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 Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.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 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.[1] [2] 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 [3]. 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 [4], 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)

Pantyhose. In fact a lot of terms related to women's underwear are upsetting - teddy, snap-crotch, our old friend the gusset. There must be some interesting psychology at work. Henry^Flower 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

lol. Well to be fair the word 'gusset' was in use (in engineering and sewing) before it became associated with women's underwear. I don't mind 'teddy', unless it has some creepy etymology that I'm unfamiliar with. 'Snap crotch' is unattractive but has the virtue of being literal, at least. I come from a family of engineers so I can't help but appreciate its economy and descriptiveness. But while we're at it, I think 'crotch' is very ugly. 'Armpit' is also very unattractive to me. Anchoress 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Anything prefixed "mega-" hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 11:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC))

• • To me it's "I" and "a". Lack of creativity. Aran|heru|nar 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE:

I've just come across a new candidate for "Ugliest Word in the English Language". Wait for it ... fricativize. I found it here. JackofOz 13:21, 21 September 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

Probably is - they've similar enough meanings... -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 06:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no... "lösen" is related to English "lease" and "loose", "lassen" is related to English "let". 惑乱 分からん 13:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a great deal of difference, meaning-wise, between "let" and "lease". -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong about "lease", it appears to be a latinate borrowing. The English cognate is archaic/obsolete "leese" (lose). Otherwise, meaning doesn't make words cognates (or I think they're more correctly called "doublets" within a single language). "Let" and "loose" are derived from two different Germanic and Proto-Indo-European roots. Pen and pencil are similar in meanings but are derived from two different roots. 惑乱 分からん 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• The past participle of auflösen is aufgelöst (not sure that's the correct spelling, but the word itself is correct). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 17 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)

I think Henry means Mandarin may be two or more languages, each of which may have a less claim. —Tamfang 06:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Henry^Flower 11:16, 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)

Thanks. The 'n' idea was based on my knowledge of German anyway (I don't actually know Dutch :(). —Daniel (‽) 12:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As a further note, the final 'n' in -en isn’t pronounced in most Dutch dialects, so it would commonly sound like *stroopwafele if it had the -en plural. — Jéioosh 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course this does not apply to German because else the plural would be pronounced the same as the singular. Although I doubt if English sheep would see a problem in that. DirkvdM 05:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. With all this talk of stroopwafels I’m craving them now... Anyone know where to find one in Hawai‘i? — Jéioosh 08:55, 18 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)

Wait, is that a joke? @_@ Anyway, the usage seems to be slightly formal, used on aircrafts and similar... 惑乱 分からん 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned coment

This comment was made to the main Language Ref page after this date had been transcluded:

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

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)

Under the proposal, Charon will be a planet. It's silly to say that "KAR-un" is the only correct pronunciation- it's not the usual pronunciation of the astronomical body, as the article explains. Henry^Flower 11:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluto will still be a planet, doubled with Charon. —Daniel (‽) 12:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, read your Wikinews! :) · rodii · 13:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this is typical of me. As you can see I already knew this definition was due, but mnissed the news that it has already arrived. DirkvdM 06:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Ceres article but for some reason I didn't see the pronunciation there and I knew the there was confusion about Charon. Thanks for the help. Pyro19 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In English, I'd say /siriz/ "series" and /tSerOn/ "chair on." To be more "proper," maybe, /seres/ "sare ace" and /karOn/ "car on". If I was going to pronounce it as the ancients pronounced it, /keres/ "care ace" and /xarOn/ "har on." If you don't know X-SAMPA, the pronounciations in quotes should give you a fair idea, although they aren't exact. Linguofreak 01:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ceres is named after the Roman goddess; the Latin pronunciation is with a hard "c", but otherwise like "series" (sorry, I don't know any phonetic alphabets). Charon is named after the Greek boatman across the River Styx and in Greek would be pronounced with a hard "ch" and a long "o". However, in English, it is pronounced "Sharon", as explained at Charon (moon)#Name. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:28, 20 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

geographic affects on languages

I notice that languages around the world sound similar to each based on geography, even comparing languages in totally isolated places in the world but share close latitudinal (right word? word at all?) coordinates. I have many questions to be answered —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mearom (talk • contribs)

I recall reading this in Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of Languages where parts of Europe seem to be more partial to certain sounds. IIRC, the example given was the front rounded vowels in French, German, and Dutch. I believe the correct term is Sprachbund. One example is the Balkan linguistic union. Personally, I have noticed that Irish (a Celtic language) and Jèrriais (a Romance language) sound similar to English, but I don't know if this is because the speakers were native English speakers or what. --Chris S. 08:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

thnak you

I would disagree in saying that totally isolated parts of the world with alike latitude can be found to have similarities in language based on the latitude. Spanish does not sound like Algonquin, or Chinese, or Arabic, or Hindi to the least. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Although there are similarities in many world languages that are otherwise unrelated; the word for mother almost always contains some variant on ma. —Daniel (‽) 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on areal features might help explain.—Philosofinch 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Eskimos and Basque

I read somewhere that Eskimo and Basque people have similar languages true? sorry for posting so many questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mearom (talk • contribs)

No. --Ptcamn 08:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You can post as many questions as you like, by the way. --Ptcamn 08:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But please sign your posts by appending ~~~~.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Many have attempted to link Basque to other language families, but have been proven inconclusive. PS: Traditionally Eskimos or Inuit/Yup'ik speak Yup'ik or Inuktitut. --Chris S. 08:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course anyone who has watched due south already knew that. DirkvdM 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated languages can nevertheless be similar. However, Inuit and Basque are very different. --Lambiam^Talk 08:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you69.29.78.229 12:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Our article says that, "It has also been suggested that there is a genetic relationship between the Basque people and the Ainu, the aboriginal inhabitants of Japan. This theory also argues for a linguistic relationship with the Eskimo-Aleut family." No reference, though. Henry^Flower 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That’s certainly been suggested by someone, but then others have seriously suggested equally bizarre connections like Japanese being related to Munda, or Elamite being related to Basque. There are a lot of strange suggestions out there in the historical linguistics world, but hard data is far more important than conjecture. I would stick a “citation needed” on that statement to ensure people don’t take it too seriously. — Jéioosh 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of times people will think totally unrelated languages are related because they share (or seem to share) certain characteristics of sound, structure, writing, or vocabulary. For example, positing that Finnish and Japanese are related because both are agglutinative in structure and because ykse and ichi (the Finnish and Japanese words for "one") are superficially similar. Or that Dutch and Finnish are related because they both use double vowels in their orthography. Or Farsi and Arabic because they both use the Arabic alphabet. Linguofreak 01:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The particular reference of Basques relation to Ainu is from Edo Nyland from his book 'Linguistic Archaeology'. His reasoning is very interesting. He believes that a sort of proto language was spoken by all the people of the earth and that an order of Benedictine monks saw the 'confusion of tongues' as an order to be carried out, which they did by using a 'vowel-interlocking formula' to connect syllables of words from the original language together to make the root words of the new languages (latin, gaelic, etc.). A good part of his evidence is the Auraicept na n-Éces, which he says verifies his claim when translated correctly.

