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.

February 6

Requested translation - Chinese to English

The local Dollar Store has some nice reflective safety vests that are great for riding my bike at night. However, there are some Chinese characters on the back rather prominently displayed. Not knowing any Chinese at all, I'd like to find out what it says, lest I embarrass myself, or offend others. The company name is "Dong Hong", in case that helps. Thanks. Bunthorne (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing offensive. 安全 is safety, 警示 is (warning) notice/notifying, and 服 is clothes. Oda Mari (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I appreciate the help. Bunthorne (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Meaning of word Kashir or Kashar

Kashir or Kashar is a rare name used in subcontinent specially in Pakistan. Language & meanings are unknow. Help is required to know meanings of Kashir or Kashar and language it belongs to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.158.17 (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an extremely broad question. It would help to know in what context the word came up. For instance, cashier in English is pronounced kashir. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the OP's question as asking about the context of personal names, i.e. the meaning and origin of the personal name "Kashir". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kashir is a name for Kashmir. The Kashmiri people also call their land Kashir. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations for Volts: alternating current and root mean squared

Does Wikipedia have an approved (or preferred) abbreviation for Volts: alternating current and Volts: root mean squared? I've seen V AC and V RMS. I've also seen a number of variants, like V_rms, which made me wonder whether, for example, V_ac would be acceptable for Volts: alternating current. GrammarStickler (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look around and/or ask some people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineering. --Jayron32 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, one would use RMS as an acronym for the term itself; as in: "The RMS is determined from the quadratic mean of the input". And, _rms would be used when applied as a modifier to something else; as in: "The output is V_rms". ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

Alumni - only graduates?

Does the term "alumni" refer only to people who graduated from an institution or to all people who had ever been a student there? Roger (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too wondered about that recently, while writing the article on Gimnazija Mostar. I decided to seperate the graduates from the rest, just in case. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion, but I think it implies that you completed your degree. Claiming that you're an alumni of an institution that you spent a few semesters drinking your way through a 0.5 GPA seems a bit pretentious. If you didn't get your degree, you can say you have attended said school, but you're not an alumni without a framed certificate with nice gold leaf and big signatures on it. --Jayron32 20:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick alert: an individual is an alumnus (m.) or an alumna (f.). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Unless they are British, then they are aluminium with the extra i... --Jayron32 00:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, anyway, alumnus conventionally implies a "graduate", although the root merely means "pupil" or "foster son/daughter",[1] hence the term "alma mater" or "foster mother" for the university one graduated from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage may differ in the UK. For example, I consider myself an alumnus of the polytechnic where I did my degree, but not of the other 3 universities where I did post-graduate (but non-degree) qualifications. However, the only institutions to go out of their ways to keep in touch with me are the 3 universities... --TammyMoet (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that "alumni associations" are happy to take your money whether you graduated or not. Alumni newsletters often report former students with degree and year, say "BS 1984" or "Ph.D. 1998", and you will sometimes see "Ex 2001" for the year a student left without a degree. (That is of course a different question from the one Roger asked.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around google a bit, it seems that "alumnus" is also used to mean someone who once attended a school, graduated or not. I would say that usage is less common. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore - Do such newsletters usually distinguish between the "dropuots" and the "genuine" alumni, or does it simply report on them together with the graduates. Roger (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they distinguish by reporting the person as "EX <year>" instead of "BS <year>" or "PHD <year>", but other than that, no. Right now I'm specifically thinking of Caltech's alumni newletter — my other school, UCLA, is a little too big to be giving everyone's personal news. --Trovatore (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly, "alumnus" doesn't imply "graduate". If you consult any dictionary, you'll find something along the lines of "a graduate or former student of a school" as a definition of the word. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a lot of speakers it actually does imply that, regardless of what dictionaries say; we see examples of this right here. I actually started to wonder why many dictionary definitions and my own usage diverge so much, and I determined that since I do not personally know of anyone who has dropped out of college, and all the famous people I know of who have done so are referred to as dropouts because it is sensational to do so— does anyone refer to Bill Gates as an alumnus of Harvard rather than as a Harvard dropout?— I've simply had no opportunity to read or talk or think about dropouts as alumni. So I never do. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Harvard University mentions Bill Gates as an alumnus, and I expect that they were glad to recognise him as an alumnus when he gave them millions! Dbfirs 08:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone who starts a degree at one university and completes it at another an alumnus of both or only the latter? Roger (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the latter, because they're the one that gives them the qualification and the piece of paper. People might generally be able to get credit for previous studies undertaken elsewhere, but those studies are thereby treated as if they were studies undertaken at the new institution. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, former. Colloquially maybe not. In the former case you probably need a fuller explanation (or asterisk). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense to me, Mr Walker. Can you explain this "technicality"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just that alum also has broader connotations than graduate, although it is often used as a synonym. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so a person could claim to be an alumnus of both A and B. I read your comment that they could claim A only. Whereas, if they had to pick one and only one, I believe it would have to be B. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. Sorry if I was unclear. By former, I meant both, because the question was "both or only the latter". Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I latterly see that your former comment meant both the former and the latter but your latter comment did not mean just the latter as my former and latter comments meant. I'm glad we sorted that out. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In actual practice here, we list everybody who attended a given school as an alumnus thereof. Just because Bill Gates didn't get a degree at Harvard, or Frank Lloyd Wright at University of Wisconsin-Madison, does not mean that these schools were not important in shaping their lives. (I certainly regard myself as an alumnus of all the schools I've attended, not just the ones that gave me degrees.) Unless the category is Graduates of School X, rather than Alumni of School X or School X students, I think we should continue to do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be stressed enough, in light of Orange Mike's answer, that the OP is asking about general English usage, not the (sometimes idiosyncratic) usage specific to Wikipedia. These are non-overlapping concepts. That is, the practices here at Wikipedia do not necessarily reflect the common understanding of a word like "alumuni/a/ae/us". The fact that Wikipedia has a particular practice does not mean that other definitions are invalid, and the existence of those other definitions does not prescribe those usages to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, Jayron! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia usage aside, the OP's question does not make it clear whether the OP is asking about official usage or idiomatic usage, because the two could differ. In my experience, "alumnus" (etc.) is used idiomatically equivalently to "graduate", or even "degree recipient", whereas universities and other educational institutions typically adopt a wider usage. Alumni associations are usually happy to admit and/or claim people who attended even if they did not graduate, or graduated without a degree. Especially if the person in question (1) has money or (2) is famous or otherwise prominent in their field. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at OED Online, I see that the oldest meaning of the term was "A male pupil or student attending a particular school, university, or other seat of learning". However, this usage is now marked "obscure". The contemporary meaning, "orig. U.S.", is "A former pupil or student (typically male) of a particular school, university, etc.; a graduate of a particular seat of learning". A note states: "The singular alumnus almost always refers to a male, but the plural alumni is often used to refer to graduates of either sex." That suggests to me that the contemporary meaning of the word definitely excludes current students, but could refer to former students who have graduated from the institution as well as those who have not. (The note is a bit puzzling because it refers only to graduates.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "note" is almost unnecessary — this is standard for words of Latin derivation that have masculine and feminine forms. If you have a mixed group, you use the masculine plural. So I wouldn't read too much into the fact that the note is restricted to graduates. --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Exes. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Short answer - the usage varies, so check the context carefully. American colleges and alumni associations seem to be more likely to recognise non-graduates as alumni than institustions in other parts of the Anglosphere. Thanks Roger (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

