Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs for answers to frequently asked language and usage questions.

If you would like to have a text translated, you might want to post on this Wiktionary page.

August 11

Meaning of a mantra

11 August 2006

Sir/Madam:

Somebody sent me a text saying it is a mantra - "Laxmi Devigeni Namo" Do you know what this means?

Thanks. ---- luz dg. galang email: %deleted%

See these answers. --Lambiam^Talk 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of a mantra is that it's not supposed to mean anything at all. Whilever you focus on something that has a meaning to you, you're defeating the purpose of meditation, which is about clearing the conscious mind as far as possible. JackofOz 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite what you say, om mani padme hum does have lexical meaning(s). If he/she's curious, let him/her be curious. ;) --Kjoonlee 05:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

palatal fricative

Okay, this is kind of a weird question. If you try to make the [ʒ] or [ʃ] sound without actually touching the roof of the mouth, is the resluting sound a palatal fricative? KeeganB

They're certainly similar sounds though. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 07:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that would be a postalveolar approximant. Mo-Al 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, When I make that sound, it has a fricative quality. Any tips on how to make a genuine palatal fricative? I'm trying to make some adjustments to my Spanish pronounciaton.KeeganB

Many English speakers have a voiceless palatal fricative as the first consonant in words like huge and human. --Ptcamn 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. If you make a Y sound(as in yellow) and constrict it more until there's some friction, that's a palatal fricative. But if that's too difficult you could always just pronounce <y> and <ll> as [ʒ], that way you'll be speaking Spanish of Río de la Plata. AEuSoes1 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the name of this container?

What is the name of the large (approx. 50 cm), round, plastic container used for washing? For example, you can fill it with water and wash your feet in it, or you can dip a towel in and wash your face thoroughly. Here is a photo of it:

http://72.136.70.187/IMG_3963.JPG

--Bowlhover 07:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoverbowl? --Lambiam^Talk 07:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In Korean, they're colloquially known as 다라 dara, but the "proper" word for it is 대야 daeya. I think "plastic basin" would be the closest term in English. --Kjoonlee 07:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This one looks more like a ranarium.--Shantavira 07:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have just called it a bowl. Isn't a ranarium like an aquarium for frogs? - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 07:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

the first question is: do the people in the West use this thing? If they do, there should be a name for it. It is widely used in Asia (I use it everyday), but do the peopel in the West use it?--K.C. Tang 09:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I call it a wash tub. I use it for soaking my feet, washing stockings and dishes, and holding wash water when I hand-wash my floor. Anchoress 09:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In Serbia its called "lavor". My dictionary suggests washbowl, laver or basin. --dcabrilo 12:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We had a plastic basin like that when I was a kid, but we only ever used it when we were sick and had to thrown up (and so we called it a "barf bucket"). I saw it being used for soaking feet once, and I thought that was really weird, haha. Adam Bishop 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Barf bucket" it is! ;-) - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vomiting is bad enough, but projectile vomiting is "just beyond the pail". StuRat 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say a wash basin in general, but, as shown in the pic, it appears to be used as a bird bath, or perhaps a toad bath. :-) StuRat 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, everyone! I think I'll call it a "plastic basin" or "water basin". About whether this basin is used in the West: I'd be glad to know. I'm Chinese, and although I don't use the basin very much, I have many at my house. (By the way, the container is called "xi lian pen" in Chinese, literally translated as "face-washing container").

No, it's not common in the West (although it probably was before indoor plumbing). Sinks in the West have stoppers that allow them to retain water long enough to wash one's face, etc. Also, many people don't wash using a bowl of water, but rather take a shower or bath and then wash everything, including their face. StuRat 21:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the plastic basin is not very commonly used to keep toads. :) I needed a temproary place to keep the toads I caught, so I used a water basin. --Bowlhover 07:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there isn't a top on it and toads can jump, I would think it would be an EXTREMELY temporary container for toads, LOL. StuRat 20:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, because in Korean, a daeya is called a sesutdaeya when you use it for washing your face. Sesu is literally 洗手, "wash hands," but it actually means "wash face." --Kjoonlee 10:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The family Slumgum would call it a washing-up bowl.  Slumgum T. C.   23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On seeing this my first instinct is to call it a washpan. Basins are deeper. Something that particular size is likely to used in the West on a camping trip if at all.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• in Britain,a washing-up bowl,they were all this shape until plastic moulding got better and oblonge bowls to fit the sink began to be produced-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

quiz type question

it is an 13 letter word as -h-t---i--me- clues Doctors hate fishermen like children love to eat what it is—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.133.67 (talk • contribs)

The closest single word I can find is "what's-his-name's", which isn't a perfect fit. Are you sure you have the letters right?--Shantavira 15:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Children love to eat it, so it's obviously some type of not too exotic food. Fishermen like it, so maybe it's a really big or rare fish...and doctors hate it so it must be unhealthy. I'm not sure. White-something, maybe whitebait-something? Could it be whitebait smelt? - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

White Irishmen? White triremes? —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do children eat them? I've never heard of them. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, those are just words that fit __i__me_. Fishermen might like triremes, if they are warlike fishermen. Neither of my guesses is likely to be correct. —Bkell (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ach, you never know: you might be right. Maybe it's a metaphor or something. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be the something. Or what something, as in "what lies beneath". "That policemen" fits, but it's ungrammatical. —Bkell (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found quite an extensive list of 13-letter words in English. If anyone feels like going through the list, it's available at [1]. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's in it? Amen. —Bkell (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I found an answer with my mad Google skills, but it's a pretty strange answer. --LarryMac 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell chathuringmes is not an existing word. --Lambiam^Talk 07:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Yahoo Answers, the answer is Chaetognathas, i.e. "worms". However, this appears to be a pretty specific type of worm, and I'm not sure about the "children love to eat" part. --LarryMac 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a combination of three different words? Like Doctors hate -h-t-, fishermen like --i-, children love -me-? Strange, indeed... 惑乱 分からん 11:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• bet it's the name of a fly-fishing lure,you know those tied from feathers and stuff-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

ITS ANSWER IS Chathuringmes ITS A NAME OF GUMMY WORMS ITS A PARASITE SO DOCTORS HATE IT AND FISHERMEN LOVES IT FOR CATCHING FISHES AND KIDS ALWAYS LOVES GUMS ;)

meaning of a word

hi i wonder if you could give me the meaning of the word 'e'rets

thank you greatly

sandy brown

In which language? In Hebrew, it would mean "land" or shorthand for "the land of Israel". --Dweller 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Though without the second apostrophe... Hebrew-alphabet spelling is ארץ . AnonMoos 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

IPA for Bomis

Could someone add an IPA to the article Bomis? It rhymes with "Thomas". Add this ref... <ref>[http://www.bomis.com/about/bomis_faq.html Bomis FAQ]</ref>, please. -- Zanimum 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Think I've got it... - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem with using IPA: it's too specific. Pace the Bomis FAQ, I don't think it rhymes with Thomas in all accents. This transcription is only accurate for those with the weak vowel merger. --Ptcamn 01:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what the IPA for Thomas is anyway. Can't we just write "rhymes with Thomas" instead? -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 07:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"rhymes with promise" would probably be better. --Ptcamn 07:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

But the ref says "rhymes with Thomas". Is there any point having the ref in there then? -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all! -- Zanimum 17:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Specific and general

How would you describe the relationship between the concepts of "poem" and "poetry"? They both refer to the same basic concept, but in different scope. (Clearly, a poem is an example of poetry, but not vice versa.)

I'm specifically asking, because I'm wondering about the proper way to express this relationship in Esperanto. Is this the same as the "-ado" suffix? --π! 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A poem is a specific piece of verse. Poetry is the general group of poems. It is similar to the distinction between a story and literature. I would guess that it is grammatically the difference between a concrete and an abstract noun. —Daniel (‽) 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Concrete and abstract - that's exactly what I was looking for. Does anyone know if there's a rule for abstracting nouns in Esperanto? --π! 21:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Though there may be a rule, I'm not sure if it applies for "poem" and "poetry". Poem is simply "poemo", and poetry is "poezio" (poetic is "poezia"), so the words have different roots!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you could describe it as th formation of an abstract noun as described above. Most languages have a clear way of doing this (English has a confusing array of different ways to do it). In Syriac, for example, the word malkā means 'king', and malkutā means 'kingdom', and this '-utā' ending is common in the formation of abstract nouns. — Gareth Hughes 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Small nitpick. A poem is an item of poerty. Neither is neccesarily "verse" (ie prose poem) and there also can be items of verse which are not poems (ie dramatic verse)--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

August 12

chemistry term

Hi

I'm looking for a word I heard used the other day in a chemistry lab that I've completely forgotten. It meant "work the solvent out of a liquid (physically with a glass rod) to make it a solid" and I'm pretty sure it started with a t and it could have sounded like "titilation" maybe with an extra syllable.

