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.

July 22

Looking for a word or phrase

A friend and I are trying to think of a word or phrase, can you help us out? It's for when someone comes along who completely revolutionizes a field and it is no longer the same afterwards. 'Phenom' might be the best we can get but it just doesn't feel quite right to me. Thanks for any help you can provide. Dismas|^(talk) 19:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at paradigm shift. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the 'someone' - the agent noun - I doubt if paradigm shifter will work. The term revolutionary seems the simplest, but maybe that sounds too Marxist nowadays. We should keep thinking. Myrvin (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate blather

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

Given you are directly responding to me, you should indent under me. There was a recent discussion started about this by someone on the talk page. And please speak for yourself about whether or not to continue to think. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't directly responding to you, I was referring to your misunderstanding of the question, and then answering the question.

I could have indented under you with the words "For the 'someone' - the agent noun - I doubt if paradigm shifter will work." and then started with a blob and added the words: "The term revolutionary seems the simplest, but maybe that sounds too Marxist nowadays. etc." But that seemed rather fussy.

You can stop thinking if you like.

Your comment is off-topic, having nothing to do with the question.

I could point out that, since you were directly responding to me, you should have indented with two colons, not three. But that would be petty.

Myrvin (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not at all misunderstand the question. You created the stupid strawman "paradigm shifter" and criticized it. I figured the OP wanted a relevant source, and could figure out something like "he shifted the paradigm" on his own. This seems very relevant:

A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

A double indentation is standard when you are posting above but after another poster, yet another bit of ignorance on which you decide to make a snide remark. Given you didn't answer the question at all, but criticized what I said, I suggest you get over these perceived slights and flaws and concentrate on the issue. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Game changer? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. It can be hyphenated too. Myrvin (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A game-changer is an event, not a person. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard luck Steven. It seems only to be recognised as an agent noun in sport in the OED. Myrvin (talk)

That's in the OED. However, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary [1] is on your side. Myrvin (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, "revolutionized" is a term often applied to what Babe Ruth did for baseball, transforming it from the inside game to the power game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But revolutionary - assuming we need an agent noun, of which there is some debate - seems only to be political. Myrvin (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. But what abut "pioneer"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right to be suspicious. There are many other uses of revolutionary. Myrvin (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to prefer Merriam-Webster to OED, but then I'm a Yank, and tend to look to American usage first. Merriam-Webster simply gives, "A newly introduced element or factor that changes an existing situation or activity in a significant way." How do "elements" or "factors" relate to "events" or "persons"?

I would add, BTW, that Oxford's Advanced American Dictionary (click-through from your link above) gives the same definition as the Learner's Dictionary.

Finally, BB, wouldn't you agree that the baseball, as much as the Babe, was the game changer back then? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The game changer (literally) was Ruth leading the charge away from small ball to power ball. Ruth was the most prominent agent of that change. Others, such as Rogers Hornsby, quickly followed his lead, and guys like Ty Cobb were reduced to relics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I fully agree. But I wonder if even Ruth could have managed that with the (physical) baseball that was used in 1916. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several factors combined to revolutionize the game. Following World War I, the quality of the baseballs improved significantly, and thus they became "livelier" for the 1919 season. For 1920 and 1921, various restrictions were put on pitchers who threw the spitball. Following the death of Ray Chapman in 1920, new baseballs became substituted more often (a departure from the tradition that cricket still follows), thus making them easier for the batters to see. And ballparks with smaller outfields, which were not much of an issue in the dead-ball era, became fertile ground for sluggers. These developments helped lay the groundwork for the shift from small ball to power ball. Ruth was the key element in this equation. He was a free-swinger from the get-go, going back to his days at the workhouse/orphanage in Baltimore, as he followed the style of his mentor, Brother Mathias. Ruth hit 11 home runs in the dead-ball season of 1918, which was good enough to tie for the major league lead, despite being only a part-time player. In 1919, with the ball livened, his total jumped to 29, a new major league season record. And in 1920, having been sold to the Yankees and thus playing in the Polo Grounds, he hit the then-astonishing total of 54. In 1921 he hit 59. So Ruth's batting style was the literal game-changer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking a little more about revolutionary. As an adjective, it is used in a wide variety of ways. As an agent noun, though ... It's used in other ways than political, but rarely in a naked statement (if you will). If it is used as an agent noun in a different sense, it is almost always done in a surrounding context. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive" is a bit of a buzzword these days, in the context of disruptive innovation. "Disrupter" [2] is cromulent word for a person (or thing), as is the alternate spelling "disruptor". This would mean someone who has radically changed a field in the manner you describe. This usage is supported in the press (at least in concept, let's not talk about Musk's importance) when they call Elon Musk a top disrupter here [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to what extent Dis is looking to solve a tip-of-the-tongue situation in which he and his friend are trying to recall a specific word or rather are simply looking for an ideal word to the context, but (if the former especially), may I suggest "visionary"? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SemanticMantis that "disruptive" is the word that describes this. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transfixation elsewhere than in Afro-Asiatic?

