Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

WP:RD/L C #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #00f #000 #00f language Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language Language WP:RD/L

Welcome to the language reference desk. 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! After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. 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.

Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help Manual   skip to bottom

November 29

Arrant Pedantry?

Please tell me which one of these options is correct --

"Coming late is not encouraged because you may not be able to locate the classroom we're in(!)"

or --

" Coming late is not encouraged because you may not be able to locate the classroom we're in(!)."

?

The grammar pedant in me tells me that you'd have to include the extra period at the end, as in the second sentence. However, in addition to detracting from the intended comical effect of the exclamatory mark, the addition of the period also lends to the sentence a look of unseemliness. The first sentence is, of course bad in its own way; without the period at the end it looks sapped somehow, like someone circumcised it:)

I think it boils down to this -- can an exclamatory mark by itself be considered a sentence? If so, then the second sentence would be the correct choice, because punctuation in a parenthesis is independent of anything going on outside it. However, if one decrees that exclamatory marks cannot, regardless of the semantics of the context, be considered a sentence, then it seems like either option is equally viable.

(On a related note, I realized that the last sentence of the paragraph previous to the one above contains a smiley at its termination. Is *this* acceptable? Is the smiley considered to be punctuation?:) ) Brrk.3001 (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the grammar pedant in you is not to blame, since, strictly speaking, punctuation (or more generally orthography) has nothing to do with grammar. It's just a matter of house style.--K.C. Tang (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) None of this falls under the normal rules. The choice between the two sentences is one of art, not typography. You're using symbols as playthings, not as a rendering of English, so your opinion is the only one that counts. That said, if you want a disinterested opinion, I'd say that the second sentence is right only because the first one looks naked without the full stop. I'd also say that an exclamation point can constitute a sentence, even a paragraph, though I'm surprised to hear myself say that. Smileys? Ptui. They suck. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The second one looks better to me. I don't write full stops after smileys because they are perceived by me to affect the mood of the sentence much in the same way exclamation and question marks do. That said, since parentheses don't have that function, I'd say the full stop is needed. --Taraborn (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Both sentences look awkward to me. For a shorter, less awkward sentence, how about this:

"Tardiness is discouraged as it makes locating our classroom difficult." StuRat (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Tardiness" would not be understood by most speakers of British English. DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet Tardisness might ... Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it? I'm English and I had no idea this was an Americanism. I suppose having a friend called Tardy helps. Algebraist 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, who was the French writer (Victor Hugo?) who was on holiday and cabled his publisher to find out how his latest book was selling? He was a bit tight (in both senses, he didn't have much spare cash, but even if he had, he didn't like spending money anyway), so the entire text of the cable read "?". The response came back "!". I don't know whether history records whether the response was followed by a full stop or not, but full stops in cables were usually written "STOP" (or the French equivalent), so I guess the "!" was considered a sentence all of its own. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was Mark Twain. BrainyBabe 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it was Victor Hugo [1]. (I've still got it.). See also Les Misérables#Other, dot point 5. -- JackofOz 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It always seems better to avoid clumsy clusters:

Who asked, "What punctuation marks should I use?"?

or even worse:

Who asked, "Where do I find an answer to the question, "What punctuation marks should I use?"?"?

If (and it is a big if) an exclamation mark is a sentence in its own right, then a third variation would be preferable: "Coming late is not encouraged because you may not be able to locate the classroom we're in. (!)" As K.C. Tang rightly remarks, this is a matter of house style rather than grammar. Bessel Dekker 14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin

Please explain to me the Latin phrase in this sentence: "... the soul transcends matter in its intellectual operations, having the principle of such operations in itself, and so cannot depend on the body secundum esse et essentiam (Copleston, vol.2, p.299). Omidinist (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be saying "the soul is not 'secondary in essence'", which seems to mean, to them, that thoughts occur independently of the body. Scientists would disagree with this, of course, since thoughts occur using neurons, axons, dendrites and synapses; all parts of the body (specifically, the brain). Supporting evidence for this is that those with brain damage often have a reduced intellectual capacity. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Secundum means "according to," not "secondary." The point is that the soul has inherent abilities that are not possible for matter, and therefore "in its being and essence" it cannot be dependent on (or inextricable from) the the material body. The difference between esse and essentia is probably explained somewhere on WP, but I don't have time to find the link just now. Deor (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For that, see Thomism.  --Lambiam 18:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian dictionaries

I'm looking for a good on-line Russian-English English-Russian dictionary that gives the stress of Russian words. Does anybody know one? --Taraborn (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any that translate with stess marks, but you can use an online translator in conjunction with this site: http://starling.rinet.ru/morph.htm to check the full morphology, includiing stress, of any Russian word. Koolbreez (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was really useful!! Thank you very much. --Taraborn (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of ENGLAND - Angle or Hengist??

I know the commonly accepted etymology for ENGLAND is the 'Land of the Angles' but I have come across what seems like a suggestion in Tom Shippey's book on Tolkien (Author of the Century) that England is possibly derived from HENGIST (from Hengist and Horsa fame, Jutes or Angles or perhaps Danes) who migrated to South East England (around Kent).

Is there any discussion or research that supports the HENGIST origin of England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpinen (talk • contribs) 10:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A thorough search of the Oxford English Dictionary shows no use in the way you're describing - it all seems to point to the definition as "a male horse". SamuelRiv (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Both hengest and horsa mean horse. --Kjoonlee 21:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems very unlikely as words with a root of Angle- seem to have been in use for centuries before England. Check the entry for England. TheMathemagician 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• The word heng(e)st certainly means "stallion" (or "gelding"). SOED adds: "also a proper name, and in various place names". The only place name I can find is Hengistbury Head in Dorset.
• One might speculate that there is a connection with Hampshire: an Old Frisian variation of hengst was hanxt. A development *hanxt/hengst + shire > hampshire does not seem impossible. I have no proof.
• On the other hand, a putative origin *hanxt/hengst + lond > engelond > england looks suspiciously like popular etymology: attractive but unlikely. Bessel Dekker 14:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like the sort of suggestion I would expect from Tom Shippey. Are you sure you're not misreading it?

To Bessel Dekker: Hampshire is recorded as 'Hamtunscire', ie. (South)Hampton-shire. --ColinFine 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Old English word for England was Englalond, with the 'A' of 'Angla' umlauted, which was common in Old English in certain proximity to 'i' or 'e' vowels, but by the time the word appeared in writing, no trace whatsoever of an 'i' or 'e' remains in the word, if there ever was one. However, Shetland may also have undergone this similar change, due to its striking resemblance to Scotland.--ChokinBako 04:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read Shippey's book; I think I would have noticed him saying anything so original. I do recall a claim to the effect that Hengest was (in a sense) founder of England, the country, which is of course defensible; are you sure you are not confusing the two? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"The splits"

Why, when people are referring to someone doing a split, do some people call them "the splits"? "Can you do a split?" becomes "Can you do the splits?" for instance. That makes no sense at all to me. Recury (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but even the article you linked to uses the plural version. And seems to be the target of recent vandalism, although I've reverted that. --LarryMac | Talk 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe among gymnasts it's "a split", but in the wider community I've only ever heard "the splits". I must say it never occurred to me to question the plurality of this expression (I must be losing the plot). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit like math and maths. In the UK we always say maths, meaning mathematics, but in the US it is always math. ?Short for mathematic. I have yet to hear a plausible reason for the difference. Richard Avery 15:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of that too. I don't know if it's the same thing, but they both look like plurals but aren't. A difference is the way people use "splits" grammatically. Why is it always "the splits" and never "some splits"? Recury 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Because some implies countability, probably, and this may clash with the notion implied in this sort of abstract plurale tantum. You cannot be in "some doldrums", nor can you experience "some jitters" — you have to go the whole hog, more's the pity. Bessel Dekker 14:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

However, you can be in "a funk" (which suggests there's more than one of them).  :) ---- JackofOz 05:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

what does 'P’Tang, Yang, Kipperbang mean?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyone knows someone called Dave (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing as far as I know, although it is used in a song by Australian band Spiderbait. Steewi (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a nonsense phrase created by Jack Rosenthal for the play of the same name (later the movie), it's derived from the 'secret' password greeting between Alan and his friends, in which one party starts by saying with 'P'tang Yang Kipperbang', and the other responds with 'Uuungh'. Foxhill (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

