Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

August 21

What is X?

Suppose a French person mentions "un livre", but you have no idea what it is, so you want to ask what is 'un livre'? How do you ask this? "Qu'est-ce que c'est, un livre"? Any less cumbersome ways?

EDIT: as a follow-up, how do you say "what is this book" and "what is in this book"? --74.43.43.6 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Dave Barry's translation of qu'est-ce que c'est — "what is that, that that is?". --Trovatore (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to which, of course, is: "That that is is that that is not is not that that is not is not that that is that that is is not that that is not is that not it". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:qu'est-ce que c'est and wikt:qu'est-ce que.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler: Qu'est-ce qu'un livre ? Akward but common (spoken language): Qu'est-ce que c'est qu'un livre ? — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or colloquially: "C'est quoi un livre ?" ou "Qu'est-ce que c'est un livre ?" --Xuxl (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In colloquial Quebec French (not sure if strictly speaking this is Joual) : Kossé ça un livre or Kessé ça un livre - I don't think you can get much shorter while remaining intelligible. Effovex (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up questions:

What is this book?: spoken: C'est quoi ce livre ?, written: Qu'est ce que ce livre ?

What is in this book?: spoken: Il y a quoi dans ce livre ? written: Qu'y-a-t-il dans ce livre ?

--Lgriot (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Qu'est-ce que" is very cumbersome in speech: /kɛskə/. It's a penful in writing, but so what? --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree, it isn't cumbersome, but no one that I know personally actually sais it. I would only ever hear it on TV from some presenters or politicians (but then a assume they are very self conscious).--Lgriot (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers! Lgriot: why does nobody say it, and what do they instead? I had the impression that "Qu'est-ce que c'est?" is the standard way of asking "what is it?" --50.47.84.246 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big trend in French (at least in France) to say: C'est quoi <cette chose> ? instead of: Qu'est-ce que <cette chose> ?; and to say: ''C'est qui <cette personne> ? instead of: Qui est <cette personne> ?. But we usually say: Qu'est-ce que c'est ? or Qu'est-ce que tu dis ? (C'est quoi ce que tu dis ? is sub-standard French) — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why, I guess the sentence structure is simpler that way. As AldoSyrt pointed out, Qu'est-ce que is not dead in spoken French, yet, it is still used in some cases. It is an interesting trend where the written language is getting different from the day to day spoken one, for example we only use "nous" in writing and say "on" when we speak. But we avoid "on" as the 1st person plural in writing, because it makes you look like you don't know how to speak properly (even though it is ok to say it all the time). --Lgriot (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely new and surprising to me. So if you're with a group of friends, and you meet one other friend, you would say "on va manger à McDonalds" instead of "nous allons manger à McDonalds"? How would you say the equivalent of "tu veux venir avec nous?" if you're using "on"? Also, would you still say "allons-y"? --50.47.84.246 (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— On [=we] va au McDo. — Tu veux venir avec nous ? — Ouais [= oui, yes] — Allons-y ! [=we + he/she ] / On =[we + he/she] y va !. — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the questions. Yes, we would usually say "On va manger au MacDo". There is no equivalent for "tu veux venir avec nous", we must use "nous". And we would say either "allons-y !" or "on y va !". — AldoSyrt (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Term for the U.S. plus Canada (or: North America minus Mexico)

What's the term for this? I don't think it's North America, as that would include Mexico. But I feel like this is a word for this (i.e., the WASPier part of North America). Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe anglophone North America, but even that excludes parts of Canada. BTW, there are 23 sovereign nations in North America plus numerous other territories, not just the 3 you mentioned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember in middle school social studies class, the textbook we read taught about Latin America and Anglo-America (although it included the US and Canada and didn't include the Carribean nations, Belize or Guyana or exclude Quebec unlike the wiki article).--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the term Northern America which may fit more your description, although I doubt it is widely used. Also North America actually includes Central America all the way to Panama, so the region you are referring to would be North America minus Mexico and Central America.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess there isn't a straightforward term like I was imagining. Thanks for the clarification regarding Central America; I tend to think of it as its own thing in my mind (i.e., North, Central [plus all those islands], and South America) and thus often use North America to refer to just these three "big" countries, and forget that technically that's not right. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was taught at school that North America includes all the countries north of Panama (and parts of Panama itself), and our article has a map concurring, but apparently in American schools they are taught differently? --Lgriot (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught at school (in the U.S.) that North America includes Central America all the way down to Panama, as well as all the Caribbean islands. In other words, Central America is part of North America, not distinct from North America. As for what to call Canada + the U.S., perhaps "First-World North America", though the map on the page includes Greenland in the First World. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a case when the only unambiguous term is simply to call it "Canada and the United States". --Xuxl (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"US and Canada" is 13 characters, including the spaces. I doubt if you'll do better. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"US and its hat" - dang. that adds an extra space with no fewer characters. --Onorem (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The movie industry uses "North America" as in North American box office figures. It only means U.S. and Canada. Rmhermen (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Greater United States" - surely those far northerners agree :). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even a seemingly straightforward geographic term can be misleading, too - my first thought was to recommend "North of the Rio Grande" to describe the U.S. and Canada, but even that phrase would mostly be used by U.S. Americans to describe the U.S.A. specifically, often to draw contrasts with Mexico/Central America. The best option I think is also the most common: just "U.S. and Canada." In writing you'll sometimes see something like "US/Canadian investments in Asia..." or "American and Canadian interests in the region..." Personally I'd enjoy something like "the Western Hockeysphere," but I'm guessing that's not likely to catch on. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 17:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of seeing "north of the 49th parallel" used to mean Canada, in a Toronto newspaper. From Toronto, to reach the 49th parallel, you have to drive north for maybe 5-6 hours. --Trovatore (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, the term appears to be North America. Canadians use that term very frequently, and it never seems to include Mexico or points south. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they ever intend it to include Saint Pierre et Miquelon or Greenland. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland, I'm almost sure not. Saint Pierre, I doubt they bother to notice whether it's included or not. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US, "North America" rarely includes Central America. We would say "North and Central America" if we meant both. "North America" may also exclude Mexico, depending on the context. StuRat (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. North America is a geological continent, and unambiguously includes most of Central America. Countries have nothing to do with it — it's a matter of physical geography. --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with geology but more the common terms that we are taught and use, certainly in the UK it follows the Canadian way that North America would only include the USA and Canada and never Central America. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A visit to a false premise

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

You're certainly correct that it has nothing to do with geology, because that's the study of rocks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's awfully reductive, Jack. Geology includes the study of large-scale processes, such as the ones that produce continents. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's me all over, Trovatore. There's absurdity everywhere, and we should exult in it, and it's my job, Michelangelo-like, to strip away all that is not absurd. Even the foregoing link is absurd. That's what I'm talking 'bout. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're joking or not. In any case, geology most definitely includes the study of the large-scale structures of the planet, including continents. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joke? Moi? :) Actually, I was going on your "it's a matter of physical geography". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geology and physical geography have a very considerable overlap. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've learnt much from this interchange, but I still think it should be kept out of sight of the younger fry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about "US and Canada"? drt2012 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese help: PohnpeiAirport.jpg

When you zoom into File:PohnpeiAirport.jpg there is a blue sign in English and Japanese. What is the Japanese text? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know enough to tell you the meaning is the same as the English text above (it starts with Youkoso (welcome) Ponpei, and I recognize pasupooto (passport), entorii peemitto (entry permit), paasu (pass)), but my Kanji knowledge is too poor to give you a transcription. Effovex (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some characters are not clear enough and I could not read them.The first two ?? might be 帰国, but I'm not sure.
ようこそ　ポンペイ州へ
入国申請書を記入しパスポート、？？航空券、及び、
エントリーパーミット　（？？証）を携え　ブースまでお進み下さい。 Oda Mari (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may help finding the characters: Since "航空券" according to the dictionary "Jisho" is "airline ticket" "？？航空券" may correspond to the English "Onward Ticket" - And then "（？？証）" may correspond to "(If Applicable)" -- 証 means evidence, proof, or testimony or to prove or to verify

The full English is: "WELCOME TO THE FSM, POHNPEI STATE. Please have your completed 5004 Form, Passport, Onward Ticker and Entry Permit (if Applicable) Available upon approaching the booth"

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

self subsisting

What is meant by "self subsisting"? Can you use it in a sentence. Is it a derogatory term?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some context would help, but I assume it means the same as self-sufficient, in which case it is not derogatory.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It commonly appears as an English translation of one of the 99 names of God in Islam, القيوم (Al-Qayyūm). Here's a link to a site translating it in this way, and offering an interpretation of its meaning. A Google search produces many examples of people asking the same question, and a variety of answers in the general area of "not dependent on external sources". This document demonstrates that the term is also used in the Bahá'í Faith and there's an explanation of its meaning in the fourth paragraph ("that there is nothing other than Himself upon which He depends for His continuing existence") seemingly in response to a journalist who pointed out that the phrase "means nothing" in the English language. In any case, it's not derogatory. - Ka renjc 15:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aseity is the technical theological term, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Swedish!

I need help with the word 'Possum', referring to the animal. It is spelt Pungråtta or Pungråttor? Whats the difference between the two? I am learning Swedish. Thank you. --KuchenZimjah (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pungråtta is singular, pungråttor is plural. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The word is pungråtta ('possum'), with the plural pungråttor ('possums'). See http://folkets-lexikon.csc.kth.se/folkets/folkets.en.html#lookup&Pungr%C3%A5tta.

This is a first declension noun - an 'en' word ending in -a - so the plural is formed by removing the -a and adding -or. This is the same as blomma/blommor and lampa/lampor. The definitive ('the possum') is formed with -en (pungråtten), and the definitive plural ('the possums') is formed with -orna (pungråttorna).

Note also that nouns in Swedish only take a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, just as in English. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The definite singular is pungråttan, not pungråtten. Gabbe (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In, On or At