japan's culture

can anybody translate the use of son at the end of somebody's name? Davidson, Michaelson, etc? Is it just a sign of respect? Does it translate ? -- dcy413 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcy413 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually spelt in English as san, for which we have some information at Japanese honorifics. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Japanese, but do they not have a "son of" structure in their naming system? Isn't "rō (郎)" the Japanese equivalent? (I understood the question differently from Jack, and my answer is probably not useful because it applies to male given names.) Dbfirs 07:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not have that system. The child always takes the family name of the father. "rō (郎)" is occasionally used in first names, but has nothing to do with the parents' names. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... so there is really no equivalent and no translation? Dbfirs 12:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Japan does not use the same system as Iceland. There is no translation, because the system is not used. Also, names should not be translated, anyway. On Hiroyuki Chabata-san's passport, it will not say Mr. Wide-Happiness Tea-Field. That's ridiculous. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered why you'd mentioned Iceland until I remembered Magnus Magnusson. Is the question based on a misunderstanding? Dbfirs 14:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole question is riddled with confusion: The heading is "japan's culture", yet the question is about translating the use of son (as in Davidson or Michaelson) at the end of somebody's name, which has nothing to do with Japanese. I must admit I hadn't paid close enough attention to the question to notice this inherent mismatch of header and text, so my initial response was based on an assumption they were talking of translating the Japanese -san into other languages and that the OP assumed the Japanese -san is equivalent to the -son in English and Scandinavian languages. Other respondents interpreted it in exactly the reverse way: translating the English -son into the Japanese equivalent, but also asking if that's possible or meaningful. I give the OP 10 marks for a short header, but 0 marks for the clarity of the question, and -10 marks for confusing everybody. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The complex and nuanced system of Japanese honorifics has no English equivalent, and indeed no equivalent in most languages. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. In English we refer to someone with Mr or Mrs or Miss or Ms. They are basically the same as 'san' in Japanese. 'Sama' is more polite and respectful. 'Kun' is used for little boys (like older English 'master'), or affectionately for older boys younger than oneself (presumably someone you are tutoring), and 'chan' is used for girls (but also for boys). In most cases, in Japan, people refer to each other by their job title in the work place, and don't even say the name. This happens in many countries/languages. English is a little bit different, because if I had a boss called 'John Smith', I would call him 'John'. However, this also happens in Japan. I worked in Japan for ten years, and everyone used their first names, occasionally (but not always) appended with their job title. It's not as different as you think. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by the caption in File:Tokugawa Ieyasu handprint.jpg?

--Inspector (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just says how old he was (38), how tall he was (155cm), and what his weight was (60kg) at the time of the print. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the last sentence. I just knew it says "...is at ...", but I am not sure which those two noun refer to.--Inspector (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handprint is available at the shop. Oda Mari (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say or imply that "Handprint is available..." it is the original? I just see claims like this in other discussion in this wikipedia.--Inspector (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that. I very much doubt that the original handprint would be available at the shop, as they would run out of stock after only selling one. They will all be copies of it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And is this actually a shop? Here is the translation appears in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is this picture a source valid enough on its own to say that Tokugawa Ieyasu had a single transverse palmar crease?:"The sentence to the far left says that the original imprint can be seen in a hall/room where honors are conferred, etc."--Inspector (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a gift shop or souvenir shop in whichever museum this is in. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

手形 is handprint, 色紙 is a square piece of high-quality paperboard (for writing poems or painting pictures), 授与所 is a term used by shrines and it's a synonym for gift shop. See page 2. It says "Charms, talismans...inked stamps of the shirine can be purchased at the amulet reception counter (神札授与所). Of course, what they sell are copies like the one in the image. Oda Mari (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seemed this does not relate to the validity of handprint anyway.--Inspector (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

, before and in Am Eng

It was my understanding that , did not come before and except in a few cases. Is it normal and correct in American english that , is before an and? Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Serial comma (Oxford comma, Harvard comma). I think it's fair to say that this is becoming rarer. Opinions about "correctness" differ. Dbfirs 12:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):It's a matter of style. In English, I always put the ',' before the last item in a series of a list because it makes it much clearer to me. Consider the following: "I like sandwiches, peanut butter and jelly." vs. "I like sandwiches, peanut butter, and jelly." Then there is this popular (and potentially slightly not-safe-for-work) internet meme. As far as I am aware, there is no one standard (you could probably find people advocating for both). I would recommend the one that you find most clear. Falconus^{p t c} 12:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder why the strippers were invited before the politicians, so that one can't rearrange the phrase into one of the four sequences that don't invite the ambiguity. —Tamfang (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard counter-example is "Dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand[,] and God", where leaving out the second comma changes the meaning quite a bit... AnonMoos (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For use in Wikipedia, see MOS:SERIAL.—Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught in America always to use the comma for serial lists as a child, then told in college there was a shortage of commas and we had to economize. And expansion of AnonMoos' observation is that one usually shouldn't omit the comma when the items are phrases. -- 17:45, 8 February 2013‎ Medeis

U.S. book publishers tend to use a serial comma before and, but the serial comma before and is usually omitted in U.S. journalism. Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My English teacher said that the comma in lists was originally an abbreviation for "and". A and B and C and D = A, B, C and D. If you say "A, B, C, and D", you are actually saying "A and B and C and and D". Obviously, though, you want to make any given sentence as clear as possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really true though: it's just a way to make children remember a rule you told them. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a university English teacher giving a seminar at work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You learnt your English only after you started work? Hmm, that explains a lot. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

No, the instructor was brought in to help interested colleagues learn more about writing and speaking. I took accelerated English through high school, and then passed a proficiency exam and didn't have to take it in college. But the occasional refreshers, such as workplace seminars, are good to have. This is the same instructor who explained to us why we should avoid or at least minimize passive voice in business communications. And he was right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a convenient use of logic, because it's a damn shame the same peerless logic doesn't apply to the odd practice of including inside quotes punctuation that is provided by the author of the sentence in which the quote appears but was never in the original quote itself. Such as the semi-colon here: Lincoln then said "Yadda yadda yadda;" his interlocutors were silenced. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the standard US style is to put a semicolon not belonging to a quote outside the quotation marks but a comma or period inside the quotation marks. Even though (or maybe because) I am a US editor, I agree with Jack that this set of style rules is terribly befuddling. Marco polo (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marco polo is right that the confusing rule only applies to commas and full stops. It's easy to remember why if you know where it comes from, though most people don't. Here is the secret:

When you print something with a Gutenberg-type press with letters made of lead, then little bits are prone to break off if they stand on their own. This is not a big problem for the dot on an i because of the nearby more stable stroke. It's also not a problem for a semicolon because the comma and the dot above it support each other sufficiently. But it is be a problem for a comma or a full stop if they are left alone. Normally this does not happen as there is always a letter to the left. Except when there isn't, as in the case of a comma or full stop after a quotation mark. The quotation marks are too high to support these two weak, low symbols. The problem can be solved by switching the quotation mark and the comma or full stop. If there even is a problem. If you are using an electronic printing system, the rule makes no sense whatsoever, but is still applied because people got used to it.