Thanks for your help!

Aaadddaaammm 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Too slow guys! Someone at the "Science" help desk got it! If you want to know, it was trituration. Thanks anyway! Aaadddaaammm 01:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth would we language-desk folk know about science??? -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 07:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Too... many... question marks...

Well, the question fell both into the category of "science question" and "looking for a word". I suppose we fall into the latter category. --π! 07:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about transcription (moved from talkpage)

I have been editting the page on Wollongong.

Some nice person has put up the name in phonetics. The only problem is- they have got it wrong.

Even without having a deep knowledge of phonetics it is clear to me that this is the case.

the reason being that the first ong doesn't rhyme with the second ong. Or rather it DOES and it didn't orter, if you take my meaning.

My meaning is that the place is called, most plainly, and impossibly, Woollen-gong.

Not Wal-ong-gong, (that's Wal as in Wally Wombat, OK?)

It should be Woollen as in Onkaparinga. And Gong as in Order of Australia.

See ya!

--Amandajm 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read the article's transcription, which is [wʊlɒŋgɒŋ]. I read up on the phonetics of Australian English to make sure we are on the same page. I'll assume you described it in Australian phonetics.

• The first syllable, [wʊl], has the same vowel as "foot." So I guess this is right.

• You are right about the vowel [ɒ] in the last two syllables (ong and gong), it doesn't even exist in Australian English. It's the "a" in the british prunounciation of "what." Originally, it was the vowel in words like "lot," "cloth," etc. but it changed into [ɔ].

• You said the first vowel is prunounced more like "en." Is it like the vowel in "dress" and "bed"? If it is, then the correct way to write that vowel is simply [en].

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Gong as in Order of Australia." Are you referring to the "or" in "order"? If so, then you'd write it as [ɡoŋ]. But if it's closer to the vowel in "goat," you'd write it as [ɡəʉŋ].

So you'd write it as [wʊl.en.ɡoŋ] (unless, of course, the vowels are different from what I described). The full-stops/periods seperate the vowels, you can remove them if you want.

Please tell me if you need any more help. It's a pleasure to work on phonetic transcription. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thank you for getting back to me!

This time, I will try to be very serious and not make silly Australian jokes!

Firstly- the "o" sound as in English "hot" and "what" does exist in Australian English. I use it, and I am Australian.

Secondly- My reference to Woollen as in Onkaparinga is because Onkaparinga were (until about 1980) the largest manufacturers of woollen blankets and dressing gowns in Australia.

So it's not Wool-en, it's wool'n, as in reason, bitten, given. The wool part is oo like foot, not ool like school.

Thirdly- "gong". A gong like the big round thing that's used to start a Rank Organisation movie, or summon people to dinner. Like "song" and "wrong"

In Australia, the main award of honour is the Order of Australia which is a very large gold medal which is often called a "Gong". The term is sometimes used for medals in England as well, but as far as I know, it originated with the Order of Australia because it looks exactly like on. Hope this is clear!

--Amandajm 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then based on your description, it's [wʊl.ɪn.ɡɔŋ] if you pronounce "en" like "in". If you pronounce the "en" in those words like "un," then it's [wʊl.ən.ɡɔŋ]. I don't know which way is the standard in Australia, but perhaps you do. By the way, I'm sorry I didn't understand the Australian cultural references....I try to be international in the way I do things, but there is some stuff that just goes over my head. Anyway, cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how that looks on your computer but in what you've written, how it looks to me is as if all three vowels are identical, which is not the way it is.

oo as in foot, the next vowel is barely pronounced at all, like Allen, Colin and Dylan. the third vowel is o as in long, song etc.

the first ng is pronounced as n-g, as is "Go man, go!" the second ng is pronounced as in long, song and gong.

Maybe I need to find an Australian who can fix it! The pronunciation of Australian Aboriginal place names is inconsistent. Canberra is often pronounced Can'bra, Cairn'bra or Cairm'bra. And Canowindra, which one would expect to be Canno-wind-dra is K-noun'dra. !

--Amandajm 12:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm taking it to the language reference desk. Perhaps we could get a third opinion, to clarify which part of the transcription needs work. It seems the only part that could be wrong are the second and third vowels. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The abbot-rabbit merger is standard in Australia: "en" and "in" are both [ən].

I hate IPA for pronunciations. British speakers are going to read it and thing we say "gawng". But nevertheless, [ɔ] is accurate for the Australian vowel in "gong" and "what".

I think the first "ng" is actually [ŋ], not [n]. /n/ often assimilates to [ŋ], so it can be difficult to tell them apart.

In my own speech, the l is dark, [ɫ]. This varies from place to place, but I'm going to assume Wollongongian English has it dark too.

So, I would write [ˈwʊɫəŋˌɡɔŋ]. --Ptcamn 19:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Four-leaf clover" in latin?

Subject says it all, I suppose. I'd like to know how you say "four-leaf clover" in latin... TERdON 17:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as 'clover' is trifolium, or 'three-leafed', a four-leafed clover would be a quadrifolium. — Gareth Hughes 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that Pliny the Younger had wanted to write about four-leaf clover (he mentions trefoil in a letter to Domitius Apollinaris), my best guess is he'd have used trifolium quadrifoliatum – "four-leafed trefoil". --Lambiam^Talk 18:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Which translated into Latinate English would be quadrifoliate trefoil. — Jéioosh 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Azania

This is my first question on a reference desk, so I offer my apologies if I did something wrong. Anyways, what is the correct pronunciation of the second syllable (the "an") of Azania? (I don't understand the International Phonetic Alphabet, so please don't answer with that alone) My guess is that it is pronounced like 'ain'/'ane', as in rain and insane. But I figure it could also be 'an', like tin can. Then I thought it might even be 'ahn'/awn, as in autobahnand lawn. I've read the article twice over, and find no mention of pronunciation. Thank you in advance for your answers, as I'm going on wikibreak shortly and might not be here for the response, but will be awaiting it. Picaroon9288|ta co 02:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not an official name, so your pronunciation is "as good" as mine. In the U.S., you'll most likely hear a sound as in sane. In other countries you may hear other sounds. In any case the stress is on the second syllable, unlike for "Tanzania" where it is on the first. --Lambiam^Talk 03:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean that the stress in Tanzania is on the third syllable. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, although with a clear secondary stress on the first. --Lambiam^Talk 05:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

August 13

Translations of Japanese/Chinese phrases

What does "釘宮理恵" mean? I'm not sure of the original language. Babelfish says if it's traditional Chinese, it's "Nail palace principle □"; whereas if it's Japanese, it's "Rie Kugimiya." Windows Media Player somehow came up with this as a folder name when it was sorting the song Banquet by Bloc Party. On a related note, what does "「りぜるまいん」主題歌～はじめてしましょ！｜ほんきパワーのだっしゅ！" mean? NeonMerlin 05:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: Some Googling, and following an interlanguage link from the Japanese Wikipedia, have revealed who 釘宮理恵 (Rie Kugimiya) is. However, that still leaves the question of the other phrase. NeonMerlin 05:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The first part 「りぜるまいん」 transliterates to "Rizerumain" ("Rizelmine"), which is the name of an anime [2]. --Lambiam^Talk 06:04, August 13, 2006 (UTC)

りぜるまいん is Rizelmine. 主題歌 is theme song. はじめて♡しましょ is "Let's ♡ for the first time", the title of the opening theme song. ほんきパワーのだっしゅ! is "Real power dash!", the title of the ending theme. --Kjoonlee 06:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is clearly an example of how poorly Windows Media Player's metadata services can work when they don't have the whole album. I'm sure glad I now use iTunes for almost everything. NeonMerlin 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Nowadays

I'm not sure why, but I have always thought the word nowadays to be very informal and not acceptable for any sort of formal writing. When I see it used in a Wikipedia article, I want to reword things to eliminate it. However, from some quick looking at some online dictionaries, I don't see any indication that it's not just as fine a word as currently. Now I'm curious: am I very peculiar in my attitude towards this word, or do others share my view? –RHolton≡– 11:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Nowadays" to me doesn't sound very informal; it just sounds like it came out of the mouth of a senior citizen. "Currently" is probably best for a Wikipedia aricle, although it is very formal and sounds weird in vernacular. They're not exactly synonyms, are they? - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 12:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We use it a lot in the south-western United States (i.e. Texas). schyler 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What does <3 mean

I have seen this on some message boards but don't know what <3 means... it is leet?