The WP article about transfixation states, without a source, that the process of transfixation is (actually: seems to be) restricted to languages from the Afro-Asiatic family. Is there an autoritative source making that statement explicitly? Contact Basemetal here 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seem as if someone has engaged in some lite WP:SYNTHESIS (and seems to have been aware of the lack of verification, given the wording). I'm unaware of a source which would settle the matter one way or another, but I do recommend the statement be removed if no one provides as much in the next couple of days. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing the whole sentence (thus losing a piece of information which may turn out in the future to be correct), I recommend that the three words "is restricted to" be replaced by a weaker expression (e.g. "characterizes") - which may still preserve the main original idea - yet without any commitment to what occurs in other groups of languages. HOOTmag (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say that still qualifies as original research, as it isn't assessment supported by sourcing, but I personally wouldn't bicker over its presence. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book seems to be saying (I can't see much in the particular preview given me) that Old English used transfixation in its strong verbs and claims that the patterns "go back to morphophonemic ablaut alterations in Proto-Indo-European". Unfortunately the preview won't show me the pages where the author makes his argument or gives examples.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternations" not "alterations". I wonder if most linguists specializing in IE would use the term "transfixation" for PIE ablaut, but I don't know. Let's ask Florian. Contact Basemetal here 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never encountered the term "transfixation" in this context, personally, but a quick web search for "transfixation indo-european ablaut" does produce relevant-seeming hits, including this paper, which warns that the regularity of the usually reconstructed system for the Proto-Germanic strong verbs looks rather implausible and criticises the use of the approach for Old English in particular. By and large, I see the problem of analysing a purely reconstructed system in terms of transfixation when the attested systems are nowhere as regular. Indo-European isn't like Semitic in that regard. I don't have a sufficient command of the relevant literature, but I'm sceptical. If it were common, I should have heard of it. Maybe Ivan or Taivo can give a more satisfying answer. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

Shirt58's starter for 10

In an IQ test one of the questions was "Fill in the blank spaces in the following word: UND-----UND (the answer's obvious but people just couldn't get it). Are there many words which display this pattern? -- 86.141.140.147 (talk · contribs) 11:08, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

My word finder only gives UNDERGROUND (which was the "obvious" one I first thought of) and UNDERFUND. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be just "UND" - are there any other three - letter (and longer) groups with this property? -- 86.141.140.147 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

ANT gives ANTIOXIDANT, ANTIPERSPIRANT and a few others; more obscurely, CAL gives CALENDRICAL, CALLIGRAPHICAL and CALVINISTICAL; there's also HOTSHOT, and, if you allow proper names, EINSTEIN. For four letters I only found TARANTARA, and nothing for five and above. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the intervening string can be empty, there's also MURMUR, TARTAR, TESTES, BERIBERI and COUSCOUS. And we should also include WIKI-WIKI. 13:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

With the exceptions of testes, those last are all just "exact" reduplications of a whole morpheme and easy enough to recall, so I doubt they are what the test question was geared towards. Though to be fair, IQ tests are by and large a gimmick notion not taken too terribly seriously by actual cognitive science and nor even modern approaches to psychometrics in particular in any event. (Not really what the OP inquired about, but worth bearing in mind all the same). Snow ^{let's rap} 14:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew mentioned "hotshot". The plural "hotshots" actually begins and ends with the same four letters without being a reduplication. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that starts and ends with the same four letters (though there is an overlap of one letter) without being a reduplication is "entente". ---Sluzzelin talk 03:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the OP is, can you explain what the header means, and how it relates to the question posed? These things are meant to be meaningful, not cryptic. And please sign your posts. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the user info. The title sounds like a Jeopardy! entry, except it's unclear what Shirt58 (talk · contribs) has to do with this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue what the section title means. Apart from me not knowing the answer, that is.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "Starter for 10" is (or was?) the catchphrase for University Challenge. I'm not sure if there's an equally-precise US equivalent. Tevildo (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an equivalent that I know of, but it makes sense from reading the article. That just leaves unexplained what Shirt58 has to do with it. Maybe he'll come here and take a stab at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz bowl and related games have similar phrases, the last clue in a question typically begins with "For ten points...". Probably comes from College Bowl, of which University Challenge is one version. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "[Your] starter for 10" does originate, as Tevildo suggests, from University Challenge, where it's still used as the introduction to the question to be answered solo before the following three team bonus questions. In everyday use, it might be used to prefix a particularly difficult or obscure question you might ask a friend during an otherwise unproductive but entertaining conversation in a pub. Bazza (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer could have been undersound. It's a rare word, but Bronte and Ruskin both used it. Dbfirs 20:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, "undermound" would be a perfectly cromulent adjective for, say, a Barrow-wight. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both "undermound" and "undersound" would have been ruled out as the question specified five missing letters. My apologies for not signing this post but my keyboard is not blessed with a tilde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.140.147 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're registered, you can just type [[User:your username]]manually typed date and time. Since you're an IP editor I'm not sure what good that would do, but thanks for mentioning it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can also click on the four tildes to the right of "Sign your posts on talk pages:" below the edit box - as I will do now: AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What type of keyboard do you have? On the standard UK keyboard, the tilde is at Shift-#, in the home row on the far right, next to the return key. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a MacBook Pro it's SHIFT+`, located next to the left SHIFT button. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

86.141.140.147, you still didn't tell us what this question has to do with User:Shirt58. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of motherboards in this place. The Hewlett - Packard ones are standard. There are others branded "acer", "SHiNE" and "Lesmo" which are not. I believe that Portugal has the distinction of being the only country with its own national keyboard (teclado nacional) which starts off HCESAR instead of QWERTY. As to why the others start QWERTY, it's all down to the inventor ensuring that the letters TYPEWRI (as in "typewriter", the name he gave to his device) all appear on the top line, useful for demonstration, allied to the fact that he needed to make the letter patterns counterintuitive to slow the typist down and stop him jamming up the keys. Ever resourceful, the Portuguese decided to go it alone and eliminate this deficiency. 86.141.140.204 (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Portuguese keyboard layout. The tilde is next to the Return key for the Portuguese keyboard, and one place to the left of this for the Brazilian keyboard. As this is a dead key, you'll need to press tilde-space (rather than the tilde key on its own). As far as I can tell, HCESAR was never used for computer keyboards, only for typewriters. Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga

As I understand it, the name of the Amiga range of personal computers (not PCs) means "female friend" in Spanish, meaning just a normal friend that just happens to be female. What would be Spanish for "girlfriend"? JIP | Talk 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's novia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. See wikt:novia#Spanish. In Spanish, that can also have the sense of a fiancée or bride, too.