What's the right way to say it: I lef s message in/at/on my talk page? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"On my talk page" is the usual idiom. "At" is possible, I guess, but "in" is unidiomatic. Deor (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deor! :) (i asked because English is not my first language and I wanted to make sure I didn't make any mistakes) So you guys didn't make any RLMAO Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite all right, Miss Bono. The idiomatic use of prepositions tends to be one of the most difficult problems for nonnative speakers of a language. My attempts to speak German are notorious for unusual preposition usage. Deor (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editing screen is the electronic equivalent of a piece of paper. You write on paper, it being a flat surface. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that in Spanish, en can translate as "in", "on" or "at". Usage doesn't necessarily match up between Spanish and English, or necessarily even within English. If I'm having major surgery, I'll be either "at the hospital" or "in the hospital" for a few days if I'm American, or just "in hospital" if I'm British. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a simple case, if I'm "at home" in English, I'm en casa in Spanish. I wouldn't say I'm "in house" in that context, I could say I'm "in the house" or "in my house" or whatever. And I'm not "on" my house unless I'm repairing the roof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On means sobre, like when I say That book is on the table? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sobre comes from the Latin super, meaning "above" or "over", or in this case "on top of". So would you say, "Eso libro está sobre la mesa"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say both ways: Ese libro está sobre la mesa o Ese libro está en la mesa. But how does the native English speakers say it? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The book is on the table." The term "upon" could also be used (which can translate as sobre), but that would be a very old-fashioned or literary way to say it. It sounds like something you would find in Shakespeare's works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... on is a little tricky for me. When I say I will write an article sobre/relacionado con U2 or frogs (whatever), why should I say I will write an article on U2 or I will write an article on frogs?? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's where sobre translates as "about" or "on the topic of". You wouldn't say con because that means "with" - unless you were actually collaborating with your subject. You would say you're writing "about" [subject], which I think is the better way to say it. Saying that you're writing "on" [subject] is kind of slangy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of these two, three and four letter prepositions in English have broad and diverse usages. One example is "up", which has more usages than I can count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it drives me crazy... two-word verbs with down, up... and a long etc. Will I ever learn? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native English speaker for decades now, and I'm still learning. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

Japanese translation?

I'm staying in a dormitory in Japan (Kansai area). Today, when I got home from work, (about 6.30pm) the dorm manager said something that sounded vaguely like go kai ri. He also held his hand up out which looked like he was waving (so I waved back) but I figure he could have been holding up five fingers. I can't figure out if he was trying to tell me something or if he was just saying hello, or what. Google translate didn't help me.

Does anyone have any clue what he meant and how I should have replied?

Thanks. 110.3.247.175 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search "Japanese hand gestures" in Google or your search engine of choice. Is this a student dormitory? See if there's an orientation manual, a bilingual phrasebook (preferably illustrated). Inquire with the concierge staff whether they could arrange a Big Sibling or similar sort of local hospitality to help you handle the ropes. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okaeri is the shortened form of Okaerinasai and means "welcome back". It is derived from Kaeru - to return. Effovex (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I guess the proper answer would have been Tadaima "I'm back" - although normally Okaeri would be given in answer to Tadaima. Effovex (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. 110.3.247.175 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The weather is nice.

In the sentence, "It's a nice weather." , why is the article a necessary? I know that "It's nice weather." is incorrect but I can't explain why. Thank you.203.228.255.210 (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would says it's the other way round: "It's a nice weather" is not idiomatic. "It's nice weather" on its own is also slightly strange, but people often say things like "there's going to be nice weather at the weekend." The word "weather" usually behaves as a mass noun. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew is right. There are very few contexts in which you could use "weather" as a count noun - the only one I can think of at the moment is in the idiom "in all weathers" (which is a set phrase where "all" cannot be substituted by other quantifiers). --ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the others have implied, "It's nice weather" is the correct form. "It's a nice weather" is not a sentence native speakers would utter. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google found me this, so maybe there are some dialects where "a nice weather" is possible. Perhaps the questioner could tell us where they saw or heard the expression? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Italian-English! "It's-a me, Mario!" MChesterMC (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

"'At's-a good!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how do you pronounce ɦ ?

Just how do you pronounce [ɦ]? Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ɦ has its own article. I can't listen to it, but the sidebar has the sound. Do you need something more? Effovex (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can listen to the sound file, and if I didn't already know what [ɦ] sounds like, that audio file wouldn't help me at all. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, Angr. That sound file makes as much sense as "voiced glottal fricative". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't listened to the sound file, but I don't think that [ɦ] can usually be pronounced in isolation -- it's generally just a pronunciation of a vowel with breathiness, but without devoicing it. AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I have been misled by the description of it as being voiced. :-) I think I'm getting closer...is this the right sound? Because I'm pretty sure I'm following the instruction at Breathy voice and am still not getting that exact sound. For now, trying to imitate that sound is just giving me radicals like [ʜ] (and perhaps [ʢ]). Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation we have in the article sounds like a stroke-ridden man asking for his tablets or something. Loool. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huge LOL! Bonkers! Who recorded that one? I think it's like the h in Spanish. It doesn't have a sound unless it comes with another letter/vowel. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, that's orthographical (and I would claim that in hi, hu, it's the vowel that creates the sound, not the h). It's possible to make [h] alone, right? (At least I think I can do that.) If it is, then I see no reason why [ɦ] alone would be unpronounceable, though maybe a vocalic context like [aɦa] might help greatly?! Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing "[h] alone" is just expelling breath without vibrating the vocal cords. But to pronounce [ɦ] you need to vibrate the vocal cords, and if you're vibrating your vocal cords and expelling breath through an unobstructed vocal tract, then you're pretty much pronouncing a vowel... AnonMoos (talk)`

Plural or not?

I got some opportunities for part-time job
I got some opportunities for part-time jobs

Which one is correct? (or both are wrong?)

Based on what English grammar? - Justin545 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one needs to have "a" before "part-time". Put that in, and it's on a par with the second. It depends on the context though. If you're looking for a job for yourself, you'd probably choose "for a part-time job", because presumably you only need one job. But if you're like an employment consultant, you might be looking for as many opportunities as possible to tell your clients about, and then you'd be talking about "for part-time jobs". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I find "some opportunities (plural) for a part-time job (singular)" a bit odd, and would probably say "for part-time jobs" even though I was only looking to get one job. --ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys. I'm always confused by the similar issues. It's sort of empirical and I can't find out the rules at all. - Justin545 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the former case you have to add the indefinite article "a" because job is a count noun and the rules say that count nouns generally require an article or a determiner when they are singular.

