Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

May 30

Fancy letter at beginning of a paragraph

I'm blanking on this. What is the name of the fancy letter that is sometimes at the beginning of a chapter of a book? Dismas|^(talk) 00:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial, Historiated initial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Dropped capital or dropcap, which both redirect to Initial, which is a bit misleading since in common parlance all first letters are called "initial letters". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know it by the name "decorated initial".—Wavelength (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I was thinking of dropcap. Dismas|^(talk) 02:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook language

According to Nelson A. Miles, who was military commander of the Department of the Columbia in the secnd half of the nineteenth century, Chinook Jargon was invented by the Hudson's Bay Company. [1]

In the absence of any such method of communication, the Hudson Bay fur traders were obliged to create one, and this eventually came to be known as the Chinook language, consisting of a few words whose meaning was agreed upon to express the ideas most used in ordinary conversation.
— Nelson A. Miles

Is this true? It sounds very unlikely to me. Maybe the Hudson's Bay Company documented it and regularized it for employee use but surely they didn't invent it. I am especially unwilling to trust Miles as reliable when it comes to linguistic questions as he also says that Plains Indian Sign Language "...constituted a language almost identical with that used by the deaf and dumb of the present day in the asylums and schools established for their benefit." I am even more certain that that is incorrect, although Miles does seemingly contradict himself in a footnote by saying the the language of the deaf is based on alphabetic signs whereas PISL is ideographic. SpinningSpark 11:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of pidgin languages emerge as a means to facilitate trade. It's not impossible that one was deliberately created for the trading needs of the Hudson's Bay Company. --Xuxl (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why would they base it on Chinook? English or French would have been a more natural choice. Also, I believe a strong native trading network already existed in the area prior to the arrival of the Company. SpinningSpark 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are arguments that Chinook Jargon pre-dates European trade, according to Jim Holton's Chinook Jargon: The Hidden Language of the Pacific Northwest (1999). The chapter on history can be found here. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Jespersen's second-hand account starting p. 228 here. Henry ^Flower 16:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun case for object of to be

Which is correct, and why:

Marlowe "Tamburlane the Great" Accursed be he that first invented war.

Shakespeare "Macbeth" Damned be him that first cries hold enough.69.146.148.2 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to "...cursed be he that moves my bones"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Macbeth sentence is the "wrong" one. 'Be' here is the subjunctive form, and the phrases could have been replaced with

"may he be accursed..."
"may ~~him~~ he be damned"
"may he be cursed..."

μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol 7, p. 258 they explain it as reflex of the active voice "damn him". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to explain then what they mean by a reflex. The normal traditional term would be predicate nominative, since "be" is a copula, and doesn't traditionally take "objects" as such.

Of course, "I want to be him" is common nowadays, but in this case, "him" would best be described as a disjunctive pronoun, for which we can conveniently blame that foul nest of all such incromulence--France. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "I've Gotta Be Me" should really be "I Must Be I". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Quixote? --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

And/or

"And/or" is such a commonly used term that I'm surprised that there isn't a proper English word for this concept. Does any other language have a word for it? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D41B:1D13:2B76:1781 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for languages that have a concise way of contrasting inclusive and exclusive 'or'? —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled And/or which has some reading. It also has links to further articles which may help you in your research. --Jayron 32 12:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "and/or" is absolutely dreadful English; it creates ambiguity. And includes or, and the correct way to indicate an exclusive (disjunctive) or is simple: X or Y, but not both. Neutrality^talk 14:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "And" does not always include the case where only one of the items is required. If a jobs says "Requirements are a 4 year degree and 10 years experience", that does NOT mean either one alone is sufficient. Perhaps you meant that "or" includes both. That's not always true either. If a menu says "Each entree includes a salad or side", that does not mean you get both. So, to make it absolutely clear, you must say "both are required", "only one is allowed", or "and/or" may be used for the case where either one or both is allowed. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your example, the word "requirement" makes clear that both are required. So let me rephrase: the word and without additional qualifiers often includes or. Neutrality^talk 19:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but that "often" makes it is ambiguous, and that's where the "and/or" comes in, to explicitly say that one or both are acceptable. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you want to say that something can be and be X or Y, or both, say "X or Y or both", as described at Logical_disjunction. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And/or is not ambiguous. Given two possibilities A and B, "and/or" means it could be A, it could be B, or it could be both A and B. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple skim of our article would indicate otherwise. Also, you simply aren't qualified to make that judgement. Just because you know what the term means in your own interpretation, does not mean other people cannot justifiably interpret it in another way ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of the article matches exactly with what I said immediately above, except the article uses A, B and C instead of just A and B. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pay note, according to our article (and supported by casual logical analysis) "And/or" is '"an "accuracy-destroying symbol," and "meaningless."" it "is particularly harmful in legal writing". So it is best to not use "And/or", ever ;) We have perfectly good words such as "and", "or" and "XOR", and "And/or" simply cannot add any unambiguously meaningful semantic content.

