Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

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)

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

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

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

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):

1. download this video file (right click → save target as)
2. 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
3. {{#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]]}} }}
4. 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

It's strange enough, but a Latin cognate of бѣлый is this black bird fulica, see Pokorny's dictionary[1][2]. In German it is also called Bläßhuhn from blaß "pale" and Huhn "hen".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Americans used to dress a lot more formally when out in public. Here's a random example,[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

It is probably more common nowadays for the mother to simply choose a patronymic in the cases where the father is unknown.[4] Lesgles (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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) 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) Unlike these genetic experiments, adoption is perfectly feasible even now.—Emil J. 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Lesbian couples most certainly DO have children. Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache, for starters. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 18:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

"His or her" → "their" ?

Resolved

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

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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

"Lede" refers strictly to the journalism term.[5] In your examples, it's spelled "lead" and pronounced "leed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)]

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)

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)

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)

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)

Also, having looked up Proto-Celtic words for "living" (adj.) and "water" [6] 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 [7]), Welsh (byw / bywiol [8][9]), Cornish (byw / kesvyw [10]), Scottish Gaelic (beò [11]). And "water": Old Irish (uisce / dobur [12]), Welsh (dwfr [13]), Cornish (dowra http://www.howlsedhes.co.uk/cgi-bin/diskwe.pl]), Scottish Gaelic (uisge / deuraich [14]).) 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

"-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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
    • That may be what it apparently means. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Maybe you could rephrase it in, say, Greek? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

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

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

Ok. Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps the collection of clips from de:Der Augenzeuge (Wochenschau) (copyrighted material, the first clip is from 1946/13) was uploaded under a wrong title in order to obfuscate it. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@Medeis: 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 for pneumology (http://www.hochgebirgsklinik.ch). Chronic bronchitis really sucks, believe me! Anyway, it is wonderful to experience Europe (I would also love to see Munich and Salzburg)! @Lectonar: I know that Perry Rhodan ist not the finest representation of German "literature";-), but I am a big fan of sci-fi, and Perry Rhodans adventures are great! All the very best.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For old-fashioned German Sci-fi, try to find books by Hans Dominik (writer). Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, there is a thing I noticed in the little city Chur in Grisons: most book stores here are not selling German classic literature like Johann Wolfgang von Goethes or Richard Wagners works. It seems, that Switzerland does not want to be associated with Germany! PS: does someone of you have a good tip for books about the famous German academic fencing? Thank you very much and kind regards.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Try: Hermann Rink: Die Mensur, ein wesentliches Merkmal des Verbandes. In: Rolf-Joachim Baum (Hrsg.): „Wir wollen Männer, wir wollen Taten!“ Deutsche Corpsstudenten 1848 bis heute. Siedler, Berlin 1998, ISBN 3-88680-653-7

Thank you very much for the tip! I will order the book as soon as I can! Kind regards.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of my curiosity over where a New Yorker might spend his "holidays", shouldn't we be talking about "heißen" and "wohnen"? I was taught saying "Mein Name" and "Ich lebe" would mark you out as an English speaker. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just curious: where were you taught? The sentence as it is not so far out from what I would say. I never use "ich heiße", and "ich lebe in einem Haus" does not sound that strange to me, either. Lectonar (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Three years in high school, one with an American and two with a native speaker from Hamburg, and two years in University with an Austrian. Mein Name wouldn't have been a big issue. But "leben" instead of "wohnen" would have gotten marked wrong. Obviously my intuition counts for squat, but leben for wohnen sounds as odd to me as vivre would for habiter. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Even the French does not sound that wrong to me, and I am really quite fluent in French; anyway, there seem to be regional differences, and about my French I am no longer sure after I followed the discussion we had here about the pronounciation of the name of the cardinal from Québec, Ouellet. I would have betted fair money that the "t" was silent. Lectonar (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Not that wrong" does seem to imply a certain degree of wrongness. There are plenty of things that one could say in English, but one doesn't, like a "fat big yellow old bird", instead of a "big fat yellow old bird", which one could say, but which is not the most usual and least marked form.