November 30

Accents in second languages

My first language is English (I'm Canadian), and for about ten years now (since grade four) I've taken French as a second language (NOT immersion, just French classes). I'm proficient, but by no means fluent. Of the Francophone teachers I've had, one from Manitoba, one from Quebec, and one from Belgium, I can hear no difference in their accents, although I'm told there is one, at least between European and Canadian French, if not within different parts of Canada (although there may be; I really don't know). So my question is, can a French (or any other language) student taking English as a second language, at an intermediate level, hear the difference between, say, an American and British accent, that is blatantly obvious to an Anglophone, but maybe less so to someone learning it as a second language? 131.162.146.86 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but I'm in the same position as you, Anglophone who took French at school all the way through...whenever we had an Anglophone French teacher, they had an obvious (to me) Canadian English accent, and if they were from Quebec they had a distinct Quebecois accent. One year in university we had a TA from Nice, and I had absolutely no idea what she was saying, ever. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a US-American at a fairly low intermediate level in French. I am to a fair extent self-taught, partly through travel in France (and a little in Belgium and Quebec). My formal teachers were 1) a German woman whose husband is French and 2) a French woman. To me, the difference between Canadian and European French is obvious, and I can tell pretty quickly whether a speaker is European or a Francophone Canadian. As for the difference between American and British English, I think that most foreign English language learners can hear the difference. During my youthful travels through Europe, Europeans, even those who didn't speak much English, knew from my English that I was American. Rhoticity, I think, is pretty obvious and distinctive, as is the American pronunciation of "yeah". Marco polo (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I had this conversation the other day with a (fluent in English, and having lived in the UK for 3 years) Bosnian, who (it turned out) could easily distinguish American, English and Scottish accents but had some trouble with the intricacies of English regional accents. Algebraist 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am French and when I was learning English, it took me many years to distinguish the American accent from the British accents. To me it all sounded "some sort of English", until I actually spend some time with the natives, rather than listening to a few people's accents (the teachers'). I have been living in London for 6 years now and I still have problems distinguish some specific pairs like Canadian/American accents, and another pair: Irish and Scottish accents. I really don't know any kiwis, so I guess I would not recognise that one too. --Lgriot (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My German exchange partner, who was otherwise very proficient in English, couldn't tell the difference between American and English accents at all. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how much variation of pronunciation is there is within English, as opposed to within French, and how good an "ear" the listener has for detecting these differences. I don't know French well enough to comment on that specifically, but I can tell you that my own wife is Russian, and she can hear the difference between the English spoken in different countries and between many of the accent groups within the UK. She can in some cases even distinguish some of the more subtle differences between specific, locally-related accents, such as the difference between a Glasgow accent and an Edinburgh accent, which most foreigners (maybe even most English people) would have trouble disinguishing. Of course, when she has no familiarity with an accent, she can't hear it at all, but that's as expected. Koolbreez (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I second the suggestion that it's about the "ear for differences", which can be both a natural aptitude and something that can be learned. My partner spent the first half of his life in Sri Lanka. His native language is English - the Sri Lankan version, naturally. He also knows many, many Sinhalese songs off by heart, and can converse in Sinhalese if necessary, but is far happier with English. Apart from school English, he has never studied languages; and although he has a very keen ear for puns and wordplay, and consistently beats me at Scrabble, he has no interest in languages other than those he already knows, and shows no ear for them. He couldn't tell French from German, for example. He has no difficulty in understanding English in other accents - Scottish, Irish, Australian, NZ, Canadian, American, Indian, Cockney, South African etc etc - but often misidentifies them. He's travelled quite a bit, including places where English wasn't much help, but also spent long periods in the USA and Canada. I'm sure there are many Sri Lankans with no greater education than he's had, and who've never travelled, who would correctly identify English accents due to their naturally better aptitude for this. -- JackofOz 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The "ear for differences" might be fundamentally motivated by a language's phoneme inventory. For instance, Spanish has five vowels and Spanish speakers have a certain amount of difficulty acquiring, producing, and perceiving the 15 or so vowels of English when learning. Considering that accent differences in English are largely in the vowels, I would presume that Spanish speakers would have difficulty distinguishing between American and British speech. On the other hand, differences in Spanish accents lie largely in the realization of certain consonants such as those represented by 'll', y, c, and z. As a speaker of English who makes a distinction between dental and alveolar fricatives, I can tell the differences between Spanish accents exhibiting distinción vs seseo accents but I have some difficulty distinguishing between those who pronounce 'll' as a palatal lateral approximant vs a voiced palatal fricative, etc. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of British and American accents so the first problem we foreigners face identifying whether an accent is British or American is that. Cockney is a lot different than Received Pronunciation (the first time I heard it I thought that was American), and the same happens with the various American accents and General American. The most obvious difference between the two is that General American is (annoyingly) rhotic whereas Received Pronunciation is not. So if you want to be able to identify an accent, you need to know beforehand which particular sounds define the accent and the ability to tell them apart. Just that. --Taraborn 11:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Many Germans I know can easily distinguish between a Brit and an American, not only from their respective pronunciations of English, but also from their respective pronunciations of German. Actually, so can I (an American English speaker). What many Germans can hear that I can't is the difference between (say) an Austrian and a Northern German pronunciation of English. I can hear most differences of regional accents of German, but I can't really tell apart the regional German accents of English like that. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"You're an absolute shower!"

What is Terry-Thomas saying? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. I believe it's a polite way of saying "a shower of shit". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I heard it on I'm All Right Jack, but thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It used to be a common slang expression in the UK, especially among army types. The OED gives "a group or crowd of people. (Usually derogatory) a pitiful collection or rabble"--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

hebdomadibus

It is a book by Boethius, the philosopher. What does it mean exactly? I know that it is a derivative of seven. Thank you. Omidinist (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be the Latin dative/ablative case plural form of the Greek word meaning "a set of seven". The exact translation would depend on the context. By the way, a more usual Latin title would be along the lines of De Hebdomadibus, rather than Hebdomadibus standing alone. AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of Boethius' book is indeed as AnonMoos conjectures. Knowing Latin and Greek does not make the title of "On Hebdomads" any less obscure. I'm willing to guess that Boethius' terminology was inspired by Proclus (search our article for "hebdomad" and "Boethius"). Apparently Boethius used the term in the meaning "common conception" or "axiom," and the book had some influence as a textbook on axioms (a book has been published with the title Die Axiomenschriff des Boethius (De Hebdomadibus) als Philosophisches Lehrbuch des Mittelalters, Brill, 1966). The book has a fuller title, How Are Substances Good In This, That They Are, Since They Are Not Substantial Goods? Both titles come from Boethius' words in the opening of his treatise, where he says he will answer the long-title question "from our hebdomads," meaning, again, "from my seven common conceptions [koinai ennoiai] or axiomatic statements." As far as I can tell, Boethius used the term hebdomad simply because he listed seven of them, which seems to have confused his Medieval readers to no end, because (1) many of them had no clue that hebdomad had to do with the number seven, and (2) the inaccurately transmitted texts of Boethius they had before them tended to give nine and not seven of the "hebdomads." I gleaned much of this from this book, searchable on Amazon, and I have not read or seen De hebdomadibus, so, as usual, no guarantees! Wareh 16:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my first, instinctive answer (a connection to Proclus) should be given a bit more weight, because after writing the above I find this book (search it for "hebdomad"), in which we read (p. 90): "The unusual [Boethian] term of 'hebdomads' is an allusion that is so opaque that it remained unexplained until our days. I have elsewhere proved, I think, that this is an allusion to the proclusian symbolic meaning of the number seven. According to Proclus, seven is the number of Athena and so the number of philosophy. A hebdomad, he says, is an emanation of the 'intellective light' in us." There does not seem to be a reference given to point the reader to that proof "elsewhere." Wareh 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A great article indeed, Wareh. I feel much indebted to you. And thank you, AnonMoos. Omidinist 05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a similar mystery about the name of the Hebdomadal Council, which used to rule our affairs at Oxford. It had eighteen members and met every two weeks during full terms. There was a rumour that when first set up it had begun to meet once a week, and that this had proved far too onerous. Xn4 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

hourensou

hourensou seems to be a notion in Japanese within the field of "problem solving". Can someone explain it to me please? (I don't know any kanji, and my hiragana knowledge is rubbish, let alone my spoken Japanese. Please only use English to answer, thanks:-) ) --Lgriot (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation of "hōkoku, renraku, sōdan", which means "report, contact, consultation." A good employee is supposed to do these three things well.--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, a noun 'hourensou' is spinach. Oda Mari (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot K.C. Lgriot (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hellenistic poem

Many years ago I read a Classical Greek poem, of which I can remember only the first three lines. Could someone give me a link to the full Greek text? I'm giving the first three lines here in transliteration because I'm not adept with typing Greek characters (and anyway, I know you like a challenge!)

Mesonykhtiois poth' horais/Hote phyla panta thneton/kamato damenta keitai/ .... Maid Marion 13:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't mean "Μεσονυκτίοις ποθ' ὥραις στρέφεθ' ἡνίκ' Ἄρκτος ἤδη κατὰ χεῖρα τὴν Βοώτου, μερόπων δὲ φῦλα πάντα κέαται" by any chance? Haukur 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that the first three lines of my poem are quoted exactly. I don't know a thing about who wrote it. But I'm interested to know what your poem is - it is not familiar to me. Please tell. 81.151.63.22 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anacreon. See here Haukur 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, the Anacreonteia. Hmm... Haukur 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I give up. I can't find your exact lines anywhere. But clearly there is close textual correspondence between your lines and the ones that I quoted from the Anacreonteia. If I had quoted two more words we'd have got "damenta" too :) Haukur 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Have another look at the poem quoted by Haukur (Anacreontea 33 West). Surely it's your poem!! The whole thing in Greek can be found here (scroll down a bit to "Ta keimena sta arxaia: εἰς μεσονύκτιον Ἔρωτα"). Wareh 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Haukur and Wareh. I'm sure this is the poem after all. I came across it in the textbook from which I first learnt Greek, a good 35 years ago. I guess the author took the Anacreon poem and simplified it (and changed it to standard Attic) - so the way he quoted it was different from the original. That makes sense. Thanks again to both of you. Maid Marion 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad the mystery was solved. Could you satisfy my curiosity and say in what textbook you read this poem, adapted? Wareh 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The textbook was called Kepos and I was studying it around 1973. I can't remember the author, and even after learning Greek the title strikes me as odd - the author must have been in a fanciful mood. Some years later I picked up the Classical Greek title in the 'Teach Yourself' series, and found that it was my old friend Kepos, reissued with just one significant change - the exercises of translating English into Greek had been removed. Hope this satisfies your curiosity, and thanks once again for your help. Maid Marion 11:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An excellent book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Maid Marion. I've just returned from an absence, and this is now in the archive, but for any future curious readers, the book is Francis Kinchin Smith and T.W. Melluish, Kepos: Greek in Two Years, 298 pp., English Universities Press, 1951. [2] I haven't seen it. In fact, a review states that Kepos reused material from Teach Yourself Greek (by the same authors, list of editions, first pub. 1947; perhaps some earlier TYG editions had the exercises now missing). Wareh (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What language is this?

