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.

October 1

"Without it"

In French, is there a way to say "without it"? This is frustratingly hard to google for. For example, I know how to say "I can't do homework without a pencil", but how do you say "I can't do homework without it"? --140.180.243.97 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"sans" + "elle". According to Google translate "I can't do homework without it" -> "Je ne peux pas faire mes devoirs sans elle." StuRat (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil = un crayon (masculine). It would be: Je ne peux pas faire mes devoirs sans lui. But, lui can only refer to a person or an animal. Spontaneously I would say: Je ne peux pas faire mes devoirs sans ça/cela. (Try Google translate from French to English...). — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. It's strange that there's no inanimate equivalent of lui/elle. Can you use "...sans cela" in writing, or is it too colloquial?

@StuRat: Google Translate presumably has trouble translating the phrase because there's no word for "it" in French. --140.180.247.75 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I was curious how the French Wikipedia dealt with It girl, and here is how they did it. I particularly liked the expression "une charmante jeune femme sexy", and give them credit for dropping all the English diacritics when they incorporated our word "sexy" into the French language. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your small text: hat diacritics? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wherefore? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can say "sans cela" or "sans ça", but at the end of a sentence it might sound a bit weird. That phrase sounds better introducing a clause, where it means something like "otherwise". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fine vs. finely

He feels fine after a disease. seems correct to me. What about He feels finely after a disease.? Is this correct? Grammar explanations are appreciated. Thank you in advance.203.228.255.210 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine in this sense is already an adverb, like well. There is no need to add -ly. (The adverb fine in the sense of okay should not be confused with the adverb finely, which is the opposite of coarsely.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. As a non-native speaker, I was taught that verbs describing senses (feels) or appearances (seems) take an adjective, not an adverb. This site rationalizes this by assuming that the adjective describes the subject rather than the verb. Hence, if you can replace the verb with to be (although with some considerable change of meaning), then you put an adjective rather than an adverb. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-native speaker, you probably shouldn't be insisting that a native speaker is wrong. In the statement He feels fine after a disease, feels is a verb and fine is an adverb. He feels finely is definitely wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "finely" is definitely wrong.... on the other-hand "he feels Finley" would be correct but have a totally differnt meaning ;-) -- Q Chris (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'fine' really an adverb here? What about analogous statements such as 'he feels sad/happy/hungry'? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They would certainly follow the same pattern, for example "He feels hungry after his fast" (not hungrily) or "he feels sad after his divorce" (not sadly). -- Q Chris (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In "He feels fine", "feels fine" is a predicative expression. "Feels" is the copula and "fine " is a predicative adjective. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he might be "feeling poorly after his divorce" (and no doubt he's also "feeling poor"). StuRat (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that non-native speakers often have a better technical grasp of grammar than nonspecialist native speakers, because they have had to study the rules, such as they are. The rule about sense and appearance verbs being modified by adjectives rather than adverbs is indeed taught to EFL learners, usually with the explanation that these actions are passive. Fine is certainly an adverb where the verb is active: "My car was mended and it is working fine now". But I too (native speaker) was taught that it is a predicative adjective, as is well in the same context (I.e. "I feel well" equals "I am well", and not "I feel in a good manner". Karenjc (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The verb "feel" in the examples is a copular verb and should be used with an adjective instead of an adverb. See "Copula (linguistics)" and "List of English copulae".