The Basque connection is that, since Basque has been around longer than anyone can remember and is largely unrelated to the surrounding languages, he sees it as being one of the last pockets of the original language, along with Ainu, which is similarly a language isolate. He did a sort of preliminary test using the lexical-statistical method and found good results but it's clear that more research would need to be done to more difinitively establish a connection. He uses words from the Basque language to make semantic translations of root words of other languages with sometimes uncanny results.

His work has been largely panned and dismissed by the academic community and Nyland argues that he is the victim of an ad-hominum attack. I think his claims are far-fetched and his research incomplete, but the logic and external evidences for some of his theories are enough to warrant a more comprehensive second look by academics than they were given, particularly since there really aren't that many theories that could offer an explaination for some of the mysteries surrounding Basque, Ogam or Ainu. -LambaJan 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What mysteries? The fact that Basque is apparently unrelated to Spanish, and Ainu apparently unrelated to Japanese, is no more mysterious than the fact that that American English is apparently unrelated to Navajo. Migration and conquest cause languages to move around and supplant other languages. Sometimes the other languages survive in pockets, sometimes they don't. It doesn't take a secret society of mystic monks to explain the existence of languages isolate. — Haeleth Talk 10:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From Language isolate: "Others, like Basque, have been isolated for as long as their existence has been documented." "...Basque has been compared with every living and extinct language family known, from Sumerian to the South Caucasian — without conclusive results." You explained how a language can become geographically isolated, but when linguistics talks about language isolates, it describes them as having "no demonstrable genealogical (or "genetic") relationship with other living languages; that is, one that has not been demonstrated to descend from an ancestor common to any other language. They are in effect language families consisting of a single language."

This is not the proper forum for discussing the validity of another person's work. I almost felt I was overstepping my bounds when I suggested that it could actually be looked at before being summarily dismissed. Therefore, I will not defend it anymore. As a side note, your tone came across as combative and condescending. I'm only telling you this in case it was accidental so that you can make the appropriate adjustments in the future. -LambaJan 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese nouns and their plural forms

Hi,

Ikebana, samurai, geisha

Just add an s? I don't believe so but I had to ask to be sure.

It depends on the word. "Samurai" pretty much never takes an -s. The plural of "geisha" can be either "geishas" or "geisha". By contrast, the plural of "ninja" is usually "ninjas" rather than "ninja".

And I'm not sure there'd ever be a situation where you'd need to pluralize "ikebana". --Ptcamn 13:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ikebana" is an uncountable noun, like "sushi". The plural of "samurai" can be "samurais", by the way (see Wiktionary), but it looks awkward. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 13:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Academics who work on Japanese history don’t pluralize Japanese words. In colloquial speech it’s accepted however. So it depends on your audience. — Jéioosh 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the word Rijoy

Would be grateful to find out the meaning and etimology of the hindu name Rijoy. Thanks

The closest I got was a Hindi word meaning "incantation" (richaa or something). It doesn't appear to be a very common name, even among Indians. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists of words in language articles?

Is there a policy on having vocabulary lists in language articles? Mo-Al 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a policy, but at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template#Examples it recommends giving "some short examples of the language in the writing system(s) used to write the language. You might also include sound samples of the language being spoken. Avoid making lists of tourist phrases such as 'hello', 'goodbye' and 'where's the lavatory?' since these do not represent the specifics of either grammar or phonetics particularly well." User:Angr 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But it will be useful if anyone's looking for it, especially with endangered languages. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 17:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There must be a satellite wiki that wants such things. Henry^Flower 18:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I would like to know what to do with the list in Cook Islands Maori. Mo-Al 18:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The vocabulary list at the end is a bit too extensive; consider moving it to Wiktionary. —Daniel (‽) 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. But provide a link to Wiktionary in the Wikipedia article itself to a list of vocabulary. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I do that? Do I create individual Wiktionary articles for each word? Mo-Al 19:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. There'll be more advice there. —Daniel (‽) 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, that's a lot of work. Where can I request this to be done? Mo-Al 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is IPA the official pronunciation system for Wikipedia?

What's up with this weird system Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key?? Is it even allowed on Wikipedia? I guess it's trying to be more layperson-friendly, but it's not very informative or accurate. Shouldn't IPA be the only standard? What are Wikipedia rules or guidelines for pronunciation info?--Sonjaaa 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it’s a bit elitist of me, I have always felt that IPA should be used in favor of other systems. However, the argument that IPA is too narrow for the wide variety of English dialects is quite fair. It’s for this reason why “English” pronunciation keys still exist, because if the basic vowel symbols are agreed upon then various English speakers can interpret the pronunciations accurately in their own dialects. Were it not for this, there would be IPA spelling wars just like those between the British and American spelling cohorts on Wikipedia. I.e., “it’s [ˌɪntəˈnæʃənəɫ] not [ˌɪɾ̃ɚˈnæʃɨnəɫ] you Yank!!1!1!”. — Jéioosh 22:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue has come up a lot. Besides being dialect-dependant, the IPA also has the disadvantages of being known to few people outside of specialists, especially in the U.S., where it is not used in most dictionaries. It is also funny-looking and sometimes counter-intuitive to English speakers. For example, IPA /j/ stands for the "y" in "yogurt," not the "j" in "jump." -- Mwalcoff 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there an article or talk page where standards for the use of IPA versus ad hoc pronunciation guides has been discussed? — Jéioosh 23:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure any time someone wants to remove respelling systems from an article, the talk page suddenly comes alive with protest. Here and here are two talk pages with what you're looking for. I just removed a lot of the respelling key guides at list of common phrases in various languages and I'm sure in the next couple of days there'll be a related discussion in that article's talk page. AEuSoes1 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that as a seroious encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should use the international academic standard, which is IPA. But of course people do have to learn it. If there was a more accessible alternative, I'd support it, but every system people come up with falls foul of the differences in vowel sounds across the English-speaking world. X may "rhyme with" Y in one place, but not in others, as has been shown many times on this board. Jameswilson 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

