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.

January 2

Translations from German

Hello! I am looking for some nice and as classic as possible translations for these German sentences:

Das ist keine inhaltliche Begründung (e. g. after somebody answered the question why he did something particular by saying: "because I can!")
Kaum bin ich ein paar Tage weg [und] schon geht die Welt unter [or: ... schon geht alles den Bach runter].

Finally, I would like to ask whether my introductory sentence is grammatically resp. idiomatically correct English – or do I have to place "as classic as possible" after "translations"?

Since this kind of questions is somewhat difficult to settle with a dictionary – and all dictionaries I consulted did not provide satisfying solutions –, I would be very grateful for your advice,--Hubon (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For #1, I would say "that is not a good reason", which is not literally what the German says, but idiomatic in English. For #2, I would say "I've barely been gone a few days and the world is falling apart". As for your introduction, it sounds very German, since German likes to use a whole string of words as an adjective, so you actually need to re-work the whole sentence to make it sound idiomatic in English - "For these German sentences, I am looking for some nice translations that are as classic as possible". However, "classic" doesn't sound correct there in English. I'm not sure what you mean by "classic" so I can't offer a better word. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much so far! By "classic" I mean [Is this idiomatic either?] neither slangy nor over-sophisticated, but timeless or standard instead; in this sence it was intended. Another brain teaser that has been on my mind for quite a while by now is:

Der Professor setzt von seinen Studierenden viel voraus (meaning: he assumes that his students have quite a lot of background knowledge) – Would you maybe like to [idiomatic?] also help me with that one?

Sorry for asking so much, but, as you see, I'm not a native speaker... (For the underlined phrases or any other part you may comment right in my post if you like!) Best--Hubon (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked,"this" (in your initial post) is singular, but you've paired it with "kind of questions", which is plural. It's a very common mistake among English learners. Where you've used 'classic' above to describe the style of translation, I might use 'formal', but since formal translation has a technical meaning, perhaps 'proper' would be better. The sentence "Would you maybe like to also help me with that one?" is idiomatic, but slightly verbose and, well, formal sounding, but perfectly acceptable, especially when requesting assistance (when English speakers are asking for a favour, they often beat around the bush (second sense) instead of approaching it directly. Matt Deres (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "kind of questions" is singular, since "kind" is the main noun here - though it should be "kind of question", since "kind of" takes the singular. MChesterMC (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, correct. Thank you. That's what I get for editing while sleepy. Matt Deres (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "The professor expects a lot from his students" (which translates the German, but not the clarification). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz, that's perfect – thank you! @MChesterMC: are you sure? What about "these kind of people" – would I have to use "kinds of" instead?

Yes. Either "this kind of person" or "these kinds of people". You might also conceivably, but rarely, see "this kind of people" and "these kinds of peoples", where "people" is a singular noun meaning nation, rather than the plural of the singular "person". See Winston Churchill's A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, for ex. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go, another one [I guess this is colloquial now?] that's been giving me a hard time: So leicht kommst du mir aber nicht davon!--Hubon (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't get off that easy". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to remember this translation, too – thanks a lot! @JackofOz: But, honestly, isn't "this kind of people" a much more common expression? And in case the participants aren't tired of me yet, I could need some help with this expression I had to think of today: Mir wird schon etwas einfallen. Best--Hubon (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This kind of people" may be a mishearing of "These kind of people". That is, a mishearing of a solecism. "These kind" is wrong, no matter what follows it, but I agree that people all-too-commonly say it. They say "Me and him done it" too.--Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Mir wird schon etwas einfallen, something like 'I've got an idea already'? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More like an assertive "I'll come up with something". The word "schon" doesn't mean "already" here. It's usually hard to translate. See the fourth item at wikt:schon#Adverb. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, would "he and I did it" be the correct equivalent for "Me and him done it"? Sluzzelin, that's a very good translation, I think!--Hubon (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he and I did it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: May I give you another one? I really tried to, but I couldn't find a proper translation in any of the German-English dictionaries I know, for the statement: Dort findet man... und alles, was man sonst noch so für ein kulinarisches Genusserlebnis braucht (referring to a very diverse market).--Hubon (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Does anybody have a good tip for me (Do you say it that way?) how to get rid of always asking oneself how sth would be expressed in a foreign language...? I've been really "lost in translation" for quite a while by now – though I'm not a professional –, but it still keeps beeing on my mind all the time. Always thankful for good advice--Hubon (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, dear Hubon ... "there you will find... and anything else you might need for a pleasurable culinary experience". I haven't tested yet, but Google Translate may be your friend, after all <shudders>. See, for example The Great A.I. Awakening. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, thank you for your translation – I've already thought of something with "anything or everything else" (I guess both versions are possible?), too, but now I can be sure about it – as well as for your kind recommendation. Though I must say that I'm not utterly convinced of the current state of translation machines and the quality of their results yet... Best--Hubon (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

the meaning of "play a straight hand"