—Wavelength (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In "he feels fine", "fine" is an adjective* It describes the person's state, not the manner in which he performs the verb "feel". 86.160.211.131 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* in the sense intended above. It could, unusually, be an adverb if "he feels fine" is talking about someone's ability to feel things. 86.160.211.131 (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is actually a bit ambiguous. In today's English, we hear the "well" in "I feel well" as an adjective meaning "physically healthy", but it seems likely to have originated as an adverb. Compare "I feel poorly", which is still idiomatic in some English varieties, and note that the parallel Romance-language constructions all use the translation of the adverb "well", and that these words can generally not be used as adjectives meaning "healthy". --Trovatore (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"poorly" in "I feel poorly" is also an adjective (assuming it refŷers to health and not to ability to feel). 81.159.104.199 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then why can't you say *a poorly patient, the same way you can speak of an unwell patient? --Trovatore (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK you can - "Poorly patient waits 54 hours to be seen" Gandalf61 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Never would have guessed that. I would call that a completely ungrammatical utterance in American English, even the varieties that allow I feel poorly. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that that utterance was from a newspaper headline, which give us such silly things as "Man critical after horror smash". Well, I'd be critical too if I'd been driving along minding my own business and some petrol tanker careened out of both left field and control and smashed into me and broke half my bones and organs. I'd be hopping mad. What the "critical" is referring to is the medical condition of the patient, not the patient himself. Similarly, a patient who is feeling poorly cannot, in any reasonable variety of English, be described as "a poorly patient". Newspaper headlines obviously do not count as reasonable varieties of English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In BrE at least, "poorly" is a true adjective meaning "unwell": you can be poorly as well as feel poorly. Most often it is used predicatively, but "poorly patient" is not incorrect. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, it's not clear you can't also be <adverb> in some cases. In AmE, I definitely want to put a star before *poorly patient; it just doesn't work at all. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] and [2], where the word is listed as an adjective. Despite your protestations, I can assure you that "poorly patient" is correct in BrE. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That British weirdness is not the main point here. The point is the semi-adjectival use of adverbs, which is a common thing in Romance languages, but also seems to have some protrusion into English. How are you? I'm well. You could be saying that you're not sick, but the usual intent is a more general state of satisfaction than pure physical health, so it's not the usual adjectival sense of well. It seems to be related more to the adverbial sense. Colloquially you can say "I'm good", but that has other connotations (idiomatically, "I don't need anything from you, please go away", or more formally, "I am morally commendable"). --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "I'm well", I mean exactly that I'm not ill. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used "sick" rather than "ill" specifically because "sick" is exclusively an adjective (at least in standard English), whereas "ill" is etymologically an adverb. (Yeah, I understand that the Brits use "sick" to mean "vomiting", but I don't have to go along with that.)

You don't seem to be coming to terms with the main point here. There is a usage in English that puts some adverbs into the role of predicate adjectives. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what? All the examples you've given are adjectives. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are. I think you're incorrect specifically about what "I am well" means. In fact I think you're incorrect, or incorrectly reporting, even what you personally mean by it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that "well" in "I am well" is an adjective meaning "in good health". See, for example, [3] and [4] for examples illustrating the difference between adverbial and adjectival use of "well". 86.160.213.213 (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. It means something more general. --Trovatore (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's you who are wrong. You seem to be confused about the difference between an adjective and an adverb. "well" can be an adverb (and most often is), but in "I am well" it is not. Study the examples I linked to and maybe you will figure it out. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is an adjective or an adverb in "I am well" is somewhat iffy; I am not actually quite sure. However it most definitely does not have (or at least is not limited to) the usual adjectival meaning ("physically healthy). You are quite wrong about that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "iffy", it is definitely an adjective there. Its usual general meaning in that phrase, which is good enough for my purpose here, is "in good health" (beyond that I am not concerned about arguing the fine nuances of the wording of the definition). I am not "quite wrong". You are the one who is mostly "quite wrong" with your peculiar ideas about this word. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Look, it's clear that this sense of the word came etymologically from the adverb. The very fact that you use "ill" as an antonym to it should confirm this, as should comparisons with Romance languages. You're just refusing to see this. You should stop doing that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the most technical sense, it's a predicative adjective. However, it functions adverbially in that it describes a verb. Aside from that trivial semantic debate, finely in this context is definitely absolutely wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. 86.160.213.213 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel well about your decision? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you are all arguing that 86.160.213.213 is wrong. The OED has well, adjective: "Sound in health; free or recovered from sickness or infirmity: more explicitly well in health", and has unwell as an antonym. I agree with Trovatore that the adjective derives from the adverb. Dbfirs 11:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have specified the first example. It is not a copular verb in the second example.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finely means "into small pieces" or "precisely", I doubt one would feel that way. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like "finely chopped onions" --208.185.21.102 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sew trousers

