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.

March 7

Century

Is it correct to say "the century between 1780 and 1880" or should "the hundred years between 1780 and 1880" be used instead? Our article on century is perhaps ambiguous in this regard. Ericoides (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a rule as such, but I would always avoid it, especially in written, formal English. The second version is quite adequate, "the hundred years". IBE (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "over the century between..." According to the OED the mere meaning 100 years is the earlier one:

4. A period of 100 years; originally expressed in full a ‘century of years’.

5. Each of the successive periods of 100 years, reckoning from a received chronological epoch, esp. from the assumed date of the birth of Christ: thus the hundred years from that date to the year a.d. 100 were the first century of the Christian Era; those from 1801 to 1900 inclusive were the nineteenth century.

μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is correct and more elegant to say "the century between 1780 and 1880". However, your choice of wording depends somewhat on your audience. I have edited textbooks, and below the U.S. high school level (about age 14), editorial style rules tend to avoid the word century because it is a somewhat difficult concept that might be an obstacle to understanding, not crucial for understanding the content, and therefore best reworded. If you are writing something aimed at children, you might avoid the word. For an assumed adult audience such as Wikipedia's, though, century is fine. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, using fewer words is preferable. Without seeing the rest of the sentence, I don't know if that's the case here, but personally I would just say 'between 1780 and 1880'. You will lose none of the sense, and no-body can misinterpret your meaning - as could be the case with either of your suggestions. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would normally agree with Marco Polo (and Medeis too), and I would suggest you do the same. However, there is something I find funny here - "century" seems to be chosen out of convenience. In other words, you pick a date, l780, that is significant, then you just convince yourself that 1880 is another significant milestone, because it is a hundred years after 1780. Personally I find such choices too arbitrary, so it looks wrong to designate it as a "century". As a reader, I would do a double-take if I read it, so when writing, I would avoid it. But I have no professional skills here, I must admit. I am curious to know what people think of my reasoning, and whether it makes sense. IBE (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumber Mike's advice may be the best (better than my own earlier advice). The main reason to use century, as IBE implies, is if the 100-year period is a historically significant period. Otherwise, I agree with IBE that word implies a significance that may not exist. If 1780 and 1880 were really significant beginning and end dates for your topic, you could underline that significance by using the word century. If the dates are chosen arbitrarily, then I would not use that word. Incidentally, in historical writing, the word century may be used to refer to periods not exactly 100 years long, such as long nineteenth century. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to resist mentioning that a hundred years may not be a hundred years either, as in the Hundred Years War. IBE (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you did resist mentioning that a centurion commanded only sixty to eighty men. Ericoides (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"-ba" in Swedish

Yesterday I heard on Facebook from a Swedish friend of mine that nowadays in Sweden, youths use "-ba" as a suffix meaning "said". For example, apparently for example, instead of this:

Han frågade henne, hur mår du? Och hon svarade, jag mår bra.

youths now say this:

Hanba hur mår du? Och honba jag mår bra.

I have never seen or heard such a thing in Swedish. But in my native Finnish, it's fairly well known that youths use olla silleen että ("be so that"), just as English-speaking youths use "be like". But does this "-ba" thing really exist in Swedish? And have I understood the grammar right? JIP | Talk 20:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it seems to be used like you said (except it's a separate word, not a suffix). For example, this is from SV-Wiktionary: "Jag satt och kollade på TV och telefonen ba "riiing" och jag ba "hallå?" och han ba "tjena, läget?"." (Rough translation: "I was sitting watching TV and the telephone was like 'riiing' and I was like 'Hello?' and he was like 'Hi, alright?'".) I must admit, I have never come across this myself in speech, but I haven't spoken to many Swedish tonåringar. Not sure what the origins are - Wiktionary doesn't elaborate. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing occurs in Norwegian nowadays. Young people often omit the verb ("sa"="said") if it is obvious from the context, and followed by "bare" (=Swedish "bara" = just; only). In fast speach, "bare" could be pronounced "ba" in Norwegian too, example: "Jæskabapådo" = "Jeg skal bare på do" = "I just have to go to the loo". --NorwegianBlue^talk 11:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swede here. The use of ba is not new. I'm 31, and I probably used it when I was a teenager. I recall it being used by an annoying teen character in a NileCity 105,6 sketch, which apparently is as old as 1995. (Girl in supermarket telling a story about meeting Peter Jöback.) It's a short form of bara (eng: just), and the grammar sort of works if you replace the "was like" with "was just like" in Cucumber Mike's example. The word just is in most cases a signifier for casualness, less deliberation/consideration, or surprise, which means it can't actually be used for every event without sounding strange. In my experience, the event needs to be fast, not expected or have unexpected content for ba to sound completely right. I'm sure kids today wouldn't agree. (When I think about it, I believe I pronounce bara as ba quite often in casual speak. Not as discussed here, but when actually saying just in cromulent senteces.) /81.170.148.21 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Swede here. I've seen ba described as a special discourse particle that means "now I'm going to mimic someone". The "han ba, hon ba" (he just like, she just like) is more of "he just like (shrugs), she just like (scowls)". Språktidningen writes that young people use ba when they're going to quote someone and also to indicate that something was surprising, like 81.170.148.21 wrote. 05:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

March 8

The/that moment when ...

Has anything been written about the meme (I think it is one) of describing an experience by introducing it with "The moment when ... " or "That moment when ... ", rather than just saying what happened. I did it myself on Facebook this morning, and looking at why, I think it certainly distances it from myself, and I think it also gives a sort of wry humour to it. Somebody must have noticed it and written about it, surely? --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KnowYourMeme always has good stuff about these things: here is their "That awkward moment" page. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's related, but I know it without the "awkward" (and not as a hashtag). --ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about This Magic Moment ? StuRat (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

In fact, I realise that what I'm looking for is linguistic discussion of the usage (e.g. pragmatics, discourse theory or rhetoric). --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit anyone?

I am helping someone with the article for the Sanskrit term Satcitānanda (सच्चिदानन्द) - and neither of us have much experience with linguistic articles or Sanskrit. Any assistance would be appreciated, especially in tidying-up the lead and etymology sections. There are some scribbled notes on my talk page which may or may not be of use. Even if you don't know Sanskrit and only can help with proper form for this type of article, it would be appreciated. ~Thanks, ~Eric _the Read 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Simple

Conditional Simple=Second Conditional ?--82.81.4.201 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to explain more clearly what your question is and which language you're referring to. Lesgles (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in English Conditional Simple=Second Conditional ?what is Conditional Simple.I know what is Second Conditional but not onditional Simple. And I also have other question - in English there are 4 moods, right? Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative, Conditional. Which moods is Past Simple, Present Simple , Present Perfect Simple etc? -- 19:37, 8 March 2013‎ 82.81.4.201

82.81.4.201 -- "Second conditional" is not a standard or commonly-used English grammatical term, so you'll have to explain what you have in mind. It's very doubtful whether modern English has a functional subjunctive mood in any case... AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from our article English conditional sentences that simple conditional refers to a verbal construction would xxx, whereas first conditional refers to a whole construction ("If it rains, I will not go"). It seems to me from reading these, that the simple conditional is used in second conditional constructions, not first conditional. As AnonMoos's comments indicate, these terms are almost unknown except among teachers of English as a second language, which is unfortunate because then learners ask questions in terms that most of those who might answer won't understand. -- -- 11:58, 9 March 2013‎ ColinFine

"gotten" in British English

While giving writing advice to an English friend of mine recently, I noted that she had used the simple past "got" in past-perfect construct, where (I had thought) "gotten" would have been more appropriate. When I told her this, she replied that, as a Brit, she never used the word "gotten." I was a bit confused at this, as I wasn't aware of any difference between SAE and British English on this point. Our Wiktionary entry on "gotten" lists it as "now mostly, North America, Ireland, Northern British," but how exactly did this occur? When did "gotten" fall out of favor in Standard British English in favor of (the normally simple past) "got?" Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Maine in the Arostook War, showing what the British had got out of the deal