So history tells you both how to remember the details of the rule and why it makes no sense whatsoever nowadays, except for preventing accusations of stupidity from pedants. Hans Adler 00:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did this switch to a discussion of quote marks? What's relevant would seem to be that a comma literally indicates a pause, and one pauses before the "and". One says a...b...and...c, not a...b-and...c. Of course using this rule assumes you can speak decently. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around here long enough to know about the magical powers most of us possess. We can instantly transform any discussion into any other discussion. If you like, I could show you a few home movies where you've been remarkably successful yourself. "What a talent that girl has", they all said. "It's the White House for her. Or some sort of house, anyway." -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

German: rüstung vs panzer

I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between the German words "rüstung" and "panzer" (when talking about armour for people). Both seem to mean what one would say "armour" in English. Leather armour is de:Lederrüstung, but plate armour is de:Plattenpanzer. Are the two effectively synonyms, with one chosen over the other for a specific use only by historical happenstance, or is there a distinction between the two which I'm not understanding? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panzer is actually a rather rare word for a full set of body armor, I'm a bit surprised the de: article is titled "Plattenpanzer" - I'd have expected it to be titled "Plattenrüstung" (the article text itself mostly uses "Plattenrüstung", and the disambiguation page de:Panzer_(Begriffsklärung) doesn't even mention its "body armor" meaning). In any case: the terms are more or less synonymous, but there are some slightly different connotations. Rüstung is the catch-all term for any kind of body armor, usually understood to mean a full set of armor, including at least some sort of body armor and a helmet. A Panzer is usually just a single piece of armor - initially it meant a protection for the lower body (from French pancier), but over time its meaning shifted slightly to mean (most often) breastplate (Brustpanzer). What's more, a Rüstung can be made of pretty much any material imaginable, whereas Panzer generally means heavy armor - it's almost exclusively used for heavy steel plate. -- Ferkelparade π 19:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plattenpanzer is not a rare word at all. I am not sure if I have ever encountered the synonym Plattenrüstung. Hans Adler 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The noun Rüstung is derived from the verb rüsten (prepare, equip with weapons, produce weapons). In a wider sense it can refer to everything you equip yourself with when you go to war. In a narrower sense, this word has come to be used for any kind of protective clothes or armour.

The noun Panzer is derived from the Old French noun pancier[e], which can be any kind of full-body armour. In mediaeval contexts, the German word mostly typically refers to a full-body armour consisting of pieces of solid metal, though apparently it can also be used for a metal breastplate or even any kind of Rüstung.

Rüstung is the more general word. Without further specification it's not clear at all which kind of armour is meant. When you use the word Panzer without further explanation, there is an assumption that the armour is made of metal and gives significant protection, probably a plate armour, but at least a chainmail. Hans Adler 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rüstung gives an impression something like the word "gear" can give. It is a verbal noun also so you can maybe compare to modern English constructions like "kitted up". The emphasis is on the getting some equipment on. Panzer is as mentioned by others quite specifically about the kind of material being used (metal).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. That's a real, useful, and (mostly) non-arbitrary distinction between the two. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

Plural of "series"

Is the plural of "series" simply "series"? For example, see the following sentences. (1.) Actor A starred in one television series. (2.) Actor B starred in three different television series. Is sentence #2 correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes series, just like species and similar words from Latin, but I would trust StuRat's opinion more than wiktionary. ;) μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the historical origin, go to the Latin declension article, and look at the nominative singular and nominative plural forms of the 5th declension... AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maldonado

I terribly regret once telling a smart but uneducated immigrant neighbor of mine, who, knowing I spoke several languages, asked me the etymology of his last name, Maldonado. I told him that it almost certainly meant "badly given" which I told him probably meant one of his ancestors was condemned or a bastard. He was obviously heartbroken, and I learned shortly afterwards he had returned to his homeland dying of AIDS from an intravenous drug habit. Looking for the etymology now, I see several googled sources including wiktionary that give the "badly given" etymology and suggest it means "ill-favored" among other things. It is comforting to see my speculation is perhaps not far off, although I still wish I had remained silent, but the sources seem to lack references. Can anyone provide a better, referenced etymology? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I am curious whether donatus could have the sense of given in both "the slave was given a meal" and "the slave was given to another master". Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com gives the "ill-favored" meaning, and I'm pretty sure they copy their entries from the Dictionary of American Family Names. Lesgles (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use "donatus" like that, in the sense of "a meal was given to the slave" ("cena [or whatever] servo donata est"). Isn't this a peculiarly English construction? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Somebody gave a meal to him" to "A meal was given to him by somebody" is a perfectly ordinary type of passivization. Changing "Somebody gave a meal to him" to "He was given a meal by somebody" is a less usual type of passivization (though not confined to English); it does not occur in Latin... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam and Anon, that is why I asked. My study of Latin was only through the last chapter of Wheelock. That's what makes me wonder whether Maldonado is someone who was poorly given (something) or poorly given (to someone else), or whether maldonado is not actually an adjective describing the person bearing that surname at all. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, remember that Latin has no perfect active participle, so "donatus" doesn't really mean "given", but "having been given". In this case, the person would have to be the thing given. I'm not sure how you'd describe someone who had received a bad gift, but it couldn't be with "donatus" (which would have to describe the gift, not the person). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew-English relationship