Now, perhaps you weren't interested in that specific grouping, but are interested in the way we use the slash to join words together? In that case, see Slash_(punctuation)#Connecting_alternatives. The slash is also known as a solidus, and we have a nice reference to [2], which explains how the solidus is used to connect words in books that follow the Hart's Rules style guide. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of the article demonstrates that it is not ambiguous, at least not to a native speaker of English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bugs. To my native English language ear (native-speaking ear?), it is absolutely clear that "A and/or B" means "A or B or both". I always avoid using it because, as our article points out, some people think it is ugly, and others don't seem to understand its precise meaning. Loraof (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article demonstrates no such thing. It offers an accepted interpretation, but then the article then goes on to list several criticisms, including the inherent ambiguity in the construction. It lists several references that say the construction is confusing and should be avoided. Just because you personally do not understandwhy or how the symbol can be interpreted in different ways does not mean it cannot be interpreted in different ways. You have given your opinion, now let it rest and let readers use the provided references and come to their own conclusions. Some readers may choose to follow the interpretation of Baseball Bugs, while others may choose to follow the advice of Strunk & White ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not demonstrate "the inherent ambiguity in the comstruction". It offers references to some who claim there is an inherent ambiguity, but it does not offer any possible interpretations other than the dictionary meaning "either A or B or both".

Now the word "or" is problematic and should be avoided unless the context is clear. (1) It can mean the inclusive "or". (2) It can mean the exclusive "or". (3) It can introduce an appositive: "an equilateral triangle, or a triangle with three equal sides"—it's not clear to the uninitiated that this means the two parts are synonyms, rather than alternatives (though the presence or absense of the comma may give a hint as to the writer's intent—a comma may signify an appositive, while the absense of a comma may signify alternatives, unless the writer doesn't use commas that way). I favor using "A or B or both" for (1); "either A or B" for (2); and "or equivalently" for (3). Loraof (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant be imply both the article and the refs therein, but I see there was some ambiguity in my words :) I hope you'll agree that a single article also cannot demonstrate a lack of ambiguity either. If you want specific examples and discussion of the ambiguity, see refs 11 and 12. These are particularly notable because they touch on the legal problems caused by the ambiguity in the symbol. Since there seems to be considerable confusion on the matter, I will spell out how a variety of distinct logical interpretations are valid, starting from a variety of possible logical interpretations of the symbols "or", and "/." I will assume that by "and" we mean logical conjunction in all cases. As you note, "or" itself is ambiguous without context, so I will use XOR for exclusive or and IOR for inclusive or to avoid ambiguity in the following examples. In each case, all I do is use the truth table definition of each binary operator, then use the standard rules of sentence logic to determine the truth of the compound connective. After finding the truth values of the compound connective, I then look at the standard table of 16 binary logical operators to see which one And/or is equal to in that case.

If by "or" we mean "logical disjunction (IOR), and by "/" we mean "IOR", then "And/or" means IOR. If we take the "/" to mean "and", and leave the other assignments alone then "And/or" means "IOR".
If we take "or" to mean XOR and "/" to mean "and", then "And/or" is a connective that cannot be logically satisfied and any sentence using it as a connective will be false, i.e. a contradiction. In this case, "And/or" is the "false operator" F, also sometimes denoted with the Up_tack.
If we take "/" to mean XOR and "or" to mean IOR then "And/or" reduces to XOR.