(moved here from further up) doktorb _words^deeds 13:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a heart. Isopropyl 13:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also used in some circles as a dismembered rear end.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Which makes more sense if you look at it from the emoticon-perspective. The heart is upside down. (or is that left side right?) DirkvdM 07:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a heart or balls and a pecker. --mboverload@ 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the pecker is written as o==8 ... 惑乱 分からん 10:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

<3 is a very short penis. --mboverload@ 10:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Still quite thick girth, though. What about -8 ? (Wonder if this discussion will be removed, soon...) 惑乱 分からん 10:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vulgarity is a form of language.

Wikipedia is not censored. --Nelson Ricardo 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not as scary as +---8 or ^---8 or even :---8 Lemon martini 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• haha piercings! hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

Seperate Login Name for each language of Wikipedia?

Hello, I had registered my login name in the german part of Wikipedia a while ago, and when I wanted to go to an english page and log in that username was unknown.

Is it necessary to create a new account for each language in which one wants to edit/discuss?

Or is there a way to have only ONE account, but still be able to edit/discuss in more than one language?

Each language's Wikipedia currently have separate accounts, as do other Wikimedia sites. For now, you'll have to make a new account. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Single log-in" has been something desired for quite some time, and it will soon be implemented. See this article from Wikipedia Signpost from a few weeks ago. -- Arwel (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Biathlon World Championship 2005

There's a few things in Biathlon World Championship 2005 that I can't translate from Germany, esp. the "sch." thing on the table. Anyone now enough about biathlon to make this mean something? Thanks in advance. --Brandnewuser 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'd imagine that's the shooting (de:Schießen) score. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sch. column shows the number of shots missed on each lap. In biathlon, when one misses a shot one has to ski an extra distance round a penalty loop, and that column shows how many times each competitor had to do so. (Slightly different in the individual event, where there are no penalty loops and instead there is a time penalty for missed shots - but the meaning of the column is the same.)

As for the event titles, I'm sure you are onto these, but "Verfolgung" is best translated as "pursuit", "Massenstart" is "mass start" and "Einzel" is "individual".

A pedantic point - since your copy from the German Wikipedia is for the English Wikipedia, I feel we should follow English language usage and have (eg) 7.5 km rather than 7,5 km.AndyofKent 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Implemented those changes. Any idea what they write instead of sch. in English? Missed shots? Penalty loops? --Brandnewuser 19:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Shooting" would be correct. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vytauto street in Lithuanian?

When I was in Lithuania recently, it seemed that many main streets were called "Vytauto Gatve" or something like this. Why is this? Does "Vytauto" translate as something like "High" or "Main" street, or does it refer to something else? --Robert Merkel 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it refers to Vytautas the Great. --Lambiam^Talk 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Postscriptum: For example in the article Vytautas Magnus University you can see that the Lithuanian name is Vytauto Didžiojo Universitetas. --L. 20:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sentence structure

In the sentence, "Max pounded David to death." what is the correct classification of "to death?" We are considering death to be a noun, but that to death as a prepositionary phrase modifying the verb pounded may be an adverb. --71.98.25.194 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an adverbial, specifically an adjunct. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

While the prepositional phrase is adverbial, what would the classification of "death" be? Thanks for the answer, by the way. --71.98.25.194 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Death" alone is still a noun. However, in connetion with the preposition, it funtions in the sentence as an adverbial (different from adverb). Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 01:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your responses. --71.98.25.194 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Could it be a suppository impaction?Edison 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends whereabouts he was pounded.Sounds mighty painful... Lemon martini 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

August 14

All-Woman or all-women?

Quick question: Should it be "The film had an all-women crew" or "The film had an all-woman crew" ? TIA. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}03:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say "all-woman". The Jade Knight 04:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

All-female? ;-) --Chris S. 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "all-woman" too, but from Google it looks like "all-women" is actually more common. --Ptcamn 06:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "all-woman". We say " a six-man crew", not "a six-men crew", and we say "a nine-month gestation period", not "a nine-months gestation period". I don't know what the technical rule for that is called, but there seems to be a pattern. JackofOz 07:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

...a "twenty-year-old", maybe a "seven-foot-long alligator" too. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, according to my professor who taught me the history of the English language, it's a relic from Old English. I can't remember the details, but its related to two cases having an identical form. --Kjoonlee 10:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Old English would use the genitive plural in such situations, and the genitive plural never had an "s" ending in Old English, and frequently had a short unstressed vowel ending (which would be deleted at later stages of the lnaguage)... AnonMoos 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Google might be turning out more results for "all-women" because it is commonly said like that in a sentence, "Better rights for all women." nadonado.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But "all-women" is hyphenated: the example you gave is not. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Google ignores punctuation by default (even if the search string is enclosed in quotes). Is there a way to make it attend to it? It's something I've always wanted for looking up math things, but I don't think you can do that... so yes, a search for "all-women" would return results containing "all women". digfarenough (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Google, by default, seems to ignore all punctuation.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I searched for "an all-women" to make sure it was part of a noun phrase. I also compared this with "an all-women's", which was included in the search for "an all-women". --Ptcamn 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks guys! So all-woman it is. :) -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}08:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

case-endings in Indo-European languages

It is easily conceivable that the ablative or dative case-endings originated from postpositions, but how about the nominative and the accusative? Is there evidence that there were particles that indicated the subject and the object of a sentence in Proto-Indo-European, just like those in Japanese? Curious to know...--K.C. Tang 06:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Case endings regularly derive from serial verbs and postpositions. Evidently dative case markings regularly derive from a word for "give". I do not, however, know the specific case of IE case origins. You can see if the Proto-Indo-European articles are of any help. The Jade Knight 07:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so the dative was derived from the verb "to give", I always fancy the dative ending was derived from a postposition meaning "to", could you give me an example (in any language)? want to know more.--K.C. Tang 07:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't, unfortunately—this is simply what Historical Linguistics (by Lyle Campbell) tells me. It recommends checking out World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (Heine & Kuteva), Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective (Harris & Campbell), and Grammaticalization (Hopper & Traugott) for more information and specific examples. The Jade Knight 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just found that we have the article Grammaticalisation!--K.C. Tang 09:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To start, Proto-Indo-European is a hypothetical language. As reconstructed, it is a synthetic language. It may be easy to imagine that the case endings of PIE originated from <insert your favourite theory>, but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for any hypothetical origin of the case endings of this hypothetical reconstruction of this hypothetical language. --Lambiam^Talk 07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How dare you suggest that this hypothetical language is hypothetical! The Jade Knight 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

At least it's not as hypothetical as Nostratic or (gasp) Proto-World. szyslak (t, c, e) 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Which English errors drive you the most crazy?

It's me again! I'm back to ask for your input. Right now I'm fixing all occurrences of "an unique" and I got to thinking, "what other English errors could I fix?"
So, what drives you crazy? I'll include them in User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix, which is built-in to AutoWikiBrowser. --mboverload@ 09:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"I/we/you/they of to" instead of "have to" annoys me. As an ESL speaker, I don't get the error, "he has to"/"I have to", simple as that. Don't know if it's an attempt at phonetic spelling or something... 惑乱 分からん 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You will be familiar with Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings. One I recently worked on is "lead" instead of "led", but there are plenty still. (Pick up context by Googling for e.g. "were lead").--Shantavira 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

One of my pet peeves is when people put pronouns in the nominative case after a preposition. "There's a special bond between he and I", etc. JackofOz 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonder/wander/wunder annoy me, but apart from correcting wunder to wonder, I don't think you can program something to catch the confusion. Unless you have some sophisticated AI... Skittle 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken usage of the word "what" in place of "which" when setting questions on Wikipedia reference desks. <grins> --Dweller 11:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

=( --mboverload@ 12:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Would/should of" instead of "would/should have." That could be fixed automatically, couldn't it? Mattley ^(Chattley) 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My peeve is a little weird. You may know that due to the way the Japanese alphabet is set up, Japanese people have trouble pronouncing consonants at the end of words without affixing a vowel (usually a "u", sometimes an "o") at the end. A number of them do manage to remove those extra vowels but start assuming that every foreign word that is written/pronounced in Japanese with a final "u" or "o" (e.g. Toronto, potato) isn't pronounced with it in real English, so I recieve questions like, "Would you like a potat? Are you from Tront?"

After that I guess people who use "could" as the past tense for "can", and then of course, "Your stupid!"  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess Japanese contributors to the English Wikipedia still is a minority, though... 惑乱 分からん 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with "could" as the past tense of "can"? "When I was shorter, I could fit under here without stooping." Seems fine to me. --Ptcamn 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a misunderstanding that "could" is past tense in that sentence. Consider the example "If I were shorter, I could fit under here without stooping." in which it's a little more difficult to point out what tense is being used. I'm not well versed in English linguistics, but I believe "could" should be considered the conditional form of "can"? Anyways, the types of sentences that twist my jimmies are things like "Yesterday, I could make a new world record!"  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless to talk about the "conditional form" of English verbs, since in all but one case it agrees exactly with the simple past tense. (That exception is of course be.) Just as jumped is the past tense of jump and fell is the past tense of fall, could is the past tense of can.

Try these examples on your ear (hopefully you're a native speaker): I can do 60 push-ups without getting tired! Last year, I could only do 40 push-ups without getting tired. When I met him last year, Bill said, "I can speak French, Italian, and Spanish." Bill said that he could speak French, Italian, and Spanish.

Ptcamn was correct that "could" is a simple past tense in the sentence "When I was shorter, I could fit under here without stooping". What you're talking about is the result clause of an unreal conditional—the Y part of "If X, then Y" when X isn't true—and the only possibilities in AmE for main verbs there are would, could, and might, if I'm not missing any. I think it's a mistake to try to say that that's the conditional form of "can", and of course it's also false to claim it's the past tense. This is simply the modal could. While sometimes could is a form of can, that is not always the case, as this example shows.

In conclusion: you're correct that sometimes could is not the past tense of can, but A) in Ptcamn's example it was, and B) we shouldn't call it the "conditional form" of can either. It's just could. Tesseran 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There/their/they're, your/you're. Jesus Christ, it's not that hard. I agree that should of and ... for you and I are bad. And by "bad", I mean coma-inducingly horrible. Rueckk 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of "bad", is the expression "My bad" an example of good American English, because it makes my (British) flesh crawl. --Dweller 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It was coined by a foreign-born athlete. —Tamfang 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes my (American) flesh crawl, too. I much prefer mae culpa. The Jade Knight 04:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's mea culpa. 惑乱 分からん 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of apostrophes; the most abused punctuation symbol in the English language. For a start, things like 100's... TomPhil 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the hatred of "would/should/etc. of" frustrating, since I and pretty much everyone else here actually says "of" — and it's pronounced distinctly, it isn't just a reduced form of "have". I'm not expected to write "faucet" and pronounce it "tap", or write "sod" and say "bugger", so why I am considered an idiot if I write it the way I say it rather than the way you say it? --Ptcamn 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're only homophonous in their unstressed and "reduced" forms. "Have" has a pronunciation in other contexts as [hæv] of course, while until somewhat recently "of" also had a stressed citation pronunciation with a real "short o" vowel (as in "hot" etc.). This unreduced "of" pronunciation is rare in the U.S. these days, but is listed in Daniel Jones' pronounciation dictionary, and similar works. AnonMoos 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I live in Australia, where "of" still has a "real short o" (phonetically [ɔv]). --Ptcamn 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you're demanding that English spelling should value identical spelling of homophones above preserving the visual identity of words between stressed and reduced occurrences of each word. This has little to do with other principles of English-language orthography... AnonMoos 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not. I'm saying that "would of", even when stressed, is [ɔv], the same as "of". --Ptcamn 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting argument, but it's about what is or is not correct. Using your own analogy, Faucet and tap are both correct. "Would of" is not... and it doesn't really matter if that's how you (or everyone you know) speak. People frequently call the board game "Trivial Pursuits", so does that mean that particular error also shouldn't be corrected? Some people pronounce the word "ask" as "aks". Does that mean that shouldn't be corrected? In any event, no-one worth bothering about would consider you (or anyone else for that matter) an "idiot" for using "should of". --Dweller 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes it wrong? I'd like proof, not just people saying so. --Ptcamn 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's based on a misconception that would've = would of rather than would have. It makes little sense grammatically because of is a preposition in a position where you need a verb. Can't find any detailed explanations, but here are some mentions from usage guides.[3] [4] Mattley ^(Chattley) 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Usages guides are just people saying so. Unlike scientific fields, where when making a claim you have to back yourself up with evidence, when it comes to the English language people seem willing to accept whatever's pontificated at them.

Who says "of" is only a preposition? Maybe it's both a preposition and a verbal particle, like "to". Where's the evidence?

The second one is factually inaccurate. Passing silently (and paraliptically) over the fact that all native speakers are more familiar with the spoken language than the written... It claims that people can't tell "have" and "of" apart in speech, and that's why it's misspelt. But I pronounce them distinctly, as I said, and I certainly say "of", not "have". --Ptcamn 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The second source doesn't make that claim. It claims that the similarity of 've to of is the original source of the "would of" usage. Many people do articulate the of clearly - on the basis that they have taken it to be "would of". But that doesn't have anything to do with whether the usage is "correct" or not.

Usage guides are just people saying so. Yes. But for one thing, you won't find any that endorse "could of" and, for another, that's true of all prescriptive language rules. There is a rationale behind it, which is explained in a little more detail here [5]. But if you don't agree that it's appropriate to take a prescriptivist approach at all then there is not much point pursuing this. Mattley ^(Chattley) 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I commonly write "would've", showing both etymology and pronunciation. Really, it's the best of both worlds. The Jade Knight 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm bugged by seeing of written as 've (so far only in comic strips), an example of eye dialect. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I dislike errors like "wierd", "recieve". I hate it when people confuse "it's" and "its", and quite often "they're", "their" and "there" are mixed up as well. I don't get it, these are spelling errors made by people who are most likely anglophonic. They were born speaking the international language, how come they can be corrected by non-anglophonics? Evilbu 16:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Because just as you said, they were born speaking the language, not writing it. Those errors are all due to the written language not matching up well with the spoken. --Ptcamn 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, "it's" was once an acceptable way to spell "its". The Jade Knight 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The one minor error that I'm almost 100% certain to correct if I see it in a Wikipedia article is the comma-splice... AnonMoos 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an error that I find both in spoken and written form. Using X and I instead of X and me. Such as "this is Matt and I in Paris." It should be "this is Matt and me in Paris." I think it comes from the habit of parents to repeatedly correct children who say things like "Me and Matt went to the store" by growling "Matt and I" so they don't get the whole subject object pronoun distinction. AEuSoes1 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's correct, if a bit archaic/overformal, because "is" is not a transitive verb and takes (or rather took) nominative compliments. Would you argue that "It is I!" was ungrammatical? --Ptcamn 18:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't use a good example.

• "She came back to see Julie and I" is incorrect
• "Julie and I came back to see her" is correct
• "She came back to see Julie and me" is correct
• "Julie and me came back to see her" is incorrect.

Children tend to make the fourth sentence's mistake and are corrected with a simple "Julie and I" so they grow up thinking that any "X and self" referent should always be "X and I." AEuSoes1 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Children? No, people of all ages, walks of life and levels of education make this "mistake". The usual order is "Me and Julie" though. --Ptcamn 19:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

True. But as far as the subject/object distinction it's the same. I said children because it's my guess that the first sentence's error is due to improper correction. But the whole point is that it bugs me. AEuSoes1 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very fond of "grammer", especially when it shows up in edit summaries :) dab (ᛏ) 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My number one error of choice would have to be the misuse and abuse of homonyms, such as those mentioned above (their/there/they're, to/too/two/2, your/you're, where/wear(/were - even though it's technically not homophonic), etc.) Seconding that, I guess tense shifts bother me, although that's not as common here and is much more difficult to detect automatically. I edit papers for school a lot and I have yet to find a student who doesn't shift tenses at least once; even I myself am guilty of it although I usually catch it before I submit my final draft. Don't know what else, although I'm sure I could find a whole list if I took long enough. Most of my pet peeves are prevalent in fiction, though, so they're not useful for Wikipedia. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ALOT ALOT ALOT ALOT ALOT!!! Aaadddaaammm 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one of mine is the incorrect use of the subjunctive, such as "If I would have been here, maybe she wouldn't have died". JackofOz 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A related phenomenon, perhaps, is "I would have liked to have done that," which literally I take to mean that the subjunctive pleasure follows the conclusion of the subjunctive action but concludes sometime before the utterance. —Tamfang 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you rephrase that? The Jade Knight 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"I would like to have done that"? DirkvdM 06:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Or "I would have liked to do that," putting the pleasure at the same time as the action. —Tamfang 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A related phenomenon to this is, for example, "I wish I didn't lie to John" when you can tell from the context that what is meant is "I wish I hadn't lied to John." That's nails on a blackboard for me. --Tkynerd 01:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen hoard for horde, and vice versa, so many times that whenever I see either word used correctly I have an itch of doubt. My favorite misspelling of all time: "Arafat's ability to reign in terror" — alas I've forgotten where I saw it. —Tamfang 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with 'an unique'? I HATE 'a unique'. It's like fingernails across a chalkboard. But what I hate? You probably won't find it too much on Wikipedia, but it's when people can't decide whether to say 'leery' or 'wary' and end up saying 'weary', as in, "I was weary of letting my boss drive me home after he felt my backside." Anchoress 04:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, "unique" starts with a "y" sound, and "an unique" sounds very wrong. The Jade Knight 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep listening to that voice, because you're 100% correct. The choice of indefinite article in English is determined by the initial sound, not by the initial written letter of the alphabet. --Tkynerd 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if Anchoress pronounces unique as /iwnik/ rather than /junik/ that might explain it. You don't see /iw/ listed in most phonologies of English, but it's definitely in my dialect (although I don't use it in the initial position except for the word "ewe," so "an unique" still sounds wierd to me, but "an ewe" is fine). Linguofreak 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Evilbu mentioned "recieve" and "wierd". My health ed teacher in high school actually used the spelling "protien" and wrote it on the board. When I dared to correct him, half the class corrected me on the basis that "I always comes before E...". Here are my personal pet peeves, and there are many:

• An apostrophe in plural's and third-person singular verb form's get's on my nerve's.
• Sentence fragments. Are annoying. For example, when I'm reading a somewhat long introductory clause expecting a comma followed by an independent clause, and I just get a period.
• Don't fix run-on sentences with a comma, that just turns them into a comma splice. When I tutored writing at community college, people would bring me their papers saying "I fixed all the run-ons". They'd just inserted commas instead. Adding to the confusion, many English/writing teachers used the term "run-on" to mean both comma splices and the classical "fused sentence" type.

szyslak (t, c, e) 05:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "loose" meant as "lose", but that won't help your browser, I'm afraid. Misspelling "grammer" when used to attack people. ColourBurst 05:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"A women" as well. Though I'm not sure if that should be corrected to "A woman" (usually) or just women (very rarely). ColourBurst 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't really drive me crazy, I just can't understand why I say it...I sometimes attempt to create another level of aspect to conditional phrases by adding another auxiliary, so I end up with "If I had have (verb)". "If I had have eaten...", etc (but it's always pronounced "I'd've"). I'm not sure what I'm trying to do here, because it doesn't make any sense. I must mean "if I would have", but whenever I try to parse it I always think I mean "had have". Adam Bishop 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a common confusion. We say "I could have", or "I should have" or "I would have", but not "I had have". Because we're so used to saying the first 3, the last one sounds correct .. until you take a closer look. But you definitely should not be saying "If I would have .." - see my earlier post about subjunctives. It would be more like "If I had <something>, then I would have <something>". JackofOz 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the issue of "me and X:

In my dialect the objective case is used not only with actual direct and indirect objects, but also with conjunctions (regardless of whether a compound subject formed by a conjunction (ie. him and me) would be in that case), as the second argument of "be," in lists (eg "who all's going?" "Them, us, and the dog, oh, and him too.") even when the list consists of one item ("who wants ice cream?" "Me!"), and probably a few other roles. Linguofreak 06:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

'American' for US citizens. And 'Holland' for the Netherlands and such. DirkvdM 06:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The first is correct (there's no other word for us in English). The second is wrong, or at best sloppy. --Tkynerd 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That USians don't have a proper name for themselves is no fault of the English language. Where would you place south America? In Florida? DirkvdM 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of moronic comment is that? Americans already have a "proper" name for ourselves in English, and I just used it. That you don't like it is no fault of the English language. If I were dumb enough to use the expression "south America," which I'm not (South America is in the southern hemisphere), I would logically have to place it in the southern part of the U.S. But there's a reason no one uses the phrase in that sense. --Tkynerd 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's my kind of moronic comment. Southa America is only partly in the southern hemisphere, but I'll let that slip (damn, I just didn't, didn't I?). Anyway, your capitalisation trick works in writing, but not in speech. But let me reverse the argument. If South America is a (sub)continent (take your pick), then what would logically be 'America'? DirkvdM 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's your kind of moronic comment: No sh*t! Apologies for failing to specify the exact position of every point of the coasts and borders of South America; I do actually know where the name "Ecuador" comes from. My capitalization "trick" is not a trick because no one actually uses the term "South America" to refer to anything but the continent. And if you're contributing to this page, you should have figured out long ago that logic often has nothing to do with language. Sorry that fact troubles you. --Tkynerd 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there we are. Note the header of this thread. DirkvdM 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. This is not an English error; it's your personal hangup. --Tkynerd 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'Personal hangup' comes close enough to 'drves me crazy' and 'illogical' comes close enough to 'error'. DirkvdM 05:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Back in the days of the Soviet Union, the World Book entry was at "Russia" instead, which only added to the confusion. (I have a 1986 edition, where the infamous "Russia" entry appears in all its glory.) Even though it's just like calling the Netherlands "Holland" or calling the entire United Kingdom "England", there it was, in a major print encyclopedia. Who says them other encyclopedias are more accurate than us? szyslak (t, c, e) 23:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't anyone expressed his disdain for "I don't no that man!" yet? Well, I also dislike it when they mix up and write stuff like "I wan't" and "I dont". What I said about anglophonics, I learnt Dutch by hearing it, but apart from the many hours of English, French, Latin etc... somehow there was still plenty of hours left to be force-fed all the (constantly changing!) oddities in Dutch spelling. So my question, do US-ers get any English at all at school, how else would they fill up all those hours?Evilbu 17:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I chortle at menus which place decorative quotation marks in the text, such as 'Enjoy our "Delicious" burgers made with "fresh" ground beef and served on "soft" buns.'Edison 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And then (if this is in the US) when you order they ask "What will be your drink" What, is it my drink already? Does that mean I don't have to pay for it? Well, I certainly won't because I didn't ask for one. DirkvdM 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It means, "What drink will become yours as a result of you paying for it?" Although I more often hear, "(Do you want) Anything to drink?" Linguofreak 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They also ask "Would you like a refill ?". Most refills are free, but some are not, and the waiter/waitress never seem to bother telling you which is true in your case. That makes it necessary to ask or risk paying big bucks. StuRat 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting around with my languages in Lebanon

Hello,

when watching the news from Lebanon during this war (which I hope has finally been brought an end too for both sides) I found it odd how many Lebanese spoke English or French. The French seems to explicable because of the country being controlled by the French in the 1920's. But the English? Is it because kids are taught English in schools( compulsory?). Of course many people were interviewed (and subtitled) in Arabic but in my opinion to a lesser extent than in Iraq for instance. I've seen a wounded girl in the hospital (16 or something) who spoke to a journalist in English.