This is a fairly common question, see these many discussions. The interesting part most people are unaware of is that the difference in usage dates back to the settlement of the Aroostook War of 1838 and 1839. While the American land claims in Maine were valid, and the stronger, American negotiators didn't want to prolong the conflict. As part of a compromise brokered by American Secretary of State Daniel Webster, the extreme northern claim was ceded to Britain in exchange for various concessions, including exclusive right to the past participle gotten for the Secretary of State's cousin Noah Webster's new dictionary, over which there had been some dispute with Oxford. The British were allowed to keep the simple past, got, and were expected to use getted as the past participle, although this wasn't widely adopted. This allowed the British to go home claiming they got everything they wanted, while the Americans could claim the British hadn't gotten a thing. The copyright has long expired, but the habit stuck in the British court, hence the situation we have today. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis is, of course, pulling your leg. Noah and Daniel Webster aren't cousins, at least not likely anymore than Medeis and I are. Daniel Webster's family first settled on the New Hampshire lakes region in the vicinity of Salisbury, New Hampshire and the family was well established in New Hampshire for many generations. Noah Webster was a descendant of John Webster, who settled first in Cambridge, Massachusetts and later was one of the early settlers of Hartford, Connecticut. The New Hampshire Websters and the Connecticut Websters nearest common relative would have been in England at least some two centuries before the two prominent Americans were born, if not older than that. The rest of the discussion, regarding the usage of the word being part of a negotiated treaty, is unmitigated bullshit. --Jayron32 20:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly fair of you to say "unmitigated". μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, Richard Armour stated in It All Started With Columbus that Noah was in fact Daniel's cousin, and that he wrote down every word Daniel said, which formed the basis for his dictionary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, Richard Armour is a humorist and not a genealogist. --Jayron32 23:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly! Neither of your statements are precisely odd enough. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... while yours are decidedly more than odd. Enough. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the OP's question, the difference is just an irregular linguistic change that can't be explained phonetically (like the regular correspondence of rhotic and non-rhotic forms in SAE and RP. The loss of the -ten form is an innovation apparently of Southern English. (Although there is a partial explanation in the fact that gotten is used only lexically, while got is used as a helping verb. For example, one could say he knew he had got to do something, but not even in America can one say he knew he had gotten to do something in the sense of obligation. I.e., gotten can only mean received, never been obliged.) Linguistic innovation centered on a prestige dialect like that of educated Southern England; things like rhoticism, the trap-bath split and plural verbs with collective singular nouns have spread from there. There is no particular explanation available for this change. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain it either, except to say that "gotten" is retained in regional British dialects (including my own), but in just one expression of standard (southern) British English: "ill-gotten gains". If I read any other modern usage of "gotten", I would assume that the text was American, but in older British texts (before the mid-1800s) it was standard British usage. Do you say "bit" or "bitten"; "put" or "putten"? There seems to be no rule or logic to the loss of the "-en" forms. Dbfirs 10:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was always told that the Americans have "gotten" because the early settlers came from regions that had that word as part of their vocabulary. However, since they left, the south-eastern dialect became the basis for modern English, and that dialect didn't have "gotten" as part of it. Hence the split. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And "forgotten"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! That's a word I'd forgot to mention. Why did this one gain an "en" (along with written, bitten and smitten), when others (such as shotten, slotten, flotten, besotten) were losing theirs? Dbfirs 16:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't "gain" an -en, they simply failed to lose it. Angr (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "gained it back again" in some cases, because "forgot" and "writ" were common as past participles a few hundred years ago. Dbfirs 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's likely evidence of Fixation (population genetics) as applied to linguistics. Imagine an island of largely brown eyed people with some blue eyed people who colonize a second island, by random chance with a relatively large population of blue eyed settlers. In the beginning both variants are found. But due to genetic drift over time, simple random processes cause the blue-eyed gene to disappear in the homeland and brown-eyed genes to disappear in the colony. This happens all the time and is one of the important factors in speciation. It applies just as well when original variation in two dialects is regularized over time, but to two different options. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting comparison! Pepys and Shakespeare used "forgot" and "writ" as past participles, as did Jonathan Swift in 1801, and John Locke in 1836, but standard English seems to have reverted to the "-en" forms soon afterwards, perhaps under the dominant influence of the Authorised (King James) version of the Bible. Dbfirs 22:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage has an article on this. It says that got and gotten were in "free variation" in Britain in the 17th century, and that gotten was still "usable" there as late as the 1820s (it quotes Lord Byron writing in 1824). However, it was already "passing out of use" there at the turn of the 19th century. So it's probably not the case that there was a big difference between the regions of Britain when America was settled, and that the colonists brought a regional usage with them. It seems that the word gotten simply stopped being used in southern Britain later on.96.46.207.169 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are correct about "gotten", and the same applied to "forgot" and "writ" in the 17th century. The King James Bible has 25 "gotten"s and just one "got" as past participle. I'm still curious about why "forgotten" and "written" came back into standard use. Could it have been just that one translation of the bible that influenced them? "Forgotten" occurs 46 times and "written" about 270 times in the KJV (AV), with the "non-en" variant count being just one "thou hast forgot" presumably missed by proof-readers who preferred the "en" forms. Dbfirs 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I not?

There was a short conversation on a TV show where the secretary asked his boss: "Shall I [organize the papers on your desk]?" To which the boss rather angrily replied "You shall not". I understand that the reply was humorous, but I was wondering if this response is ever used in English as a real (jocular) alternative to "Don't do it", or was it just a single instance of a phrase invented by the script writers. --Pxos (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You shall not is a fairly common phrase. Consider the NIV translation of the Ten Commandments: [1] which uses that exact phrasing extensively. Such phrasing is present in other translations as well. Gandalf's last stand against the Balrog to was climacticly announced with the phrase "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!": [2]. So it doesn't sound strange at all. --Jayron32 20:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does he not say "You cannot pass"? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like "shall" to me - in fact the "sh" seems slightly elongated. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so it is. But apparently he says it twice, and it's "can not" the first time. (And I'm pretty sure he only says "can not" in the book, which must be what I'm thinking of.) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we have an article on everything. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's far from a newly minted expression. See the Ten Commandments, which contain many "Thou shalt not ..."s, which is the olde world version of "You shall not ...". In this case, he was simply providing an answer that was parallel in form to the question. Much like "Do you take this woman ...?" - I do (rather than Yes). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the phrase, but perhaps my question was poorly formulated. –Hey, shall we go to the beach? –We shall not. Is this so normal that it does not sound strange at all? --Pxos (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the usual negative response would be "No". But those of a certain literary/legalistic bent might find themselves saying "We shall not" more often than not. Or, if one wanted to make it clear that such a proposition was absolutely out of the question and it was wrong to even ask. A sort of high dudgeon version of "No". It's exactly the sort of thing I can imagine Sir Humphrey Appleby saying to Bernard Woolley in response to the latter's enquiry, "Sir Humphrey, shall I inform the Minister that the Department of Administrative Affairs have failed to produce the report for the Prime Minister he required by today?" - You shall not!. But I can find no instance of his actual use of this expression. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's matter of style then. "You shall not [touch my desk]." = Know your place and do not ask again, perhaps? --Pxos (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase used in the title "Shall I not" is a common one around the Stoke on Trent area and other parts of the North Country of England. "We shall not" is everyday speech as far as I'm concerned (UK resident).