Thank you for your submission. The Swiss hospitals are by far superior to ours! Well, thanks for the tip about "marking", German ist great, but extremely hard to learn. I do not think, that I will ever be fluent in this fantastic language. If I may ask: what was your motivation to learn German? Mine was clearly Mozart:)--92.105.188.31 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Medeis on "my name is (first name)" and "I live in ..." (Anglicisms) and other peculiarities in the construction. While the grammar is o.k., the semantics is dubious and the sentences seem to mean something else than intended. You say Mein Name ist Erwin Lindemann (a famous Loriot sketch Der Lottogewinner, watch it on YouTube), not Mein Name ist Erwin. And hier-da-dort corresponds to here-there-over there. I suppose you wanted to say dort (over there), wheras Lectonar above understood hier (here) and I still wonder what was meant. I wonder what the OP's first language is. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My very first language is Spanish!--92.105.188.31 (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In German, Name without further modification is often interpreted to mean "last name", so if you say mein Name ist Richard you may find people addressing you as Herr Richard. I agree that ich heiße Richard sounds more idiomatic, but mein Name ist Richard XYZ isn't wrong or foreign-sounding either. Angr (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you Angr!--92.105.188.31 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Or the Great Northwest (Bob Dylan)165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Sure there is. An Easterner is anyone who lives east of Denver. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I live in Michigan and would say north - to the right audience from farther south. But Michigan itself is divided into three parts: the heavily populated southern part, "up north" and "the UP"; the last two which both get far more snow than where most Michiganders live. Rmhermen (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hence the band called "Da Yoopers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also from Michigan here (Detroit), and I should clarify your remark. Others will read "UP" as just capital "up". What we say is "the U.P.", with each letter pronounced separately, meaning the "upper peninsula". StuRat (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Although this may have been alluded to: there are four set demographic regions [15] Northeast, Midwest, South and West. But yes there are all kinds of ways to divide them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two main ways Americans conceive of their country regionally: 1) In discrete regions with some geographic and/or cultural unity: The largest such regions, as has already been indicated, are the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West. The Northeast and Midwest can be combined to form a region called "the North", though that term is typically used only when a distinction is being made with the South on cultural or historical grounds. Each of the four macroregions can be divided into smaller regions, although the dividing lines between these regions might be disputed. 2) In relative terms: This is where terms like "East" come in. In this context, "East" can mean either the east coast or everything that is not the "West". To answer Jack's question, there is an expression "back East", and its opposite is "out West" (not *back West). The reason for this distinction is historical. Up until a generation or two ago, most people in the West had either moved west from another region of the United States or had a remembered family history of westward migration. So movement east was movement back to the part of the country where a person or his progenitors had originated. Similarly, a person from the east goes out West because historically the economic and cultural center and the part of the United States with the greatest population density was the area east of the Mississippi or Missouri Rivers. Any movement west from that region was movement out into the open and still largely unsettled countries. These concepts are no longer really accurate, given high population densities and economic productivity in California and other parts of the West, and considering that the ancestors of many people in the West today came from Latin America or Asia, not the eastern United States. Still, those historic expressions live on. Marco polo (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. Now, if a person had been born and raised in California, then went to live in New York for a while, but decided to go back where they came from, would they say "I'm going back West", or is that just not something people say? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Marco Polo has put it very well. Yes, people would say "back west" (or better, back out west), but it would be relative (like northerners and easterners really only using those terms when talking in relation to Southerners and Westerners) and just using the language while "Out West" and "Back East" are more like set phrases. What you would never ever hear would be "Out East". μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My mother was born in Colorado and moved to California as a small child. At some point, someone asked her where she was originally from, and she answered, "Back east." When it came out that she was from Colorado, the others laughed at her, because while Colorado may be east of California, it is most definitely not "back east"! Angr (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Geography is usually a very friendly field, but in the terminology of regional geography people can get very irate. ...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? In the right context Washington is certainly a northern state. For example, I grew up in Buffalo, NY, and now live in Washington, and feel overall very much a "northerner". When I visit the South I feel more out of place than I do when visiting Canada. In this context Washington is certainly a northern state. In the same way New Mexico could be called a southern state. It isn't part of the Old South, but it is definitely in the south. Context. When it comes to regional terms there is little general agrement on most issues, and a surprising (to me) amount of animosity on certainly issues (eg, is Maryland part of the South? is Kentucky part of the Midwest?). There are no right or wrong answers to most such questions, but there is a lot of hard feelings. The most well-defined region of the US must be New England, although even there there are some arguments. The South is probably the next most well defined region, which isn't saying a lot, as there are endless debates regarding the "southernness" of Texas, Florida, Maryland, and so on. Other regions are even more poorly agreed upon. And, for what it's worth, having said all that, Idaho is often considered part of the Pacific Northwest, largely due to its historic (and present) links to the Pacific coast via the Snake and Columbia rivers. The same can be said for western Montana. On the other hand, these regions could also be called part of the West—as could eastern Washington and Idaho. Pfly (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The main thing I've gathered from this discussion is that Greek χειρον means worse, while Arabic خير khairun means "better"! -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