Would you please teach me the meaning of "play a straight hand" in the following passage. He was the nearest thing to an independent in Italian politics; in negotiation he always played a straight hand; he could be relied upon to keep his word as he did over the stationing of Cruise missiles in Italy. ---Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years, p.83153.178.118.63 (talk)dengen —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think "to play a straight hand" = "to keep his word". Loraof (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an expression I've ever heard before. The writer may have meant the second meaning of "play it straight". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. I googled the exact phrase; to my surprise, most of the top hits were at Google Books, and they all seem to have that meaning. Two of the hits were particularly informative. In the 2012 romance novel His Valentine Triplets by Tina Leonard, on page 128 one of the characters says: "He's been a crook and a cheat for so many years, he's forgotten how to play a straight hand." And in the 2012 novel A Tangled Web by Emil Miller (shown in Google Books without page numbers), at one point the author writes: "The moment he had seen them, he had been acutely aware that he must play a straight hand in the poker game that was to follow." I suggest that that the expression comes from some community of poker players and is meant to contrast with bluffing. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonably well known phrase in the UK and I take it to mean dealing honestly with others, rather than attempting deception. I know nothing about poker, and am surprised to to learn that a straight hand is "a poker hand containing five cards of sequential rank, not all of the same suit" and has nothing to do with deception or otherwise. Perhaps as User:Clarityfiend suggests above, it has mistakenly evolved from "play it straight", or another possible culprit is from cricket, to "play a straight bat". It seems unlikely that Mrs T was much interested in either poker or cricket. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the card game in question more likely to be Bridge than Poker? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. As a former bridge player, I can't think of any connection to that game. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely go with the cricket derivation. There are many expressions in BrEng that derive from cricket, often (but not restricted to) relating to fair play (one of many exceptions being "stumped", used popularly to mean perplexed). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The poker hand that ranks immediately below a flush is a straight; I've never heard it called a straight hand. —Tamfang (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to expect any connection to that hand. Alan's remarks seem more relevant to me. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Related to the word straightforward. As it relates to poker, it means honest, no bluffing. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you don't refer to other poker hands, like a flush, as a flush hand. That sounds like it has something to do with how you flush the toilet. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My undertsanding of this idiom comes from not playing an "ace up the sleeve" in poker. Literally an extra ace card of the same type of deck hidden in one's jacket, although I have a hard time finding any source with the literal meaning. Basically, one got shot in the wild west for using one if caught. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an ace up the sleeve sounds a lot less messy than "an ace in the hole". StuRat (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

written Spanish

Is es:La buena guarda written in good Spanish? When I read it in Google Translate, it's even worse than a normal Google Translate. I didn't know if Google just did a worse job than normal or if it was GIGO. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read every word of it, but about a quarter of the page. It is very good Spanish. —Stephen (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just a bunch of errors by Google. No surprise. Thanks! 208.95.51.72 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you know enough Spanish (or whatever the source language) the best way to use Google translate is to break sentences down to phrases:

Spanish source, not broken down:

"El frenillo del pene o frenillo prepucial es un pliegue cutáneo que una cara inferior del glande con la superficie interior del prepucio, y una ayuda contra el prepucio sobre el glande.""

giving this garbled Google translation:

The frenum of the penis or preputial frenulum is a skin fold that a lower face of the glans with the inner surface of the foreskin, and an aid against the foreskin on the glans.

Spanish source, entered at GT with breaks for each phrase:

El frenillo del pene o frenillo prepucial

es un pliegue cutáneo

que une la cara inferior del glande

con la superficie interior del prepucio,

y ayuda a contraer el prepucio sobre el glande.

And the much better result:

The frenulum of the penis or preputial frenulum

Is a skin fold

Which connects the lower face of the glans

With the inner surface of the foreskin,

And helps to contract the foreskin on the glans.

μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Spanish (having studied Portuguese) but I don't see any mention of penises in the article :)195.147.104.148 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term "little brake" came to mind when thinking of freno and puns, so I copied that sentence from the lead of the Spanish article. I find humour is a good pedagogical aid. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually means "bridle" which is something used to restrain a horse. It turns out that the word "refrain" is related.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: What, exactly, is the "it" that means "bridle"? Freno? Frenulum? Frenillo? (please link source, cause I actually did some not very etymologically helpful research before posting. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of frenare. See if this works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to grieve, afflict or torment you with the fact that "pene" means something in Spanish that it doesn't mean in Portugese, would you believe me? Dbfirs 15:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a type of pasta? :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, one that's better al dente than limp. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translate mistakes in ads

http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/the-20-worst-brand-translations-of-all-time.html says many ads with translate mistakes. Examples KFC from English "finger licking good" to "eat your fingers off" in Chinese and Ikea from Swedish to "getting to third base" in Thai. Can I know the mistake words they use? Cause some is fake like Chevy Nova from English to "won't go" in Spanish. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While no va (two words) could mean "no go" or "not going" in Spanish, the alleged issue with that car's name may have been apocryphal, though I'm not sure "fake" is quite the term. According to the Real Academia website, the Spanish for what we call a "nova" (meaning a "new [star]") is estrella nova. And of course transliterations and translations can cause trouble the other direction too.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, "No va" in Spanish is a full and grammatical sentence, literally "It (or he or she) doesn't go."

That Chinese restaurant doesn't look like an accident, more like marketing genius! I mean, people would remember where it is. Looks like an old sign, which is to say, a successful one. But it's probably shooped anyway. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This alleges to be the offending ad for KFC. I couldn't say whether the characters are correct or if it's just gibberish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese characters just say "Kentucky". The "eating your finger off" bit looks pretty photoshopped. The Chinese version of the slogan "finger licking good" is "吮指回味乐无穷", literally "lick your fingers to remember the taste, the joy is infinite". Not quite the same as the original but definitely no finger chomping involved. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Brand blunder for our article. Tevildo (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A jingle rather than a brand, but: sometime in 2003–09, I saw a Toyota billboard saying el único que se ve bien con todo y frenos – "the only one that looks good with everything and brakes [noun]." It could be a mistranslation of "goes with everything, and brakes [verb]," a weak pun. —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Lame in English and (unintentionally) funnier in Spanish. I think frene, the verb form, would be what they were looking for there. [Actually frena, not frene. The infinitive is frenar.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolls Royce Silver Shadow was going to be called the Silver Mist - until someone realised what "mist" means in German. Wymspen (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible to fall into such blunders just because of variety of English differences - for example there is a brand of freezer meals called "Young's Gastro", whereas in some English-speaking countries "gastro" normally means "gastroenteritis". --165.225.80.115 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "brand blunder" article. Starbucks example is not about translate and not a mistake cause is before the 9/11 attacks. Same for Piotrus example. So Coca-Cola Chinese and Electrolux English examples also fake. Good that "brand blunder" article mention the mistake words in the other languages. Bad that never mention many other examples from http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/the-20-worst-brand-translations-of-all-time.html like KFC Chinese, Ikea Thai, Paxam Farsi, Clairol German, Ford Portugese and Braniff Spanish. The Gerber example is brand blunder but not translate mistake. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making a spelling mistake in the translation input can produce some hilarious results. This sign appeared in front of the roadworks at Barons Court roundabout between Penarth and Cardiff:

CYCLISTS DISMOUNT

LLID Y BLEDREN DYMCHWELYD

The first three words mean "inflammation of the bladder", the fourth means "return".

An Aberystwyth supermarket offered

CODIAD AM DDIM

FREE CASH WITHDRAWALS

(Lit. "free erection").

In a Beijing restaurant, Wikipedia is on the menu:[3].

More gems here:[4]. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a French estate agent window I saw an advert for "Sluice gate, truss", with a photos of a run-down rural building with potential. Someone had looked up "fermette" in the dictionary. ("Farmhouse" is the correct translation in that context.) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

qdm?

Any idea what "qdm" is supposed to mean in Homer#Etymological theories? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The east", apparently. That's what it says. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the triliteral root for words meaning "east" (among other things) in various Semitic languages. It's a bit weird out of context...maybe it should be in italics, at least: q-d-m would be a more usual representation. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did early modern Europeans speak Latin?