Shall in general has fallen somewhat out of use in American English, it sounds very British and/or formal to my American ears. However, I have British friends that use that exact phrase "You shall not." just like that, very naturally. --Jayron32 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The TV show was West Wing. That's why I thought the reply was not something that is common in America. --Pxos (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is unheard of in America. I wouldn't say it hanging out with my buddies on poker night. I probably wouldn't hear it among the average crowd at a rock concert or standing in the checkout line at the supermarket; but in more formal settings, or in certain contexts, it would seem fine. The word "shall" carries a bit of a formal register which would be very much in place in, say, the halls of the White House, but may not be in others. --Jayron32 21:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We shall not, we shall not be moved" has a bit more heft than "We won't, we won't be moved". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the questions "Shall I/shall we..." are less formal than other uses of shall, aren't they? Or is there a certain formality in asking "Hey [poker buddies], shall we play tonight?" Or "I'm going out to get some beer, shall I buy a bottle of wine for you or do I just go to the pub?" --Pxos (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Addition: As opposed to "hey guys, are we playing tonight?" --Pxos (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the very word "shall" itself is a sort-of shiboleth for formal discourse. The word itself sounds stuffy and formal and pretentious when used in non-formal contexts. If I said "Shall we play poker tonight?" it sounds like I'm being facetiously formal, as opposed to "Are we gonna play poker tonight?" which sounds natural If I were in a board room discussing company policy, I would use "shall" as my audience and context have changed, and it wouldn't necessarily sound out of place. That's why I linked Register (sociolinguistics) above. The word itself, in the context of American English, is a marker for a more formal register, and would not show up in any usage in less formal register communication. --Jayron32 16:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you're hearing in you shall not is actually an echo of the will/shall distinction that few people, especially here in the States, understand consciously, but which nevertheless is present enough in the literature that people may have some intuition about it. Basically, for the first person ("I" and "we"), shall is the unmarked form, whereas will implies a conscious intention or determination. On the other hand, in the second and third persons, will is the unmarked form, whereas shall implies an exercise of the speaker's authority. So shall I do such and such? is the normal form, but you shall (not) do such and such is essentially an order. --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My inspiring English teacher at high school told us about the incident where a Scotsman fell into a river in England and cried to the people "I will drown and no one shall help me!", which he did. This was to illustrate the inverted use of will/shall. What would his saviour have said to him while jumping into the river? "No, you shall not!" or "No, you will not!" --Pxos (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the distinction here: "No, you will not drown, because I will help you". / "No, you shall not drown, because you owe me money." --Pxos (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to "You shall not" would be "Shant I ?" StuRat (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Is the "I shall" nowadays rather a marked form in US English? People who declare a conflict of interest might say: "I will take care that..., I will make sure tha...t, I will recuse myself from..., and at the end: "If I am specifically asked to step down, I shall resign." Or is that the same distinction where the declarer is willing to do various things, but when it comes to the point where nothing helps, he/she "shall resign" even if they are not willing to do so? --Pxos (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Il Trovatore says above squares with what my English teachers used to say; namely, that "will" and "shall" in first person correspond to "shall" and "will" in second and third person. This difference is illustrated in the following Gilbert and Sullivan lines from The Mikado: "My object all sublime / I shall achieve in time..." "His object all sublime / He will achieve in time..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that these mechanical rules do not help at all for people whose mother tongue is not English. When Richard Nixon announced on television his resignment, he said "I shall resign ---". Was that a statement of fact, was he perhaps more used to the form, or was there perhaps a subtle meaning to it which would not be obvious if he had said "I will resign." --Pxos (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The implication here is that the resignation is going to happen - but, against his will. ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC):~[reply]

It must have been his will. When we're faced with an unpleasant decision in the face of an even worse prospect (in this case, his impeachment and dismissal), and we choose the former, that is by definition what we have decided to do. So it is certainly our will; but it may not be our desire, unless we take the Viktor Frankl approach in Man's Search for Meaning and consciously choose to be in the very bad situation we find ourselves in, which we would never normally have chosen to be in. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

Commons closed captioning template

Template:Closed_cap on Commons: ~~Spanish~~, Japanese, Korean, and Arabic

For Commons:Template:Closed_cap

This concerns the English phrase "Replace LANG part with your language code and press Go button"

~~Would it be "Reemplazar "LANG" con su código de idioma y pulsar el botón Go" in Spanish?~~
What would it be in Japanese, Korean, and Arabic?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A user added the Spanish - All we need is Japanese, Korean, and Arabic. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The button label and step one are in Korean WhisperToMe (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do it right? I couldn't figure out what else to edit. --Kjoonlee 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added it to some parts to the template, but there are others that still need Korean:

"Available closed captioning files." (Immediately after langswitch, to say that there are closed captioning files available)
"To view the subtitles along with the video (an example; there are other ways):

download this video file (right click → save target as)
download a subtitle file (.srt file format) from below (right click → save target as) to the same folder and name it Reference desk/Language.srt
{{#ifexist:TimedText:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}.en.srt| [[TimedText:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}.en.srt|English]] ([{{fullurl:TimedText:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}.en.srt|action=raw}} download]), {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | File |[[Category:Files with closed captioning in English]]}} }}
view the video with VLC media player (subtitles will be usually be automatically shown)"

"full list"
"Create new translation or edit existing"

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a few/a little" origin

Why do these set constructions have an indefinite article despite being used before nouns in plural? Shouldn't the phrases such as "a few years" contradict logic? I can suppose either there is something missing (e.g. "of" after "few") or "a" is a prefix written separately.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but I have always found it interesting how much trouble Russians have with English articles. Even your post is an example: you used "the phrases" where "phrases" would have been correct. No other language has as much trouble with this, as far as I can tell. Looie496 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "such" not a specifier here? Yes, the usage of (the?) articles is my weakest point. Honestly, I think they are useless at all. :) It's still magic for me how native English speakers use them properly. :)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and other Slavonic languages have no articles, so it's perhaps not surprising that their speakers have trouble with them in English, though in my experience it's more common (or perhaps just more noticeable) for them to omit articles in places where native speakers would use them. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unlike others I sometimes overuse articles. :)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic is a very unreliable friend when thinking about language. Languages work the way they do, not the way that logicians, educators, pundits, classicists, pedants or restaurant chains want them to. Certainly "a few" and "a little" were originally (heads of) noun phrases, requiring a complement linked by 'of', and they are still used that way when the complement is definite ("a few of them", "a little of the oil"). But where the quantificand is indefinite, they have become fixed phrases, functioning as quantifiers in the specifier of the noun phrase. It is a moot point whether the 'a' is still the same word as the indefinite article in them.

Notice also that if "a" is omitted the result is usually grammatical, but with a very different meaning. "Few people" always implies something like "one might have expected, or thought, or hoped, that there would be many people, but there are only few". This implication is absent from "a few people". --ColinFine (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I also thought this came from the omission of "of" from "a few of" construction, as "a" is unlikely a prefix here. Is there a source where I can read some details, don't you know?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese

Why are all the chinese pages in simplified chinese? I think there used to be a choice to choose between traditional and simplified chinese, but now all the translated versions are in simplified chinese. Please bring back the option or just simply list traditional and simplified chinese as two different tabs under the "Languages" bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.187.31 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Chinese Wikipedia (zh:)? The option is still there. Just to the right of the Talk button there's a menu allowing you to select zh-cn (simplified), zh-hk (traditional), zh-sg (simplified), or zh-tw (traditional). If you're logged in, you can also select which version you prefer in your Preferences. Angr (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The default form displayed is the one used by the initial contributors. If you look at Hong Kong and Taiwan topics, you'll likely get traditional by default. Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

Are Russian белый (white) and Latin bellus (beautiful) cognates?

And what is the etymology of the Russian белый? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the Latin "bellus" actually comes from an Indo-European root *dw-ene (according to wikt:bellus) while the Slavic word for white comes from *bʰolHos (according to wikt:бѣлъ). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the etymology of "beluga" and the etymology of "embellish" in the Online Etymology Dictionary.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me that there's more to the Russian association with red than mere politics. The following Russian words are all cognate:

red (красный - krasny)
paint, colour, dye (краска - kraska)
beautiful (красивый - krasivy)
excellent, wonderful (прекрасный - prekrasny)

So, "excellent, beautiful red paint" would be "прекрасная, красивая, красная краска" (prekrasnaya, krasivaya, krasnaya kraska).

See Red Square#Origin and name. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you'd probably like to read this: Бахилина Н.Б. История цветообозначения в русском языке. Москва: «Наука», 1975. Google it, there is a scan of it.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will check that out. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange enough, but a Latin cognate of бѣлый is this black bird fulica, see Pokorny's dictionary[3][4]. In German it is also called Bläßhuhn from blaß "pale" and Huhn "hen".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ß capitalization

In common German use there is no capital version of ß. Are there any other languages where only small versions (or only caps versions) of some letters exist? Also, as a general question, what scripts besides latin know capitalization (I know cyrillic does) bamse (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, the Russian letters ь and ъ don't appear at the beginning of a word. They have capitalized versions for use in all-caps. For example, see soft sign. 96.46.207.169 (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ы as well, except in some non-Russian place names, e.g. Ygyatta. Lesgles (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Kra (letter) --151.41.137.10 (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bamse -- As far as I know, the only basic scripts which have an upper case / lower case distinction are the Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, and Armenian alphabets, as well as some forms (but not the currently most commonly used form) of the Georgian alphabet. AnonMoos (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A few characters have three case forms -- Ǳ ǲ ǳ or Ǉ ǈ ǉ (the middle one in each trio is in "titlecase")... AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ß's cousin Long s appears to have been used both word-initially and medially with no distinct upper-case or lower-case form. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalized form of long s is the round s seen in this 1560 herbal (line 3: Stauden, next-to-last line Straßburg). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half-palatalization?