Re the context, "I got some opportunities for part-time jobs" could imply that you were considering various different jobs, and might even be interested in taking more than one job, although not necessarily, which is basically what Jack and Colin have said. "I got some opportunities for a part-time job" definitely says that you were looking for one job, and had a selection of possible vacancies to choose from. - Ka renjc 21:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Karenjc! - Justin545 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

FAO and the NATO

Hi, I was reading something talking about "FAO" instead of "the FAO", and then I found our own article on the Food and Agriculture Organization uses "FAO", not to mention (the) FAO's own website. It looks wrong to me, but then I realised we don't say "the NATO". Is there a rule or guiding principle to whether it's "the SNLA" (Some Number of Letters Acronym) or just "SNLA"? IBE (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This brings out the difference between a true acronym and merely an abbreviation/initialisation.

Radar is an acronym because you pronounce it as a single word, not as 5 separate letters (ar-ay-dee-ay-ar). NATO is an acronym because you pronounce it as a single word, not as 4 separate letters (en-ay-tee-oh). Qantas is an acronym because you pronounce it as a single word, not as 6 separate letters (kew-ay-en-tee-ay-ess).
The FAO, on the other hand, is simply an abbreviation because the 3 letters are sounded out (ef-ay-oh), and we don't pronounce it as a single word "fow" or "fayo". Same with the FBI, the CIA, the USA, the UN, the EC etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it makes a big difference how you say it. The FAO is calling itself "FAO", as linked. Should I regard this as an illiteracy on their part? And btw, I hope I can get away with using "illiteracy" as a countable noun. IBE (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As always, there are exceptions. MI5, not "the" MI5. BLP, not "the" BLP. JFK, not "the" JFK. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These exceptions might even be questionable. The rule seems to be, if it isn't a proper acronym, just follow the same rules as for the expanded form. I would never say "The biographies of living persons" or "the military intelligence section 5" (or for that matter, "the John F Kennedy"). IBE (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although "the JFK" can be used for the JFK Airport. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note how, likewise, the FDA refers to itself as just "FDA", although typically it's called "the FDA" by most everyone else (which used as a noun).[1] Within its articles, though, it also says "the FDA". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And never forget when discussing the highly esteemed Australian editor it is always The JoO and never JoO. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if The JoO of Malta, The JoO of Venice et al, why not The JoO of Oz? (I'm not Jewish, but my sons are, technically, because their mother's mother's mother was a Polish Jew named Nina Goldberg. I will, however, admit to being JoOish.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It gets more complicated with UKIP, which is part-abbreviation/part-acronym (the 'U' is pronounced as the name of the letter, and 'KIP' like 'kip'). Mind you, I can't really be sure of this, because the 'u' in 'university' is pronounced the same way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As are the A in Asia, the E in Egypt, the I in Irene, and the O in Omaha. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I.O.U. an apology, then. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G, I C Y U R A BFF. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese help: Mandarin street names of Toronto Chinatown streets

Hi!

I need help with a street name in Chinatown,_Toronto#Translation_of_street_names. What is the Pinyin reading of "Beverley Street 比華利街"?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's Bĭ(比) húa(華) lì(利) jīe(街). Alex Shih ^Talk 05:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are the names were named in Cantonese, not Mandarin, as most early Chinese in Canada were Cantonese speakers. Not that it makes much difference in writing, but thought I should throw it out there. Mingmingla (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more sourcing, so if there is a source stating that, it would be great to find it! For that reason I might request for a Cantonese version of the Toronto Chinatown. However I am still interested in the Mandarin since it is the modern "universal" Chinese dialect. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "寶華街" is "Bǎohuá Jiē" - Also what is the pinyin for 卡梅隆街? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source: History of Chinese immigration to Canada. And while Mandarin Chinese is more common by a long shot in the world in general, Cantonese is still very common in ex-pat Chinese communities in Canada. Mingmingla (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

verb doubt

"The higher the investment in non-renewable energy is, the higher the total investment in energy capital assets"- In this sentence, is the use of the helping verb "is" correct? If not then please explain the rule about such sentences with some examples.Seeker (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would add "will be" to sentence, as it's a cause-and-effect scenario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of paired construction is called a comparative correlative. (Oh, we don't have an article yet!) You don't actually need the is in your example. "The higher the investment in 'x', the higher the total investment in 'y'" is ok. It's the same structure as: "The greater the risk, the greater the reward" and "The more the merrier". If you are going to use the 'is', then I agree with Bugs that it is better to add a corresponding verb on the other side, to maintain balance. There is a nice explanation of the structure, citing the Oxford English Dictionary and with a number of good examples, here. - Ka renjc 08:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the verb should go either in both halves or in neither half. If it goes in both halves, it sounds more natural to me to say The higher is the investment in non-renewable energy, the higher is the total investment in energy capital assets. Duoduoduo (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes under the heading of parallel construction. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between written and spoken language

Are some words pronounced exactly the same way like medal and meddle, or is there always a slight difference which you can't hear? Th4n3r (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No; words like medal and meddle are pronounced exactly the same. There are some pairs of words that are distinguished only by a very small difference, though; for example, some speakers almost have the cot-caught merger but not quite, so that for them cot and caught are just slightly different--so slightly in fact that when the speakers hear their own pronunciation played back to them out of context, they can't tell which word is which. But I don't think any native English speaker makes any difference however slight between medal and meddle. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Yes, meddle and medal are complete homophones, that is, they are pronounced exactly the same. So are sea and see, and many other pairs in English. The reason such homophony is typically complete and there are no "slight differences which you can't hear" is this: each spoken language consista of a fixed system of elementary sound units, so-called phonemes. Both sea and see consist of the same two phonemes in English: /s/ and /i:/. Two words either consist of the same phonemes or they don't. That's usually a clear yes-or-no thing; there aren't any "intermediate" sounds between the phonemes that would be a matter of such "slight differences" you speak of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: I wrote this before I saw Angr's answer. Don't worry about our two anwers being seemingly a bit contradictory: mine is just the slightly more basic version of the answer; his is the slightly more advanced one, adding one complication to the basic picture I sketched. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Sometimes it depends on dialect. Some Americans pronounce 'latter' and 'ladder' identically (at least to my ears), but in my British accent they could not possibly be confused with each other. --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly depends on dialect. Are pin/pen homophones? tint/tent? bin/been? (And is the 'ee' in been different from the 'i' or 'e' in the other words?) In some places, yes, those pairs are homophones. In other places, there has been no need to economize the needed effort to produce a certain vowel, so there is no shift. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 19:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canuckois dialect in USA

I am looking for an expert in the Canuckois dialect as spoken by Americans of French Canadian descent in the New England states. My goal is translation of a number of terms used in the works of science fiction writer Julian May, including the Intervention series and the Galactic Milieu series.Alixnc286 (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have a brief article titled New England French which doesn't have much in the way of references, but perhaps it's a start. The Wikipedia article titled French American is a more general overview of Americans of French descent, but it has a much more thorough reference and bibliography section. I see a few books there you might try as a lead, several which focus on Franco-New Englanders. As an aside, I come from a strong New England French background through both sides of the family, though we are pretty Americanized by my generation; we still eat gorton and tourtiere on special occasions. Perhaps I can add my rather non-expert experience as well? Though I would definitely recommend combing through the bibliography of the French American article; there are several good leads there. --Jayron32 01:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

capital letters in some articles

Why some articles titles have an capitilized like "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" and not in others like "A Man and a Woman". Or "No Line on the Horizon". Why those letters are not cap? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is traditional not to capitalize the, a/an and short prepositions on, of, for...etc., in titles in English. See Capitalization in English. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb is a redirect to an article with the proper capitalization: How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. The Wikipedia Manual of Style's rules for the capitalization of titles of works are at MOS:CT. Deor (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and beware that WP's rules for capitalization have nothing to do with regular rules for writing English! μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh, ok. Thanks. So I Shouldn't write those kind of words in caps? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This: "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" is correct for standard English; and because it is the name of an album, and WP uses the original capitalization in article titles. But if we had a literal article about how to dismantle an atomic bomb it would be titled "How to dismantle an atomic bomb" according to Wikipedia conventions. If you then wrote a paper for a science class about how to dosmantle an atomic bomb, the title on the title page should be "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb". μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh I get it now. Thanks! :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U'

How do you pronounce u' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.58.19.84 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As "yoo prime". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Who invented the sh- thing

As in "books, shmooks" meaning something like "ok, books. whatever, i don't care". What's the origin, etc? Joepnl (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Yiddish shtick. It's more than "I don't care", it's ridiculing the target. One of the most common usages is "fancy, shmancy!" or "fancy, schmancy!". Like a sarcastic "big hairy deal!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a type of reduplication. It comes to us as said, through Yiddish. It probably has to do with Semitic root formations, but that is a guess; others will know. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article shm-reduplication. It doesn't very closely resemble Semitic consonantal root derivations at all... AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Yiddish is a Germanic language, not Semitic. Its Hebrew component largely comprises Judaic religious terminology and assorted terms from everyday life. As for the query, Yiddish lexical elements probably entered American English through Jewish entertainers in vaudeville and later in film and television, who were themselves Yiddish-speaking immigrants from (largely) Eastern Europe or the offspring thereof. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware Yiddish is not Semitic, I was suggesting a language contact influence from the Semitic to the Germanic. The former does form root variations with prefixes. Of course that's totally speculative, so no need to continue. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic consonantal root derivation is about adding vowels (and sometimes supplemental consonants) amongst and adjacent to an abstract C-C-C consonantal frame. So from root Q-T-L קטל you get qatal "he killed", yiqtol "he will kill", qetel "slaughter, etc. There are some prefixes, but nothing like reduplicating a word and substituting something else in place of the initial consonant or consonant cluster. Both Semitic root derivations and shm-reduplication could be considered nonconcatenative morphology, but otherwise there's not any very close resemblance between the two... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But in contact situations you do get new forms that don't continue genetically anything in either parent language, like French words in -ing that don't have anything to do with actual English usage, or Brewsky which has humourous effect and no connection to the meaning of the Slavic ending. Speakers of Germanic familiar with the Semitic tendency to add prefixes and the large number of sh- words as noted could easily respond to a correction or what they see as humorous with an etwas schmetwas. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know that there's a general "Semitic tendency to add prefixes"[sic]. Semitic languages do have some prefixes (including certain inflectional prefixes, a type of morpheme which is of very limited occurrence in Indo-European), but they're much less prefixing than many other languages (such as the languages of the Bantu family). AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have studied Zulu. I am not sure what the point is bringing up Bantu, or why you have 'sic'-ed the "Semitic tendency to add prefixes". There are all sorts of language games. This appears to be one, and is not bizarre in a contact situation between Germanic and Semitic, especially given the marked structures of the latter in the context of the former. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew/Aramaic influence on Yiddish was somewhat channeled, and did not lead to any significant tendency to apply Semitic-style root-and-pattern morphology to Germanic vocabulary. And reduplication with partial replacement is not a common Semitic-language process, and any meaningful similarities between reduplication with partial replacement and Semitic consonantal root derivation exist only at a somewhat abstract level of linguistic analysis. AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish, and he doesn't directly speculate on where it comes from, but he does point out that a number of popular Yiddish words start with the "sh" sound followed by a consonant. He also casually refers to this usage as "Yinglish", which would suggest it's not "true" Yiddish, but a construction invented by Jewish immigrants to English-speaking countries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words in the shm-reduplication aren't Yiddish words that start with sh but English words that have sh+ consonant, prefixed when repeated. Why that phoneme? Possibly because it's not a sequence found in English (except [shr]) and therefore sounds humorous, and that it occurs at the beginning of Yiddish words that have entered English like shmooze, shmeer, shmaltz, and shmatteh, plus the numerous pejorative terms for people that might have been popularized by Jewish comics : shlemiel, shlimazl, shmo, shmendrik, shmegegge and that perennial favorite shmuk. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a reduplication but only with m- exists in Turkish.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! At least now I know the official term, and I love how many aspects get discussed for such a simple question. The tremendous power of internet needs no more proof than the existence of this reference desk where people from all over the world reply within hours or even minutes to questions that without internet would need weeks of research only to find one single vision. Joepnl (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish word: "Camailín?"