I know they loved to use Latin personal names. And people like Isaac Newton wrote in Latin. So, does that mean that Latin was a living language up to the early modern era? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did not speak it natively. According to language death, language death ... occurs when a language loses its last native speaker. So it was not a "living language". Loraof (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant is History of Latin, which discusses the evolution of Latin. The last language that could properly be called Latin which was a living, native language is probably Vulgar Latin which eventually evolved into the various Romance languages. There is not a specific day when Latin "died" per se. The transition between "classical Latin" to various dialects of "vulgar Latin" to individual and non-mutually intelligible "Romance languages" would have been gradual and would not have occurred at the same rate in all places. --Jayron 32 17:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University lectures were normally given in Latin both as a cant, to exclude the uneducated, and as a lingua franca among travelling scholars (almost always churchmen) who had no other tongue in common. That Latin was still in use for oral communication in England during the early modern period (between Chaucer and Shakespeare) is demonstrated by the fact that English pronunciation of Latin underwent the Great Vowel Shift, alienating Latin in England from Continental Latin. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is true, but none of that makes any of those people native Latin speakers. That it is used in certain contexts doesn't make it a native language. --Jayron 32 21:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the word "native" in the OP's question, just living. One might ask, is Esperanto a dead language? Are pidgins dead languages? The answer is obviously no, they are indeed living tongues, if rarely mother tongues. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how common it is to grow up speaking Latin as one's first language, but it does happen. My business partner, born in Spain in 1931, spoke Latin as his first language, and learned Spanish only later. I've known of a few others who were raised speaking Latin. —Stephen (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody has once raised their child to speak the Klingon language as their first language to. Such sui generis cases do not mean anything in this situation. There is not a native Latin-speaking community or culture around the world. --Jayron 32 03:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a nice report all about Latin in the early modern period of Europe (link only contains preface and TOC). Here [5] [6] are two scholarly books that discuss the use of Latin in early modern Europe. I will not quibble over what "living" means for a language, but plenty of people spoke Latin then, especially academics and church types that medeis describes. The books I link include some discussion of how the language was changed and adapted by speakers in that period. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Pronunciation Respelling Converter

Dear Wikipedia,

I am seeking an online Pronunciation Respelling Converter for (American) English and (Mexican) Spanish terms. For example, Wikipedia respells the name of the actor Jake Gyllenhaal as "Jill-in-hall" in a non-phonemic system. I am seeking a site that will produce such a conversion for me. Or, alternatively, Wikipedia respells it as "jil-ən-hawl" in a phonemic system. That would be acceptable as well. The important thing is to avoid diacritical marks or any special symbols, except perhaps the schwa (ə) which is used (for example) for the a in about.

I have spent hours searching for such a conversion website, without success.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumberbunce (talk • contribs)

Three bits of advice. First, please type ~~~~ at the end of talk or other non-article edits, so we know whom to address. Adding the tildes will automatically produce your name and time you posted.

Second, consider learning the International Phonetic Alphabet, which is a universal standard, rather than relying on re-spellings, which are myriad, and unique to each publisher/work/website. This is not as daunting as it sounds, since most IPA symbols are familiar p,t,f,k,m,n,s or not too hard to get. E.g., "with" = /wɪθ/ and "jueves" = /'xweβes/.

Third, the Harper Collins English/Spanish dictionary is the best in my opinion, and they have a website here that gives recordings of words pronounced in the Latin American standard (z, c before i/e = s; ll = y) but you won't hear distinctive Mexican phenomena like the aspiration of final -s or the typical hablar jalado with a drawn out lilting rhythm. The dictionary itself is very up-to-date, and includes slang and vulgarities. My edition has a three-star system, one star indicating "informal" (i.e, not for formal speech or writing). two stars for vulgar, such as crap or tits that should be used with caution, and three stars meaning outright obscene. Read the review by Doug Rice at Amazon to get an idea of why the book is superior. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Wiktionary uses templates for some languages, such as Russian and Greek, to generate IPA pronunciations automatically. For example, wikt:Template:ru-IPA and wikt:Template:grc-IPA. There is also one for Spanish, named wikt:Template:es-IPA (see wikt:dueño to see how it works). The Spanish IPA template uses wikt:Module:es-pronunc as its guide. —Stephen (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also have mentioned that Spanish spelling is almost perfectly phonemic. Hence, there are no "irregular" spellings to speak of, as abound in English. So the spelling itself really doesn't need a respelling, as long as you are familiar with the local conventions. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

"To prevail sth"?