Some person is arguing that there is "half-palatalization" of consonants, but I counter-argue that from the articulatory POV there is no "half-" of it, palatalization (that is rising of the tongue to the hard palate) either is or it is not. So could a half of palatalization exist indeed?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something that I've come across in linguistics, but a Google search for "semi-palatalization" does turn up a few hits... AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hint! I've looked through the search results but it did not help though. It seems this term is a Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian invention, but they have never explained clearly what they meant by it. Yes, unfortunately articulatory phonetics is not praised there, most Soviet/post-Soviet works in phonetics are very abstract in nature.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arab references

To folks who have grasp of Arabic: what references does he cite here from 0:35 to 0:48? Are they verses from Quran or something else? According to Russian subs, Muhammad is cited, but the source is not specified. Thanks--93.174.25.12 (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language learning and explicit vocabulary instruction

Hi all, when I did French in high school, some 20 years ago, as the leaving exams approached, the subject of how and what to revise came up. Someone suggested "you can't really revise vocabulary, can you?" I argued that it was a simple enough matter of finding a stash of words you had encountered, and just keeping them fresh. About 10 a day over 20 days is 200 words, not a small chunk of your operational knowledge at that level (5 years of instruction at an average of just over 3 hours a week). The teacher vehemently disagreed, and said that you should revise grammar, because the vocab has either been absorbed, or it hasn't. Nowadays I am reading in scholarly papers that explicit vocabulary instruction is enjoying some kind of a vogue at the moment. This differs slightly from the vocabulary revision that I was debating with my teacher, but would seem to proceed from the same principles. Researchers like Paul Nation (and others mentioned in that article) have promoted vocabulary as something more specific and teachable. Such a position is linked to the relatively modern lexical approach, although it is not quite the same. When I did French, the basic approach was the most obvious one - readings with vocab/ idiom glosses in one course book, and a grammar book with dialogues and a vocab section in the back. Has this changed much, and do teachers go for more focused and conscious vocab instruction (not to mention revision)? Or is the presumed trend a bit more understated, and less visible in the classroom? IBE (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having last studied French formally almost three decades ago I can assure you my grammar is still nigh flawless and my productive vocabulary is pathetic. But I can read well when the words are in front of me. μηδείς (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you get some responses from people who are experts in language teaching. In the meantime, as a language learner, I will offer the following in case it helps. These days students are introduced to a variety of real texts at quite an early stage. The hope is that they will pick up a lot of vocabulary by watching excerpts of TV news or documentaries, by reading short stories and news items etc. It can work for some people, I suppose, but others find that it isn't enough. I didn't find I made much progress in German through looking at the online newspapers every day. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - I don't need experts on language teaching, since people who have experience in learning languages would have a good idea, as yourself. But what sort of an environment was this - is it adult night courses, or a university unit? It seems odd that what you are saying sounds like neither the old-fashioned way nor the (supposedly) more modern focus on vocab. It is more like the modern trendy approach that seems to be enjoying its own sort of vogue in so many areas. The trend towards vocab that I point to is not meant to imply that it is universal, just that my understanding is that it is more prominent than, say, 20 or 30 years ago. Hence I wouldn't expect every classroom to have adopted it, and am curious to hear about learners' experiences. If there are language teachers out there, please let me know, but language learners are a very good substitute. IBE (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My German course was a university unit, and we watched excerpts of real TV. It was useful for listening at real speed, and to a certain extent for listening for the gist instead of trying to get every word. I tried to supplement the course by reading the stories in Stern or Der Spiegel, but that didn't help as much as I hoped it would. And now I've had a go at reading short stories and a whole book, and I still get frustrated at progressing slowly. However, the exact same methods help me brush up my Spanish. I seem to have a particular block in German, I think because I want to know the English cognate of every word. The idea is that the learner sees the new word in context and then remembers it, but I just don't remember it. The introduction of real materials early on -which you can see in some BBC courses and some secondary school courses -is an improvement on the really old fashioned dry approaches that are the distant past now. But adults should have a choice of methods and pick the ones that work for them. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Arabic help: File:Medersa Odienne.JPG

What is the Arabic seen in File:Medersa Odienne.JPG? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "مركز تربية الإسلامية أوجيني" or "Markaz Tarbiyyah al-Islamiyyah Odienné" (Oudienné Islamic Education Centre, as it also says in French). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns with short memories

There's a sentence style that befuddles the bejesus out of me. I see it all over the place, and I wonder if anyone can comment meaningfully on it.

It's characterised by the use of a pronoun in place of a person's name, followed a little later in the sentence by the person's name instead of the pronoun used earlier. It has the capacity to confuse, the only saving grace being that sentences are meant to be read in their contexts, not in isolation. But even so, it always strikes me as a very mannered and very unnatural way of expressing oneself.

Here's an example from Louis Moreau Gottschalk I corrected yesterday, from:

He returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts, but Gottschalk always introduced himself as a New Orleans native, to

He returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts, but he always introduced himself as a New Orleans native.

The earlier version reads as if readers are assumed to have such short memories that they would forget that the "he" at the start refers to Gottschalk, so his name has to be reintroduced in the next available phrase. Are readers really that inadequate? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with:

He returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts, but always introduced himself as a New Orleans native.

You tell me what's wrong with it. I'll answer that for you: There's nothing wrong with it. It's even better than the edit I made. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's the editors that are inadequate rather than the readers. Nice rant as a question though. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for meaningful comment. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an attempt to vary the writing style, but yes, it often jars and should be avoided. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comma is what's wrong with the suggested sentence, at least according to most style rules. Commas should be used only when needed to separate full clauses (with distinct subjects and verbs) or otherwise to eliminate ambiguity. The element after the comma is not a full clause; it's just a verb phrase. According to most style rules, the comma should be removed. Marco polo (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take that point, but the issue I raised would still be there. It's about a pronoun being asked to represent a noun, which is exactly what it's designed to do, but only a few words later being relieved of its burden. If the writer wanted to use a pronoun in only one of the two places, the second place would be the one to choose, not the first place: Gottschalk returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts but he always introduced himself as a New Orleans native. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's about intended stress. As I read it, the first example places the emphasis on "Gottschalk always introduced himself as a New Orleans native", whereas in the other two the emphasis is on "He returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts". In other words, though using a non-subordinating conjunction, the intent is to to be read similar to "Though he returned to his native city only occasionally for concerts, Gottschalk always introduced himself as a New Orleans native." -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see equal stress on both parts of the sentence in the second example, but otherwise I totally agree with your explanation. Hans Adler 22:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spielberg

Spielberg, being Spielberg, can dress as he pleases. But that's the point: Americans used to want to dress up. Wearing a suit was a privilege of adulthood; Spielberg's outfit looks like something his mother might have dresses him in fourth grade.

It's from the article, "Dress Down" Days. Who's the Spielberg mentioned in the article? and why Spielberg? I don't understand. Can somebody explain what this paragraph means. Thank you in addance.203.240.243.2 (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it's Steven Spielberg, who is the boss, so is able to set the dress code, or lack thereof, himself. And "dress down days" are days an employer or other organization designates for wearing more causal clothing than usual. StuRat (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some clothing items cause more trouble than others. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it referred to as American "informal formality" (or maybe vice versa). For example, the CEO encouraging you to calling him by his first name, rather than "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Dr." or whatever. And dressing in what is called "business casual", as opposed to jeans and T-shirt which are for "dress-down Friday" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly worked for a US owned insurance broking firm in London. In the London insurance market, a dark business suit is the required uniform, however, this company decided to have a "dress-down Friday" which meant that we all had to go out and buy "smart casual" clothes, as we weren't allowed to wear our suits and ties, or jeans and t-shirts which were not acceptable either. The whole thing was a pain in the bum, and the American managers were rather surprised that we weren't overjoyed. Bit of a culture clash really. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of a workplace where one was forced to dress down but was forbidden to wear jeans. The forcing part seems rather odd. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "expected" might be a better term. Everybody complied. I've certainly worked in offices where people who dressed in ways other than that required by the management were told to go home and change. Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An office that demands compliance to business-casual as opposed to a suit is being a bit nannyistic and blinders-on. Dressing appropriately is what's important. If you're holed up in a cubicle all day, who cares? But you might need to wear a suit because you want to make a good impression on a client, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British offices are generally "open plan" - we don't have those little cubicles that you see in the US, so anyone visiting can see how the staff are dressed. Corporate image and all that. Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We see this on TV as well. For six days of the week, male newsreaders wear a suit and tie, but on some channels, on Sundays they wear the suit coat and an open-necked business shirt without the tie. That's more "half-dressed" than "dressing down", but it's part of the overall picture. And it's a complete reversal of the tradition where one would wear one's "Sunday best" on Sundays only. Is there a "Sunday worst"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans used to dress a lot more formally when out in public. Here's a random example,[5] from the 1912 World Series, in which most of the spectators are dressed up, including suit, tie, and bowler hat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Us too. When I first started going places by plane (late '60s), it was the norm for men to wear at least a shirt and tie, if not the whole suit. (Now, that's true only for business travellers.) Same for going to concerts. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked for a little software company in Cambridge in 80's, I was posted for three months to the parent compnay in the US. I understood that they were more formal and I needed a suit. When they told me about dress-down Friday I honestly thought they were winding me up, as the concept was so self-evidently bonkers. I haven't changed my view since:. Either the company is more concerned about your appearance than your comfort or they're not; what's Friday got to do with it? --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to hate dress-down Fridays. Not because of the clothing factor, but because psychologically it put most people into weekend mode, and they'd be talking loudly as if there was an all-day party going on, and it was very disruptive, and my productivity suffered. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to find the "subject "in these sentences

Which word in these sentences is the subject?