Maybe in the broader context it was appraent that he was eagerly knocking or overly anxious to see her. 165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My previous reference doesn't make much sense (but that song immediately came to mind) unless "knock-knock-knocking" was intended as an ominous portent. In context, you're right: it seems to relate to impatient suitors - rapping anxiously on the door. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

English poetic style, of sorts. As with "Here comes Suzie Snowflake... tap-tap-tapping on your windowpane..."[16] A little out of season, but whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That must be when the red, red robin comes bob, bob, bobbin' along. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

They don't gorge themselves, at least not if they're flying birds. They eat a great deal, but only in small amounts at a time. They have to constantly provide their flying engine with fuel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You're forgetting chicks. They regularly gorge themselves. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And they don't do much flying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I see. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Oh, I see, from StuRat's interpretation - meaning an understatement, like "not half-bad". "You can't half swim well" is not an expression we would use in the US. For one thing, the "half" is in the wrong place, which is what Dismas is getting at. Also, "can't" suggests less than half. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You imply that the reason the phrase is not in common use in AmEng is that it's somehow wrong. It's nothing of the sort, it's a BrEng idiom that makes perfect sense to BrEng speakers. --Viennese Waltz 13:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Now if we said "not yet half" that would imply less than half, I would think, as in "I'm not yet half done". StuRat (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the "can't" part. It implies that the subject is unable to swim any way except very well - as if something's pulling him along. "Doesn't" would make more sense there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You needn't be concerned about the "can't" bit - the negative is part of the construction (see Alansplodge's examples below). And don't get hung up on its literal or grammatical (non)sense - it's an idiom and entirely comprehensible to speakers of British English (above a certain age). Gwinva (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

And a reference to back it up; "Usually as 'can't half', 'doesn't half', 'don't half', etc UK, 1851 not half! used for registering assent, approval, agreement, etc UK, 1920 not half bad adjective quite good UK, 1867 not having any adjective refusing to agree..." The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Uncoventional English By Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The DJ Alan Freeman was known for his catchphrase "not 'alf". ("Not arf" in our article, just to confuse the rhotic speakers among you). This is normal British English anyway: "Are you pleased with your exam results?" "Not half! All As." Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In my local Cockney dialect, "can't half" and "don't half" are pronounced "c'narf" and "d'narf". This isn't (in my experience) a construction used by children any more, so may well vanish without a trace in the next few decades. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good riddance. A rare case where children actually speak better than the parents. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You are making the error of supposing that they would replace an outmoded idiom with textbook English. That is far from the truth. If Piggy were a 2013 twelve year-old, a more likely phrase would be "You is well sick at swimming, innit man." Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it doesn't feature in Multicultural London English. But it's still well understood in England even if it is starting to get slightly dated. Going back in time there was the 1970s sitcom It Ain't Half Hot Mum (autres temps, autres moeurs...). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, still very common in the adult world here in London, but it struck me that it's not the sort of thing that a child would say today; O tempora o mores! Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just remembered a 1970s advert for Wotsits which concluded "You know what, Watt, you don't half know what's what!" Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what "We're not halfway there" means in British English. In US English, it means a bit less than halfway. StuRat (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It means the same in BrE. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But if you asked "Are we there yet?", and someone answered "Not 'alf", that would mean you've definitely arrived (and NOT that you're not even halfway there yet). Great, isn't it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Litotes Dbfirs 18:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

(This paper makes the very basic link that students who studied vocabulary lists longer did better on vocabulary tests.)
This might be a better lead: This book chapter quotes a researcher saying "a productive vocabulary size of around 2,000 is a possible though ambitious goal after 1,000 hours of study of English as a Foreign Language". I think the researcher may be Paul Nation in Wellington; click on his name to link to a lot of his research on vocabulary size which may help. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - that's a good start. I almost get the feeling the research just hasn't been done, partly because it's hard to measure what counts as a word, and then what counts as knowing it. Then you have to calculate the hours of actual study, which will presumably be self-reported, and unreliable. These problems look solvable, but you would need a lot of agreement on standards (counting words only has to be done consistently, deciding what counts as a known word is a bit more troublesome, but counting hours of private study would be quite difficult). That paper you linked looks like a (fairly good) student dissertation to me, and I get the feeling the research quoted does not count hours of homework - still, it mentions results from different countries, which is something of a lead to pursue. I get the funny feeling it's in the too-hard basket. IBE (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Medeis) Indeed. Lemma (morphology) discusses some of that "what counts as a word" problem. Also when looking, it seemed that although there were people willing to give numbers of hours to learn a language to a given level (for English-speakers, Spanish comes in at 600 and Korean at 2,200 to reach the same level if I remember right), no one was separating out vocab from other aspects of language learning. I wonder if you were able to contact Nation if he could point you right. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Great idea in fact about contacting Nation - in fact I'm sure the researchers will be very helpful if i have tried first. There are other good researchers like Batia Laufer who would also be good points of contact. IBE (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• i thought we just had this question. In any case, having learned various languages, I would say that the more hours the merrier, but that casual learning through conversation and passive absorption (watching movies) works better for me than trying to memorize lists for higher level vocabulary. Basic vocabulary, the firt few hundred words, should be learned by rote if necessary, and by identifying cognates (or borrowings) wherever possible. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to the previous question you are thinking of? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what to look for but 'language learning', which is eminently unhelpful. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Adjectives

Are there any differences in grammar between the following noun + adjective combinations: "time immemorial", "heir apparent", "knights errant", "person responsible", "time available", "something new", "person nearby"? It seems to me that the set expressions like "time immemorial" are stronger examples of post-positive adjectives than some others, like "person responsible", which seems to be more an abbreviation for "person who is responsible". However, I suppose in theory you could also say "time that is immemorial", so I'm not sure if there really is any fundamental distinction. "something new", for example, also feels somehow different, yet I am not very clear why. 86.146.107.128 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Something new" is kind of a condensed relative clause ("something which is new"), while "nearby" in "person nearby" is an adverb... AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about "nearby" being an adverb there? Also, I understand that you can say "something which is new", but, as I mentioned, you can also say "time that is immemorial" or "heir who is apparent" -- at least, they are grammatically possible. So what's the difference, if any? 86.146.107.128 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Heir apparent" traditionally has a specific fixed legal meaning, and is not really the same as "heir who is apparent"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Time immemorial" is a fixed phrase because you can't substitute anything else for "time": *years immemorial, *ages immemorial. Same with "knights errant": *nobles errant, *warriors errant. "Heir apparent": *beneficiary apparent, *inheritor apparent. Whereas with "something new", both parts can be substituted: anything new, everything new; something completely different, everything different; anything interesting, everyone involved... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I already mentioned that they are set patterns, but the question is whether are they grammatically identical to the others. 86.146.107.128 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your first analysis was correct. Things like heir apparent or attorney general are just calques on the French. The other terms are abbreviations of relative clauses as AnonMoos states. Time immemorial is not really a condensation of "time which is immmemorial". μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Medeis (and most others above). I also would say that you may be right in a sense, in that the formal, explicit structure of the examples may be the same, but there is a difference in feel. Try the example "surgeon general" - the adjective is after the noun, but it means something different to a "general surgeon". But someone will probably be along to tell me that is a different category altogether. IBE (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Time immemorial has a specific fixed legal meaning in this part of the world. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bwanos Aires

So, now that there's a Pope from Argentina, there's been a lot of commentary that includes the words "Buenos Aires".

