Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 14

Subjunctive in English

Kind of related to the similarly titled question a few threads above. When is it appropriate to use the subjunctive form "if [noun] were" in English? Is it in all occurrences of "if" or only some? 99.137.223.239 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As ColinFine said in the thread above, the subjunctive is used in contrary-to-fact "if ..." clauses, such as "If I Were a Rich Man" (when one isn't a rich man) or If I Were King (when one isn't king). In clauses of simple futurity or possibility, it isn't used: "If I am ever in New York, I'll look you up." Deor (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And, as was alluded to above, its usage is dying out, except maybe in a few dialects or registers. This song is a contemporary "ripoff" (though that's allowed in music) of the one linked to in the previous post, and in the audio clip you'll notice the lack of subjunctive where it traditionally ought to be.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that in formal English prose the contrary-to-fact subjunctive is alive and well. Popular music perhaps isn't the best indicator of general usage, but I'll note that the Beatles sang "If I fell in love with you, would you promise to be true ...", not "If I fall ..." Deor (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

However, the only "synchronically productive" constructions where there's a distinct so-called subjunctive inflection are: 1) "were" following first person singular and third person singular subjects ("If I were", "If he were" etc.) and 2) Verbs in certain subordinate clauses with third person singular subject, but no "-s" ending (or "be" with any subject), in sentences such as "I demand that he leave the room", "I demand that we be given five dollars", etc. In other cases (such as "If I fell"), it can't really be directly proved that it's a subjunctive, since there's no distinctive verb form used... AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos - actually, a conditional using the past tense is always the subjunctive mood (conditionals in the past tense are always counterfactuals), and I hardly think the usage is dying out (though the grammar on it might be changing). --Ludwigs2 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos's point is that except for "be", the past subjunctive and the past indicative are visually and auditorily indistinguishable. So it's unscientific to say that "If I fell, I would have gotten back up" uses subjunctive "fell" rather than indicative "fell". --Atemperman (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. If some pedant were looking for correct uses of the subjunctive and he came across "If I fell, I would have gotten back up", he would give it a big tick (assuming he were an American pedant; others say "got back up"), because it satisfies the form of the subjunctive. He wouldn't think "Maybe they thought they were choosing the indicative, and just happened to fluke the right answer. No, I can't give them a tick unless they can convince me they wrote it consciously as the subjunctive". Would he, now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking more recent answers as a cue, rather than the original question, I'm pretty sure I'd say "If I fell, I would get back up" and "If I had fallen, I would have got back up". The former responds to the question "What would you do if you fell?" - a hypothesis relating to a forthcoming event, perhaps. The latter responds to "But if you had fallen what would you have done?" - a question about something that might have happened in the past, but didn't. But I don't think I'd ever say "If I fell, I would have got back up" which seems to be a mish-mash.86.135.25.224 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I wouldn't say it that way. If you are using "If I fell" as a subjunctive then it should be followed by the infinitive ("get") not the present imperfect ("have gotten"/"have got"). (Although, I'm now a little confused having looked it up on Wikipedia. Our article, conditional mood, which is what we're talking about, is a little unclear - the connection between the three types it lists and the four tenses it lists afterwards isn't made clear.) --Tango (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of "recently" to refer to a past time period

I'd like some comments on use of the word "recently" in the following passage. Is it okay, in that it's clear by context that it speaks to the framed time period? Is it jarring because it appears to refer to today? Something in between? If you would reform the use, what would you suggest as a change? I have underlined the word for ease of identification. Thanks in advance.

In 2005, the top ten movies at the U.S. box office included three adaptations of children's fantasy novels (including one extending and another initiating a series), a child-targeted cartoon, a comic book adaptation, a sci-fi series installment, a sci-fi remake, and a King Kong remake. It was a slow year for Corman: he produced just one movie, which had no American theatrical release, true of most of the pictures he had been involved in recently.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it jarring and personally I often make some awkward, wordy circumlocuting to avoid it when I'm writing. Something like "true of most of the other pictures he had been involved in during the year/(whatever time period) leading up to this." rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it natural and not at all jarring. The context with the nearby past-perfect-tense verb clearly establishes the meaning. --Anonymous, 04:41 UTC, August 14, 2010.

The sentence needs rewriting in any case. It doesn't make clear whether what is true is that he produced just one movie, or that it had no American release, or both.

Seriously? Are you saying that one possible interpretation is that most of the pictures he'd been recently involved in were the only film made in 2005? How many "only films" can there be in a given year? Or are you saying he made only one film per year in the recent past? Then, how far back does "recently" go? It would have to be at least 4 years for that interpretation to make any sense, and that's really stretching "recently" in an industry where careers come and go in blinks of an eye. No, imo the only reasonable interpretation is that most of the pictures he'd been involved in recently had no American theatrical release. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the recently can only refer to American release, but I don't like the mental jarring caused by the shift in time frame. I would have been happy with "... true of most of the pictures he has been involved in recently", but that is not what was intended. In formal writing, I would prefer to write something like " ... as had been the case with most of the movies he had produced in the previous (few) years". Dbfirs 07:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. This was from a minor editing skirmish on yesterday's featured article, where I was changing "recently" to "at that time" and related expressions that made clear recently referred to 2005 and not today. It became mooted when someone determined the specifics and changed it to "the preceding decade."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Do the following two sentences differ in meaning?

1. The five best workers were rewarded. 2. The best five workers were rewarded.

Is there any difference in meaning of the above sentences? If yes, what?

Thanks, Vineet Chaitanya121.242.23.197 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking strictly from instinct, I'd say the only difference is in the information you stress - in 1., you want to say that five, and not three or ten workers were rewarded, in 2., you're saying that the five workers who were rewarded were rewarded because they were best. Is this making any sense? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually the two would mean the same thing. However if previous information had said that the workers were divided into groups of five, then the "best five" might mean the best group, while the "five best" clearly means the five individual best. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence is actually grammatically questionable. the word 'best' and 'five' both modify the noun 'workers', but 'five' is a quantifier (and thus a noun in its own right), while 'best' is an adjective that assumedly is intended to modify 'workers'. putting 'best' before 'five' (while common enough in casual language) creates ambiguity, because it's unclear whether five is an object specifier or quantifier (e.g., does this mean the 'best Level Five workers'?). it's always better to quantifiers first. --Ludwigs2 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Ludwigs: I don't think there's any practical ambiguity in the second, and I think his specific example is far-fetched (If it were normal in this factory to refer to "five workers" to mean "workers of level five", he would have a case, but if that were so there would frequently be ambiguity, and they would have measures to reduce it).

I think there could be a slight difference between the two, in that the second could refer to a group of five workers which was the best such group, whereas the first would tend to imply five workers taken from anywhere; but unless it is known that there are such groups, I don't think there would be any difference in meaning. --ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a clear difference. Really, both sentences assume a list that ranks many workers according to their abilities; Both sentences assume that for every number n, the first n workers on the ranking list are considered to be "the best n workers"; Both sentences assume that the best five workers are better than the others. However, the first sentence (about the five best workers) assumes that just the first five workers on the ranking list are considered to be "the best workers", the others being considered "low level workers" (and likewise, although for every number n, the first n workers on the ranking list are considered to be "the best n workers"), while the second sentence (about the best five workers) doesn't assume that. Eliko (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How to say "It's what he's been searching for." in French

My initial guess at this translation was the following: "C'est ce qu'il a été recherchant." A friend of mine told me that when you use "a été" it usually indicates that the action is being done to yourself, so that the sentence above would thus mean something about the person being searched, rather than the object being searched for. Is this correct? I would think that this would be the case when rechercer is in the past participle form, instead of the present participle. "...il a été recherché." would mean, I guess, he has been searched, which would indicate an action that is done to the subject. Do both of these cases suggest that the subject is the one being searched or only the latter? My friend's suggestion was to use "...qu'il recherchait." instead, which I recognize as a perfectly valid option, but I was wondering if my oriignal statement was correct given the idea that I'm trying to portray. 24.187.115.154 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your friend's suggestion (recherchait) is the only one that works. You can't use present participles like that in French, since they are not really a verb form, at least in this case. You could say "en recherchant", where it is a gerund and means "while researching", or you could use it as a noun, "a researcher" although here French happens to use the actual noun "chercheur". "Il a été" always means "he was" or "he has been", in a simple description (although "il était" would be more usual), or it indicates a passive sentence, which I think is what you are describing. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, French, like many languages, does not have distinct continuous forms corresponding to the English "was searching". "Cherchait" can mean "was searching", "used to search", and even "searched" if the activity is not being regarded as a completed action. See imperfective aspect. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to insist on the "continuous" aspect, you can use en train de: C'est ce qu'il était en train de chercher. — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely the English phrase implies that he is still searching, so a better translation would be ce qu'il a cherché or even ce qu'il cherche depuis longtemps. -62.49.68.79 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I would have said C'est ce qu'il est en train de chercher. But you cannot say ce qu'il a cherché, as in French it implies it's finished. And depuis longtemps (for a long time) seems to be an interpretation (we don't know the context). — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

August 15

Baidu

Why is the front page in black and white. Also, how do you say "not as much as I would like" in correct French? I mean this as a response to the question "Parlez-vous francais". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.198.120 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Baidu, but for the French you could say "pas autant que je voudrais" (or maybe "...je le voudrais", or "...je le souhaite") Adam Bishop (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of Chinese websites were in black and white on Sunday because China had a national day of mourning for the victims of the 2010 Gansu mudslide. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

German translation

Can someone help me translate this sentence? Nach dem Tod Friedrich des Strengen kam es zwischen den Brüdern Balthasar und Wilhelm sowie ihren Neffen Friedrich dem Streitbaren, Wilhelm dem Reichen und Georg zur so genannten Chemnitzer Teilung (13. November 1382), bei welcher Balthasar die Landgrafschaft Thüringen erhielt.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"The death of Frederick the Strict resulted in the so-called partition of Chemnitz (13 November, 1382) among the brothers Balthasar and William as well as their nephews Frederick the Belligerent, William the Rich, and George, where Balthasar received the Landgraviate of Thuringia." ---Sluzzelin talk 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But the German does not say that Frederick's death resulted in the partition of Chemnitz, merely that it preceded it temporally. We don't want to introduce a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy into the translation where none was in the original. +Angr 15:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true, and I originally wanted to point that out, but couldn't come up with an unclumsy way of translating "nach ... kam es zu" (and it was late). "After the death of Frederick the Strict, the so-called partition of Chemnitz came to pass(?) ... happened(?) ... occurred(?)". Please help me out! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"After the death of Frederick the Strict, Balthasar received the Landgraviate of Thuringia in the so-called partition of Chemnitz." +Angr 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Diversion: Landgraviate cf. Landgravate

I was intrigued by Sluzzelin's use of "Landgraviate" above, so I checked it out. In my ignorance of such matters, I assumed the correct form would be "Landgravate", as the usual approach is to add -ate, not -iate, to words where such forms exist (cf. marquessate, protectorate). In WP, Landgraviate redirects to Landgrave, which recognises the -iate form only. I was expecting to see some mention of the -ate form, but no. Landgravate goes nowhere, yet if you do a search, you'll see it's used a few times on WP, and a google search finds a respectable 5,000 hits, compared with 31,000 for Landgraviate. Dictionaries recognise both forms, although it looks like -iate is the predominant form. I'm wondering where that stray "i" came from. This really does look like a verb (meaning, obviously, to fly an aircraft in such a manner that you end up in a grave, on land. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, a simple answer is because it is "landgraviatus" in Latin, although where does that extra -i come from? "Margraviatus" is the same way, but not other offices like "episcopatus" or "principatus" or "comitatus". I guess that is because those last three are directly from other Latin words, and landgrave and margrave are Germanic terms. I was thinking that maybe in Latin the endings were considered to be similar to the word for "strong" ("gravis"), but that doesn't seem to be the case, since the office-holder is a "landgravus" and it is declined like any other -us noun (i.e. not like an -is adjective). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is landgraviatus in Latin because one of the Latin expressions for a landgraf is landgravius (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landgraf) and not landgravus. You'll find that it is very common to coin a Latin word by adding -ius to the vernacular.

The further suffix -atus is added to the stem in an analogous way to comitatus from comes, gen. comitis, etc. Ehrenkater (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! How silly of me, I didn't even think to look for "landgravius" (I tried "langravus" and "landgravis"). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I know. Thanks. I'm sure I'll be needing to use the word 'landgraviate' some time today.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Politeness: Spanish, and more

In English, I would say, "Could you please bring me more salsa? Thank you." The translation sounds off to me, so, really, I need to know the correct placement of 'por favor.' The wrong translation: "¿Puedes por favor trajarme mas salsa? Gracias." And, for bonus points, what is the etymology of 'gracias?' It always seemed to me to be a conjugation of the infinitive 'to thank' (graciar) to the second person, thus gracias. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd translate it as "Por favor, traigame (un poco) mas salsa" (Please, bring me (a little) more salsa). "Gracias" isn't a verb - it's etymologically a plural noun, cognate with the English word "graces". Its meaning is somewhat different though, more like the religious concept of "grace", or "blessing", with an element of ritual added to it. Steewi (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is from "gratia" in Latin, and presumably entered Spanish through the Latin phrase for "thank you", "gratias (tibi/vobis) ago" (more literally "I give you thanks"). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So more a plural 's,' then (graces) schyler (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly a plural - to be precise, the accusative plural, which in transalpine Romance languages (French, Occitan, Catalan, Castilian, Portuguese) was generalised to become "the" plural. --ColinFine (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that, in everyday usage, there isn't a singular or plural form of "gracias", "gracias" is the only word and it's used to thank either one or many actions.