"Theirs was the most popular song" "Most countries are bilingual" "They met in San Francisco"

Thanks in advance -58.179.166.84 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively theirs, most countries, and they. Victor Yus (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject can be a phrase, not just a single word. In all these sentences it's what comes before the verb (though some would consider "the most popular song" to be a "subject predicate"). AnonMoos (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do children of lesbian couples receive patronymic names?

Do children of lesbian couples receive patronymic names? Is it the male whose sperm was used? The grandfather? 70.162.199.202 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? In North Korea? Iraq? Venezuela? Luxembourg? Mongolia? Hans Adler 14:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't they bear the names of their parents? Or are you referring to Scandinavian countries where patronymics are more common than surnames (like Iceland)? (In which case the answer is – I have no clue and am interested to find out too! Presumably there is no reason why a matronymic like Björksson can't be used, but that would only be the name of one of the parents. I wonder if double-barrelled patronymics or matronymics exist?) — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Iceland, although patronymics are most common, there is no 'rule' that says they must be used. Some Icelanders have inherited surnames (like Geir Haarde), whilst others use a matronymic (like Heiðar Helguson, son of Helga Matthíasdóttir). I believe the parents are free to choose what suits their child best - presumably a female couple could choose for their child either to inherit one of their names ~~(especially if they changed their surname upon marriage)~~, or for the child to take one of their first names as a matronymic. See WSJ: The peculiarities of Icelandic naming. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article. Thanks for that. I see that it is possible to take both a patronymic and a matronymic (e.g., "Dagur Bergþóruson Eggertsson"), so that would presumably be a possible answer to the original poster's query. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Especially if they changed their surname upon marriage"? But Icelanders who use patronyms or matronyms don't change their surnames upon marriage since they don't have surnames. You don't stop being your parents' child when you get married. But what about Russian patronymic "middle names"? Are matronyms ever used for those? It isn't just an issue for the children of lesbians either, but also for illegitimate children whose father is unknown. Our article Eastern Slavic naming customs says patronyms are obligatory but doesn't say what happens when the father's name is unknown. Angr (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I ballsed up a bit there by not thoroughly reading the article I posted. You are correct - Icelanders do not change their names upon marriage. Therefore I withdraw that part of my answer. I still believe, though, that the child of a female couple could (and probably would) take one of the mothers' first names as a matronymic. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, see this discussion, which gives examples of Russian matronymics such as Natalievich and Katerinovich. These are not unknown, but are used only in very unusual circumstances. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably more common nowadays for the mother to simply choose a patronymic in the cases where the father is unknown.[6] Lesgles (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My betting is that most cultures have not developed a consistent set of customs to deal with this new phenomenon. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JackofOz, apologies for not specifying the country (Slavic countries, didn't know any other countries with patronymics besides Scandinavia). Thank you all. 70.162.199.202 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side divertimento of no merit

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Whatever the country, Lesbian couples don't have children. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm — I have a vague little recollection somewhere of seeing a news item on progress towards combining two female gametes. I don't think it's simple, and I don't think the mechanical problem of not having a spermatazoon to deliver the chromosomes is by any means the only difficulty. But it might be possible someday. --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike these genetic experiments, adoption is perfectly feasible even now.—Emil J. 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian couples most certainly DO have children. Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache, for starters. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain Medeis knows that, so I was interpreting her remarks in the most literal/genetic way possible, on the principle that utterances should be interpreted in a way consonant with all facts known and agreed to by all participants. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's supposed to be some sort of humour, it seems very pointless if people generally don't get it. Simply saying the opposite of what is known to be the truth - where's the humour in that? I note the use of capital-L Lesbians, but Lesbians are still lesbians (well, the lesbian Lesbians are). Like the "contributions" in foreign languages she knows almost nobody here would understand, it's attention-seeking behaviour. The characteristic asterisks are another mark of that. They stand out from the common-or-garden colons that most editors are content to use, and say "look at me". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no humor. (But apparently there is some self-righteous carping.) In certain cases one lesbian can have a child with a man, who is that child's father regardless of legal fictions, and her partner can adopt the child or stand in some novel legal relation to that child in a small number of jurisdictions, the child's right to contact with and support from its father perhaps being deemed of no interest to the state. But they can't have a child together, although the future scientific developments are interesting. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was "... Lesbian couples don't have children". That is flat out wrong. But what this has to do with the topic of giving patronymics to children escapes me. Unless you're suggesting that lesbian couples who have children using IVF technology or whatever are somehow disbarred from naming the very children they produce. Any good reason I shouldn't hat this sub-thread as off-topic? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in poking Medeis with a stick, Jack, and I wish you'd refrain; but yes, this is way off topic, not least since by implication it gratuitously delegitimizes one type of family childrearing for no reason I can fathom. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, I can never tell when she's having some weird joke, or being deadly serious, or being deliberately misleading (not bad for one who with gay abandon hats others for their disruptive behaviour).

Let the hatting commence. Extra omnes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"His or her" → "their" ?

Resolved

– ~OP:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make the lead [UK: lede] as concise as possible, and wish to express his or her as their, in the following [pending] from Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?:

Each chef is killed in a manner reflecting their most famous dish...

Although there are multiple chefs of varying gender, I realize that their corresponds to each, and therefore might not be grammatically correct - or is it? — Preceding modified yet uncertain comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article on this phenomenon is singular they. Briefly, some people consider it correct, and some don't. I think it's fine for a Wikipedia article, but I'm quite sure there will be those who disagree. Victor Yus (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, that's fine... ish. There is no specific English pronoun for a single person of unspecified gender, so we use 'they' (or in this case, 'their'). See Singular they. This usage has been around for probably over 500 years, and certainly since the time of Shakespeare, who wrote "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me, As if I were their well-acquainted friend". Nonetheless, some people get very worked up about it, and decry the falling standards of literacy among young people today. See here, for instance.

My advice? Decide which style you like and use it proudly and with confidence. Tell anybody who questions you that they're wrong. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, "Tell anybody who questions you he's wrong" -- not some other folks. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's good enough for Shake-speare, it's good enough for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

–He's or she's.... ;) — Preceding snarky comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's annoying to say and write all the time, hence the growing preference for forms of "they". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't a growing preference. It has been common for 500 years. The singular they been annoying officious pedants who have nothing better to do than invent their own rules and berate the majority of speakers for not following them. Pay no mind to people who tell you it is wrong. They're just not having enough sex, and need something to do with their pent-up aggression because of it. --Jayron32 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What's growing is the rejection of the pedantic and clumsy "he or she" construct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP, the spelling "lede" is not a UK thing. See Lead paragraph: In the journalism industry, particularly in the United States (see News style), the term is sometimes spelled "lede", also pronounced to rhyme with "need". The alternate spelling was invented to differentiate it from references to the metal lead, which was used to cast type. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we got enough o' them lead paragraphs as what we don't needs no more. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've seen quite a few toxic ledes in my time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do THEY always have to muck with stuff? What about the [lead/lede] car in a race? Does a general [lead/lede] his army? — Preceding halfwit comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lede" refers strictly to the journalism term.[7] In your examples, it's spelled "lead" and pronounced "leed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One must avoid any possible confusion, mustn't one? Who knows? — That lede car might be made of that heavy toxic metal. — Preceding trollish comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when using a general reference, it is usually possible to redo it into the plural, as in The chefs are each killed in a manner reflecting their most famous dishes... and eliminate the troubleseom he/they/he or she. Gzuckier (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except, when you use "each", you're supposed to treat it as a singular, hence back to square 1 (... reflecting his/her most famous dish). Using "all" instead of "each" would obviate this issue. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "each" gives the sentence more clarity (each chef was killed in a manner reflecting that chef's most famous dish; this meaning wouldn't be conveyed so clearly with "all"). Victor Yus (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you stress the specificity of "that chef's most famous dish" (meaning each dish belongs to one and only one chef) but still allow Gzuckier's "their most famous dishes". These seem to clash badly. The "each" in Gzuckier's version adds no real value. Take it out and it still reads well (or maybe it could be tweaked to "The chefs are killed in manners reflecting their most famous dishes...."). Nobody would read it as a bunch of chefs were gathered together in a room and blown up by a single bomb. They'd read it as each one getting an ending reflecting his or her most famous dish, and you'd get that meaning across (a) without having to resort to the "his or her" phrasing, which some find clumsy; and (b) without resorting to the singular they, which some find objectionable. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To put a fork in it, I believe the best compromise (there is no perfect solution) is: The chefs are each killed in a manner reflecting their most famous ~~dish~~ [dishes]...; this is unambiguous in meaning, has uncontroversial grammar, is not too awkward, but is less concise than it could be. ~Eric F 02:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [modified: 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)][reply]