At Talk:Polar bear#Indigenous people an editor has questioned the sentence "The fur was used in particular to sew trousers". I would change the word "sew" to "make" but is there any variety of English where the sentence is correct as written? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pelts were used to make trousers. Sewing is done with thread. The thread is not made of polar bear hair. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that. I've tried a pair but I'm wondering if the sentence makes sense in any English variant. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can recall older Australians using the word sew as a synonym for make in contexts like that. I know I'm going to struggle to find a source though. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they said that in order to not give the impression they were intending to grow the crop, harvest the fibre, spin it into yarn, and weave the cloth on a loom, as their forebears might have needed to do; but to take existing cloth, cut pieces of the right shape, and sew them together. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds normal to me (southern US) to say "I'm going to sew a shirt", but I would sew the shirt with a needle and thread. Falconus^{p t c} 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. I understand a "with" at the end of the sentence, ("The fur was used in particular to sew trousers with") but wouldn't add it, as the sentence sounds better as is. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of what I expected. That explains why it had not been changed before. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds peculiar to me. 81.159.104.199 (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You could say "I'm going to use thread to sew a pair of trousers", not "I'm going to use polar bear fur to sew a pair a trousers". StuRat (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's peculiar all right, but it's real. Note than when I spoke of older Australians, I was referring to my grandparents' generation, and I'm in my 60s. It's not modern usage. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On occasion my mother reminisces about how she sewed all our fancy clothes and her own summerwear when we were children. She also refers to my father's mother having sewn the most elaborate garments. It has never occurred to me that anyone would see this as odd usage. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Spinning is the twisting together of drawn out strands of fibres to form yarn…" Once one has made yarn, it can be used for sewing. It is often called thread when it is used in that capacity. But such yarn or thread can be also woven or knitted to form fabrics. When these fabrics are cut into shapes and then sewn together, using thread, we can have garments. But a polar bear pelt, containing the fur of the animal, is unrelated to the first step of "…twisting together of drawn out strands of fibres to form yarn…" I think it is incorrect to say "The fur was used in particular to sew trousers". The fur was not used in this capacity. The fur was never twisted together and drawn out to form strands of fibre. The fur is simply a component of the leather pelt. The actual sewing was not done to the fur at all, and the thread used was probably not a thread derived from the fur itself. The sewing took place on the underlying leather pelt. The leather pelt, which is the skin of the animal, is itself not a product of weaving or knitting. Thus when speaking of the manufacturing of garments made of animal hide we should consider language appropriate to that substance. I think it is more appropriate to say that we are making trousers, using polar bear pelts. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple matter of a word being used in two broader and narrower senses. "I made Johnny a shirt for Christmas." "Oh, did you knit it?" "No, I sewed it." Note from the point of view of the criticisms above it would be equally absurd to say someone knitted a shirt, since what they really did was knit the yarn. Unless you want to get down to the bizarre objection that you don't bake cakes, you only bake their ingredients, there's no reasonable purpose to insist one only makes clothing rather than sewing it. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one knits a shirt. The knitted fabric found in a shirt would be too fine to knit. All handmade shirts are sewn. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply laughable and historically ignorant. You are confusing modern machine-knit fabric with actually hand-knitted garments μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at a lot of the pictures at the link you provided, and I'm not sure I would describe any of those tops as a shirt, even if the websites on which the pictures appear do so. I think I'd call almost all of them sweaters or vests (or sweater vests). Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to say you sewed a shirt, but what that means is that you attached pieces of fabric together with thread. Thus, you are using the thread to sew, not using the fabric to sew. Back to the polar bear fur, saying you sewed clothes using polar bear fur is like saying you nailed your house together using wood. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "make" is always acceptable. One makes a shirt. But the question is whether one "makes" trousers of a polar bear pelt or whether one "sews" trousers of a polar bear pelt. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluejeans are sewed. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trousers can be sewed (or sewn) in that the separate pieces of fabric are stitched together to make a single item of clothing. (The separate pieces of 'fabric' might be knitted or weaved or a synthetic polymer or any of various other materials, none of which are sewn.) However, in the context given, because the fur is actually a pelt, it is likely misleading to say that the fur "is used to sew trousers", as it strongly implies that the fur is used for the stitching rather than the pieces of cloth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since trousers are (if you're rich enough) made by a tailor, they can be said to be "tailored"; but in this instance, "made" seems to be right to me in British English. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Vowel reduction in Russian and Ukrainian