The curious reader can complete similar exercises on their own time, as there are additional valid interpretations I have left out. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate have "And/or" interpreted as IOR, XOR, and ⊥, depending on what we think "or" and "/" might mean. Anyone is welcome to feel that one of these is the "correct" interpretation of "And/or", but all of them are valid logical interpretations, supported but standard truth tables for binary logical operators. This is why many legal experts and style experts (WP:OR and logic experts) suggest the term be avoided whenever clarity is sought. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my interpretation, it's what the article says. If the article is wrong, you should fix it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine, it's your reading comprehension and possibly grasp of logic that needs help. But try as I might, I fear I may fail to improve either of those things. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I agree with the article's statement of what "and/or" means, I don't know what you're on about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs isn't showing insufficient reading comprehension, nor an insufficient grasp of logic. You are making the mistake of thinking that meaning in a natural language can always be found by breaking something down into smaller components. Natural language doesn't work that way. In English the compound word "and/or" has a single meaning according to the dictionaries I've checked, and that meaning is not the sum of its components. It may be an ugly word, but words carry the meaning that is arbitrarily assigned to them, not the meaning that it sounds like they ought to have. Loraof (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that natural language doesn't always follow logic. But our article lists several RS describing ambiguity in the word, including citations to top style guides and court cases. Additionally, I have just presented three different interpretations, none of which are objectively incorrect. So if anyone persists in claiming "the article demonstrates that it is not ambiguous", yes, I will question their reading comprehension. One last ref before I give up on convincing people of the obvious: here's a link [3] to the record of a court case cited in our article. It says in part: "The petition is next challenged because of the use of the conjunctive, alternative phrase 'and/or'" - emphasis mine. It is my opinion that this clearly demonstrates the ambiguity in the word, to the extent that a state supreme court had to be called upon to make a judicial ruling in the matter. There is an important distinction between "this is a common way a phrase is interpreted" and "this phrase has one unambiguous meaning" SemanticMantis (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists one source, a Bryan Garner, claiming that the term is ambiguous, and gives this more weight than the consensus of "other sources" that it isn't. (It also mixes stylistic objections with the claim of ambiguity.) This is bad Wikipedia writing. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A rather better quote from the same case: "In the matter of the use of the alternative, conjunctive phrase 'and/or,' it is sufficient to say that we do not hold this to be reversible error, but we take our position with that distinguished company of lawyers who have condemned its use. It is one of those inexcusable barbarisms which was sired by indolence and dammed by indifference, and has no more place in legal terminology than the vernacular of Uncle Remus has in Holy Writ. I am unable to divine how such senseless jargon becomes current. The coiner of it certainly had no appreciation for terse and concise law English". Though I notice that the header of the page includes the phrase "Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase". MChesterMC (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried reading that legal case, but I don't think I have the legal training (or patience) to work out what the issue with "and/or" is - and the quote provided by MChesterMC looks to me to be just (rather pretentious) complaining about a phrase they don't like, rather than an explanation of why it is misleading. As for our And/or - it gives a clear and unambiguous description of what it means and how its used, followed by references to complaints that it is ambiguous (with no explanation why), and more complaints that it is "ugly".

As to the question about other languages, there's at least a definite "sort of". In classical Latin aut conveys the exclusive sense of "or" (one or the other but not both) while vel is available for other uses, including the inclusive "and/or" sense. See Cassell's Latin Dictionary. If Wiktionary is correct, Polish has a similar distinction between albo and lub. --21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's correct, although most Polish people who are not lawyers or mathematicians use albo and lub rather interchangeably. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; thanks, folks! There's much to digest up there. ↑ (And it didn't occur to me that WP would have an article: And/or) --OP=2606:A000:4C0C:E200:815D:E1A4:3737:B2F2 (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- To further complicate things, I've seen cases where more than two items are included, meaning "either A or B or C... or any combination thereof". --OP:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:815D:E1A4:3737:B2F2 (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see people are still missing a very simple reason the courts hate it. It's not just pretention and style, it is a functional concern of how language affects legal scope and contractual obligations! To wit: if "X and/or Y" occurs in a contract, then one party can claim that using only one of "and", or "or" is an acceptable reading, while the other party has a different understanding of the term So then party A says "the contract was not satisfied because party B did not do X and Y". Party B says the contract was satisfied because he fulfilled X, and that satisfies "X or Y", which is part of the meaning of "X and/or Y". The law gets annoyed and cannot find a legal framework for saying who is right, so that whole bit is invalidated. This is sort of what happened in the above case. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were inventing ambiguity where there isn't any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really ambiguity in the usual sense. Yes, it's a terrible idea for a legal document which requires clarity and precision, and where it's unlikely that 'and' and 'or' will simultaneously be useful. It's fine in other situations where it's useful to indicate inclusive or in contrast to exclusive or. 142.205.241.253 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The legal objection might come down to this: Party B says the contract was satisfied because he fulfilled X, and that satisfies "X or Y", which is part of the meaning of "X and/or Y". The court might be in doubt whether Party B was obligated to fulfill X and Y, and if not that, then just Y. Akld guy (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sign say?