The verb for the act of being grateful is "agradecer". Yo agradezco, tú agradeces, él agradece, nosotros agradecemos, vosotros agradecéis, ellos agradecen. MBelgrano (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

One example that comes to mind is a prayer before eating, sometimes called "saying grace", or "returning thanks" (to God). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The same holds for English. "Thanks" appears to be a plural noun, but one would never use "thank" as a singular noun (it is used as a verb, of course). --Tango (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The one before eating is called "dar gracias". MBelgrano (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"To give thanks", right? "Thank you" presumably is a shortened way of saying "I thank you", hence it's a verb. There's also the expression "a thank-you note", but that would still be a shortened "I thank you." Any German-speakers know whether danke is considered singular or plural? Obviously it's a cognate with the English word "thank(s)". I know almost no Mandarin, but "thank you" is "shei shei ni" or some such, which literally means "thank thank you". In French it's merci, which sounds like it would be cognate with "mercy", which is basically a synonym for "grace" in one context. In Spanish, usted is short for vuestra merced, which would translate as "your grace" in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, danke is actually a verb form, specifically the first-person singular present form of the verb danken ("to thank, give thanks"). I think it's a contraction of Ich danke ("I give thanks, I thank"). The noun is Dank, but it doesn't have a plural form and is equivalent to the English noun thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

August 16

Fraudsters in American English?

I'm after a (formal) word that describes someone who commits fraud in American English (or in World English). According to Oxford Dictionaries, fraudster is used in British English. I looked at deceiver, impostor, masquerader and scammer (informal). Any ideas? Thanks  Davtra  ^(talk) 08:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

charlatan, swindler, con artist come to mind. Someone or something that is a fraud is a "humbug", though that doesn't sound terribly formal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What about defrauder? That's what I think is used for specific instances or allegations, e.g. at trial or in a newspaper report. For hypothetical example, "She struck back at her defrauder"; "He was a notorious defrauder of trusting women." However, the term might be used less without a specific victim or context; I don't think I've seen phrases like "She was a professional defrauder", or "Current law protects defrauders."

¶ Generally, the grammar of to defraud is to defraud [someone] of [something] or (passive voice) to be defrauded by [someone] [of something]. In other words the fraud is committed on someone (rather than something), who in the active voice becomes grammatically the direct object (accusative case) and not the indirect object (dative). What the victim is deprived of becomes the object of the preposition "of".—— Shakescene (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about grifter? It's a bit more specific than just any kind of fraud, though. Matt Deres (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fraudster is perfectly good American English and is the term that would be used in a formal context. John M Baker (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think "fraudster" is more of a journalistic jargon-word, rather than either a technical legal term, or a common ordinary everyday word... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a variant on "gangster", with the assumption that a "fraudster" doesn't murder you, he just robs you blind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Confidence man" is formal, and I believe "swindler" is also formally acceptable. Of course these are specific types of fraud -- an embezzler also commits fraud, but a different type. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, fraudster is an acceptable word in American English, but it is not in a very formal register. Maybe semi-formal. You might see it in a tabloid newspaper or hear it in conversation, but I think not in one of the more prestigious newspapers. I agree that the formal term would be defrauder. Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fraudster has moved into a more formal register in American English in the past decade. It is now seen frequently in legal opinions and in Securities and Exchange Commission statements. John M Baker (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

French uvular 'R'

When pronouncing the French uvular 'R' (ʁ in the IPA), is the uvula and back of throat supposed to vibrate audibly? 76.230.150.36 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The tongue and the uvula are the articulators of this sound; the back of the throat has no active role. To be clear, to uvula comes forward (pointing towards outside your mouth) and rests on the tongue. As for the exact articulation, it depends on what you mean by [ʁ], which can symbolize either a uvular fricative (voiced or voiceless, I suppose) or a uvular approximant (which, unfortunately, is just a redirect to the fricative article, even though they are different sounds, but similar), which are both acceptable realization of the French <r>. Those aren't the only realization of French's <r> either; check out note 2 of the French phonology article for all the variations. I'd say the uvular approximant is the most common articulation, with the uvular trill with a good amount of popularity in the French classroom since it's part of the Parisian dialect. Have a look at those articles, and if you're still unsure of any certain articulation, feel free to ask.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The popular uvular fricative/approximant version is articulated as follows: the uvula rests on the tongue as a stream of air is expelled from the lungs. For the fricative, the tongue pushes the uvula close enough to the top of the mouth to block enough of the airstream to cause friction against the uvula, causing it to vibrate. The approximant variety is similar, except the vocal cords must be pulled together to cause vibration (voicing, you're doing it right if you put your hand on your voice box and feel vibrations), and while the tongue pushes the uvula to the top of the back of the mouth (velum), it's not pushing hard enough to cause much audible friction, differing from the fricative. I suppose both the voiced and voiceless fricative variants may be attested in French (though our articles are ambiguous on this), which would mean in the first articulation given, the vocal cords may be pulled together to vibrate or held apart to let the airstream pass through unagitated.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Avatar Chinese characters meaning

What does the chinese characters above the title means in Avatar: The Last Airbender title card. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer with the meaning - but I will give the four characters here for the convenience of the next person who can answer: 降世神通 --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It essentially means "divine medium who has descended upon the [mortal] world", ie, "Avatar". 67.110.18.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

So this isn't a Japanese phrase? It doesn't really have a Chinese sort of syntax to it. Steewi (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

French meaning

I have an assignment with the instructions "Choisissez un des proverbes et illustrez-le a l'aide d'une histoire." My question is: Are they asking me to write a story about one of the proverbs, or do they mean to draw (illustrate) it? Thanks for help 68.197.252.207 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean 'à l'aide'. Illustrez in this context would be like illustrate, definition 2. They are asking you to write a story. 76.230.214.232 (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "à l'aide", but on the computer I'm currently on doesn't provide easy access to charmap or the like. Thanks, though! Now I just need to come up with a story. 68.197.252.207 (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