I speak English and French (and Dutch...), if I would go to Lebanon, how would I get by? I mean : in hotels, restaurants, shops (I mean little shops where one buys newspapers or water). Meeting a random Lebanese family, is there a chance of at least one member I could talk too? Is there a huge difference between "normal Lebanon" and Beirut?

Well, lots of questions, I'm interested in all opinions. Unfortunately I must admit I don't plan on going to Lebanon right now. Thanks!

Evilbu 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never been to Lebanon, so I can't tell you about my own experience. However, as for French, it is one of the official languages of Lebanon (see also the Lebanon article). Therefore, I suppose it wouldn't be difficult to get by with it in most places. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When you google "most Lebanese speak", you get many hits stating something like "most Lebanese speak three languages at least: their native Arabic, French and English". --Lambiam^Talk 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The English prevalence may be because so many Lebanese live in the US, or some day hope to. Danny Thomas and Jamie Farr are two notable Lebanese-Americans. StuRat 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

and of course Kahlil Gibran--K.C. Tang 01:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Arabic and French are well spoken in Lebanon, esp in Beitut, but Im not sure about Englis.

I've been living in Lebanon for a while, and I can assert that most people speak the three languages (especially in restaurants in shops). One reason is that Lebanon is mostly turned to Tourism and the outside world, and second because of French and English mission in the 1800s and before and the French mandate. CG 10:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No subject, no sentence

Has this type of "sentence" become accepted English usage? "Just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true." Notice that those words were not a sentence, because there was no subject. A sentence could be: "That you believe it doesn't mean it's true."

"Notice that those words were not a sentence, because there was no subject." Notice that those words were not a sentence, because there was no subject. --Ptcamn 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Subjects are implicit in the use of the grammatical mood#imperative mood. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Drop the gun!" is a sentence. The subject "you" is implied. Please respond to the initial inquiry. Can a clause (maybe as a concept) be the subject of a sentence?

Noun clauses can. Quoting from the clause article: "That the kid was making so much money bothered me." "That the kid was making so much money" is the subject. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt personally have a problem with the clause "just-because-you-believe-it" being the subject of the sentence. Jameswilson 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes wish could drop them altogether. At least the first person ones. Sort of thing is easier in Chinese. Am jealous. -LambaJan 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you move the clause to the end to make "It" the noun? "Just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true." --> "It doesn't mean it's true just because you believe it." (I guess it kinda sounds awkward though) Alex Ng 06:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You managed to smuggle in an extra "it" there. A sentence with essentially the same structure as the original: "Because the doorbell rang meant someone was at the door." That sounds terribly wrong, no? So what makes the other sentence almost acceptable? Just because you hear it all the time doesn't mean it's correct. --Lambiam^Talk 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you can't come up with a rule you can understand doesn't mean it's incorrect. --Kjoonlee 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

most spoken languages

What are the top 5 or top 10 most spoken languages in the world, in terms of SECOND-language speakers only, i.e. peolpe who learn it as a second or foreign language and not counting native speakers?--Sonjaaa 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's extremely difficult to estimate foreign language usage for a variety of reasons, including the variation of fluency involved. 惑乱 分からん 22:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have any proof of this, but I'd guess English is probably in the top ten since it's fairly lucrative at the moment - but Wakuran is right that it would be quite hard to measure. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say, because of the definition of "second language"? What is "second language"? If a person immigrates to a country, still speaks their primary language at home but is fluent in the new country's language, is it still a "second language"? What about people who speak multiple languages at an early age? Can somebody have multiple second languages? How much fluency do you need for it to be a "second" language? The question is easy to pose but hard to define. ColourBurst 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then what about languages one did not grow up with nor needs for everyday life? Ie it is not the major language spoken in the country/countries one grew up in or lives in. That still leaves countries with more than one language like Belgium and Congo, but there aren't too many exceptions (right?). Fluency is always a problem with determining whether one speaks a language, but the question is about a list, not so much quantification. The most important reason to speak such a language is that it is a lingua franca. Of course English is a big one with 150 million - 1 billion second language speakers. Russian has 110 million, Swahili 30-50 million.

Chinese is a bit too complicated for me because there are differnt varieties. And what about French in West Africa. That is the official language in most countries there, I believe, but are the local languages (which must still survive) then second languages?

And what about artificial languages. Hardly anyone grows up with those, so they're always second languages. Esperanto has at most 1 million speakers. But what about mathematics and programming languages? No stats on how many people 'speak' these (hold on - 'speak'?). So I don't have a list either, just some pointers. DirkvdM 06:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

India and China are (as always with questions on language statistics) the big stumbling blocks: one could reasonably claim that pupils who learn putonghua or Hindustani in schools are, in most cases, learning a second language; similarly for English and French in much of Africa. But for the classical idea of learning 'a foreign country's language', I'm fairly sure that English is way out in front, followed by the other big European languages - Spanish, French, German. (An incidental puzzler- why do so many people learn Spanish rather than Italian, even in places like Europe where Latin America has little influence?). Henry^Flower 09:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mandarin Chinese (and it's dialects)is usually considered the most common language in the world. However, there are some minor and independent sources that English is now the most common. These sources count people that are not fluent or illiterate in English, such as people that are learning. Chinese is still first when it comes to native speakers; some put it at a 2:1 ratio to English. --Richman271^talk/_con 23:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That people choose to learn Spanish rather than Italian is most likely, primarily due to the widespread usage in North and South America. The difference in influence and importance between Spanish and Italian in Europe is rather minor. In Europe, Spanish has a number of native speakers probably somewhere between 40 and 50 million, Italy might have a number between 60 and 70 million worldwide, primarily in Europe. I guess the importance of Italian has been declining since the last century. 惑乱 分からん 11:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And more northern Europeans go on holiday to (and buy second homes in) Spain than Italy so theres more motivation to learn a bit of Spanish. Jameswilson 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not the first time that here, at the Language desk, we find that confusion between natural and programming languages. A programming language cannot express more than some mathematical or logical entities it's been designed to handle (to build your conviction, please rewrite my statement in Pascal). -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Arabic and French are definitely among the tops for second-language speakers. They're the official languages for the United Nations. Aran|heru|nar 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rybka

In what language does Rybka mean little fish, and what is the IPA pronunciation for it?--Sonjaaa 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a Czech diminutive. The standard form is ryba (fish). Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it in IPA, but it's pronounced "RIB-kah," with a rolled "r," as in Spanish. -- Mwalcoff 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[rɪpkä] I believe. First syllable stressed. AEuSoes1 03:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

/'rɪpkä/ with stress. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 07:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be ae-ligature?--Sonjaaa 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Czech language" article seems to say it's a low central unrounded vowel. There's no sign for that in the IPA, and <a> is normally used instead. I guess <ä> is non-standard. --Kjoonlee 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. It describes centralization (phonetics), so it's valid IPA. --Kjoonlee 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So no. :) --Kjoonlee 16:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also a diminutive in Russian (рыбка, transliterated as rybka) and probably in some other Slavic languages. Sorry, can't help with IPA.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian would be [ˈrɨpkə] unless I have the stress wrong.AEuSoes1 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the right stress to me.68.100.203.44 05:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

August 15

what is litrary meaning of "Gilead"?

what is litrary meaning of hebrew name "Gilead"

Literary, as in the Book, or literal, Gilead or Gil'ad means hill of witness. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

elegant variation

I want to know this for long: is elegant variation mandatory in journalistic writings? that is, would an editor actually correct a journalist's writing if he or she doesn't varies his terms "elegantly"? and how about the practice in other other languages? Thanks--K.C. Tang 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Variation is good, even mandatory, or, more specifically, an editor will often remove repetition. It is elegant (or inelegant) variation that Fowler is objecting to.--Shantavira 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In articles about film, the Dutch news agency ANP often uses the old-fashioned synonym rolprent. Editors at the newspapers I've worked for will immediately replace this with film; repetition is not considered as bad as "elegance". David Sneek 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

say, I have written an article about Michael Jordan. In the article, after the first appearance of the name Michael Jordan, I just used "he" or "Jordan" to refer to him. When the article comes to an editor's hands, will he or she automatcially replace my "he"s and "Jordan"s with "the former Bulls star", "the father of three", "the four-time MVP" and so and so...Will he or she do that?--K.C. Tang 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We would have to meet this hypothetical author to find out. --Nelson Ricardo 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine any editor wasting their time by doing that.--Shantavira 06:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, I think so, so it's just the journalists...--K.C. Tang 07:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice this less as variation for its own sake than as a crude way to cram bits of ‘color’ where they don't belong. —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

after death

is there any thing after death is anybody in the world knows anyting after death````````

Why do you pose that question here? Look at death and afterlife. 惑乱 分からん 13:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

.....and decomposition.--Shantavira 17:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your religion or philosophy. It's not something science is particularly good at predicting. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one way to find out. :) DirkvdM

Note however that Wikipedia isn't responsible for any harm that could follow, by advice given here... :S 惑乱 分からん 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'Spelling' a pack of cards

If we take a deck of 52 playing cards, then by spelling out the value of each of the thirteen ranks in one suit, (A-C-E, T-W-O, T-H-R-E-E, ..., K-I-N-G) you can go through exactly 52 cards dealing one card for each letter. It can also be done with the same deck in French (A-S, D-E-U-X, T-R-O-I-S, ... , R-O-I).