X-SAMPA is another option. It's not quite as pretty, but it has the definite advantage of being easier to type and also that it will pretty much always display correctly. (Some IPA characters turn out as boxes for me online, although it all seems to work in Word. I think I once tried fiddling with display font settings in Internet Explorer and still had problems.) Linguofreak 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason most English dictionaries do not use IPA, and that reason is not just that the reader is assumed to be unfamiliar with IPA. It seems that what is really needed for English is a two-step process: going from the word as spelled ("Worcester") to some phonemic representation (something like "['wus-t&r]"), and from the phonemes to a dialect-dependent phonetic representation (for example "/ˈwʊstə/"). The last step is only relevant for non-native English speakers, or for English speakers who want to know about dialectal variations. While not straightforward (because of dialectal phonemic variations), it would help to simplify things, for example by taking away the need to choose between a near-open and an open realization of the [a] in "man". It would further be helpful to the reader (also when IPA is used) if there was a simple way of making a crib-sheet pop up with a key to the pronunciation of these symbols; see the lists hidden in International Phonetic Alphabet for English. --Lambiam^Talk 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), pronunciations at Wikipedia should be given only in IPA, not ad-hoc pronunciation guides. IPA has the advantage of being used in (virtually?) all English-language dictionaries published outside the U.S., as well as being easy to learn. U.S. dictionary publishers seem not to believe that their readers are capable of learning anything new; I see no reason for Wikipedia to similarly insult their readers' intelligence. User:Angr 07:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the MoS reveal which dialect of English should be used for rendering the pronunciation? --Lambiam^Talk 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No. If it's a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country, I usually use the local pronunciation. Otherwise I'll usually give both RP and GenAm, if they're different. I usually put "(r)" in parentheses like that where it's just a matter of rhoticity differences. For example, the English pronunciation of Berlin is given as [bə(r)ˈlɪn], which is easily resolved as non-rhotic [bəˈlɪn] ~ rhotic [bərˈlɪn]/[bɚˈlɪn]. User:Angr 10:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh snap! I'm gonna remember that. Prepare to be quoted, Angr. AEuSoes1 07:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

August 18

english usage

is it correct to use "on no account" or it should be "on no accounts" ?

On no account. [5] -Elmer Clark 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

“On no accounts” is perfectly reasonable if you’re talking about a number of accounts, all of which share the lack of a certain feature being discussed – i.e. “The change password privilege is enabled on no accounts in this system”. But, if you’re trying to use the idiom, on no account should you ever say “on no accounts”, lest you be eyed with suspicion. — Jéioosh 09:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Naples 1545

Hi everyone, 2 kids, one from Naples ruling class, one from Venice merchant class, in the Naples of 1545. What languages do they speak? The Neapolitan speaks Nnapulitano, and Tuscan? (thanks to Dante?) and also Spanish? (thanks to Toledo?), while the Venetian speaks Venessian and Tuscan? Would they know Latin, or is it largely being phased out at this stage? What language would they write in? Would different social groups require different language spoken? Also, one last question, how similar are these languages to each other? Thanks to anyone who can help with this--BrendanD 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much else, but I think that the ruling class guy from Naples would know Latin. I'm pretty sure it was still a standard part of an upper class education well into the 1700's (and probably into the 1800's). The merchant probably wouldn't though, but I'm not as sure that he wouldn't as that the Neapolitan would. Linguofreak 01:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the good old days of Pedro Alvarez de Toledo. It sounds like the setting for a Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy. The merchant kid would most likely not know Latin, and I can't think of a convincing reason why either kid could be expected to speak Tuscan, unless they lived there for some time or something like that. Sufficient knowledge of Venetian to form a basis for communication seems actually more likely. If Bassanio managed to woo Portia without unsurmountable language barriers, surely your Tarzan and Jane can also find a way. --Lambiam^Talk 03:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But wasn't Tuscan dialect becoming established (thanks to Dante refusing to write in Latin)as the Lingua Franca (so to speak) prior to this time? I guess part of my question is 'how quickly did the use of Tuscan spread across the peninsula to become the unified Italian language that co-existed with dialects?--BrendanD 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think around that time only among the cultural elite and then primarily as a literary language, for poetry and such. I don't know how old your kid from Napels is and what level of education may be expected – (s)he might also have been taught Spanish, Latin and perhaps French – but it would still remain a problem for your Venetian. --Lambiam^Talk 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Word Choice

Good afternoon. I have a "plurality" question: Which is correct-headquarter levels or headquarters levels as headquarters should always be plural when used as a noun/adjective?Thank you for your quick reply as I am finalizing a memo at work.202.4.4.23 07:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Give the full sentence, please - the context is important. It should definitely be headquarters, but it might actually be level rather than levels. --Richardrj 08:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that bit of education. I have finalized it under my time constraint but the boss came back to me with the question. Both of us are second langugage users of English. The full sentence is: There should be coordination between the branch offices rather than a fair amount of exchange of communications at headquarter levels. (There are two company headquarters involved) He argued that headquarters should always be plural but I felt that this was used as an adjective, instead of as a noun. Pls. let me know. TY

I would put 'headquarters level'. Headquarters here is not really plural - it's just a word that happens to end in 's' (derived from 'quarters', meaning a place where one is quartered or stationed). And it should be level not levels. The fact that there are two headquarters doesn't matter - 'level' is used as a general, descriptive term. --Richardrj 09:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

totally agree.--K.C. Tang 09:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

French wiktionary

I've been trying to figure out how the French Wiktionary got to overtake five other wiktionaries within the space of a few months, and now has more articles than the English version with a fraction of the number of editors. It's quite an achievement, but how did they do it? Was one particular group of people responsible?--Shantavira 08:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope not the same way as the French Wikiquote :( — And there we're being overtaken by ... Oh noo!  --Lambiam^Talk 09:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well they always did haff vays off making people talk. --Shantavira 11:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, enough with the anti-German sentiment, already. 惑乱 分からん 12:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, they got permission to use the whole 1932 Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, and are now in the process of merging the 1932 articles with previously existing ones. --Cam 14:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a page with the legal details (in French). --Cam 15:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As well as the Académie française, they (specifically Wikt:fr:User:Lmaltier and Wiktionary:fr:User:PiedBot) have had loads of automatic (often incomplete and misleading) uploads from other languages. Also, there is a bot at work which, when one word is translated into another language, those translations are given an entry in there own right. See Wikt:fr:Maroc for an example of this. --Dangherous 20:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm Lmaltier, and I am not a bot... I created many pages on country names, 100 % manually. There has never been a systematic policy to create a page for each translation, although I did it for country names. Lmaltier (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

grammar

I have a cow. My have a cow. I know the second sentence is incorrect. Now please explain what is the grammatical mistake ?

The word 'my' is wrong here. It indicates possession of something, and it needs to be followed by a noun to say what it is that you are possessing. --Richardrj 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My cow-having? Don't have a cow, man! 惑乱 分からん 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking a look at English personal pronouns might be a good idea. — Gareth Hughes 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to give an explanation that an English learner could understand. It all has to do with the basic structure of English: Subject -> Verb -> Object (SVO).

I (subject) have (verb) a cow (object).

"My" can not serve as a subject by itself, because it must possess something, e.g. "My cow". Now you can use it as a subject:

My cow (subject) has (verb) a baby (object).

Simply speaking, "My have" is incorrect because "My" lacks a possessed noun, as Richardrj said above.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  18:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Intense Questions

• What would it be like if normal written English was replaced by the IPA? I've considered that, although there are many more symbols than English, they are entirely predictable. Do you think it would be easier to learn to write/read? Would spellings of words not be required to be commited to memory ? Would writing be inherently slower? Would keyboards be impractical? Let it be known that I am not very familiar with the IPA.