For your future future reference, 68.197, there's a fairly comprehensive set of accented letters below the edit box (where you originally typed your question) - choose 'Latin' from the dropdown menu (where 'insert' may be visible) and then highlight and click into your text as required. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Come off it!

when we say that, Come off what, exactly?--MasterOfTools (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't been able to find much other than that it's been used since the nineteenth century. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That site locks you up for awhile, probably to generate popups or plant spyware or something. "Come off it" or "come off" might be short for "come off your 'high horse'." Ironically, "come on!" is often used much the same way. "Come off" is also used to mean "to present oneself", perhaps unwittingly, like "He comes off as an expert." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Does it affect anyone else like that? I never had problems with it... Vimescarrot (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One of these days, I need to upgrade from my TRS-80. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, the usual variant is "Come off the grass". I've never been quite sure what that referred to, but that doesn't stop me from saying it frequently. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That variation suggests that someone has wandered off from the "straight and narrow", i.e. the sidewalk. In the broadest sense, "come off the grass" or "come off your high horse" would both mean "get back to reality", or "get real!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

misc

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welsh How can I say 'Fuck off' in Welsh please?--FarTraveller (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Cachau bant! schyler (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Old saying I heard this saying: 'Hell hath no fury like a woman spermed'. i thought they like it now and againn, so what it mean please?--FarTraveller (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) It's Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned schyler (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Sperm Whale Should it not have been nemed a semen whale? I mean what color is sperm?--FarTraveller (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) See this schyler (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC) See also Spermaceti, which says the substance was originally mistaken for the whale's sperm, which it ain't. And FYI, the terms "sperm" and "semen" both mean exactly the same thing, namely "seed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC) You want to know what colour sperm is? I'm tempted to say that if one were a wanker, one could easily engage in some original research. The question is, is one? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC) That was an odd question to ask, wasn't it? There is no limit to the number of light, yet current, jokes that could be made on that topic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

August 17

Pronunciation of nonexistent words

1. The Google "human speaker" pronounces "wir" as wire, and "rir" as reer (although "fir" is always pronounced as fur, never as fire nor as fear). Are there any "rules" for pronouncing such nonexistent words like wir and rir?
2. Additionally, it pronounces "wor" as were, so the "or" in "wor" is pronouced as the "or" in "word" "work" (and likewise), rather than as the "or" in "nor" "for" (and likewise). How does Google "know" that the "or" in the nonexistent word "wor" should be much similar to the "or" in "word" "work" (and likewise), rather than to the "or" in "nor" "for" (and likewise)?

Eliko (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the machine has to follow some rules, but I'm afraid only Google can tell which ones (if they do not keep it a trade secret), and anyway you should not assign any significance to what it happens to return for nonexistent words because that's not what it is supposed to be designed for (garbage in, garbage out).—Emil J. 11:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For your 2nd question, Google's pronouncer program probably has a big dictionary of pronunciations (i.e. words mapped to their phonetic makeup) that is uses in most cases, but if you ask it to say a word it doesn't recognize, it probably defaults to the language's most common pronunciation of that combination of letters. I'm guessing <or> pronounced as "err" ([ɝ, ɚ]) is more frequent in English words than the pronunciation "or," and Google's program figured this out by counting the occurrence of both pronunciations of <or> in its dictionary.I use probably a lot because, as far as I know, Google has not released this algorithm as open-sourced yet, so there's no way to know for sure.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not exactly. <or> is more likely to be pronounced as "or" than as "err". Here are a few common examples (with four letters): "horn", "corn", "norm", "morn", "lord", "fork", "cord", "cork", "born", "form", "torn", "sort", "tort", and many others.

"wor" is similar to "nor" and "for" (and likewise) in that all the three have three letters only, and end with "or". However, "wor" is also similar to "word", "work" (and likewise) in that all the three begin with "wor".

Anyways, I've just found that "wor" does have a meaning ("wor" = "our"), in Geordie English, as indicated in the article Geordie.

Eliko (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, so I've striken my mistake above. In that case, perhaps Google's algorithm is smarter than I originally gave it credit for, and must take into account that since worry, (at least in my AmerEng accent) word, and work are all pronounced as "were" ([wɝ]), the same pronunciation should follow for the unknown word wor (or it recognizes it as the Geordie English word, as Eliko mentioned, if it has a really good dictionary). Google's program also pronounces the vowel in born and sore the same as in the nonce words *bor and *sor. As for the OP's observation that this same algorithm pronounces *wir as "wire" but fir as "fur", it turns out English does have a word fir pronounced that way. *rir is anyone's guess, but perhaps the program is forming its pronunciation off of weir.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re wor: I've already indicated that wor is similar to "word" and "work" in that all the three begin with "wor", so what new things did you find in "worry" - that don't exist in "word" and "work"?

Re fir: My question was about wir and rir, not about fir (which is an existent word and is pronounced as fur). I've only asked why the <ir> in wir and rir is not pronounced as the <ir> in fir. Did you mean that fir isn't pronounced as fur but rather as fire or fear?

Re rir: I've only asked why Google pronounces it as *reer (i.e why Google pronounces the <ir> in rir as the <ir> in weir), and doesn't pronounce the <ir> in rir as the <ir> in fir (i.e. as the <ir> in sir).

Eliko (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Flink

There are multiple links to 'flink' on the net - "a group of 12 cows" - but there is no wiki entry nor a dictionary.com entry. Is this word a myth or perhaps has dubious origin? Sandman30s (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The OED has an entry for flink, with the definition "to behave in a cowardly manner." It gives one example: 1893 E. CUSTER Tenting on Plains xix. 388 All the boys done bully, but Corporal Johnson -- he flinked. It guesses that the word is an alteration of flinch. I found nothing authoritative for the word flink relating to cows on the open web or ebook/journal databases available to me. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I could not find it in any slang or dialect dictionary but I found a flurry of flink from 2002 works which may have been when it was coined. Seems an unlikely word, why would a word be needed for such a specific number, more likely someone suggested a small flock was a flink as a form or humorous diminutive, in fact it may be a propagated nihilartikel. Collective nouns are often fairly dubious with little evidence of their natural use. Here is the actual creation of a "flange of baboons". As an aside slink is an interesting word related to cows and other farm animals. meltBanana 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! (nihilartikel is a new word for me) Sandman30s (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha! I've just realized that it could have come from a back formation of "cowardly" as defined in the OED! Sandman30s (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A vs. E

I started this at Humanities, where they were talking about Anglicanism, etc., and I have moved it here...