I happened upon this site whilst wandering and cannot identify the language. Please don't tell me it's Italian. Richard Avery 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I probably won't be able to help, but without a link to the actual site, I don't think anybody will. --LarryMac | Talk 15:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, sorry, what an idiot here's [3] the link

It appears to be Romanian, which at first glance can really look quite a bit like Italian. Note there's a language selector up top that is by default set to "Romana" -- Ferkelparade π 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Cautare is apparently search in Romanian (at least I deduce that from the pagina principala in Romanian). This is a Romance language; thus, it has strong similarities with Italian, Spanish, etc. Pallida  Mors 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks guys. So I don't need to be a linguist - just a bit brighter. Hmm.Richard Avery 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That was hilarious, Richard :) --Taraborn 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A further hint that you might have spotted is the "ro." at the start of the domain name, which apparently has the same meaning as in ro.wikipedia.org. --Anon, 00:47 UTC, December 1, 2007.

A good rule-of-thumb test for Romanian is the presence of a lot of words ending in -ul and -ului... AnonMoos 01:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

More generally speaking, Wikipedia:Language recognition chart might help, of course. Bessel Dekker 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As might the Xerox Language Identifier. -Elmer Clark 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What is cod when it isn't a fish?

I never understood about Jonathan Aitken and the "cod fax". (For those of you not interested in British political scandals, please feel free to fall into a light doze.) What is a "cod" here? Is it related to "codpiece", and why and how? What was cod about the fax anyway, once I understand what cod is? BrainyBabe 18:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

adj. not authentic; fake: a cod fax purporting to come from Mr. Aitkin's office.

n. a joke or hoax: I suppose it could all be a cod.

v. (codded , codding ) [tr.] play a joke or trick on (someone): he was definitely codding them.

See also codswallop. 86.21.74.40 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Elim

What was the original meaning of Elim? From a search on Wikipedia and Google it seems to be something religious. Thanks 80.2.193.243 18:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Source: Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary (late 1800's)

Elim, the rams; the strong; stags

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Elim

trees, (Ex. 15:27; Num. 33:9), the name of the second station where the Israelites encamped after crossing the Red Sea. It had "twelve wells of water and threescore and ten palm trees." It has been identified with the Wady Ghurundel, the most noted of the four wadies which descend from the range of et-Tih towards the sea. Here they probably remained some considerable time. The form of expression in Ex. 16:1 seems to imply that the people proceeded in detachments or companies from Elim, and only for the first time were assembled as a complete host when they reached the wilderness of Sin (q.v.). [4]

-- SaundersW 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand:

This year marks the 75th anniversary of Elim and its mission of caring for aged and infirm people. In 1927 the Board of the Minnesota District Society of The Swedish Evangelical Free Church (later the North Central District Association) purchased the Caley Mansion in Princeton, MN and converted the building into a home for 25 residents of the Princeton community. This new Elim facility was dedicated in August of 1927. The founding members chose the name Elim, meaning "rest after trial," taking it from Exodus 15:27 where the nation of Israel was wandering in the desert: "And they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees, and they camped near the water."[5]

-- SaundersW 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a great reply and all your hard work! I have often seen chapels named Elim. So it is metaphorically like an oasis and gathering place. 80.0.125.247 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

---

There are at least three words pronounced Elim in the Hebrew Bible (maybe even more). The meaning of Elim with a yod after the lamed in Psalms 29:1, Psalms 89:7, and possibly (in "defective" spelling without the yod) in Exodus 15:11 is "divinities". The meaning of Elim as a place name (usually with the yod after the aleph) is a matter of speculation; my Biblical Hebrew lexicon suggests the meaning "big trees". I think the last quote intended to suggest that Elim was a place of rest after trial for the Israelites, not that the Hebrew word actually literally means "place of rest after trial". AnonMoos 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Language test comparison

What would be the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages equivalent of a DSH-3 (Deutsche Sprachprüfung für den Hochschulzugang) level in German? --Taraborn 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Deutsche Sprachprüfung für den Hochschulzugang seems to suggest it is C2. Wikipeditor 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you say 'start from null'?

Or this is no fine alternative to 'start from scratch'?217.168.4.177 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an expression I have seen before. It is certainly not idiomatic American English. "Null" is not a commonly used word in American English, though educated speakers understand it. Still, I think that you might confuse American English speakers with an unfamiliar expression like this. I'm not sure about British English. Marco polo 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Start from zero" would work in UK English, but not "Start from null". SaundersW 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Null" is not a synonym for "zero". It's closer to "empty", "void", but is not used as their synonym either. -- JackofOz 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree in English, Jack, but in French it is pretty close, and the OP seems to be from Spain, so I'd be guessing about that. SaundersW 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you say "start from nil"? Recury 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Null" is only heard in everyday American English in the set phrase "null and void". Hardly anybody knows what it means. It's almost like "span" in "spic and span". I only know it from math, "null set", a set having no elements. "Nullify", though, is very much alive. "Nil" is closer to the meaning you want than "null". For example, "His stamina is nil" (he has no stamina). "Nil" is an adjective, though, so you can't "start from" it, either. I don't think you can modify "start from scratch" successfully, anyway; it's an idiomatic expression. A few synonymous phrases: start over, start all over again, begin again, go back to square one, take a fresh run at. --Milkbreath 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Start from nothing. 80.0.125.247 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In German you can say von Null anfangen, which means: "start from zero". In colloquial non-technical English, the word "null" is rarely used, and then almost exclusively as an adjective. In "from null" it would be a noun.  --Lambiam 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Start from nothing" or "start from zero" would work in American English too. Marco polo 01:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a technical note on null from a database analyst... it has received a special place in computing and databases. It is used to differentiate from Zero or Nil as these denote the existence of a value and mathematical operators, boolean logic, etc. can be applied to them. Null denotes a distinct lack of a value and has to be handled specifically and very carefully in code targeting possible nulls. Also, the reference above to "null and void" - this might have been more commonly used than the poster thinks - my parents used to commonly use that expression on many a different occasion. "Six or nix" was another common one, not related, but just out of interest. Finally, regarding the OP's question, scratch is the same as zero, so you cannot substitute that for null. Sandman30s 21:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't mean that few know what "null and void" means, but that few could define "null" if you asked them. --Milkbreath 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also the expression "start with a clean slate." — Michael J 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

December 1

praise words

great excellent terrific incredible phenomenal brilliant wonderful outstanding magnificent marvellous amazing perfect superb splendid awesome

got any more? -- 07:22, 1 December 2007 59.189.62.79

Why not just use a thesaurus? AnonMoos 09:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

... such as this one..--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

English accent in other languages

Hi, I've been wondering about how people who have a native langauge of English sound like in other languages. What I'm specifically looking for is how an English-speaking person sounds like when speaking German. I'm assuming that a speaker of English is indistinguishable from a speaker of American English when speaking in a foreign language. I'd like to know what some characteristics are and also what their accent is like (eg is it "soft", "funny", "weird", "ugly"?). I would welcome, though, any other experiences of English accents in foreign languages.

I'm not sure for German, but for Spanish I'd say the most suitable adjective would be "unmistakable". When you hear a native speaker of English, nothing comes to mind apart from "OK. English is their first language". The way English speakers pronounce Rs and the noticeable puff of air they produce after the P and T sounds are certainly unique. They also tend to incorrectly pronounce Vs as labiodental fricatives although that sound was lost long ago in Spanish. --Taraborn 11:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked a Swedish friend what she thought English looked/sounded like, and she thought it was full of "th" and "ing" sounds --Bearbear 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I just posted above in a different thread, you can hear the difference between a British accent of German and an American accent of German. I don't really know how to explain how it sounds though, without imitating it. What they really notice is the American r, since it sounds so different from the German r, and doesn't sound like any sound that German has. I think in general, Germans find the American accent of German cute and funny, not necessarily ugly, but of course some Americans have stronger accents than others. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm English and when I tried speaking German in Switzerland someone thought I was Dutch. TheMathemagician 12:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Welsh usually speaking English, and when I tried speaking Swiss German in Switzerland the shopkeeper thought I was fluent. Ouch, that's fast! :) -- Arwel (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Qualifications like "soft", "funny", "weird", "ugly" are very subjective, and opinions may vary from person to person, or be socially conditioned. (An Anglophile will react differently from an Anglophobe.) However, there are differences between a British accent and an American one, and theymay usually be spotted by a keen observer:

Britons tend to diphthongise certain vowel sounds much more widely (the glide is longer) than Americans: əʋ, ɛɪ, and especially than Continentals.

The r-sound, very broadly speaking, distinguishes Britons (fricative) from Americans (retroflex), and especially distinguishes them from most Continentals, who may use uvular ʀ or another variety.

Very often, lip rounding and lip movements in English (both American and British) are less energetic than in some other languages, which may give the impression that the speaker is mumbling or slurring his words.

Intonation, of course, differs from language to language, and since intonation habits are hard to change, this may make for an "English accent" which is hard to define but easy to spot. Bessel Dekker 13:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard Ricardo Montalban say in an interview that English sounded like barking dogs to him. The only link I could find for that is as anecdotal as this reply is. --Milkbreath 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To my ear English speakers seem to tend to speak in what might be considered a "lazy" way when they talk in other languages. This is actually what we do when we speak English itself, too. What I mean by that is that English speakers tend to shorten and soften consonents - making T's into D's, K's into G's, P's into B's, etc. Also, English speakers push words together - and this is actually officially recognized in the language - CAN NOT becomes CAN'T, SHOULD NOT becomes SHOULDN'T, etc. Americans are even more like that than the Brits. In American English you may hear several words jammed together while spoken, for instance WHY-ON-CHOU for WHY DON'T YOU, or YOUBETCHA for YOU BET YOU, etc. This all started when the Anglo Saxons landed in Brittain. I have a pet theory that the indigenous Celtic Britons actually contributed to the English language by giving it these softening tendencies, since so much of Welsh sounds very aspirating and mushy, with softened consonents and lisping vowels - just what English tends to do. SO if you take the old Anglo Saxon language before they came to Brittain, it had crisp clean consonants, and then shortly after arriving in Brittain, it began to soften the consonents and become more mushy sounding - just like Welsh speakers do. In the present day when English speakers are speaking in another language, they sound like they're not cleanly articulating the consonants, and tend to mush the word together. At least this is my experience. The other noteworthy thing is that I could always hear when an American was speaking English no matter where I was - the American "sound" cuts above and through a crowd of people speaking some other language due to the fact that it is so twangy and nasal. Saukkomies 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your answers, keep them coming :). Just in response to the person above saying that describing accents vary from person to person, while I do sort of agree, I do think that a lot of "foreign" accents can be categorised to at least what many people think, or it least what is stereotyped. For example, and I'm not being racist here (I'm merely stating some stereotypes... I disagree with many of them), Italian (and Spanish?) people are said to be in a hurry, German accents are said to hard, agressive and are said to be ugly or unpleasant (even though I actually like it), French accents are said to be romantic and pretty, people with U.S. Southern accents are said to be uneducated and so on. So what I'm really asking, I guess, as well as my other questions, is what are people with English language accents perceived to be like, or what impression does it give?

And also, a follow-up question, if the English and Americans can be told apart when speaking a language other than English, what about Australians? Or New Zealanders? Or South Africans? Or Canadians? You get my drift ;) I would assume it would be harder seeing as they could each be categorised as derived from either English English or American English.

I heard an Australian speaking Italian yesterday, but he still had an Australian accent, that was interesting to hear. Adam Bishop 14:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

• It has little to do with derivation, more with fine-tuning. It might be more difficult to distinguish between Australian and South African than between each of the major US accents — and then, it might not.
• As to the characterising of foreign accents, you seem to overlook one factor: perception depends on the language and other habits of the recipient as much as on the language of the producer. This brings in interferential as well as sociolinguistic factors: if citizens of X-land despise the denizens of Y-ia, then they will dislike their accent.
• This is on a par with (rather meaningless) statements like "$#@ is a difficult language", which beg a host of unanswerable questions. Difficult to native speakers of what language(s)? Difficult in which stage of the learning process? Difficult in what respect?
• Again, it is sometimes claimed that certain languages are unfit for poetry. Other languages are said to be difficult to translate from — or into. Reasons, let alone proof, are seldom given.
• When teaching adult classes, I used to be told by my students: "English is the world language, but French is a beautiful language". They neither spoke nor understood French or (at that stage) English, but this they knew to be a self-evident truth.
• At what moment does one decide that French is a romantic or a beautiful language? Before or after one has guessed (which is not that difficult) that the speaker is in fact speaking French? Again, there are those to whom Southern US sounds courteously old-fashioned rather than uneducated.
• Should we really want to find out whether there is no prejudice at stake, we ought to expose a group of listeners to a language which they don't know, which they know nothing about, which they cannot place etc. It would be interesting to see whether perceptions then would be unanimous, would depend on the listener's own native tongue etcetera. Bessel Dekker 15:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading years ago that when the movie Sophie's Choice came out, Meryl Streep did the dubbing of her lines into German, because an English speaker and a Polish speaker speak German the same. I don't know if it's true or not, but that's what the article I read claimed. Corvus cornix_talk 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that - I'm native German, and a Polish accent is very easily distinguishable from any kind of English accent (although, as others have noted above, I could not explain in quantifiable terms how a Polish accent sounds as opposed to an English or American accent - I just "know" it when I hear it). It is of course possible that the movie execs thought it wouldn't matter, but I don't think you could seriously fool any native German with that substitution -- Ferkelparade π 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, Meryl Streep has an excellent ear for accents, and she is also prepared to work very hard on getting them right, so it is just possible that she could pull off German-with-a-Polish-accent, especially if she learned German from somebody with a Polish accent. SaundersW 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

When I was speaking Chinese, people said I sounded like I dragged things out a little. In Chile, speaking Spanish, apparently I sounded Mexican. This [[6]] is a conference paper referring to different accents in Swedish, and people imitating foreigners speaking Swedish. Very interesting. Steewi 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When I, an Englishman from the north of England, was in France speaking French, everyone thought I was Dutch. When I was in Holland, speaking Dutch, they thought I was German. When I was in Germany speaking German, they thought I was Dutch. When I was in Ireland, speaking English, they thought I was Dutch, too. --ChokinBako 04:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Related to this is the question of how regional accents sound to people who have never heard them. There was a recent study (sorry to be anecdotal but I haven't got the reference) in which researchers presented average Americans with samples of various accents of British English and asked them what they thought about the speaker, how they sounded. The Americans had no preconceptions or prejudices about British accents and so did not make the assumptions that British people tend to about, for example, Brummie (Birmingham) or Scouse (Liverpool), that these accents sound ill-educated or working class or whatever. There was no problem in comprehension, as I believe the study had been constructed to eliminate dialect variations of lexis and syntax, so the listeners reacted purely to the accent. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually heard about that study, and it was a few years ago. It is on the Internet. It was interesting to note that even though the list of 'better sounding ones vs. not-so-nice ones from a British perspective' was as I expected (being a Brit), the list from the American perspective was completely jumbled up, with Cockney, Scouse, Irish and Scots all very close to each other up top, and the rest completely random (to a Brit).--ChokinBako (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How you talk to people

I noticed when I talk to people and dont give them a choice, they are more likely to go along with what I want and I was wondering it there were any studies done and any statistics for this, I looked but could not find anything. Heres an example of what I mean:

Method 1: Me: I'll call you later Method 2: Me: Can I call you later?

If I dont give them a choice like method one, I'll get what I want more often, like in this example, I will be able to get off the phone.

Thanks

• This is certainly true. Another trick is the well-known hint, "Before you go, let me..." The more choices you provide, the more people will choose.

• In fact, your language may suggest a choice that does not really exist, as is sometimes done in street interviews subsequently televised to doubtful benefit: asked "What should be the maximum price for a pound of sugar?" will certainly elicit an answer, but it will have little or no relation to reality. The question gives people the illusion that they have a say in the matter. After you have left, they will step into the nearest supermarket and fork out the asking price, whatever it may be.

• This is in fact a matter of language as social control. Studies abound, especially in the fields of discourse analysis and conversation analysis. Another approach is framing or interactive framing, an anthropological-linguistic approach studying expectations in speech interaction.
• As for statistics, I am not sure what you are thinking of. However, it seems to be clear that certain speech acts are effective (and usual) in certain settings (therapy, teaching...).

Bessel Dekker 13:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea about studies and statistics, but in sales jargon this technique is known as an assumptive close. Gandalf61 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the preschool teacher's technique of fake choices: Do you want to clean up this mess alone or shall we do it together? Lova Falk 14:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2

The 5 languages closest to English

So we're in an episode of the twilight zone. The protagonist finds himself or herself with all the means of survival at their disposal; and a giant library with thousands of volumes of texts in one particular langauge. What would be the 5 languages (in order) that our uni-lingual protagonist would desire to quelch his or her thirst for knowledge in an expeditious manner? Sappysap 00:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your question. The languages linguistically closest to English (in form, structure, and basic vocabulary, that is) are perhaps Dutch, German, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish. If you're saying your protagonist will have no books available in English and will need to teach himself one or more other languages so that he can use the giant library, then those I've found easiest are French, Italian, and Spanish, because so much of their vocabulary is close to words drawn from Latin or French used in English, and German and Dutch, because of the family resemblance to English. If you're asking which are the great non-English modern languages which would be most useful for an aspiring polymath to learn, then perhaps (off the top of my head) French, German, Russian, Spanish and Arabic? Xn4 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