Why not peruse a copy of the Maître Phonétique in your local University library, and form your own opinion on the matter? AnonMoos 16:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it depend on your accent? If you had english translated to IPA by a geordie, you wouldn't understand a word. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would maybe save us all from some PC constraints. Right now you could be accused of many things that you wouldn't appreciate if you were to change the spelling of a word to preserve some particular accents. -LambaJan 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a prefix to mark a thing's existence as a particular noun uncertain, due to lack of knowledge? Ideally it would be similar to "pseudo", but not definitely false. Example: "To the north you will find the ???-volcano", where "???" is the prefix and it is suspected but not fully known that the mountain being reffered to actually is volcanic.

"Faux" is sometimes used, but "Pseudo-" is already pretty pejorative in most contexts... AnonMoos 16:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd call it a suspected volcano, at least until you get splashed on the face with lava. :-) StuRat 18:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in some languages, particularly native American languages, a speaker's attitude towards the truth or reality of a phenomenon is registered with a morpheme, called an evidential. As an example of an evidential in English is one use of like. He was like really stupid. is equivalent to saying He was what i might call really stupid. I'm like the only linguist I know who has come to that conclusion about like. I I haven't published anything on it. mnewmanqc

"Apparent", as in that cause of so many deaths the "apparent heart attack". —User:Tamfang, 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Another word is "putative" (commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds). -- Cat Whisperer 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a word for an insincerely offered favour? An example could be: after a social event, offering to help wash dishes when you truly hope the host to refuse.

Help appreciated. Woodenbeam 14:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pass; no, but there is the word 'putative'; no, but there is the phrase 'token gesture'. Henry^Flower 15:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

On the IPA-for-English front: this isn't what IPA is designed to do. It is designed to represent the sounds of the world's many languages, and can do this at a number of different levels of complexity. A phonetic script for English (do we have English spelling reform?) would merely have to represent the distinct phonemes of the language without having to distinguish between allophones (we seem to be quite happy with <th> representing both [θ] and [ð]. On the other front: it could be a Grrek gift, with reference to the Trojan horse. — Gareth Hughes 15:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And [θ] and [ð] are even separate phonemes, not allophones. But the contrast between them does have a low functional load. User:Angr 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It would also depend on how narrow the transcription would be. Are you going to be so narrow that every dialect is different? Would we only transcribe one dialect? If we picked American English, would we write dɑgz and kæts or would we write dɑgs or kætz. Also, derivational word pairs like vagina and vaginal have completely different vowels in them but are spelled the same. That might make for more confusion. However, if a human being can learn to write Chinese, writing IPA will be no trouble. AEuSoes1 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a given that spelling should reflect pronunciation. The vagina/vaginal example is a good illustration of the fact that spelling is often not just phonemic but morphophonemic. You can't emphasize phonetic information without losing the sense of morphological connectedness. · rodii · 22:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an essential difference between phonemes and phones that tends to get overlooked in these discussions. IPA is meant to represent phones, not phonemes. It would make perfect sense (to me) if there was a standard representation for the phonemes of the English language. Wikipedia is seriously confused about this. For example, the article English phonology, section Phonemes, states: See IPA chart for English for concise and International Phonetic Alphabet for English for more detailed charts of the English phonemes. This is wrong. These charts don't show phonemes. --Lambiam^Talk 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but the same symbols are used. /θ/ instead of [θ], [tθ], and dental [t], all (sociolinguistic) variants of the same phoneme. mnewmanqc

I'm not sure what you're talking about, Lambiam. IPA does a very good job of representing phonemes. That's why /phonemic slashes/ are an IPA standard. What's a bit more difficult is getting the IPA to represent morphemes or archiphonemes. Usually scholars modify IPA in an ad-hoc way to represent underspecified morphonemes. AEuSoes1 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you know how an otherwise unkown word is pronounced in one dialect of English (you have a string of phones), you can make a reasonable guess how it will be pronounced in another dialect of English you are familiar with (you can transform that string into another string of phones). The question is: is there a common abstraction from which you can produce all these different phonetic realizations in different dialects by applying simple translation schemas? I contend that indeed there is. So, according to this idea, someone who wants to know how the word "hot" is pronounced in Yorkshire, first looks up the "common abstraction", and then subjects it to the Yorkshire translation. For New South Wales you apply the New South Wales translation schema to the same "common abstraction". To make this work across dialects you obviously need to distinguish phonemes that have coalesced in some dialects but not in others. And of course there are some genuine dialectal differences that can't be explained by different phonetic realizations of phonemes, but I maintain these are the exceptions that prove the rule. --Lambiam^Talk 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Aeusoes here; I still don't understand why you say International Phonetic Alphabet for English and IPA chart for English don't show phonemes. Of course they do; they show them for three different dialects of English, in fact. But there is not one single set of phonemes that holds for all dialects of English. You can't say "here is the set of underlying phonemes for English, and all accents can be derived from it". You can come close to doing that for consonants (but still not perfectly), but for vowels you can't even come close to doing that. The different accents do have different underlying phoneme sets. User:Angr 05:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with translation schemes is that words change what Labov has referred to as word classes, whose vowels are marked as variables in early Labovian notation between ( ), sometimes. Egg can be pronounced with (ey) =/eɪ/ or /ɛ/ depending on dialect. Also, there are mergers that unite two different phonemes, such as the low back merger in the US that merges caught and cot so phonemes are not always the same across dialects. mnewmanqc

Thankyou everybody for giving me thinks to think about! As to the point of difficulty in dialect differences: Does anyone know If Maître Phonétique being (presumably) uniformly written as IPA in a specific dialect makes it difficult for speakers of other dialects to read it? I was thinking it would be possible, once fully capable with the IPA, to understand it as you would listening to a person with a different accent to your own. Failing that, a translation method might be great. And the "vaginal" example: The severance of useful links like this would be expensive to learning, maybe even daily comprehension. I don't know how to determine whether this would cause more trouble than unintuitive spellings. Woodenbeam 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with trying to get an English orthography that works for all dialects is that you have to go back so far into the history of the language to get anything close to "the" set of underlying phonemes that you end up with an orthography that's as bad as what we have now. The current system works pretty well across dialects, but is really hard to learn. This seems to be the trade-off in a written language. On one end you have an orthography where you can know exactly what an inscription is supposed to sound like when spoken, but where you can't tell what it means unless you understand the spoken language the writer spoke. On the other end you have orthographies like Chinese where the meaning is transcribed very well, but you can't know what it's supposed to sound like when spoken unless you know which dialect or language the writer spoke. Linguofreak 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear if English were ever to have a "phonemic spelling", there would have to be different spellings for each major dialect. Ancient Greek did this; Aeolic, Doric, Attic, and Ionic Greek weren't spelled the same, because they weren't pronounced the same (and if they had been spelled the same, we'd never know there even were different dialects!). If English spelling were changed so that, say, the vowel of "thought" was spelled ô, the vowel of "lot" spelled o, and the vowel of "father" ä (or whatever), then Brits and Australians would spell "dog" dog, but Canadians and western Americans would spell it däg, while eastern Americans would spell it dôg. It probably wouldn't significantly worsen mutually intelligibility. User:Angr 07:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt western Americans would spell "dog" däg. Rather, they'd keep "dog" as dog, and spell "father" as fodher (or whatever). --Ptcamn 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The differences between Aeolic, Doric and Attic are much more than differences in pronunciation. They are mutually at least as different as Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. To find the common ground between British, American and Australian English you don't have to go very far. I did mention the fact that if one dialect merges some phonemes but another does not, you have to keep them separate in the common abstraction. But the translation giving rise to the merger is entirely consistent. It is not as if you have the merger for some words but not for other words. For the rest, the heart of the issue is somewhat similar to the distinction between graphemes and their realizations as glyphs in typefaces. What I propose is analogous to Unicode, where IPA is analogous to a collection of (codes for) glyphs. In most contexts you can point at a list of letter shapes and pretend they are graphemes. It is problematic for "l" and "I". Here we have a "merger" in some fonts but not in others. That does not mean we must give up the idea of a typeface-independent representation as graphemes. --Lambiam^Talk 10:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But there are splits and mergers that affect only some words and not others. In American English, class and mass rhyme; in RP they don't. In RP, cloth and Goth rhyme; for many non-cot/caught-merging Americans, they don't. In RP bath and dance have the same vowel (and, at least at the phonemic level, they do for many Americans too), but not in Australian English. In almost all accents of English, can the noun (metal container) and can the auxiliary verb (in its strong pronunciation) are identical, but for many people in the Philadelphia/New York area they're different. Most Brits use the "father" vowel in banana and the "trap" vowel in pasta, while most Americans do the opposite. And of course we can't forget tomayto-tomahto. And so on. Coming up with a new symbol for every instance like this would quickly get out of hand. User:Angr 11:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Its simply not the case that there is an underlying vowel-system which dialect-speakers could add their own modifications to in a predictable fashion. The permutations of what rhymes with what are not uniform. As Angr says, "class" and "father" have the same vowel for me, but they dont for Americans, for whom "class" rhymes with "mass". Whatever two symbols you invented for those two sounds, the word "class" would end up being spelt differently in the two countries.

BTW, the second vowel in vagina/vaginal are identical for many (most?) British speakers. Jameswilson 22:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Adeste fideles

In the carol Adeste fideles, what does "adeste" mean? It's translated into English as "come", but come is "venite". For some reason, I have a niggling that it might be cognate with "attest", but I could be totally wrong. And by the way, what's "laeti"? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Adeste is the imperative plural of adesse "to be present". So a somewhat mundane translation is "Make sure to be there". Laeti is the nominative plural of laetus "happy", "rejoycing". (It could also be genitive singular.) --Lambiam^Talk 00:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Attest" is from the verb attestari, by the way. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mimesis

In nature, an animal is called a 'mimic' when it evolves to resemble its prey, its predators, or its surroundings - but is there a related general term for the things that are mimicked? If the animal is the 'mimicker' (sic), what is the word for the 'mimickee'? I'm probably approaching this problem from the wrong direction, but I'd appreciate any help. Adambrowne666 23:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The word you're looking for might be 'model' or 'model species'.Sluzzelin 01:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a correct word in biology but you could try exemplar, archetype, prototype or original. MeltBanana 01:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; both useful answers - nice to have some alternatives. Adambrowne666 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The term is "mimicry." (Sorry, confused)— [Mac Davis] (talk)

August 19

Surnames

Been musing this recently.... how many "new" surnames are created these days? I don't know how this became a pub conversation, but the general consesus is that no new surnames bar double-barrelling are created, so 21st Century equivilants to "Thatcher" or "Farmer" or the like will not come to exist. So...is this the case? Other than surnames created by marriage or divorce, are any new family names around...?

doktorb _words^deeds 15:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I know several couples (mostly lesbian, one hetero) who adopted new, invented names when they had kids. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this was a mini-trend; it's one solution to the problem of how to give everyone in a family the same surname in a post-women's movement context (the other is combining names, of course). There is also the problem of merged families, in which mother, father and children might have several names among them. Sometimes it's better to start over. · rodii · 15:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Migration can a source of new surnames. For example, people coming to English-speaking countries may end up with their names being anglicised and significantly altered in the process. I was reading today that George Alagiah's name is pronounced very differently in Sinhalese, but when he came to Britain he eventually just stopped correcting people. Bingo. A new surname is born. Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It might not happen in the 21st century, but something like this could happen (probably pretty unlikely though): The culture becomes such that a persons first name is almost the only one ever used in day to day social conversation. Then the government and buisinesses phase out using names in favor of identifying people by ID numbers such as Social Security. So in everday life the last name isn't used because it's seen as too formal (or something like that), and in bureaucratic life the last name isn't used because names aren't used at all. So over a couple generations families stop using and end up forgetting their last names. Then people would start reffering to the various "Freds" they know as "Fred the Accountant," "Fred the McDonalds Manager," etc.

If a guy named John is running for President he might become known as "John the Candidate," and if he wins he might become known as "John the President." If two guys named John run against each other, one might be "John the Coloradan" and the other "John the Virginian" in the public eye. If John the President has a son Carl, he might become known as "John's son Carl" or "Carl the President's Son." And if Carl becomes known as a communist, some might call him "Carl Marx" for ironic effect... Then all these various clarifications of which person is being talked about could become last names... Linguofreak 00:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If Anurag Dikshit had changed his surname to, well, just about anything else at all, I don't think anybody would have minded.  :--) JackofOz 05:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

An instance I personally know of is a couple marrying, each keeping his and her own names, and giving the children a combined name. Not a hyphenated name, but a new surname containing parts of each parent's name. (Boys get the father's part first, girls the mother's.) For example, the children of Mr. Bradshaw and Ms. Pennington would be named Bradington (boys) and Pennshaw (girls). — Michael J 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That can get dangerous. I knew a couple where the husband was named Fisher and the wife Lockhead. They once got a letter jokingly addressed to Mr. & Mrs. Fishhead, but I bet their children were glad they didn't actually name them that. User:Angr 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Country names

Just wondering. Why do names of people stay the same when said in other languages, but names of countries change? For example, English speakers still say Alberto Calderón, Wilhelm Röntgen and Miguel Indurain (not Albert, William or Michael). But we translate Italia to Italy, Deutschland to Germany, and España to Spain. I don't understand why there is a distinction. — Michael J 17:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Because there are far more personal names than country names: it wouldn't be practical to have standard translations for every possible name. Cities are an interesting in-between case: well-known cities (eg Moscow) have English versions; less well-known ones (Yaroslavl) don't. Henry^Flower 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In part, this changed over the last two centuries or so. Translating given names used to be common: William Shakespeare was Wilhelm Shakespeare in German until the 19th century; Iosif Stalin is in English still best known under the translation: Joseph Stalin. Today, it's only done with historical rulers (Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor instead of Karl V. oder Carlos V; Henry II of France instead of Henri), people from ancient Rome and Greece (Livy instead of Livius), and sometimes with people from countries with other writing systems (Peter Tchaikovsky instead of Pyotr Tchaikovsky). Besides the practical issue Henry mentioned, another reason for this is that spellings of names have become fashionable. People used to consider Karl, Carlos, Charles, Charlie, Carlo, Carl... all the same name and spell it in whatever way they were used to -- these days people are offended if one mistakenly spells them "Carl" when their name is "Karl". Apparently an effect of excessive elementary school spelling education... Chl 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite true they stay the same. For transliterations from other alphabets you have English Lenin versus French Lénine. We have Osama bin Laden and Usama bin Ladin. We used to have Mao Tse Tung and now Mao Zedong. And for popes, like Pope John Paul II, we have Giovanni Paolo II in Italian and Johannes Paul II. in German. --Lambiam^Talk 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We usually have a name for non-anglophone countries which is different to that they call their country. Famous people often have different names in other languages (I see Georges Bush in TV5 teletext, for instance), usually because there's a direct equivalent for that name in that language (Guillermo Shakespeare sometimes appears in Spanish), the original name is hard to pronounce for the foreign speaker, or because it's transliterated from a different alphabet. It's just how it is. - --THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It also depends on the country, Marcus Antonius was Marcus Antonius when I learnt Roman history (and Latin), but apparently it's Marc Antony in the United Kingdom. Oh! And "Rome" also taught me everyone on this planet has always spoken English! Evilbu 22:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark Antony, actually; that dates back to Shakespeare. Personally I like to use cognates where they exist; it removes one barrier to familiarity. EdC 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, names change over time; sometimes English preserves an earlier name. (Cologne/Köln, for example.) EdC 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Marello

What does the name Marello means ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.96.250.118 (talk • contribs)

What language is it? Spanish? Italian? 惑乱 分からん 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's common among Italians, and it might have something to do with mare (sea). That's my guess. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 15:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But Mario is just a male from of Maria. Could Marello be derived from Mario? --Kjoonlee 15:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Google seems to say Marello is indeed related to mare. --Kjoonlee 16:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of name

What is the meaning of the arabic girls name hawa?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.55.248 (talk • contribs)

Eve, as in Adam and Eve. --Lambiam^Talk 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Eve is only the English version of the name, it is not the meaning.

The name means "Life" or "Living One", it is explained in the Wikipedia article. However, I don't think that's the primary reason why the name is chosen by parents, today. 惑乱 分からん 13:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

August 20

Old Aramaic (1100 BCE–200 CE) Exact written translation needed

Good afternoon people, my names Adam and Im a born again christian and I am interested in having two tattoo's running down the undersides of my left and right forearms, On my right arm I would like 'Jesus' with the 'J' starting from the top point of my forearm and the rest of the letters following suit towards my hand. While on my left arm I would like 'Saves' with the 'S' starting from the top of my forearm with the rest of the letters working towards my hand aswell. My question is, after reading up on the articles of Aramaic Im completely confused by the context of how the words and letters are used to form the meaning I would like, which purely would be 'Jesus saves' as in, he saves souls. Especially as theres various forms of Aramaic, Im looking specificially for the translation of The Biblical Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible. So could someone please show me what symbols I would need and in the correct order to form the true definition of what I am seeking!As getting it wrong would absolutely change the whole 'meaning' and context of what I am trying to achieve,which in turn would completely change the whole interpretation of the words and selected language if just one error is made,which being a tattoo,I cant afford. Much apprectiated :-) Adam (Uk) --The Executioner 12:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, the term "Old Aramaic" is usually reserved for pre-Achaemenid Persian Empire forms of the language (with a cut-off date more like 600 B.C. than 200 A.D.). Jesus' name was not in Old Aramaic. Secondly, if you want a Biblical Aramaic form of the name of Jesus, then open your Hebrew-Aramaic Tanakh directly to Ezra 5:2 and you'll see it right there: Yod-Shin-Waw-`Ayin or ישוע . There is no letter "J", of course... This name has been interpreted as being derived from YHWH and a triconsonantal root meaning "to save", but the particular form ישוע can't really be easily split into two halves. AnonMoos 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While "Yeshua" by itself is related to the Hebrew root ישע for "to save", there has to have been a way of expressing "Yeshua saves" in Late Old Western Aramaic. Possibly the reconstructed Aramaic of the Reverend William Fulco can be of help. In the end, it is unlikely that there can be a hard guarantee that the form used is one that would have seemed natural to the historic followers of Jesus. --Lambiam^Talk 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The spelling ישוע continues through from Biblical Aramaic to Syriac, so the name probably would have been still spelled with those letters. But 1st century A.D. Judean and/or Galilean Aramaic was not all that much of a literary language (or at least not too many texts written it it have survived), so that trying to compose new sentences in it may be a little problematic... AnonMoos 22:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You could try using Greek instead of Aramaic. It would probably be a bit easier to find a good translation, and while Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, the gospels were written in Greek. Linguofreak 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this request. The closest written form of Aramaic to the period of Jesus is Old Judaean Aramaic. There are only a few inscriptions of the Aramaic that Jesus may have spoken. Biblical Aramaic isn't really much to do with Jesus — its the language of the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra. As other contributors have mentioned, the spelling of Jesus' name is ישוע. The most appropriate Aramaic verb for 'saves' is פרק. It would be more idiomatic in Aramaic to say 'Jesus has saved us/me', which would be either פרקנא ישוע (Template:Semxlit, 'Jesus has saved us') or פרקני ישוע (Template:Semxlit, 'Jesus has saved me'). I expect that both verbs were pronounced 'perqan' rather than the older, longer forms. If you have any further questions, ask away. — Gareth Hughes 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Prudhoe Bay Name

Why is Prudhoe Bay called Prudhoe Bay? Many thanks, --217.42.132.207 13:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This link states that John Franklin named it after his friend Baron Prudhoe. Hope this helps.Sluzzelin 13:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So much for my theory that it was named after a rather prudish whore: "I'm ready, but after we're done we have to say 500 Hail Mary's, OK ?". :-) StuRat 04:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"For Unlustful Carnal Knowledge", huh? 惑乱 分からん 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tensed æ versus lax æ transcription

A technical question: In the Northeastern and Midwestern Northern US, there are two æ s, in different distributions according to dialect. Howe are these captured in IPA? Does anyone know? mnewmanqc 15:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

See Phonological history of English short A#æ-tensing. That's probably what you're looking for. --Ptcamn 15:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose I should have looked there first. But one issue is that this notation is phonological and includes the raising aspect, which is subsequent (in time) to the tensing. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it, or the suggestion, which I appreciate. I guess there is no established notation, and I'll just use my own ad-hoc version. (It's for a class). mnewmanqc 16:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The most popular ad-hoc version used in phonology papers and articles is E. User:Angr 20:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In IPA, the pairing is æ (short) and ɛ (long) (like a backwards 3 if it doesnt show on your browser). But the article says it often becomes a diphthong in which case it would require two symbols. Jameswilson 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Definite Article Usage

I have some questions about the omission of "the" in English.