Hi there, everybody:

Every once in a while, my father (who is in his late 70s and comes from County Leitrim, Ireland) comes out with a word or expression that gets me wondering about etymology etc. The other day, he was talking about different kinds of songs and referred to "corants and camailíns(?)" - the former presumably coming from coranto, the latter almost certainly a word from Irish Gaelic. I haven't been able to find any references to it online, but it may be spelt wrong. He pronounces it as [kə'mɑlʲiːn] and explains it as being not a fully-blown song, but instead is 2-4 lines and tends to be comic. His example of a camailín: "when Irish eggs are frying/with the bacon on the pan/you can hear the kettle whistling/Alexandra's ragtime band." Has anyone ever heard of this word or knows where it comes from?

All the best

--94.197.122.90 (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Alonso's Spanish

In this story Formula 1 Driver Fernando Alonso (born in 1981 in Oviedo, Asturias, Spain) discusses some rumors and says "Also, we learned doing four press conferences in the weekend in three different languages; two of them are not in my mother language and I am from the north, so don’t speak perfect Spanish…it means there can be mistakes and there can be misunderstandings."

Shouldn't his Spanish be excellent? (He also speaks, Italian, French, and English.) Is he claiming that he makes mistakes or misunderstands standard Spanish due to a local northern dialect? Hayttom 09:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

The section in our article, Asturias#Languages, says "The only official language in Asturias is Spanish. The Asturian language, known as Bable, is also spoken, but not very much...". One suspects it's like a Welshman claiming not to be able to speak English, but I don't know for sure. At least Spanish and Asturian come from the same family of languages. Alansplodge (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard this person speak Spanish before, so I can't comment on his particular dialect, but according to the sources I found at Asturian language and this map, Although Castillian ("Standard European Spanish") is the "only official language" it is not native to Asturias. Asturian is the language spoken by the natives. The "not very much" that Alan refers to is because, since the 1950s, Castillian speakers, who do not learn Asturian, have been migrating to the area and now account for about 43% of the population. If Alonso's first language was Asturian instead of Castillian, there will be communication difficulties. Asturian is part of the Asturo-Leonese family of West Iberian languages and only "about 80% intelligible with Spanish" (Hall 1989) "enough to cause disruption of communicative ability" (1992 T. Erickson).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I imagine that he was sent to school and had a television, and so would have had more than a passing acquaintance with Castillian Spanish. Alansplodge (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Lord's Prayer in Asturian (and Castilian for comparison)

Padre nuesu que tas en cielu:

santificáu seya'l to nome,

amiye'l to reinu,

fáigase la to voluntá

lo mesmo na tierra qu'en cielu.

El nuesu pan de tolos díes

dánoslo güei,

perdónamos les nueses ofenses

lo mesmo que nós facemos

colos que mos faltaren;

nun mos dexes cayer na tentación,

y llíbramos del mal.

Amén.

μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really surprising to me if Alonso did not speak completely fluent Spanish. Do we have a Spanish speaker here who is familiar with his speech who could comment? Alternatively, could a Spanish speaker have a look on YouTube or somewhere for clips? (There's no point me looking; I wouldn't know if he was speaking Spanish or Italian ... well, maybe just!) 86.167.19.165 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USDgFfB8Cw4 - he speaks very good Spanish. 92.81.68.23 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this sounds like standard Castilian. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

French without subjects

Are there native Francophones who write or speak French without subject pronouns? The 1st person and 2nd person plural tenses alone could survive without subjects, since they are pronounced unlike others, and in writing the subjects referenced are surely more evident. Irregular verbs could also be written without subject pronouns. It seems odd to me that subjects would always be obligatory.