West Frisian is pretty close. Corvus cornix_talk 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Few books are published in it! Xn4 02:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably the language closest to English is Scots. Macnas 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Xn4, I don't quite understand your Borges-que question. There are in fact no languages so close to English that you can read them without having to learn them.--K.C. Tang 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well what about Scots then? Have a look at the Scots Wikipedia [7] - without meaning to offend, but it's just English written in a Scottish accent - perhaps with a few different words (but they can be understood in context). I've had no experiences with the Scots language yet I can still read it - whether I could write in Scots is a different matter, but I could probably learn it in a rather short amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Scots is very objective. Between different towns vocabulary and accent is so varied, so it's almost impossible to 'correctly' write it. --Bearbear 11:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a relation between the section title and the question posed below it. As to the latter, do you mean that all texts are written in the same particular language? If so, I'd say that it critically depends on the particular language the texts are written in. If that is the Klingon language, then the protagonist needs to know only that language to read them. Do you perhaps mean the following question: What are the five human languages such that a person who knows those (and only those) languages has the highest expected comprehension level with respect to a text written in a language randomly selected from all human languages, all with equal chance? If that is the question, I'd say that it really does not make much of a difference what the five languages are, since for any language the comprehension level with respect to almost any other randomly selected language is close to nil. But picking five Germanic languages is clearly suboptimal; you should pick five languages that have very low mutual comprehensibility, but belong to large language families (large in the sense of the number of members, not speakers).  --Lambiam 07:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

While West Germanic languages like Dutch, Frisian, and German are linguistically closest to English, the heavy influence of French and Latin since 1066 means that common English vocabulary is often closer to French or Spanish. Personally I find this a very difficult question to answer, as I studied French for 5 years from age 11 and can see the influence of both language families on English and other languages (there seems to be a fair bit of French influence in Dutch). From trying to read publications in North Germanic languages like Danish, Norwegian or Icelandic, I can safely say that an English-speaker won't make much sense of them without considerable study. -- Arwel (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget creole languages such as Tok Pisin, Krio and Jamaican Patois, which have varying status as languages. Historical languages, such as Middle English and Old English, might come into it as well. Steewi 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the authors of the book The Story of English, the closest related languagea to English are the Frisian languages. There is an accompanying PBS documentary series of the same name, hosted and narrated by Robert MacNeil, of The MacNeil/Lehrer Report fame. He also helped write the book. In the documentary, MacNeil says that there is a rhyming phrase that is pronounced completely the same in both English and Frisian: "Good butter and good cheese make good English and good Fries". The Frisians live along the northern coast of the Netherlands, pretty much the location from which many of the Anglo Saxons came to settle England in the 5th Century. Thus the connection... Saukkomies 21:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A few years back, when my Dutch was rather more elementary, I remember watching a film on TV. About half way through it occurred to me that as well as the German dialogue being subtitled, as usual, the Dutch dialogue was too. The subtitled Dutch was, of course, Frisian. I couldn't really tell the difference. Frisian orthography is rather offputting at first look and I'm not sure that in practice it's any easier for a beginner to understand spoken Frisian than Dutch. As for MacNeil's phrase, "Butter, bread, and green cheese..." seems more likely; that's the title of a "teach yourself Frisian" book which I have on my shelf. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Most 'neutral' accent?

I've wondered this for some time. French people seem to have difficulty in replicating another accent, i.e. you can tell they are French. However, Dutch people can sometimes be so good at English you can't tell they are foreign. More specifically, I find that some English accents are very hard to shake off. Is there any way to tell which is more 'neutral'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearbear (talk • contribs) 11:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral in what way? Unless you're talking about English accents in languages other than English, there's no neutral way to speak English. Unless you count RP English. Or maybe you mean that some "foreign" accents are very hard to shake off when speaking English - in which case I'm not sure. Some people can use a different accent flawlessly (for example, Englishman Hugh Laurie who plays Dr House), which means it is probably never impossible to shake-off an accent no matter where you are from, though very very hard for most people. But even then, as there's no accentless version of English, you would still be speaking with an English language accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing that is hard for native French speakers attempting to realize English, is that the French langauge does not have word stress, but only prosody (stress at the level of phrases). Speakers of language with word stress, like Dutch, have no problem with this (and, moreover, the rules for stress and prosody in Dutch are rather similar to English). Italian speakers have problems with word-final consonants, since this is foreign to Italian phonology. In general, native speakers of language A attempting to speak a (to them) foreign language B, will naturally attempt to realize the sounds of B by relying on the repertoire they have from being speakers of A. Sounds of B that are foreign to A are hard to realize correctly, and will often be replaced by sounds from the native repertoire that are "close". Therefore, one should expect the best results when A is rich in sounds used in B.

Another factor is exposure. In France dubbing of English spoken films and TV series is much more common than in Holland, where subtitling is the rule. Also, it used to be the case (but this has dramatically improved) that French teachers of English spoke and taught their students with a heavy French accent.

All of this has nothing to do with a notion of neutrality.  --Lambiam 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actors reproducing English language dialects/accents from across the Atlantic (or Pacific)

Spun off from 203.208.109.169's comment one question above: As a non-native speaker who enjoys the various dialects/accents the English language has to offer, I have actually wondered about how Hugh Laurie, Anthony LaPaglia, or Marianne Jean-Baptiste's spoken American accents in television shows sound to American ears (my guess is "pretty good", but I lack the nativeness). Which British (or Australian etc) actors' American speech sounds authentic to Americans? Which American actors' British speech sounds authentic to British ears? (I'm also asking because even I am aware of counterexamples, and have occasionally noticed unintentionally silly sounding "American" in certain beloved BBC television series of the past.) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Laurie is pretty good but he sounds like he is really trying to pronounce R's properly. The best one is Gary Oldman; I always assumed he was American and he was faking a British accent in Harry Potter. Adam Bishop 14:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard any of the three you asked about, but I've heard Peter Sellers doing an American accent in his skit "Balham: Gateway to the South", which is appalling. Emma Thompson in Primary Colors wasn't much better either. I was persuaded by Mel Gibson's phony American accent in Lethal Weapon though. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Sellers' "Bal-ham" was intended as a spoof accent.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony LaPaglia does OK. I call his TV show "Without a Trace of an Accent". Sidekick Poppy Petal does OK, too. LaPaglia gets away with it by growling and mumbling everything. They both have a lot of trouble with words like "night", though, where they use a long "i" instead of the diphthong. Toni Collette fooled me in The Sixth Sense, the first movie I saw her in. I would have sworn she was born and raised in Philadelphia. --Milkbreath 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, some actors can't do accents well even if they're from their own country. Audrey Hepburn grew up partially in England, but her Cockney in the beginning of My Fair Lady was almost as bad as Dick Van Dyke's in Mary Poppins. And I've never heard a Yankee or Californian actor do a plausible-sounding Southern accent. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Renée Zellweger's accent in "Miss Potter" was excellent, as was Meryl Streep's in "The French Lieutenant's Woman". Sendhil Ramamurthy does a beautiful "educated Indian British" accent in Heroes. 62.30.217.57 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Zellweger's accent is OK, I agree, but she (along with Gwyneth Paltrow in Sliding Doors and Shakespeare in Love) sounds a little clipped: no American traces, but not quite a natural delivery either. Ben Affleck had me thinking he was British in Shakespeare in Love. Drew Barrymore didn't quite make it to the UK (a bit of overdoing it perhaps) in Ever After, but it was set in France... Drmaik 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The first movie I saw Bob Hoskins in was Who Framed Roger Rabbit, where he plays an American. At the time it never occurred to me that be was British. --Anon, 23:06 UTC, December 2.

Marianne Jean-Baptiste's accent is excellent, because she doesn't even try to do a neutral American accent, but instead does what I would call "New York African-American", which is different from "New York white" or "general American African-American". Sophia Myles on Moonlight is excellent, too. I didn't even know she was British. Corvus cornix_talk 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that while Anthony LaPaglia's American accent is apparently quite good, his "English" accent in Frasier is atrocious. Although his character is supposed to be from Manchester, for some reason he's doing the kind of Hollywood Cockney accent that makes Dick Van Dyke sound like Ray Winstone. Malcolm Starkey 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I loved Audrey Hepburn and I love My Fair Lady, but her Cockney was admittedly pretty bad. Actually, she had trouble with some aspects of English even when she wasn't trying to fake an accent (possibly due to her Belgian upbringing). She often pronounced initial "t" as "d", which reminded me of Natalie Wood trying too hard to do a Hispanic accent in West Side Story, where she always called her boyfriend Tony (played by Richard Beymer) "Dony". Meryl Streep is usually very good with accents, but her Aussie accent in A Cry in the Dark was simply crap. I'd have to have a longer think, but I can't readily bring to mind any non-Aussie actor who's successfully mastered the typical Australian accent. -- JackofOz 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett has pulled off some impressive accents over the years (English as Queen Elizabeth, Elvish as Galadriel, American...). In an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Doomed?), American James Marsters as Spike does a fake American accent to cover his fake (and not completely authentic sounding) London accent. Lucky thing is, as a vampire he can claim his accent has been muddled over the years. Steewi 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I was impressed by Christopher Lambert's completely baffling accent in Highlander - very appropriate for a much-travelled immortal. Algebraist 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, he was a French Scotsman, what do you expect? And how about Sean Connery in the same movie, as an Ancient Egyptian Spaniard with a Scots accent? :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, for the interesting input! (And please add more.) In response to Milkbreath's funny variation of Without a Trace, I didn't even know Poppy Montgomery was Australian, yet a third non-American in that series. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tangential, but Eva Green's English accent in Casino Royale is perfect (I've never heard a French actor with a completely convincing cut-glass English accent before). Jean Reno manages an Elvis accent in Godzilla, too! Neil ☎ 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