1. Is it okay to say "outskirts of town" as opposed to "outskirts of the town" if you are talking about a specific town?
2. Is it okay to say "all eight bridges" instead of "all the eight bridges" if the area you are referring to has only eight bridges?
3. Is it okay to say "people sit on benches" instead of "people sit on the benches" if you are trying to convey that people are sitting on all the benches in an area, as opposed to sitting on only some of the benches?

Thanks!--Anakata 15:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. Yes. In fact, I'd say "all the eight bridges" was incorrect.
3. It's okay to omit the article here, but I don't think either of them give the meaning you want. --Ptcamn 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to reference a specific town, a specific set of eight bridges, a specific set of benches, then you use "the". However, if in the context you were already talking about the specific place, then "the" could easily be omitted because it is already understood which one your were referring to. Use "the" in a sentence when you want that sentence to demonstrate that the subject is a specific one. - Rainwarrior 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are probably a few situations in which "outskirts of the town" would be neccesary, but I can't think of any examples offhand. In almost every case you could say "outskirts of town."

The combination of "all" and a number makes "the" unnecessary. You hardly ever hear "all the eight" except in poetry or old-style speech.

If you were talking about a recent visit to a park, and were describing the park, you would say "People were sitting on benches" if you were talking more about the general situation than any particuar aspect of it. If your focus were more on the benches, you'd say "People were sitting on the benches." If you were trying to say that all the benches had at least one person sitting on them, you would say "People were sitting on all the benches," or "... on every bench."

Linguofreak 18:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, good point. "All" does make "the" somewhat redundant, but not entirely. The variant "all of the" I think is much more common than you suggest as well. Compare "all of the horses are dead" with "all horses are dead". Sometimes you need to refer to a specific "all". - Rainwarrior 05:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that usage of "the" is diff in Brit English than American English. Specifically, Brits omit "the" in several places where Americans use "the", such as "I went to hospital" and "I came from university". However, I don't think these diffs pertain to the questions you asked. I'm an American, so perhaps a Brit would care to comment ? StuRat 04:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A Brit says it would all depend on the context. Only use "the" if which particular hospital or university is significant.--Shantavira 08:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its effectively the same distinction as "at home" v "in the house". Jameswilson 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RUEHC

I've seen the acronym "RUEHC" on a number of official telegrams to Washington D.C. (see, i.e. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/67022.pdf). Any idea what it means? Usually it is in front of SECSTATE (Secretary of State), but sometimes not (i.e. RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR). I can't figure out what it means after Googling around for a bit. --Fastfission 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I also found RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF and RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK, RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING, RUEHHI/AMEMBASSY HANOI, RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW and so on. So I'd guess the C is perhaps 'capital'. Henry^Flower 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, RUE or RUEH might mean recipient, or some sort of routing code? I've never seen anything from RUEHC, now that I think of it. --Fastfission 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure these are cable addresses, as in Telex. Google tells me you have to register those with the "Central Bureau of Registered Addresses," but I can find no trace of that organization. Anyway, cable addresses are up to ten letters, and it looks like the US goverment has registered a bunch of entries in the RUE(H) "domain". I would love to learn more. · rodii · 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

August 21

German pronunciation of "r"

Why in some listenings I can hear the German speaker pronouncing the r like in French and in others like in Spanish? Is it some kind of regional variation? Are they both acceptable in the whole German territory? Thanks.

Both variations are acceptable. A Spanish r is the best decision in standart language. A French r is mainly found in dialects (e.g. Bavarian). In songs French rs are used to create an enjoyable sound (F-r-eude schöner Götterfunken).

Actually, it's the other way around. The uvular ("French") R is standard in most of Germany, and the best choice for learners. The alveolar ("Spanish" or "Italian") R is heard only in southern accents (Bavaria, Austria) and in sung classical music. User:Angr 09:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This German wikipedia link confirms what User:Angr stated above. It also claims that the alveolar (Spanish) 'r' was still predominant in Germany a hundred years ago. Since then German speakers (with the exceptions of the mentioned parts of Austria and Bavaria) have increasingly switched to the uvular (French) 'r'. According to said link, the French analogy seems to be correct historically too. Apparently, the social elite picked up the uvular 'r' during the 17/18th century, when French was still the "lingua franca" among Europe's aristocrats. ---Sluzzelin 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Shortened name forms

Is there a term for the shortening of a person's name by using the first initial plus the first syllable of the last name? For example, J-Lo or A-Rod? Is this strictly an American phenomenon? (Lately around our office, people are referring to each other by these forms.) — M-Rud, er, Michael J 10:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna say no. The only thing I can think of is Portmanteau (That is, clipping and blending). I don't think there's a specific term for doing it in that way for names. But you can certainly coin one.AEuSoes1 03:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Devanagari ( Sanskrit )

How do you write ( Ida ) Ida (nadi) in Devanagari ? 212.138.113.25 14:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to know without looking it up. All three of the letters in the Roman transliteration could have two values in Devanagari if the diacritics of the IAST have been left off. Does "Ida" mean ida, īda, iḍa, īḍa, idā, īdā, iḍā, or īḍā? User:Angr 14:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Checking it up on the various tables at Devanāgarī is advisable, especially if we don't know what the diacritics are (if any). -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So what should I do ? Can any one tell us which one it is ? 212.138.113.24 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary list many words meaning "comfort", including iḻā and irā, but no version of "ida". However, the lemma for iḻā warns us not to confound it with iḍā, the instrumental case of iḍ, whose lemma states "connected with írā, q.v". This in turn states: "closely allied to iḍā and i". The basic meaning given is: "any drinkable fluid". I can see how that can be a comfort (like Southern Comfort). So, although I wouldn't know why we would have an instrumentalis here, iḍā appears to have the best papers. Using this as a search term I find it on this Sanskrit Heritage Dictionary as meaning "refreshment", "comfort", "libation", with rendering इडा. --Lambiam^Talk 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that ida = इडा ? Or does it nead a little more searching ? I would just li to remind those who can help that this is the " ida " I mean : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_%28nadi%29 212.138.47.22 16:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It means the claim at Ida (yoga) that the word ida means "comfort" in Sanskrit can't be confirmed. User:Angr 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On re-reading Monier-Williams, it appears that I was misled by the confusing presentation. It seems that one lemma runs on into the next: "≫ iḍā / íḍā f. or (in Ṛig-veda) / ⋙ iḻā ...". So both dictionaries above agree that "comfort" is one of several meanings of íḍā. The rendering íḍā = इडा given by the Sanskrit Heritage Dictionary is consistent, as far as I can see, with our article Devanāgarī. --Lambiam^Talk 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes; iḍā is इडा. User:Angr 19:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you , but if you may , how is it pronounced ? 212.138.113.24 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Roughly "id-ah", but for the "d" the tip of your tongue should touch the roof of your mouth (the top of your hard palate), not your alveolar ridge as it does in English. User:Angr 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