Are there at least sayings without subject pronouns, like English thank you? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1st plural and 2nd plural are person/number combined categories (which apply to pronouns as well as verbs), not "tenses". And "thank you" is kind of a traditional fixed phrase (along the lines of "so be it" etc.), and so doesn't necessarily have that much to say about contemporary English. My impression of French is that at least a kind of injunctive use of subjectless 1st plural verbs is possible ("Marchons!"), but I'm not sure how colloquial/productive this is... AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now that I misused the word ‘tense,’ but I think that you know what I meant. Verbs that are 1st or 2nd person plurals are pronounced differently. Are you referring to the imperative mood? I know that that’s written without subjects, but I do not know of any languages that require subjects in imperative clauses to begin with. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the concept in other languages, see "Valency (linguistics)", "Avalency", "Null-subject language", "Pro-drop language" and "Subject (grammar)#Subject-less clauses". Gabbe (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pro-drop article mentions the following examples for French: [Je ne] sais pas ("[I] don’t know"), [Je] t’appellerai demain ("[I] will call you tomorrow"), [Il ne] comprend rien, machin ("That guy don’t understand a thing"). It does note that those are considered colloquial. Gabbe (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It happens in writing, but it has the same effect that it has in English, like you're writing a telegram. It's very stilted and it sounds weird. Doctors seem to write like that a lot. And as AnonMoos said, without the pronoun, a 1st person plural verb is (grammatically speaking) an imperative. "Marchons" means "let's walk", while "nous marchons" means "we are walking". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Telegram style. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

beat the expert - origin

what is the origin of the idiom: "beat the expert" in the meaning of ask or try to ask to the expert? 176.13.1.78 (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what the term means, in any usage that I have seen. It means competing with an expert and winning. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the ways you might compete with an expert is by asking them questions they can't answer. I doubt if you'll find a specific origin to the phrase. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It means competing with an expert and winning.". I mean about too (It's the same meaning of the questioner). what is the origin for that? where or how or when does it begin? 95.35.201.241 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, this is not an "idiom" as such, it is simply an English phrase that means what it says. It sounds as if it could have been the name of a quiz show or something, so maybe something like that popularised it, but probably it is too generic to talk of its "origin"; anyone could have produced that word combination at any time. 86.167.19.165 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

"burning in hell" metaphor

How old is this "burning in hell" metaphor? This metaphor is actually used in the music video Xandria's Save My Life, but the lyrics actually invert the phrase as such, "In hell I'm burning", indicating metaphorically that the narrator is somewhat doomed and needs help. In Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, Jane answers the orphanage caretaker that hell is a pit full of fire. Apparently, this "burning in hell" metaphor existed even in the 19th century! How old is this "burning in hell" metaphor? Why does hell have to be burning? Why can't it just be a torture room for the devil? Is salvation meant to save people from "burning hell", or is salvation meant to save people who are spiritually dead in their earthly sins? Sneazy (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for "fire" and "burn" in Hell, this gives a few clues. The idea of Hell being a fiery place seems to go back to the mists of antiquity and is shared by many cultures. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, are people supposed to capitalize "hell"? Why is "hell" capitalized? Could it be that "hell" is a proper name? Sneazy (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always capitalised places like Hell, Heaven, Purgatory and Limbo. Our article seems to have one foot in Heaven and the other foot in heaven, a rather uncomfortable position, I would have thought. Maybe there are Upper, Middle and Lower Heavens. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that lower case for both heaven and hell are the preferred, including from the northern Europe root words. The exception is German, which of course capitalizes all nouns, so there might be some influence there, toward the less-preferred capitalizing; along with the assumption that those are physical places rather than concepts. Maybe kind of like the distinction between "god" and "God". However, my old Websters lists both as lower case; for heaven it says "often capitalized". No mention of capitalizing for hell. Webster also has purgatory as lower case. Likewise with limbo except it says "often capitalized". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how there can be any controversy — they're place names, which makes them proper nouns, so they should be capitalized, period. Of course there are people who don't capitalize earth and moon, even when they don't mean "dirt" and "natural satellite" respectively, so the conclusion is that there are a lot of folks who just get this wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Webster likewise gives earth as lower case, and when referring to our planet it again says "often capitalized". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Webster is being overly descriptive here. The correct prescriptive explanation would specify that not capitalizing it, when referring to the planet, is an error. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven is cognate with German Himmel as well as English hammer, Greek acme, Russian kamen, and is where Thor's Hammer comes from (thunderbolts, fulgurites, and ancient, buried stone hammers). Hell simply means hole. The three words, heaven, hell and earth, are not capitalized when they are used in the mundane sense, but are capitalized when used in a religious or astronomical sense. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be, as in "god" vs. "God", as I said above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone write about "saturn" or "jupiter" or "venus"? No, of course not. So, when referring to the planet Earth, as distinct from bits of dirt, it of course should always take upper case. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we should do in English does not always equate to what we actually do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, what we do do. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Bugs. But Webster's may as well say, about Britain, "sometimes spelt Britian", or about Israel, "sometimes spelt Isreal", or about consensus, "sometimes spelt concensus". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it spelled "Britian"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look for people who spell the planet Earth in lower case, and there you'll find your Britians, your mischeviouses, your "should of"s, your "your making me laugh"s and so on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information online at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001978 and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989234.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sneazy, you are perfectly capable of using dictionaries, google, and etymology on line to answer questions like where the name hell comes from. For further study, the Greeks had their Plutonian Gate. Jews and Romans buried the dead, with the afterlife not being that pleasant: lemures. Palaeosiberian tribes believed that the dead lived underground, as did mammoths, whose attempts to enter this world (middle earth) caused earthquakes. (THey had cause reversed--frozen mammoth remains appeared at riverbanks disturbed by earthquakes. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Christian religion, Hell isn't a place, it is a future event. It's purpose is to make an end to sin. I can't say why specifically burning is involved, as opposed to another means, but the fire will be used to symbolically eternally destroy all sinners. Torture does is not involved, nor does it factor into God's perfect Law (character). Ergo, the Devil is not exempt from this fate, and will be destroyed alongside all sinners. Salvation involves, among other things, both those which you suggest. There is no "once saved, always saved", nor is there a middle ground. A person's fate is determinated at the end of their life. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about making sweeping statements of this kind of issue in terms of "the Christian religion". You should preface this with an explicit statement indicating that this is or may be particular to YOUR strand of Christianity, and also to explicitly state which strand that is. Christian views on Hell is a better place to direct someone as it presents some better picture of the diversity of beliefs on the matter. --Jayron32 11:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The imagery of burning is used quite extensively throughout The Bible (e.g. Matthew 3:10-12). Fire, in the cited verse, destroys completely and that is accordingly the future of badness: destruction (Malachi 4:1). Hell is a word of Germanic origin, having to do with digging a hole [2]. The conversion of The Germanic peoples to Christianity brought different world-views side by side; the existing beliefs made it convenient to the missionaries to explain Bible teachings. Interestingly, the original-language words often translated as Hell (Hades, Gehenna, and Sheol) themselves are prophesied to be destroyed in fire (Revelation 20:14). Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 01:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so the old expression "hell-hole" is redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Term for singing better than speaking?