The French cognate of amiga, amie, is also used as "female friend"; in French, a girlfriend is described by an idiomatic build from there, petite amie (lit., "little friend"). And as for a fiancée ... well, that's obvious.

And while both amiga and amie come eventually from a Latin word for "love" (wikt:amo#Latin), that root usually includes the sense of "liking" or "fondness" in Romance languages. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, they do. But via Latin amica the feminine of amicus which means 'friend' rather than 'loved'. ==ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that same vein, amiguita is also used (possibly less so than novia) to mean "girlfriend". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the variety of Spanish, in addition to novia, I've also heard compañera and especially pareja. Pareja technically means "couple" or "pair" but is used to girlfriend/boyfriend similar to "my other half". It is also gender-neutral, if you care about that sort of thing.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Portuguese, noivo is a fiance, and noiva a fiancee. That reminds me of when I was working in an office many years ago and witnessed the following conversation:

Male clerk: You can ask Jacqui [typist]'s girlfriend.

Female clerk: (incredulous) Girlfriend?

Male clerk: Yes. Typists have friends - didn't you know?

Jacqui was a lovely girl, and gave up her job when she got married (as was the custom in those days). She got a mention in the Oxford Times as one of two girls who narrowly escaped when the roof of the double decker bus in which she was travelling was sliced off when the driver drove it under Oxford station bridge. The paper published on Friday but of course we knew all about it before then, because she told us. This was a recurrent problem - tall buses (with H prefix numbers - the shorter ones had L numbers) all carried a notice on the platform reading "Do not allow your driver to proceed under Oxford or Cowley station bridges" but it never seemed to have much effect.

When I type amiguinha into Google translate Portuguese lights up but it doesn't offer any English translation.

Well, that -inha ending is a dead giveaway for Portugese. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

Einherjar

Can you help on Talk:Einherjar#Pronunciation? Thank you –ebraminio^talk 00:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me edit the following paragraphs to improve readability, grammar, and flow

In membrane chromatography, fluids pass through a filter-like membrane and transport cross chromatography ligands through convection. Membranes can be loaded and eluted much more quickly because the mechanism of binding and eluting are based on convective transport, a much faster mechanism than diffusion. This operation desires membrane chromatography because the product should be processed as quickly as possible. There’s not a lot of product so you can use small membranes for this step. Load the product on a membrane and the product is adsorbed onto the membrane. Wash solution is introduced and removes loosely-bound species and rinse out residual impurity components. After the wash, an elution buffer is introduced that allows the product proteins to detach and are collected. The really important parameter for binding and eluting the product using the anion exchange membrane is conductivity. When the conductivity is low the product binds, and at high conductivity the product let’s go.

Soiled equipment is placed in a sterilizer, using the validated sterilization cycle. Pull the equipment out of the sterilizer after sterilization and cooling and it is moved to an area with an air supply. The equipment is connected to a source of compressed air and made ready for pressurization. The pressurized equipment is held at the specified pressure for a specified period of time. Release the pressure, open the drain valve and ring tubing, while maintaining air flow through the system. Then after the specified period of time, cover all openings with autoclave paper and dead end tubing or blanks and prepare for storage. The clean time is the period of time for which the equipment can be held post cleaning but prior to sterilization without the need for cleaning again.172.56.22.171 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An initial question - are you writing a description of the process, or instructions for a technician on how to carry out the process? It's not clear from the text as it stands. Tevildo (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some corrections added:

In membrane chromatography, fluids pass through a filter-like membrane and transport cross-chromatography ligands through convection. Membranes can be loaded and eluted much more quickly because the mechanism of binding and eluting ~~are~~is based on convective transport, a much faster mechanism than diffusion. This operation ~~desires~~requires membrane chromatography, because the product should be processed as quickly as possible. There’s not a lot of product, so you can use small membranes for this step. Load the product on a membrane and then the product iswill be adsorbed onto the membrane. Wash solution is introduced and removes loosely-bound species and rinses out residual impurity components. After the wash, an elution buffer is introduced that allows the product proteins to detach and ~~are~~be collected. The really important parameter for binding and eluting the product using the anion exchange membrane is conductivity. When the conductivity is low, the product binds, and at high conductivity, the product ~~let’s~~lets go.

Soiled equipment is placed in a sterilizer, using the validated sterilization cycle. Pull the equipment out of the sterilizer after sterilization and cooling and ~~it is moved~~move it to an area with an air supply. The equipment is then connected to a source of compressed air and made ready for pressurization. The pressurized equipment is held at the specified pressure for a specified period of time. Release the pressure, open the drain valve and ring tubing, while maintaining air flow through the system. Then, after the specified period of time, cover all openings with autoclave paper and dead-end tubing or blanks ~~and~~to prepare for storage. The "clean time" is the period of time for which the equipment can be held post-cleaning but prior to sterilization, without the need for cleaning again.