August 22

Capitalization of titles in French

I have little French and so I'm confused by an issue raised by a MS I'm editing. The author has set it in France and so lots of the characters are French and there is some French dialogue. My question is this:

would one give an initial capital (as the author has) to 'Madame' and 'Monsieur', even when the character's name is not being included when they are addressed (in English, we have 'sir' but 'Sir Henry')? Are the rules different for 'mademoiselle' (which he leaves uncapitalized) or is he merely being inconsistent?

I would be most grateful for any light that anyone can shed!

When addressing someone, as in a letter (Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, mes salutations distinguées.), or in speech (Pardon, Madame, est-ce que je pourrais vous poser une question?), it is a common – but not universal – practice to capitalize the word, as a sign of respect. When used in reference to a third person (Demandez à ce monsieur de vous montrer sa carte.) this is less common (but still not uncommon). My feeling is that whatever rule is used for monsieur/madame, should be used consistently, also for mademoiselle. --Lambiam^Talk

Category:Accuracy disputes

I know this is not the usual use of the reference desk, but I was looking over T-Z in this category and thought that people here could help clear up the accuracy of these specific articles.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wolof language
• Utah English
• Unsolved problems in linguistics
• Tarish language

Source of and best translation of the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum"

Are you able to assist me in determining the source of the Latin phrase "in cauda venerum"? If it is attributable to some Latin author, e.g., Catullus, can you also supply me with its "best translation" in the context of the source's text and also the meanings and uses it has when quoted out of its original context. Thank you for your efforts. Duane Larrieu

The correct phrase is "in cauda venenum". Literal translation: "the poison (is) in the tail", meaning "the worst ist yet to come / to save the worst for last" I don't know whether it's by Phaedrus, but it might have been in a fable referring to a scorpion. See more here.---Sluzzelin 19:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun, in cauda Venerum means "in/on the tail of the Venuses". —Keenan Pepper 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia states that it comes from Phaedrus, but refers to the Fox and the Crow (with a cheese). I have not been able to find this or a similar expression in that fable, or in any version of the Boy and the Scorpion, or any other Phaedrus fable. --Lambiam^Talk 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

English Definition to a Latin Phrase

How does the Latin phrase "et nihil humanum" translate into English?

the whole phrase is something like Homo sum et nihil humanum a me alienum esse puto (there are variants), search it on google and you can get its meaning and source. the phrase was meant to be comical originally...--K.C. Tang 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

German for 'to move'

Hello, I would like to know the German word for 'to move' in the context of moving a parked car, say for example in order to avoid a parking fine (that's not my situation, fortunately). There are so many words for 'to move' in my dictionary - absetzen, antreiben, auslenken, bewegen, erregen, umsetzen, umziehen, verfahren, wegfahren, verholen, verruecken, verschieben, versetzen, verstellen - that I don't know where to turn. Better still, if someone could provide a brief gloss on the contexts in which one would use some of the above verbs, that would be wonderful. Thank you very much. --Richardrj 05:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think 'verschieben', but I'm not German and not sure. Googling 'wagen verschieben' looks promising. DirkvdM 06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Verschieben" sounds a bit like you're pushing it rather than driving it out of the way. "Wegfahren" is probably best in this context; it literally means "drive away". You could probably also use "umparken" to mean "park somewhere else". User:Angr 07:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much! Angr, you are proving to be a lifeline in my faltering attempts to learn German! --Richardrj 07:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. That'll be €5. ;-) User:Angr 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tracking down old reference

Hi

I've asked this on the science desk too, but you might be better with navigating literature trails over here.

Poulletier de la Salle discovered cholesterol from gall stones (and bile?) in 1769, and I want to find the original 'article' although they probably didn't have journals back then. Can you suggest how I might track it down to quote from it?

Thanks very much for you help. I appreciate it!

Aaadddaaammm 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"pulled the fancy bows tight"

Hello! I'm thinking of what the expression pulled the fancy bows tight in the following sentence could mean. He (= a small, angular boy) pulled the fancy bows tight and stood up in such a way that... The sentence comes from The Final Passage by Caryl Phillips. Could anyone explain it to me please? Many thanks! Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it used as a fixed expression. I would interpret it literally: there were some fancy bows, and the boy pulled them tight and then stood up. User:Angr 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like he was tying his shoes. Anchoress 11:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye, sounds to me too that he was tying his shoes, or at least fixing them. Authors are usually very over-descriptive about mundane tasks like tying shoes. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the answers so far! The main thing I was unsure about here was what he meant by bows. They are shoes then? Perhaps a specific type of shoes? The only shoe-related meaning I could find in the Merriam-Webster dictionary was the frame of a snowshoe. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

They're not shoes, they're shoelaces. Tied into bows. 'Member? Back in the old days? Before velcro? We used to tie our shoelaces in bows. Anchoress 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, I should have thought of this. Thanks! Anyway, a few of us tie their shoelaces in bows even today. :) --Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What? People don't wear shoes with shoelaces? That's news to me... -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol have you looked down lately? No but really, I know people in their teens who only wear shoes with laces once or twice a year. Anchoress 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are shoes with laces that are designed so you don't have to tie them. My nephew wears them and I always see him going around with his shoelaces untied. He can tie them, he's just too cool to.

I myself prefer to octuple not 'em, treat my shoes like slip-ons, and forget about tying shoelaces until I buy new ones in November. AEuSoes1 00:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

define english phrase into both latin and russian

• 1.) great strength comes from great passion

and

• 2.) the definition of the word MIRACLE into either latin or russian

Ehh, that's not a definition. That's a translation... 惑乱 分からん 05:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cherokee Language

How do you say "Free Spirit" in the Cherokee language?

How do you say "Wild Spirit" or "Wild and Free Spirit" in the Cherokee language?

Thank you,

Paula

landhomesproperty@cablespeed.com

crossword help

plaese can some one helpme with these clues

over the moon (4-1-4)(***K*****)

australian acacia tree (6)

helpful push while climbing something (4-2)

native american axe (8)

peace (in the middle east ) (6)***S**

heads or tails throw (4) ***E

millitary shelter made of corrugated steel (6-3)

sphere of mince (8)(**A*B*L*)

something (usually) folded with a special message (4)Mightright 06:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)