Not only do certain people with reported speech defects Mel Tillis sing their native languages "better" than they speak them, there are also foreigners like the singers of ABBA who can sing English far better than they can speak it. Is there a term, or terms, for this phenomenon? μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that comparing Mel Tillis with ABBA really works. People can learn to sing a particular song phonetically without actually speaking the language fluently. Look for a youtube of a Japanese choir singing Beethoven's Ninth in what sounds like perfect German. As regards Mel Tillis, I don't know what such a term would be, but it strikes me that he has something in common with James Earl Jones. Even though Jones is an accomplished actor and you'd never know he had a huge stuttering problem when he was young, sometimes when he's being interviewed he starts to lapse into the stutter a bit. And that leads to the one thread that might tie all three of these folks together: They are singing or speaking from a script rather than spontaneously. So, maybe "scripted"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Medeis, I would have said the same thing to you that you could have easily used Google to do your own research. In any case, this website seems to answer your question, as it talks about how the melodies of songs can eliminate personal accents. The best term that may describe this phenomenon is homogenization. The voice is homogenized, so you hear flattened as opposed to accented voices.

The result is that when we sing, syllables are longer, vowels get stretched out, and stresses fall differently than in speech. In effect, regional accents disappear. The linguist David Crystal, writing about this process on his blog, says melody cancels out the intonations of speech, the beat of the music cancels the rhythms of speech, and singers are forced to accent syllables as they’re accented in the music.

Sneazy (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singing and talking share some common features but are still fundamentally different things. This points out some of the main differences. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Written works by Chelsea Manning

Where can I find a large corpus of writings by Chelsea Manning, in order to perform content analysis? I have in mind The Gender Genie. Besides the text at this page (female score: 65; male score: 214), I am looking for something more.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC) and 15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge there is no such corpus. Manning was not a published writer, and presumably most of the reports she generated in her professional career were formatted according to the turgid expectations of military prose, with no risk of individuality breaking out. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning wasn't known as a writer - more like the guy who takes the document from the writer, down to the basement, and hands it to the typesetter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets in some letters

Why some letters in a word have brackets, mainly whan you are quoting a person? e.g. [f]ascinating Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a way of showing that the person doing the quoting has added words or letters to the original quote, or maybe changed the words for clarity. So, in your example, the quote was probably from the start of a sentence, so it was written 'Fascinating' (with a capital letter), but it needed to be used in the middle of a sentence where the capital would look odd. So the writer wanted to show that he had changed the spelling of the original quote.

Another example would be where someone is quoted referring to someone without actually saying their name. For instance, something like 'Bob Dylan said "He [Bono] is a lovely person".' - Bob's original quote was 'He is a lovely person', but without the extra information we don't know who he's talking about. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Mike and thanks for the lovely example :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For their use in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Brackets and parentheses.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, three dots in a quote means that something has been omitted from the quote. For example, if you read

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble,[...]."

words have been omitted from the quote in three different places -- the complete quote is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." but if the current writer only wanted to focus on freedom to assemble, he needed to omit the other parts. Also, often [...] is written more simply as ... without the brackets. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Duoduoduo Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about on/in

What's the right way to say: That's the first chapter in/on/of the book? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Of" and "in" are acceptable. "On" is not. Deor (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You tempt my powers of contrivance, Deor.

Q. What are you reading lately?

A. "I'm reading a life of Tolstoy. I'm now getting to the part about how he wrote War and Peace. He's devoted three entire chapters just to this one major opus. Chapter 71 is the first chapter on the book." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you have won the Gold Medal in the Olympic Men's Downhill Contrivance event by a clear margin. Many congratulations. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank my trainers, my family, my friends, my lovers, my fellow competitors, all the officials and volunteers, and of course the millions of messages from my many admirers all over the world. These all helped to keep me on course when the going got really tough. See you in 4 years time. Or maybe sooner. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Be careful - once you start with them plays-on-words, it's a slippery slope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reżyseria

What's the English for this word? Is it Director? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikt:reżyser, "reżyser" means "director", so perhaps "reżyseria" means "directorship".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Translator says that it means "directed by", but perhaps we should wait for a real Polish speaker to comment. Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

Unfixed plurals

Are there languages that use a separate word to make something plural, rather than using an affix to do so? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, English has "cattle", which is a plural for terms like cow and steer, and has no singular form that I'm aware of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, that’s not what I had in mind. I was thinking more of a determiner, I suppose. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]