I saw this sign in Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland. It says something in Arabic, but what does it say? JIP | Talk 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikt:كابل, it means "Kabul".—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps "cable" in Persian. Deor (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Kabul. 78.145.19.237 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably choose between the alternatives if we had context, but out of interest, why is there a Farsi/Arabic sign in Finland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.19.237 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess is, this is a phonetic joke (quite smart) about the exact same yellow signs one can see quite often in Finland, face to face one on each of two islands, that say "Kaapeli" or "Cable" or "Kabel" in the same bold black letters, to indicate where a cable lies under sea water or under lake water between two islands. (Google "cable sign finland" to find some images examples) Akseli9 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this idea. There are such signs all over the place by the sea shore in the capital region at least. This "Kabul" thing would be a good pun, but extremely few native Finnish speakers can read Arabic, and this particular sign was not placed anywhere near the sea shore. But still, it is located at the HUT campus of Aalto University, and the students there are known for their practical jokes. JIP | Talk 20:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Pashto article about Kabul at ps:ﻛﺎﺑﻞ.—Wavelength (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

Popularity of verbates

Per my knowledge, "orientate" and "administrate" are the most popular verbates. Does Wikipedia have any article talking about the popularity of verbates by some people?? (No, this doesn't mean simply any verb that ends in -ate; I want you to figure out yourself what it means.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your wish for us to figure out ourselves what it means, you also might wish to clarify: are the verbs listed in wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -ate the ones you mean? (Note that it does not simply list "any verb that ends in -ate": "hate" and "mate" are not on in that category, for example. Unfortunately it lists adjectives and nouns too, though. See also wikt:-ate#Suffix, number 7). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "verbate" means "to reproduce word for word" - presumably, then, a back-formation from "verbatim". If that's not what the OP means, then he's got some 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this means adding an unnecessary -ate ending (to orient and to administer being perfectly good verbs with exactly the same meanings as their extended forms). However, that does not seem to be a grammatically correct use of the word "verbate" which does mean to repeat something word for word (verbatim), and does not seem to be recorded anywhere with this new meaning. I can't immediately think of other examples. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty sure that, for those neologists, the thinking is not take administer, and add -ate, but instead, it is take administration, and try to make a verb out of it. And they follow the pattern that they are familiar with of ordination-ordinate, nomination-nominate, acceleration-accelerate etc. etc. --Lgriot (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for clarification, what 86.191.126.192 assumes it means is on the right track; it means put "-ate" verbs into existence from -ation nouns that originally came from verbs without -ate. But the key when it comes to my use of "verbate" is that I find it surprising that there's no widely used special name for this kind of verb. Georgia guy (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the related verb form to "ordination" is "ordain". The back - formation is not present in a word like "commentate" which implies a string of "comments" (which can be used as either a noun or a verb) for which the related noun is "commentary". 151.224.162.114 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wiktionary entry for 'ordinate' is clearly indicating that ordain is not the only verb for describing the act of ordination.

Verb

ordinate ‎(third-person singular simple present ordinates, present participle ordinating, simple past and past participle ordinated)

1.(transitive) to ordain a priest, or consecrate a bishop

--Lgriot (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remain appalled that "coronate" is considered an acceptable variant of "crown" (v.). Some people just can't seem to pronunciate their words good. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is yet another case where English has two words for the same thing, one derived from French and one from Latin. See fr:Constitutions religieuses. 151.224.163.159 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French itself is derived from Latin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

What they would show at daybreak is the question here at issue.