Trouble is, most non-hispanic people I've heard (and not just today, but for years) pronounce the first word as "Bwah-nos", rather than "Bweh-nos". I've never understood why they would do this. There was a Brazilian tennis player on the circuit some years ago named Maria Bueno. I never heard anyone ever call her "Maria Bwah-no"; it was always Bweh-no.

The only thing I can think of is the word bwana, which is well known internationally. But that is a Swahili word, and should provide no guidance as to how any hispanic word would be pronounced, and particularly one that includes an e in the spelling, and not an a.

Are there any other published theories about "Bwanos Aires"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Never heard that pronunciation until you just brought it up. However, I've often heard "bweh-nos air-aze", when it's rightly closer to "bweh-nos eye-race". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In what country are you hearing this, Jack? Oz? In the States, I've never heard "Bwahnos"; and certainly here in the good Midwestern German city of Milwaukee, anything but "Bwenos" or "Bwaynos" will get you some really hard stares. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In Australia, principally. I've been listening to the developing news from Rome this morning and virtually all I'm hearing from commentators is "Bwah-nos", "Bwah-nos", "Bwah-nos". I heard one person say "Bweh-nos", and it really stood out. But, as I say, I've been hearing people say this for too many years to count. Mostly Aussies no doubt, but I also remember hearing Britishers and Amerikaners say it too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard anyone in England say it like that. We've had a spot of bother with the place for the last thirty years or more, so it doesn't take a Pope to get it on the news over here. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a youtube of Andrew Zimmern (who's from New York, where there are plenty of hispanics) visiting Buenos Aires, which he pronounces Bwah-nos every time he says the word (about 20 times by the time I stopped listening). That's what I'm talking about. I also found many other clips where Americans say it properly, so "Bwah-nos" seems to be the exception over there. But it's definitely become the norm over here in Oz. I'd love to know why, though. It just doesn't make any sense. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting: I listen to him, and I'm hearing him say "bweh-nəs", not "bwah". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• What in the world are you talking about, Jack? The vowel is /e/. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to over-react. I am not an ipaphone, and I'm probably slightly exaggerating the difference between the /e/ sound I expect and the /a/ sound I hear. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Orangemike and Medeis, I also here "bweh-niss" in the video. I'm an American who's lived on both coasts and in the midwest, and I've also been living a long time in Europe. I've never heard anyone say "bwah-nos". It would be impossible not to notice if someone said it. It sounds VERY odd. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's very clear from his pronunciation of the Spanish words in the video that he has had very little contact with the Spanish language. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound VERY odd. Which is why I always notice it, and always wonder why anyone would ever say it that way. But say it that way, they do. Listen at 38/39 secs – bwanos; then at 42 secs – brains; then at 47 secs – bwanos. The /e/ sound in "brains" is completely missing when he says "Buenos". I expect his lack of familiarity with Spanish words accounts for his pronunciation, but that doesn't explain it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have listened to it five times, and still hear "bweh-niss" both times. Nothing resembling "bwah-nos". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(random indent) Bway-knows, Bway-ness, Bway-noss...All work for me. -ness is probably what I would say in casual conversation, but it doesn't come up so often that I'd say I have a regular way to pronounce it. --Onorem♠Dil 02:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If we are going strictly by the American guy in the food show, he seems to be saying something between /ɛ/, /e/ and /ɘ/. It's still nowhere near the vowel of father. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, to my ears, that's exactly how it sounds. A little shortened, but that's the sound he makes. It is very markedly different from the "buenos" as spoken here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

To my American ears, it sounds like he's saying "Bwonus Are-ace". Butchering it, in any case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that a schwa e?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Some speakers might be confusing Spanish "bueno" with Italian "buono".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Jack, can you give a few examples of English words as you speak them that rhyme with what you are hearing in the first syllable of Buenos? μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(I never know how to follow an asterisk, but I suppose I'll get over it. Any chance of using a colon or two in future?)