From what I can gather, akanie is traditionally present in central and southern Russian dialects and absent from northern ones. But it's also absent from Ukrainian. So why is Ukrainian more similar to far-away northern Russian dialects than to nearby southern Russian dialects in this regard? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akane is an innovation that started with Russian speakers in the south, and never managed to spread to the north, or across the language border into Ukraine. This is an extremely typical situation in linguistics, where a change starts in the middle of a language's range, usually in a densely populated "prestige area" like a national capital, yet the change peters out by the time it gets to the outer borderlands, which retain the older formation. See linguistic change. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that article doesn't seem to cover the issue, and I can't find a better one for now. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the sad state of that important article long time ago, but I don't have enough expertise to improve it. Esteemed RD/L regulars would do a good deed to improve that article at least to a C-class. It would answer many FAQs of this forum. No such user (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's believed that the margins are more archaic in some respects than the core region. As I know this way it's explained by Russian linguists (such as Oleg Trubachyov et al.). --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reduction is present in the wide region from Brest to Ryazan, so many linguists of the past singled out "Middle Russian" dialect continuum. From the Soviet times untill today linguistics is mixed with politics and this view is blamed as "imperialistic chauvinistic", unfortunately.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Center versus periphery addresses the phenomenon, but not very clearly, and only from the perspective of the Japanese lexicon. Uvular r has a map showing spread from the center, such as frm Berlin. The article doesn't name the spread phenomenon, however. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Wave model, but that article is written from a theoretical point of view. No such user (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Ibidem

In the entry for Helge von Koch, it gives his birth location, birth date, ibidem, and his death date. Is the ibidem supposed to mean that he died in the same place that he was born? I haven't seen it used this way, so I just want to be sure. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 11:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's new to me too, but I'd interpret it the way you did, Dismas. Until I read the infobox, where I see he died in Danderyd Municipality, "a municipality just north of Stockholm". He can't have died both in Stockholm and somewhere north of Stockholm, unless he was exhibiting bilocation at the time of his death. But those Swedes are pretty advanced. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] Yes, I suppose so, though I would suggest removing it and simply replacing it with "Stockholm" in the interest of avoiding jargon. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the single word, ibidem, to replace a different single word, Stockholm, seems a little pointless. Especially if it's wrong anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing wrong about it is that the lede is supposed to show dates of birth and death but not places. Those details are for the infobox, if any, or the text proper. I know it's widely ignored, but there is a MOS ruling about it somewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody's getting a little fancy-schmancy. Ibid. is typically used only in lists of references, to avoid restating the entire reference again and again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! It was new to me and then I also noticed that it wasn't the same location in the infobox which further confused me. Dismas|^(talk) 18:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is best not to use ibid in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German biographies, including Wikipedia articles, often use ebenda to mean "in the same place" when a person died in the same town where he was born. Maybe Swedish has a similar word. At any rate, I suspect whoever wrote this article thought you could use ibidem that way in English, but you can't. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To those of us who worked on the old IBM computers, a better term for death place would be ABEND. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, this would typically occur in the evening.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