Really a language question, but I wonder how come it's "Anglia" ("Anglo-land") and "Anglican" and "Anglo-Saxon" vs. "Eng-land"? For that matter, "Saxon" vs. "Wessex" ("West Saxon"), "Sussex" ("South Saxon"), etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

England#Etymology TomorrowTime (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain why "A" vs. "E", but there's a clue in the fact it was first applied to the southern part of the island, where "Sussex", etc., are and also in the etymology of "Saxony", which suggests it was somewhere between an "a" and an "e" sound, hence variant spellings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's umlaut; it's the same thing that gives us the e in men from the a in man. +Angr 13:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Angr's right. I think that in Anglo-Saxon, you would have referred to one "Angel" (with a hard G) and two or more "Engel" or some such. The "Engla" in "Englaland" (the original form of the name England) is, I believe a genitive plural form, such that the name means "land of the Angles". Marco polo (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It had to remain "Angl-" in Latin so Pope Gregory could make a terrible pun. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Having done a little more research on this, I no longer think that "Engel" was the plural form of "Angel". There were a few Anglo-Saxon nouns that formed plurals that way, but those nouns would not have had a genitive plural in -a, as this word does. Also, my Anglo-Saxon dictionary shows the nominative plural form as either "Engle" or "Angle" (with the second syllable pronounced [lɛ]). So, it looks as if these were two variant forms of the same name. I don't think it could be right that the pronunciation was somewhere between "A" and "E", because Anglo-Saxon vowels are represented very clearly by the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, which has a letter—Æ—for the sound intermediate between "A" and "E", but this letter is apparently never used to spell this name. The two variant forms could reflect different Anglo-Saxon dialects (say, Midland/Mercian vs. Wessex). It could be that a process of umlaut affected the stem form of this name in one dialect but not another. Marco polo (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Translatish

I'm curious: what is this? I encountered it while searching possible vocalizations of an unfamiliar surname (זורלא) I need to romanize from a Hebrew-language source text. The site is useless to me, I'm just perplexed that I can't make any sense of it and am prepared to blush if it's something obvious I'm missing . -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks kind of like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2008_October_12#Mystery_language.3F_Code.3F... AnonMoos (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That page has been discussed here. It's quite likely a constructed puzzle challenging readers to decipher it. The blue words are links to supplementary pages, like this one, where there are English translations of some sample sentences. --Theurgist (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

License template help needed in Spanish and Polish

Hi! The Commons template Commons:User:Raboe001/licence is in need of some translations

The Spanish language template is missing a translation for:

• "PS: In case of refusal of the above terms the author reserves the right to take legal action.

This license and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by you of the terms of this license. In this case the author reserves to demand declaration to cease and desist, and compensation (according to the MFM fee references currently in force). Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

The Polish language template is missing a translation for:

• "This license and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by you of the terms of this license. In this case the author reserves to demand declaration to cease and desist, and compensation (according to the MFM fee references currently in force).

Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder."

It would be nice of someone would post the entire paragraph in Russian, Arabic, and Korean.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Russian translation was completed by Commons User Kaganer. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Read by anyone without"

"The book is mostly written without much technical detail and can be read by anyone without a mathematical background."

The second part of this sentence suggests to me that having a mathematical background is an impediment to reading the book. Is that a fair interpretation of the second part of the sentence?

I'm being picky. The meaning "a mathematical background is not needed to read the book" is pretty clear from the first part of the sentence. But is the second part correct?

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fine; it doesn't say anything like "can be read only by people without a mathematical background." --Anonymous, 22:37 UTC, August 17, 2010.

Without knowing more of the context, it's possibly not clear that "without much technical detail" means "without much mathematical detail." You might consider a rewrite like "Smith's writing is clear and can be understood without a detailed knowledge of mathematics." --- OtherDave (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not fine, it's very sloppy writing. Looie496 (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you prefer it to have been worded? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it isn't, it's terrible. "Mostly written without much technical detail" – wtf? What about the bits that are then, is a non-technical person supposed to just skip those bits? And the second part obviously means that you don't need a mathematical background to be able to read it, but it doesn't say that. I would rewrite the second part to something like "can be read by non-mathematicians". The first part, though, is unsalvageable. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not: "...can be read by anyone, with or without a mathematical background." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it could be written better, but it's not terrible. It's totally understandable as stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The first part is confusing/merging 2 concepts: 'The book is written without much technical detail' and 'The book is mostly written without technical detail'. These say the same thing in slightly different words, but what we have is a little of each. Or, it might be saying that it's replete with technical detail but only a little at a time, except in some places, where there's a lot more. I sort of doubt that's the intention, but it's a valid interpretation of what's written. Rather than talking in negative terms, how about "The book contains very little technical detail ..."? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

August 18

Epenthetic /g/ in Spanish

If my observation is correct, it seems that in Spanish, if the [w] sound occurred at the beginning of a word or immediately after a vowel, an epenthetic /g/ is inserted before the w. For example, in the version of Detective Conan broadcasted in Spain, the name "Miwako" is pronounced like "Migwako." Am I accurately describing what's going on? 98.116.90.160 (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably. The change of /enwiki/w/ to /gw/, especially in word-initial position, is moderately common. The Spanish words Guadalupe, Guadalquivir, and guacamole (for example) all come from words that originally had /enwiki/w/. The Spanish, French, and Italian words for "war" (guerra, guerre, and guerra respectively) all originally had /gw/ (now only the Italian word does) and derive from a Germanic word that had /enwiki/w/ (cognate with English war). In Welsh, /enwiki/w/ > /gw/ at the beginning of a word is a regular sound change. +Angr 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Angr's pretty much explained it. I can only add that the Real Academia Española's various usage guides (e.g. the Diccionario panhispánico de dudas over the years invariably suggest approximating w in English loanwords as "gu" (rather than "u" or word-initially "hu"). Many Spanish ESOL books recommend the same (with words in English itself). This may be through a misunderstanding of English pronunciation (English j is often approximated as Spanish y in loanwords, even in non-Rioplatense Spanish), or, perhaps more likely, rather a sort of allophone inherent to Spanish itself (as Angr touched on and as the Diccionario hints at in its entry for "u"). -- the Great Gavini 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally OR here, but if the /enwiki/w/+vowel is preceded within the same prosodic unit by a consonant, there's no /g/ inserted, even if it's word-initial. "Sin huevos" is [sinˠweβos/, while "sin guisqui" is [siŋgwiski]. I might be slightly off and the first one should be [siŋweβos] and/or the second one [siŋgʷiski].--Atemperman (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unclear Ending to Short Story

Hello, and sorry for writing a long and boring question. I've written a short story basically about a Vietnam veteran who has a traumatic experience. The story is set after with him being on drugs in the setting of a concert. The traumatic experience is when his friend (Jesse) tells him to run and as a result dies before him while the main character (Mark) survives. Another character (Reggie) gives him drugs and while on an acid trip, Mark hallucinates he is back in the situation where his friend dies and he is given a chance to save him (and does so) all the while mistaking Reggie as his friend. Throughout the story there is a theme of Mark escaping using the drugs, so what I need in an ending is some ideas or a fix of what I have. My current ending results in Mark thanking Jesse for saving his life and then passing away thus finding the 'ultimate' escape from his trauma. So this is what I have for the end so far -

Struggling beneath the screaming, delusional man, Reggie yelled out to the onlookers for help. Those few that heard over the thunderous music grabbed Mark’s arms and legs and pulled up the frantic figure, allowing Reggie to stand. Mark’s unfocused gaze wept bitter tears as he hysterically cried out into the night. As Reggie approached, a quiet calm came over him. “Thank you for everything, Jesse.” he murmured softly as his eyes closed. Mark had found his final escape.