This site (of questionable reliability) gives a brief essay on the supposed relationship between the Hebrew language and the English language, in particular covering alleged two- and three-letter etymological roots purported to exist... well, pretty much everywhere. The thing is, I'm almost certain the author of the essay is off-base entirely. A list is given of English words supposedly derived from Ancient Hebrew originals, but I am suspicious of ~~nearly~~ all of them. I'm wondering if anyone more proficient in linguistics than I can confirm my suspicion that the article I linked to is nothing but ill-informed nonsense. (Interesting note: I originally found the site while researching the idea that there was an etymological relationship between the English word "fruit" and the Hebrew פרי and its plural form פרות. That link has single-handedly almost managed to convince me that the similarity is a coincidence.) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English 'fruit' comes from the Latin word 'fructus' via French 'fruit'. They are all coincidences. This happens a lot in other languages, too. The Egyptian Arabic word for 'you' is 'anta', the same as the Osaka dialect Japanese word for 'you'. This does not mean those languages (or those dialects specifically) are related. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking at is a particular pseudoscience called Edenics. It's certainly hooey. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nostraticists would treat the three roots bar, gabh, and qal as possible cognates, since these roots exist in various other language families besides PIE and Afroasiatic. But bar is probably a Wanderwort as are many agricultural terms, and only qal which has cognates all across Eurasia strikes me as a real likely cognate. Almost all of the other proposed cognates (like yam and arm) are so superficial and ignorant as to be laughable, and indeed the Nostraticists and other believers in demonstrable long-distance relationships would find them risible. One plausible term out of one hundred mostly absurd suggestions is even worse than what one would expect by chance. μηδείς (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any relationship, it will be found by comparing the earliest reconstructable proto-Indo-European with the earliest reconstructable proto-Semitic / proto-Afroasiatic, and NOT by comparing modern English with Hebrew! Such a relationship is regarded by most linguists as not proven and not provable with currently-available data, and so as not a scientifically-useful hypothesis. However, there are some interesting very early "Mediterranean" loanwords (not necessarily originating in either Indo-European or Semitic) which show up in both languages, such as English "wine", Hebrew yayin יין; English "steer", Hebrew shor שור... AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. For the record, I am aware that fruit is derived from Latin, but I guess I was trying to ask about any possible Indo-European ancestor-word, in a roundabout and nonspecific way, since Hebrew obviously had no influence on Latin. In any case, thanks again for clarifying. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to emphasise a point already made: Hebrew is not in the Indo-European family, it is classified into the Afroasiatic family. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can clearly recognize so called "pseudo-linguistics", quite popular in the ex-USSR. I know other examples: all languages and their words came from Russian (Dragunkin); all languages and their words came from Turkic, including Russian of course (Murad Aji); all languages (and Russian in particular) came from Arabic (Vashkevich); all Russian words came from Circassian (anonymous from one internet forum); etc. etc., the list can be continued (see more in Russian). As well you can recollect Marr's theory about "proto-roots".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, some people are absolutely convinced that Vietnamese is not related to the Mon-Khmer languages but must be entirely Chinese. They accuse European scholars of racism, even though this position is derives from elitist nationalistic assumptions. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on "elitist nationalistic assumptions".

It's a matter of cultural perspective - the categorisation of tongues is just as much a cultural construct as the categorisation of people into races and ethnicities. What you see as elitist nationalistic assumptions, others will see as a justified emphasis of the cultural dimension of language, and they will see what you see as scientific rational linguistics as imposition of Western imperialist values in an attempt to divide the East Asian cultural sphere. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in cases where sufficient evidence is available to validly apply linguistic methods, language relationships are not a matter of pure personal opinion, or a "social construct", or a matter for ultra-relativist post-modernist strong programme nonsense. We have an article Pseudoscientific language comparison. -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English

On "The Big Bang Theory", Raj communicates with his parents in India via Skype, in English. Is English the everyday language of the Indian class that they belong to? Raj is an astrophysicist and his father is a gynecologist. RNealK (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of our article "Indian English" mentions "some families of full Indian ethnicity where English is the primary language spoken in the home", but doesn't seem to quantify how many, or which ones. Gabbe (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) My general impression is that most of the Indian upper class does speak English, though generally it is not their first language. I think there are only about a quarter million first-language English speakers in India. --Trovatore (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the everyday language of many Anglo-Indians, and possibly of some couples who come from different linguistic backgrounds (having English as their only common language). Otherwise, English is fairly widely known among educated people in India, but I'm not sure that it's the basic home/family language of very many. List of languages by number of native speakers in India gives the figure 226,449 in 2001... AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know, Raj's parents might have spent their formative years studying in the UK or the US and so have gotten more used to communicating in English than their peers who did not do so. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine who grew up in an upper-class Brahmin family in Madras (her father was a doctor) said she and her siblings always spoke English with their father, though they spoke a mixture of Tamil and English with their mother. But Big Bang Theory is just a TV show; even if they showed a character from France, Russia, or Japan skyping with his parents they'd probably speak English together for the benefit of the audience! Angr (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like in Slumdog Millionaire, when the kids get older, without having been to school nor had any education at all, they suddenly speak English. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We know from Star Trek that English is the universal language of, well, the universe. Only on Earth have beings been clever enough to invent other languages. --Trovatore (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if any unfortunate does not at first understand English, one simply needs to shout louder. 86.146.104.49 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that includes human babies. I blame later hearing loss on being regularly shouted at as babies by adults. They know the baby does not understand anything, including "kootchy koo", so they should know there's no point shouting it at them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the real-world rationalisations above, remember that The Big Bang Theory isn't aiming at total realism, it's a fictional entertainment show made primarily for an English speaking audience. If Raj and his relatives were shown conversing in Hindi (or some other Indian subcontinental language) the primary audience wouldn't know what they were saying (without resorting to subtitles). Having (what in this case only might be) foreign speech represented by (perhaps foreign-accented) English is a common dramatic device: see for example shows set in WW2 German POW camps, such as Hogan's Heroes - do the German characters speak in German to each other even in the absence of any Anglophones? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.100 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen an episode in which Sheldon is worried that Raj might serve him "haggis or blood pudding" which (if I understand the joke correctly) suggests that Raj comes from the UK (?). Alansplodge (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they just needed some really over-the-top cliché of horrible food. At least for me, nothing Indian would come to mind in this context. If Sheldon had suggested bird's nests or monkey brains, it would have been racist. Haggis and blood pudding, on the other hand, are definitely not racist and create additional comical effect by their implausibility. Or maybe they had earlier knowledge of this? Hans Adler 15:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although he'd have to be in Scotland to sample the Indian haggis. If you're right, the joke makes less sense than I thought. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn't need to make sense, coming from Sheldon. If the joke were about D-branes, it would have to make sense. Cultural icons outside a sci-fi or gaming context, not so much. That might even be the point of the joke. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Albanian

Hello, what time does the Old Albanian language span (over) and of what corpus is it consisting? Greetings HeliosX (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Albanian language and Fortson's Indo-European Language and Culture. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Albanian" (aside from a few names written down in classical texts) is not very old at all compared to the earliest attestations of most other branches of Indo-European, to the disappointment of linguists involved in reconstructing proto-Indo-European (who would be curious to know what the language was like in 500 A.D. or 500 B.C.)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advance(d) orders

In the context of home shopping, which should it be: "advanced orders" or "advance orders"? I know which one I think is right, but a major shopping channel disagrees. Multiple opinions would be welcome. 86.146.104.49 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Advance orders" are orders made in advance; "advanced orders" are orders which have been moved forward in some way... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I say "advance orders" since they are made in advance. To me, "advanced orders" would contrast with "elementary orders". Duoduoduo (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of logic or grammar, only a matter of custom. If it was customary to say "advanced orders", the alternative would feel just as wrong to us as with the currently situation. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic triliteral roots

A discussion above about word roots got me wondering. One of the sillier claims on that website is that the PR root is found in gRaPe, with letters reversed. If that's allowed, anything goes. However, in Arabic, there is an interesting example of letter reversal: K-T-B produces all sorts of words associated with writing, and more broadly, with organisation. Kuttab is a place for students, for example, and katibah is a battalion. Then if you reverse the letters, B-T-K gives bataka, or cut off. This implies separation of some sort. So there is at least some sense in which a reversal of the letters also produces the opposite meaning - organisation and combination versus disorganisation or separation. Is this just pure coincidence, or is reversal of word roots meaningful in Arabic? I don't mean to imply this would work for the sorts of examples in the link I gave (which crosses language boundaries), since I am talking about words confined to a single language. IBE (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the very few examples of root reversal (or apparent root reversal) is that the Arabic root z-w-j ز-و-ج gives jawz "couple". Otherwise, root reversal is not a meaningful derivational process in Semitic languages. In any case, there are few true biliterals in Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - your knowledge on the ref desks is impressive. I was rather suspecting it wasn't highly productive, since when you reverse the letters, the roots just sound "wrong", and I haven't found any examples when I've checked a dictionary. There seems to be a certain requirement for euphony, which counts against using letter reversals, although "euphony" in Arabic may sound like an oxymoron. IBE (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that "euphony" is a term used in modern linguistics, but there are well-known co-occurrence constraints on Semitic consonantal roots (roots having two consonants belonging to the same place of articulation are rather rare, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future Past

I'm a bit confused and do not understand what aspect of these times: Future Past, Be going to, About to, Future Past.