Are there any other languages in which you can do this? Even allowing for decks of cards with fewer / more cards per suit?

Thanks in advance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.249.163 (talk • contribs)

There almost certainly are, as this simply calls for an average of four letters in each word. And there are lots of languages to choose from.--Shantavira 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you meant to ask how many letters there are in total in the names of cards in various languages then you sure asked it in a complicated way. Or is this for some card-trick? If not, it sounds too much like numerology. DirkvdM 08:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"too much"? Do you have some sort of bias against numerology? JackofOz 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you? DirkvdM 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "numerology". I don't accept that numbers in themselves have any innate predictive power, but that's not to say there's no value at all in exploring the associations that have been traditionally attributed to them. But you're the one who mentioned this subject first, so why don't you tell us what you're on about. JackofOz 04:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Numerology is about assigning 'magic' properties to numbers. If this is not for a card-trick then it seems to suggest some magical connection between the number of letters in cards and the number of cards. The two are logically unrelated, so suggesting a connection would be numerology. Either that or it's too trivial even to my taste. DirkvdM 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"All of which" to start a sentence ??

(Please forgive the cross-post, but I asked my question in perhaps the wrong place at User_talk:Chris_the_speller#"All_of_which"_to_start_a_sentence_??. I am pointing the original post to this page. The following post is edited for page-appropriateness. -- RayBirks 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

...

As a relative Wikipedia newbie, I've started making my own contributions. A recent grammar fix--which I thought was minor--to someone else's main article contribution, brought on a near-immediate reversion to the original by its author. This could balloon into something unnecessarily big. It may be too late to prevent that, as my grammar police impulse already feels wounded. (Ow.)

If you look at what is presently section 1.3 of Sam Harris (author)#Islam, you'll note it starts with "All of which lunacy...". To my American ear, this is an incorrect use of the word "which." Except in unusual cases, the pronoun "which," when referring to earlier antecedents, is nearly always used in a clause and not as the subject of a sentence. When the United Kingdom writer on 11 August 2006 restored my correction of "All of this lunacy" to "All of which lunacy," I hesitate to do battle, as perhaps the King's English allows such things, although I doubt it.

So, my question is...: Where can one go to find a Wikipedia-based grammar expert? Have I really erred in my correction? When and how does one decide which fray to enter? Why am I awake at 3:00 am in my time zone talking about grammar? Will Wikipedia soon take over my life? (Rhetorical questions end here.)

Thanks in advance for any pointers. -- RayBirks 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Englishman, it seems acceptable to me, though it certainly isn't particularly attractive, and 'All of this..' would be my preference. But, I don't believe there's anything wrong with it, although I'm no expert. --81.111.23.140 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Relatives particles should never start sentences in English. They do in Latin (indeed, it is considered very stylish), but it is not an English form. "This" should be substituted. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam, please may I worship you? I feel better already. If you--or anyone else--can provide a citation, I think I would like to point the aforementioned author there. However, I do fear I may provoke an angry mastodon. --RayBirks 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you may worship me. I can't find a citation right now (it's rather late), but I can explain it. "Which" is a relative pronoun that qualifies an antecedent that occurs in the same sentence. Where it is not used qualifying something earlier in the sentence, "this" or "these" should be used. "This" is not a relative pronoun and therefore must exist in a seperate sentence. Note, I am British, and "all of which" to begin a sentence is certainly acceptable in common speech or for rhetorical effect. I don't think it's acceptable for Wikipedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"All of which...." sounds perfectly fine to my (British) ears. Perhaps a bit poetic/stylised compared with your (equally good) alternative. Similarly with "none of which" at the start of a sentence, as in "None of which should be taken as meaning....". "Which" meaning "the above". Jameswilson 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you, Jameswilson. I know about the "rules", eg. not starting sentences with "but", not splitting infinitives etc etc, but in less formal writing, starting with a relative particle is not only acceptable but also can be an element of a very readable and comprehensible style. Which is a good thing. JackofOz 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I too (a Kiwi) am quite happy with "all of which" to start a sentence. Most of the "rules" taught about split infinitives etc were invented by dead white males a mere few centuries ago to try and make English look more like Latin, and cool as Latin is, I disapprove on principle of obeying such pedants. To me, "all of which lunacy" and "all of this lunacy" are both right. --Zeborah 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeborah, can you point me/us to something that documents the past attempts to make English look more like Latin? This could address my inner battle for understanding about the desire for correctness in language, English in particular. Part of me understands that English is still growing at 900,000+ words; the other part sees that previously clear constructions and usages may be worth maintaining, even improving. Further, as a white male who will soon be dead, I wonder if any of my improvements on Wikipedia should even be attempted, since they may be likely to be discarded by others in a knee-jerk, mindless fashion simply because of who I am. With a manufactured language (Esperanto) at #15 and a dead language (Latin) at #53 [6], one could begin to wonder that so-called standards have some value, and I hope to find the wisdom of a worthwhile balance. (whew!) -- RayBirks 11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 'all of which...' sounds fine to me too. Also, as a comment to the original poster, IMO conflicts over regional English spelling, phrasing, syntax etc, can be more vicious than content disputes, and with much less payoff. IMO pick your battles carefully, notwithstanding your beautiful new relationship with your hero Sam. Good luck to you both, BTW. ;-) Anchoress 06:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My fault

How do you say in Latin: "Nobody's perfect. To err is human. Shouting at me won't help" --Brandnewuser 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "Nemo perfectus est. Errare humanum est. Clamitationes conficiunt nihil." AnonMoos 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That could also mean "nobody has been completed." That is the origin of the English word "perfect" but it implies something else in Latin...but I'm not sure what word has the same sense as our "perfect", and for Brandnewuser's purposes I'm sure this is fine. Adam Bishop 06:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

absolutus also means perfect. —Daniel (‽) 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

translation chinese / Japanese

translation chinese / Japanese I was looking for the symbol or character that meant or reperesented the word "Player" and the word "free"... I wanted the chinese or Japanese characters/symbols that meant the corresponding meaning of the two english words/expressions above? Thanks

Would that correspond to gratis loose person? 惑乱 分からん 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also take care to not end up on Hanzi Smatter. When translating, context is important. You didn't specify which meaning of "player" or "free" you wanted. ColourBurst 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

are you looking at "libero" in soccer? it is sometimes rendered "free person" in Chinese.--K.C. Tang 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No character or symbol means "player" in Chinese, since "player" is not a simple concept, it is the combo of "play" and "-er". In Chinese, player can be translated into "玩家", "玩" means "play", and "家“ means "-er". "Free" can mean either freedom (自由) or free of charge (Traditional: 免費, Simplified: 免费) in English, you would better to give the context. Yao Ziyuan 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

btw, "player" is 球員 if you mean players in a ball games.--K.C. Tang 03:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Players in competitions can be referred to as 参赛者, while free can mean 空闲. Aran|heru|nar 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

allochtone (fr)