The context is as follows: "One hundred and twenty acres, according to the County Clerk, is the extent of my worldly domain. But the County Clerk is a sleepy fellow, who never looks at his record books before nine o'clock. What they would show at daybreak is the question here at issue. Books or no books, it is a fact, patent both to my dog and myself, that at daybreak I am the sole owner of all the acres I can walk over. It is not only boundaries that disappear, but also the thought of being bounded. Expanses unkown to deed or map are known to every dawn, and solitude, supposed no longer to exist in my county, extends on every hand as far as the dew can reach." (excerpt from "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold) I 'm not so clear about what the sentence---"What they would show at daybreak is the question here at issue"---means.Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.213.41 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that the 'legal' extent of the author's land is 120 acres, but as a practical matter, he has free range over as much territory as he pleases, and that the land is so expansive and (by the sounds of it) untouched, that legal definitions of boundaries and ownership are unimportant. So, "what they would show at daybreak" (when the authority to define legal boundaries is not present) is the practical, in the author's opinion more meaningful, reality than what would be shown by lines on a map. some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would read this as meaning that at that hour he can do whatever he wants on other people's land because nobody is around to stop him. He does mention that the normal boundary markers (fences, gates etc.) are present to delineate other people's property. 151.224.162.114 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, the sentence means there is an open question about what property limits the county record books would show if they were opened at dawn. In fact, there is no real open question. Of course they would show the same limits as they would show at nine o'clock. Figuratively, the sentence has the meanings others have suggested, namely that there is a question whether there are any effective limits to the author's freedom of movement and action exist at daybreak. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute — you're telling me daybreak happens before nine o'clock? --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I understand that this was discovered by Ben Franklin, as reported in his satirical essay that is sometimes cited as seriously proposing Daylight Saving Time. —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Interesting you mentioned that. At the Land Registry all incoming postal applications are entered in the "Day Book" as having been received at 9 a.m. They have to do it that way because if you were to walk in and claim a title at (say) 09:59 and someone else walks in to claim the title at 10:00 you get it and she doesn't. The time they go by is Greenwich Mean Time (or its summer replacement British Summer Time), so if you're going by radio time signals (UTC) you may be pipped at the post. Were you to file your claim electronically at, say, 01:55 BST and someone else files ten minutes later at 01:05 GMT I wonder who would get the land? 151.224.163.159 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Japanese "tei!"

What does "ていっ" mean, in the context of a battle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.94.21.194 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interjection that you use when attacking. As far as I know it's just a cry, not derived from any particular word or phrase, but I'm not sure. I searched several online Japanese dictionaries but none of them have it. Google is basically useless since most hits are for phrases that happen to have ていっ in the middle. Bing gives much better results, but I still didn't find any useful discussion. -- BenRG (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Kiai is relevant here. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is. I don't know anything about martial arts. -- BenRG (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Chotjewitz in need of German help

Help! David Chotjewitz is a German novelist, who has written at least one book that has done quite well in English translation but our article on him says he became a "publisher", after dropping out of high school, I think, (perhaps we mean printer?)if you know German can you take a look at the sources, and fix up whatever you can. Thanks!

No, the German article says he was a Verlagsbuchhändler, which means publisher not printer. --Viennese Waltz 19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? So, English speakers might understand it? Is there a more natural way to say whatever he was in English? (Like what did he do as a high-school drop out publisher (editor?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ver- "for-" or "out" lag- "lay" bookhandler. That is someone whose business with books is to put them forth, i.e., a "publisher". (I'll mention that German publishing companies, like Springer Verlag, just use the shorter term, Verlag. :::There's an episode of Keeping up Appearances where Onslow is reading Springer Verlag's Chaos and Frctals in bed, which shocked me, as I had been given the same book as a birthday present when it was first printed.) μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting that. So, can someone explain what he did, actually? Like, in English. He obviously was not Springer or Der Spiegel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what he did. According to the Friedrich-Bödecker-Kreis's website, he had trained as a Verlagsbuchhändler in order to later become independent/self-employed as a writer and translator. Part of his apprenticeship/training was done at Rowohlt, and their jobs website lists it among a variety of jobs, and explains that, in 2010, the training program for Verlagsbuchhändler had been replaced by the one for Medienkaufmann/-kauffrau Digital und Print. The current program looks like it gives trainees a comprehensive and non-specialized run through all the sectors and departments that compose the publishing trade. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) has an occupational profile in English for "Medienkaufmann/-kauffrau Digital und Print" which it translates as "Media agent for digital and print media (m/f)". ---Sluzzelin talk 12:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so it's a formal training program run by the publishing house. That's a helpful English summary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the opening sentence of a question