Header text	past	present	future
The Simple Aspect (Indefinite Aspect)	simple past tense	simple present tense	simple future tense
The Perfect Aspect (Completed Aspect)	past perfect tense	present perfect tense	future perfect tense
The Progressive Aspect (Continuing Aspect)	past progressive tense	present progressive tense	future progressive tense
The Perfect Progressive Aspect:	past perfect progressive tense	present perfect progressive tense	future perfect progressive tense

Where their place?--82.81.168.23 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 tenses in lines 2, 3, 4, and 5 of your message can be illustrated by these examples.

I understood, I understand, I will understand.
I had understood, I have understood, I will have understood.
I was understanding, I am understanding, I will be understanding.
I had been understanding, I have been understanding, I will have been understanding.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand what aspect of Future Past, Be going to, About to, Future Past. - it's simple aspect? etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.168.23 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Which square I need to put the: Future Past, Be going to, About to, Future Past? like where is the future past - it's future and past....--82.81.168.23 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "future past" do you mean referring to the future from the past (e.g. "a year later they would be married") or referring to the past from the future (e.g. "by then I will have finished it")? 86.146.104.49 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side comment in case English is not your first language. Wavelengths forms are perfect, but the verb "understand" is not used in the progressive aspect. does not mean "I am in the process of comprehending". In that sense it would simply be considered ungrammatical. See stative verb. "I am understanding" can be said, but it means I am sympathetic. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical aspect in English is actually more complicated than your table indicates. Both be going to and be about to can be seen as cases of the prospective aspect. Be going to indicates a relationship to action that is expected to start at some time in the future. Be about to suggests action that is expected to start almost immediately. So each expression indicates a slightly different aspect, though both can be classified as types of progressive aspect. Note that be about to can be formed in past, present, or future tense. For example, was about to..., is about to..., will be about to. Be going to can be formed in all three tenses, but will be going to is seldom used by native speakers, who would normally use the simple or progressive future instead. Marco polo (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wow you helped me a lot.thanks --82.81.168.23 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also mention this: The above table has an entry "The Perfect Aspect (Completed Aspect)". This is not right -- the completed aspect is called the "perfective" aspect, not the "perfect". The perfect construction need not indicate that something is completed: for example, "I have lived here for five years" means that I still do live here. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

Alveolar lateral trill

Is the "alveolar lateral trill" (trilled l, similar to rolled r) possible to pronounce? At least for people who can pronounce the rolled r. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link to the sound you are talking about? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it. I sounded like a horse when I did it. Not sure any language uses such a phoneme, but anything is possible. It's telling there's no article about it. --Jayron32 04:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried and succeeded, or tried and just sounded like a horse and it didn't work? Due to how coronal trills work, wouldn't think it's possible. The only way I could see doing it, you'd have to hold the center (or more likely, one side) of the tongue stiff enough to keep it in contact with the alveolar ridge, while flexible enough for the remainder of the tip to trill - basically a simultaneous t/r, each half of the tongue doing one part. I don't think that's realistically possible. If it is, I'd suspect only a very small fraction of people have the muscle control to do it. Another potential possibility would be the cheek as the active articulator, trilling against the side of the tongue, I'd be even more surprised if that worked. Lsfreak (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe the horse sound was succeeding. I tried to trill the sides of my tongue the way I would trill the tips of my tongue while rolling an "r". I sounded like Mr. Ed objecting to something Wilbur did, or maybe a bit like a motorcycle. Not sure what language uses that sound, but it seems technically feasible to create that particular vibration on the tongue. --Jayron32 06:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minerai

I'd be grateful for opinions on the best translation of "minerai de bœuf désossé surgelé (origine Roumanie)" . For the time being, I have put "frozen raw material of deboned beef (origin Romania)". This is in the article A la Table de Spanghero. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "frozen raw boneless beef (of Romanian origin)" ? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More euphonic, but the translation needs to be dead literal, so the "minerai" has to be captured. Googling "minerai boeuf" I found these regulations [2]. I just asked at RDH whether they are the regulations that should have applied in the current scandal, but now I'm pretty sure they are not, for reasons I'll mention there. Anyway, the translation of the label is still relevant. The pdf document explains "minerai" as pieces of beef off-the-bone, which are intended to be minced. I'm now thinking "off-the-bone" instead of "deboned". If I can find EU regulations on minced meat they will be in all the languages and the translation problem will be solved. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is really a euphemism for pink slime. (The English euphemism "boneless lean beef trimmings" is just as obscure.) StuRat (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did you get "boneless lean beef trimmings" from a source, because if you did, I might be able to use it? I now know for sure what the word "minerai" means: pieces of meat off the bone. It is allowed to include fat, and it can include offal and collagen only in the proportions that would be in the animal naturally. It should not include the spinal cord or brain, and not mechanically recovered meat, which is not officially allowed in the EU. That's what it said on the packet and what should be in the packet. But packs labelled "minerai de boeuf" are not allowed to contain horsemeat in the first place, so what else was in there is anyone's guess. I feel we really need a native French speaker now, ideally one with extensive experience in the industrial food industry ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got that term from the first sentence in our article on it, which includes a ref (that, unfortunately, produces a "page not found" error). StuRat (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink slime is a dysphemism (see, for example). One need not seek euphemisms for ground beef. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pink slime" is not normal ground beef, it's an extremely low-quality product formerly not considered suitable for human consumption (and still not considered so, by many). StuRat (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink slime is a dysmephism for MRM, which is not what materiau means. Nor does it mean ground beef. It means pieces of meat that are shipped to be ground/minced into ground/minced beef. I'm looking for the technical translation equivalent. I had hopes of a website of a Dutch meat packing company, with Dutch, French, English and German pages, but their translations are inconsistent. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. It's not literally slime, but it's not really salable food grade ground beef either. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Googling threw up the exact translation: Manufacturing bulk packs. In Spanish, carne sin hueso en bloque. These translations were made by the UN and have legal force in the EU unless superseded by EU legislation, which I can't see that they are. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trade/agr/standard/meat/e/Bovine_2007_e.pdf is the document I found. Slime is definitely not the meaning intended. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further on "minerai", a technical term that puzzles the French general public. Q&A on Liberation newspaper website "Odile. Pourriez-vous m’expliquer ce qu’est le «minerai»? L. N. Un produit qui sert à fabriquer des viandes hachées, il est donc préalablement désossé. Il en existe de différentes qualités et teneurs en gras." Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad French intolerance stereotype