You seem to change between active voice and passive voice constantly. For example, "pull the equipment out" is active while "it is moved" is passive. There were too many of these for me to fix them all, but pick one voice, and stick with it. "Ligands" and "elute" will need an explanation, unless this is meant solely for a technical audience already familiar with those terms. Since this is a step-by-step process, I suggest numbered bullets. You also use some rather casual language, like "not a lot" and "really important". Depending on the audience, I would think more formal language would be ein order, like "A small quantity" and "most significant". StuRat (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to God vs. Ojalá que

I was taught that Ojalá que can be used to express hopes and requests in the same manner as Espero que. Though, I don't remember a "to God" at the end. Which one is the more accurate translation of Ojalá que? "I hope" or "I hope to God" or "Oh, Allah!" 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I should have just googled it. http://www.spanishdict.com/topics/show/74 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You learn something new here every day. There is a Portuguese ejaculation oxala (acute accent on, and therefore stressed on) the final syllable, which means roughly "Listen!" I would never have guessed that its origin was "Oh my God".86.141.140.147 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxalá means "I hope" or "may it come true", not "listen". —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See 1 Corinthians 4:8.—Wavelength (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The person may have said oica or ouca ("c" with cedilha). The word means "listen!". Maybe you can add the preposition la (acute accent over the "a" - the word means "there"), to get something like "Listen to that". I don't know if there is a Spanish equivalent.

Oxala appears to be a Brazilian god - but then many Brazilians perform voodoo ceremonies dressed up as Catholic ritual. Courtesy of the Portuguese Wikipedia, this appears to be Yoruba (West African) religion which went to Brazil with the slaves. 86.141.140.204 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

More mystery Chinese characters (and a dash of Tibetan)

I have a second instalment of puzzling characters which I'd appreciate help with.

Chinese

Transcription of Om mani padme hum. Judging by this page, for the second-last character I'm looking for the mouth radical plus 17 strokes; it doesn't seem to exist in Unicode. Is this right?

Here, the first footnote means "August Guard of the Gate of Heaven" -- 威X天門 -- but I can't find the second character (presumably meaning "guard").

Here the second character in the Chinese here looks simple, but seems not to exist. This is the name of the Moso or Mosuo people.

Here the second character is another simple-looking, but elusive character using the "比" element. This is the name of the Lisu or Liso people.

Transcribed as "T'ai Ho Chên"; the name of a small town. The closest I can find for the third character is "鍖" -- could it be a variant form?

Here "郤" plus moon or flesh radical seems not to exist.

Tibetan

The book also includes a few Tibetan words which I've tried to reproduce using the Tibetan alphabet page, with limited success.

Om mani padme hum. "ཨོམ་མ་ཎི་པད་མེ་ཧམ་" looks like a transcription of the Tibetan (apart from the vowel(?) on the second-last letter, which I can't find), but all versions which I find online are quite different. Is the book's text wrong?

brTen. First word in footnote 4: the closest I can get is བརཷན་, which doesn't seem quite right. Similarly with the second word: "སང་བ་" is not quite right. Both these words refer to an amulet or charm.

Treasury-hand and lieutenant. No idea about either of these words.

Long title. No idea. I got as far as "ཧ་དབར་བ", which has no Google hits.

A-jol. This is the Chinese Adunzi in Yunnan, but I can't find the Tibetan version of the name.

Ajang. No idea about the Tibetan name here.

Thanks for any help you can give me with these! Henry ^Flower 06:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your second Chinese question: the "guard" character is probably a poorly written "鎮" [4]. The character in the town name "T'ai Ho Chê" (your second-from-last question) might be the same character too, as it seems to appear regularly in town names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- that looks plausible. Henry ^Flower 12:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your first Tibetan question, the Tibetan is properly written ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ Tibetan script is derived from Indic scripts and uses the Anusvara (the small open "cirlce" above the initial consonant) for final "m" in om and hum. Also, as an Indic-derived script, it employs "stacking" for consonant clusters such as the "-dm-" in padme so the "m" portion is written under the "d".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your second Tibetan question, brTen is written བརྟེན "b","r","subscript t","e" (over the "rt" combination), "n". And srung-ba is written སྲུངབ (the "u" vowel in the book you link looks a bit different, but I suspect it is a font issue). Tibetan writing hasn't changed much in the last 1000 years while the language has changed substantially, most notably by simplifying consonant clusters. The word written brTen is actually pronounced in modern Tibetan as "ten" and srung-ba is pronounced sung-wa (sung means "to protect" and "wa" is a noun-making particle, hence "protection"). If you don't have the ability to type in Tibetan fonts, you can use character picker sites such as this to write most words.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just want the Tibetan text transcribed?

brTen: བརྟེན་
srung-ba: སྲུང་བ་
Treasury hand: ཕྱག་མཛོད་
Lieutenant: སྐུ་ཚབ་
Long title: ཧ་དབར་བདེ་ལིགསརྒྱ་ལ་བོ་ (seems to be run together with extra syllables at the end? Looks like misspelled "gyalpo"?)
ajang: འཇངས་
ajol: འཇོལ་

