ground, so Wonder no more. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I have to wonder with it being part of my last name. Your Google search for "refingerprint" gave much better results than what I got from Google. Did you do anything different other than search for "refingerprint"? --Wonderley (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you did. I didn't know you could do that with the "-" in Google. Good to know. Thanks again.--Wonderley (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also prepend a plus sign to the word you're googling, to tell google that you want the exact word, and not similar words such as those Jack excluded by using the minus sign. Just google for +refingerprint. --NorwegianBlue^talk 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that different from putting the search term in quotation marks? +An gr 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it out for "refingerprinting", and it appears the results are identical (2390 ghits, as opposed to 62900 ghits without quotation marks or "+" before the search word). As I'm sure you know, a search in quotation marks only returns the the words in the exact order you typed them, ignoring punctuation. It seems it suppresses matching similar words as well. --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposites of 'well-to-do' and 'well off'

Is there a recognised opposite of 'well-to-do' in parallel form? Such as: 'ill-to-do', 'poorly-to-do' ...? If not, why not?

Is there a recognised opposite of 'well off' in parallel form? Such as: 'ill off', 'poorly off' ...? If not, why not?-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not too badly off" is kind of a fixed phrase; otherwise, I'm not sure "badly off" is very commonly used... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:well off lists badly off as an antonym.—msh210℠ 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What immediately sprang to mind is ne'er-do-well, so I checked to see if it ever had an equivalent opposite meaning, but apparently it has always meant a person who is good for nothing since arising about 1737. The only equivalent I have come up with with is bad off, which is a recognized expression.--162.83.167.5 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why my post (immediately above; writing from a different computer now), which was the first post in response, was moved down by those above hours later? I suppose I am being somewhat petulant; that this is a minor thing, but I am offended when anyone takes credit for something I do, and far more so if it's on purpose. I always scrupulously avoid in my daily life acting in a manner that could give the impression that I am stealing another's credit. That's the way it feels with others posting bad off/badly off above, when I posted that idea earlier and first. I am not claiming that is a brilliant insight or anything, but I certainly would never have inserted my post above another's, were the roles reversed, to avoid giving even the appearance of taking credit for something someone already came up with before me.--173.68.14.136 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badly done by ? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the answer to both of Jack's questions is no. As for the reason, both expressions are idioms. Idioms often do not have parallel negations. For example, the opposite of "well-done meat" is not "badly done meat" but "rare meat". As for "well-to-do" or "well off", I think you can take your pick from "poor", "down at the heels", "down and out", etc. Marco polo (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard up?