But now you aren't making clear that it's one dish per chef. People might be expected to work that out, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice accuracy just for the sake of avoiding a construction which some (and without particularly good reason) might object to. (In fact I think the original proposal was perfectly fine, and the suggestions that have come about through everyone piling on have only made it worse. Now, what metaphor could we use to describe that situation, I wonder ...) Victor Yus (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saswitha

The Dutch Wikipedia has an article, nl:Saswitha, that is a biography of an adventurous man, named Saswitha, with strong esoterical inclinations who seems to have founded the first training centre for yoga teachers in the Netherlands after World War II. The article is mainly based on a (unreliable) source, written by the heirs of Saswitha. Both source and article claim that the name Saswitha is given to the man by religious teachers in India and that Saswitha would be an "Old Celtic" word for living water. If someone who is an expert or at least knowledgeable in the field of historical linguistics of the Celtic languages could confirm or deny that the last statement is true, he or she would make me happy. Thanks in advance, Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Celtic languages well, but I do know linguists don't talk about "Old Celtic" - the term is Proto-Celtic, which evolved into Old Irish, etc. (P.S. It seems odd that teachers in India would use a Celtic rather than a Sanskrit word. Plus "living water" is a Christian term.) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, the term 'living water' (מַיִם חַיִּים) was used in Hebrew long before Christianity (e.g. Genesis 26:19), in the sense of water that moves (as opposed to still water). - Lindert (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having looked up Proto-Celtic words for "living" (adj.) and "water" [8] the claimed derivation seems even less likely. The word for "living" is reconstructed biwo. Water roots include (anglicizing the IPA) akwaa, boglo, dubro, iskaa, lawo, udeskio, utso, feno and fono. (You can see similar words in known Celtic languages: "living": Old Irish (béo [9]), Welsh (byw / bywiol [10][11]), Cornish (byw / kesvyw [12]), Scottish Gaelic (beò [13]). And "water": Old Irish (uisce / dobur [14]), Welsh (dwfr [15]), Cornish (dowra http://www.howlsedhes.co.uk/cgi-bin/diskwe.pl]), Scottish Gaelic (uisge / deuraich [16]).) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

usquebae means water of life - except that it means whiskey. Hoax, maybe? Rmhermen (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"-Witha" actually sounds like the ending of some old Germanic female names such as Hroswitha, Ealswitha (also Iroquois Gendenwitha, Tekakwitha)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers. They are still tentative, but no confirmation means that a better source is required. I do not think it is a hoax. My conjecture is that it is contempt for the facts, motivated by a strong belief that some profound obscurity or some meaningless profundity is preferable to a dry narrative. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Hi, I am an spiring article writer and I would like someone to check the grammar of my first one. It's very important for me! Thanks in advance.

Film: entertainment or social mirror?

What is cinema? Is it only a fancy way to distract yourself for a couple of hours, or maybe there is something more behind this enjoyable pass time?

It's been more than 100 years since Auguste and Louis Lumière showed their first film. Although the Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat impressed the public, things have changed dramatically from that time. In the Era of the Digital Technology simple motion picture seems to be rather habitual than breath-snatching. However, the strange thing is that the film industry is growing faster and involves a larger audience and from year to year. Taking into account its penetration into our lives, it becomes evident that film is a very powerful and influential tool which can in some way have an impact on our vision of the world. It may sound terrifying, but in fact it is not.

Most films highlight the current social issues and struggle to resolve them. They are like a mirror of our society, our believes and our values. We create films. We are those people who create every single scene on the big screen, even though we rarely realize it. Film directors take inspiration from our lives and transform it into exciting stories. Using familiar situations they try to draw one's attention to the existing problems and to find the way out of them. Hundreds of times after watching a movie I was founding myself rethinking those things which I used to neglect. I was thinking about the message which creators of the film wanted us to catch, the reflection of the real world in the artistic one.

If you ask me how I would describe cinema in one sentence I would say that it is an attractive phenomenon which softly changes one’s consciousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.0.93.182 (talk • contribs)

Your grammar is pretty good but this text would never be accepted as an article on Wikipedia. The entire thing is an expression of (your?) personal opinion about film, it's about as far removed from encyclopedic text as it is possible to get short of original poetry. Roger (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable for the OP's personal blog, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was referring to a personal blog or something of the like, not a WP article. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar is actually not good at all, there are around a dozen errors. Also the writing would be greatly improved by proper paragraph structure -- each paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that expresses the theme of the paragraph, and the rest of the paragraph should be devoted to enlarging the topic sentence. (Not every paragraph needs to be structured that way, but exceptions should be rare, especially for beginning writers.) Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Looie that it needs a fair bit of work if you want it to sound polished, but I like your last sentence. There are too many changes you need to make for anyone to list them, but from the first few sentences, try:

"Is it only a fancy way to distract yourself for a couple of hours, or is there something more behind this enjoyable pastime?

It's been more than 100 years since Auguste and Louis Lumière showed their first film. Although The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (the italics are meant literally here) impressed the public, things have changed dramatically since that time. In the digital age, the motion picture seems to be habitual rather than breathtaking."

Just some suggestions, but basically it's fine for a blog. You learn by practicing and getting feedback, so keep at it. Just remember there are few real jobs for writers, so, ideally, you should pin any financial hopes on something else. IBE (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ви знаєте, що spiring не означає "починаючий"?
- Medeis' above comment apparently means, "Do you know, that spiring does not mean 'beginner'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be what it apparently means. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe you could rephrase it in, say, Greek? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reword

Although Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat [use italics, or else quotation marks] impressed the public, things have changed dramatically since that time. In the Era of Digital Technology a simple motion picture seems to be routine rather than breath-snatching. However, the strange thing is that the film industry is growing faster and involves a larger audience from year to year.

also, it's beliefs not believes, and found myself not was founding myself. I enjoyed it though, stick with it. reminds me somewhat of somebody or other's observation about books, that the plot is just something to keep your mind distracted while the book has its real effect. Gzuckier (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

Chinese help: Musings of the Ape Immortal

How exactly would one say "Musings of the Ape Immortal" in Chinese. Would it be 猿仙的沉思? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

沉思 sounds so serious! I tend to think "胡思乱想" is the most apt translation for "musings", but probably would not work in all contexts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French, Portuguese, and German help

What is the following in German, Portuguese, and French?

"To view the subtitles along with the video (an example; there are other ways):

download this video file (right click → save target as) download a subtitle file (.srt file format) from below (right click → save target as) to the same folder and name it Closed cap.srt view the video with VLC media player (subtitles will be usually be automatically shown) Vollständige Liste." WhisperToMe (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German:

"Um die Untertitel zusammen mit dem Video zu sehen (nur als ein Beispiel, es gibt andere Möglichkeiten): - Dieses Video herunterladen (rechter Mausklick → Ziel speichern unter). - Eine Untertitel-Datei von weiter unten in den selben Ordner herunterladen (.srt Datei Format) (rechter Mausklick → Ziel speichern unter), und sie mit dem Namen "Closed cap.srt" versehen. - Das Video mit dem VLC media player ansehen (Untertitel sollten automatisch erscheinen). Vollständige Liste (zur Anzeige der verfügbaren Sprachen)"

I am not sure if 'full list' is part of the file name or not, though. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! "Full list" AFAIK is a button to click to show a full list of subtitles available WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have changed the translation accordingly. How do you always come up with these strange translation requests? And yes, the question is rhetorical....I enjoy doing quirky things. If you want German, and it is not too long, you can ping me directly. Lectonar (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you! What I do is I search around the Commons and other Wikimedia projects and look for topics or things which need articles or content in another language. I.E. if it's an Algerian topic without a French or Arabic article, I make requests so that the Algerian article has a topic in those languages. If an organization has a website in X language, I make a request for an article to be started in that language (the website content makes it easy to use that language in writing the article). That's why Peel District School Board has so many languages-they have content in many languages spoken in the Peel Region in Ontario, and accordingly I made requests for Hindi, Korean, Tamil, Telugu, etc. If it's something "general" (like the Common Closed Captioning) I try to make sure it is supported in the six UN languages plus German, Italian, Portuguese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, and/or other common languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French

"Pour afficher des sous-titres avec la vidéo (c'est un exemple, il est possible de faire autrement) : ‑ Télécharger ce fichier vidéo (clic droit → Enregistrer la cible sous) ‑ Télécharger un des fichiers de sous-titres (fichier au format .srt) ci-dessous dans le même dossier (clic droit → Enregistrer la cible sous) et nommer le "Closed cap.srt" ‑ Visionner la vidéo avec VLC media player (normalement les sous-titres sont affichés automatiquement) Liste complète (pour avoir la liste des langues dans lesquelles les sous-titres sont disponibles). — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! French spelling error: "click" should read "clic". Corrected in my translation here above. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last newsreel of Die Deutsche Wochenschau - translate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr5-Qo-D8zk

According to the video's summary, it was released in April 1945, not too long before the unconditional surrender of the 3rd Reich.