American vs British

Since the majority of children raised in English-speaking countries don't learn Latin or Greek or all the other roots of English words claimed to make up the superiority of the British form of words, are American forms of these words not simpler and more intuitive in terms of the relationship between pronunciation and spelling? --Seans Potato Business 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate by providing some examples of what you mean? Thanks. —Nricardo 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please also specify who it is that claims that Latin and other roots make up the superiority of the British form of words? If the British form of words is superior, it is simply because the British are superior, full stop. That does not depend on the roots of the words. (Did I smell soap?)  --Lambiam 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Willis? --Seans Potato Business 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the questioner is referring to the forms termed 'latin-derived' such as the -our ending to words such as colour and 'greek-derived' such as words ending in -ogue such as analogue. A brief list of which is at American and British English spelling differences. 86.21.74.40 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And assuming good faith, perhaps SPB meant to say "majority" not "superiority". -- JackofOz 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean haematology versus hematology, color verus colour et al.. I've heard it claimed that the British forms of words, staying closer to their ancestral forms, roots or whatever you want to call them, are in such a way better. I propose that the ease of learning and use by the majority is more important than working out where words came from. Although I referred to British forms as superior, I was arguing in the opposite direction. I am British but don't think that this is the case. I think language should be designed for ease of learning and use. My question asks which form is most intuitive for children. Are the roots of a word useful to anyone but linguists (who will always know the hematology > haematology > haem anyway? --Seans Potato Business 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really relevant to your question, but you should be aware that it is the -or ending that is close to Latin. The u is a French influence. And speaking as a Brit I cannot recall hearing the claim that our spelling is superior because it is more historical. Speaking for myself, I find American spellings ugly (I make no claim that this due to anything other than early education) and am not convinced that there is a significant difference in ease of learning and use, though it would be interesting to see a proper study of this kind of thing. btw, it's hæmatology, not haematology :) Algebraist 01:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Having glanced through the article linked above, I see that there are several other instances where the American spelling is the older form: ax, curb, skeptic, tire, vise for example. Algebraist 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I do prefer the oe and ae in, for example, oestrogen and haematoma and they tell me to pronounce them as ee-strogen and h-ee-matoma. Whether this pronounciation is different in America with it's spelling as estrogen and hematoma I don't know. 86.21.74.40 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the US it's pronounced eh-strogen. Seeing "oestrogen" I'd feel unsure how to pronounce it, but would probably hazard something like "oh-estrogen" or "wes-trogen". Just a data point (oh and I checked the OED, which agreed -- its a Brit. / US difference). Pfly 06:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best argument for why English English is the more "superior" is because England is where English is from. You've got English as it is spoken in England and English as it is spoken in the US - obviously the English as it is spoken in England is the original. I do not see why anyone other than the US (and maybe Canada) should use US English, just like you wouldn't expect someone from Singapore to speak Jamaican English. I think it is unfortunate that America is so influential that it affects the way the rest of the world speaks English, especially as the rest of the English-speaking world is much more uniform. Without US English there wouldn't be much difference between writing English from country to country (only the way it is spoken). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying "English as it is spoken in England is the original" is frankly extremely ignorant. English has changed a lot in England over the years since English English and American English diverged, and in many ways American English is more conservative than English English. In other ways, English English is more conservative, because American English has also changed. They've both diverged from their original ancestor, and neither can claim to be historically more accurate than the other. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In any event, just as there no single American English, there is no single English English. The people from Lancashire, Kent, London, Somerset and Liverpool all sound very different, and presumably each group uses certain words that the others don't. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Angr, I'm not saying that English English is original in a sense that's it's the same as English spoken before America was discovered before English settlement. But I'm saying English came from England, just like French comes from France and German comes from Germany. I'm saying that plain English, in its strictest sense, should be considered to be the English as it is spoken in England. I'm not quite sure about French, but if I was asked to say where the original form of French comes from, I would say France, not some other country. And the same for every other language. Russian comes from Russia, Italian comes from Italy, Greek comes from Greece - so how can English come from America? It only makes sense to say that English comes from English. I'm not denying that American English is an acceptable variant for use in the US, but I do not think that a form of English which is an "off shoot" from English English should be considered as being regular English. Just because the United States is a superpower and exports it culture to other countries, doesn't mean that their way of speaking English can be considered more correct than English English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One way of looking at this is to compare it to what happens in popular music. First you have the Blues. Then after a while there evolves from out of the Blues several other music genres: Jazz, Rockabilly, and Rythm-and-Blues. After a while Rockabilly and Rythm-and-Blues merge and then diverge again to become Rock-and-Roll and Country-and-Western. It may be difficult for some people today to believe that there was a time when Country-and-Western and Rock-and-Roll were the same thing, but such was the case (think of Elvis nd Buddy Holly). Now, today there still are some people playing the Blues - but they are by far not as numerous as the other genres that spun from it. Jazz, too, is not as popular as it used to be. Of the two most popular genres, Rock-and-Roll is the largest, with County-and-Western coming in second place.

So, which of these genres is "superior" to the others? Of course there are those who would say that one or the other is the "best" form of music, but this would only be their personal taste. Such is the case with English English and American English (or Aussie or Kiwi or Jamaican or Indian or South African or any of the other genres of English). There is no "superior" form of English, any more than there is a "superior" genre of music. Of all the languages on the planet, English (with the possible exception of Latin, which is a dead language) has perhaps been the most successful at adapting itself to fit whatever new environment it finds itself. This is its strength, not its weakness. So to belittle those forms of English that have successfully adapted themselves to their new environments, claiming that there is only one proper or superior form, is being blind to the very reason that English is such a poweful language. Instead of attempting to promote one form of English as better, let's celebrate instead the amazing variety that English has evolved into. It's great to be able to speak this language, regardless of whatever form or variety one takes on.

One more thing to consider: the form of English that is historically the most accurate actually may be found in some of the more remote valleys of the Appalachian Mountains in the US. Linguists have for some time noted that some of the hillbillies living in those isolated areas speak a form of English that is very close to what was spoken in the time of Queen Elizabeth I. So to say that the form of English spoken in England is the most correct is ignoring the fact that it, too, has changed. What is silly in my opinion is to go to a Renaissance Fair in the US where people try to pretend to speak in an old-fashioned "English" accent, but basically take on a modern-day Cockney East London accent that never existed prior to the 1800s! If they really wanted to speak old fashioned English, they'd be closer to the mark if they spoke like a Hillbilly from Kentucky! --Saukkomies 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Using this way of looking at it, you could say that PIE has been much more successful; English and Latin are just slices of the big PIE. Of course, in the process of "adapting itself" to fit new environments, that language split into several languages that went their own ways and become mutually unintelligible (: almost like English dialects in England today :), but the same would be the natural fate of the several local varieties of English, if it were not for today's intant global communication.  --Lambiam 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I love it! A discussion about the Proto-Indo-European language! I'm in heaven! I do see your point, Lambian, however I would suggest that my comparison of the various form of modern English to the genres that emerged out of the Blues is still apropos. To bring PIE into the comparison, one would have to broaden the comparison from just the Blues and its related genres to encompass all forms of Western Music, including Classical, Baroque, Renaissance, etc... Perhaps even it would be necessary to include the Classical Indian Ragas and the non-Mixolydian Modes! It is true that English is just one of the many divergent languages that can trace their roots back to PIE, but I think the comparison model of it to the Blues still stands on solid ground. Saukkomies 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This question (or its implications) open up a big wound in my psyche. On the one hand I love the richness of history and geography that is preserved in the quirks and oddities of the English language, but on the other hand I have a strong feeling that it is precisely those quirks and oddities, especially of spelling, which make it difficult for some children to learn to read and write it. If it were some arcane artform, then I would defend its inaccessibility to my last breath, but as it is a means of communication which ought to be open to every child who uses the language, then I fear that it should be simplified, made phonetic (fonetic?) and tidied up generally. And that means something better than American spelling, which is still crazy . (How is neighbor any more phonetic than neighbour?) SaundersW 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that some kids are illiterate because the language is not phonetic? David D. (Talk) 16:11, 3 December 2007

(UTC)

American and British English are equally valid forms of the language; neither is "superior" to the other. While it is true that the modern form of the English language mostly emerged in England, I don't see why that is a reason to prefer the forms now spoken in England, which, as others have pointed out, are no closer and perhaps further from the original than the American varieties. Obviously, British spelling and either Received Pronunciation or Estuary English are more or less standard in England today, whereas American spelling and General American are more or less standard in the United States today. For non-native speakers of English, which variety they learn should depend on where they plan to use the language. If they plan to use it mainly in England, continental Europe, or Africa, probably the British variety is more helpful. If they plan to use English in the United States or Canada or to communicate with English speakers anywhere in Latin America or East Asia (except maybe Hong Kong), then American English is more helpful. These days, India is a tossup. If they mainly want to use English in Jamaica, then why not learn Jamaican English? I think that it is a pragmatic question, and although I am far from nationalistic, I frankly resent the possessive attitude of some English folk toward our common language. Marco polo 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