I can't vouch for whether these are correct Tibetan. Just transcribing from the images. I noticed that William Thweatt's versions are missing some of the tshegs (་).--Amble (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a bad habit of leaving those out, especially when things are (to me) unambiguous. However, those pesky tshegs (the small "dot" that serves to separate syllables) are mandatory.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 02:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Tibetan language articles only scratch the surface. But one thing I've noticed is that Old Tibetan and Classical Tibetan have impressive consonant clusters and no tones while Modern Standard Tibetan (based on the Lhassa dialect?) has simplified consonant clusters and has got tones. Have the tones arisen out of the simplification of consonant clusters? I mean, are the tones of Modern Tibetan what was left behind as the consonant clusters got simplified? Contact Basemetal here 03:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Tonogenesis occurred in Tibetan with the loss/simplification of onsets and codas. The manifestation of this, though, varies from dialect to dialect. Some dialects have contrastive phonemic tone, some are more in a pitch-register stage, some have a "tonal component" but tone doesn't contrast lexical meaning and some dialects completely lack any tonal component. Quick overview, a more comprehensive analysis, an interesting paper.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 04:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful -- thank you, everyone. That's been a great help. Henry ^Flower 05:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first paper is not a "quick overview", it's just truncated (not sure why SEAlang has these truncated versions of papers). The full version is here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

de:Tibetische Sprache#Lhasa-Dialekt (in German, but the lists and tables should be intelligible anyway) shows how you get from written Tibetan (which preserves the Old/Classical Tibetan consonant clusters graphically) to the pronunciation of the Lhasa dialect. Some western dialects (the Ladakhi–Balti–Purig group, especially Purig and Balti) preserve the Old Tibetan phonology fairly well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squirt

Does the word "squirt" for describing a child originate from the act of a man squirting semen into a woman? For example, "Bryan Adams was just a squirt in the Summer of '69" would imply that he was still a sperm at that point, even though he was older. 197.253.1.4 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only by distant analogy. The French equivalent is "morveux", meaning "one with a running nose". --Askedonty (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like "squirt" as opposed to a full spray. Think the squirt of a lemon as opposed to a water tap turned on full. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Truman referred to the small-statured Joseph Stalin as "a little squirt", but I wouldn't say old Joe was ineffectual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Truman wasn't saying that Stalin was ineffectual. Truman deeply distrusted Stalin. That is one of the reasons that he ordered Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom-bombed, in order to end the war as quickly as possible, before Stalin ordered a Soviet invasion. FDR didn't distrust Stalin enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Stalin did not have any capability to invade Japan. The logistics problems alone would have been staggering, not to mention the Soviet navy's lack of expertise and resources. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a little bit of a squirt" Contact Basemetal here 16:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find where that Truman quote comes from. From this (paragraph 7) it looks like something he said in one of the instalments of this TV series. Here is an medley of various things he said regarding Stalin in the course of that series. Unfortunately it does not contain the squirt quote. Contact Basemetal here 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it on an audio book titled The Truman Tapes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bet the "television series" they say this audio book is based on is the one I mentioned above. Contact Basemetal here 22:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely. I'll look for my copy when I get the chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymonline says it was first used for a whipper-snapper, i.e. a young person, in 1839. It gives no reason for it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A squirt is a boy who is too small to pee over the garden wall/fence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely. I'll look for my copy when I get the chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why he "pisseth against the wall". Contact Basemetal here 17:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does that Biblical phrase mean ? StuRat (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

a male (heir) Contact Basemetal here 21:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a colorful way to say "male". :-) StuRat (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Not every translator likes to stay as colorful (and as close to the Hebrew) as the KJV. If you click on "Other Translations" for each passage at BibleGateway you'll get a whole bunch of different translations in a whole bunch of other English versions of the Bible. Contact Basemetal here 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it meant "males over a certain age", as male babies wouldn't be able to "piss against the wall". I also wonder why the translators chose the word "piss", versus "urinate", which comes from Latin and is considered the more refined choice. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Since my answer is too long and too off-topic I put it on Stu's page. Inviting people to Stu's place

BYOB though. Contact Basemetal here 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(In the 20th/21st century, not in the 17th. Languages, meanings, customs and sensibilities change.) It's not a bug, though; it's a feature. To riff on C. A. R. Hoare, the King James Bible was (well, in some ways, at least) not only an improvement on its predecessors, but also on nearly all of its successors. :-) Also, in the 17th century, urinate was not yet in (common) use and would, as a Latinism, not have been understandable, let alone familiar, to the general public, anyway, which would have defeated the purpose of the translation, namely popularisation and proselytism. Its goal was to make the Bible accessible to the unwashed masses, who had no education in classical languages. No wonder the KJV still has a lot of rabid fans – although they would not name the "dirty words" as a reason, I presume. ;-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone want to pee over the wall? 86.141.140.204 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get to the other side? To show they're no squirt?

See pissing contest. Contact Basemetal here 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the example given, there was definitely a sexual double entendre, but it wasn't just about mansquirts, also female ejaculation. The author was playing with the concepts of the Summer of Love, 69 (sex position) and the I Know What You Did Last Summer soundtrack, where men and women both come together and get fucked up to music equally. Maybe more of a double double entendre (not to be conflated with Tim Horton's sweet creamy afternoon delight). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

And yeah, I meant Bryan Adams was a kid, literally, not a sperm. Still twice as old as Brian Adams was, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Origin of "pray the gay away"

I think the phrase "pray the gay away" is quite catchy. What is the origin of the phrase? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean who in particular originated it, or what does it mean? It refers to a generally discredited view that homosexuality was a spiritual disorder that could be cured by religion. It still exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it means. I just want to know who coined the phrase. In terms of usage, people that support gay rights seem to be the people to use it, not the people that oppose homosexuality and anything related to the gay. "You can't pray the gay away!" 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual history of Conversion therapy goes back to Freud's day, but I'm fairly certain the phrases "Pray the gay away" or "Pray away the gay" started in the 1980s, thanks to clinical psychology realizing that classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder was a mistake, and the American Evangelicalism's growth in both popularity and worldliness.