I sometimes hear rumors that Frenchmen (unlike many other nations) hate bad French of foreigners and usually arrogantly mock people who speak with mistakes or accent, even with the slight ones. Is it true or another sort of stereotypes?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My experience on the French WP has been good, though limited. They appreciate effort and good manners, like anyone. When i was there, they were always good, though the provincial French people were more communicative than the Parisians. IBE (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I find very odd about French Wikipedia is that when I was briefly in France several decades ago, vous usage was pretty strict for people you didn't have a meaningful social relationship with, but now on French Wikipedia the default seems to be universal tu... AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That would come down to individuals. The average person probably appreciates the effort. References? Well, wikipedia has various articles on stereotyping. But this is a broad area. Have you tried searching in Google? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. However, French culture has very little tolerance for grammatical mistakes or unusual word choices, even in spoken language. Native English speakers are used to hearing people from all over the world using their language in sometimes bizarre ways, and generally make a good effort to understand them. French people have less exposure to non-native speakers or speakers of other variants, and even local dialects or innovative words and idioms are very strongly discouraged. Instead of making an effort to understand an unusual expression, native French speakers may just say the very common sentence "Ce n'est pas du français", a sentence with which they used to be tortured themselves by their teachers. Or if they are more polite and make an attempt to accommodate the foreigner, they may not say that, but still not give the impression of even trying to understand what it is supposed to mean. In extreme cases, this may even happen just because the foreigner made the wrong choice out of de, en and à. (I wrote this in part so that someone in France can correct any misconceptions I may have.) Hans Adler 16:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hans makes a good point: French speakers don't even seem to tolerate as much variation from native French speakers as exists in English. French, as a language, as much stricter enforcement of grammar rules, less synonyms, less ways to say things. It's a "tighter" language that English, and part of that may be due to Académie française, which has a generally prescriptivist view towards the French language; that is it sees its role as deciding what is, and is not, proper French. The nearest English equivalent to the Académie française is probably the Oxford English Dictionary, but that is a decidedly descriptivist documentation of English. That is, the OED sees its role as documenting how people are talking, not telling them how they should talk. The difference in attitude is rather pervasive in each culture. You can read about the different schools of thought in the articles Linguistic description and Linguistic prescription, each article of which covers the conflicts with the other school. --Jayron32 18:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is on a purely academical and literary level, and it has little to do with how the average French speaker would react in a situation described by the OP. But perhaps both your answers are deliberate attempts at examplificiation of the stereotyping? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "Verlan".—Wavelength (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Verlan has anything to do with what the question is referring to, that's just a type of slang that French people sometimes use. Anyway, to add my personal experience, the only place anyone was ever rude about my incorrect French was in Paris, as you might expect from the stereotype...and it was only in the BNF...and it was only one person. No one else in France was ever rude. Actually, for the most part, they usually wanted to practice their English once they noticed my accent... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of another aspect of the question. I am under the impression that English speakers generally have a much stronger accent when speaking French than when speaking German. I think this may be in part a remnant of Norman French, the variant of French that was spoken in England over centuries and whose phonology gradually approached that of English. In other words, I think that to some extent one could say that an English accent in French is at least in part a local accent of French, where the location is somewhere in England. If that's true, and English speakers have a worse accent in French than in other languages, then that could explain the perception that the French are less tolerant to foreign accents than other people. Hans Adler 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I studied French and German in HS and was told by my French teachers (all foreign born) that Parisians would be rude if we didn't make a good attempt at French, and told by my German teachers (all American born) that as long as we said Gruess Gott! when we walked in a shop in the Catholic south we'd have no trouble at all. Was this to frighten us into improving our French? (I ended up going to Switzerland with the German club instead of Paris with the French club and fell back on my French when my German and their English was inadequate.) μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, a friend and I ran into this attitude in Brussels. We were in a pub, and nobody would speak to us until I tried speaking with my limited French and my friend tried speaking in German, and all of a sudden, everybody spoke English and was friendly to us. RNealK (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just being curious here: I have lived in Brussels now for almost 3 years, and I never had that type of experience...so could you tell me where the pub was? Especially the Belgians who speak French are normally not that difficult to handle; you'll get by with English almost anywhere. Try speaking French in Brugge, though.....Lectonar (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't remember, it was many years ago. RNealK (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can explain that. Think of what sometimes happens where local dialects are strongly discouraged.[3] People tend to react very strongly because they feel it's an attack on their identity. Now especially French speakers tend to be very proud of their language. Most in a still reasonable way, but some overdo it. [4]

Now we live in a world in which there is a strong pressure to use English. Take me for example. I'm a native German speaker living in a German-speaking country, but this, not the German Wikipedia, is my home wiki. Because it has greater impact. I also wrote my PhD thesis in English for the same reason.

A retired French colleague of mine once wrote an excellent text book, in French. None of the French publishers wanted to publish it. They said the market is too small for such a book in French. But they would be happy to create and publish a translation. This made him very angry. In the end he self-published it, at a time when this was still a huge effort, and it sold quite well. (Many years later he allowed Springer to translate the book.)

To speakers of languages other than English this feels like language colonialism. Most English-speaking tourists don't even make an effort to use any other language, contributing to the bad image. By trying to speak French or German, you show that you are not a language colonist, or at least not one of the bad ones. Hans Adler 00:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle dommage', literally. Spanish I learned on the street and it is the only language that has earned me money. Back when I learned French and German they were the prestige languages, and I have indeed made use of them in the real world and the fields in which I am interested, but not for actual profit. Certainly not today. Japanese is already passé, and Mandarin and Hindi are up-and-coming. I have read various books by Springer Verlag, one of which is my favorite non-fiction book: Chaos and Fractals. It is in English. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it went without saying that if Springer translates a French book, then it translates to English. It doesn't matter that it's originally a German publisher. The point is: Big academic publishers everywhere publish science text almost exclusively in English, regardless of the local language. The situation with songs is similar. For large segments of German pop music, song texts in German would be highly unusual. Altogether, the role of English w.r.t. European languages is moving towards the role of standard English w.r.t. local dialects, or, more to the point, of Mandarin w.r.t. Chinese 'dialects'. Before English, German had this privileged role for a few decades, before that French had it for a long time, before that it was Latin for scholars and Provençalic for the nobility, and before that it was Latin for everyone.