In this NYT article, we find the statement But when the vote was called, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader who was initially reluctant to force the issue, prevailed 52 to 48. Yet, I always thought, "prevail" cannot be used transitively. Can someone explain this issue to a non-native speaker? Best regards--Hubon (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a transitive use. "52 to 48" is not the object of the verb "prevailed" here. It is a clarifying clause; formally this means "he prevailed (by a vote of) 52 to 48". That's a fine use, the "by a vote of" phrase is understood and unspoken, but perfectly natural English uses here. Just as one can say "The team won by a score of 5 to 4" or just "The team won 5 to 4" this is the same thing here. --Jayron 32 03:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a transcript of the video for 2017 Chicago torture incident

I saw the raw video of this incident at static.encyclopediadramatica.se/mirrors/BLMKidnapping/BLMKidnapping1.webm (yes, that site is a parody/troll site, and on Wikipedia's blacklist, but the video itself is what it is, look at it). It seems packed with potentially useful data, but I find the accent and jargon daunting. For example (I do not know any of this is true as I can scarcely understand), I think there is a mention of the Black P. Stone gang, a request for 'more weed', comments about "Blood watching" the livestream (which might refer to Bloods?), there's a mention of Gang Shit Only but I think that's the album maybe? (Chevy Woods comes up in a search), and most intriguingly, there was a comment about having to keep this up for half an hour (the length of the video). Given the "bored party mode" of the later 2/3 of the video I am thinking the event might have been a gang initiation, in other words. There is of course no trace of any of this in the news - I wonder if a single journalist in the world actually watched the video, as doing so would compromise their objectivity. I am hoping somebody here is familiar with African American Vernacular English, or even the argot of this particular subculture, and can make a quality transcript to post either to Wikisource or somewhere else appropriate on the web in a referenceable way? Or at least, can we get some comments by someone who can hear four words in a row and not be unsure about half of them? Wnt (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Nambara, or Nanbara

I'm looking for a Japanese name. Is it spelled Nambara, or Nanbara? Benjamin (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese syllables can only end in a vowel, /N/ or, intervocalicly, with /Q/. The /N/ phoneme is normally "n", but may be spelt "m" when followed by a labial consonant. Hence the underlying na-n-ba-ra is pronuonced nambara and may be spelt that way, dependening on which system of Japanese transliteration is used. The /Q/ phoneme is not really relevant to the question, but it results in the doubling of a following consonant. It has no independent sound of its own. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, if two people have different spellings, they could still have the same name? Benjamin (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is spelt in the Roman alphabet, then there is no difference so far as the Japanese language is concerned, between the Roman transliterations nanbara and nambara. It's like the affectation "niggaz" for "niggers" in BAE. Even in standard English the final -s is pronounced as -z because it follows the voiced consonant r. So yes, two people named Nanbara and Nambara in two different documents could possibly be related. I do not speak Japanese myself, so someone may have more to add, but I am familiar with it enough to be confident in my remarks. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to assume that the change happened upon coming to America, so if my great grandparents are Nanbara, then I might be related to someone named Nambara, but only distantly, ie, back in Japan? Benjamin (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kunrei-shiki transliteration of Japanese, which is pretty much an exact replacement of kana, and used to be officially promulgated by the government, the closing nasal is always written 'n', but may be realised as /n/, /m/ or /ŋ/ depending on the following sound. The Hepburn system, which has always been more common in everyday use, relaxes the correspondence with kana, and renders sounds more transparently to English readers, so the nasal appears as 'n' or 'm' depending on the following sound. So Hepburn 'Nambara' would be written 'Nanbara' in Kunrei-shiki. --ColinFine (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin, Nambara and Nanbara are exactly the same name. In Japanese, it is written 南原 in kanji, or なんばら in hiragana. The hiragana ん is an N, but it is pronounced more like an M when it comes before a labial consonant such as B. That is, it's easier to say NAMB than NANB, so some people like to write NAMBARA in English letters. But in Japanese, it is 南原 (or なんばら) —Stephen (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A barracks" (?)

"The film was shot in a single barracks of the US Marines." – Is it correct to use the indefinite singular article for the plural word "barracks" here?--Hubon (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Oxford Dictionary states, while it is a plural noun, it is often treated as singular. I believe that to most Americans "barrack" would sound odd. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, thanks. Then, so far, the sentence would be correct?--Hubon (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive grammarians would say "yes" (or maybe "yeah"). I'm not sure about the prescriptive bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

When did "gay" get a meaning of "lame" or "stupid"?

Did this happen in other languages? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to allow sb sth

Can I say: "he allowed her an ice cream"? If not, what would be the correct expression?--Hubon (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard or read that a few times. It sounds a bit Britishy. In my experience, North Americans are more likely to say "an ice cream cone" or "some ice cream". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In formal BrE, "He allowed her to have an ice cream" would be more usual; in less formal BrE, "He let her have an ice cream". Both might weakly imply that this occurred outside the home, while "some ice cream" might weakly imply a serving within the home. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk)