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.

April 4

Christian name : "Spruille" ?

Hello learned people ! I am going to translate the article Spruille Braden into french for WP fr, and I wonder what the hereabouts of that unusual first name are : WP doesn't say anything about it, & the only Spruille it shows seems to be S. Braden. Moreover, it has for us Europeans a touch of feminity (which actually is not at all becoming with the character of Mr Braden) ...Thank you beforehand for your answers , t. y. Arapaima (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spruille seems to be a rather rare surname in the U.S. There was recently a thread on this page that meandered off its original topic and onto the topic of using surnames as first names in English. In Mr. Braden's case, I suspect some ancestor of his had the last name Spruille (perhaps it was his mother's maiden name or the maiden name of one of his grandmothers) and he was given it as a first name in honor of the Spruille line in his ancestry. Angr (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side matter, since the OP mentioned translation, it is not common to translate or change a name when translating an article from one language to another. An article about James Baker, for example, would never be translated into French as "Jacques Boulanger" or into Italian as "Giacomo Panettiere" even though the names are linguistic cognates of each other. Names should be written in their original spelling unless the person's name has historically been translated, other than historical figures like Copernicus, or some royals (c.f. Francis I in English vs. François I in French), this is uncommon among most articles, and is the exception rather than the rule. --Jayron32 18:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the OP did only say he was going to translate the article into French; he didn't imply he was trying to translate the name itself into French. Angr (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the topic has come up, anyone have any idea how to pronounce Spruille Braden? — kwami (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I hear /spruˈɪl ˈbreɪdn̩/ in my head, but I have no idea if that's correct. I can't find it in any of my dictionaries. Angr (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iambic, really? /ˈspru əl/ seems more likely to me. (We're comparing instinct here, nothing more.) —Tamfang (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another tangent: The OP asked for the "hereabouts" of the name. This is not an expression that I recognize. Is this used regularly in some variety of English? --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is French, see User:Arapaima. Roger (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it related to some expression in French? I'm not even sure what French for hereabouts would be. Presque ici or some such? --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name is pronounced /ˈspruːl ˈbreɪdən/, like "fool maiden". I edited the article so that it follows the pattern of Gough Whitlam, where the IPA and phonetic respelling are displayed prominently at the very beginning of the article. LANTZY ^TALK 06:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to be blown up = shell shock ?

Hello, again ! The question supra about being blown away makes me thing I have that problem bugging me for some time now : in Hemingway's short story "Now I Lay Me" (at the beginning, 8° line in the Penguin Edition) the young american Nick, laying on a straw couch in a farm some miles from the front line in north Italy in 1918, can't sleep nights : "I had been that way for a long time, ever since I had been blown up at night and felt it go out of me and go off and then come back.". "It" is his soul. Can one infer that he has had shell shock ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers, t. y. Arapaima (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was apparently involved in an explosion, certainly. However, a diagnosis of "shell shock" or PTSD is going a bit farther than I think we dare do here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shell-shock involves more than just insomnia. So unless you can infer more profoundly destabilizing problems, I'd say no. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priced to Own

What does "priced to own" mean? Black Carrot (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example? Where did you see it? RudolfRed (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen that expression for a couple of decades, but I recall it as advertising language meaning "This product is so cheap you will have no trouble ending up possessing one." HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are trying to convey that the price is low enough to purchase the item, versus renting/leasing it. The usual phrase for this is "priced to sell". StuRat (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or "rent to own". Bielle (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That means something different. It's a rental, but a very small portion of each installment also goes towards the purchase. This is the most expensive way to buy anything. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in the scene in Dogma where Bartleby rants about Mooby, he mentions "priced-to-own video cassettes". Also, it seems to be fairly common on the interwebs [1]. Just curious what it actually meant. Black Carrot (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it almost certainly means videos sold direct to customers, rather than the more expensive ones sold to video rental stores for renting out. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally, unless it arises specifically in contrast to renting, read it as somewhere in between "motivated seller" and "handyman special", i.e. priced with an eye to a quick sale, for whatever reason. At one company I worked, every so often someone would come in with a vanload of new tools/metal-working equipment and "we were at a trade show, our boss says unload all this rather than ship it back". That stuff was priced-to-own... Franamax (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