I am happy with this, but a lot of people aren't. I think Germans tend to have less problems with this than French people, due to a feeling that we have forfeited any possible title to such a role for our language and didn't have it for long anyway. For French the opposite is true. Hans Adler 10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely OR, but my experience on a recent weekend in Paris was that any reputation the French might have for being intolerant or rude to foreigners is entirely misplaced. Everyone was friendly, seemed to appreciate my bad attempts at schoolboy French (20 years after being a schoolboy) and would happily either switch to English or (if their English was worse than my French) slow down or simplify their language. The only rudeness I experienced at any point was from a well-dressed woman who spoke perfect English but didn't understand why I wouldn't let her come through the barriers behind me onto the Metro without her own ticket. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Hans Adler said, I don't think that those French who expect people to use their language when they're in France are wrong. I think increasingly English-speakers display a sense of entitlement that people in other countries should know their language, and this is far worse than anything the French do. There is a difference between observing that many people around the world have learned English and viewing this as an acquired right. About the purported rudeness of the French towards tourists, here is a clip from "What Would You Do" that does a good job of debunking that myth. [5] It illustrates how the stereotype of the dumb American is in fact much more firmly anchored in the minds of Americans than in that of the French. 64.140.122.50 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

Tense vs. Time in Grammar

Could you help me to know, why whenever we want to talk about tense of verbs, we use the word "tense", and not "time"? For example, why we dont say Present Time? Thank you in advance. --Questioner12 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Grammatical tense#etymology. It effectively means "time". Lectonar (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. But can you describe me more? I didn't get the exact reason. --Questioner12 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional English grammatical terminology is largely based on Latin dead metaphors (Conjugation="joining together", Case="fall", Declension="bending down" etc.). In any case, tense is not the same thing as time -- grammatical tense has a somewhat complicated relationship with objective chronological time... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding, so perhaps you can clarify. The reason that the word is "tense" is that the word "tense" was adopted into English from the Old French word "tens", which in modern French is spelled "temps" (French pronunciation: [tɑ̃]), both of which just means "time" in French. So the reason the word tense is used in English is that it was borrowed from a word in French and modified slightly in pronunciation. English is filled with words like this. --Jayron32 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. That was so helpful. Good luck. --Questioner12 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in contrasting the concept of an idiom with the principle of compositionality, the idea being that the choice of the word "tense" rather than "time" is somewhat idiomatic. You seem to be instinctively thinking of meaning as deriving from composition, rather than idiomatic connotations. IBE (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat surprised that no one has pointed out that tense and time are actually used distinctively in English grammar. Tense is the form of the verb (sometimes complicated by composite constructions like "will" for future tense or "have" for present perfect tense; not all grammarians consider these to be true tenses but they are often presented as such). Time, on the other hand, is when something actually happens. So for example when you use the narrative present, you recount events in past time, but using the present tense. Counterfactuals like if I were use the past tense (specifically, the subjunctive mood and past tense) for something in present time. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good distinction to make. But I'm not sure I agree about the last bit. "If I were" is not past tense. The past subjunctive is "If I had been". "If I were" really refers to something that is not the case, but might conceivably become the case in the future. "If I were king, I'd abolish Wikipedia" is not saying "I was once the king, and I abolished Wikipedia" (we'd have heard about it at the time). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I had been is the past perfect subjunctive, not the past subjunctive. If I were is past subjunctive. It is important that I be is present subjunctive. I don't think there's a future subjunctive in English. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If some day I were to be..." is present subjunctive. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's past subjunctive (followed by an infinitive). This is exactly the distinction between tense and time. Present subjunctive is (unfortunately) a bit out of fashion on your side of the Pond, but an example of it is it is important that you be prompt. --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd agree with everything by Trovatore here, and add my favourite example of a pseudo-tense with a definite relationship to time: future in the past, which would go on to become the most over-used construction on Wikipedia. IBE (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm a fan of future-in-the-past. Sometimes it's really the best way of getting the temporal relationships across. I agree that it's often too chatty for an encyclopedia, but "overused" for a construction that I hardly ever see here seems hard to justify. --Trovatore (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the most overused construction on Wikipedia is the mandatory misplaced modifier to get any good article off to a flying start: "Born in 1961, Obama's parents were ....". If Obama's parents were born in 1961, that would probably make him aged less than 30 now, a record nobody has ever seen fit to comment on. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore is right. I had considered explaining when I saw "If I had been" but refrained. Given someone else has done so I will confirm it. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is president referred as "she"?

We use pronoun "she" for president. Why don't we use "he"? 27.62.140.224 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is “we”, and what president are you talking about?—Emil J. 16:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the President were a female, "she" would be perfectly appropriate. --Jayron32 16:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short Information break: The IP geolocates to Mumbai, India. Indias current President is Pranab Mukherjee, who is male. --Abracus (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this question in a book published by government of India. "We" includes me, my teachers and the government of India. We use word "she" whether the president is male or female. 27.62.140.224 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article President of India, which presumably was written mostly by Indians, uses almost exclusively "he or she" or "he/she", although I did find one instance of "his" but none of "she" etc. The section President of India#Constitutional role says

Article 53(1) of the Constitution vests in the President "the executive power of the Union", to be "exercised by him [sic] either directly or through officers subordinate to him" in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. However, the Constitution also states that the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, is to "aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice".

So the Constitution contains at least two "him"s and a "his". Does the questioner have a link to an example of a website by the Indian government that uses "she"? Duoduoduo (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibha Patil was the female president until last July. Could it be that the government document you saw was written during her presidency, and maybe your teachers were speaking then? Duoduoduo (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look around the National Portal of India shows that the current president is referred to as “he” by the government, as expected.—Emil J. 18:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might there be some confusion here with "she" and "sri", which some people will pronounce the same? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also bears noting that the current President of the Indian National Congress (the party boss) is a female, Sonia Gandhi. --Jayron32 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What language does the OP speak, does it have grammatical gender, and if so, is the word president itself perhaps feminine? μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, the OP, have some reliable source to show that the president of India is referred as "she". This page is also using word "she" for the president of India. This book is published by government of India, see page number- 89 and 90 of ch-5:Working of Institutions. In this two pages, the president of India is also being referred as "she". What is the reason behind this ? 106.218.12.88 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We call India as our mother and the soil of India as our motherland, both of which are feminine. This may be the answer, but it doesn't seem to be a rigid explanation. 106.218.12.88 (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give is apparently a use of "she" in a politically correct attempt by the author to seem inclusive and not be sexist by assuming the president is a male. It's generally considered silly and bad English to do so, especially in a context where the intention is unclear. A much better choice for that intention would have been "he or she" which I am sure would not have confused you. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Duoduoduo here: Pratibha Patel was president for 5 years until the middle of last year, and it would make sense for materials published in that time to refer to a female President of India because that was indeed the case, and to refer to her as "he" would have looked stupid at that time. However, it doesn't look too good now she's retired. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there's evidence of the timing that seems likelier than my guess. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using "God" in a nonreligious context?

"Oh, my god!" is a widely used interjection in the English-speaking world. The phrase is often used nonreligiously. I am wondering if a person may use the word "God" nonreligiously in these contexts, or if the contexts below would be too misleading:

"God bound the lovers together tightly with a thread marked by a knot. Any partner who tried to 'break the knot' would sever his relationship with God and fall into a state of sin."
"After raining, God marked the sky with miraculous rainbow as an sign for hope and optimism."
"Thank God that she was saved from the unfortunate disease!"