If anyone really would like to help and needs to read the whole story, I'll put it up here. Any contributions used will be referenced! Sorry about the confusing nature of it all Thank-you! Viskadaik (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend putting the story up here as it would take away space from other people who need to ask questions. You should configure your account to where people can contact you via email. Just go to the "my preferences" button, scroll down to "email options" and check the "Enable e-mail from other users" box. People who want to help can then contact you by going to Special:EmailUser/Viskadaik.

Your story sounds interesting by the way. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Can anyone tell me what is the meaning of Ipsos Mori? This is the name of a well known organisation which conducts surveys. It must mean something, but probably not "By the dead themselves" which is as far as my rusty Latin gets me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sing7along (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Ipsos MORI, the second part is an acronym and stands for "Market & Opinion Research International" and they're a subsidiary of Ipsos. (I don't know how Ipsos's name got picked). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If interpreted as Latin words, it could be a subordinate ACI clause which would mean something like "themselves to die" (exact meaning dependent on the main clause). AnonMoos (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the word that means "parent of a deceased child or offspring"?

Greetings Wikipedia-ers--

What is the word that means "parent of a deceased child or offspring"?--Or is there one? We have orphan, widow, widower, to describe the surviving member of these 'paired direct relationships'... but what is the word for the parent of a deceased child, children or offspring? Surely a word or phrase exists, especially given higher infant mortality rates in previous eras (and regions) prior to medical advancements, but I have not found it anywhere online nor by calling those in funerary services. It was suggested by one I spoke to that the above terms were perhaps more terms of entitlement (inherit-ability, as it were)than terms defining a survivor-hood state of being.

It's one thing when you can't think of a word you know... it's another thing altogether when you cannot think of a word, and NO ONE seems to know it. It's a "puzzlement"!

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhon23 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This was asked a while ago. We found no definite answer, but "The reverse of orphan" might interest you anyway. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussion asked for a word in any language, so I'll continue that request here, especially as the OP here didn't mention English specifically (though that seems to have been his intent). In Hebrew, there's a verb, שכל (in paal), which means "to lose a child to death"; I believe the related piel verb means "to kill a child of [direct object]". The way Hebrew works, it would be easy then to create a noun מְשֻׁכָּל ("father who's lost a child to death") and have people understand you; whether such a noun has ever been used, though, I don't know.—msh210℠ 20:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bereaved parent. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In our language punjabi we have a word ਔਤਰਾ . It means one who has no son  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I right that that word is transliterated autarā? And does it mean specifically "one whose son has died", or can it be used for someone who's never had a son? +Angr 21:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish

Hey, I'm started a beginning Spanish course today. My teacher (a non-native speaker, sadly) says that in Spanish "V" and "B" are pronounced the same. I have inferred that she is teaching us Latin-American Spanish (what particular brand, I'm not sure yet), since she didn't mention anything about lisping the s's or z's. I (a linguistics enthusiast [read: amateur]) thought there might be something wrong with that, but I'm none too familiar with the different varieties of Spanish. In Latin American Spanish, is the "V" pronounced like the IPA character β? 76.229.234.175 (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Different texts will tell you different specifics, but generally B and V have come to be pronounced the same way, but the oddity is that there are two different pronunciations. It's like a hard B at the beginning of a word, more like a soft V when in the middle of a word. Or that's how they taught in my school, anyway. A Mexican born friend told me that was "lazy" pronunciation, but it's how languages evolve. That "lazy" approach is kind of like why we now pronounce "knight" as "nite" instead of "kuh-nicht", as we once did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your IP address indicates you're in the U.S., so it's not surprising if you're being taught Latin American Spanish. That's usual in the U.S. Your teacher is right that "b" and "v" are pronounced the same in Spanish. Both of them are [β] after a vowel, r, or l, and both of them are [b] after m or n (both pronounced [m] in this environment) as well as at the beginning of an utterance. So v is pronounced [b] in words like enviar [embiar] and phrases like con Velázquez [kombelaskes], as well as at the beginning of a sentence like ¿Vienes conmigo? [bjenes konmiɣo]; and it's pronounced [β] in words like cava [kaβa] and cuervo [kwerβo] and in phrases like la vaca [la βaka]. +Angr 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The phenomenon is called Betacism. I am English/Portuguese bilingual and when I speak Spanish (not well enough to call myself trilingual), I do distinguish B and V. I am not so consistent in distinguishing LL from Y (Yeísmo).

Linguistics question

What is the name of the linguistics phenomenon when after word X enters language A from language B, if language A already has a word "Y" for what "X" signifies, then X changes in meaning slightly to a closely related meaning which may or may not be an alternate meaning in language "B", not retaining its original significance of Y. This might not happen immediately but over time. Here's a concrete example: French raisin means "grape" but presumably "grape" entered English first (oddly enough, also from French), so raisin means dried grape, and no longer means grape. If this example is incorrect, consider the French word crayon. It means pencil in French but a wax piece used for coloring in English, presumably becasue pencil entered English first. 76.229.234.175 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a term for it, but keep in mind it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes it's the new loanword that takes over the primary meaning and the old native word whose meaning gets shifted. For example, doom (a native word of Old English origin) originally meant "judgment", but when judgment entered the language from French, doom shifted in meaning first to God's judgment specifically and then to its modern meaning of "deadly fate". +Angr 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A similar example: Old or Middle English used to use hund (from German) to refer to all dogs, but then when we got dog (I don't remember from where) we started using hound to refer only to a specific kind of dog. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you ever remember let us know, because the last I heard, nobody knows where the word 'dog' came from :-). I think it's first known appearance (in the form 'dogca') is in a mediaeval monkish manuscript to refer to some specific kind (breed, purpose?) of Canis lupus domesticus, but just what kind isn't clear, nor why it took over as the preferred general term. (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As for articles, I found nothing specific under loanword, while our article on false friend has this odd sentence in its lede: "As well as complete false friends, use of loanwords often results in the use of a word in a restricted context, which may then develop new meanings not found in the original language.". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the general phenomenon called "one word - one meaning" or "one meaning - one word", and I know I've seen it discussed as a driving force in language change. Unfortunately, I can't find any of these discussions right now (I think I must be having a moment). I don't think I've ever heard a more formal term for it. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Semantic field theory deals with this... AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And semantic change has lots of different terms for the way meaning shifts but I agree there is no one word for the entire process. I think you mistake the process of language change though, words don't so much enter the language like some invasive species and displace older words, they are more often deliberately introduced because they fill a semantic gap. It is true that the gap might simply be that the older word seems old-fashioned and the new word seems cool but once a word is introduced it works to shift about other words in the semantic field. The "one word - one meaning" idea, or perhaps "no true synonyms" means that words while appearing synonymous usually have different uses, such as signifying the class or social standing of the speaker.