French translation

Could someone translate this for me? It is in French. Google translate makes no sense.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Paa a Teuruarii était de la lignée royale de Huahine. Roonuiariiatua a Terearii I" Teramana l'adopta lorsqu'il était enfant. Tera- mana Teuruarii I" l'éleva comme son fils et le mit sous le nom de Teuruarii III sur le trône de Rurutu. Paa Teuruarii III avait pour femme Tenapapua qui lui donna un fils, Epatiana a Teuruarii, qui fut le dernier roi de Rurutu. Puis l'île passa sous administration française, et la république remplaça le roi. Une autre tradition donne une liste légèrement différente : la voici. On notera quelle est de deux générations plus courte. Il y manque le n" 1 (Taneuri) et le n° 7 (Teuirataaroa). D'autres noms sont épe- lés différemment et il ya des inversions. 1 . Taneaura 1 1 . Matairuatea 2. Taneanea 12. Taaitini 3."

Here goes, but it would be nice to know the source (was it from metropolitan France, or Pacific possession with her own patois or creole?) Excuse curly quotes, just trying to distinguish source and object. A couple of Google translate's difficulties will have come from line breaks with a hyphen:

“

Paa a Teuruarii was from the royal line of Huahine. Roonuiariiatua a Terearii I Teramana adopted him while he was an infant. Teramana Teuruarii I raised him like a son and placed him, under the name of Teuruarii III upon the throne of Rurutu. Paa Teuruarii III had for a wife Tenapapua who gave him a son, Epatiana a Teuruarii, who was the last king of Rurutu. Then the island passed under French administration, and the [French] Republic replaced the king. Another tradition gives a slightly different list: here it is. Note that it is two generations shorter. It omits No. 1 (Taneuri) and No. 7 (Teuirataaroa). Other names are spelled differently and there are reversals of order.

”

The last part is hard to figure out without looking at the source page ( 1 . Taneaura 1 1 . Matairuatea 2. Taneanea 12. Taaitini 3. ) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also this link from the French stub about Rurutu: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Fr_Polynesia.html#Rurutu (a very partial genealogy in English). —— Shakescene (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jzn. (Dutch abbreviation)

I've seen several Dutch names with "Jzn." appended (typically at the end). The WP article Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans says: "He often used the informal patronymic "Jzn" (for Janzoon) in his publications." What the heck is an "informal patronymic" and why does this one turn up so frequently? And is that really what's going on here? -- Elphion (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of Dutch, but in this case he was named the same as his grandfather, so "Jan's son" tells you he's his father's son rather than his grandfather. Like "Jr" when s.o. has the same name as his father. Common prob'ly cuz Jean/John/Jan (also Jacob, Joseph, etc.) is a common name. "Informal" because it's not actually his name: His legal name was identical to his grandfather's.

If you check out this page, you'll see other such abbreviations, and the bio links tell you who their fathers were: Azn (zoon van Abraham), Bzn (Bernardus), Czn (Cornelis), Fzn (Frederik), Hzn (Hendrikus), Jzn (Jacob), Pzn (Petrus), Wzn (Jan Willem), even Th.Azn (zoon van Thomas Anthony). I don't know if they were all named after their grandfathers – is that a common custom in the Netherlands? — kwami (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See "patronymic" for the meaning of the term. The patronymic used by Oudemans was probably "informal" in the sense that he was not officially named Janzoon by his parents. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, and the reference to Patronymic, which I would not have thought to check. One can, of course, throw "informal" and "patronymic" at each other and cobble together a hunch about what might be going on. The Dutch section of Patronymic explains that patronymics were the common naming custom until fairly recently in Holland, but what's missing is any indication that the old custom survived as a widespread informal usage (to the extent that it appears even in formal settings) or what purpose it serves. Are the filial bonds in the Netherlands just stronger than elsewhere, or, e.g., are these perhaps used to distinguish people with otherwise similar names? And are they still used today? -- Elphion (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: being named after one's grandparent is indeed a custom in the Netherlands (although not as common as it was), I myself am also named after my grandfather. However, the use of Janszoon etc. is independent from this. Before the use of surnames, this was the common (and official) way of identifying someone. The usage decreased after Napoleon made the use of surnames obligatory, but remained somewhat prevalent in the 19th century. It gradually decreased and was not used much in the 20th century. It is now obsolete. Kwamikagami's description of 'informal patronymic' is correct. However, I happen to have two uncles with the same name, and when necessary, they are distinguished using the name of either their wife or father. Sometimes the patronymic is jokingly used here. -- Lindert (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila effect

Hello. I want to know an etymology of expression "efecto tequila" or "tequila effect". From spanish forum I found out that it's not a traditional spanish idiom, so may be you can help me. Besides I will need a source of the explanation.--Yourist2 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tequila Effect is used to describe the domino effect that triggered economic crises in Brazil, Argentina, and other neighbouring regions in Latin America in 1994. Leading up to the economic crisis which triggered the Tequila Effect was President Carlos Salinas de Gortari’s administration. His government was corrupt, with members of government receiving bribes and appropriating government funds for personal wealth. I guess it was called 'Tequila' as reference to Mexico.See here. Richard Avery (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, you want specifically the etymology. I am not sure a clear etymology will appear on any site. But my opinion is that 'Tequila' refers to Mexico (assumed national drink) in the same way that someone might (slightly) humourously refer to the 'Vodka effect' if it had happened in Russia or the 'Scotch effect' if it had happened in Scotland. Newspapers, magazines, they always want a catchy headline, a cute catchy name. Richard Avery (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it is called so because one drink drags another. But unfortunately I can't find source, that can proove it.--Yourist2 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that suggestion on the Spanish discussion. I understand the term (Tequila Effect) was first coined by an American magazine or paper so it is perhaps unlikely they would have used a reference to a (not very common) Spanish saying. Richard Avery (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of Agreement

I just asked this on the article's talk page, but no-one has posted there for four years, so maybe here....

Why is a Heads of Agreement called a Heads of Agreement? The words don't seem to relate to the meaning much at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a cite explaining exactly why they call it that, but the sense I get is that it's analogous what we might call a "heads up". It's a non-binding understanding between two parties of their broad intentions in regard to a certain matter. It's early advice about where they're heading. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed that "heads" here means "document headings" or "document outline" i.e. it is a list of items on which the two parties aim to reach an agreement, although the full details of the agreement are not yet known. So "heads of agreement" = "agreement headings". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the relevant sense of head is that which is recorded as sense 27 in the OED (2nd ed.): "One of the chief points of a discourse; the section of it pertaining to any such point; hence, a point, topic; a main division, section, chapter of a writing; a division of a subject, class, category"—the point being that the document sets forth the general topics or points that will form the basis of the specific details included in the final agreement. Deor (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I suspect that's getting closer to the core meaning. It's a use of the word head I don't think I've come across before though. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Pinyin "iong"

In the Pinyin article, "iong" is placed under the "Finals beginning with ü" section, but is analysed as i + ong (which seems more logical). Why is this so? I have never heard it pronounced with [y].

Also, why is "ong" always analysed as "ueng" and given to be pronounced as [ʊŋ]? To me, it sounds more similar to [ɔŋ]. Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue you identify looks to me like an error, though I don't have the expertise to fix it properly. As for your second question, I agree that this vowel, pronounced by native speakers, is not exactly [ʊ]. However, it is also certainly not [ɔ], even though it is spelled with 'o' in Pinyin. I think that it is a near-back vowel like [ʊ], but a bit more open than [ʊ]. The vowel is more central and closer than [ɔ]. I cannot find a symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet vowel diagram for the appropriate position in the diagram. I think [ʊ] is an approximation for a sound that apparently lacks a standard IPA symbol. Marco polo (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not [ɔ]. If you pronounce a word like, say, xiong, with a real [ɔ] (the sound in "caught", at least if you're from the eastern United States), you get something that sounds very rednecky and not Chinese. I don't think there is an [ɔ] in Chinese except maybe in the interjection 哦. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely not [ɔ]. But it really doesn't sound like [ʊ] at all, and anyway I said "more similar". I agree with Marco polo. (About "iong" being placed with the finals beginning with ü, this may be inherited from zhuyin, where "iong" is written as "ㄩㄥ" (üeng).) Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a matter of phonological analysis. Chinese is tricky in this regard, because there isn't much morphology to shift sounds around and see which is an allophone of which. So claims tend to be based on what makes the analysis simple or beautiful, rather than on any direct evidence. I'm not convinced a phonemic analysis (whether /üəŋ/ or /ioŋ/) is terribly insightful in such situations. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

Agreeance

Is agreeance a word and if so where is it used and how does its meaning differ from agreement? 112.215.36.178 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be you misheard "a grievance" ? Of course, lawyers, politicians, and businessmen seem to like to use overly complex language to confuse people, so it wouldn't surprise me if they invented this, too. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a fair few Google book hits for "agreeance". There seems to be some suggestion that it is actually an old form, and, indeed, some of the book hits are from the 19th century. [2] calls it "now rare". 86.160.85.108 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers in particular like to use obsolete words, or even a dead language (Latin). StuRat (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[OP] Just to clarify, I googled this before I came here to ask the question. It seems that although some dictionaries don't list the word and it is sometimes listed as a common mistake in grammar guides, it is listed as an obsolete word in the OED and it is common in some areas. I'm from Queensland in Australia and although I would never use the word myself, I hear people from other states say it all of the time. In some of the forums that I found throug google searches I found people from various places strenously rejecting the word and others conversely bemoaning the grammatical elitism of not accepting it. I'm interested to know who has heard it used, whether they think it sounds correct and where it is used. There was also some suggestion that the meaning is different from agreement in that it refers to an unwritten pact more than a formal contract. 112.215.36.178 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying an "agreement" is always a formal pact ? That's not how I use it. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I use it either, but this was suggested by some other Australian English speakers. I think that assertion is absurd on its face given the existence of phrases like a gentlemen's agreement. 112.215.36.178 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in total agreement with that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The specific instance that prompted me to think of it today was actually not an Australian English speaker at all though. My wife was watching the US American show Dancing with the Stars and one of the judges said "I'm in agreeance with everyone else up here". Hearing that made me wonder if it is widely used outside of some parts of Australia. 112.215.36.178 (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am from the UK, and to me it sounds ungainly at best. If I heard it used I would probably think it was a mistake, or some sort of misguided attempt at a fancy word, rather than a legitimate use of a "now rare" form. Of course, I could be wrong. 86.160.85.108 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard it (in the UK) either. A quick Google reveals that someone called Fred Durst of a popular musical ensemble called Limp Bizkit, created a rumpus by using "agreeance" publicly at the 2008 Grammy Awards. This prompted "the North American editor of the Oxford English Dictionary" to spring to his defence.[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an example of linguistic change. Whether or not "agreeance" has a legitimate history of existence in the language, if a lot of people are using it now, we might as well consider it to have (re-)entered the language. If the trend stays stable or grows, you can bet it will eventually make it into all of the dictionaries. All words started with someone either making them up or taking them from another language. Evzob (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the "making them up" bit is not always a conscious act of creativity; far from it. Usually it's simply an error, made by someone who assumed such a word already existed. In their way, the lower education standards and the increased levels of community ignorance we see all around us (despite the instant availability of almost all information) have given people unwitting licence to create a whole pile of words that would probably not otherwise have been created. This may be a good thing or a terrible thing, depending on your point of view. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of African-American first names

I've just read a news story involving a group of young African-Americans, whose names included DeKendrix, JaMarcus, Latevin, and LaDarius; as far as I'm aware, the use of the De, Ja, La etc. prefixes is a purely African-American phenomenon, and the fondness for 'names of non-western-European origin' also seems particularly common among African-Americans.