Throw the curve (clothe the curve)

What does that really mean? When I say I don't want to throw the curve Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 18:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers sometimes assign grades on a curve, meaning that if the highest score on a test is an 80%, they will multiply everyone's grade by 1.25, so that the best score comes out to the equivalent of 100% (or something along those lines, like adding points, etc.). If a class has one really good student, he may get a 100% while everybody else scores poorly. If, on that basis, the teacher decides not to curve the test scores, then this student has "thrown the curve". A very bad approximation of the phrase in Spanish would be distorcionar el resultado. If I say, "I do not want to throw the curve," it means that I do not want to score so well that the grades of others suffer because of me. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Unsurprisingly, we have an article, grade curve, but unfortunately it lacks any graphs as examples. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand this song but that part is the only one I cannot find the exact meaning. Unless I am not understanding the lyrics and it doesn't say throw the curve. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 18:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He says "clothe the curve" which I have never heard before, it may be an Irish thing, or simply poetic license. Google gives no results for the phrase except as lyrics to this song. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those lyrics sites are necessarily reliable, if that's where you got it from. They also seem to copy one another, so an error can propagate. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The various sites agree on "clothe the curve" and that is the very clear pronunciation you hear on youtube--there's no question of it. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the official site of the band? I didn't get the lyrics form any site, just listening to the song, I couldn't understand that so I assumed he was saying throw the curve. But now I have no idea of what he is saying. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say clothe the curve at the official website of the band? Wao, Irish things can be tricky sometimes. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, has anybody tried... Google? I immediately found http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/throw+a+curve, which confirmed my first association with baseball, and supplied an additional gloss "2. to confuse someone by doing something tricky and unexpected". No such user (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, "throw a curve" and "throw the curve" are two totally unrelated expressions, the one you mention is about baseball and the one MB mentioned at first is about grades assigned in school. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, the theory with school grades is entirely yours. No such user (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To throw a curve ball and to throw the curve on a test are both phrases in American English. Perhaps Miss Bono will tell us where she got the quote tomorrow. But "I don't want to throw the curve" is much more likely to refer to a test than a pitch:

examples of the usage "throw the curve" on a test

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

The Six People You Meet at the Bar Exam - Bitter Lawyer www.bitterlawyer.com/the-six-people-you-meet-at-the-bar-exam/‎ Jul 29, 2010 - This person has failed the bar exam five times in the last three years, but, ... it and accept that this one person isn't going to throw the curve. Tom Woodruff: Rate Professor: Mississippi State (MSU): Koofers www.koofers.com › Universities › Mississippi State University (MS..‎ Whatever we spend time on in class is what is on the test. He even tells us some things that will definately be on the test. Though he will throw the curve ball on ... Jeff, Do you think Reg will have some kind of curve or different ... www.another71.com › ... › CPA Exam Score Release › Score Release‎ Sep 30, 2011 - 44 posts - ‎14 authors I just hope those March candidates don't perform spectacularly and throw the curve. Paper Exam May 2002; AUD 62, LPR, 63, FAR 49, ARE 70 SAT subject test help? - Yahoo! Answers answers.yahoo.com › ... › Higher Education (University +)‎ Jul 19, 2013 - You should be cautious before taking a test in a language you are not fluent in ( native speakers tend to throw the curve off) 2. Don't take Math ... Does retaking an SAT Subject test look bad? - Yahoo! Answers answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130604212442AA17LWG‎ Jun 4, 2013 - Even if you did receive an 800 on each test upon retaking, most ... be wary of language tests, because native speakers often throw the curve).

μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not listed at their website, presumably because it is credited to Passengers, not U2. There is absolutely no question that he is saying "clothe the curve". If forced, I would guess he might mean clothe a woman's nudity, since the fuller parts of women's bodies are often described as curves. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If the song says clothe the curve, and my question was intended to understand the song. Should I change the title? Good shot, Medeis. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of headers is to identify the matter at hand, since both phrases are discussed I simply added the new one rather than delete the old one. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "clothe the curve", unless he means "close the curve". What is the context? What are the lines before and after it, in the song? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you google the phrase in quotes the only hit you will get will be the lyrics. There are a bunch of brief phrases all using the "ur" sound. Meaning seems secondary, almost irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lazy to listen to the song, but both "close the curve" and "throw a curve" would make sense in the loose context of the song. For what it's worth, the adjacent verses are Don't want to lose my nerve/Don't want to ? ? curve/Don't want to make you swerve No such user (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like "Don't want to crawl the kerb" (cf. "kerb-crawler" [5], for those who don't know this apparently British expression). It most definitely is not "throw a curve". I certainly do not agree that "There is absolutely no question that he is saying 'clothe the curve'." 86.146.105.171 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curb crawling has a far different connotation in the US. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon

What does this cartoon mean? And what is the joke? 1 Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An anta is a piglike animal called a tapir in English. Gente means person. So the lady is calling the man a pig (tapir) and the one tapir is calling the other a human. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

Pronunciation of Camberwell

A book I'm reading talks about the part of London called Camberwell. Sometimes in England, not all letters in a placename are pronounced, and I would like to know if it is pronounced as spelled (with 3 syllables) as it would be in the US, or is slurvianized to "Cam'brel." Edison (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced exactly as spelled.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is Camberwell, Victoria, Australia. (In case anyone cares.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I care. I used to live not far from there, and the Burke Rd strip was one of my favourite weekend haunts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can hear Gertie Millar singing about it here. Apart from the old-fashioned quality of the "a" vowel (the recording is nearly 100 years old) that is how it's pronounced now. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fine old recording, and very helpful. She says it something like "Cahm-buh-well" as opposed the the US pronunciation where the "r" would be sounded by a typical midwestern speaker. Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly tangential to the topic, but there is a butterfly named after it: the Camberwell Beauty. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.83.178 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a native Londoner, I agree that it is pronounced as spelt, with the emphasis on the first syllable, like camber. Local people speaking in the Cockney dialect, might barely pronounce the double "L" at the end, replacing it with a "W" consonant. I'm sure there's a linguistic term that describes this; however, it is regarded as non-standard. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that our "Cockney" article calls it "Vocalisation of dark L" and gives the example [ˈmɪowɔː] for Millwall. Gosh, I wish I was that clever. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference see also List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 05:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I have noted that in my sandbox for future reference. Edison (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Churro" used as an adjective in European Spanish

Hi there, everyone:

I live in Spain and speak Spanish as a second language, but am more used to Latin American variants of the language than how the language is spoken in Spain. Where I lived before, "churro" was used as an adjective to describe someone who was good looking, but my housemate (from Extremadura) here used the word in a different context - he said that madrileños speak in a "churro" way. What does this mean?

All the best, --31.4.63.225 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Spanish Wiktionary article churro#Adjetivo, it can refer to people speaking Spanish with a distinct Aragonese influence. This sense of "churro" is grouped with other meanings pertaining to Churra sheep and their wool. The meaning of "attractive" is indeed limited to "Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Río de la Plata", one entry lower in that article. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the Spanish article on Castellano churro is far more informative regarding your housemate's use of "churro". ---Sluzzelin talk 13:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Sluzzelin. I heard about Castellano churro before, but I don't think this is the meaning he was referring to - it is spoken mostly in Valencia, and he was talking about Madrid people. He also said that Madrid people act churro, whatever that means. All the best, --178.139.99.190 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