The examples you gave are also more complex than a simple displacement theory would have them. Pencil entered English first but meant a fine brush originally as pencils as we know them weren't really invented until later. Crayon ultimately derives from the Latin for chalk, so it is rather the French who have the word wrong, using it to mean a constructed drawing implement with the nib encased (like a paintbrush or the Latin penicillus) rather than a simple stick of drawing medium as the English uses of crayon and chalk. Grape and raisin are first recorded in English at about the same time, grape meaning a single berry while raisin meant a bunch of them, or the dried fruit. Raisin came from the Latin racemus for a bunch while grape came from the hook or grapple used to harvest them. The French mostly lost the word grape while the English lost the word raisin for the bunch. meltBanana 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Attorneys General"

Is "Attorneys General" the correct plural of "Attorney General"? I heard a news report use it, but I'd always thought that the plural was "Attorney Generals". --70.134.48.188 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes. The descriptor follows the noun in the French style, and the noun is pluralised rather than the descriptor (though in French they would also pluralise the descriptor, but keep in mind that English does not do this and "attorney" is only distantly related to any French words). "Attorneys Generals" is an example of how languages change, and this example, once considered bad English, now considered poor usage or uneducated but not blatantly wrong English, might become "correct" one day. 76.229.234.175 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This same question was raised a couple of weeks ago. A similar usage is the plural of "court martial", which is "courts martial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't they change the words to "General Attorney", "martial court", etc. and eliminate any possible confusion? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., there's no "they" to do this. Even in France, which has an Academy to produce an official dictionary of the language, people use all kinds of expressions that a Language Regularization Bureau would deplore. And eventually, common usage will probably overcome the inertia of current practice and we'll get "attorney generals" in the name of some official group. Though often they're lawyers, whose fondness for the obscure is legendary. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations given in the OED show that, when "Major General" was first used, three hundred years ago, the plural was "Majors General", but the original meaning has now been forgotten, and the plural has become "major generals". I agree that this will eventually happen to "attorney generals" and to ""court martials", but at present they are considered incorrect because of their origin. Dbfirs 02:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

At least based on modern-day usage, "major generals" is completely logical. A major general is a general officer, which, in plural, is "generals". --173.49.11.188 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the National Association of Attorneys General (in the United States) call themselves that; see also http://www.naag.org/ . So there are certainly good strong sources for that usage, although I have not the slightest doubt that you can also find some utterly-respectable sources that use "attorney generals". (I haven't bothered to Google or to consult a Corpus or newspaper archive to compare numbers for myself.) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat similar question raised last week,[1] and looking in the archives it seems to be a recurring question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

August 19

Viewing the Gothic Language Wikipedia

Would anyone happen to know how I can get the Gothic Language Wikipedia to display correctly in my browser? Do I need a language pack or just a font? Googling 'Gothic font' gives predictably a huge number of irrelevant results. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly me. Info is on that page. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, not resolved at all. The information tells me to download a font (which I did), then goes on to say, 'if you still cannot view the characters, then make a css [blah blah]' - with no information on how to do this, and actually only says it's for versions of Windows up to 2003. Can anyone help here? TIA! [Edit - mabe this should be moved to computing desk...] --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not done anything but it works for me. So, if you're really desperate for a workaround, you could probably use a live CD of Linux in a flavour that has the necessary font pre-installed (Ubuntu and derivatives?) as well as whatever else it is that your system lacks but mine has. --84.46.24.143 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I can probably get it working if I switch to my Ubuntu partition, but I am talking about while I am using Vista - sorry, I should have clarified that. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to figure out which Greek characters these are

Hi, I was wondering which Greek characters are being shown here (see the right hand side)? I tried using the drop down for special characters in the editing form, but many of the characters look the same, and I'm not sure which are the ones in the text. Could someone help figure this out? Thanks,  IShadowed  ✰  02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Φαίνταί μοι κῆνος ἴσος θεοἳσιν? Not sure about the accented letters... sonia♫ 03:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How's your Latin? Here's an 1826 gloss on that fragment from Sappho:
Museum criticum, or, Cambridge classical researches, Volume 2, edited by James Henry Monk, Charles James Blomfield, page 601, II. [This is a classic Ref. Desk collaboration: with the Greek letters transliterated, I could do a Google search on selected words.] —— Shakescene (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I believe that Sonia's response answers my question, but thanks to you both for helping out! Happy editing,  IShadowed  ✰  03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected it at the Wikisource page. —Angr (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I can't read Greek at all; it was a guess on my part. sonia♫ 06:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Book

Does anyone have access to the following book?

• Dubnov, Simon. Divrei Yamei Am Olam. Dvir Co., Ltd., Tel Aviv, 1956

I need someone to translate the information about Ezra's divorce decree on pg. 60. The reason being an author of a book I am reviewing has misquoted sources in other sections. I just want to make sure he isn't doing the same with this book. The author quotes Dubnov as saying a group of "priests, nobles, and Levites" disagreed withe Ezra's divorce decree and headed east. However, Ezra10:15 only says a small handful of people disagreed with the proclamation. It only mentions some Levites. Nothing is ever said about priests or nobles or that they traveled to the east.