Linguistically, are names of this style 'genuinely African' names which have been preserved? This seems unlikely to me, since I've never come across such names in the (southern) parts of Africa where I've lived, or among Black British or Caribbeans. If they are a purely modern phenomenon, how old is it?

(I'd prefer to keep discusison here linguistic; while the social reasons for the phenomenon may be fascinating, I suspect that they would introduce a substantial risk of thread drift). Henry ^Flower 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources seem to suggest that this trend is purely African-American, as opposed to a preservation of African culture. The motivation in inventing these names is suggested to be a concious move away from names considered to bring to mind so-called slave names by evoking the African-American culture of the South, and in particular the French heritage of Louisiana and New Orleans - hence the French-sounding 'De' and 'La' prefixes.

This paper on 'Naming and Linguistic Africanisms in African American Culture' by Lupenga Mphande of Ohio State University discusses the subject in section 3.6 (Present trends in cultural reconfiguring). The Wikipedia article African-American culture#Names also touches on it, although the statements made are currently un-cited. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The linked paper argues that the naming pattern identified by Henry Flower is similar in style to African naming practices, implying deep cultural links, not that the names themselves are derived from African names, which names following Henry Flower's pattern generally aren't. The popularity of names on the De-, Ja-, and La- pattern I think is fairly recent, dating back not much further than the 1960s and 1970s. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it farfetched to imagine that the form might be influenced/reinforced by awareness of Bantu noun class prefixes? —Tamfang (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely, though anything is possible. AFAIK, most slave peoples to come to the U.S. were from West Africa (Modern Senegal, Nigeria, Mali, etc.) wheras Bantu is spoken mostly South/East of there. If I am reading the maps at Niger–Congo languages then most U.S. slave peoples would have spoken languages of the Mande languages family. Of course, the naming practice didn't arise until the 1960s or so, long after onewould expect such language usages to have died out in the U.S. --Jayron32 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paper Cucumber Mike linked to above does suggest that there is a substantial Bantu linguistic heritage in the US, and specifically that the prefixes are "similar" to Bantu prefixes in carrying gender implications. On the other hand, the main source for this section is a book called "11,001 Names for your African-American Baby". Whether the similarity is coincidence, heritage, or mock-heritage is unclear. Henry ^Flower 05:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All humans have the same grammatical gender in Bantu, unless it's a diminutive or you're indicating that the person is somehow defective, so that's completely off the mark. There were, however, a lot of Congolese taken in the slave trade, so there is Bantu ancestry in the US. (A lot came from the Solomon Islands, too, which you don't hear too much about.) There are a number of African names that have been preserved among the Gullah, but AFAIK there is no connection between that and the recent invention of African-sounding names. And it is invention: people invent new names because they sound beautiful/African, and some of that may occasionally be a modern influence of African names that people have heard, but in general it's purely for aesthetic reasons and people often try for a name no-one has heard before (though, as you've noted, often following set patterns). The results can be quite lovely, though they may stigmatize the person the way "axing" for a job will (though thankfully this is lessening, as the practice becomes more familiar and is even starting to be imitated by whites) and though there are sometimes unfortunate results.[4] — kwami (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, Solomon Islands talks about the blackbirding that was used to acquire workers for Queensland and Fiji, but says nothing about any slaves taken to the USA. Can you provide more info on this? Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As article Blackbirding states, it started in the 1860s with Peruvians, at a time when the United States was preoccupied with the Civil War, and Union states without slavery (California, Oregon) were on the Pacific coast. It seems quite unlikely that Polynesians or Melanesians mixed with U.S. Blacks to any significant degree in the U.S. in the 19th century (though they may have done so with Peruvian blacks in Peru). AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My choice of words was careful: I'm not suggesting that prefixed names reflect a practice inherited via slave ancestors. I'm suggesting that Americans of West African descent are no exception to general ignorance as to the differences between West Africa and the rest of Africa. (I once studied Swahili; I had the only blue eyes in the room, but I'd wager none of my classmates had any more East African ancestry than I.) I'm suggesting that the vague idea "every noun has a prefix, it's an African thing" could conceivably be on some people's mind when coining baby's name. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French help: "Unknown control"