I haven't found who actually coined the phrase yet, but I'm willing to bet it was thought up in the 1980s or 1990s, with the conscious intention of being catchy (because Jesus definitely taught "yea, blessed are the speakers of inauthentic but catchy Christio-advertising, for they can serve God and Mammon by filling the pews"). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest definite reference I can find (on a quick search) is to "Cartman Sucks" (2007), so Parker and Stone may have invented it. There was also a 2011 TV show of that title (Pray the Gay Away? - no question mark, no points). However, there may be earlier examples out there. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm in the Middle season 1, episode #9 "Lois vs. Evil" aired March 19, 2000 and contained the phrase "Pray away the gay": [5]. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, catchy, like "The family that preys together slays together." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The family that brays together strays together." Contact Basemetal here 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was an advert on Aussie TV in the (??) 1960s-1970s for gray hair colour, with the slogan "Go gay with gray and stay that way". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing more 1960's than 1970's. In the 1960's "gay" hadn't yet taken on the "homosexual" meaning, for example, the Flintstones theme song said "We'll have a gay old time". By the 1970's that had changed, at least in the US. So, unless the change hit Aussie a bit later, it would have been quite a strange advertising choice to say "Go homosexual with gray and stay that way". StuRat (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked online before mentioning it, but could find no reference. My sense is that it was later than the 60s, because I'd have had no reason to remember it. It must have been when "gay" was starting to come into public awareness with its new meaning; until then, "camp" or "queer" were the usual words for that abomination. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall the ad being in colour, and we didn't get colour TV till March 1975. Btw, "go gay with gray" has apparently been in use since at least as early as 1951. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In terms of usage, people that support gay rights seem to be the people to use it, not the people that oppose homosexuality and anything related to the gay." Assuming that's true, and it's my sense that it is, it makes sense. The people doing the praying aren't likely to be so flip about it. It sounds like something that would come from people deriding the attempt to pray people straight. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it wasn't coined from scratch. I remember, from decades ago, ads for a hair color product that promised to "wash the gray away". More rhymingly, I see products now that are pitched to "spray the gray away". —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

Missing the bark for the tree

How do you say it? Missing the tree for the bark or is it Missing the bark for the tree? 61.3.165.11 (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know "Couldn't see the forest for the trees". On that basis, it would be "missing the trees for the bark". But idioms are not necessarily logical. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Jack, I've never heard the expression about bark, and would assume it is a translation of a foreign idiom. The phrase familiar to me is "can't see the wood for the trees" (not "forest") but we don't have many forests in the UK. The phrase was puzzling to me as a child, because I didn't know whether it meant "wood" = "collection of trees" or "wood" = "material in trees". --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point of the phrase. I'd never heard Jack's version before today but it misses the nuance. 86.141.140.204 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, Jack's version is the one we have in the US, about as far from Aussie as you can get. I don't understand what you mean about nuance. "Can't see the forest for the trees" means you focus on individual items and don't see the overall picture. What does "Can't see the wood for the trees" add to that ? It could either mean "can't see the overall picture" (where wood = forest) or "can't see the details" (where wood = material). If so, I don't see any advantage to an ambiguous saying like that. Or does it mean you only see the middle level, and neither the overall picture nor the details ? StuRat (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means all those, hence the nuance. I suspect that most usage in the UK is about not seeing the overall picture, but the ability to be ambiguous is one of the things that makes our language not half bad. Bazza (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when ambiguity is a plus, like for double entendre, but how is it a plus here ? StuRat (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because then it can mean either of two separate notions - A) you're missing the big picture because you're focused on the smaller entities (if wood=woods=forest). B) you're missing a detail because you're focused on the larger tree (if wood=biomass). SemanticMantis (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a given, as described above. The question is why you would want to be unclear in your meaning. I get it when describing a sexual act, but this case makes no sense to me. (BTW, in UK English, "wood" directly = forest, as in "Hundred Acre Wood".) StuRat (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "We don't have many forests in the UK?" Off the top of my head I can give you Epping Forest, New Forest, Kielder Forest, Thetford Warren, Sherwood Forest, etc. Scotland is full of them. In Nottinghamshire, apart from Sherwood Forest (Robin Hood's base), when you pass Rainford going north on the main road you enter a huge forest. That was where the Black Panther (a serial killer) came unstuck. He kidnapped a driver and forced him at gunpoint to drive up that road. When they reached the last outpost of civilisation (a roadside fish and chip shop) the driver swung the car round and brought it to a stop outside. The killer started fighting and was only subdued when the police handcuffed to him to the railings outside. 86.141.140.204 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all relative. Bigger places in the world have forests which take days to go through, and may well consider what we call forests to just be oversized copses. Bazza (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UK doesn't do very well compared to other European countries, only the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland have less forestation. [6] Alansplodge (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree? Rojomoke (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal name of Tasmania

Does Tasmania have an aboriginal name? It's called Lutriwita in Palawa kani, but that's a modern constructed language. --195.62.160.60 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as on the mainland, there were numerous tribes in Tasmania, which were as separate culturally and linguistically as the Vietnamese and the Mongols. Just as there is no "Asian language" or "European language", there is no "Aboriginal language". Now, each of the tribes would have had a word for the lands and waters they inhabited, but to talk of a word for the entire island supposes they had a sense that they were in fact on an island, and I don't know that they had such an awareness. Maybe an ethnologist can correct me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how people living in Australia proper might not have known they were on an island, because circumnavigating it is a major task, especially on land. Tasmania is a lot smaller though, and I would expect that the natives both would have known that they were on an island, and that a larger landform (mainland Australia) was nearby. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't let the Tasmanians hear you talking about the mainland as "Australia proper". They're very touchy about being perceived as less than other Australians. Understandably so, particularly after the 1982 Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony in Brisbane, where a huge stylised human map of Australia failed to show any evidence of the island state. (See also Omission of Tasmania from maps of Australia.) I once read in an American almanac/fact book that "in 1901 Tasmania merged with Australia to form a new nation". I still wince whenever I remember that grotesquely inaccurate statement being disseminated to the wider world. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is an island, a nation, and a continent. The island would not include Tasmania, while the nation does, and presumably so does the continent (since Tasmania is on the same tectonic plate). So, by "Australia proper", I meant the island. You used "the mainland", but I found that to be ambiguous, since there are many mainlands. The British call the rest of Europe "the continent", which always seemed funny to me, since they are part of the same continent. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any discussion where the topic is Australia, "the mainland" has one and only one meaning. What else could it mean - Eurasia? I don't think so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rapid search through "Google Books" seems to give Trowena/Trowenna as possible aboriginal names for Tasmania. I don't know if they are reliable. --195.62.160.60 (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this is already mentioned (in an alternative spelling of "Trouwunna"), in the already-linked Tasmania article, Section 2.2 Indigenous People. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems doubtful that there would have been an aboriginal name for Tasmania other than a word meaning something like "land". Tasmania lies 150 miles from the Australian mainland, and its aboriginal peoples did not have seagoing boats. The Furneaux Group of smaller islands, lying between Tasmania and the mainland, ceased to be inhabited at least 4,000 years before Europeans arrived. Genetic studies suggest that Tasmania's aboriginal population had been genetically isolated from the population of the mainland for at least 8,000 years before Europeans arrived. It is not at all likely that aboriginal Tasmanians were aware of the existence of landmasses other than Tasmania, and therefore also unlikely that they had a name for Tasmania other than "the land". Historically, landmasses have been named only to distinguish them from other known landmasses. For example, the inhabitants of the Old World had no name for it—other than "the world"—before they discovered the New World. (Note that I am aware that others had discovered it before them.) Marco polo (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like it would take much of a boat to make that distance. A canoe with a rowing crew could make it, during calm seas (do they have nasty seas year round ?). And how about Australian Aboriginees visiting them ? Or Polynesians, they seemed able to cover long distances by boat, did they visit ? StuRat (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The climate was unfavourable (cold and wet), compared to the mainland, so the interest of outsiders in the land was small (compare the relative disinterest of the Māori in the climatically similar South Island), and the aborigines, due to their small number and isolation, lost techniques they must have had originally (such as fire-making and boat-building). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They lost the ability to make fires ? So they went back to eating raw meat then ? StuRat (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The assertion that Tasmanians had lost the ability to make fire is disputed, but is based on a report made in 1831 by George Augustus Robinson: "As the chief always carries a lighted torch I asked them what they did when their fire went out. They said if their fire went out by reason of rain they [were] compelled to eat the kangaroo raw and to walk about and look for another mob and get fire of them." [7] Alansplodge (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Aboriginal Tasmanians#History describes it differently – apparently these questions are controversial and uncertain. But even if the Tasmanians had contact with outsiders after all before the Europeans came (which there does not seem to be evidence of), there would have been no particular reason to introduce a non-generic name for their country or for themselves. Lots of peoples, even modern people, use generic names for their homeland (e. g., something that translates to "the island") or hometown (at least colloquially, such as "the town"), and for themselves (Inuit famously means simply "people"). It's a matter of speech economy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. If you didn't come up with different names you would end up describing a meeting between natives and foreigners as "The people met with other people, who are like the people, but not really the people." StuRat (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be the same as a word of indigenous origin prior to European contact. But wouldn't the Aborigines have developed words for Tasmania or Australia when they came into contact with Europeans or European translator developed nativized rendition of Tasmania or Australia to communicate ideas to the different tribes?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/search?&keywords=Tasmania. (I am aware that Māori is native to New Zealand.)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all just Maori renderings of the English-language name "Tasmania". What's the relevance? --Amble (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if an aboriginal language rendering of English-language place name (if one exist for Tasmania and Australia) constitute as an aboriginal name? Most culture usually create native language rendering for concepts/name that did not exist traditionally. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "scenario" in the context of hypothetical prehistorical events

A third opinion is needed on Talk:Kurgan hypothesis. Thank you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EO's explanation of "scenario":[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the talk page of that article and couldn't find out which section you were referring to. Please be a bit more specific. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 14:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the first and last section. Sorry, I should have been more specific. Anyway, Wardog/Iapetus has already supplied very helpful suggestions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Our thoughts remain with family and friends of the deceased"