David, to be perfectly honest, yes. There are countries whose languages are far more complicated but phonetic who achieve higher literacy rates (eg Finland, Croatia) and I have helped children trying to learn to read who find it very hard to "get" the idea of reading because words in English are simply not written as they are spoken. SaundersW 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Croatia has a lower literacy rate than either the US or the UK. And I'd want to see far better evidence than this for this claim: surely social/educational factors are much more important in determining literacy that innate difficulty of the language. Literacy in Japanese requires knowledge of thousands of Kanji, which aren't phonetic at all, but Japan has as high a literacy rate as any English-speaking country. Algebraist 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Have you seen how the countries define literacy? For the UK it is "age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling", which is not a measure of reading or writing at all. I did think Croatia was higher than that, and you will allow me Finland. Japanese literacy is a different matter, since nobody is trying to get Japanese students to "spell out" Kanji: it's much closer to recognising and reading mathematical symbols. SaundersW 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a special international English should be designed to make it phoenetic and easier to learn - there should be rules and if possible, no exceptions. One thing I liked about learning Dutch (which I'm still doing) is that the language tends to conform to rules in terms of pronunciation, making it a lot easier. A special council should be set up to hold meetings, discuss things and make decisions etc. I don't know how that would work exactly, but I think it's a good idea and suggest that SaundersW sets about getting the ball rolling. It wouldn't have to be implemented quickly but could span many decades. A few governments or just their education departments would probably need to be in on it. :) --Seans Potato Business 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a new idea at all (See George Bernard Shaw and the Initial Teaching Alphabet) and I suspect there is far too much invested now in English as she is writ. It is simply a deep gut feeling based on experience, never statistically tested. Is there an emoticon for a shrug? SaundersW 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Our List of common emoticons gives the rather complex ¯\(°_0)/¯ for shrug, in which the level of elaboration is not quite commensurate with the (feigned?) indifference. And there is the graphic for indifferent.  --Lambiam 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They did design a special international English; it's called Esperanto. Seriously, there's lots of regularized Englishs out there, with Basic English being the most well-known. And Basic English and friends all fail for the same reason; people want to learn English, not a "special" (i.e. ghettoized) "international English". Even a lot of Esperantists believe that the reason to learn Esperanto is not because every one is going to learn it, it's because those that have learned it have done interesting things with it (see Raumism). A special English just defines you as a second-class hanger-on to the global English community, which no one really wants to be. The less difference between the simplified English and real English, all the more reason to actually learn the real thing.--Prosfilaes 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto doesn't appear to be English at all. I checked the article and it isn't based on English. --Seans Potato Business 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case I will give you a squashed kitten, and return to my box under the stairs. >^@,@^< SaundersW 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For those interested: English has reached an unprecedented tipping point -- there are more people speaking and using it as their second language than as their mother tongue. Long ago Britain ceased to be the main engine of change to the English language, ceding that role to the United States by sheer numbers (of course the UK remains a significant player in shaping the language, but no longer the predominant one); now that honour/honor has shifted from native speakers to those who have learned, rather than acquired, English (see second language acquisition). There are indeed various conflicting sorts of international English and World English -- one is what linguist David Crystal, author of inter alia the Cambridge University Press Encyclopedia of the English Language, calls "World Standard Spoken English". Braj Kachru has divided the world into concentric circles of English: the inner circle (essentially the Anglosphere), the outer circle (e.g. the Commonwealth), and the expanding circle (e.g. China, Russia). When Jamaican kids settle in the US, Canada, or Britain, they often need some assistance to adapt their language to the requirements of their new academic setting; this is sometimes referred to as "English as a second dialect". This falls within the broad field of English language teaching and learning, an article rich with explanations of the jargon and acronyms (ESL, ESD, ELT, ESOL, EFL etc). BrainyBabe (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the original question, I don't tend to find the American spellings any more intuitive in relating spelling to pronunciation, as they do not appear to reflect my pronunciation. For example, phonetically spelling colour for me would yield cuhluh; color is no closer to my pronunciation. Metre I pronounce meetuh; meter I pronounce the same. Neither is closer to my pronunciation, but using different forms in different uses allows me to tell some words apart in text. Travelling I would spell travuhling. Luckily the double l indicates the shortening of the e, so this spelling is pretty phonetic following the rules of English spelling; traveling suggests a long e to me, but I can learn it as a non-phonetic word. So American spellings are not necessarily more intuitive, and any standardised written English is going to be non-phonetic is places for a large group of people, given the variations in accents. English actually does pretty well once you learn the rules. I wish I could find the link to the site where someone taught a bot to read English with very few flaws, and listed the rules they used. Skittle (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

December 3

german translation q

how do I say "I drive home with my friend"?

Is it "Ich fahre nach Haus mein Freund mit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.248.193 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be: "Ich fahre mit meinem Freund nach Hause" The preposition (mit) would only go on the end if it were a part of a separable verb. Using "mitfahren" here woudn't make sense because you need a preposition before "freund". "Haus" adds an e because it follows "nach", and Freund would be conjugated in the dative because of the preposition "mit". I don't think "nach Hause" has to come after "mit meinem Freund", but I'm not a native speaker, so I'm not sure. Classicalclarinet —Preceding comment was added at 11:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It helps to think of mitfahren as an intransitive verb: it does not take an object. Using that verb, you can say: Ich fahre mit meinem Freund mit, which then implies your friend is the driver, and you are a passenger. The version above by Classicalclarinet does not have that implication; you can't tell who is doing the driving. (Like the English verb "to sail" leaves it open whether the subject is the skipper or a passenger, the verb fahren does not imply that the subject is actually the driver.) Both word orders Ich fahre mit meinem Freund nach Hause and Ich fahre nach Hause mit meinem Freund are possible; the former is more common, and more appropriate if you want to say "I'm going home, and, by the way, I'm doing it with a friend", while the latter puts more emphasis on the fact that it is not just you who is making the trip – but this difference in emphasis is marginal and unimportant. A final remark: English "friend" is gender neutral, but German Freund is only for male friends. For a female friend, you have to use mit meiner Freundin.  --Lambiam 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A further note on Freund and Freundin: when used with a possessive pronoun like mein they tend to be interpreted as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" respectively. If a straight guy refers to someone as "meine Freundin", it's clear he means his girlfriend; likewise if a gay guy or a straight woman refers to someone as "mein Freund", it's clear they mean their boyfriend. However, straight women can refer to a woman friend as "meine Freundin" without suggestion of a romantic relationship. Straight guys tend not to other guys as "mein Freund"; they're more likely to say "ein Freund von mir" or "mein Kumpel" ("my buddy/pal") or something else. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As a native speaker of German: "Mein Freund" or " Meine Freundin" has no intrinsic sexual emphasis if used by same gender companions. It simply means "friend" / "buddy" or whatever. If, however, used in denoting a member of the opposite sex, it implies a relationship of some kind. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know of cases where a gay man has come out to people who didn't know he was gay by simply saying, "Das ist mein Freund". Before we were married, my husband introduced me that way to someone, whose response was "Ich wusste gar nicht, dass du schwul bist". In that context, at least, "mein Freund" was immediately and correctly interpreted as meaning only "my boyfriend". —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have experienced both meanings, and I think it really does depend on the regional and social context. Note, that where I live (Zurich, Switzerland) straight men do tend to be reluctant in saying I went on holiday with "min Fründ" (or "mein Freund" when they're speaking Standard German). It would be more likely for them to say "mein Kollege" ("my colleague"), even when the relationship is purely private (but not amourous) and in no way connected to school, University, or the workplace. Another way of losing the ambiguity is simply "ein Freund" ("a friend"). The "von mir" suggested by Angr isn't even required. Example: "Ich war mit einem Freund im Urlaub." ("I was on holiday with a friend.") ---Sluzzelin talk 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is abbreviation such a long word?

^Topic. 64.236.121.129 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't ask questions just to try to be funny. Wikitionary has an entry on the word, and it includes some info on the origins. Friday (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith 64.236.121.129 21:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it has 12 letters in it (and 5 syllables)? Seriously, what sort of answer are you hoping for here? Algebraist 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The core of the word is "brev", cognate with "brief". The rest of it boils down to "the thing that is made to be..." so, "the thing that is made to be brief". In comparison it's quite a short word. SaundersW 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there's nothing in the English language, as far as I'm aware at least, that states there should be any necessary relational connection between the length of a word and its meaning. --Monorail Cat (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin translation, please

This has something to do with a dowry and more specifically Megulla Dotata (large dowry). It is from the time of the Second Punic War and pertains to Scipio Africanus. It also has to do with Tuccia, daughter of Cesone. Who are these people and does Wikipedia have an article on them? Here are the words:

Dotis moduc quadraginta billion aeris fuit; former hoc non solum humanitas patrum conscriptorum sed etiam habitus veterum patrimoniorium cognosci potest: namque adeo fuerunt arta ut Tuccia, Caesonis filia, maximam dotem to virum decem aeris attulisse visa sit, et Megullia, quia cum quinquaginta milibus aeris husbands domum intravit Dotatae cognomen invenerit.

Appreciate translation and any information on Cesone.--Doug ^talk 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, with the help of a really lousy translator, my best attempt is:

The dowry measure went to about forty billion aeris; this figure not the least kindness [which] the father underwrote but as yet he was in power to decide the ancient inherited property: for they were at the point of approaching when Tuccia Caeson's daughter gave the gigantic dowry to the man of ten aeris attulisse, which he saw, and Megullia, because of the fifty thousand aeris husbands went home and invented the surname Dotatae (dowry).