Hi! For File:Mali Azawad rebellion fr.svg I would like to know what "unknown control" is (as in we don't know if X rebel group still controls Y). Is it "contrôle inconnue"? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Sous contrôle inconnu" (contrôle is maculine). On the map "Tuaregs" should read "touaregs" (with an "o" and no capital "T", because it is an adjective.). "Au of 5 avril, 2012" should read "Au 5 avril 2012" ("of" removed, and no comma). Whereas perfectly comprehensible, in my opinion, it is better French to say "Sous contrôle actuel [des rebelles]" and "Précédemment[/Anciennement] sous contrôle [des rebelles]" than "contrôle actuel" and "contrôle ancien". To be shorter we can say "Actuellement contrôlé" and"Précédemment [/Anciennement] contrôlé". — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I'll let the author of the French version know about your suggestions WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, AldoSyrt, for that detailed and humbling review of what should be changed. I had translated the new title myself, using my very basic French skills - something I won't try again. :-p And there's no excuse for the "of" typo....whoops. Evzob (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Utot' related to 'toot'?

One fairly common word in Tagalog used by Filipinos for the word meaning a fart is 'utot.' Does the etymology of this word trace to the English word 'toot,' meaning the same thing, or is it a coincidence? The pronunciation of both is pretty close (in this poster's ears). 69.243.220.115 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel onomatopoeia strikes me as more likely. —Tamfang (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Learning Yiddish

I am interested in learning to speak the central (Polish) dialect of Yiddish. Most books for learners focus on "Standard Yiddish," whose pronunciation is based essentially on that of the Lithuanian dialect. In what ways will pronunciation in the central dialect be unpredictable from the standard orthography of the language?

Also, are there any learning materials that give Central Yiddish significant (or exclusive) coverage right from the beginning? They can be in any well-known European language. 96.46.197.161 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If geolocation is correct: There is a Jewish Community Centre in Huron Street, London, Ontario. One of the staff members may be able to suggest a suitable text book for the relevant Eastern Yiddish dialect. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of Polish Yiddish, I can assure you that the pronunciation is almost always predictable. In addition, formal written Yiddish is identical in all dialects, though in informal writing or speech there may be different choices of vocabulary. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English in Bollywood

I've seen two recent Indian movies (Dasvidaniya and Om Shanti Om) in which almost a third of the dialogue is in English; I did not detect a pattern in the choice of language for a given sentence. Is this an affectation of show biz, or an accurate portrayal of some stratum of life there?

A couple of times in the latter movie, I heard "Such?" meaning "Is it really true?". Is that the English word such (the semantic drift is not shocking) or a Hindi word that happens to resemble it? —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by looking at Indian English. Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't answer either question, thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered Indians who, in conversation with family members or close friends, switch between English and some Indian language seemingly at random. 86.181.173.112 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Tamfang (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called code-switching; happens in many polygot communities. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the word, and heard bilingual conversations often enough when I lived in a polyglot city, but such switching as I've witnessed in person usually seemed to be governed by subject-matter (the speaker might lack domain vocabulary in one language). —Tamfang (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English is often used in Bollywood movies to make a point. There are certain characters that tend to get more English lines than others, to denote social/economic status or faked social/economic status. Usage of English often gets a sarcastic overtone. The usage of English in movies is not exactly the same as in real life, but often a parody of the code-switching of upper class Indians and/or the young and hip. --Soman (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Massacre