Being spring it is time for teacher interviews again. One of the questions we have starts "School team have a variety of roles within in the school." This seems to me to be strangely worded. The school principal disagrees. Is it fine as is or should it be reworded? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"team" should be plural and the "in" is extraneous. Other than that, it's OK, although I might say "serve roles" versus "have roles". (But maybe they are interchangeable, since, if I "serve rolls", then we will "have rolls" with dinner.) StuRat (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is the language skills of the principal (or perhaps language skill within of the principal). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Should have said that there is only the one school team. Anyway, should the sentence not start with "The"? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. "The school team has a variety ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... but it's probably the members of the team that have the roles, and so the sentence should say this: "The members of the school team have a variety of roles within the school." Alternatively, if the team itself as a group has these roles then the above advice to keep the singular "has" will be correct. Dbfirs 11:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, if different members of the team have different roles, then it is also true to say that the team has a variety of roles. It's also a question of how finely the roles are specified. If it's not untrue to say that the job of a team leader is to "lead the team", that doesn't mean that the job can't be broken down into any number of particular tasks, or sub-roles, or roles. Sorry for the quadruple negative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I think the extra "in" was a typo on my part. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maori(?) addendum of The Lone Ranger intro

The intro text of Quantum Jump's 70s hit The Lone Ranger is basically the Maori mountain Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu - but only 3/4 of it, then there is another line:

Taumata-whaka-tangi-hanga-kuayuwo

tamate-aturi-pukaku-piki-maunga

horonuku-pokaiawhen-uaka-tana-tahu

mataku-atanganu-akawa-miki-tora

What does this mean? Does it mean anything, or is it merely gibberish? --KnightMove (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User mi includes User:Tarzipan and User:Funauckland and User:Victoriaclark86.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have asked User:Axciom, the others have been inactive for a long time. --KnightMove (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is about 75% gibberish. The two words that are not would be "mataku", a verb to fear, and "tora", an adjective meaning to be ablaze. The rest of the words could be proper nouns that have not been capatilised because the whole word is a proper noun and thus requires no extra capitalisation, and appear in the-form-you-see-them to agree with the hyphenated form of the rest of the word. I'm sorry I can't tell you what the other words mean, I'd assume they're names. Perhaps feedback from other speakers? Axciom (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Axciom: Can't help, but it seems to me that line 3 should be:

horonuku-pokaia-whenua-katana-tahu - Akld guy (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odds

Which is correct, "70% is good odds" or "70% are good odds"? ScienceApe (talk)

It might depend. "With your CV, you've got a 70% chance of getting that job, and 70% is good odds in this market". That's the usual way.

But "At the races today, 30% of the horses I wanted to bet on were unbackable odds-on favourites, but 70% were good odds". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's straightforward: "70% is good odds"...."70% and 80% are good odds."68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if you want to talk about "odds" you should be saying "7 to 3 in favor", not "70%". If you express it as a percentage or a pure number ("70%" or "0.7") then it's correctly called a probability or, in non-technical speech, a "chance" or a "likelihood". But in practice many people do not make this distinction. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is this:

70% is twice 35%

70% of the cake is inedible

70% of the cakes are inedible

In bookmaking parlance, "in favour" is odds - on, as noted above. There's a misconception about backing odds on favourites - the lower the price the less money the bookie makes - that's why they make a killing when a rank outsider comes in and lose millions when there's a run of favourites. At some point the percentage turns in favour of the backer, but you need nerves of steel to put down twenty thousand pounds to win a grand. The odds against Brexit are about 5/2 I believe, so you could get maybe 1/4 on Remain - I wouldn't bet the house on it.

In the example cited, a seven pound bet would win three pounds, total return ten pounds. The corresponding tote dividend would be one pound 43 pence to a one pound stake. A bookmaker would not offer odds of 3/7, however. The nearest price would be 4/9, which means that if you bet seven pounds you would win three pounds 11 pence, for a total return of ten pounds 11 pence (before tax). 151.224.167.104 (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your confusing change of indentation. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Yet, it was reported that bookmakers suffered large financial losses due to Leicester's totally unpredicted Premier League title this year. --Theurgist (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [4] the bookies seem to have had things very much under control. I'd be interested to see the report which said they miscalculated. 151.224.132.45 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

June 5