Please note that I only took one year of Latin a long time ago, so don't trust me completely. However, I worked through a dictionary and a (lousy) online translator, and I think it approaches something along these lines. Also the text literally says husbands, which I don't recognize as Latin, so it may be a back translation from English. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was great! Maybe someone will recognize the name Tuccia Caeson and tell me who he is. --Doug ^talk 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is actually Latin to begin with...if it is, you have a very mangled text. Adam Bishop 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unquestionably Latin. But, as I said, I think it was back translated from English. The Evil Spartan 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a corruption of a passage from Valerius Maximus (See here at 4.4.10). I know not Latin, I am merely a Googling fool. --Cam 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is more-or-less what you get if you ask Google translate to translate that passage from Italian to English.  --Lambiam 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not unquestionable since "moduc", "billion", "former", "to", and "husbands" are not Latin! But I see how it was corrupted from Cam's link. There it is "dotis modus xl milia aeris fuit, quo non solum humanitas patrum conscriptorum, sed etiam habitus ueterum patrimoniorum cognosci potest: namque adeo fuerunt arta, ut Tuccia Caesonis filia maximam dotem ad uirum x aeris attulisse uisa sit, et Megullia, quia cum quinquaginta milibus aeris mariti domum intrauit, Dotatae cognomen inuenerit", which I guess means "The manner of dowry was 40 thousand pieces of bronze, by which not only the humanity of the conscripted fathers, but also the habit of the old patrimonies was able to be known: for they were so restricted that Tuccia, daughter of Caeso, seemed to have brought the greatest dowry of 10 pieces of bronze to her husband, and Megullia, because she entered the house of her husband with 50 thousand pieces of bronze, she founded the cognomen Dotata." I guess you have to read the rest for that to make sense. What is an aes anyway? Adam Bishop 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a translation of that passage at Google Books. To paraphrase, Valerius is telling a story about how Scipio wrote to the Senate asking for a replacement because he had to go home to take care of his daughter's dowry. The Senate wanted Scipio to stay in command, so they raised a dowry for Scipio's daughter from the treasury. It amounted to 40,000 asses. Valerius compares this sum to those raised for "Tuccia, daughter of Caeso" (10,000 asses) and for Megullia (50,000 asses, which earned her the nickname Dotata). There is a note in the translation saying that Tuccia and Megullia are "otherwise unknown." --Cam 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this is most useful information. My understanding then is that Tuccia and Megulla are daughters of Caeso. Who is Caeso (Wikipedia article)? ---Doug ^talk 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I read, I don't think they are sisters. They appear to be two separate examples of women with large dowries, whom Valerius is comparing to Scipio's daughter. He expected his readers to have heard of the women, but today we have no information about them. --Cam 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doug, long time no see. Valerius Maximus mentions a Caeso a few paragraphs earlier where he relates that Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus paid a fine for his son Caeso (Quinctius). The Caeso mentioned in the fragment above is presumably the same Cincinnati Kid.  --Lambiam 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

December 4

Pants

What is the origin of the phrase "I am pants at (X)" meaning "I am bad at (X)"? 138.192.86.254 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

England? Recury 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As a Brit, this is a phrase I use a lot (much to the amusement of the Americans I now live with). I'm not exactly use of its origin, but British language has a long standing tradition of both absurdity and toilet humour, which may be applicable here, as pants in British English refers to underpants, rather than the American meaning, which is what Brits would call trousers. Often the phrase "It's pants" will be embellished to something like "It's a load of stinking old-man pants. With skidmarks." (apologies for the mental imagery that may bring up, but it's kind of the point. And I've deliberately not wikified the term 'skidmarks' because if you don't already know, you don't want to. ;P) --Monorail Cat (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather you answer this question correctly

The question in question is: What is the part of speech of the word "rather" in the above heading? -- JackofOz 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an adverb meaning "on the contrary". "Would" is a stand-alone verb here meaning "wish". There's an elliptical "that" in there. "Answer" is subjunctive (and we thought it was dead). An equivalent sentence is "I wish on the contrary that you might answer this question correctly." Did I pass the test? --Milkbreath 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We're you hoping I'd reply with "Ra-ther!"?  :) -- JackofOz 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm not a native speaker, but here are my thoughts: Take the phrase: "I'd rather go now". There, rather is clearly an adverb.

I guess the whole phrase "I'd rather" has crystallized into a fixed expression. Hence, it's difficult to analize one of its elements alone.

Take for instance because: Many years this expression was bi cause [8]. And cause was a noun in it. But now such analysis has no sense. Pallida  Mors 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "I'd rather" is now a fixed expression (an idiom) and that its origin is with "would" as a stand-alone verb (the subjunctive of "will", I think) and "rather" as an adverb. However, I suggest that the adverb did not mean "on the contrary", but rather, something like "preferably". It is not quite the same sense that "rather" has in the previous sentence, since the latter sense implies a sort of comparison, but it is related. --Anonymous, 05:00 UTC, December 4, 2007.

So, what you're saying is that fixed idiomatic expressions stand alone, if you like, and cannot be parsed word for word? I certainly accept that the meaning comes from the whole expression rather than from the individual words, but the syntax ....? Interesting idea. Let me think on that for a while. -- JackofOz 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Rather" can be directly replaced by "sooner" which seems to be its synonym. (O.E. hraþor "more quickly, earlier, sooner," also "more readily," comparative of hraþe, hræþe "quickly," related to hræð "quick," from P.Gmc. *khrathuz (cf. O.N. hraðr, O.H.G. hrad). The base form rathe was obsolete by 18c. except in poetry; superlative rathest fell from use by 17c. Meaning "more willingly" is recorded from 1297; sense of "more truly" is attested from c.1380. [9] Surely you can safely parse it as an adverb? SaundersW 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

UN Resolutions in English

Do resolutions passed by the United Nations use British or American spelling in English?--Sicilian-American 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See United Nations#Languages.--K.C. Tang 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Shorthand?

I was doing some work in an archive today and among a bunch of regular writing I found this:

shorthand?

shorthand?

The author was an old-school American scientist (—I am pretty sure it is shorthand? But I wasn't able to really figure out what the heck it meant, and I've never really done anything with shorthand before. Note that this is my re-copying of the original (as best I could!) so there might be little errors in it that are imperceptible to me.

If anyone had any suggestions as to what it might say, I'd be very interested. I'm intrigued that it's the only thing in these archival papers that was written like this (everything else is just in English) and I'm pretty curious as to what it says. Thanks a ton. --Panoptik 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Gregg Shorthand (example). I can't read it, unfortunately, but there is a lot of information about older forms of it on the Web. --Cam 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

attributable

Our results provide evidence that two mechanisms are attributable to the induction of tolerance by transplantation; or Our results provide evidence that the induction of tolerance by transplantation is attributable to two mechanisms. --Seans Potato Business 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand that gobbledygook, the second one. It says that two mechanisms seem to be responsible for the induction. The first one says that the induction seems to cause two mechanisms, which seems unlikely given the ordinary meaning of "mechanism". --Milkbreath 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. The mechanisms cause the induction, not the other way round. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Latinise this title please?

Will someone translate this to Latin, please? It's meant to be the title of a scholarly 17th century treatise.

"Botanical Prodigies of the Middle and Lower Heavens"

Thank you very much.

Adambrowne666 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that here "prodigy" is meant to mean "something marvelous" and not a young person with some exceptional talent, you might use De Prodigiis Botanicis Cœlorum Mediorum ac Inferiorum. I have changed the title to "On Botanical Prodigies...", since that would be the typical way to express the title in a Latin scholarly treatise.  --Lambiam 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

that's beautiful, and amazingly quick - but very rudely, can I crave your indulgence a little more and ask if it's possible to come up with a word for Heavens/Universe/Cosmos that's more like its English counterpart, and so more easily guessable by those (me) who don't know Latin? Thanks again, lambiam Adambrowne666 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cosmorum would fit, but I don't know whether it has any subtler meanings that might be inappropriate (my dictionary gives it as universe or one of the chief magistrates of Crete). Daniel (‽) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wash your mouth out!

Inspired by this page, and its mention of an Inverted Jenny, I was wondering, what's the most dirty sounding, but in fact completely innocent phrase you can think of?

I don't mean euphamism, just something that sounds like some kind of perverted sexual act, but is in fact something completely different, such a a technical term.

Some candidates that spring to mind are:

• "When I told her I was into philately, she offered to give me an Inverted Jenny" (from page above)
• "I needed to flash his dongle"
• Probably just about anything involving mastication

I know this is really childish, but hey, I'm easily amused. Sorry ;) --Monorail Cat (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From Claude Pepper:

• Part of American political lore is the Smathers "redneck speech," which Smathers reportedly delivered to a poorly educated audience. The "speech" was never given; it was a hoax dreamed up by one reporter. Smathers did not say, as was reported in Time Magazine during the campaign: "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy." The Smathers campaign denied his having made the speech, as did the reporters who covered his campaign, but the hoax followed Smathers to his death. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard he was a known heterosexual, too. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And a homosapien! Is there no end to the man's depravity?! --Monorail Cat (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How shocking!! -- JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that matriculate sounded, well...like another word starting with "m" and ending in -ate. :-) So, take a college course that sounds naughty, a college whose initials might be a little off, say you're matriculating there, and that will work well.

As an alternative, the town of Kissimmee, Florida, really did have to change the name of the minor league baseball team, once they changed affiliates to the major league Houston Astros. So, there are some good places to start there, or with a Kissimmiee astronaut (who is matriculating somewhere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.19.1 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just about anything involving the word "moist".

Insert a word from a foreign language, especially French - "She kissed me on my bouche". Steewi (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also play the alternative game of using little-known words that actually have a genital/sexual connotation but the listener isn't aware of that and thinks they mean something else. For example, after meeting your old teacher, a Catholic nun, in the street and exchanging pleasantries with her, you could depart with "A merkin for your quim, sister. Good day".  :) JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it say something bad about me that I knew both of those terms without having to look them up? --Monorail Cat (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)