Is "massa-cree" a common pronunciation of "massacre" in the United States? 87.113.94.245 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it, and I can't find it any American dictionaries. If I did hear it, I'd probably think the person pronouncing it that way either was joking or had never heard it pronounced and was taking a stab at a spelling pronunciation. Angr (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I've heard it is "Alice's Restaurant", where it is clearly meant to be humorous. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have now found it in Webster's Third New International, where it is marked "substandard" (which is pretty strong language for them). So it's not nonexistent, but I don't think one could call it a common pronunciation in the U.S. Angr (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site has several alleged examples of that usage.[5] It's certainly not commonly used. It's probably used by the folks who pronounce champion as "champeen" - only less so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of vittles, varmints, ornery critters, Yosemite Sam, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Lloyd Bridges in High Noon. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, it makes me think of Walter Brennan. I'm pretty sure that he used the pronunciation in question in some films. And you're right, I seem to recall that that Yosemite Sam (and even Bugs Bunny himself) used it as well. Deor (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese help

Charlie Soong's original name was Han Jiaozhun: 韓教準. The reading of the first character is Hán and the third character is zhǔn. But the second character can be Jiào, jiāo, or jiào - which is it? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also at Soong Ai-ling the children were called Kǒng Ling(?)-something (孔令?) - What is the reading of "ling" while used in a name? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

The role of nouns

Hi, I wondered when I saw some pharses like"company houses" and "Norway islands" what is the role of "norway" and "company. I mean they are not adjective,

And another thing, I have noticed that in some dialogs you are able to speak correctly wihout using the Definiteness "some", when you are speaking about plural and it is not specific thing. Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The term "company houses" is common in my country, Australia, particularly in mining communities, to describe those house owned by the mining company for use by their own staff. Haven't come across "Norway islands". I don't quite understand your other point. Can you give an example? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can be called a Noun adjunct or Attributive noun (first element of noun-noun compound). However, "Norway islands" isn't really conventional standard English... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusion over the term "adjective", as either the role a word plays, or as a specific part of speech. Under the first use of the word, 'company' and 'Norway' are "adjectives" because they modify a noun. Under the second use of the word, they are simply nouns, albeit nouns in an attributive role. The word "attributive" is also used for adjectives: in 'the red house', 'red' is an attributive adjective; in 'the house is red', 'red' is a predicative adjective. In 'the company house', 'company' is an attributive noun; in 'the house is company' ... well, you can't say that, which is one of the reasons nouns and adjectives are considered different parts of speech to begin with.

Very often when technical terms don't make sense, it's because they have multiple uses, and people mix up those uses without clarifying which they mean. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He remarried to

I saw this usage "He remarried to Martha ..." in Samuel P. Bush#Early life, and found the use of "to" odd. I would have expected "He remarried Martha ..." or "He was remarried to Martha ..." or a comma before "to". I searched the archives and came across Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 2#Remarrying, which touches upon the subject but doesn't say if it's right or wrong. Is this a old world usage? Jay (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, "He remarried Martha" might imply that this was his second marriage to the same woman, while "He remarried to Martha" makes it clearer that the second wife was probably a different woman than the first wife... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the 'to' is still jarring, and doesn't sound like English to me. I'd go with either the passive or the comma, as Jay suggested. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If "remarried" takes a direct object, it can only be the person he was previously married to (and presumably divorced). This is not rocket science, but the way the English language works. If you're cooking and you reheat a dish, it can only be a dish you previously cooked or heated; it can't be some entirely new dish you haven't touched yet. Same principle with marriages. If it's anybody other than his previous wife he's now marrying, it can't be expressed as "He remarried Mary" because that misleads the reader into believing he was previously married to Mary, when he wasn't.

Also, we never say "He married to Jane", so why would we say "He remarried to Jane"? Now, we do say "He got married to Jane", but we still can't say "He got remarried to Jane" unless he was previously divorced from Jane. Some things simply cannot go together; you cannot merge "He remarried" with "He married Jane" into "He remarried Jane" or "He remarried to Jane". The first fails on the grounds of accuracy (except in the special case where two people who were previously married to each other are remarrying each other), and the second fails on the grounds of being non-English. You have to find some other solution. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French R

Does Standard French use the fricative or approximant? They have the same IPA symbol, so I can't tell which it's supposed to be. --108.206.4.199 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]