I'm sure there is an English translation of this somewhere, but I don't know what volume the information I kneed appears in. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's on page 60 of Dubnov, but you don't know what volume of Dubnov it's on page 60 of: correct me if I misunderstood you. How many volumes are there? Would it be feasible for you to post scans of all of them somewhere? It should be easy to pick out the right one. (Incidentally, I'm guessing it's y'mei, "days of", not yamei, "seas of".)—msh210℠ 18:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book, that's why I asked if anyone else has it. His Wikipedia article says the Hebrew translation of his work is 10 volumes long. The author of the book I am reviewing does not indicate which volume he got the information from. I found the English translations on Google Books, but the second volume, the one I think I need, has not been scanned as of yet. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Two questions

Hello, Is it correct in written english to say :

- He is no innocent

- I've nothing left to offer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.219.150 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence should be "He is not innocent". "He is no innocent" is not standard English, and most English speakers would say it was incorrect.

"I've nothing left to offer" is fine. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. But there could be exceptions. "Innocent" can be a noun, in which case it is possible to say, "He is no innocent." The meaning there would be that "he" is not an "innocent person." But I think the more commonly encountered use of the word "innocent" is as an adverb adjective, as in, "He is not innocent." Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be "adjective", Bus stop. Innocently is an adverb. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. You are right, of course. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Innocent can (in some contexts) be used as a noun meaning "an innocent person", so I see nothing grammatically wrong with "He is no innocent". One wouldn't use it when talking about a person's not having committed a particular crime, but one could well use it when characterizing a person as worldly wise, nobody's fool, a man who's "been around the block". Deor (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I have heard of "noncombatants," for instance, referred to as "innocents." Probably children also could be referred to as "innocents." Those would be "noun" usages of the word. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok forget about innocent. Is it perfectly correct to write "he is no angel" ?

For the second question, I was wondering because it seems to me incorrect to say "I've one brother" instead of I have one brother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.219.150 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not incorrect, just non-standard in most Englishes. Scottish English would be one exception. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Scottish English is any different in this respect! Dbfirs 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably more noticeable in the negative. Scots are more likely to say "I've not heard of that before" than "I haven't heard of that before". In my experience. Or, "You'll not get away with that, you scurvy English swine", than "You won't get away ...". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This is standard in Northern English, too, but then Scots is just a dialect of Northern English (or is Northern English a dialect of Scots?) Dbfirs 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To my way of thinking* (as a Sassenach sometime resident in Scotland), neither. Northern English is a Norwegian-influenced dialect group of English, some of whose more northerly varieties are also somewhat influenced by Scots; Scots (as opposed to Scottish English, but not to be confused with the entirely different Scots Gaelic, of course) is a close sister language to English, somewhat influenced by it (and to a lesser extent by Norwegian). However, an English person rarely hears true Scots being spoken, rather the Scots speakers (probably unconsciously) switch to Scottish English in an English speakers's presence.

*Others may well think differently. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, yes. If you mean in the sense "He is no angel", then "He is no innocent" is fine too. Sorry about that. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Contractions like "I've" are acceptable or not depending on the formality of the writing. Nobody would quibble with "I've nothing left to offer" in a personal letter, but it would be odd in a CEO's formal report to the board (quite apart from the unlikelihood of a CEO expressing that sentiment in such a report) --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.219.150 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Space or no space after ( and before )

Is there a standard in the publishing world whether to do, for example, (this) or ( this )? Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's the first one. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 19:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Romanian

What does the Romanian text at File:WINSTON.OutdoorAdvertising.IS.JPG say? hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

With the help of Google Translate, it's something very close to: Council directive CE 89/622/CEE: Tobacco seriously damages health. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pinch/grain of salt

I occasionally use the phrase "to take with a pinch of salt" (second usage on Wiktionary), with the same meaning as described for "grain of salt" (wikt:grain of salt), also here. Can I assume that pinch is merely an adaption of grain, or is there something more here? Should the link not be made clear on those various pages? [Edit: I note our page confusingly says "with a pinch of salt" in the middle.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article Grain of salt could use some help in several respects, but you seem to be correct that the "pinch" version is just a variant (probably because "pinch of salt" is a familiar culinary expression in English). Deor (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A pinch (literally the amount you naturally pinch between forefinger and thumb) is quite a bit more than a grain (which usually refers to one ground crystal). The usages are different, however. 'pinch of salt' is entirely culinary, while 'grain of salt' relies on the metaphysical belief that salt adds spiritual/ontological solidity. a pinch of salt adds flavor; a grain of salt adds common sense. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This, this, the Wiktionary entry and my own experience would suggest that a "pinch of salt" can be/is used figuratively. Do you think otherwise? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The "grain of salt" expression has been used in English since at least 1647 (and probably much earlier in Latin), whereas the "pinch of salt" equivalent may be only about sixty years old (though someone will, no doubt, find an earlier usage). The meanings are identical. Dbfirs 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It may very well come from Colosians 4:6 in The Bible: "Let YOUR utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt, so as to know how YOU ought to give an answer to each one." schyler (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

what's the name for this fallacy?

If you say something is bad (say, a painting), some people would immediately demand of you to produce a better one. What's the name for this fallacy? --117.204.83.66 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's called the Burden of Proof. Or, more colloquially, Demanding Negative Proof]. schyler (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese name

Hi . Can someone confirm that the person on this page [2] has signed his named Wang Ligang .(or is it someone else?) Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the characters at the bottom are 崔殿国 (pinyin: cuīdiàn'guó)—not even close to the transcription you gave. Intelligentsium 23:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Name = Cui Dianguo ? I got two people mixed up, thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wang Ligang is written 王立剛.--Cam (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

August 20

how doers austin powers sound to a britihs person?

authentic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.13.215 (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no, although I admit I wasn't around in the sixties, so I suppose it's possible people talked more like that then. Marnanel (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lao (Laosian) language

Hopefully, the wikipedia community will come through for me on this! My Administrative Assistant will be returning to school in a week or two. She is from Laos. To show my appreciation for all of her exemplary work, I purchased a small plain wood box for her (she can put stuff into it). Anyway, I wanted to personalize it a bit by putting the words "Happiness" and "Good Luck" on it. Is there anyone who could translate these words into Lao for me (ideally in Lao script). I spent hours on the net today trying to find a free translation but it was a frustrating exercise. Can anyone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.117.26 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Lao word for "happiness" seems to be ຄວາມສຸກ, according to Wiktionary. But I don't know whether it would be appropriate if you use this word in that case, because I don't speak Lao. Hopefully someone who does will arrive soon and provide some help. --Theurgist (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jingle Palace

Anybody know how to write Jingle Palace in Chinese? I can't seem to be able to search for anything about it because of pinyin is exactly like the word jingle as in jingle bells. Maybe I spelled it wrong/--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you enclose "Jingle Palace" in quotation marks when you do a Google search, you'll get mostly relevant results. Deor (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)