Please could a native French speaker give me a good translation/reference for "allochtone", found in "Parmi ceux qui ne savaient pas, figuraient des candidats de couleur et d'origine allochtone, ...". Thanks! Thomas, AL. Rugops 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Literally this originally Greek word means: "from elsewhere" or even more literally "from another ground". You could use "immigrant" or "foreign-born" or something like that in English. It is often also used sloppily and indiscriminately for the descendants of immigrants, although that is properly speaking not the meaning of the word. If you read French, a good reference is fr:Allochtone. English has "allochthonous", but as far as I know that is only used in geology, for rocks found in another spot than where they were formed. Disclaimer: I'm not a native French speaker.--Lambiam^Talk 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see we also have an article Allochtoon on the usage in Dutch. --Lambiam^Talk 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the French article starts with the the meaning in Dutch, which reinforces the notion I have that its usage in this sense is typically Dutch. As the article says, in the Netherlands it means someone of whom at least one parent was born outside the Netherlands (although it's really a bit more complicated than that). So the official meaning deviates from the original (literal) one. But in everyday life it is used as a euphemism for 'darkies'. I think the article says something like that about the usage in French, but my French is not really good enough. Take note that in French the word is only used in Walonia. DirkvdM 08:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Dutch meaning has infected Belgium. I bet the sentence about the ignorant candidates stems from Belgium. --Lambiam^Talk 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers. That was very helpful. I think the original quote come from a Belgian newspaper. Well done Lambiam! Rugops 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Of Polish Name

My Grandfather came from Poland In 1890 to the USA. He immigrated from Posen. Is there any other way to spell the name Szeszycki? I have seen it spelled Cieszycki. Are there any more variations?

Thank You Leonard Szeszycki

It could be (no IPA] : Shey chi ki. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to pronounce it. He was after alternative spellings, I think. JackofOz 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Yes I was looking for other ways to spell It. Leonard Szeszycki"

Copied from yookoso section. --Kjoonlee 06:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

August 16

Before Babel

Is it known or theorised what language was spoken before, according to the Bible, the Tower of Babel was built? Thank you in advance. --Gray Porpoise 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there are certainly theories. Confusion of tongues has some info and suggests Hebrew, origin of language suggests more scientific and amusingly named options but for extra freak points I'd choose Enochian. MeltBanana 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) AMGEDPHA CAMLIAX AZIAZIOR IAD

Those articles are very interesting. Thank you for directing me to them. --Gray Porpoise 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We have also that Adamic language page. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew phrases

What do the Hebrew phrases "לב בשר" and "עזות-פנים" mean? Mo-Al 01:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• See Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) for the former. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A wild guess about "עזות פנים" is that it means something like "insolence". --Lambiam^Talk 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"עזות פנים" is indeed insolence or impudence, and the other one is literally a heart of flesh, i.e. showing compassion or pity. СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugly words

What are some of the ugliest words in the English language? (Please don't ask me to define "ugly"). My two stand-out candidates are:

• usufruct
• palimpsest.

JackofOz 06:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like your two. But for me, it's denigrate. Anchoress 07:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Latin words with English derivatives. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's got to be gusset. --Richardrj 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Euch, gusset. Urgh, it makes my teeth hurt. That's a gross, gross word. Anchoress 09:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No. --Dweller 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

pug is one of mine. I'll write more if I think of some. —Daniel (‽) 11:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

honorificabilitudinitatibus (Love's Labours Lost, v.1)--Shantavira 13:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few shockers: goiter, smegma and swank. --Dweller 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Epee. 'Nuff said. -Obli (Talk)^? 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In the English language! --Dweller 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If "epee" isn't an English word then neither are goiter or smegma. --Ptcamn 13:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I like goiter, smegma, epee and swank. Don't like honorificabilitudinitatibus. Hope I typed that right. Anchoress 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll stand up for palimpsest. I don't think it's ugly at all. --LarryMac 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The article palimpsest is fairly messy though. --Dweller 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with "usufruct". Like palimpsest, though. How about phlegm? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

unctuous and oink are ugly ones for this humble user. And boing is one of the least ugly. Better than "cellar door" any day. --Brandnewuser 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

kitchenette, liaise and genre MeltBanana 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

utilize has always seemed ugly to me. — Jéioosh 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite ugly, but Ill seems too stripy to me, and in some fonts is almost illegible. –RHolton≡– 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a friend call himself Illi before. That was too stripy. --Brandnewuser 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone once told me that she hated the word moist and a few days later I made it seem as though I was humming and ended it with "mmmmmmmmmmmoist!" She seemed pretty mad but I'm sure that deep down she thought it was pretty funny. AEuSoes1 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Delmarva and Arklatex. -- Mwalcoff 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I like "among", but I cringe at "amongst". JackofOz 01:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"pulchritudinous" is ugly if, like me, you prefer words that sound like what they actually mean :) Ziggurat 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a computer named Usufruct. You hurt its feelings, Jack. —Bkell (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Awww, I'm sorry, dear computer. (No offence to your computer, but I think it's time for a deed poll, or whatever they use in Nebraska for change of name).  :--) JackofOz 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'aufgelassen'

Saw a notice in my home town of Vienna today by a closed tram stop, saying that the stop was 'aufgelassen'. I assume this is a past participle, but of which verb? My dictionary only gives 'auflassen', meaning to leave open, which sounds like the complete opposite. --Richardrj 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed the past participle of auflassen. But in Austro-Bavarian German auflassen can mean "close down, shut down". User:Angr 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it cognate to auflösen? Wikipeditor 2006-08-17

Thanks very much. I have also seen gesperrt used in the same context. Wish they'd make up their minds! --Richardrj 07:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

language

which is the mostly speaking language in the world.

The one in which such questions are suitly emphazied. :--) JackofOz 11:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mandarin Chinese is the most spoken language in the world. --Gray Porpoise 11:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Although as that article makes clear, the status of Mandarin as 'a language' is somewhat suspect. Henry^Flower 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If Mandarin is just a dialect of a larger Chinese language, then Chinese would still be the mostly speaking language in the world. AEuSoes1 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stroopwafel

What would be the plural (in Dutch) of Stroopwafel? My guesses are Stroopwafels, or Stroopwafeln, but I don't know Dutch.

Thanks. —Daniel (‽) 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's stroopwafels- see http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroopwafel . Henry^Flower 12:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. —Daniel (‽) 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If the plural would have been with an 'n', it would have been 'stroopwafelen', so with 'en'. Just 'n' is more typically German. DirkvdM 04:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

yookoso

what does "yookoso" mean? --Shanedidona 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Which language is it? Japanese? In that case, "Welcome!" 惑乱 分からん 23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're so kind. [me bowing deep too] But what does it mean? DirkvdM 04:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

August 17

Ceres and Charon

With all this talk of new planets, I realized that I'm unsure how to pronounce two of them. How are Ceres and Charon pronounced? Pyro19 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

1 Ceres and Charon (moon) both have pronunciations in a few different formats. Do those help or should I go find my mic and record my pronunciations? —Keenan Pepper 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, Ceres and series are homophonic, and Charon sounds like the female name Karen. —Keenan Pepper 01:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I pronounce "Ceres" like "seres" with two "short e"s, and "Charon" more like "Sha-run". I guess it depends on personal preference. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Charon" is pronounced "KAR-un", (like Keenan noted but with more of an "uh" sound (schwa) and "Ceres" is pronounced the same as "Series" (although I have heard "seres", as Keakealani noted, also. AdamBiswanger1 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They're not planets, by the way. And there is talk of no longer classifying Pluto as a planet (the verdict is due next mnth), so there may actually be one less planet in our solar system. DirkvdM 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There won't actually be more or fewer planets, we will only call more or fewer objects planets. When I keep hearing that the "number of planets will change" I can't help but picture some cosmic event that has caused our solar system to gain or lose large objects. StuRat 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mightright 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)== crossword help ==

could u help me with these clues

and so on (2,6) et cetera --Richardrj 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

staying power (7) stamina --Richardrj 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

sermon -lodging (7) address --Richardrj 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

bing ,1904-1977 (6) crosby --Richardrj 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

special linguistic usage (I***E) idiom? - check that final E. --Richardrj 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

millitary alliance (***A) NATO? - check that final A. --Richardrj 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you212.72.18.18 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) thanks again for the other clues could u help me with one more clue

where prizes are displayed (*R*P*Y*O*M)or 6,4Mightright 05:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

trophy room --Richardrj 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

that was fast !! please tell me one more derogatory term for a hippy evangelical (5,5) (jesus*R*A*)Mightright 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC) i got that one before u it is jesus freak ,anyway thanx for ur help