I use the asterisk when I am asking a new question or making a new comment totally unrelated to and hence unindented from the one immediately above. I assume two asterisks or two colons following is fine either way. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Best I can tell you is that this mispronunciation uses the same vowel as the -ua- in Juan. If someone of this persuasion said "Juan from Buenos Aires", they'd be using exactly the same vowel sound (as if it were "Juan from Buanos Aires"). That's how I'm hearing it. But they should be distinctly different. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Australian low vowels seem fronted to me. Father seems to have the vowel of cat, and cat seems to approach the vowel of seat. So I was wondering if this was just a difference in mapping. But I don't hear "juan" so much as "one" or "when" in that clip. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Aussies have no difficulty saying Wayne or Ben, using totally different vowels from Juan or one. We don't refer to Superman's girlfriend as "Lois Lahn" or "Lois Lunn" or "Lois Len". It's clearly Lane, rhymes with Wayne. So, there should be total comfort with saying Buenos like in the correct example, or reasonably close. What I often hear, though, is something that is not what I would call reasonably close at all, and my glorious quest has been to discover what the root cause of this weirdness is.

But from the above responses, it's clear that what I'm hearing and what others are hearing are quite different things. I can't explain that (my hearing is not perfect but it isn't that distorted). We can't progress this discussion until we can at least get to that first base -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that Andrew Zimmern has an odd vowel in the youtube video linked to above, but I'm having a hard time identifying it. It doesn't sound like [eɪ] as in 'pain' or like [ɛ] as in 'pen', though. To me it sounds more like [ʌ] as in 'pun' or [ɑ] as in 'John', or maybe something between them. Angr (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha! Yes, the [ʌ] as in 'pun' is very close to what I hear, too. Maybe not quite that short, but very much in that vicinity. So, can anyone suggest any other word spelled with an e that's meant to be pronounced /e/ but is actually pronounced [ʌ]? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Many Americans, including me, pronounce twenty with [ʌ]. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the ⟨e⟩ is preceded by the [w] sound in both Buenos and twenty, though I definitely have [ɛ], not [ʌ], in Gwen(dolyn). Angr (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone got a sound file or video of the new Pope telling us where he's from? HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have only heard him speak the Italian and Latin, both with a rather handsome Spanish accent. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What does this Chinese scroll say?

You can view the image here. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a poem by Li Bai and the en translation is here. See the first poem. Oda Mari (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 14

Working language(s) of the Vatican?

While all that things are happening I just wonder what is the real working language with which all the cardinals from different countries speak with each other? Is it Italian? English? Latin? What obligatory languages are supposed to be known by every cardinal? Is Italian the must-know language for all higher Vatican officials? Yes, I know that the official languages of the Vatican are Latin and Italian but I want to clear the issue in its practical aspects.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The main language - the official language of the Vatican City State - is Italian. The Holy See uses Latin as its official language. Our Vatican City article offers further language information (note 11): " In accordance with paragraph 2 of the Legge sulle fonti del diritto of 7 June 1929, all laws and regulations of the state are published in the Italian-language Supplemento per le leggi e disposizioni dello Stato della Città del Vaticano attached to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The text of the first seven items published in that supplement is given here. While the state itself uses only Italian, many other languages are used by institutions situated within the state, such as the Holy See, the Pontifical Swiss Guard, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Holy See uses Latin as an official language and French as a diplomatic language; in addition, its Secretariat of State uses English, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish. The Swiss Guard, in which commands on parade are given in German, also uses French and Italian in all its official ceremonies. The semi-official Holy See newspaper L'Osservatore Romano uses English, French, German, Italian, Malayalam, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish. Vatican Radio uses 40 languages, including Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Esperanto, English, Filipino, French, German, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malayalam, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Tamil, Tigrigna, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In the pre-popening speculation, not speaking Italian was seen as a mark against various otherwise popable candidates. Unfortunately I can think of no easy way to find these remarks--the best I found were some blog comments mentioning Cardnial Dolan of NY doesn't speak Italian. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Любослов Езыки -- The language of papal decrees and official pronouncements is Latin, but a lot of the lower-level administrative work is carried out in Italian, and it seems it would be very difficult to navigate the internal politics of the Vatican administrative agencies and gain firm control over the work of the Curia without a practical working knowledge of Italian. AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Very few people in the Vatican have a deep understanding of Latin to the point that they would be fluently able to converse in it, and most have no more than a rudimentary familiarity that doesn't extend beyond being able to read simple prayers. During the last papal election, I remember reading that only one cardinal, from Latvia or Estonia if I remember correctly, was able to converse in Latin. A significant minority have a passive reading familiarity with the language to the point where they would be able to make sense of a Papal bull or other official document.