What the hell is that supposed to mean? It's just a stock serif that the Police use. It is in fact gibberish, as their thoughts remain concentrated on other jobs. Why not just say, "This is a regretful incident," or words to that effect? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're trying to bring a little comfort. There's no harm in that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that phrase started out as "Our prayers...", but was changed to be secular. (There was a time when most people felt that enough prayers would get God to help out the survivors.) StuRat (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You hear "our thoughts and prayers" frequently even now. Knowledge that someone is praying for them could make them feel better. Psychology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that is still a common phrase. But in the words of Bad Religion, " Don't Pray On Me" (song here [9]) - while some people would be comforted by the idea someone is praying for them, others may well just be annoyed or offended. I think Stu is right that it's a move toward a more secular style of condolence, but the only refs I can find are blog posts. Here's someone who doesn't like "our thoughts and prayers" because they don't like prayer [10]. Here's someone who doesn't like "our thoughts and prayers" because they like praying but don't think "thoughts" do any good [11]. So it seems that "our thoughts and prayers" can alienate both religious and non-religious people. Much like a Jewish person being wished "Merry Christmas", the general polite thing to do is accept that the speaker means well, even if something is a bit off. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to it in general, even if it is the most pathetically formulaic platitude ever invented. But it's not the job of the police to be dishing out stuff like this. Down here at least, they'll start their media op on the investigation of some shocking crime or accident with "This is an absolute tragedy for the family/community", then launch into "Our thoughts ...". Well, we actually knew it was a tragedy, and we didn't need anyone to confirm that. When it comes to bad things that have already happened, their focus ought to be on investigation and apprehension, not on being counsellors to the entire community. It's nice that the police wish to present a kindly and helpful and caring and human face to the community, but these sorts of scripted cliches just waste everyone's time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations is rather important for police. We've seen what happens when relations break down, then you get civilians and police at war with each other, riots, etc. Sure, showing sympathy is a small part, but it all adds up. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't relations breaking down, it's something the 24-hour news built up. No matter how smooth and polite a police spokesperson is to the reporters at a press conference, the narrative will come out the way the producers want.

That's not to say American cops and blacks don't have serious failures to communicate, just that it hasn't gotten worse/more important as suddenly after Michael Brown as the TV says it has. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

I agree totally with with good PR. But spouting cliches and scripted platitudes and statements of the bleedin' obvious doesn't achieve that, imo. All they achieve is to irritate this little black duck, and that's surely counter-productive. If your family was wiped out by a crazed gunman, how would it help for someone to come along and say "This is an absolute tragedy"? That's not even remotely my idea of expressing sympathy. It expresses a judgment on the event (a judgment nobody would disagree with, I'm sure, but a judgment nonetheless). They may as well say "This is a very bad thing". Well, duh! Sympathy is about showing you have some idea of the pain the person is suffering as a result of the event. It's about feelings, not judgments. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems similar to small talk. Do you say "Hi" as you meet people ? Why ? It doesn't actually convey any information, does it ? Human communication is about more than that, you're also conveying mood, etc. (I have a brother who says "Hi" when in a good mood, but when he walks right by I know to avoid him.) In the case of police, they may not feel any regret when some people are killed, but they still better pretend that they do. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What good does that pretence achieve? If we can tell they're pretending (and we can), then it comes across as inauthentic, and for anyone who has the slightest distrust of or issue with the police, that undoes whatever good relations they've created. If we can put it down to small talk, that's just another excellent reason to not get into it at all. Who needs small talk when they're dealing with "an absolute tragedy"? I want to hear what the police are doing to apprehend suspects, investigate crimes or accidents, and the like. The rest of the blather is just that, and life's too short for that. < end of blather :) >-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because some people will believe it. It similar to the statement I've heard: "Avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if no real conflict exists." Again, like much of PR, it's not honest, but it still is important. The whole field of PR is based on the difference between perception and reality. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are so narcissistic as to insult well-wishers, I'm reminded of the old saying, "No good deed goes unpunished." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may think we are all "so clever and classless and free" to quote John Lennon, but social conventions do still matter in most contests. So when someone has died, especially what can be described as a tragic death, using this phrase or something similar ("our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the deceased") is just a way of expressing that the speaker understands that the deaths are a major loss for people who were close to the deceased, even if the speaker does not personally know these people. It does not mean that the speaker has ceased all activities to meditate about the lives lost or immediately headed off to a nearby shrine to pray, but simply that he sympathizes with the afflicted. It has become a stock phrase in recent years, and does in fact sound a bit cliché by now, but similar phrases have been used for centuries in such circumstances ("our deepest sympathies" or "our condolences" were popular terms in the past). --Xuxl (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, many of us still believe in prayer. Got a problem with that? StevenJ81 (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"e" and "ä" in German

It's fairly well known that in German, "e" and "ä" are pronounced pretty much the same, as /e/, unlike my native Finnish, where "ä" is pronounced /æ/, a front vowel version of /a/. (In fact, I once had trouble teaching a native German speaker to pronounce the name of the Finnish band Värttinä correctly. He kept pronouncing it as "Verttine".)

Now why is this so? It seems inconsistent, as "ü" and "ö" are pronounced as front vowel versions of "u" and "o" in German. Actually "ü" is even more consistent than in Finnish, as Finnish writes the sound as "y". (So do all Scandinavian languages, but not Estonian.)

Also, from what I have read from German-language comic books, if someone shouts out for help it's "Hilfe!" but if the /e/ sound is lengthened it becomes "Hilfäää!". Why the sudden switch from "e" to "ä"? JIP | Talk 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How far apart are /e/ and /æ/ for most people, really? StevenJ81 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what language, English? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English and German. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

Opposite of irony

Using the definition of irony to be something stated as truth when it is actually meant as false, such as "It is a beautiful day" when it is raining, what is a word that means the opposite: purposely stating something as false, meaning the truth, such as "What a terrible day" when it is warm and beautiful. All I've found is "pessimistic", which is similar, but not the same. I'm not looking for the attitude of the person, but a word that encompasses the action. 209.149.113.45 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]