No longer does it show battlefield scenes. It shows children and teens instead for some reason.

What do the narrators say, and what is the overall topic? Also, do they admit or hint at the impending defeat? --70.179.161.230 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not think that this even is a real Deutsche Wochenschau at all (It might be something from the Red Cross). I also think this might be something from even after the capitulation, because shown are children, mentioned by name, searching for their parents. The summary on the youtube video is very misleading and simply wrong. Lectonar (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The narrators only say the childrens name, their hometown, and the name of the parents. Lectonar (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a comment by the uploader now:"I got this from a source in Germany which had this at the end of their list of pre and wartime German newsreels. This is indeed a postwar short made in the future East Germany. I'd wrongly assumed it was made before the end of the war. Sorry. This is weekly newsreel "Der Augenzeuge" (English: The Eyewitness) directed/edited 1st by Kurt Maetzig...who died at 101yrs last year! "Kinder suchen ihre Eltern" or 'children in search of their Parents' ". Lectonar (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if this was not from Die Deutsche Wochenschau, then what was the last Die Deutsche Wochenschau newsreel, and did they admit to impending defeat then? --129.130.37.233 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the german article about Die Deutsche Wochenschau, the last production was Nr. 755 from march 22 1945. It shows the last public appearance of Adolf Hitler, shortly before his 56. birthday, giving out medals to 20 Hitlerjungen. So, as I have seen this footage some time ago, there was no hint of impending defeat, if you do not count Hitlers rather haunted look. Lectonar (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Language

Dear all.

I am learning German, and I wanted to know, if my grammar is okay:

"Mein Name ist Richard, ich lebe in einem Haus in New York. Das Wetter ist an diesem Ort da angenehm kühl und die feuchte Luft gefällt mir sehr."

Was the sentence good or would you suggest some better learning? Do you have some tips for me? I really love the German language and even started reading the German books of Goethe and comics like "Perry Rhodan rettet das Universum"! i really wish that one day i'll be able to understand Mozart's breath-taking, brilliant arias, my personal favorite is "Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja". I have noticed the heavy resemblance between English and German (for comparison, Haus means house, Maus means mouse and bettel originally meant battle), they are both Germanic languages, what beautiful languages!

Thank you for your responses

Kind regards--92.105.188.31 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad at all. The first sentence is ok. The second sentence would be better as: "Das Wetter hier ist angenhem kühl, und die feuchte Luft gefällt mir sehr." A little explanation: if you use an diesem Ort da, it means that somehow you are at a distance from it, while in the first sentence you already said you live in New York. Why you tell somebody that you enjoy moist/humid air is beyond me, though. Lectonar (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lectonar! Thank you very much for your critical analysis. I will memorize your tips. I am living right now next to a river, the air here is really, really moisty.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why do you enjoy (mir gefällt) the moist air. Or is it good for you, healthwise? Lectonar (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very agressive type of bronchitis, so the moist air really helps. The healthy air was one of the reasons, why I took a house at the riverside. I have got a question (I have noticed that you are from Germany): do you have a German book recommendation for me? I would really love to read more books.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would find book recommendations useful too. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books about what and at what proficiency level?. Because without restricting the search patterns, so to speak, I would be typing recommendations all day. Let me just tell you that Perry Rhodan is not considered good German :). Lectonar (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be <<Ich heiße Richard, und, obwohl ich in New York wohne, stammt meine IP-Adresse aus Graubünden, Schweiz>>? μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about, Medeis? If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, please stay out of it. --Viennese Waltz 08:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt I tell you, that I am currently learning German? Am I not allowed to travel in my holidays to a hospital in German speaking Grisons? If you want to meet me, please come to the Hochgebirgsklinik Davos (http://www.hochgebirgsklinik.ch). Bronchitis really sucks, believe me! Anyway, it is wonderful to experience Europe (I would also love to see Munich and Salzburg)!--92.105.188.31 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North (America)

I've already read the article Northern United States, where it says that e.g. Minnesota is in Midwest and Montana is definitely a western state, but would it be completely wrong to call Washington a Northern State? Is the general mindset exclusively the North, the South, and the West? I suppose no one would call New Mexico a southern state either? --Pxos (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An additional question: Is there an East, or is it only the East Coast? Would someone from California who moves to Illinois say that they are moving to East? --Pxos (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question; unfortunately, the answer is somewhat ambiguous. Many states fall within multiple categories. In general, the USA is divided by the Mississippi River into Eastern and Western halves, and North is divided approximately by a line extending from the Mason-Dixon line. However, the "Midwest states" are on both sides of the Mississippi, and are in the northern half. "The South" is sometimes considered to be the "Dixie" states, but usually refers to the "Deep south". One might think of Texas as a western state, but ironically, not a mid-western state, nor a south-western state state. Re: additional question; yes, someone from California would be moving "to the east" if moving to Illinois (although Illinois is in the 'Midwest'). Sorry that this is confusing -- but, such is life! ;) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone told me recently that Florida, the most southern mainland state, is not part of "The South" HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has at least 3 different maps defining "South" in the US (with some states in different shades of color, implying varying degrees of "south-ness") -lol- See: Southern United States, Deep South, Dixie -- Not to mention Hawaii - please don't, 'cuz that'll complicate things even more, since it is the southern-most state, but not a "southern state". ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's Southern Florida, which is so far south, it's not Southern any more. That is, it's mostly vacationers, retirees and ex-Cubans, not rednecks, until you get to the swamp. StuRat (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More directly to your question, the article Northern United States does not include a map -- an oversight that should be corrected. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Florida was a slave state and was part of the Confederacy. The reason it's often not considered a true "southern" state is that except for the northern portion and panhandle, its character has become rather different from the typical "southern" state. Texas is also in the broader definition of "southern" states, but the average Texan would say he's not a southerner, he's a Texan. Texas is as much "western" as "southern". And the west coast states of both Oregon and California were free states, hence could be considered "northern" states, even though much of Cali is geographically "south". Cali is more like "western", while Oregon is part of the "Pacific Northwest". As regards Minnesota, it is part of the midwest's "northern tier", but it is also called "The Old Northwest", as it once represented the northwest corner of the contiguous states. So the USA's two "northwests" are well over a thousand miles apart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is largely arbitrary, but there is definitely no such thing as an "Easterner". The area is too historically, culturally, and linguistically diverse. One might call oneself a New Englander, a North Easterner, a Virginian, Carolinan, Georgian, or Southerner. There are Westerners, and Down Easterners, even. But no Easterners. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone call himself a Northener? Not as opposed to "the South" but as in "I'm from the North, I'm used to the snow." Or does it sound odd? As far as I know (and I don't know much) people in countries consisting of "independent" states associate themselves with the state they are citizens of, not with geographical regions unless they are making a point. Might a person from Michigan ever say that they are "from the North"? --Pxos (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When talking with a southerner about the relative merits of both regions. Although the accent would make it obvious anyway. It's relative. In Minnesota, Iowa is considered to be "south". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of the United States covers some of this, but it's too big and dense. If you had to divide the U.S. up into the smallest number of regions possible, I think the smallest you could get away with is 4, with a lot of bleed through at the edges: The Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the West. Roughly, the Northeast would be anything east of the Appalachians and north of the Mason-Dixon line. The South would be south of Ohio River-Mason Dixon line, and including Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas. The Midwest is north of the Mason-Dixon-Ohio River-Arkansas-Oklahoma line and between the Appalachians and the Rockies, and the West is from the Rockies west. If you break it into smaller, more cohesive cultural-geographic units, it would take a lot more bits, but the most likely would be:
- New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island
- Mid Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland
- "Upper South", "Atlantic South", "New South": Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, northeastern Florida, maybe south Florida (in parts)
- Appalachia: West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee
- Deep South: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, northwestern Florida
- Great Lakes region: Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin
- Texas
- Great Plains: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota
- Mountain West: Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana
- Pacific Northwest: Oregon, Washington, Idaho
- California
- Hawaii
- Alaska

Some states like California, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida pose a real problem for placing into cultural-geographic zones. Florida, in particular, fits into three regions: South Florida (anything from I-4 southward, excepting the Everglades) is culturally much more "Northern", while North Florida can be divided into the Jacksonville-Daytona area (which more resembles the rest of the "New South" of the Atlantic Seaboard) while the quadrant north of Tampa and west of Jacksonville (i.e. the "Redneck Riviera) fits squarely in the Deep South. Louisiana too is usually classified as a "Deep South" state, but the Cajun and Creole culture gives it a unique culture entirely unlike the rest of the deep south. Plus there are smaller insular regions, like the extreme Atlantic Coast (the N.C. Outer Banks, Tidewater Virginia, Gullah South Carolina & Georgia) or the Ozarks which have their own distinct character. --Jayron32 02:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Idaho being included in the Pacific Northwest (kinda short of Pacific if you ask me). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Northwest refers to a region roughly coinciding with the Oregon Country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've often heard movie characters and others use the expression "back East", but I've never head "back West" or "back South" or "back North". Is there a reason for this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must be watching too many Westerns, where the city folk come from back east. Occasionally, people go "back up north" or "back down south". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book The Nine Nations of North America is an interesting take on the issue. --Xuxl (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Aristotle translation

This might be a fairly challenging task, but I was wondering if anyone could translate the following passage from Aristotle's Politics into Ancient Greek: "The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind." (from Book I, Chapter V). Thanks so much! 64.229.204.239 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be being particularly dense tonight, but what exactly do you want? Aristotle wrote the thing in ancient Greek (ἔτι δὲ τὸ ἄρρεν πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ φύσει τὸ μὲν κρεῖττον τὸ δὲ χεῖρον, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἄρχον τὸ δ᾽ ἀρχόμενον. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων); do you want someone to translate the English translation back into Greek like Mark Twain translating the French translation of his jumping-frog story back into English? Deor (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the original is the way to go, unless you are going for a comic effect. StuRat (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Greek translation was what I was asking for. I just couldn't find the original version of it in Greek, all I could find was the English translations. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks! 64.229.204.239 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, look for the Loeb Classical Library edition at Google Books. They have the Greek and English matched line by line on facing pages. In fact, nvever buy any classical Greek or Latin work except in the Loeb edition.μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This really depends on the work, and what you're trying to do. To note, textual criticism of the works is still ongoing. I think the most recent critical edition of the original text of Aristotle was David Balme's 2002 Cambridge Classical Text of the History of Animals. The standard editions for most of Aristotle (and Plato, and many others) are the Oxford Classical Texts, but the standard deviates from this series for various works. For the Politics, both the OCT and Dreizehnter's 1970 (Studia et Testimonia Antiqua series) are standard, which is fitting because they are the most recent. Series of interest: Oxford Classical Texts, Cambridge Classical Texts, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, Loeb Classical Library, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Collection Budé. There are also editions outside of these series which are nonetheless standard. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what the word "translation" means. It means it was converted from one language to another. The original Greek is not a translation, because it was never converted from another language. So, you should ask for "the original Greek version", next time. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What he was looking for was the Greek vorlage (shameless promotion of article I wrote, not coincidentally the least read article on this encyclopedia). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

knock-knock-knocking

I thank you in advance. Would you please teach me the meaning of "knock-knock-knocking" in the following passage?---"I know good and well he wants to see you, Miss Vernona, because he said so. The trouble with you is that you're wasting a heap of good precious time. They don't come knock-knock-knocking unless they've got something big on their mind. Now, please hurry up and get yourself dressed, Miss Vernona."(Erskine Caldwell, Episode in Palmetto, p.61.)123.227.223.236 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)dengen[reply]

Sounds like a stylistic way of saying "knocking" (on the door of the house when visiting). StuRat (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be a reference to "...knock-knock-knockin' on heaven's door" -- see: Knockin' on Heaven's Door -- which relates to the idiom: knocking on heaven's door. Or it could simply be an alliteration.

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's onomatopoeia, because when you knock at someone's door you tap several times. Rat-tat-tat. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birendra Nath Dutta in Assamese

Can someone write the name "Birendra Nath Dutta" in Assamese scripts? --Tito Dutta (contact) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eat like a bird

I was always under the impression that birds eat a lot. Am I mistaken or is the expression off? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birds, being a lot smaller than humans, eat a lot less than humans, hence the meaning of not eating very much. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why we don't talk of eating like an ant. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish I could carry 100 times my own weight back from the buffet table. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

In addition to the idea that they don't eat very much, I've always thought that the expression also referred to the small amount that they eat with each "bite". Granted, they can really gorge themselves if they want but just observing a bird, you wouldn't necessarily get that idea. Instead you'd likely see them eat one tiny morsel at a time. And not many of them before flying off again. Dismas|^(talk) 06:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they really can gorge themselves. Being birds, they need to stay light, so doubling their body mass with undigested food just isn't an option. An exception would be for flightless birds and chicks not able to fly yet, which can get as fat as they want. Ironically, chicks are sometimes bigger than their parents, as a result of this. An interesting question is what biological mechanisms regulate the weight of birds, to keep them at optimal flight weight. If we could identify those, then we might be able to apply them to human weight control. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, according to the Wiktionary definition, it is a simile: To eat in small amounts rather than in a single full meal. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, can you please show me an example of a chick being bigger than its parents? That seems physically impossible, on the face of it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Baby Huey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the cuckoo comes to mind, with its brood parasitism, but it depends on the definition of parentship. Lectonar (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pic with the chick looking slightly larger: [17]. Here's a rather brief mention of the phenomenon: "CHICK'S GROWTH: The chicks will be nearly full grown at 9 weeks of age. They will add some weight as they develop their flight muscles after they leave the nest. Their wingspan will be as large or slightly larger than the adults at this time." [18]. Here's another: "(Most altricial birds are the same size, sometimes bigger, than their parents in this very short space of time.)" [19].

As to how this happens, in addition to the natural variation in genetic size between parent and offspring, they do seem to "shrink" a bit as they start to fly. Perhaps this is from fat being turned into more dense muscle. They also seem to have fledging feathers that are a bit longer than adult feathers. You can think of these like training wheels on a bicycle, they are there to help out unsure flyers, and are replaced by shorter, more efficient feathers once they become proficient flyers.

Also note that shrinking with age isn't all that rare. Many humans do it, although in old age, not upon reaching adulthood. StuRat (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny in enough, in German, we get more precise: "Essen wie ein Spatz", to eat like a sparrow, and it has (only) the meaning of eating small amounts, afaik. Lectonar (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bates made a similar observation in Psycho (film). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half swim

I'm reading Lord of the Flies and it refers to "half swim"ming at one point right near the beginning. What is this though? Here's the passage with Piggy and Ralph:

"Aren't you going to swim?"

Piggy shook his head.

"I can't swim. I wasn't allowed. My asthma-"

"Sucks to your ass-mar!"

Piggy bore this with a sort of humble patience.

"You can't half swim well."

There's another mention of it around this part that I can't find again right now. I get the sense that this is some sort of activity or type of stroke that I've never heard of. So, is this something in British English that my American brain hasn't encountered? Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misparsing it. It's not "You can't half swim well", but "You can't half swim well". The stock expression "He can't half <verb>" means he can do <verb> very well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So by saying he can't half do something well, that means he actually does do it well? That seems contradictory. Dismas|^(talk) 09:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He does it less than half-well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bugs, more than half-well. Even more than well. Very well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's British English for you. That curious usage hasn't made it to the US, with the exception of "you're not half-bad at that", meaning you're good. Taken literally, it doesn't mean good or bad, just not halfway. StuRat (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

language learning and hours of study

Does anyone know of any research linking number of hours of study of a foreign language to vocabulary size? I've found a snippet or two on vocab size vs. total number of hours of classroom study, but can find nothing on google scholar or google about total study time. Class time, of course, neglects homework, so I'm looking for something that covers homework and classroom time. Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]