Dutch spellings of place names

On the List of cities, towns and villages in Drenthe the place names Zeyerveen and Zeyerveld appear thus, but in the Dutch Wikipedia are spelled on their respective pages nl:Zeijerveen and nl:Zeijerveld. Are both versions acceptable? What dictates the choice between spellings? if one is more current, should the pages indicate the older version "until [year]" or is this a sweeping change in Dutch orthography reform that needs no particular mention? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on IJ (digraph) discusses this. They are basically just variants of the same letter, although "ij" is preferred in "proper" Dutch. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article most certainly does not say that. In modern Dutch, the letter Y, which is separate from IJ (and has been so since at least the 19th century), only occurs in foreign loanwords. The above mentioned spellings are therefore archaic, and should be changed. EDIT: To more completely answer the OP, there isn't any need to indicate a change date, as there would have been a gradual change in spelling, and this is common in all such place names. Fgf10 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, both Google Maps and Open Street Map use the spellings "Zeijerveen" and "Zeijerveld" in their labels. Deor (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the sentence

May I know the meaning of the following sentence:

        She observed that it is getting late.

Does it have only one meaning "She noticed that she was getting late." or some other meaning also? 14.139.82.6 (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Sukhada[reply]

There are a couple problems here.

First, the sentence is grammatically wrong. It should read "She observed that it was getting late." 'Observed' and 'was' agree with each other but 'observed' and 'is' don't.

Second, the sentence you provided and the sentence you have in quotes do not necessarily mean the same thing. The first sentence, in general, means that it was getting late in the day. Possibly too late to get something done or too late to still be at work/out at a social function/etc. The second sentence, the one you have in quotes, means that she was running late for something or that she needed to be somewhere else and would arrive after some agreed upon time. Dismas|^(talk) 10:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, she may have been observing a clock with batteries on low power, resulting in the clock losing an increasing amount of time. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the syntactical problems you didn't ask about, "to observe" can also mean to state something. See meaning 3 at wikt:observe.
So she could be saying "It's getting late". Rojomoke (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, but if it's indirect speech, as it is, the tenses still need to agree as per Dismas. If it were direct speech, then it could be She observed, "It's getting late". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by others here, "getting late" could mean late in the daylight hours or late at night or approaching some kind of deadline. And "observed" can mean either watching or commenting. Without more of the text, we can't tell. Although it reminds me of these two Yogiisms: "You can observe a lot just by watching." And in reference to the sun angle in Yankee Stadium's left field in the autumn, "It gets late early out there." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name for this phrasing structure

What's the term for phrasing FAQs (and other documentation) in a personalized way, e.g. "Q. I want to find answers to factual questions. A. Visit the reference desk".

I'm sure there's a name for it, but I got lost in dozens of tabs branching out from grammatical voice and E-Prime. >.<

Once the name is known, I can find the studies about how it's beneficial to use this writing structure in documentation (which I'm also sure I've seen somewhere, but need the keyword to find it again!). This is related to a question at Help talk:Contents#I not want "I want" about the way we're phrasing each of the headers in the Help:Contents page. Thanks! –Quiddity (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective versus objective? μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the best films of this or any year"

There have been probably hundreds of movies that have been lauded as "one of the best films of this or any year".

One of the best of this year, that claim I can accept (in some cases). But when they add "or any", are they not claiming it's one of the best films ever made? In the entire history of cinema?

If not that, what is it we're supposed to be believing? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that's what they're claiming. Of course you're not obliged to agree. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it should be phrased "or any other year". But that's another issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it? Logically it's the same. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistically, it's a clunker to present two alternatives, one of which is a subset of the other, at least IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more fundamentally wrong than that. A film made in 2013 might be the best film of 2013, and it might even be the best film of all time, but it will never, never be the best film of 2012, 2011, 2010 .....1977, 1976, 1975 ..... 1946, 1945, 1944 .... because it is not a member of any of the sets of films made in any of those years. A proper claim might be "the best film of the past decade", or even "the best film, not just of this year, but of all time", but the trite formulation the parrot-like idiots trot out unthinkingly is meaningless. That's why I asked the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Leonard Maltin annual movie guide has well over 10,000 entries, but let's suppose it's an even 10,000 and that the number of films alleged to be among the all-time best is 1,000. 10 percent is stretching the concept of "all time best" pretty far - but even that concept leaves 90 percent which aren't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redundant use of "this or any" is just an intensifier used as a marketing device. It is similar to expressions such as "forever and ever".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, what comfort can I find?/None this tide/Nor any tide/Except he did not shame his kind/Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