Even Benedict, when composing his resignation speech (which he delivered in Latin), had to rely on an official latinist to polish up his draft. Many, if not most, of the Bishops present in the audience didn't understand it. Latin isn't a working language in the Vatican, but a language of record. The reference for any dispute about the meaning of any Vatican document is the Latin translation of the (usually) Italian original. The translation is carried out by professional Vatican latinists.

Even 50 years ago, when Latin was still the liturgical language, I doubt that many cardinals were able to converse in Latin. Just watch some Youtube videos of Cardinal Krol officiating at the funeral of John F. Kennedy for an example of a cadinal whose knowledge of Latin was at the schoolboy level or worse. His pronunciation is painfully hilarious. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's one reference on the language policy inside the Vatican: Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church, By Thomas J. Reese. p. 95. Reese, too, mentions the importance of Italian (and of being good at languages in general) for a potential candidate for papacy. -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the surname Carkeet

Can anyone identify the presumably SE Asian language origin of the last name 'Carkeet'? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a particular reason for thinking it's an Asian name? I ask because I found a reference to Carkeets in Falmouth, Cornwall in 1761 - just wondering if I'm on the wrong track. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I said presumably because the one person I am familiar with the name, the keyboardist for AWOLNation, looks Burmese or thereabouts. But I see there is a very anglo- looking writer with this name, first name David. Could be a case like Bains, which is common in India, or maybe I am totally off. If I knew the answer or had any luck searching I wouldn't have posted here. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course there are all sorts of reasons why an Asian-looking person could have a European last name. They could be adopted, like Philipp Rösler. They could have gotten their Asian looks from the opposite side of the family than their last name, like Lou Diamond Phillips or Sean Lennon. They could have changed their name, like Meg Tilly. Or they could just look Asian without being Asian, like Björk Guðmundsdóttir. Angr (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is someone saying that Carkeet is a European name and is not a SE Asian name? If it is European, it's quite unusual in orthography, and still begs for explanation. According to his myspace page Kenny Carkeet's "Asian". See google. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to say that Carkeet IS most definitely a European name. I draw your attention to Cornish Surnames which says: "CARKEET, KARKEET poss: (ker)car-keth, fort of the serf (ker sometimes mutates to car)" Apparently there were 47 Cornish people with the surname in the 1881 Census. A somewhat different etymology is suggested by Patronymica Cornu-Britannica: or, The Etymology of Cornish Surnames By Richard Stephen Charnock, London 1870 which suggests "Rocky village" "Stone hedge" or "Dog rock". Note that the study of the Cornish language was in its infancy then, so the modern interpretation is likely to be more accurate. There is a place called Carkeel not far from my ancestral home in Saltash; the size of our article accurately reflecting the size of the hamlet. "Kernow bys vickan!" Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am no more denying that Carkeet is a European surname than I am denying that Wang (surname), Long (surname), Lee (surname), and Bains (surname) are European surnames. But the gentleman in question calls himself "gookaluke" at Myspace, and identifies as Asian. The name Carkeet is consistent with, for example, the Lao language and the Romanization of Lao. I am hoping someone with competence in SE Asian languages will have some comment, or, better, source. That being said, thanks, it is interesting to learn the name is found in Cornish. I was presuming it was Welsh. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Lao doesn't have r in syllable final position. Nor do Vietnamese, Cantonese, Mandarin or Thai. I'm not sure about Khmer. That leaves thousands of East Asian languages and dialects, but given that we know Carkeet is a Cornish name, isn't the most likely explanation that the musician got the name from a father of Anglo American origin? Maybe he is Asian on his mother's side, or maybe he was adopted? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Opposite of economic materialism

Help me find the opposite of economic materialism. I'm stuck. I was thinking of economic immaterialism, but that probably doesn't even make any sense. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe communism, in its ideal form, in which no one owns anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

But Marxism is both an economic and a materialist theory. We need better guidance from the OP. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It would help to know what you are talking about by economic materialism. Do you have a source, article, or example of what you are referring to? You might also want to look at contrary (logic) since an exact opposite of a complex term is unlikely. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I watching this Youtube video, which talks about the high price of materialism.75.185.79.52 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bras and city parks? Hilarious! I have never seen a better parody. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation of Bergoglio

Our article on Pope Francis says in its Note b that the Spanish pronunciation of his last name is [βerˈɣoɣljo]. I find that second [ɣ] a little hard to believe; it seems like too much of a spelling pronunciation, especially in a country with so many Italian immigrants. I would expect it to be pronounced either as if it were spelled Bergollo (thus [βerˈɣoʃo] in Rioplatense Spanish) or as if it were spelled Bergolio (thus [βerˈɣoljo]). Can anyone confirm or deny? Has anyone reading this thread heard his last name pronounced by a native speaker of Argentinian Spanish? Angr (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that's got to be someone's spelling pronunciation. I'd tag it until it's well-supported. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW this was in fact stated as the case (Argentines pronounce the second g) on NPR this morning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is English Wikipedia interested in how Spanish speakers pronounce an Italian name? How do the French pronounce It? The Swiss? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, not generally. But in a specific case like this, we would not just assume he pronounced his surname the way his Italian parents would have or the way Italians generally do. Maybe he started out that way and later changed because all his Argentine friends said it differently. Who knows? I know various first generation Australians who say their own names differently from the way they were taught by their parents. Cultural pressure is strong. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example youtube[20] of an obviously native Spanish speaker pronouncing it "Bergolyo", which is what I would expect the Italian pronunciation to be. No surprise. That link will probably enable finding other Spanish-language links, if anyone is interested. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, in case anyone's interested: in Argentina the pronunciation of Italian surnames is anything but consistent: sometimes we (try to) go by the Italian rules, sometimes we don't. Thus, you'll hear Chiesa with /k/ or /tʃ/ and Giano with /x/ or /dʒ/, even from the same speaker. In the case of -gl, though, pronouncing it "the Italian way" would be perceived as a hypercorrection. In short, it's [βeɾˈɣoɣljo].Here's an example (3:14, 4:36 and 5:19). They all speak Rioplatense Sp, although there are some traces of the NE dialect in the woman's speech. Anyhow, what I really came to ask is why the initial B's been rendered as [β] rather than [b] when there's a pausa before it. Could some of you explain, please? Cheers --CocoLacoste talk 00:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

didn't Commons have a project to get famous people to pronounce their own names? Can't someone just nip down to the Vatican with a microphone? Rmhermen (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be "Bergolyo" on Vatican Radio (here, English and here, Spanish, at about 02:20). --Rallette (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

March 15

Kanji variants

Hi, please see the image at:

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4779/kanjit.png

What is the difference between these two? Are both used in Japan? If so, is there any difference in usage? Does this same variation exist in other characters too? (I know quite a few kanji with the lower left-hand element, but I can't think of any other cases where I've seen the upper left-hand element.) 86.177.107.46 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the same character (餌) in two different fonts. I think it is used both in Japan and in the traditional Chinese (Taiwan/HK/Macao) writing. (The left part of the character is the radical 食 ["food"], the right part, the phonetic). The simplified Chinese (PRC/Singapore/Malaysia) version of this character is 饵. -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The zh.wiki article on radical 食, zh:食部, seems to say that the version 𩙿 (which is on top in your image) is the traditional Chinese Clerical script (and, I think, it is also used in the usual Japanese fonts), while the version 飠is its usual appearance in modern Chinese fonts (that is, wherever/whenever Chinese is written in traditional characters). Although the two versions are really the same radical, many (but, apparently, not all!) characters including it actually have 2 versions in Unicode (Unicode compatibility characters); see e.g. 飯 (U+FA2A) vs. 飯 (U+98EF) in http://ctext.org/faq/normalization for a partial list. This is why list of all Unicode characters with this radical (in whichever variety) would contain both 飯 and 飯, although many browser fonts would display the two characters the same. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Hagia Sophia

The article lists /ˈhɑːɪə soʊˈfiːə/ which agrees with how I've heard it pronounced aloud. Why is the 'g' not pronounced? How did that happen? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)