For the first example, I was thinking of the idiom "tying the knot". 140.254.226.229 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"OMG" qualifies as a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, and in any case it's become trivialized. It used to be an expression of utter horror and fear. Now it's become pretty much equivalent to "Oh, wow!" Of your three examples, the first two are straight out of religious tradition, while the third kind of straddles the fence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what if you intend to use 1 and 2 as a metaphorical, qualitative way to describe your perceptions and feelings about the universe rather than an actual belief in God, the supernatural being? 140.254.226.229 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their origin is religious, and they could be considered metaphorical, e.g. taking "God" to mean "Nature". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to "Oh my God" is a Protestant sensibility. In Catholic countries God, Jesus and the Virgin Mary are invoked all the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Maybe the commandment is not worded that way in Spanish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devoutly Orthodox Christian Russians have been saying "Боже мой!" (Bozhe moi! My God!) as a general expression of surprise etc for centuries. Jesús and María are extremely common names in the devoutly Catholic hispanosphere. But I agree: the use of "OMG" and what it stands for, simply because that's what one's friends all say 59 times a minute, every minute, is complete rubbish. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a difference between simply exclaiming a holy name in the manner of a swear word, and offering a snippet of prayer. One can sound like the other, but generally only the speaker knows for sure which it was. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On these home-improvement shows, when the homeowner walks into the newly-renovated space and shrieks "OMG!", that's unlikely to be a prayer - it's just something they're used to saying in almost any situation, no matter how mundane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a Roman Catholic friend who, when asked if he was hungry, would say "I could eat the sweet beard of Jesus, so I could!". I find this so funny. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various contracts use the phrase "Act of God" to desribe natural events that may affect the ability of the contracting parties to deliver on their agreement. Roger (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the rather wonderful word Godwottery,[6] which means over-elaborate garden features. Alansplodge (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A garden is a lovesome thing, God wot! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

Kanji elements

Hi,

1. Are the bottom right element in 疑 and the bottom element in 是 variants of the same thing or are they etymologically different? 86.167.124.198 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Same question for the left element in 疎 and the left element in 政.

86.167.124.198 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your first character, see this page, for your second, this page. You can see that the first character originally had 止 as an element, while the second had 正. For your third character, this source did not have the seal script form, but the same element appears in this character. Finally, here is the seal script form of your fourth character. All of these elements are versions of 正 or 止. As you can see, 正 is itself etymologically derived from 止, so all of these elements are related. Marco polo (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese names.

I'm writing a short story that requires two Japanese boys to play a game together - I need names for them - but I have no idea what would be both common and yet distinctively Japanese-sounding. In English, I'd think of maybe Ed and Eric...something reasonably common like that.

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular given names has some ideas for you. --Jayron32 04:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Generally, in Japanese stories, the characters have names which reflect something that will happen in the story. For example, in the Manga "Gallery of Fear" there is a story about a little boy who falls from a tree and becomes comatose, but has a dream that he becomes like a tree, growing leaves and all. It's an incredibly sad story, because as it turns out, he was in a vegitative state and nothing could be done for him, but he was happy (and hence the dream of becoming a tree). The name given to him in the story was 'Daiki', which means 'Big Tree'. If you can give us more information on what these boys are doing, we could give you some ideas for names which may be more appropriate. Alternatively, you could call them Ichiro and Jiro, if they are brothers and one is older than the other (Ichiro means 'first born son' and Jiro means 'second born son', but they are actually used as names. 'Taro' means 'the other one' (or 'the fat one' depending on the Kanji). Or you could take your pick from here. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ouellet

This is the man who, according to bookmakers, is the favourite to become pope. I'm wondering about the pronunciation of his last name. According to this page [7] both pronunciations [wɛlɛ] and [wɛlɛt] are possible for this surname, so it depends on each particular family. Ideally, we would need an instance of him pronouncing it himself. 64.140.122.50 (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like wellay. I am terrible at IPA, but I'll try: /wɛlɛ/ --Lgriot (talk)

What are you basing your answer on? 64.140.122.50 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a French native speaker and all the names of my friends or celebrities that I know of, which finish in "-et", are pronounced without sounding the t. If a French word or name finishes with a single t, don't pronounce it (some exceptions are loan words, of course). Basically, like the words forêt, octet, et, cabinet, agnelet, duvet chalet, etc, I could go on forever, or names like Grillet, Martinet, Jacquet etc. Names in French are not pronounced differently from other words. And in French words or names finishing in "et" are pronounced ɛ as a rule. But Canadians may do something different from the French, they can after all do whatever they like. --Lgriot (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Radio-Canada news, there are several related stories. The video "Cardinal Ouellet - Reportage à Second Regard du 9 octobre 2011" has several different people saying the name, all enunciate the "t" more or less clearly. (Fair warning, there's a commercial advert before the story runs.) Lgriot is correct, fr-ca is quite distinct from fr. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm from Quebec, and I've only heard it with the final "t" pronounced, which is the standard pronunciation for what is a relatively common French-Canadian last name. --Xuxl (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, then, my answer was not useful. You guys in Quebec, are you mad? Do you think French does not have enough exceptions as it is? only joking Anyway the Quebec media must know better, so I would go with them. --Lgriot (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of a diacritical mark over the first "e", I would think the first "e" would be pronounced as a schwa rather than as /ɛ/. Is that not right? Duoduoduo (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's followed by a double consonant. Compare ferai and ferrai. --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your answers. I'm now convinced that in the case of Marc Ouellet, the t is pronounced. This will be something for French people to get used to if he becomes pope. But the page I linked to above says: "Le phénomène est observé également dans les noms propres tels que Chabot, Ouellet, Talbot, Boutet, où l'on a souvent des doublets sans / t / et avec / t /, sans que la forme avec / t / prononcé ait une connotation populaire." For the Canadians here, what is your reaction to this statement? Which of these names have you heard pronounced with or without a t? The answers so far seem to indicate that you haven't ever heard Ouellet without a t. 64.140.122.50 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"aa" in German

Hi,

There are several words in German with a double a (eg Saal, Staat, Haar, Paar, Saat). They seem strange to me, and I have the feeling that there aren't commonly homologues in English. Firstly, is there any truth to this feeling, and second, do they have the same Germanic root as other German words?

Cheers,

Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Staat is homologous to English 'state', Paar to 'pair', Haar to 'hair', Saat to 'seed' and Saal to 'salle' (though the latter is rather uncommon). - Lindert (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think "aa" is a less-used spelling for "ah"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos is correct that aa is just an alternative spelling for ah. Why some words have one rather than the other is usually a historical accident. Words with aa are not in a special category. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also this difflink. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vowel length is indicated in German by different means (see de:Dehnungszeichen). Putting an (otherwise unpronounced) h after the vowel is the standard. Doubling the vowel is not longer used, but persists in many words and names. A third possibility used in olden times was to put an (otherwise unpronounced) i after the vowel. This continues only in names, like Grevenbroich German pronunciation: [ˌɡʁeːvənˈbʁoːx]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]