"dark L"

The previous question about "Camberwell" brought up again this notion of "dark L", which I've never really understood. The dark l article suggests (a little unclearly) that American /l/ is always "dark", which might explain why I wouldn't get the distinction. What does a "clear" /l/ sound like? --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American ells are dark at the end of syllable with back vowels, like gold and fool. The ell of well might be dark in some dialects, but it isn't in mine. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that doesn't help much. I can't tell whether my "well" has a "dark l" or not, based on the descriptions given and even the sound files in the articles. --Trovatore (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the article is saying. This much I know from observations: Most Americans pronounce "well" with the trailing L enunciated. Some, especially in certain east coast areas, pronounce it the way Elmer Fudd would, with a trailing L that sounds more like a W. Some Brits say it that way too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark ell, or the velarized ell is pronounced without the tip of the tongue touching the front of the roof of the mouth. The ells in lick and hell are dental (or apical, or whatever term you like) and in them the tongue touches behind the upper teeth. The Fudd ell (and arr) is velarized, often to the point of becoming a semivowel (w). Amewicans don't do that. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but I think I do touch the roof of my mouth with my tongue when saying "gold" and "fool" (at least, carefully), and you say those are dark. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may, but with the middle of the tongue to the roof of the mouth, not with the tip of the tongue to the back of the teeth. (Gold's not the best example, in fact it's a bad example, since the dee sound itself requires the tongue touching behind the teeth, itself being a dental.) You can say fool without the tongue even touching the roof of the mouth at all. Try conrasting "lick" and "fool" for a good example. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's some help I guess. I can't manage to render "fool" without touching the tongue, though. --Trovatore (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could if you pronounced it more like "foo". As with "goad" for "gold". That's not at all unusual for some east coasters and southerners. Not so in the Midwest. If someone talks like Elmer Fudd in the Midwest, it's probably an actual speech impediment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A much better example is milk for the dark ell. Be aware also that in English these sounds are allophones, and it is often possible to pronounce a light ell where in normal speech you would find a dark ell without noticing the difference. In Russian, however, they are separate consonants. I once pronounced the name of the city L'viv to a Russian speaker with a dark ell, and she had no idea what I was speaking about. The apostrophe in the spelling indicates it is a palatalized light ell. You will also find you can say the ool in "fool" clearly with the tip of your finger on the cusp of your tongue, but you cannot say lick properly this way. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every now and then someone mentions to me that "Don" did or said this or that, and I can't figure out who is being named, until it occurs to me that it's actually Dawn. --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's called the caught-cot merger, and it's typical of the West and some areas of the North and Midwest. The merger occurs in Boston, where the caught vowel is generalized. (My Nephews get yelled at when they call my sister "mawm", as in Somerset. In the west the "Don" vowel is generalized. This is a little different from an allophone, since allophones differ without causing a distinction of meaning. (Saying "milk" with a light ell may sound odd or accented, but it won't be mistaken for another word.) In the caught-cot merger, the words are distinct phonemes for speakers without the change, and there is confusion if one say Dawn, caught and bought for Don, cot and bot. I once worked as a receptionist for about a year, and got in trouble when I told potential advertising callers who wanted Don that we had no one named "Dawn" in the sales department. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

Glottal stop

This doesn't make any sense. Why is this considered a sound? How can anybody 'hear' this? Does it need a vowel to be 'pronounced?' I don't get it. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]